Allan Water Developments have submitted 2 new planning applications for Holmehill : one for a Mansion House and one for Offices.
THESE ARE NEW APPLICATIONS. EVEN IF YOU OBJECTED THE LAST TIME, YOU WILL NEED TO OBJECT AGAIN ... TO BOTH !
Application for Mansion House : Access all the Documents
Just like the most recent application (which was withdrawn), this application is to build a single dwelling house - a Mansion with a swimming pool. The application is essentially the same except that instead of a modern external treatment, AWD has gone for a more traditional approach. See the Planning Officer's planned 'reasons for refusal' (below)
The last planning application for Offices was rejected in January 2013 by Stirling Council : Read More
Read more about the last Planning Application for a Mansion House
The Planners were going to refuse the last application for a Mansion House but AWD withdrew the application before they could finalise their decision.
Through a Freedom of Information request, Holmehill Community Buyout has gained access to the Planning Officer's reasons for refusal. These remain relevant - they were as follows:-
Planning Officer's Reasons for Refusal (relevant to both new applications)
1. The proposals are deemed to be contrary to the Local Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance for a number of reasons.
2. The proposals are situated within a site identified by the LDP as being within the Green Corridor and an Open Space Audit site. The site is also situated within the Dunblane Conservation Area.
3. The proposals are deemed to be contrary to Policy 1.3 Green Network and Open Space of the LDP in that the proposals are deemed to encroach upon existing open spaces and green corridors and do not maintain or enhance functionality and connectivity (active travel routes, habitat networks, etc). The proposals will result in the net reduction of open space, including loss of connectivity and accessibility and are not deemed to enhance elements of the Green Network.
4. There is also a presumption against the loss of open space, under this policy, unless its loss or replacement with alternative provision is deemed acceptable. No compensation measures have been identified by the applicant. The loss of land is deemed unacceptable.
5. Policy 7.2, Development within and outwith Conservation Areas, is also relevant to this application. The proposals are not deemed to comply with this policy as it is deemed to have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area, will not preserve or enhance the area in terms of character, appearance or setting.
6. The proposals are also deemed contrary to policy as it does not relate to the density or pattern of the existing development area in terms of the design, massing or scale. The proposals lead to the loss, not retention as stated in 7.2.(ii), of the natural features which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area and its setting.
7. The applicant states that the site is a brownfield site, this is acknowledged in that there was previously a building on the site. However, brownfield sites are described as land that has been previously developed and are occupied by redundant buildings, or where the site has been significantly degraded by a former activity. Within the site there is no evidence of the site being developed previously as the land is in a 100% natural state. There is no evidence on site of degradation by a former use or activity and therefore cannot be considered as brownfield.