March 14, 2021

Planning Application Lochleven Road, Lochore

A recent planning application for siting containers at Lochleven Road in Lochore has gathered a lot of attention. The Community Council today made the submission below. Thanks go to Conor Watt for insight on the planning process and technical information.

Representation to application for proposed change of use of brownfield site to storage facility (Class 6) to allow for siting of 56 storage containers and erection of boundary fence

Land to rear of 38-52 Lochleven Road, Lochore

(Ref: 21/00326/FULL)

Benarty Community Council

March 2021

1. Introduction

Benarty Community Council have prepared this representation in order to formally object to the proposals at land to rear of 38-52 Lochleven Road, Lochore for:

Change of use of brownfield site to storage facility (Class 6) to allow for siting of 56 storage containers and erection of boundary fence (temporary permission for 5 years).

Background

It is understood that the application site extends to approximately 0.19 Ha and is located between Lochleven Road and Rosewell Drive, Lochore.

It is understood that the site is brownfield in nature and is situated within a wider context that features a variety of residential, retail, leisure, and community uses. The site occupies the position in the area designated in FifePlan (2017) as a Local Shopping Centre for Lochore.

It is understood that the site was previously occupied by a bakery and joinery workshop with a retail shop fronting onto Lochleven Road. However, in recent years the site has been vacant. It is believed that the site now largely cleared vacant and comprises of hardcore standing and wall structures.

It is understood that the site has been subject to two planning application in recent years including:

15/01779/PPP – Planning Permission in Principle for Residential Development which was permitted

19/00353/FULL – Planning Permission for a storage container centre which was withdrawn.
There are no known site-specific designations under the LDP proposals.

2. Planning Context

The adopted Development Plan for the area in which the subject application is situated comprises of the Fife Local Development Plan (‘FIFEplan’) (September 2017) and the South East Scotland Strategic Development Plan (SESPlan SDP) approved by Scottish Ministers in summer 2013, together with supplementary guidance.

Scottish Planning Policy (revised December 2020) is a material consideration that carries significant weight in the determination of planning applications as does all other relevant Scottish government advice and guidance.

It is considered that there are no strategic matters raised as a consequence of this application and therefore the assessment is most appropriately restricted to the provisions of the Local Development Plan.

In that regard, objections are raised to the proposed development in relation to the Principle of Development and Residential Amenity.

Specifically:

The inappropriate nature and incompatibly of the proposals given the existing use in the area;
The scale and intense nature of the proposals;
Potential for nuisance noise disturbance and the visual impact of the proposals which would harm residential amenity.

In the proceeding sections, the relevant policy provisions of the LDP are outlined and this is followed by their application to the circumstances of the proposals.

Policy 1 – Development Principles.

Policy 1 of FifePlan (2017) confirms that development proposals will be supported if they conform to relevant Development Plan policies and proposals, and address their individual and cumulative impacts. The principle of development will only be supported if it is within a defined settlement boundary and is compliant with the policies for the location. Additionally, Policy 1 states that development proposals must make town centres the first choice for uses which attract a significant number of people, including retail, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural and community facilities, as well as homes and businesses; linking to Policy 6 – Town Centres First. Development proposals must meet one of the points in Part A and conform to all applicable requirements in Parts B and C.

Policy 6 – Town Centre’s First

Policy 6 of FIFEplan sets out that town centres (which should be interpreted as also referring to local centres) will be the first choice for uses likely to attract a large number of people including retail, offices, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural, and community facilities. Local shopping centres are designed to serve basic day to day shopping needs of the local population, as well as providing public and private local commercial services. Policy 6 stipulates that development proposals will only be supported where they:

comply with the sequential approach taking into account the catchment areas shown in Figure 6.1;
comply with the respective uses and roles of the defined network of centres as shown in Figure 6.2, and the Spatial Frameworks referenced in Figures 6.4 and 6.5 and shown on the settlement plans;
will have no significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of town centres and the local economy; and
are appropriate for the location in scale and character and will not adversely impact on residential amenity or negatively impact on adjacent uses.

Policy 10 – Amenity

Policy 10 of FIFEplan (2017) states that development will only be supported in such cases where it would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. Additionally, any proposed development proposals must sufficiently demonstrate that they would not lead to a significant detrimental impact on amenity in relation to a number of criterion which covers but is not limited to factors such as noise, light and odour pollution as well as the potential loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight.

3. Policy Assessment of the Proposals

The plans and information that have been submitted as part of the application clearly identify that the intended use of the site would be to create a container storage facility (class 6).

Principle of Development

The site is within the Benarty Community settlement boundary. While it is acknowledged that this may introduce a presumption in favour of development, there are further policy requirements under part A 1 (A), given that the site is situated within the Local Shopping Area (LSA) of Lochore as part B (4).

Scottish Planning Policy (2014) Promoting Town Centres paras 58-73 is also a relevant consideration. Particular attention may be drawn to para 70 which states “…New development in a town centre should contribute to providing a range of uses and should be of a scale which is appropriate to that centre. The impact of new development on the character and amenity of town centres, local centres and high streets will be a material consideration in decision making…” (p.20)

The Lochore LSA includes a small supermarket, a café, grocery and convenience shops, offices, takeaways, GP practice, bookmakers, public houses and institutes. In this way, the existing uses within the LSA can be characterised as serving the everyday shopping needs of the local community, as well as providing public and private local commercial services. Furthermore, as the applicant acknowledges in their supporting statement, residential properties also immediately bound the site along the east/south and east boundary as well as adjacent Lochleven Road. In this way, the existing assemblage of uses is complementary in nature and creates potential to generate significant footfall whilst harbouring little potential to create adverse impact on residential amenity.

Policy 1 Part B (4) and Policy 6 sets the expectation that town centres (and this extends to local centres via the sequential test) will be the first choice for uses likely to attract a large number of people. Retail, offices, leisure, entertainment, recreation, cultural, and community facilities are all cited as footfall generating uses while warehouses/storage is not specifically identified.

Reviewing the proposal’s site layout plan, it is clear that there is no intention that pedestrian access will be possible from the site onto Lochleven road and the local shopping centre. The siting of the containers pressed close to the western boundary makes this fact apparent. In this way, the proposals are very unlikely to make any positive contribution to generating footfall in the area and to supporting the existing retail uses.

Moreover, since there is no pedestrian access proposed onto Lochleven Road, where users of the proposed storage facility do choose to make use of the neighbouring retail amenities, it can be reasonably assumed, that having most likely travelled to the site by private vehicle, they would attempt to park on Lochleven Road either before or after their trip thus increasing demand for parking in the area. It is submitted that the very nature of the proposals means that in the overwhelming majority of cases, private transport will be used for the uplift and storage of bulky and heavy goods and there is little potential for more sustainable modes of transport to be used.

Further still, in terms of the existing character of the LSA, and the test outlined at policy 6 (4), it is unclear how a class 6 storage facility would respect the overwhelmingly residential and retail nature of the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing site at present offers little visual amenity, the introduction of storage containers together with proposals to erect timber clad galvanised metal pallisade fencing would be so obviously visually discordant, and redolent of industrial use, that it would detrimentally change the character of the wider area. It is acknowledged that the applicant proposes some limited measure including new dry dash render to an existing wall, grub up existing concrete surfaces and the provision of some street future. However, it is argued that these should not be regarded as specific merits of the proposal since it is open to the applicant to undertake these works without planning permission.

Irrespective of these decorative treatments, the intense, industrial nature of the proposals would be further revealed since the containers at 2400mm would be noticeably higher than the fencing at 1850mm and thus perceptible from all public aspects as well as through the gaps in the metal fencing.

In relation to the test outlined at policy 6 (4), in terms of scale, the Lochore LSA is recorded as being comprised of an area 2 hectares or thereby and the application site is approximately 0.19 hectares. As a consequence, the proposals would represent almost 10% of the LSA area being designated as class 6. Furthermore, the proposals would situate 56 storage containers in a highly visible yet densely packed area, adjacent to a settlement throughfare. While acknowledging that the site offers little amenity as present, given the facts outlined above it is argued that the proposals represent over-development insofar as they are at a scale that is excessive and intense and inappropriate given the prevailing character of the area.

It is understood that the site has been largely vacant for a number of years. However, the supporting statement is unclear on the extent to which the applicant has marketed the site widely and attempted to sell the site at a rate that is reflective of the prevailing market conditions in the area, the nature of the site and its currently consented uses. From the limited information provided in the application, there is little evidence to demonstrate that other, more appropriate uses, could not have been found and that would be more appropriate. Even recognising where there are particular challenges, Scottish Planning Policy (2014) makes clear that the aim is to achieve the right development in the right place; it is not to allow development at any cost (p.20).

26. For these reasons, it is argued that the proposals would not comply with Policies 1 and 6 of the LDP because they are not compliant with the policies for the location, are inappropriate given their scale and intensity, and incompatible given the existing uses and character of the area.

Residential Amenity

Even if the Council were to accept that the principle of development for the use proposed would be acceptable, there are additional concerns in relation to neighbouring residential amenity on which this objection is based.

Policy 10 of FIFEplan (2017) states that development will only be supported where it would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or proposed land uses. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that their proposals would not have a significant detrimental impact. As a material consideration, Planning Advice Note 1/2011 outlines the principles and method of how noise issues should be taken into consideration when determining an application.

The visual impact of the proposals are considered above at 3.8. – 3.10. In relation to residential amenity, the most significant concern is the potential for nuisance noise. As a storage container facility with 56 units, it follows that there is significant potential for noise to be generated as vehicles enter and exit the facility and whilst patrons unload, upload and move heavy and bulky goods in and around the containers. It can be reasonably expected that given storage containers are generally constructed of relatively thin corrugated sheet metal, they offer very little noise mitigation. Any noise will resonate (vibrate) allowing sound to pass through very easily and would also be naturally amplified within containers given their shape and construction.

Given the type of development proposed, it is argued that the potential nuisance noise would be intermittent, unpredictable and irritating to neighbouring properties. Whilst noise in itself, is not necessarily problematic PAN 1/2011 notes that regard should be had to the sensitivity of the location. In this way, the proposals would generate noise in very close proximity to neighbouring residential dwellings and this would be particularly acute when windows are open for ventilation and when using garden space. For this reason, it is argued that the proposals have the potential to lead to a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity in respect of noise.

In their supporting statement the applicant appears to anticipate concerns regarding noise although their approach to the matter is incorrect and they offer no explanation as to how the proposals would mitigate noise. They offer an argument that the proposals would generate less noise than previous uses as a bakery and joinery workshop. Whether or not that is correct is both unknown and immaterial. PAN 01/2011 makes clear that the proper approach is to assess the existing noise level and likely change in noise levels as a consequence of the proposed use.

In this way, the majority of the site at present is vacant and thus the noise level would be ambient. The site also acts as an acoustic barrier between the properties 22a – 36a Rosewell Drive and Lochleven Road. The proposals would obviously lead to an increase in noise the character of which would not typically be appropriate in a residential context.

The potential for noise disturbance has also been recognised by the Environmental Health Officer in their letter date 26.02.2021. The Officer also correctly identifies that if approved there would be potential scope for the facility to change in nature both within class 6 but also potential to class 4 (business) unless this was explicitly prohibited.

In their supporting statement the applicant provides an undertaking to restrict the operating hours to between 8am – 19.30pm seven days a week. The Environmental Health Officer recommends that this be further restricted with specified hours of use included as a planning condition in order to protect residential amenity especially during evening/night time hours and on Sundays.

Whilst this condition would be reasonable there are other matters that must be considered in determining whether a condition is appropriate. Planning Circular 4/1998 sets out Scottish Government policy on how conditions should be used in relation to planning permissions. In this way, if the Council considers that the proposals would be appropriate with conditions then they should satisfy themselves that these conditions meet the six tests in the 4/1998 circular:

Necessary
Relevant to planning
Relevant to the development to be permitted
Enforceable
Precise
Reasonable in all other respects

In the circumstance, there is a tacit acknowledgement from the applicant that nuisance noise or other adverse impacts could arise and they propose a condition that would be necessary, relevant, reasonable and precise. However, in their supporting statement, the applicant further suggests that “the premises will be operated from 8am until 19.30pm seven days a week with tenants having their own access key fobs. No business operations will be allowed. No hazardous materials or animal stored”.

Given that tenants would have they own access fobs, it is difficult to envisage how any condition that restricts the proposed operating hours would be enforceable in the circumstances. Assuming that the fobs would work at any time, it would be possible for tenants to take access as required regardless of any condition imposed. Even where technology restricted access to within particular operating hours, the potential would always remain that tenants already in the facility, after operating hours, to continue to use their storage containers. It is also conceivable that with 56 units, there will be the requirement and a legitimate expectations of tenants that from time to time they may need access to the facility outwith official operating hours.

Similarly, the supporting statement suggests that no business use or hazardous materials would be allowed on the premise. However, no information on how the facility is to be managed, whether this would be manned on-site provision during operating hours or irregular checks, is provided. Given this, it is difficult to envisage how the applicant proposes to ensure compliance if it where to be included as a planning condition.

As such, even if the Council considers that the proposals could be appropriate with conditions in respect of operating times and use, it is arguable these would be very difficult to enforce. In the former case the difficulty arises because it would be impracticable to monitor compliance, and in the latter case the difficulty arises because there would be severe challenge in proving an infringement.

In respect of the applicant’s request for a temporary permission, we would refer again to the 4/1998 circular para 105. This sets out the three main factors that should be considered in deciding whether a temporary permission is appropriate:

It will rarely be necessary to give a temporary permission to an applicant who wishes to carry out development which conforms with the provision of the development plan;

it is undesirable to impose a condition requiring the demolition after a stated period of a building that is clearly intended to be permanent;

the material considerations to which regard must be had in granting any permission are not limited or made different by a decision to make the permission a temporary one.

Typically, temporary permissions are sought where they are ancillary to other uses or where the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of that period. Neither of these general occasions apply in this case. It is unclear why the applicant seeks a temporary permission and not permission without time limits especially if they do consider that the proposals conform with the Development Plan. It is argued, for the reasons outlined above, that the proposals do not comply with the Development Plan.

Furthermore, the applicant’s supporting statement outlines that ‘the proposals will meet an increasing demand country wide for this type of facility’. In referring to the changing patterns of working from home, which it may be argued will continue to some extent well after the pandemic, that there is no real intention that the proposals would be temporary in nature. This point is reinforced given the sheer scale of the proposals.

Even if accepted that the intention of the application is to be temporary in nature, the material considerations remain that same and, we would suggest for reasons outlined above, demonstrate the proposals are inappropriate, and not compliant with the Development Plan.

For these reasons, it is argued that the proposals would not comply with Policy 10 of the LDP because they would have a significant detrimental impact on neighbouring residential due to nuisance noise and because there are no proposed conditions that could be imposed to make proposals acceptable since these would be difficult to enforce. A temporary permission would also be inappropriate.

4. Conclusions

To reiterate, we object to the proposals at land to rear of 38-52 Lochleven Road, Lochore for proposed change of use of brownfield site to storage facility (Class 6) to allow for siting of 56 storage containers and erection of boundary fence on the following grounds:

The proposals are contrary to Policy 1 of the Development Plan because they are not compliant with the policies for the location and are inappropriate given their scale and intensity and incompatible given the existing uses in the area.

The proposals are contrary to Policy 6 of the Development Plan for similar reasons to Policy 1.

The proposals are contrary to Policy 10 of the Development Plan because they would lead to a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of existing residential, particularly in relation to noise, and they are no conditions that could be imposed to make the proposals acceptable.

It is argued there are no material conditions that justify a departure from the Development Plan and in favour of the proposals.

We trust that this representation will be given full consideration in the assessment of the proposals and we invite the officer to refuse planning permission.