Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Planning red tape delays appeal bid for houses beside Arbroath Domino’s

A new national planning policy which came into force this year is adding to the workload of Angus planning officials.

The two-house bid for open land on Condor Drive near Domino's in Arbroath was refused last year. Image: Google
The two-house bid for open land on Condor Drive near Domino's in Arbroath was refused last year. Image: Google

New rules have held up a developer’s bid to overturn a refusal for two new Arbroath houses near the town’s Domino’s pizza outlet.

And John Carswell’s challenge is just one of a growing number of cases Angus planners are having to re-consider.

Others include a plan for a large country house near Forfar.

The red tape has already held up a final decision on a proposal for a new crematorium near Duntrune.

But farmer Guthrie Batchelor was finally successful this week in winning his appeal against the 2021 refusal for the project.

Arbroath appeal

Carswell Properties sought permission in principle for two two-storey houses on a piece of ground between Condor Drive and Keptie Road.

The corner site sits beside housing built for families of servicemen at the nearby 45 Commando Royal Marines base.

Planners refused the application last year under delegated powers.

They said it breached a number of council development policies and would lead to the loss of open space.

The fenced-off development site on Condor Drive. Image: Google.

Applicants can appeal delegated refusal decisions to the council’s five-strong development management review committee.

The Arbroath scheme was one of three due to be considered recently by DMRC members.

Another was the refusal of a large house on land beside Hunter’s Cabins holiday lodges at Justinhaugh, north of Forfar.

It was rejected in October after officials said it would not be a “large country house of such exceptional design quality that it would make a significant contribution to the architectural and landscape heritage of Angus.”

Designs for the large house north of Forfar which planners rejected. Image: Angus Council

The authority’s under-pressure planning team is having to re-examine applications following the introduction of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4).

It came into force in February.

And every Scottish planning application must now be assessed against the policy.

The Scottish Government say it is aimed at building a “fairer, greener” Scotland.

And it is likely to lead to more approvals for projects which will bring former industrial or derelict sites back into community use.

But Angus planners have warned councillors over the risk of making decisions on planning applications refused prior to the policy coming into being.

They say the council could be open to judicial review challenge if the proper procedures are not followed.

It means both planners and developers are being asked to re-submit comments in relation to NPF4.

And it is delaying appeal cases by weeks.

‘Unsatisfactory’

DMRC chairman Bill Duff said: “We’re in this intermediary position where decisions of the planning authority were taken before February and they didn’t take cognisance of NPF4.

“It’s a bit unsatisfactory, but I don’t think there’s any way of avoiding it so we’re just going to have to put up with that.

“We’ve a procedure and we need to follow that to the letter.

“If we don’t there’s issues of legality that could be challenged because we haven’t followed procedure in a case with the full information in front of us.”

Conversation