In 2014 there was an application by the club to retrospectively apply for pp for 2 layers of aqua coloured netting to their fence. This was a matter I had raised as a planning enquiry to which the council responded with a planning contravention notice.
In 2015 we received a planning contravention notice for a wood store that we constructed w/o pp in our woodland. No one can see our woodstore but we had to apply for retrospective permission none the less.
Now in 2017/2018 the tennis club are applying again for retrospective pp for a third layer of netting to that approved in 2014.
It may seem trivial to some, it certainly reads as a neighbours tit-for-tat planning debacle, but the screen netting is a significant concern to our home and property. If approved then for ever more, even if the club were to sell up, any developer could apply for a similar wall of light blocking material to our home. That's not good.
Our complaint.
It's a long story. Too much to explain.
Gerry Goldwyre
Cemetery Lodge
Cemetery Road
Dalkeith
EH22 3DL
11th
Feb 2018
Ref DLTC/46/ltr
Planning
OBJECTION Ref No. 17/00747/DPP
Letter
of Objection
We
are writing this additional letter of objection because additional time was
granted after planning officer Laura Kinsey reviewed our concerns regarding;
(a)
Omission of the application from the weekly list and (b) Changes on the portal
to documents. The portal document previously described as “correspondence” was changed
to “Supporting Statement” and dated Dec 22nd. Hence it was not reviewed as a
supporting statement when we made our initial objection and it makes a
substantial difference to the appreciation of what the application proposes.
The
supporting statement indicates that the club wish to retain 3 layers of netting
on the fence on our boundary. This presents an unacceptable impact onto our
home and we have therefore sought independent advice for our objection.
The
supporting statement does not concur with the e mail correspondence between the
club representatives and ourselves. Leaving us to wonder exactly what is
proposed and if the club representatives know what is proposed.
E
mail correspondence
*******Removed pending replacement*******
*******Removed pending replacement*******
Extract from above.
Hi Susan,
I’d just like to re-iterate
what Clare (President) and I (Secretary) discussed with you and Gerry at our
recent meeting. The Tennis
Club are happy to remove the two layers of aqua screening and replace it with
one layer of dark green which will be folded down at the end of the playing season.
We felt it was necessary to continue with the planning application to ensure
that we were within our rights to keep the dark green screening at all other
times. We feel the darker screening is necessary to stop light in the late
summer distracting play especially on courts one and two – it can be very
distracting when trying to serve or hit a smash. I discussed all these points
in our recent meeting with Graeme King.
Objection
What
is in realty being proposed is a solid structure that is 7m high above our
internal ground floor and higher than our bedroom window.
The
application is to install, amongst other things, new netting and structures at
the tennis courts on Cemetery Road. We now have the following comments.
1.
The
scope of the application is wholly unclear. It is not possible to determine exactly
what is proposed. The description, the drawings and the ‘’supporting
statement’’ all say different things. There are glaring omissions (such as no
elevations for the proposed fence, its distance from neighboring property, and its
impact on our neighboring property).
2.
There
are contradictions (the number of layers of netting, its appearance, and the
effect and impact of it). It is wholly unsound for Midlothian Council to
consider this application without absolute clarification of what exactly is
proposed. This application should not be determined until it is known exactly what
is proposed and the effect of what is proposed can be judged properly. There
should be no repeat of the previous retrospective approval where inadequate
information was approved without appropriate consideration or conditions.
3.
A
submitted drawing by the applicant repeats an incorrect assertion that the netting
has been requested by a neighbour. This statement should be deleted, on the
basis that it is wholly untrue.
4.
Of
equal importance and note, is the failure to identify why this net screening is
required at all. The fence (of robust enough material to stop balls) is to the
north side of the court. It does not need additional netting to screen light as
substantial light is north light. Not far away are the Council’s tennis court
in King’s Park. Those courts do not have a similar dense netting treatment to
their north/west side. In Midlothian, this type of added-on net treatment is
not used at all as far as we are aware. Additionally, in research of tennis
courts across the country, we could find no example of any court with a 4.8m
high fence. It begs the question as to why is it needed here? What is the justification for the netting?
Why was the netting previously approved without adequate justification? The addition of netting fundamentally
transforms a ball proof fence from see through and subtle in the landscape, to
solid and intrusive in the landscape. The case officer’s consideration in 2014
was not especially thorough in this respect and others.
5.
The
site is located in a conservation area, close to listed buildings and in a
sensitive local natural landscape. The approval for bright aqua coloured
netting in 2014 failed to take account of the fact that the netting could be seen
over considerable distance. Not only is it visible from Ironmills Park it is
visible from the train. The case officer did not appear to consider visibility
from the footpath now train line, but nevertheless fully and unequivocally in
the public domain. He considered that it was not out of character with the area
because it was in place. That approach is both sloppy and flawed. It is - as a
modern and synthetic material - visually intrusive and out of character with
the conservation area and wider natural environment. It is inappropriate and
visually harmful to the conservation area and to the natural environment.
Simply because there was netting in place in 2014 (when the application was
retrospective) did not mean it did not give rise to harm then. Now exactly the
same applies.
6.
In assessing
the current application, the case officer neighbours and the public must know
exactly what is being proposed, in order to judge it. In this case it is not at
all clear. Once the officer has established the materials, the colour, the
appearance, the density and the number of layers, then the application can be fully
considered, and the issues fully developed. The fact that the applicant wishes to create a
screen that obscures the sun, will result in this screen adopting the
characteristics of a solid wall, and should be assessed as such. It is incorrect to seek views now when
information is clearly missing and the application deficient. With the
information that is available online it is impossible for the neighbours, the
Community Council or the wider public to judge the effect.
7.
The
effect of the netting on the tennis club in planning terms will be neutral. The
effect upon the wider landscape was noted by the Reporter (considering other
matters within our residential plot) who commented on the effect of the fence
in the wider context. The effect of the high fence would be negligible if the
netting was removed. Views would be
through it. The fact that the Scottish Office Reporter mentioned it all was
clearly because it did not sit especially comfortably in the landscape.
8.
The
impact of the proposal on our amenity was not previously considered properly. Our
house lies to the north and at a substantially lower level than the top of the
fence. The huge extent of elevated applied netting stretches along the south
boundary of our residential curtilage. Orientation matters, yet it apparently previously
ignored in 2014. For information and to ensure that the case officer is
reminded of the facts, our home was built within residential ground. The land
was residential and was part of the curtilage of Cemetery Lodge. Indeed, the
land predates the tennis courts. The amenity of our home is diminished by the
existence of the netting due to its shading effect and that effect could far
more seriously harmful and compounded depending on what is proposed as part of
this application. However, neither the we or the planning case officer can
judge the proposal, as it is not clear or evident what materials are to be used
and how much light will be blocked. That cannot be established without samples
of the material and a proper specification. The application may be partly retrospective,
but it is unclear what part is retrospective. It would not be unreasonable to
ask the applicant to prove there would be no impact or harm.
9.
The
effect on Susan and I would be upon our established amenity and the light we
enjoy in the garden and upon the amenity and light we enjoy in our upper floor bedroom,
and the ground floor lounge living space. It cannot be right to potentially
reduce our enjoyment of our property contrary to the Human Rights Act, Article 1 of
the First Protocol: Protection of property. Local Planning Authorities must be
fair in striking a balance between the interests of a property owner and
another owner or in terms of the public interest.
10.
We are
potentially exposed to an almost solid screen that will block light 365 days a
year to accommodate a few hours of dappled sunshine onto one end of the tennis
courts for a couple of hours on perhaps 20 days a year if the sun shines. A
reasonable alternative may be to wear a cap with a visor when playing.
11.
The
applicant states that there has always been netting on the club fence. Research
has proved this is inaccurate, for two reasons. One former member recalls no
netting what so ever in his playing days between 1994 and 1998. Additionally,
tight weave plastic mesh was not produced until the 1960’s.
12. The applicant states that our potting shed
blocks light to our property. When the sun moves across from the East to the
West, the time of day when our potting shed could block light is when the sun
is already behind trees at the back of our woodland. We have no loss of
sunlight due to our potting shed. But the applicants comment only serves to
demonstrate ignorance on light impact on our property, which is another reason
why independent assessment of light impact should have been undertaken.
To
make this point these photos show the sun trajectory on 11th Feb 2018 from our
bedroom window. Between the hours of 1pm and 4pm.
Approx 1pm 11 Feb – the screen netting showing the previously approved aqua netting on the RHS and adjacent section on LHS showing the triple layered block.
Approx
4 pm 11th Feb showing the potting shed and the setting sun long
before the potting shed could create shade. Screen netting is the previously
approved aqua coloured netting only, the club President having removed the
additional green layer on this section in a spirit of co-operation.
These
matters set out here should be considered in full and prior to the
determination of the application.
See
Enc photos 1,2,3, and 4
