Steve Rogers – Head of Planning & Regulatory Services
Kirkbank, English Street, Dumfries, DG1 2HS
Telephone (01387) 260199 - Fax (01387) 260188
Planning Applications Committee Report
[A] ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND
SOAKAWAY (PLOT 1)
[B] ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND
SOAKAWAY (PLOT 2)
[C] ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND
SOAKAWAY (PLOT 3)
AT BRAEFIELD POULTRY UNIT, LESWALT ROAD, STRANRAER
Application Type: [A], [B] and [C] - Planning Permission in Principle
Applicant: Mrs J Currie
Ref. No.: [A] 14/P/1/0654
[B] 14/P/1/0655
[C] 14/P/1/0656
Recommendation – [A] Refuse
[B] Refuse
[C] Refuse
Ward - Stranraer and North Rhins
Hierarchy Type (if applicable): [A], [B] and [C] - Local
Case Officer - Andrew Robinson
1
BACKGROUND
1.1 At the Planning Applications Committee meeting of 25 February 2015, Members
decided to defer consideration of the applications for a site visit to take place to allow a
fuller appreciation of the site and surroundings. This site visit took place on 27 March
2015.
1.2 Under the Scheme of Delegation, this application requires to be considered by the
Planning Applications Committee as the applicant is directly related to a Council officer
directly involved in the statutory planning process (Tommy Currie - Area Building
Standards Manager, Stranraer).
1.3 The application site (comprising the three separate proposed plots) relates to a small
poultry farm that is situated on the northern side of Leswalt Road (A718) to the west of the
Stranraer settlement boundary. The site comprises four timber clad agricultural buildings
used as hen houses and an existing access to the A718. The site extends to around 1.2
hectares and the buildings are situated in the centre of the site, surrounded by agricultural
rough grazing land. The site is bounded by a small post and wire fence which results in
the site being clearly visible on the approach to and from Stranraer. Land levels at the
front of the site are flat following the road levels although slope down at the rear towards
the northern boundary following a general slope downwards in land levels from south to
north in the surrounding landscape. The western edge of the built-up area of Stranraer is
situated around 150 metres to the east of the site. To the north, west and south of the site
is open grassed land extending into the countryside.
1.4 The proposal comprises 3 separate applications for planning permission in principle
for the erection of a dwellinghouse and the installation of a septic tank and soakaway,
resulting in a combined total of 3 houses. The proposal would utilise the existing access to
the farm from the A718. Submitted drawings show the site boundaries of each dwelling,
with Plot 1 occupying the western part of the site, Plot 2 occupying the centre and Plot 3
occupying the eastern part.
1.5 The applicant has submitted supporting information with the applications and the key
issues raised therein can be summarised as follows:
 The Local Development Plan states that the assessment of any case does not rest
solely with an individual policy statement but also requires regard to be had to the
overarching policies.
 The LDP policies relevant to this case are OP1, OP2 and H3.





Policy OP1:
The proposed development would reflect the scale, density and pattern of development
of other residential development in the locality. The development would also not affect
the surrounding landscape quality.
The site would utilise the existing access and any requirements can be accommodated
within the identified site boundaries.
A number of considerations under Policy OP1 can be managed as part of a following
application (for approval of matters specified in conditions).
The proposed development would cover a smaller area of ground presently covered by
buildings and the proposal could be considered to not make efficient use of previously
developed land (i.e. there is potentially scope for more than 3 houses).
The restriction to three units on such a large site is based on the current Housing in the
Countryside Guidance. If it is considered that the proposal does not make sufficient
use of the land it is because of the restrictive guidance of the policy.
Policy OP2:
 As this application is for ‘in-principle’ only, certain elements of this policy are not
relevant as the Council will retain control over matters relating to design, external finish,
layout and landscaping.
 There is nothing particularly special about this site (e.g. conservation area) and it
should be presumed that any development of this site will naturally accord with the
elements of the policy relevant in any forthcoming application.
 It is a material consideration that the Council are proposing a significant extension to

Stranraer in the immediate vicinity of this site through the allocation of STR.H8, Leswalt
Road for 35 units. The suitability of further residential development and the disruption
to the character and appearance has been accepted.
The existence of the allocated site has to be factored into the consideration of the
proposed development, which will not materially or detrimentally affect the character,
setting or amenity of the town.
Policy H3:
 The new Local Development Plan has a favourable consideration to the re-use of
previously developed land within the rural areas for residential purposes.
 The criteria in this particular policy seek to positively promote incremental growth
across the rural area. It is acknowledged within the development plan that small-scale
developments in the countryside can bring economic and social benefits by increasing
the population.
 The definition of brownfield land is essentially land that has been previously developed
and can include vacant or derelict land; infill sites and land occupied by redundant or
underused building. SPP states development plan policies should encourage
rehabilitation of brownfield sites in rural areas.
 The Council’s supplementary guidance in respect of ‘brownfield’ proposals
recommends conversion and/or reuse of buildings should always be the first priority. In
this instance, the buildings are purpose built and designed for the rearing of poultry.
 Whilst it is acknowledged that not every brownfield site may be appropriate for redevelopment, it is contended that the buildings are discordant and intrusive within the
setting of the settlement, and visually and environmentally incompatible with the
adjoining residential land uses and do not merit retention and therefore the proposal
would represent and appropriate re-development of the land.
 As the buildings are not fit for modern poultry rearing purposes and beyond economic
repair for alternative agricultural purposes, they will continue to fall into disrepair over
time.
 In support of the proposal, it is considered that the proposal would not result in
‘suburbanisation’, ‘coalescence with a neighbouring settlement’ or a ‘ribbon
development’ and satisfies the criteria contained in the supplementary guidance.
Planning History
1.6 There are no records of any previous planning history relating to the site.
2
CONSULTATIONS
2.1 Council Roads Officer – No objections.
Access to the dwellinghouse(s) would be taken from an existing private way from the A718
public road. The access should be 5.5 metres wide for the first 5 metres with 6 metre
radius curves and trapped and drained to an outfall or soakaway.
The applicant has indicated control over the entire site frontage. The existing wire and post
fence should be removed or reduced to no greater than 1.05m, allowing adequate visibility
to be achieved in both directions.
There is sufficient space for parking and turning of 2 cars within the curtilage of the site.
2.2 Contaminated Land – No objections.
Due to the former use of the site as a poultry farm, there is potential for some remaining
contamination. It is not necessary to ask for a full site investigation, but shallow soil
samples should be taken to test for metals and hydrocarbons, and the results submitted to
the contaminated land technician along with any remediation required.
2.3 Scottish Water – No comments received.
3
REPRESENTATIONS
Support (1):
Mr K G McKinstry, Millrosso, Stairhaven, Glenluce
3.1 One letter of representation has been received in support of the proposal. Material
issues raised can be summarised as follows:
 The site as it exists can only be described as an eyesore and of detriment to the
surrounding landscape on what is the main access and egress road between Stranraer
and Leswalt.
 The site is a brownfield site which has no continued or desired use as an agricultural or
food producers’ location which could be put to better use as a development site for
much needed housing such of the nature contained with the applicant's submission.
 The mass, scale, proportion of development and scenic improvement the development
of this site may contain will bring benefit of course to the developer but more
importantly to the area generally.
4
REPORT
Relevant development plan policies:Dumfries & Galloway Local Development Plan
OP1 - Development Considerations
OP2 - Design Quality of New Development
H3 - Housing in the Countryside
H4 - Housing Development Immediately Outside Settlement Boundaries
NE13 - Agricultural Soil
IN8 - Surface Water Drainage & Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
IN9 - Waste Water Drainage
IN10 - Contaminated and Unstable Land
Other materials considerations include:
Scottish Planning Policy;
Draft Supplementary Guidance – Housing in the Countryside;
Draft Supplementary Guidance – Housing Development Immediately Outside of
Settlement Boundaries; and
Planning Advice Note (PAN) 73 – Rural Diversification.
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that:“Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the
development plan, the determination is, unless material considerations indicate otherwise,
to be made in accordance with that plan”.
4.2 When determining applications, the Council is required to consider the overall aims
and objectives of the development plan as well the above subject policies. The
overarching principle of the Local Development Plan is that all development proposals
should support sustainable development, including the reduction of carbon and other
greenhouse gas emissions. The Local Development Plan has a vision that Dumfries and
Galloway will: Be a viable rural economy
 Have vibrant towns and villages
 Have a successful Regional Capital in Dumfries.
4.3 The determining planning considerations in the assessment of this application are
whether the following issues are acceptable:
 Principle of Development;
 Visual Impact (Siting, Scale, Density and Design);
 Land Use Conflict and Impact on Adjoining Properties;
 Roads and Parking;
 Contaminated Land; and
 Servicing
Principle of Development
4.4 The site lies outwith the settlement boundary of Stranraer and therefore Policy H3 of
the Local Development Plan (LDP) is the relevant policy to consider, which supports
housing proposals in the countryside subject to certain criteria. In this instance, only the
criterion relating to beneficial redevelopment of a brownfield site potentially applies.
4.5 In order to comply with Policy H3, the redevelopment of a rural brownfield site must be
beneficial. The draft supplementary planning guidance on Housing in the Countryside
which accompanies Policy H3, echoes Paragraph 33 of PAN 73 stating that development
plan policies should encourage rehabilitation of brownfield sites in rural areas and defines
these as sites that are occupied by redundant or unused buildings or land that that has
been significantly degraded by a former activity. Paragraph 27 of PAN 73 states housebuilding, in itself, is not diversification but there are circumstances where, in relation to a
business, new housing may be acceptable as a complementary part of a development.
4.6 The draft Supplementary Guidance makes it clear that not every rural brownfield site
is appropriate for re-development and there is no blanket or unrestrained support for such
proposals. Only those sites which are demonstrably intrusive, visually or environmentally,
and where there is no realistic prospect of them being returned to agricultural land or
woodland, particularly for reasons that might include contamination, will be considered
suitable candidates for re-development. Where a site is considered suitable, the
Supplementary Guidance states the conversion and reuse of existing buildings on rural
brownfield sites should always be the first option. Given the size and purpose of the
buildings on this site, conversion and reuse of the buildings would not be possible and
therefore the proposal would represent a re-development of the site.
4.7 The appearance of the site is that of a typical agricultural small-holding comprising
four low rise timber clad sheds which are very characteristic of farm buildings in a rural
area. The applicant’s supporting statement argues that the existing buildings are
discordant and intrusive within the setting of the settlement, and visually and
environmentally incompatible with the adjoining residential land uses. Whilst the buildings
on the site are basic in appearance with no architectural merit, it is not considered that the
site is demonstrably intrusive, visually or environmentally, where the condition of the site
significantly detracts from the amenity of the surrounding area.
4.8 In addition, it has not been demonstrated why the site cannot remain in agricultural
use, particularly as livestock is present on the site and the land is recognised to be
capable of producing a moderate range of crops, as demonstrated on the map for land
capability for agriculture in the soil survey of Scotland. It has also not been demonstrated
that there are no other pressing requirements for other uses, as required by the draft
supplementary guidance, although it is accepted that the location of the site is such it does
not suggest any pressing business or tourism requirements. Although the supporting
statement argues that the buildings are not fit for modern poultry rearing purposes and are
beyond economic repair for alternative agricultural purposes, no evidence has been
submitted to substantiate this statement nor has any financial information been provided to
justify the proposal (as required in the draft supplementary guidance). It is not considered
that there would be a significant environmental or community benefit to be gained as a
consequence of the existing buildings being demolished and the site re-developed.
Although there are buildings on the site at present, these are agricultural buildings (as
defined by Section 277 of the Planning Act) and accordingly, the use of the site is already
in agricultural use. As such, it is not considered that the proposed development can be
considered beneficial redevelopment of a brownfield site.
4.9 Reference has been made in the applicant’s supporting statement to site allocation
STR.H8 in the LDP at Leswalt Road for 35 residential units which is situated immediately
to the south-east of this site on the opposite side of the road. It is argued that this should
be a material consideration in this proposal as the suitability of further residential
development and the disruption to the character and appearance in this locality has been
accepted. It should be noted that the site subject to the current applications was
considered as part of the preparation of the Local Development Plan during the
consultation stage for sites and policies (site reference 0211.001) but was not
recommended by the Council as it was considered that development of this greenfield site
would extend Stranraer further away from the centre and there were more central
brownfield and allocated sites that would be developed first (such as the Stranraer
Waterfront site). As such, the site was not considered to be needed to meet the housing
land requirement for the LDP. The Reporter at Examination upheld this view and
considered that the allocated sites should provide an adequate supply of housing land to
meet the identified housing for the Stranraer HMA district. Therefore, the principle of the
allocation of this land for residential development has been very recently been considered
and rejected by both the Council and the Reporter and it is not considered that site
allocation STR.H8 at Leswalt Road provides any weight for supporting residential
development of the proposed site.
4.10 Consideration has also been given to the principle of the development under LDP
Policy H4 (Housing Development Immediately Outside Settlement Boundaries). However,
the draft supplementary guidance supporting this policy emphasises that any proposed
housing development which is outside but not immediately adjacent to a settlement
boundary (i.e. would not form a contiguous extension to the existing built up area), and
which is not within one of the identified villages, will be classed as housing in the
countryside and will be dealt with under Policy H3. As the proposed site does not form a
contiguous extension to the existing built up area and therefore is not immediately
adjacent to a settlement boundary, it is not considered that the development can be
considered under Policy H4. Even if it was generously interpreted that the site should fall
within this policy, the draft supplementary guidance states that the purpose of the policy is
to introduce a further element of flexibility into future housing land supply by enabling
additional sites to be brought forward within the HMA, should problems with the
effectiveness of allocated sites arise. Development outside the settlement boundary
should not be seen as an alternative to allocated sites where these are available and
therefore should only be an ‘exceptional’ occurrence.
4.11 Regard has also been had to the Spatial Strategy of the LDP which aims “to get the
right type of development in the right place” (paragraph 3.1) and allocates the majority of
future developments to settlements (Dumfries and the District and Local Centres).
Paragraph 3.4 states that development in villages and the rural area (i.e. countryside)
should not undermine the spatial strategy and the purpose of Policy H3 is to ensure that
this strategy is adhered to. As Policy H3 is directly linked to supporting the visions of the
spatial strategy, and it is considered that the principle of the development would fail to
comply with any of the criteria contained in Policy H3, the principle of the development is
unacceptable.
Visual Impact (Siting, Scale, Density and Design)
4.12 The applications are only for planning permission in principle and therefore full
details of the design, external appearance, siting and landscaping of the proposal would
be matters to be assessed under forthcoming applications for approval of matters specified
in condition were the development to be otherwise acceptable. Notwithstanding this, it is
necessary to assess the general visual impact that the proposal is likely to have.
4.13 The site is not covered by any landscape designations and it is considered that each
separate dwellinghouse could be suitably designed to comply with the requirements of
LDP Policy OP2 by relating well to the scale, density, massing, character, appearance and
use of materials of the surrounding area, notwithstanding that the development would
more generally appear as isolated and sporadic development in the countryside.
Land Use Conflict and Impact on Adjoining Properties;
4.14 The site is not situated beside any adjoining uses and would therefore not give rise
to a land use conflict. Due to the distance each dwellinghouse would be situated from
other dwellinghouses, no loss of privacy, overshadowing or loss of daylight issues would
occur. In terms of impact between the proposed dwellings, as with visual impact, this
would be considered during a further application as the assessment of this issue would be
dependent on the proposed layout. Provided that each dwellinghouse were to have an
acceptable layout and boundary treatment (were the principle to be otherwise acceptable),
it is considered that the proposal could comply with LDP Policy OP1.
Roads and Parking
4.15 The development would utilise an existing access which would be a single access
point for each dwellinghouse. Suitable visibility exists within the applicant’s ownership and
the existing access could be upgraded. Sufficient space for 2 cars per dwelling exists as
well as a turning area. The Council’s roads officer has raised no objection and the
proposal would not result in any roads or parking issues.
Contaminated Land
4.16 Due to the use of the site as a poultry farm, the Contaminated Land Officer has
stated that there is potential for some remaining contamination. As a result, it has been
recommended that shallow soil samples be taken to test for metals and hydrocarbons and
that the results be submitted. Were the development to be otherwise acceptable, this
could be required under condition to demonstrate compliance with LDP Policy IN10.
Servicing
4.17 Each proposed dwellinghouse would be connected to the public water supply, which
is appropriate. It is proposed for waste water to be discharged to a septic tank and
soakaway system. LDP Policy IN9 requires development proposals within or immediately
adjacent to settlements to be connected to the public sewer. As this site is within close
proximity to a settlement, it would have to be established in consultation with SEPA and
Scottish Water whether it would be appropriate for this development to be connected to
the public sewer to demonstrate compliance with LDP Policy IN9, were the principle of the
development considered acceptable.
4.18 The three separate applications would result in the development of three houses and
Policy IN8 requires Sustainable Drainage Systems as a means of treating surface water.
Each application proposes a separate soakaway per dwelling and the development would
meet the requirements of Policy IN8.
Conclusion
4.19 Taking all of the relevant planning considerations into account, it is considered that
the principle of the development fails to comply with Local Development Plan Policy H3 in
that the development would not result in beneficial redevelopment of a brownfield site. As
such, the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of the stated Development Plan
Policies and as there are no material considerations which override the presumption in
favour of a determination in accordance with the terms of the development plan, it is
recommended that the three separate applications for planning permission in principle are
refused for the reasons set out below.
5
RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Refuse applications [A], [B] and [C] on the following grounds:1.
The proposal is contrary to Local Development Plan Policy H3 which
supports new housing proposals in the countryside only in certain
circumstances and none of these circumstances apply in this case. The
redevelopment of the site for housing is not considered to be beneficial
redevelopment as a result of the following:


the existing site is not demonstrably intrusive, visually or
environmentally, and the condition of the site does not significantly
detract from the amenity of the surrounding area; and
it has not been demonstrated that the existing site cannot remain in
use as agricultural land.
Relevant Drawing Numbers:
[A] Drawing No. 1011/01 - Site and Location Plans (Date Stamped 07 Nov 2014)
[B] Drawing No. 1011/02 - Site and Location Plans (Date Stamped 07 Nov 2014)
[C] Drawing No. 1011/03 - Site and Location Plans (Date Stamped 07 Nov 2014)
NB - All relevant drawings, and any relevant associated correspondence / reports, are
available on the Council’s ePlanning website (www.dumgal.gov.uk/planning).