Approval of new access at Larkhall house angers neighbours

Mar 17 2011 by Alastair McNeill, Hamilton Advertiser

THE approval of a Larkhall couple’s plan for new access at their home has received a frosty reception from neighbours.

Graeme and Elizabeth Leckie were last week granted planning permission to install the driveway at the back of their home.

The scheme will allow the Leckies to gain access to their 8 Montgomery Place property from adjacent cul-de-sac, The Glade, and will involve cutting down a mature rowan tree on landscaped council-owned land nearby.

One Glade objector this week expressed dismay at the planning committee’s decision.

She commented: “If he (Mr Leckie) wanted a driveway in The Glade, why didn’t he buy a house in The Glade?

“This is going to ruin the landscaped area at the end of The Glade for nothing more than someone’s whim.”

Mr Leckie had claimed to planners he wanted a new driveway due to anti-social behaviour outside his property, and to make his vehicle more secure.

When the plans were submitted last year, some Glade residents – many of whom are pensioners – claimed it would bring an increase in car traffic to their street which would disturb their peace.

A total of 10 letters opposing the planning application, from addresses which included The Glade, Montgomery Crescent, Lansbury Crescent and The Acres were lodged with South Lanarkshire Council.

In a document put before the planning committee, South Lanarkshire’s planning chief Colin McDowall said: “It is considered that the incorporation of this small area of open space into the residential curtilage of the applicant’s property would not have a significant impact given the large area of open space that would remain.

“In addition the loss of the small area of open space would have no material impact on the amenity of the residential area.

“In this respect the proposal can be integrated within the existing pattern of development.”

It was also pointed out that the rowan tree had “allegedly” caused damage to an adjacent pavement and boundary wall. Mr McDowall said, however, the claim was unconfirmed. Nevertheless he pointed out that the council’s arboricultural officer had offered no objection to the tree’s removal subject to a replacement planting scheme.