CLACKMANNANSHIRE COUNCIL

Report to Regulatory Committee of 21st December 2006

Subject: Planning Application: Conversion Of Farm Building to Form 1 No. House at Gartfinnan Farm, Gartfinnan Farm Access Road, Forestmill (Ref 06/00358/FULL)

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Warnock, Gartfinnan Farm, Forestmill

Agent: Machin Associates, 30 Ludgate, Alloa

Prepared by: Grant Baxter, Principal Planner

Ward: Devon & Clackmannan North Councillor McGill

1.0  SUMMARY

1.1.  The report considers a proposal to alter and change the use of part of a redundant traditional farm steading into a dwellinghouse. The steading is at Gartfinnan Farm near Forestmill and is situated within countryside as defined by the Clackmannanshire Local Plan.

1.2.  A previous application (Ref 05/00358/FULL) proposed the same alterations to the building to form a self-catering holiday cottage. Following a comprehensive assessment of that proposal, it was considered that the road safety concerns relating to the junction of the farm access road with the A977, highlighted by Roads and Transportation, would on their own be sufficiently detrimental to justify withholding permission. The concern related to the poor standard of visibility for drivers approaching a stationary vehicle turning right into the farm road. Furthermore, there were no practicable mitigatory measures which could be undertaken to address the problem due to the alignment of the existing carriageway and the abutment of the nearby former railway bridge.

1.3.  There are no changes to the access arrangements in this current application, and therefore, the above concerns remain. In addition, the scheme raises the issue of compatibility of a permanent house with agricultural activity on the farm. The application is therefore recommended for refusal on these grounds.

2.0  RECOMMENDATION

2.1.  It is recommended that the application is REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development would result in an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to road safety due to the substandard forward visibility available to drivers approaching the junction of the A977 with the farm access road when travelling in a northerly direction. It is considered that the introduction of additional turning manoeuvres especially by visitors on this section of A Class derestricted primary distributor road would not be in the interests of road safety. Consequently the development would be contrary to Policies EN18 and INF4 of the Clackmannanshire Local Plan and the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Advice Note No. 11 on Farm Steading Conversions as it relates to road safety. Approval of the proposal would also set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals at this site which could exacerbate the problem further.

2.  The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on ongoing agricultural use and would be adversely affected by this continuing use on the site. Consequently the development would be contrary to Policy EN18 of the Clackmannanshire Local Plan and the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Advice Note No. 11 on Farm Steading Conversions.

3.0  BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSALS

3.1.  Detailed permission is sought to alter and convert part of a redundant traditional farm steading into a dwelling house. A private courtyard with parking would be created on the site of an adjacent modern farm building which would be demolished.

3.2.  The existing building would be retained and altered using external materials sympathetic to the character of the building.

3.3.  Access would be taken from the existing private track that joins the A977 just to the north of the former railway overbridge which now carries the Alloa to Dunfermline cycle route. A direct access onto the cycle route would be available from the site. The access serves Gartfinnan Farm, farmhouse and another cottage.

3.4.  A previous application (Ref 05/00358/FULL) proposed the same alterations to the building to form a self-catering holiday cottage, but was refused on road safety grounds, in respect of the sub-standard nature of the private access’s junction with the public road.

4.0  CONSULTATIONS

4.1.  A number of consultation responses relate to the previous application but equally apply to the current application and are included in this report.

4.2.  Roads & Transportation object to the application. It highlights three main concerns which can be summarised as follows:

(a)  The forward visibility available to drivers approaching a vehicle slowing, stopped or turning into the farm access from the A977 fails to meet the minimum required to allow the approaching vehicle to stop safely. At 60mph, the minimum recommended stopping distance contained in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges would be 160 metres but the existing forward visibility available would be approximately 90 metres. It also highlights that traffic levels on the A977 will increase significantly following the opening of the Upper Forth Crossing. This would therefore be likely to result in right turning vehicles sitting for longer, increasing the risk of conflict from vehicles to the rear. The restricted visibility is due to a right turning vehicle being obscured on approach from the south due to the road bend, the railway bridge abutment and mature vegetation on the inside of the bend. Comment: The existing standard of visibility would mean that a car may not be able to stop in time if it approached a car waiting to turn into the farm access. The standard of visibility could only be improved by moving the bridge abutment and realigning the road but this would be prohibitively expensive and affect land outwith the control of the applicant. It is not considered in the interests of road safety to approve a development that would increase right turning movements at the junction, given the degree of substandard visibility available. This is notwithstanding the nature and level of use of the existing junction.

(b)  The access would be directly on to an “A” Class primary distributor road which would constitute poor road hierarchy. Comment: The concern relates to the ability of drivers to adjust their driving from a private track to an A Class road where vehicle speeds are high. While this would be a consideration particularly since visitors will not be familiar with the prevailing driving conditions, it would not on its own have carried sufficient weight to withhold permission unlike the issue described in (a) above.

(c)  Concern that approval would set a precedent for further similar development at the site which would exacerbate the road safety concerns. Comment: There would be scope to convert the remaining buildings, subject to a full assessment, and this would be a valid concern if the issue described in (a) above could not be resolved.

4.3  Environmental Health raise no objection.

4.4  SEPA: No comments to date.

5.0  PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS

5.1.  No neighbours needed to be notified of the application.

5.2.  No representations have been received.

6.0  PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1.  The key issues relating to this application can be summarised as follows:

(a)  Whether the building is of architectural or historical value, sound and intact and the proposed alterations would comply with design requirements of Policy EN18 Development in the Countryside of the Local Plan and the guidance in the Council’s Supplementary Advice Note (SAN) No. 11 “Farm Steading Conversions”.

(b)  Whether the concerns raised by Roads and Transportation relating to the safety of the junction from the A977 for right turning vehicles is of sufficient weight to withhold permission for development which would increase the frequency of turning manoeuvres.

(c)  Whether a permanent house is compatible with ongoing agricultural activity at the site.

6.2  The building appears to be of architectural value, although no details of its structural integrity have been submitted. Notwithstanding this, the design proposal would create a sensitive and appropriate conversion of the existing steading building which would appear to satisfy the design requirements of Policy EN18 of the Local Plan and SAN No. 11. The policy guidance does, however, also require proposals to be provided with adequate vehicular access and this is discussed in the following paragraphs.

6.3  The concern about the safety of the junction with the A977 has been highlighted by Roads and Transportation under the previous application, and in relation to the current proposals.

6.4  Following our assessment of the application, it is considered that the development would result in an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to road safety for the reasons outlined in paragraph 4.2 above. The weight which should be attached to the road safety issue would be sufficient to withhold permission on these grounds alone. The improvement of the visibility standard would require works to realign the road and/or move the existing bridge abutment which would be prohibitively expensive and affect land outwith the control of the applicant and could not therefore be easily addressed.

6.5  The location of the proposed house is integral to the larger farm steading, which, it is understood, would remain in agricultural use. Policy EN18 seeks to discourage new uses that would adversely impact on nearby uses, or be affected by nearby uses, such as agriculture. The location of the proposed house would appear likely to lead to conflict between normal agricultural activity and residential amenity, and the proposal would fail to meet the terms of this part of Policy EN18.

7.0  CONCLUSIONS

7.1.  There are no changes to the access arrangements previously considered unsafe in relation to an earlier proposal, and therefore, the concerns of Roads and Transportation remain valid. In addition the proposal, raises the issue of incompatibility of a permanent house with agricultural activity on the farm. The application is recommended for refusal on these grounds, in the context of development plan policies relating to development in the countryside and road safety.

8.0  SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

8.1.  None.

9.0  FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1.  None

9.2.  Declarations

1. The recommendations contained within this report support or implement Corporate Priorities, Council policies and/or the Community Plan: / Reference
Corporate Priorities
Council Policies / Clackmannanshire Local Plan
Community Plan
2. In adopting the recommendations contained in this report the Council is acting within its legal powers. / ¨
3. The full financial implications of the recommendations contained in this report are set out in the report. This includes a reference to full life cycle costs where appropriate. / ¨

Head of Development Services

Gartfinnan Farm Report 211206 Page 5 of 5