Summary

• Land at Blairforkie Drive, Bridge Of Allan, Stirling, FK9 4PH
• Appeal by Allanwater Homes Ltd against the failure of Stirling Council to determine within the statutory time period, an application for planning permission 22/00042/FUL dated 31 January 2022
• The development proposed: erection of 46 dwellings comprising 31 private and 15 affordable dwellings with associated access and landscaping
• Decision Notice 16 October 2024

Case Details

APRS were made aware of a possible application for housing development on an unallocated greenfield site in the designated Green Belt at Bridge of Allan in 2021. 

Concerned locals formed a group to follow the proposals under the banner “Save Blairforkie Greespace” organising and disseminating information about the plans and the process and eventually formulating and submitting objections.

APRS sent an objection to the application (22/00042/FUL) in February 2022 raising issues including: the site not being allocated in the LDP, the Green Belt designation, the adequate housing land supply detailed in the Stirling HLA 2021, policies in the draft NPF4, and the site being in the Western Ochils Local Landscape Area and potential impact on the landscape setting. 

Our expectation was that this application was likely to be refused as contrary to the development plan but that the applicant might then appeal and make arguments on the basis of a perceived housing land shortage (using the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) sustainable development “loophole”). 

However, in July 2022 instead of waiting for refusal, the applicant appealed the case on the basis of non-determination (the LA had not decided the application within 4 months of it being submitted and validated). In the background, NPF4 was delayed and had by that time only reached a draft stage but, once finalised and adopted, it looked likely to remove the SPP policy loophole.

In August 2022 APRS emailed further comments to the DPEA Reporter.  These comments were heavily influenced by unpublished research (for Planning Democracy) conducted earlier into housing land figures under SPP and how they were used in planning arguments, and by some earlier APRS planning case studies.

The arguments APRS put forward related to the “5 year effective land supply” and whether the Housing Supply Target (HST) or the Housing Land Requirement (HLR) should be used in the relevant calculations which were required to be done under SPP. (Anyone not familiar with those calculations should be reassured that following the adoption of NPF4 and the Mossend court decision they (and SPP as a whole) are no longer relevant to planning decisions in Scotland).

Appeal Delayed

The appeal was somewhat delayed by the involvement of the Reporter in a public enquiry elsewhere. Then in November 2022 the revised draft of NPF4 was laid in the Scottish Parliament as the settled view of Scottish Ministers. Therefore, the DPEA asked the appellant and the authority (the main parties in this appeal) for any relevant comments in view of that.

The period given for these and a subsequent period for the appellant and the authority to respond to each other’s comments took till almost the end of the year.  In late January 2023 the Reporter had advised that they were working on the case again  and hoped to have a decision relatively shortly. However, on 8 February 2023 the Chief Planner issued a letter detailing transitional arrangements as NPF4 was to be adopted by Scottish Government 5 days later. The following day the Reporter asked the main parties for relevant comments on the transitional arrangements, again with a subsequent opportunity for them to respond to the other’s comments.

In April 2023 the Blairforkie appeal was sisted (paused) due to the Mossend appeal (PPA-400-2147) – another appeal about a housing development on an unallocated site – having been called in by Scottish Ministers to decide themselves. This was because “Submissions in that case directly challenge the application of all elements of NPF4 Policy 16 prior to adoption of ‘new style’ LDPs. Ministers consider that this raises national issues in terms of the application of NPF4.” A number of other appeals were sisted to avoid decisions by Reporters prejudicing or undermining the pending ministerial decision.

In July 2023, Ministers issued their Mossend decision, which was a dismissal of the appeal. The Blairforkie appeal was un-sisted and the reporter asked the main parties for further comments given the Mossend result. These were duly submitted with an exchange of comments.  Then, on 1 September 2023, it was announced that the appeal was sisted once again due to the Mossend decision being appealed to the Court of Session, and pending the Court’s opinion on the interpretation of NPF4 policy 16(f) which was likely to be important in the determination of this appeal too.

The appeal remained sisted until the Court’s opinion was given in May 2024 (confirming the approach taken by Ministers), and then for a further period until it was clear that the Mossend opinion was not to be further appealed to the Supreme Court by the developer (Miller Homes). Following that period, further comments on the relevance of the Mossend opinion were requested by the Reporter and there was a further exchange of information which concluded in mid-August.  The Reporter published the decision notice on 16 October 2024 with the Blairforkie appeal being dismissed and planning permission refused.  The appellant has 6 weeks from that date in which they could appeal to the Court of Session over a point of law.

Key points from the Blairforkie appeal decision notice

The reporter found no support for the principle of development on this unallocated site from NPF4 green belt policy in NPF4 (policy 8) or those in the LDP, and also found that the proposal was contrary to NPF4 policy 9(b) on greenfield sites. The reporter is clear that SPP has no relevance to this decision and sets out why NPF4 policy 16 (f), gives no support with reference to the Mossend judgement.  The decision says that 16(c) offers only limited support to this unallocated site given allocated sites could provide the same range of housing types, so there appears not to be an ‘identified gap in provision’. Overall the principle of development was found to be contrary to the development plan.

In considering the housing emergency, it was mentioned that while this is a material consideration there is no instruction to depart from NPF4 and the benefit of development would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. 

A further negative impact of development was found to be that it would have a significantly harmful effect on the amenity of users of an adjacent core path, known as the Darn Walk, which runs through woodland between the appeal site and the Allan Water. This route is well used and is a designated core path. “Some of the development would be at a higher ground level than the path and would intrude significantly upon the experience of path users by introducing suburban development in close proximity to what is currently a very pleasant and relatively rural route. As such, it would conflict with LDP primary policy 9.” LDP primary policy 9 covers “Managing landscape change” and starts: 9(a) The integrity, character and special qualities of key areas of nationally and locally valued landscapes will be protected. Elsewhere, landscape and visual impacts will be important considerations in determining all proposals for development and land use change.