Letter from FCC Secretary to Head of Planning Re. Dawn Homes

Dear Mr Miller (Head of NAC Planning),

As Head of NAC Planning, Fairlie Community Council request that you take the following issues in to account when making your recommendations to the Planning Committee on the 20th September 2017, regarding the application from Dawn Homes for the next stages of their housing development in our village.

Not only are there so many detailed concerns regarding the design of the Phases 2 and 3 which have also been submitted by us on behalf of Fairlie residents, but Dawn Homes have clearly failed to meet the planning conditions required to be fulfilled by the conclusion of Phase One construction.

We therefore ask that the Planning Committee deny planning permission for the next phases until Phase One conditions are met, and that anomalies regarding RES3 conditions are fully investigated.

Due to the RES3 condition very few ‘community benefits’ will be received by Fairlie residents.

Fairlie Community Council and local residents are therefore asking why NAC are not holding Dawn Homes to these planning conditions before even considering whether to give planning permission for the next phase.

The Phase One, original Planning Conditions not met are:-

  1. School access path

This path has not been constructed due to the developers’ mismanagement of their site at best, or planned avoidance of responsibilities at worst. If Dawn Homes had located their materials yard and temporary offices anywhere else on the site, then the path, which would free young school children from walking alongside the A78 could have been completed as required. Instead Dawn Homes are attempting to push this path construction back to some point in the next phases of construction.

  1. Children’s play area

Again, a small benefit, but one that becomes more important to our community due to the closure of NAC funded play areas earlier this year.

This is not going to be completed as required, again because of the mismanagement of the site. The play area can only be constructed once all the houses nearby are complete.

Dawn Homes could easily have constructed the houses in a different order to enable this to happen, yet they chose to build the houses closest to the play area site last.

  1. Removal of planned affordable flats and extension of ‘temporary SUDs pond’.

Dawn Homes started to develop knowing that the site had insufficient drainage due to the insufficient capacity of the drainage culvert under the A78. So, not surprisingly the temporary SUDs pond will have to remain until three external agencies, (Transport Scotland, Network Rail and NAC), somehow find funding in the same financial year, to put a large drainage culvert under a trunk road in a small village. In the mean time the village will continue to have a potentially hazardous and very unsightly ‘pond’ near family homes.

The need for affordable housing on the ‘west coast’ means that most housing developments have to provide affordable homes, yet due to the RES3 conditions this is not the case for Dawn Homes. The affordable flats planned to be constructed where the temporary SUDs pond is currently positioned, have just simply been removed from the plans with no challenge from NAC. Even if the SUDs pond is removed, the affordable homes are extremely unlikely to be built.

We recognise that the NAC Planning Department have suggested Dawn Homes talks to Cunnighame Housing to see if flats may be viable, but this is so tenuous it is of no value to local residents or their families, hoping to benefit from such an opportunity.

  1. RES3 Anomalies
  2. ‘Trust Management’

Despite several requests for transparency the minutes and decisions of the trust are not available.

There is also a RES3 condition that funding for Kelburn Castle maintenance and conservation cannot be sourced elsewhere. Have Kelburn Estate really not received grants from other sources?

  1. Cost Plan accounting

The cost plan dated 11/01/2013 stated an anticipated community benefit to Kelburn Estate as £1,912,463. The Section 75 cost plan has replaced this with a ‘Total Land Value’ in the sum of £1,134,092. This results in a loss of £778,371 to the original RES3 community benefit surplus. Yet the Dawn Homes’ Development Return Allowance in 2013 was £2,102,108, and in the Section 75 cost plan this has increased to £3,050,434. This results in an increase in the developer’s profit of £948,326.

Without visibility of the accounts and who is being paid what under Policy RES3, how can NAC have confidence that the developers have fully complied with Criterion 6 ‘excess profit’?

Not only are village residents not benefiting from the Dawn Homes development but the planned recipients are also clearly losing out.

It seems that so far NAC have not challenged these anomalies.

Fairlie Community Council and Fairlie residents are not confident that NAC have held Dawn Homes to account for any of the unfulfilled planning conditions that matter to our village.

It seems that NAC departments are not ‘joined up’. When recently asked, the Planning Department immediately stated that RES3 conditions are not theirs to monitor but probably Legal Compliance, and that the Flooding Engineer deals with the SUDs pond and flooding issues. If internal departments are not working together how can NAC residents have confidence that their interests are being appropriately managed?

Surely Dawn Homes can be held accountable for the Phase One planning conditions before further development is permitted?

For and on behalf of Fairlie Community Council (FCC),

Yours sincerely,

Karla Tully

Karla Tully,

Secretary, FCC

Allanton Park Objections – Dawn Homes Development

Comments on Dawn Homes’ Phase 2 Planning Application

I am writing on behalf of the Allanton Park Terrace Residents’ Association, whose aims and constitution were agreed at a series of minuted meetings between January and March this year and are available for scrutiny on request.

We are generally supportive of the comments and objections made, or shortly to be made, by Fairlie Community Council on behalf of the community as a whole, but we have specific concerns about the issues raised in the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) as they relate to local residents, and to the marine environment in Fairlie Bay.

These are:

  • The FRA highlights a number of water courses running through the site, one of which is the Keppen Burn;
  • The results of their own modelling (pages 25-35) indicate that the risk of significant flooding will increase around the petrol station, the train line and the access road junction on the A78 when work is undertaken on the proposed new site;
  • The FRA recognises that the current drainage system through the existing culvert is insufficient and liable to blocking as things stand. This was demonstrated over the last winter, when flooding was clearly shown to have increased, when siltation was unacceptably allowed to flow into the sea through the Keppen Burn culvert, and when several remedial attempts to address the problem were shown to be inadequate;
  • In order to mitigate against the increased risk of flooding it is proposed to make significant alterations to the Keppen Burn culvert that runs under the A78, Marine Court and Pier Road to the outfall on Fairlie Beach at the end of Allanton Park Terrace (see Figures 7 & 8). The size of structure required for the upgrade of the culvert to manage the expected flow of water appears, by the figures given, to be approximately four times the size of the current culvert.
  • The Flood Risk Assessment refers to ‘unattenuated surface water flows’ to be discharged from the developed site directly into the Keppen Burn – but there is no modelling of what impact this would have on increasing flooding risk to those between the site and the sea (Figure 6.6), or on the fragile marine environment in Fairlie Bay, Southannan Sands etc.
  • There is mention of overland flow pathways being added to mitigate against culvert blockage as water flows west to the sea, but there is no explanation of what this means and the likely impact of them raising flooding risk for properties between the site and the sea (Figure 6.6).

General Comments and Questions Arising:

Flood Risk Assessment:

  • The FRA is very technical. As lay people how do we know that the parameters used for the mathematical modelling are correct and the risk not underestimated? For example, has the effect of rising tidal levels, the likely increase in the occurrence of storm surges andthe effect of putting unattenuated surface water runoff direct into the Keppen Burn been included?
  • Figures 5 & 6 do not show the western extent (i.e. Pier Road, Allanton Park Terrace, Fairlie Beach) of the model or predicted flooding. There is a clear blue ‘Issues’ line drawn on figure 6 that is at the end of Allanton Park Terrace and around the whole of the beach area. What are these issues and what is the data on them?
  • If the culvert required to manage flooding upstream needs to be four times the size of the existing culvert, what quantity of water is being anticipating as having to flow, and what will be the impact on the area of the outfall at Fairlie Beach and the integrity of the Allanton Park Terrace retaining/sea wall?

Potential Environmental Impacts

  • What are the likely effects on the marine environment of the beach and the waters of Fairlie Bay of the significant sedimentation from the site that the report refers to?
  • What are the risks of pollutants and other contaminants entering the Keppen Burn and Fairlie Beach from allowing unattenuated site surface water to run off directly into the Keppen Burn?

General Comments: The document refers to a consultation with SEPA on flood planning. Our experience is that North Ayrshire Council & SEPA have not been interested in helping us address recent questions regarding the maintenance of the sea wall that runs along Allanton Park Terrace. As a result, we formed the Allanton Park Terrace Residents’ Association to enable us to engage effectively with local issues that affect the terrace. We need assurances that any increase in flow or volume of water onto Fairlie Beach will not affect the integrity and maintenance costs of the retaining/sea wall. In addition, no mention is made of the likely impact of significantly increasing the size of the culvert on surrounding properties, and on properties beneath which the culvert runs.

Necessary urgent action:

  • We require a report of the data and an analysis in plain English that shows full modelling of the flows through the Keppen Burn and includes the whole of the western section between the A78 and Fairlie Beach, and the impact of mitigation proposals.
  • We require that SEPA and North Ayrshire Council advise on how best we can work with them to understand the impacts on surrounding properties and the retaining/sea wall along Allanton Park terrace.
  • We require a full environmental impact assessment (EIA) to address the impact of increased volume and flow of unattenuated surface water.

Public Meeting – Dawn Homes Development Issues 17/07/17

Environment Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) pollution on going and must stop
Keppenburn pollution must cease
Carbon footprint ; is the development really necessary?
Destruction of agricultural land
Village environment Lack of spaces for cars (2 per home on average)
Too many houses in tight space
Well used community space lost
Loss of light in adjacent Castlepark Drive gardens
Right of way at back of houses into the field lost without assessment
Increase risk of damp and flooding in Castlepark adjacent gardens
Loss of privacy in adjacent houses
Increased risk of flooding of site and all roads/houses to West of site
Lady’s Walk Bat habitat; not assessed
Risk to trees
Loss of easy access to Lady’s walk
Proximity of houses to Lady’s Walk increasing putting risk to trees and subsidence
Will Tree Preservation Order (TPO) really protect the trees?
Safety Lack of emergency access
Road safety on estate itself as so compact
Flooding Risk 29 and 39 Castlepark Drive already have flooding problems (NAC aware)
12 Castlepark Drive ; watercourse already runs through garden causing flooding on occasion
Culvert is insufficient
Surface water already runs in to gardens and side roads between site and beach
Community Needs School places ; not enough capacity
Lack of leisure facilities
No children’s playing areas in plans
Congestion of minor roads
Protect Glen Road from more vehicles as cannot cope with two way traffic
Lack of trust in NAC No demonstration of challenging Dawn Homes up to none
Previous lack of due diligence Allowing missing details to be filled in after permission given
re: phase one planning conditions Loss of flats in phase One
No trust in just one entrance/exit
Breach of condition: 3 houses in ‘buffer’ area near Fairlie Castle
Scepticism that plans will be changed and not challenged by NAC planning
Phase One promises broken Path to school from north end
SUDs pond should be temporary
Loss of 36 flats/affordable homes
Culvert incapable of dealing with current drainage needs; this should have been rectified before construction started
Pollution to Keppenburn not managed
Pollution to beach near Keppenburn Terrace
A78 Only one entrance to estate ; will junction cope?
Increased risk of flooding; culvert incapable of coping now
Loss of safety crossing
Increase of A78 congestion at commuting times
Risk to Utilities Electricity cables buried on the field; is this understood?
Pylons overshadowing houses?
Risk to gas and water pressure supplies as already unreliable
Will current sewage works really cope?
Historical Site Rare archaeological site; ruins of chapel and stone circle remains will be lost
Lady’s Walk; unique historical site lost
Infrastructure Primary School capacity
Lack of doctors and dentist; Largs surgeries hard to access already
Congestion on road to Largs past Hailie Brae
Lack of village amenities; this will lead to increased traffic
Lack of regular public transport
Actions requested of NAC Proper drainage survey
Independent assessment of flood risks
Assessment of utilities infrastructure
Emergency services assessment
Historic Scotland /archaeological assessment
Transparency of funding to Kelburn Castle
Wildlife survey
Reinstatement of affordable housing
Completion of Phase One BEFORE phase two even applied for.
Hold Dawn Homes financially accountable to damage /detriment caused to surrounding homes

Residents Objection – Dawn Homes Development

Dear Sir

Further to my extension request below and consultation with professional planning consultants on the above application I wish to make the following objections:

1.  The application as it stands is invalid on the grounds that it is founded on the wrong basis.  Policy RES 3 requires that any application must comply with the approved Development Brief.  For reasons unknown, this application is based on an early draft and not the final document as approved by NAC on 9 August 2011.

The Agents have been working to a draft version and therefore their proposals do not reflect the views and decision of elected members on the Planning Committee in August 2011.

The Brief provided to me by the Agents is dated November 2010, as evidenced in both the Planning and Design Statements,  while the final brief incorporating 20 Council approved amendments is dated September 2011.

You will recall that although RES 3 requires the Brief to be prepared by NAC a decision was made by officers to allow Dawn Homes to prepare the Brief. The fact that Dawn’s Agents are not even using the correct document is beyond comprehension.

Do you agree that NAC should request the withdrawal of this  application?

2. The application as is stands is invalid since it does not conform with RES 3 given that not all the required information accompanies the application.

Paragraph 9.1 of the Brief ( Sept 2011) lists the required information and the attached note provides a summary of the serious omissions and inadequacies with the information submitted.  Without meeting these basic requirements, a proper and competent determination can not be made and the application should be withdrawn on this basis.

Do you agree that NAC should request the withdrawal of this  application?

3. To comply fully with RES 3, Fairlie Castle and existing setting requires to be fully assessed in line with HES’s published guidance.  HES advise that to be effective, such an assessment should be undertaken prior to the development of proposals in order that the findings ” inform the nature of the development”.

No such assessment has been made and the proposals do therefore not comply with the approved Development Brief and therefore would breach Council policy. The submitted application should be regarded as pre-mature until this material assessment has been made in line with approved guidance.

Do you agree that NAC should request the withdrawal of this  application?

4.  The proposed layout of the development includes several houses within the ” non development buffer” as shown in the approved Development Brief. The buffer zone according to the Brief is designed “to protect the Castle and existing setting”. This material non-conformity breaches RES 3 and is a basis for refusing this application.

Please not that I have copied this to ward members, FCC, and that I now wish, via FOI, to request a copy of all communications between NAC, Dawn Homes and Hypostyle on this site’s development since start September 2011.  

In conclusion, I would ask that you acknowledge receipt of this email by return, respond to the questions raised and please keep me advised of any subsequent changes to the application as submitted.

Finally, I wish to reserve my right to submit further representations on this application as required.

Best regards.

M Donnelly


FCC meeting on Dawn Homes Application 17/00584/PPM







14/1/14 EMAIL   






Area 1 was 36 2 bed flats. Flats and 2 houses east of the garage omitted and road access altered.



“Development for Phases 2 & 3 at Castle Park Gardens, Fairlie, in drainage terms constitutes an extension to the works already underway forming Phase 1 constructions.”


(Ref. 12/00159/PPM). The developer of the site, Dawn Homes, has commenced works and phase 1 of the development is due to complete in Autumn 2017. Dawn Homes has commenced a 12 week statutory, pre-application consultation on a proposed planning application for the development of approximately 100 dwelling houses to south of the site and to east of Castlepark Gardens, Fairlie (Ref. 16/01079/PREAPP).

The Committee agreed to (a) serve a Tree Preservation Order on the site owners in respect of all the trees and woodland within the boundary of Castlewalk Plantation (outlined in Appendix 1 to the report) in order to protect existing trees and woodland both in the interests of amenity and their historic or cultural significance and (b) notify Dawn Homes as the developer for new housing development, which is located close to the Castlewalk Plantation

SEPA update on Dawn Homes issues 10/01/2017

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Update on Dawn Homes Site Issues

Provided by SEPA Office Representative, Ayr Office to FCC Secretary

Run-Off in to SUDs pond.

The main problem is that not all of the run-off had been directed to the SUDs pond as it should have been. An element of run off which should have been discharging to the pond was in fact directed in another direction and discharging at another location. (Keppen Burn).
The drainage routes have now been changed and all of the run-off should be entering the pond.

In addition to this inspection of the site has revealed a number of other improvements that can be made which should help the situation:-

1. Additional ‘Up-hill’ drainage ditch.
Firstly a cut-off ditch will be constructed on the ‘uphill’ side of the site to intercept any clean water entering the site from the hill at the rear. This cut-off ditch will intercept any surface flow and will catch flow from land drains in the area and direct this clean water around the site to the Keppen Burn to prevent it from entering the site and being contaminated and then requiring to be treated. This will reduce the volume of water requiring treatment in the SUDs pond.
2. Redirect run-off from the bare slopes on each side of the access road.
There is a need to better manage the run-off from the area where the houses are currently being built. Currently the run-off flows over and scours out the bare earth; SEPA have instructed Dawn Homes to direct the water to flow across stone to reduce the amount of solids carried by the run-off to the pond and reduce the burden on the treatment system.
3. Bare Earth Bankings.
It has been agreed that the bare earth bankings will be seeded at the earliest opportunity. This seeding work will not be carried out when weather permits in January 2017, by means of ‘hydroseeding’. Hydroseeding is a technique where seed and mulch are mixed and applied by spraying the mixture on to the ground in the form a thick paste. This methodology protects the seed, should prevent wash off in all but the heaviest rainfall events and should encourage rapid germination and growth. The landscapers believe this will work this time of year.
4. Modifications to SUDs pond.
It has also been agreed that some modifications to the pond will be carried out to attempt to improve the treatment it provides. In this regard the pond will be sub-divided into two main sections by construction of a berm. In addition to this the contractor is considering the use of flocculating agents to assist the settlement in the pond if this proves necessary.
5. Regular SEPA inspections.
It has also been agreed that regular inspections of the burn and the discharge from the pond will be made and appropriate action taken as necessary. Visually the water in the pond looks very dirty. However, this is the effect of looking at the water in depth. The quality of the discharge yesterday was acceptable and was having minimal impact on the burn.

As dealing with construction site run-off is not an exact science it is possible that some further modifications/improvements will be required. Any such issues will be dealt with as they arise.

Karla Tully,
FCC Secretary 10/01/2017