Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

13/00793/FULL | Amendment to Planning Consent 08/00284/REM for House Type | 1 & 3 Grebe Avenue And 4, 6 & 8 Dunlin Walk Montrose DD10 9FQ
  • Total Consulted: 26
  • Comments Received: 12
  • Objections: 12
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 12|1|2|

Mr Steven Duncan

Comment submitted date: Wed 25 Sep 2013

In January of this year I decided to purchase Plot 221 at The Green development, there were several reasons for this. These include but are not limited to the following; an open un-interrupted outlook to the north of the 'Village Green', a large open green space to the front of the plot (known as the Village Green) as per the site plan that we picked our plot from, a private driveway leading to our plot and the adjacent two plots. I now find out only 3 weeks from receiving the keys to my new house, not from Muir Homes but from my future neighbour, that there are plans for an additional 5 houses which can only be described as being crammed into an area of the Village Green. We were informed at the time of securing our plot that this area would remain a green area for SUDS and would be landscaped accordingly. At the time of placing a deposit on our plot, we were advised by Muir Homes that there may be a future housing development in the field that lies to the north of the Village Green, at no point were we informed that there was potential for additional houses to be built WITHIN the Village Green! Had I known this at the time, I would not have bought this plot and house!

I am most concerned with the 3 additional houses that are proposed to be built directly adjacent to my plot. These are 4, 6 & 8 Dunlin Walk. In particular I feel that plot 293 is far to close to the front elevation of my house (plot 221) and will seriously impede the outlook from my lounge! If this planning goes ahead, the view from my lounge will fall directly onto the end elevation of plot 293, when we were lead to believe that this should have been an open landscaped green area!

I strongly object to this planning on the grounds of affecting the privacy of my family home & increased traffic to the font of my property creating a hazard to my two young children.

I feel as if I have been deceived and conned by Muir Homes. What sort of precedent does this set for future developments within Angus?

Keiron & Rachel Smith

Comment submitted date: Mon 23 Sep 2013

See Document Tab at top of page

Mr Gavin Davidson

Comment submitted date: Fri 20 Sep 2013

We take ownership of Plot 222 (49 Mallard Drive) on Monday the 23rd of September 2013.

When we agreed to purchase this property we specifically raised the question of additional development and at no point did Muir Homes indicate the intention to further develop anywhere near our new house.

Indeed the lovely sales plan they showed us at the time of purchase showed large open greenfield area to the front and side of the house and this was on of the main reasons we opted for this plot as it meant very low volumes of traffic movement to the front of the house and the additional privacy gained by being surrounded by nothing but open park (SUDS) to the front and side of our house meaning that we would have no safety concerns for our two young children.

Now we find that there is to be another road constructed only a very short distance from the boundary of our plot meaning the level of traffic passing our house will increase considerably leading to what amounts to an unsafe environment for our 2 children (one of which has special needs which means he has a reduced understanding of hazards and dangerous situations) not to mention the loss of privacy caused by both the passing traffic and pedestrians & being overlooked due to the placement of the 3 additional houses.

We feel that we have been completely deceived by Muir homes and that the Dream home we purchased in November last year would no longer be that dream for us if this additional development is allowed to goes ahead.

Comment submitted date: Fri 20 Sep 2013

We take ownership of Plot 222 (49 Mallard Drive) on Monday the 23rd of September 2013.

When we agreed to purchase this property we specifically raised the question of additional development and at no point did Muir Homes indicate the intention to further develop anywhere near our new house.

Indeed the lovely sales plan they showed us at the time of purchase showed large open greenfield area to the front and side of the house and this was on of the main reasons we opted for this plot as it meant very low volumes of traffic movement to the front of the house and the additional privacy gained by being surrounded by nothing but open park (SUDS) to the front and side of our house meaning that we would have no safety concerns for our two young children.

Now we find that there is to be another road constructed only a very short distance from the boundary of our plot meaning the level of traffic passing our house will increase considerably leading to what amounts to an unsafe environment for our 2 children (one of which has special needs which means he has a reduced understanding of hazards and dangerous situations) not to mention the loss of privacy caused by both the passing traffic and pedestrians & being overlooked due to the placement of the 3 additional houses.

We feel that we have been completely deceived by Muir homes and that the Dream home we purchased in November last year would no longer be that dream for us if this additional development is allowed to goes ahead.

T Duncan & Co

Comment submitted date: Fri 20 Sep 2013

See Document Tab at top of page
on behalf of
Mr & Mrs Keiron Smith
Mr & Mrs Nyle Bassilious
Mr & Mrs David Simpson

Mrs Alison Bassilious

Comment submitted date: Fri 20 Sep 2013

We bought our property in December 2012 and we specifically chose this plot (218) as our new home because it had a private driveway. Having young children we felt this was an important factor. I am absolutely disgusted that Muir Homes deem it acceptable to add two further 5 bedroom houses at the end of our private drive. This was never mentioned as a possibility during our dealings with Muir Homes and was not on the Site Plan. We would not have purchased this particlar house if this had been planned. I am very concerned with the safety implications that these properties will create. As the private driveway is only one vehicle wide, already cars struggle to manoeuvre and often delivery vehicles reverse the whole length of the drive to exit. This problem will only be exasperated with additional housing. I fear for the safety of the children living on Grebe Avenue. Parking is also a major issue. Visitors already struggle to find a space in a reasonable walking distance. This concerns me greatly as we have family members with limited mobility. Where are visitors for these residences going to park? Will they be forced to park alongside the toddler park which is another safety issue?

Mr Nyle Bassilious

Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Sep 2013

Change of house type at plots 214, 215, 216, 217 to the now proposed 214 & 215 are unacceptable
Reason thus:
Parking issues: the road alongside plot 218 is already used, as parking by various locals and visitors; in the original sales plan as sold to us there were four Harris type houses with suitable off-road parking, the new types do not allow for this. Road access and safety will also be an issue. Also plot 215 now has main windows that overlooks our property and garden whereas before this was not an issue. This causes a privacy issues.

Proposed plots 289 & 290:
As mentioned above parking & access issues, safety of increased traffic and the fact that we were sold plot 218 as an out-of-the-way group of secluded 3 on a private road access. There is also an effect on privacy.
I also object to plots 291, 292, 293 as these were also never intimated or proposed in the previous years or when our current plot was sold to us. These will detract from open plan view area and scenic green areas and bring about increased traffic and parking issues.

Miss Reva Bassilious

Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Sep 2013

I visit my brother, sister-in-law and their young family on a regular basis at their home at Grebe Avenue, Montrose.

With the proposed planning application of a further two 5 bedroom houses I find it objectionable as there is unacceptable parking at present for visitors.

The driveway is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass and would be totally inadequate for extra cars from the proposed houses.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the safety of my young niece and nephew, particularly if they are playing at the front garden. Increased traffic would compromise their safety.

Finally, my mother is disabled. When I drive her to my brother's house, it will cause an inconvenience if I cannot park near the driveway. Increased traffic will not be conducive to her welfare and safety.

Mrs Vikki McKenzie

Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Sep 2013

Re 4, 6, 8 Dunlin Walk. We move into our SECOND Muirs home in a matter of weeks & are very disappointed to discover we have been misled by Muirs site plan.

The reason we chose our plot (223) was because we thought the 3 houses with a private rd, with only the suds area in front, would be a safe place to bring up our young children.

The new plans show an additional 3 houses with access via a new road directly in front (paralell) to ours, we were informed that only thing in front of us would be landscaped suds area.

Our main concerns are from a health & safty point of view. The construction of these 3 houses could lead to a potentially dangerous situation with construction traffic working matter of meters from our front door.

Mrs Helen Diffell

Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Sep 2013

As a regular visitor and babysitter at 2 Grebe Ave I would like to object to this planning application and call for the use of common sense.

The change of property type from three bedroom semi-detached homes numbering four with room to park two cars on each driveway, to five bedroom homes numbering two with barely enough room to park two cars on each driveway and no facility to open a garage door with a car in the drive seems ridiculous at best.
Cars parked at these properties will constantly overhang the public footpath along a road that will eventually lead to huge future development West of the existing construction. Vehicles blocking the footpaths are already an issue at older properties along Mallard Drive.

The planning application for three properties North of the suds indicates a change of use of the only available green space in the area called the "Village Green" (Muir homes planning quote) around the suds, converting it to property and driveways rather than leaving it as Green Space. Surely this contravenes any green space agreement put in place allowing the development plans to date.
It is extremely obvious given the layout of the two current planning applications covering seven homes, a strip of land between the Grebe Ave Private Driveway and the suds is being saved for future development into yet another road to access further properties to the North.

It is a crying shame the developers seem so determined to spoil what could be a beautiful area at the suds through greed.

Current activities at the site prove what little respect the developers have for planning as construction of the driveway to these three properties already appears to be under way.

Despite promises to the contrary Muir Homes appear to be planning to reduce the suds area from what was to be the "Village Green" (Muir Homes planning quote) to little more than small muddy mire of absolutely no use whatsoever to the community.

Mr Ronald Mitchell

Comment submitted date: Thu 19 Sep 2013

This application refers to a change of house type, however there appears to be 3 new houses that were not on plans when my daughter bought her house.

The area was earmaked as a "Green" on the first plan. I cannot see how this is a change of house type. As a layman this appears to be a new build that were not on any plans shared with house purchasers.

Showing 1-10 of 12|1|2|

an Idox solution