South Ayrshire councillors to visit site of proposed drug and alcohol rehab centre

Councillors will visit the site of a controversial planning application for a proposed drug and alcohol rehab centre after raising concerns at a hearing.

The application for the B-Listed Townend House in Symington was, on the face of it, seeking permission for retrospective permission for alterations it had already carried out, including changes to cast-iron rainwater goods, downpipes and ventilation along with the formation of a surfaced car park within the landscaped grounds.

However, they face strong criticism from people opposed to the plan and a petition that attracted hundreds of signatures.

While objectors have made clear their worry about the impact of a drug rehabilitation centre in the area, the proposed facility is not mentioned within the application.

Presenting the report to South Ayrshire Council’s Regulatory Panel, planning officer Russell Dominy stressed that this proposed future use would not play a part in the consideration of the application.

And objectors were clear that their objections were directly related to the specific works that have been carried out.

In his report, Mr Dominy said that, as it had been recently operating as a residential care institution, the prospective use would still fall under the same category – a position that objectors sought to counter.

Instead, members were asked to focus on the physical works: the external drainage changes and the new parking area.

Officers concluded the works were “relatively minor” in heritage terms, and recommended approval subject to conditions, including a requirement for a landscaping and biodiversity mitigation scheme and controls on external lighting.

Several residents and the community council told councillors they believed the application understated the scale and intent of what has taken place.

They also objected to the ‘piecemeal’ approach, with the applicant having a second retrospective application for the same site.

Speaking on behalf of Symington Community Council, Vice-Chair David Houth said the application described the drainage works as maintenance, but argued that the work was part of a far more significant internal refit, including what objectors claim are 16 new en-suite bathrooms.

He also disputed the description of the parking works as resurfacing, saying a new car park had been created on a grassed area.

Other speakers raised concerns about land ownership certification, suggesting that part of the formed car park may extend beyond land in the applicant’s control.

Councillors also heard that council enforcement officers had visited the site after concerns that work was taking place without permission were reported.

Despite advising the operator that the works required permission, officers acknowledged in the meeting that works had proceeded without consent and were now before the panel as retrospective applications.

Mr Dominy’s report noted that separate listed building consent applications relating to the works are also in the system, and that unauthorised internal works are being progressed through enforcement, with further applications anticipated.

One objector claimed that councillors were being asked to approve works ‘based on an application which contains material inaccuracies, omissions and unresolved questions.’

It was also claimed that the retrospective application ‘fails to reflect the true scale, nature and intent of the works that have already taken place.”

One of the elements highlighted by the objectors was the work on the exterior, with one saying they had ‘personally counted and photographed more than 20 new holes through the external walls’.

This, they argued, was beyond the repair and replacement work that the developer indicated in the application.

They said: “These are not historic features. They are not minor repairs.”

After hearing from planning officers and objectors, councillors said they were not comfortable making a decision without seeing the situation on the ground.

A motion to continue the item for a site visit was agreed and will take place prior to the application coming back for a final decision.