Nodh Lanarkshire Council · Newspaper Advertisement: N1091002061F U L 28th May 2009 Mr Ajay...

AGENDA ITEM No. ..- L

Nodh Lanarkshire

Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee

Committee Date : 8'h July 2009

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 8'h July 2009

Page No 4

11

16

23

29

34

Application No.

N/09/00206/FUL

N/09/00518/AMD

N/09/00549/CAAD

N/09/00558/FUL

N/09/00583/FUL

N/09/00586/FUL

Applicant

Mr Ajay Salhotra

Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd

DVS Property Specialists

Mr & Mrs Gordon Laing

Mr & Mrs Johnson

Persimmon Homes Ltd

Development/ Locus Recommendation

Change of Use from Refuse Newsagents to Hot Food Takeaway 3 High Craigends Kilsyth

Application to Vary Condition Grant (3) of Planning Application N/05/00820/OUT (timescale for submission of reserved matters) Land to the South of Broadwood Stadium Atholl Drive Cumbernauld

Certificate of Appropriate Grant Alternative Development in respect of Expansion of Industrial Operations at Two Areas of Land at Gartferry Road and One Area of Land at the A80 Devro Ltd Gartferry Road Chryston

Erection of a Detached Refuse Dwellinghouse 5 Highland Place Kilsyth

Change of Use of Public Area to Private Garden Ground and Erection of a Fence (in retrospect). Hearing 37 Waverley Crescent Greenfaulds Cumbernauld

Grant Request for Site Visit &

Revision to Approved Layout Grant for Plots 19-23 Resulting in 6 Request for Semi-Detached and 2 Site Visit & Detached Dwellings Hearing Area 617 Smithstone Road Smithstone Curnbernauld

41 C/07/01982/0UT St Andrews Homes Residential Development Refuse and Provision of Local

Land at Avon Avenue Upperton, Airdrie

Whinrigg Farm, Stirling Road, Riggend, Airdrie

Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse at 3 Nairn Crescent, Cairnhill, Airdrie

Request for Site (Scotland) LtdlCroftsone Ltd Centre Visit & Hearing

58 C/09/00502/0UT Mr W McAllister Erection of Dwellinghouse at Refuse

64 C/09/00509/FUL Mr John Truesdale Addition of Two Storey Grant

70 S/07/01042/FUL Mr Boyd Change of Use of Open Space to Garden Ground 14 - 28 Leander Crescent & 6 Pegasus Road, Bellshill

Refuse

75 S/08/01401/OUT Mr & Mrs J S Residential Development (In Grant Chidley Outline)

204 Alexander Street Wishaw

83 S/09/00018/FUL Mr & Mrs Mitchell Erection of Replacement Grant Dwellinghouse & Detached Garage Rimmon Cottage, Benhar Road, Shotts

90 S/O9/00232/FUL 1 st Access Rentals Erection of Two Galvanised Grant Limited Metal Storage Buildings

(Retrospective) Greenside Depot, Biggar Road, Newarthill, Motherwell

96 S/09/00247/FUL Mr Strock Erection of Single Storey Grant Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse 21 Croftpark Street, Bellshill

101 S/09/00451/FUL AMI Healthcare Erection of 60 Bed Care Grant Home with Associated Parking 2 Loanhead Road, Newarthill Motherwell

(Class 1) to Form a Retail Shop (Class 1) and Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis) 142 Station Road, Shotts

108 S/09/00513/FUL Mr Banniameen Subdivision of Retail Shop Refuse Khan

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:

Contrary to Development Plan:

Consultations:

Representations:

Newspaper Advertisement:

N1091002061F U L

28th May 2009

Mr Ajay Salhotra 2 Keal Place Glasgow G15 6UZ

Robert Thompson Designs 625 Clarkston Road Glasgow G44 3QD

Change of Use from Newsagents to Hot Food Takeaway

3 High Craigends Kilsyth G65 ONS

I-Kilsyth. Councillors Griffin, Jones & Key

271927677850

N/09/00206/FU L

No relevant history

Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, policies SC3 & SC5 apply.

No

None

4 letters of representation received.

Advertised on 10th June 2009

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

That the proposed development is contrary to policy SC5 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 in that the proposed fast food retail unit would, by virtue of noise, smell, litter, general disturbance and late night activity associated with the proposal, have an unacceptable and deleterious effect on the amenity of the existing residential properties.

That the loss of a retail unit to another hot food takeaway in Kilsyth town centre would be contrary to policy SC3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 that seeks to protect retail units. The loss would be detrimental to the shopping character of the town centre and the cumulative impacts of a concentration of hot foot takeaway units would cause nuisance and disturbance to local residents.

The approval of this application may set a precedent making it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other bad neighbour development proposals within Kilsyth Town Centre.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 23rd February 2009

Letter from Keila Singh, 2 Burngreen, Kilsyth, G65 ONR received 16th June 2009. Letter from Councillor J Jones, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, MLI 1AB received 3rd June 2009. Letter from Mr And Mrs A Pia, 48 Market Street, Kilsyth, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, G65 OBA received 28th May 2009. Letter from Mr Nazir Ahmad, 7 Market Street, Kilsyth, G65 OBD received 1 1 th June 2009.

Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 6 16464.

23 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. N1091002061FUL

REPORT

1.

1 .I

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

DescriPtion of Site and ProDosal

The proposal is for the change of use of a single storey mid terrace vacant shop unit, formally a Class 1 Newsagents to a hot food takeaway at 3 High Craigends, Kilsyth. The applicant declares on the application form that the unit was previously a cafe; however this is not the understanding of the Planning Service, It should be noted that Planning permission is required whether the vacant unit was previously a newsagents or cafe.

The unit is located with the designated Kilsyth town centre. It is outwith but in close proximity to the conservation area. It has no associated parking area. It is bound by a 2 storey corner plot building to the west that houses a dog grooming shop and residential property on the ground floor. Residential properties occupy the upper floor. The unit is bound to the east by a similar size unit that operates as a hot food takeaway. Other surrounding uses include residential, a public house, Class 1 shops and Class 2 Financial and Professional Services.

Background

This application has been submitted following an investigation by my Service into alterations being made to the property. Councillor Jones was approached by a number of her constituents regarding evening activity at the property. Allegedly the owners had been advising local residents that they were preparing to open a hot food takeaway. Consequently my Planning Service wrote to the address and advised that planning permission was required. Serious concerns regarding another hot food takeaway in an area that has many, increased evening activity and associated noise/disturbance to residents and concerns with increased litter was stressed at this stage.

Development Plan

The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan policies. In the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, the site lies within a defined town centre location where policies SC3 and SC5 apply.

Policy SC3 seeks to protect the town centre from development that may be incompatible with the core shopping area. Changes of use will be assessed against the effect the proposal will have on the viability and vitality of the core shopping area and the compatibility with surrounding land uses, especially residential.

Policy SC5 states that there will be a presumption against hot food takeaway units located directly below or in close proximity to residential properties or in such other locations as nuisance conditions are likely to occur.

Policy RTC3 of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan is also relevant. This policy seeks to protect against the adverse affects of bad neighbour developments on town centre and residential amenity. The assessment of proposals will also take account of the cumulative impact of such development.

Scottish Planning Policy Guideline 8 sets out the Scottish Executive's policy for town centres and retail developments. The broad objectives are to sustain and enhance town centres as the most appropriate locations for retailing and related commercial activities. There is a presumption against any development that would adversely affect the vitality and viability of town centres.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 My Environmental Health Section was consulted as part of the assessment of this application. No response has been received. A discussion with my Traffic and Transportation Section occurred during the complaint stage and before the application was submitted. This Section considered that the takeaway would likely be competition for the other nearby hot food takeaway units and would not attract new customers. This particular area of Kilsyth does not generate complaints regarding the current traffidparking situation and so there was no objection to the proposal.

4 objection letters were received as a result of this application. The points of objection and my comments thereon can be summarised as follows:

4.2

On street parking would increase as a result of the change of use. This may obstruct access into properties.

Comment: As stated in section 3.1, my Traffic and Transportation Section does not anticipate a significant increase in traffic as a result of a change of use to hot food takeaway. The existing attached takeaway has not generated complaints with respect to parking. If consent is granted, it is foreseen that the majority of customers would be local and may walk to the unit. The location may also be attractive to users of the nearby public house who would likely arrive by foot. Despite this, it must be acknowledged that some customers would arrive by car. On street parking is common in Kilsyth Town Centre where vehicles have a right of access. There is designated town centre parking at Market Square to the west of the site. There is also an open yard area to the side of the existing hot food takeaway and a car park within the public house. It should be noted that it is understood the application property has no right of access to the latter two parking areas although it is considered that customers could use them for a short period of time while they are ordering food without creating a parking problem. The concern relating to vehicles potentially obstructing access to nearby properties would be a policing matter.

0 Parking is already a problem with the existing takeaway that is attached to the application property.

Comment: My Traffic and Transportation Section has no known record of complaints regarding parking problems associated with the existing takeaway at High Craigends. It is however conceded that the coming and going of vehicles, engines starting and stopping may be a nuisance to nearby residents. An additional takeaway next to the existing may exacerbate this problem.

0 I have an access driveway to the rear of the unit (2 Burngreen). I already experience problems with access due to bins and staff vehicles parked at the rear of the existing takeaway. The approval of another will only make this problem worse.

Comment: The issue of obstructing access is not a consideration of this application.

0 There are already three hot food takeaway units on Market Place that merges with High Craigends. There are even more similar uses within Kilsyth Town Centre. Kilsyth is turning into the takeaway capital of Scotland.

Comment: It is conceded that there are many takeaway units within Kilsyth town centre. There are 3 within Market Street and High Craigends. The cumulative impacts of a concentration of such uses can cause nuisance and disturbance to local residents in terms of increased noise during unsociable hours, increased smells and litter. The loss of retail units to other uses is also of concern.

0 There are many takeaway units in Kilsyth all competing against each other making trading difficult during the recession.

Comment Competition is not a material planning consideration and should not be given weight in the assessment of this application. Despite this, it should be noted that in terms of SPP8, planners should strive to create and sustain vitality and viability in town centres. To achieve this, town centres function best with alternative uses and diversification such as residential, retail, commercial, financial and professional institutions. Too much of the same use is contrary to this objective.

0 The late opening hours encourages youths to hang around outside, creating noise problems. It attracts pub users after closing hours adding to the noise impact.

Comment: It is widely recognised that late opening hours of hot food takeaway units within residential locations creates a nuisance to neighbours in terms of increased noise at a time where noise levels are expected to lessen. This is likely to be made worse given the fact that there are other similar uses with the immediate locale.

0 Litter is a serious problem in this area; this is mostly generated from the existing takeaway units.

Comment: The issue of litter could be addressed by planning conditions requiring the installation of a bin at the front of the unit. Although recognised as an issue, litter in itself is not considered to be a reason to warrant refusal of this application.

0 Takeaway units lead to unsociable behaviour.

Comment: This would be a matter for the police.

5. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, policies SC3 and SC5 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 are relevant.

5.2 Within close proximity and viewing distance of the application property, there a 3 hot food take away units. Namely Antonios’s Fish Bar, Delux Chinese Takeaway and the Mercato BistroKafe and Takeaway. There are many more similar uses with the town centre area. The applicant proposes opening hours of 3.00pm to 12 midnight Monday to Thursday and 3.00pm to 1.00am Friday and Saturday. The cumulative impacts of a concentration of such uses can cause nuisance and disturbance to local residents in terms of noise during unsociable hours, can generate cooking odours and in some circumstances litter problems although it is considered that the latter could be addressed by planning conditions. Given this assessment, the proposal is considered contrary to policy SC3 and SC5.

5.3 A principle objective of policy SC3 and SPP8 is to create and sustain vitality and viability of town centres. Town centres are known to function best with alternative and diverse uses such as residential, retail, commercial, financial and professional institutions. Too much of the same use is contrary to this objective.

A further material consideration in this case is the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (FDNLLP). Policy RTC3 of the FDNLLP seeks to protect against the adverse affects of bad neighbour developments on town centre and residential amenity. This policy further states

5.4

that the assessment of proposals will take account of the cumulative impact of such development. This policy supports the above conclusions.

Market Square has designated town centre parking. It is in close proximity to the application unit and is quieter in the evenings when the majority of shops are closed. However, there is no guarantee that the car park would be used by customers if planning consent is granted. My Traffic and Transportation Section foresee the change of use providing increased choice for local residents rather than generating customers from other areas who would arrive by car; it is likely that it would be more attractive to local residents or by customers of the nearby public house who may arrive by foot. A degree of on street, short stay parking is common in town centre locations. It is however acknowledged that cars coming a going late in the evening is likely to disturb neighbours and exacerbate their existing problems outlined in section 3 above. Parking in itself is not of such concern as to warrant refusal of this application.

5.5

5.6 It is worth noting that prior to the submission of the application; the applicant was made aware that the Planning Service has serious concerns with respect to this proposal.

Having assessed the proposed change of use against the development plan and considered the merits of this case, it is considered that the change of use of the application unit to a hot food takeaway would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the town centre and the surrounding residential properties. As such, it is recommended that permission be refused.

5.7

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan :

N1091005181AMD

29th May 2009

Walker Group (Scotland) Ltd Westetwood House Royston Road Deans Industrial Estate Livingston West Lothian EH54 8AH

Application to Vary Condition (3) of Planning Application N/05/00820/0UT

Land To The South Of Broadwood Stadium Atholl Drive Broadwood Cumbernauld

2 Cumbernauld North: Councillors Chadha McCulloch Murray and O'Brien

272788673972

N/09/00518/AMD

05/00820/OUT 2 Residential Developments (4.8 & 6.1 ha), RetaiKommercial Development (3.4 ha) and Assembly/Leisure Development (3.4. ha). Granted June 2006. 06/01 789/REM Construction of 1 15 Dwellinghouses. Granted April 2007. 06/01 792/REM Construction of 69 Dwellinghouses. Granted April 2007. 07/01 528/REM Construction of Community Sports and Leisure Facility. Granted April 2008. 08/00684/FUL Construction of 60 Dwellinghouses. Pending Consideration.

Covered by Policies PS6 Reserved Primary School Site; IB7 New Industrial Areas and EN31 Site identified for CommerciaVLeisure Development in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations:

Representations: No letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:.

1. That the submission of reserved matters covered by Outline Planning Consent N/05/00820/OUT shall be submitted no later than 6 June 201 1.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That for the avoidance of doubt, any further reserved matters applications submitted under the terms of Condition 1 above shall include full details of :-

(a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the provision of equipped play areas; (e) the provision of public open space; (f) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (9) details for management and maintenance of the areas; (h) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (i) the provision for loading and unloading of all goods vehicles; (j) the phasing of the development; (k) the provision of SUDS drainage; (I) the provision of drainage works; (m) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (n) details of existing and proposed site levels;

Reason: To e nable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 18th May 2009

The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (incorporating the third alteration 2006) Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2008

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Mary Hogg at 01236 616459.

Date 24 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. N1091005181AMD

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

3.

3.1

DescriDtion of Site and ProPOsal

This application seeks planning consent to vary planning condition 3 of planning consent N/05/00820/OUT granted on 6 June 2006. This condition relates to the specific time limit allowed by the consent to submit reserved matter details. The applicant wishes to vary this time limit from three years to six years. To allow submission of reserved matters until June 2012.

The outline planning consent related to the 23 hectare site surrounding the Broadwood Stadium Complex in Cumbernauld. The consent established the principle of the site being developed for residential, retaillbusiness and assembly/leisure uses within the site.

To date three reserved matters applications have been submitted and granted planning consent. Planning consent (06/01789/REM) for the construction of 1 15 dwellinghouses, granted in April 2007. Planning consent (06/001792/REM) for construction of 69 dwellinghouses, granted in April 2007 under construction; and planning consent (07/01528/REM) granted consent in April 2008 for a Community Sports and Leisure Facility, under construction.

Planning consent (06/01789/REM) for the construction of 115 dwellinghouses has not been implemented and no reserved matters have been submitted for the retail and business use element of the outline consent.

The applicant has intimated that due to the decline in the economy and poor market sales it is more than likely that in the present climate the existing residential reserved matters consent for 115 dwellinghouses will not be implemented nor would the remaining reserved matters relating to the retail and business use be submitted.

The extension to the time condition would allow, if necessary, the submission of further reserved matters for the unimplemented residential element of the development and the submission of the reserved matters for the remaining retail and business element of the site.

The development raises no strategic issues and therefore is assessed against Development Plan Policy.

In terms of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the retail and business element of the outline consent lies within an area covered by Policy PS6, which allocates sites within new housing areas for provision of schools and Policy EN31A which identifies the site for integrated commercial leisure development.

The two residential elements are located on part of the site covered by Policy IB7H which identifies the site for new industriaVbusiness development and Policy EN31A (as above).

The assembly/leisure use lies within an area covered by Policy EN31A (as above).

Under the North Lanarkshire Finalised Draft Local Plan the site is covered by Policy HCF2 - sites for (short term) Housing Development and HCFI B1 Community Facilities.

Consultations and Remesentations

No consultations were required for this proposal.

3.2

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1

No letters of objection or representation were received after formal neighbour notification.

In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 In this instance whilst certain uses are contrary to policies within both Local Plans the principle of all of the uses on this site have been established by the granting of outline planning consent and the subsequent granting of reserved matters for the residential and assemblylleisure uses of the development.

4.3 Under consideration is the appropriateness of extending the time limit (as prescribed in Condition 3) from three years to six years to allow the applicant to submit the remaining and additional reserved matters.

4.4 The decline in the economy and poor market return has had a marked effect on the development of land within North Lanarkshire and countrywide. Extending the time period would keep the outline consent live; giving the applicant, if required, the flexibility to submit additional reserved matters to take account of changes in residential market trends, and submit the remaining outstanding reserved matters when there is an upturn in the market, leading to full development of the site covered by the outline consent. That said, it is considered that extending the time period until 6 June 2012 may prolong the uncertainty regarding development of the site. Existing reserved matters consents were conditioned such that a start be made on site before 6 June 2011. As such allowing an extension in time until this same date is considered reasonable. By this date either a start should be made on existing reserved matters approved for housing or alternative scheme be submitted for consideration and with regards to the businesshetail element of the site a reserved matters application submitted for consideration.

4.5 Given that there has been no material change in the planning position with regards to this site I am satisfied that the proposed extension of time for submitting reserved matters from three to five years (to 6 June 201 1) is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

N/09/00549/CAAD Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


9th June 2009

DVS Property Specialists Glasgow Valuation Office Blythswood House 200 West Regent Street Glasgow G2 4JJ

Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development in respect of Expansion of Industrial Operations at Two Areas of Land at Gartferry Road and One Area of Land at the A80

Devro Ltd Gartferry Road Mood iesbu rn G69 OJE

5 - Strathkelvin: Councillors Hogg, McGlinchey, Shaw and Wallace

270691 671470

N/09/00549/CAAD

Two of the sites in question are covered partly by Economic Development Policy ECON 2 but mainly by Green Belt Policy ENV 2-8. One is covered by Economic Development Policy ECON 2 in the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005.

Yes

None

No letters of representation received.

Advertised on 1 7'h June 2009 - Potentially Contrary to Policy ENV 2-8

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. The only uses for which permission would have been granted, would have been class 5 (General Industry) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. However, approval would only have been given for this use had the 3 sites been included in a larger application site (including other land owned by the operators of the factory) and on the basis that the development was to extend the existing factory unit and not for a new separate development on the site.

Reason: Development included within this class would accord with adjacent approved land use permissions within the Devro Factory Site.

2. That the permission would have had no effect before further information was submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following matters:-

(a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, parking and turning areas; (d) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (e) the provision for drainage works; (9 the disposal of sewage; (9) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained, and (h) details of existing and proposed site levels.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

3. That the permission would have had no effect before further information was submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the application site and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme would require to be approved by Scottish Water and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in terms of their principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and to safeguard the amenity of the area, to prevent groundwater pollution and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest Scottish Water and SEPA guidance.

That the permission would have had no effect before a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), was submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Development should not commence until these works were co.mpleted.

4.

Reason: To ensure the suitability of the site for the proposed development and protect watercourses from pollution.

That, notwithstanding the terms of Condition 2 above, and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development would have had to be accessed from existing access points and comply with the following requirements of the Council as Roads Authority:

1) The road would require to be an industrial access road, designed and constructed as per the former Strathclyde Regional Council's "Guidelines for Development Roads" 1986.

2) A visibility splay of 4.5m x 60m in both directions, to be maintained at both existing connections to Gartferry Road into which nothing higher than 1 .O m should be allowed to encroach. (i.e. formalised car parking, walls, vegetation etc)

Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure that appropriate car parking levels are provided within the site.

5.

Background Papers:


Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Jennifer McAllan at 01236 616473.

Date: 30th June 2009

APPLICATION NO. N/09/00549/CAAD

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Purpose of Application

This is an application for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963. This type of application is relatively rare, occurring where compulsory purchase of an area of land is proposed, without agreement between the parties as to the value of the land. A party with a legal interest in the land may apply for a CAAD as a means of defining any development value of the land which can be taken into account in assessing the compensation for the land being compulsorily acquired.

The applicants seek a Certificate in respect of the part of the land in the ownership of Devro (Scotland) Ltd which is the subject of a Draft Compulsory Purchase Order issued by the Scottish Ministers (Transport Scotland) on 28Ih March 2007. The Order relates to three parcels of land required for the purpose of upgrading the M80/A80 Glasgow- Stirling Trunk Road between Auchenkilns and Haggs. Two areas adjacent to Gartferry Road and one adjacent to the A80. The CAAD application must be considered as if it were the date on which the Draft Order was published.

Description of Site and Proposal

The three application sites are located around the Devro Factory in Moodiesburn. Plot 1303 comprises 1,137 square metres in area of ground adjacent to Gartferry Road, plot 1304, also at Gartferry Road comprises 1353 square metres in area and plot 1305, adjacent to the A80 comprises 2,881 square metres. The sites form part of the road verges of Gartferty Road and the A80.

The application sites are currently grassed, undeveloped road verge with some screen planting at plot 1305.

The applicants seek a CAAD for general industrial purposes (Use Class 5). No indicative layout plans have been submitted.

Development Plan

In terms of the regulations governing the assessment of CAAD applications, the planning circumstances at the date of the publication of the Draft Compulsory Purchase Order must be assumed. In this case the relevant date is the 28'h March 2007.

In addition the planning authority must not refuse a certificate solely on the grounds that it would be contrary to the development plan, where the policies have no purpose beyond the scheme for which the compulsory acquisition is being promoted or are policies which are outdated. Broader policies can, however, be taken into account.

The current development plan, which comprises the Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005 is therefore of relevance, although not the sole consideration.

Although the limited size of the application sites would mean that any new industrial development would not be possible, it is normal to consider the application sites along with adjacent land in the applicants ownership (in order to ensure that the value of land is not artificially reduced due to the limited size of the area covered by a compulsory purchase order). The Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan is not relevant to this application (which is assessed against the CPO date 28'h March 2007) as it was not a material consideration for planning applications until it was sufficiently advanced in December 2008.

3.5

3.6

3.7

4.

4.1

4.2

5.

5.1

5.2

5.3

Site 1303 is covered by Policy ECON 2 (Established Industrial Areas) and sites 1304 and 1305 are partly covered by Policy ECON 2 but mostly by polices ENV 2 - 8 (Green Belt) of the adopted Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005. Policy ECON 2 would: ‘support General Industrial, Distribution, Storage or Class 4 Business Uses’. Furthermore, ECON 2 B states that, ‘Where there are existing industrial operations in a Green Belt location which are not shown as ECON 2 designations on the Proposals Map, the council will consider further development to be acceptable only where the proposed development is associated with the existing operations and consistent with the existing development in both scale and type of land use.’

Policy ENV 8 (Extending Existing Developments in the Green Belt) is of particular relevance and states: ‘within the Green Belt, proposals for the extension of existing residential, industrial or commercial premises shall only be given favourable consideration where the proposals are consistent in scale, are well integrated with existing buildings, and satisfy local planning criteria, such as access parking and relationship to adjoining land uses.’

Policy ENV 4 (Development in the Green Belt) presumes against new development within the green belt unless required for: ‘agriculture, forestry, horticulture, nature conservation, appropriate countryside recreation or tourism dependent on a countryside location.’

Consultations and Representations

No external consultations have been carried out due to the specific CAAD requirement of coming to a theoretical historical view on development potential. The Trunk Roads Authority have been notified on the gth June 2009 of the application. To date no response has been received.

My Traffic and Transportation Section have been consulted and have no objections subject to any development complying with the requirements noted in condition 5 to ensure visibility at the two junctions onto Gartferry Road.

Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

The CAAD procedure requires that the planning authority certifies the alternative development for which planning permission would have been granted for land if it were not proposed to be acquired by an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers. Under Section 25 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 a negative CAAD decision should not be made solely on development plan grounds. The normal interpretation of this requirement is to ensure that any development plan policies which back the compulsory purchase scheme are not subsequently used to reduce resulting compensation. Account can, therefore, be taken of policies unrelated to the background compulsory purchase scheme. In this case the land is not allocated for the use for which it is being acquired (upgrading of the A80) in the development plan. The applicable Local Plan policies ENV 2 - 8 (Green Belt) and ECON 2 (Established Industrial Areas) are such broader policies and these should therefore be taken into account.

The CAAD procedures require that this application is assessed as at 28‘h March 2007 when the Draft Compulsory Purchase Order was issued.

Development Plan: Consideration under the CAAD process is given to the development potential of all adjacent land in the applicant’s ownership rather than just the application site. In this respect there is the theoretical potential for an industrial development adjacent to the existing Devro site and as such the CAAD proposal requires to be considered under the Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005.

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

With respect to the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005 policy ECON 2 (Established Industrial Areas) covers site 1303 and policies ECON 2 and ENV 2 - 8 (Green Belt) cover sites 1304 and 1305. Looking beyond the Development Plan the following material considerations need to be considered.

Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP): At 28‘h March 2007 the NLLP was at too early a stage to have any influence on planning decisions. It is, therefore, not relevant to the current CAAD application. Nevertheless it is worth noting that NLLP policy zoning for the site is unchanged from that of the Northern Corridor Local Plan.

It is considered that there would be a clear difference between Devro extending their existing operation onto the adjacent site, and a new industrial unit for a separate business being developed on the site. The local plan includes a policy that (subject to strict criteria) allows for the extension of existing developments in the Green Belt. It is considered that the extension of the existing factory onto Green Belt land adjoining the factory would comply with the rationale behind this policy. It is considered that an extension to the existing operation could be designed to integrate well with existing buildings and satisfy local planning criteria such as access, parking and relationship to adjoining uses.

The majority of sites 1304 and 1305 (and the adjoining land) is covered by Green Belt policies ENV 2 - 8, therefore it is appropriate to judge whether an acceptable Green Belt devebpment, consistent with the above policies may have been acceptable at the time of the CPO, 28 March 2007. It is considered that a separate development use would not be acceptable for the following reason. Although designated as Green Belt the site appears to be a ‘reserve area’ for the existing use set aside to allow for future expansion. In particular it is worth noting that the land is a well maintained and sits within the fence line of the Devro Site. Therefore, even when considered in conjunction with all the adjoining land, the sites would not be likely to be an acceptable location for Green Belt type uses. If these sites were to be removed from the Green Belt the only likely acceptable use would be the extension to the existing factory operation.

My Traffic and Transportation would require a visibility splay to be enforced at both junctions entering the Devro site at 4.5m by 60m in each direction. As a result, parts of sites 1303 and 1304 a re conditioned to prohibit any building or vegetation over 1 metre in height. This requirement could affect the development potential of these two sites.

In conclusion, it is considered for the purposes of the Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development that the site could be satisfactorily used for Class 5 (Industrial) purposes, dependent on the development comprising an extension to the existing Devro factory unit, and not a new separate industrial development. Any development would be constrained by compliance with the above planning conditions and requirements to retain visibility splay at road junctions and should utilise the existing access arrangements. It is therefore recommended that a CAAD be issued in respect of Class 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


N/09/00558/FUL

18th May 2009

Mr & Mrs Gordon Laing 5 Highland Place Kilsyth G65 9PP

D Rose 5 Tak-Ma-Doon Road Kilsyth G65 ORS

Erection of a Detached Dwellinghouse

5 Highland Place Kilsyth G65 9PP

1 Kilsyth: Councillors Griffin, Jones and Key

271512 678524

N/09/00558/FUL

CN/89/49 Construction of a Dwellinghouse and Garage - Refused 04/09/1989 N/08/00756/FUL Construction of a Dwellinghouse - Refused 29/07/2008

In the adopted Kilsyth Local Plan, 1999, the site is covered by Residential Pokes HG3-5.

No


Not Required


1. That the proposed dwelling is contrary to policy HG3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, in that the proposed plot is not in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding residential area and does not have adequate front and rear garden provision, as set out in the Council's Minimum Space Standards, and would therefore be detrimental to residential amenity. The location of the plot will lead to an overbearing development which will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the residents at 5 Highland Place. Furthermore, an existing tree on land outwith the application site or control of the applicant may mean that required visibility splays are not be achievable for the proposed driveway and this would be to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety.

2. That should planning permission be granted for this development, an unacceptable precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other similar applications.

Background Papers:


Letter from Mr & Mrs Kinnear, 162 Balmalloch Road, Kilsyth, G65 9PJ received 28th May 2009. Letter from Mr & Mrs L. Wise, 3 Highland Place, Kilsyth, G65 9PP received 21st May 2009. Letter from Mr & Mrs J K Burns, 2 Highland Place, Kilsyth, G65 9PP received 29th May 2009.

Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Barry Clarke at 01236 616394.

DATE: 23rd June 2009

APPLICATION NO. N/09/00558/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.

3.1


This application is for the construction of a one and a half storey dwellinghouse within the garden ground of 5 Highland Place, Kilsyth. The application site sits west of No. 5 and currently has a double garage and mature trees on it. The area of the site is approximately 270 square metres.

The proposed house will be positioned facing Highland Place and will have a front garden depth ranging from 1.4 metres to 2.5 metres. The rear garden when measured from the rear elevation of the proposed house will range from 6.4 metres to 8.7 metres. The existing houses in the street are set back a reasonable distance from the road and have substantial garden ground. To the north of the site the existing houses at Balmalloch Road are also set within reasonable sized plots.

This site was the subject of a planning application for the construction of a house and garage in 1989 (although the site was larger and included part of the open space that is located directly west). Another application for the construction of a dwellinghouse was made in 2008. Permission was refused for both applications as the size and shape of the plot would not permit development of a reasonable standard therefore being detrimental to residential amenity. They were also refused on the grounds of precedent.

The application is a re-submission of the application made in 2008 (N/08/00756/FUL) which was refused on 2gth July 2008. It is anticipated that the application has been re-submitted so that the applicant can exercise a right of appeal having missed the 6 month deadline to appeal the previous decision.

Development Plan

This application raises no strategic issues and can be assessed in terms of the relevant Local Plan Policy.

The application site is covered by the Residential Policies of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, Policy HG3 is of particular relevance and states new residential development requires to be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. In particular the site must accommodate a reasonable size house with sufficient garden area and provide sufficient in-curtilage parking provision. The site must also comply with the Council’s policy on open space for private housing development. Finally, the house should properly front onto an adjacent road and acceptably relate to a suitable orderly disposition of buildings.

The zoning of the site and policy position is not altered by the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.


My Traffic and Transportation section has indicated that the proposal is acceptable provided that several conditions are met. Firstly based on a 2 bedroom house, a minimum of 2 parking spaces are to be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling. The connections to the road should be by means of a minimum 3 metre dropped kerb vehicular access, leading to a 3 metre wide driveway of which at least the first two metres measured from the footway/service verge should be paved. The access sightlines from such a driveway should be a minimum of 2.5

3.2

metre x 20 metre. Finally adequate site drainage should be installed to prevent surface water accumulating on the public road.

Comment: With the exception of visibility splays the requirements of my Traffic and Transportation section can be satisfied. An existing tree on land outwith the application site (or control of the applicant) will impede visibility ant the proposed driveway. Although a planning condition could be imposed requiring this matter to be addressed it is not clear whether or not required visibility splays could be achieved. Without improved visibility the driveway would present road and pedestrian safety issues.

Following neighbour notification 3 letters of representation were received. The points raised are similar in nature to those that were made in relation to the refused application in 2008. The points of objection and my comments thereon are as follows:

The size and shape of plot does not allow a reasonable standard of development. The house would be detrimental to the residential area and would result in the cul-de-sac becoming even more crowded.

Comment: It is agreed that the size and depth of the plot are not in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the area does have an overcrowded feel mainly due to the sub-standard width of Highland Place and on-street parking. It is agreed that an additional dwellinghouse may exacerbate the problem.

Highland Place is served by a single width road and is used by children en route to the nearby Primary and Secondary schools. Access to the site for heavy goods vehicles would be extremely problematic.

Comment: The single width road serving Highland Park is sub-standard and it is agreed that the area is well used by school children. Access would be difficult during the construction phase however this would be of a temporary nature and it is not a reason for refusal in its own right.

The proposal would also result in the loss of 3- 4 on-street parking spaces due to the front entrance and driveway of the house. This would exacerbate existing parking problems to the detriment of access for refuse lorries (which already experience problems) and emergency service vehicles.

Comment: It is agreed that if approved, the proposal would remove an area where existing residents and visitors can park their vehicles and place added pressure on the parking provision. However, as my Traffic and Transportation Team have not raised this as a potential issue, it would not be serious enough a reason for refusal in its own right.

If approved it would set a precedent whereby any piece of land could be developed. The majority of the houses in the vicinity have large garden areas that could be sold off to the detriment of the area.

Comment: It is agreed that the granting of this application could set an undesirable precedent as the plot size and depth are not in keeping with the surrounding area. The comments relating to the potential for future development of garden ground are noted. Any such applications would have to comply with the Council’s policies on new build residential development.

The proposal would adversely affect the amenity and quality of life for the residents at 162 Balmalloch Road and the neighbouring properties at nos. 164 and 166 would also be overlooked. The rear garden of No.162 would be overshadowed and their outlook and privacy would also be affected.

Comment: I am satisfied that the house would have a minimal impact on the adjacent residents

at Balmalloch Road, particularly as there are no bedroom windows proposed on the rear elevation of the proposed house. There would be an impact on the sunlight for parts of the rear garden of Nos. 162, 164 and 166 at certain times of the day. However I am satisfied there would be a minimal impact on the daylight levels in the facing rooms in these properties due to the distance between the houses and difference in levels (the proposed house would be almost 2 metres lower).

The residents at No. 3 Highland Place are concerned their privacy would be affected, as the difference in levels between their house and the site would result in their bedroom windows being overlooked.

Comment: I am satisfied the impact on the residents would be minimal as the proposed lounge window will be just over 20 metres from their bedroom window (the minimum distance is 18 metres for directly facing habitable rooms).

0 Similarly the residents at No. 2 Highland Place are concerned their privacy would be affected, as the proposed house will be located directly opposite their house and may impact negatively on the value of their property.

Comment: I am satisfied the impact on the residents would be minimal as any facing windows on the proposed dwellinghouse will be just over 20 metres from No.2. The potential impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property is not a planning consideration.

0 There is concern over the impact an extra house would make on the drainage system particularly when there have been recent occurrences of surface water flooding and a sewer blockage in Highland Place.

Comment: If approved, the applicant would need to satisfy himself that the development would not affect any public utilities and that all relevant consents had been gained.

0 If planning permission was granted there is concern that further alterations such as dormers, conservatory etc. would further compromise the amenity of the existing neighbouring properties.

Comment: A planning condition could be attached restricting such forms of development if it was felt they could have an unacceptable impact on surrounding neighbours.


4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 planning decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, policy HG3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 is of relevance. It states that new residential development should be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. The site must also comply with the Council's policy on open space for private housing development.

4.2 It is considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area, as the properties in Highland Place and Balmalloch Road are set within substantial sized plots. The house will not integrate well within the surrounding properties, particularly No.5 Highland Place, which will suffer a loss of outlook. Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with the Council's policy on open space for private housing development and it is not clear that required visibility splays can be achieved. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


N/09/00583/FUL

26th May 2009

Mr & Mrs Johnson 37 Waverley Crescent Greenfaulds Cumbernauld G67 4BG

Change of Use of Public Area to Private Garden Ground and Erection of a Fence (in retrospect).

37 Waverley Crescent Greenfaulds Cum bernauld G67 4BG

3 - Cumbernauld South: Councillors Carrigan, Goldie, Homer & McElroy

274875 673391

N/09/00583/F U L

0

0

00/00991/FUL Extension to Dwelling: Granted 16.10.00 08/00061/FUL Extension to a House, Erection of Decking and Conversion of a Garage to a Habitable Room: Granted 05.03.08

The site is covered by policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) in the Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993.

No


Not Required


1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.


Background Papers:


Letter from M Curran, 35 Waverley Crescent, Greenfaulds, Cumbernauld, G67 4BG received 28th May 2009. Letter from M Curran, 35 Waverley Crescent, Greenfaulds, Cumbernauld, G67 4BG received 15'h June 2009 requesting a site visit and hearing.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Jennifer McAllan at 01236 616473.

Date: 22nd June 2009

APPLICATION NO. N1091005831FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.

3.1

3.2

4.

4.1


The application site is the rear garden of 37 Waverley Crescent in an established residential area of Greenfaulds. The application includes the enclosure of an area of amenity grassland, approximately 51 square metres in area, adjacent to the existing rear garden. The site is level and situated adjacent to a public path.

The application is for the change of use from amenity open space to private garden ground and the erection of a fence. The application for the fence is in retrospect as the boundary fence has already been constructed.

Development Plan

The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

In terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1999 the site is covered by housing policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) which: ‘presumes against development which could be detrimental to residential amenity.’

The zoning of the site and policy position is not altered by the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.


No external consultations were required.

1 letter of objection was received. The points of objection are summarised below.

0 The fencing is approximately 2 metres in height and passes in front of the front window of the objector’s property, next to the public path, affecting the view of the green open space area.

Comments: The area of amenity open space which has been purchased extends the length of the garden by approximately 4 metres. It is accepted that this will reduce the view of the open space from the objector’s property, however a mature hedge was previously grown along part of this garden boundary at a similar height or higher than the currently erected fence and it is not felt that the extended area would significantly affect this outlook. Furthermore, the objector’s property does not directly face the open space area, but into Waverley Crescent and the front garden of 37 Waverley Crescent.


In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. With respect to the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1999, the site lies within the established housing area of Greenfaulds. Policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) is of most relevance.

4.2 Other Material Considerations - Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan: It is considered appropriate to regard the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan as a material planning consideration in view of its advanced stage of processing. The site remains zoned for housing, being covered by policy HCFla Residential Amenity which states that there should be a: 'presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas'.

4.3 The enlargement of the garden ground to the side of this property is acceptable and does not look out of place enclosed by the fence. The purchased land is to the west of the applicant's property and is bounded to the south by the public footpath. It is surrounded on other sides by the remaining amenity open space grassed area.

4.4 This application also seeks retrospective permission for the erection of a timber boundary fence around the site which is approximately 1.8 metres in height. The fence design and size is considered to be acceptable. Although the fence to the front of the applicant's property impacts on the view from 35 Waverley Crescent, it is not considered to be significantly different to the previous fence which it replaced along this boundary and is approximately 10 metres from the front windows of 35 Waverly Crescent. In planning terms there is no entitlement to a view, notwithstanding this, the fence as erected is considered to be acceptable in planning terms.

There has been a disagreement between the applicant and objector regarding the claimed height of the boundary fence prior to the new fence being erected. The applicant maintains that the fence is a replacement, at the same height, albeit now including the new purchased land to the rear. The objector has submitted a photo in relation to the claim that the fence surrounding the front garden is now higher however it is unclear how long ago the submitted photo was taken.

4.5

4.6 In conclusion, notwithstanding the points raised by the objector and having taken into account the Development Plan and all material considerations, the application for a change of use from public open space to private garden ground and the erection of a boundary fence is considered to be acceptable. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.7 It should be noted that there has been a request for a site visit and hearing, received from Mr Curran at 35 Waverley Crescent. The reason for the request is to allow the committee to see at first hand the impact the fence has had in reducing the view from this property.

N/09/00586/F U L Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


26th May 2009

Persimmon Homes Ltd 180 Findochty Street Garthamlock Glasgow G33 5EP

Revision to Approved Layout for Plots 19-23 Resulting in 6 Semi-Detached and 2 Detached Dwellings

Area 6/7 (Persimmon Homes) Smithstone Road Smithstone Cum bernauld

2-Cumbernauld North: Councillors Chadha, McCulloch & Murray & O'Brien

272949674898

N/09/00586/FUL

N/05/02082/FUL Construction of 94 Dwellinghouses and Flats. Granted 19 April 2006.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. Policy HG5 (New Housing Opportunities) and HG4 (Retention of Residential Amenity) apply.

No

Two letters of representation received and one petition of objection containing 29 signatures.

Not Required

Recommendation:

1.

Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.


That unless dictated by any other condition of this consent, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:-S.C.6/7-PL-01 REVH, 1281 D/026(V), 1281 D/021 (V), 1281 D/022(V), 0944S/02(V), 0944S/03(V), 0944S/01 O(v), 1388D/021 (V), 1388D/022(V), 1388D/013(V).

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

2.

12,500

3. That before any of the 8 dwellings hereby permitted are occupied, the in curtilage car parking spaces shall be provided within the site, as described on the approved plans and shall, thereafter, be maintained as car parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

That before any of the 8 dwellings hereby permitted are occupied, the in curtilage parking spaces shall be levelled, properly drained and surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing.


That before any of the 8 dwellings hereby permitted are occupied, dropped kerb vehicular accesses shall be constructed in the positions shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the said Roads Authority.

4.

5.

Reason: To achieve an acceptable vehicular access to each dwelling.

That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

6.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

7. That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before the development hereby permitted starts, revised drawings shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Planning Authority that illustrate an upper landing window on the side elevation of plot 104, an upper floor en-suite window on the side elevation of plot 105 and an upper floor window on the west facing elevation of plot 100. Thereafter the dwellings will be constructed in accordance with the approved drawings.

Reason: To achieve natural surveillance on the public footpath between the plots.

8. That BEFORE any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by ClRlA in March 2000.

Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.

That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:-

9.

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area

That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 9 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

10.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.

11. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.


12. That BEFORE any of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted, situated on a site upon which a fence or wall is to be erected, are occupied, the fence, or wall, as approved under the terms of condition 11 above, shall be erected.


Background Papers:


E-mail from Jacqueline Smith, residents of Area 6/7 Smithstone Road received3rd June 2009. Letter from Mr Paul Tonner, 6 Old Tower Road, Smithstone, Cumbernauld, G68 9GE received 3rd June 2009. Petition with 29 signatures from Mr Paul Tonner, 6 Old Tower Road, Smithstone, Cumbernauld, G68 9GE received 8th June 2009.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 6 16464.

23June2009

APPLICATION NO. Nl09l00586lFUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3


This application is for the construction of six semi detached and two detached two storey dwellings with associated in curtilage parking and garden ground on a 2302 (approximate) square metre site that is split by a public footpath at Smithstone, Cumbernauld.

The site lies to the north of Smithstone Road and opposite the site developed by Kier Homes. The site originally formed part of a larger development (N/05/02082/FUL) and has planning permission for 5 detached dwellings. Due to the current economic climate, and the down turn within the housing market, Persimmon has advised that they were forced to re-evaluate the size and scale of the approved house types for this element of the site in order to achieve maximum profit. The remainder of the site is complete or under construction.

Development Plan

The development plan raises no strategic issues so can be assessed against the local plan.

In terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the site is identified for housing opportunities (policy HG5). As the surrounding land use is now established as residential, policy HG4 (Protection of Residential Amenity) applies.

The policy status of the site is unchanged in the Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.


My Traffic and Transportation Team Leader’s comments on this application can be summarised as follows:

“Although the required amount of in curtilage parking has been provided for all the plots, there are concerns with plots I01 to 104 in that 3 vehicles would be side by side and serviced by a 5 metre wide dropped kerb vehicular access which is too narrow. This Section would not give consent for a dropped kerb any wider than 5 metres. This would create problems in reversing out of the site.”

It should be noted that Scottish Water have not been consulted. The original layout was approved by Scottish Water and the site is within an established residential location where there is the availability of drainage connections. A standard planning condition will require the applicant to secure the approval of Scottish Water for a connection to their infrastructure.

Two objection letters and a petition of objection containing 29 signatures have been received. The points of objection to this application can be summarised as follows:

This proposed change to the original layout will dramatically change the view from my property at 6 Old Tower Road. The original layout had one property restricting our view, now it will be two.

Comment: In terms of planning legislation, no one has the right to a view and so it is not a material planning consideration and should not be given any weight in the assessment of this application. It should be noted that no surrounding property directly faces onto the application site.

0 For each semi-detached property, there is one car parking space. Each household in the estate has an average of two parking spaces. This will lead to on street parking that will create a road hazard.

Comment: The proposed driveway dimensions of each semi detached property are such that they could accommodate 2/3 cars. This is acceptable for properties with 3 bedrooms. The Planning Service can ensure that in curtilage parking is provided however it cannot ensure that is used by the owners/occupiers of the property. It should be noted that there are examples of detached properties within the estate with at least 3 bedrooms with only 2 in curtilage spaces.

The introduction of semi-detached properties will change the look and feel of the development.

Comment: The development site already consists of detached properties and flats. The introduction of 6 semi-detached properties is not considered to adversely affect the streetscape and style of the estate. So long as the design and materials of the dwellings reflect and compliment the existing, the new dwellings will harmonise with the overall character of the estate. It should be noted that should this proposal have been put to the Planning Service during the consideration of the original application, it would have been deemed acceptable.

0 Current residents paid a premium price to live in this type of development, the introduction of lower priced homes are aimed at a different market and may affect existing house process.

Commenf: House prices and devaluation of house prices are not material planning considerations. Subject to an acceptable layout, design and materials the principal of housing on this site is acceptable. It could be considered that the introduction of 6 semi-detached dwellings introduces a more diverse and interesting layout.

0 The proposed new homes are in a prominent position within the development which will spoil the overall look.

Comment: 5 detached dwellings were approved as part of the original layout for this site. The proposal results in 5 buildings albeit 3 of these are split into two properties. As such, the proposal is not significantly different from that of the planning permission. The design and indicative finishing materials are considered acceptable and so the proposal is not considered to adversely affect the overall appearance of the estate.

0 The original layout was fairly spacious. The proposal will squeeze 8 properties into an area originally planned for 5.

Comment: The applicant has demonstrated that 2 detached and 6 semi detached properties can be achieved on the site without compromising Council standards in terms of garden sizes, in curtilage parking and space between properties.

The applicant is showing a lack of respect for the planning process and local residents by marketing the site when planning permission has not been obtained.

0

Comment: Planning legislation does not control developers marketing prospective dwellings without planning permission. The marketing of homes without planning permission is common practice in the development industry. Although not a material planning consideration, the case officer has contacted Trading Standards and asked that they investigate this matter.

Persimmon Homes should have an obligation to finish this development in accordance with the original plans, as this is how the development was marketed and sold to the

existing residents. They should not be allowed to change plans to generate higher profit .

Comment: It is not uncommon for developers to apply to amend house types or approved layouts depending on marketing studies. This is acceptable and every application is assessed on its own merits. In this case, the developer is reacting to the current economic climate and redesigning part of the approved layout.


4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 planning decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case policy HG4 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 applies.

4.2 The development layout is acceptable and complies with current Council standards. The design of the houses and finishing materials reflect those of the existing dwellings. Design features are included on the rear elevations providing a more interesting perspective than normal to the rear. This is consistent with the rest of the development.

4.3 A condition has been attached that requires revised drawings from the developer that illustrate an upper floor window on the side elevations of plots 100, 104 and 105. This will provide natural surveillance onto the public footpath and will assist in providing a safer environment.

4.4 My Traffic and Transportation Section has concerns with the parking arrangements for plots 101 to 104 as noted in section 3 above. Notwithstanding this, there are several examples of this arrangement within the estate. It is conceded that a potential element of attractive open space to the front of the properties will be lost to the third parking space however the developer has attempted to address this by demonstrating planting to the front of these plots.

Having considered all the points of objection, the proposal is considered to comply with the development plan and is otherwise acceptable from a planning perspective. The site is within a designated housing estate and has an existing permission for 5 detached dwellings. The development will result in 5 buildings albeit 3 of them will be semi-detached. In terms of appearance, this is not significantly different to the existing planning permission. Should this proposal have been put to the Planning Service as part of the original application, it would have been deemed acceptable. On balance, it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.5

4.6 It should be noted that there has been a request for the Planning and Transportation Committee to visit the site and conduct a hearing thereafter in order to be fully appraised of the site, its surroundings and so the objectors have the opportunity to voice their concerns.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


C/07/01982/OUT

28th December 2007

St Andrews Homes (Scotland) LtdlCroftsone Ltd Clo Agent

GL Hearn 16 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PT

Residential Development and Provision of Local Centre

Land At Avon Avenue Upperton Aird rie North Lanarkshire

007 Airdrie North Morgan

Cllrs Cameron, S Coyle, McGuigan and

280720 671 373

C/PL/LRA945/COLM/G L

Part of the site incorporates the former Longriggend Remand Home (now demolished)

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the 4'h Alteration 2008 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Yes

Scottish Environment Protection Agency Scottish Water (Glasgow) NLC Learning & Leisure Scottish Natural Heritage West Of Scotland Archaeology Service British Gas Scottish Power Central Scotland Forest Trust

Two letters of representation received.

Advertised on 9th January 2008

(Comments) (No Objection) (Comments) (Comments) (No objection) (No objection) (Objection) (No Comment)

Planning Appiication No CM7101 S82/0Uf Residential Development and Provision of Local Centre

*"Le zaw%i%- Land At Avon Avenue, Upperton, Airdrte &$gg"

Motto Scale


1. That the proposed development fails to the meet the following criteria within Strategic Policy 9 of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Forth Alteration 2008 :

SP9 A(ii), as the proposed development is considered to be a significant greenfield housing development of 10 or more units at a site outwith community growth areas identified in Strategic Policy l c and is not included as an additional housing requirement identified in Schedule G(b)(ii);

SPSB(ii)a,(v),(vi) as the site includes the development of greenfield land in the wider countryside and does not promote sustainable transport aims;

SP9B(iv) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that appropriate safeguards could be introduced to safeguard the seasonal migrant populations of Taiga bean geese species and habitats, which are the qualifying interests at the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area (SPA), which are important strategic environmental resources listed in Schedule 7(a) Ecological Resources.

SP9C(ii) as it is unlikely that appropriate transport facilities could be provided and maintained that would minimise the dependency on the private car to access the development site.

Accordingly, the development is contrary to the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating Fourth Alteration 2008. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development is an appropriate departure from the plan as set out within Strategic Policy 10.

2. That the proposed development is contrary to the terms of following policies of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991:

GB2 (Restrict Development in Countryside around Towns) as there would be no significant long term economic benefits and no specific locational need for this scale of housing development in this rural area;

LI 112 (Good Quality Landscape) that due to the large scale and density of the proposed development on rural upland area, there is no reasonable or acceptable scope to minimise its significant negative impact on the visual character and amenity of the wider area

HG2 (Private Sector Residential Development) as the proposals involve the development of agricultural land:

HG10 (Residential Development outwith Residential Areas) as the proposed development is outwith existing residential areas as defined under policy HG9, and is not an identified housing site or considered to be a minor development in a Secondary Core Area, General Urban Area, or small development site identified in Appendix 12 and is not justified under the terms of GB2.

NAT 2 (Protect “Key” Nature Conservation Sites) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that appropriate safeguards could be introduced to safeguard the seasonal migrant populations of Taiga bean geese species which are the qualifying interests of the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Areas (SPA).

3. That the proposed development is contrary to following policies of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan:

NBE 3 B (Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area) as the proposed development extends beyond the revised settlement boundary for Upperton and as such significantly exceeds the amount of residential development intended for Upperton in the draft plan;

DSP 1 (Amount of Development) as the scale of the proposed development is contrary to the Structure Plan policies and cannot be justified against the criteria of SPIO;

DSP 2 (Location of Development) as the location of the development site is not consistent with the following policy criteria:

0 B1 (Urban Regeneration) as the development involves land that is not brownfield land and would require additional infrastructure and services;

0 84 (Accessibility) as the development does not support the hierarchy of walking/cycling/public transport/private transport;

0 85 (Community) as the proposals do not necessarily secure an appropriate combination of services and infrastructure that would improve community facilities at Upperton.

DSP 3 (Impact of Development) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that appropriate safeguards could be introduced to safeguard the seasonal migrant populations of Taiga bean geese species which are the qualifying interests of the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Areas (SPA).

4. That insufficient information has been provided to justify the conclusion of the submitted document “Appropriate Assessment - Proposed Mixed Use Development on Land at Upperton, North Lanarkshire (December 2008)” that there would be negligible disturbance to the nationally important population of migratory Taiga bean geese which are considered by SNH to be the qualifying interests of the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area (SPA) as a result of the development, construction of the development or by accumulative impacts.

NOTE TO COMMITTEE

1. Section 75 Agreement: Should Committee be minded to grant planning permission, it should be noted that in addition to any planning conditions, there would be a need to conclude a Section 75 Agreement in respect of the following matters:

0 A revised Appropriate Assessment with mitigation measures agreed with SNH and North Lanarkshire Council to ensure there would be negligible disturbance to the nearby nationally important population of migratory Taiga bean geese.

Development Phasing Plan linked to the provision of the intended infrastructure improvements, off-site roadlfootpathlcyclepath upgrading works, financial contributions for education facilities and improvements to public transport facilities.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11 th December 2007

Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 15th February 2008, and 22nd June 2008 Letter from Scottish Water (Glasgow) received 4th February 2008 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 1 7'h April, 5'h September, 1 Oth September 2008 and 3rd April and 18'h June 2009 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 24th January 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 4th February 2008 Letter from British Gas received 1st February 2008 Letter from Scottish Power received 22nd January 2008 Letter from Central Scotland Forest Trust received 5th February 2008

Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader 20 March 2009 Memo from Countryside and Landscape Manager received 18th March 2009 Memo from Transportation received 7th April, 1 gth May 2009 Memo from Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 15th January 2008 Memo from NLC Learning and Leisure received 5th March 2009

E-mail from Councillor Sophia Coyle, Ward 7 - Airdrie North, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, MLI IAB received 18th June 2009. Letter from D. Berry, Avonhead Cottage, Longriggend, Airdrie, ML6 7TT received 31st December 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the 4'h Alteration 2008 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B 8, C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Marshall at 01236 812376.

Date: 26 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. C10710198210UT

REPORT

1.

1.1


Planning permission is being sought in outline for a mixed use residentiakommercial development that would comprise of 241 housing units, 6 commercial/public units, 1 independent commercial unit and associated roads and public open space areas on land at Upperton, near Airdrie.

Upperton is situated in a fairly remote rural area some 6 km north-east of Airdrie and 6 km south east of Cumbernauld. Greengairs village is located 1.5 km to the west and Longriggend village is some 1.5 km to the south east. The existing settlement consists of a mix of 80 houses/flats previously constructed in the 1960’s by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the purpose of providing residential accommodation for prison wardens and other staff at the Remand Centre. It is understood that all or most properties have been bought under the ‘right to buy’ scheme. Following the closure of the Remand Centre, all of the properties including prison site now share responsibility for the existing infrastructure including roads, footpaths and street lighting. The SPS agreed separately to upgrade the sewage works and whilst these are now adopted by Scottish Water any further developments would require further upgrading works to the requirements of Scottish Water.

1.2

1.3 The outline application site extends in total to some 21 hectares (51.8 acres) and incorporates the existing residential settlement, the site of the former Remand Centre (demolished in 2007), the existing sewage works and a large area of undeveloped agricultural land (12.7 hectares) that extends northwards from Upperton to the B803 Greengairs to Slamannan Road (Refer to location plan). The existing settlement has been included within the site area as the proposals are to include improvement works to the existing roads/footpath/streetlighting infrastructure that may allow the Council to adopt these for future maintenance purposes. The proposals (at this stage) do not involve the development of all of the agricultural land to the north, as the submitted indicative layout plan shows that the proposed housing development would extend only as far as the Sheilhill Burn which traverses this large area of grazing land. It should be noted however that the outline application site boundary includes the land further to the north of the burn.

1.4 The proposals are accompanied by supporting documents including the following:-

Indicative Masterplan ( November 2008) Flood Risk Statement (January 2009) SUDS and Drainage Strategy (January 2009) Transport Assessment (March 2009) Otter and Watervole Report (November 2008) Financial Appraisal Report (February 2009) Appropriate Assessment. (December 2008) Planning Statement. (May 2009) Community Consultation, Upperton Village (March 2009)

1.5 The Planning Statement includes a summary of findings that the developer considers is particular to the Upperton Settlement and that the scale of the proposed development may be justified for the following reasons.

“The case of Upperton is somewhat unique and the circumstances following the closure of the former Longriggend Remand Centre have led to Upperton becoming one of North Lanarkshire’s most disadvantaged communities with the settlement suffering from a lack of basic infrastructure and severe social exclusion”. “The adopted Local Plan pre-dates the closure of the former remand centre and it does not acknowledge Upperton as an existing settlement. However, notwithstanding the age of the adopted local plan and the fact that its framework does not acknowledge the issues experienced by Upperton, its policies do offer support for development at Upperton provided there is a specific locational need.” “There can be no doubt that there is a very specific locational need for enabling development to take place at Upperton and this is recognised by the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Plan and by North Lanarkshire Council” “It is acknowledged that the Council are preparing a new Local Plan for the Council area, which acknowledges the requirement for enabling development at Upperton to deliver regeneration benefits. While the plan preparation process remains ongoing, the unique nature of the case at Upperton is such that the proposed development can be determined outwith this process”. “During our discussions with officers at North Lanarkshire there has been debate concerning the scale of enabling development required at Upperton and St Andrews Homes have demonstrated the critical mass required to facilitate the delivery of tangible regeneration benefits in Upperton. Developing the former remand centre site alone is not economically viable and the proposed development necessitates the redevelopment of the former remand centre site together with a limited amount of additional land which lies immediately adjacent to the existing settlement”. “The application proposal as expressed on the indicative masterplan presents a development which will deliver infrastructure improvements and other associated benefits which will allow for Upperton to become a much more sustainable and successful community. In this respect, it is evident that the submitted application represents a valuable opportunity for Upperton and for North Lanarkshire and it has been demonstrated that the proposal can be viewed positively when considered against the relevant development plan policies and key material considerations”.

0

1.6 The developer advised that a meeting was previously arranged with local residents on 6‘h March 2008 and included a summary of the feedback expressed by 45 local residents who attended the meeting. The developer provided a summarised a list of expectations raised by residents and as follows:

A gas supply was needed in Upperton Views of the Campsie Hills to the north should not be obstructed The new development should link with the existing houses particularly at the flats Increased traffic levels were a concern The future ownership of lock up garages were a concern The village should have a centre which should include a community hall, shop and cafe. The local centre should not form a focus for anti-social behaviour. A re-cycling area should be provided along with an area for growing vegetables. Open space areas should include a football pitch and equipped play area for children. Improved public transport links are needed 90% of attendees expressed their support for the proposals.

1.7 Background: As noted above the existing houses and flats at Upperton were originally developed by the Scottish Prison Services (SPS), and were used as accommodation facilities for wardens and other employees in association with the Remand Centre. The roads, lighting and other utilities and infrastructure including the sewage works were also provided and solely maintained by the SPS. Following closure of the Remand Centre, all of the SPS properties including the Remand Centre were transferred into private ownership and this led to the infrastructure falling into a poor state of repair. The sewage works have recently been adopted by Scottish Water following upgrading works funded by SPS however other infrastructure remains in joint private ownership.

1.8 It is clear the Upperton residents have inherited a burdensome responsibility for the sub- standard infrastructure and it is acknowledged that some level of redevelopment at the Remand Centre may enable this aspect to be improved if the required upgrading works were undertaken to adoptable standards. There has been a series of pre-application and pre-assessment discussions with the developers over what scale of development would be appropriate to enable at least the basic infrastructure problems to be addressed. One of the main issues related to the lack of policy support for such a development under the current development plan but it was noted that the emerging local plan may offer support for some additional development at Upperton. It was stressed that the scale of release of land at Upperton and the numbers of houses (achieved) needed to reflect the regeneration benefits and be fully justified. The developer provided additional information to support the application however it became apparent that the scale of the development far exceeded that initially envisaged and the developers were offered an opportunity to reduce the scale to be more in keeping with emerging planning policy. However this was rejected and the applicant seeks a final deliberation on the current proposals.

2. DeveloPment Plan

2.1 The development plan is represented by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 incorporating Fourth Alteration 2008 and the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996. This application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of both the Structure Plan and Local Plans for the area.

2.2 Under the terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Forth Alteration 2008 the proposed development would be considered as a greenfield housing development of 10 or more units that would be located outwith community growth areas identified in Strategic Policy I c and the additional housing requirements identified in Schedule 6(b) (ii), and it is of a scale of development likely to be significant. Accordingly, the proposal must be assessed against Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals). If found to be contrary to the plan, further opportunity to demonstrate its acceptability is found within Strategic Policy I 0 (Departures from the Structure Plan).

2.3 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the proposed development would need to be considered under the terms of the following policies:

0

0

0

0

GB2 Restrict Development in Countryside around Towns LI 112 Landscape Improvement-Good Quality Landscape HG2 Private Sector Residential Development HGIO Residential Development outwith Residential Areas NAT 2 (Protect “Key” Nature Conservation Sites

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1

3.2

NLC Transportation Section objected to the proposals as the submitted Transportation Assessment (TA) was unable to demonstrate that the proposals could be considered as a sustainable development under the terms of the Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 17 Planning for Transport. In particular the TA has been unable to demonstrate that the development is capable of providing useable commuter links to existing walking and cycling networks or that the site is well served by public transport. The development of an additional 241 dwellinghouses at this remote location is therefore likely to encourage further dependence on the private car and as such the proposals do not meet the aims of SPP 17.

More specifically the Transportation Section considered that the proposed group of shops would not offer a range of goods or facilities that could effectively reduce the need to travel out with the site by private car (as suggested in the TA). The surrounding rural road network is unsuitable for the development of pedestrian and cycling facilities that could be utilised for commuting purposes. The site is not well served by public transport (there is no current bus service to either Cumbernauld via the A73 or to the east) and any improvement to the current service is unlikely to be met by developer contributions (as noted in the TA). It was considered that in order for a development to be considered as being well served by a bus service (and therefore sustainable under the terms of SPP17) a robust and established network should already exist. It was not agreed that a bus service could be improved via developer contributions as any such support subsidy would need to be made in perpetuity to the relevant bus operator and not to the Council as suggested in the TA and it is noted there is no mechanism to assure this over the long term.

3.3 In addition the Transportation Section considered that the indicative layout plan needed significant amendments to provide acceptable junction visibility splays at the site and at the B803, a replacement bus turning area, and roundabouts required to be provided at primary site access points rather than T junctions. The existing private road network also requires to be upgraded to adoptable standards. There were number of other improvements required to the indicative road layout that would require to be addressed at any detailed planning stage in the interests of road safety.

3.4 NLC Protective Services had no objection subject to condition requiring the submission of a site investigation survey.

NLC Learning and Leisure (Play Services) had no objection but recommended that due to the size of the development a minimum play space of 6000 square metres with at least 2000 square metres of equipped play space would be required to the appropriate design standards.

NLC Learning and Leisure (Education) had no objection provided an appropriate financial contribution was made by the developer to meet the additional demands on current education facilities. This would involve a developer contribution to provide additional classrooms to schools at Plains and Caldercruix.

3.5

3.6

3.7 NLC Biodiversity Section (formerly Conservation and Greening) had no objection subject to conditions requiring more biodiversity of planthee species in any detailed landscaping plan, compensatory native woodland planting, restrictions in the routes taken by construction vehicleskontrols over construction noise, appointment of Ecological Clerk of Works. However additional information on suitable mitigation measures to protect the migratory bean geese was needed in the Appropriate Assessment. The Landscape Section noted the proposals may have a significant visual impact on an upland rural area, where it would be important to consider appropriate landscape proposals to minimise its impact.

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.1 1

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.15

4.

4.1

4.2

SNH advised that insufficient information had been included within the submitted Appropriate Assessment - Proposed Mixed Use Development on Land at Upperton, North Lanarkshire (December 2008)” (which examined impacts on ecological resources such as SSSI/SPA and migrant Bean Geese Populations). SNH could not support the conclusion of the Assessment that there would be negligible disturbance to the nationally important population of migratory Taiga bean geese as a result of the development. SNH advised the report was not conclusive or robust enough to reach this particular conclusion and that further information would be required by North Lanarkshire Council as the competent authority to allow an appropriate assessment of the levels of potential disturbance during construction, operation and occupancy of the development and other potential cumulative impacts from other sources or development.

On other matters, SNH had no objection to the otter and water vole study and as the proposals are in outline, SNH could not consider fully the likely landscape and visual impacts of the proposal at this time but advised that any future development should address matters such as siting, landscape setting, materials and characteristics of local design and the surrounding area, all in accordance with SPP3 Planning and Housing.

Scottish Water had no objections

SEPA had no objections subject to the developer demonstrating that appropriate foul water drainage facilities could be provided with the agreement of Scottish Water. This would require further upgrading works to the existing Sewage Works that serves the area.

Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSFT) had no comments.

Scottish Gas Networks had no objections

West of Scotland Archaeology Services had no objections subject to condition requiring a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been agreed with the Planning Authority.

Scottish Power objected to proposals as there was no information available to determine if their apparatus would be affected.

Two letters of representations were received in regards to the proposals. One letter raised an objection to the proposal as it would be contrary to the terms of the development plan. A further representation from Cllr S Coyle considered the proposals offered the only means by which the problems at Upperton may be resolved and that the community are supportive of the proposals. A public site visit was also requested by Cllr S Coyle.

Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application raises both strategic and local issues and therefore requires to be assessed against both the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating Fourth Alteration 2008 and the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996.

STRUCTURE PLAN

The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating Fourth Alteration 2008 is the relevant structure plan which forms part of the development plan. The relevant Development Management policy is Strategic Policy 9: ‘Assessment of Development Proposals’. Failure to comply with any criteria results in the development being contrary to the Structure Plan. However, further opportunity to demonstrate a development’s appropriateness is afforded by Strategic Policy 10 ‘Departures from the Structure Plan’.

4.3 Under the terms of the Structure Plan the proposed development represents a greenfield housing development of 10 or more units that would be located out with the community growth areas identified in Strategic Policy 1 c and also out with the additional housing requirements identified in Schedule 6(b) (ii) (Effective Housing Land Supply and Additions to the Supply), and it is of a scale of development likely to be significant. It is considered the proposals are therefore in conflict with the structure plan in relation to SP9 A(ii), as this site is outwith the locations identified in Schedule 6(b)(ii). The location of the proposed development is also considered contrary to the terms of SPSB(ii)a,(v),(vi) as the site includes the development of greenfield land in the wider countryside and does not promote sustainable transport aims. The proposals are contrary to the terms of SPSB(iv) as it has not been adequately demonstrated that appropriate safeguards could be introduced to safeguard the seasonal migrant populations of Taiga bean geese species and habitats at the Slamannan Plateau SSSI and SPA, which are important strategic environmental resources listed in Schedule 7(a) Ecological Resources. The proposals are also considered contrary to the terms of SPSC(ii) as despite the claims made in the accompanying TA it is unlikely that appropriate transport facilities could be provided and maintained that would minimise the dependency on the private car to access the development site.

4.4 The proposals now require to be considered under SPlO to determine if the proposals could be considered as an acceptable departure in terms of need and benefit. In this regard the proposals would require support, most notably under SPlO A(ii) and (v) or SPlOB(i)(ii) or (iii). In terms of need there is no clear shortfall in the existing or planned supply of housing development within the appropriate Market Area as noted in Schedule 6(b)(ii). There is also no specific locational need for a housing development of this scale in this area. Therefore it is considered that this particular proposal cannot be justified under SPlO A (ii) or (v). Turning to appropriate benefit criteria of SPlOB it can be noted that beyond some temporary construction employment associated with a housing development of this scale, there would be no long term economic benefit through the creation of a significant number of net additional permanent jobs to the immediate or outlying rural area. Under SPlOB (ii)(a) the proposals would not assist in the rural regeneration of the Priority Areas identified in Schedule 1 (b)(d). The indicative proposals suggest that some community facilities would be provided as part of the proposals, however it cannot be guaranteed that such facilities could be sustainable or managed effectively over the long term and this aspect does not overcome previous concerns over the scale of the housing development in this remote rural area. As such the proposals cannot be justified under SPSB(ii)(b). The proposals would not provide any significant environmental benefits under the criteria noted under SPlOB(iii)a, b or c. In particular and as noted in paragraph 4.3 above, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposals could include appropriate measures to protect and enhance the Slamannan SSSI, SPA and nationally important migrant bean geese populations. Other supporting documents ie the SUDS and Drainage Strategy suggest that appropriate mitigation measures could be introduced to minimise or neutralise the impacts on water quality and the proposals may offer some environmental benefit through the improvement of the part of the site (i.e. by building on the former remand home site) however this aspect cannot overcome the inappropriate scale of the proposed development and possible impact on the Slamannan SSSI, SPA and bean geese. It can therefore be concluded that the proposals are contrary to the terms of SP9 and cannot be justified to any significant degree to allow an acceptable departure under SPIO criteria as noted.

LOCAL PLAN

4.5 The proposals also require to be assessed under the terms of the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991 as noted above. The proposed site falls within an area covered by policy GB2 Restrict Development in Countryside Around Towns which acknowledges that whilst policy guidance discourages sporadic and isolated development, rural areas do require developments that will bring economic life and vigour to rural areas. However notwithstanding this, proposals need to be justified under the following criteria:

0

0

0

Economic Benefit: There would be no significant number of net additional permanent jobs to the area that may otherwise justify the scale of the housing proposals. Specific Locational Need: There is no specific locational need for a housing development at this scale in this remote rural area. The proposals would require the provision of new infrastructure in terms of additional roads and drainage works and improvements to the existing infrastructure require to be upgraded. There proposals may have a detrimental impact on the environment in terms of the protected bean geese that use the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area as a over-wintering feeding ground.

0

It can be concluded that the proposals are contrary to the terms of GB2.

4.6 The site is also located in an area covered by policy LI 1/2 (Good Quality Landscape) which sets out to protect good quality landscape from development. Where such developments are acceptable in principle under other policy considerations, such proposals may be used to promote additional landscape works to improve areas of poor quality. In this regard it is noted that NLC Landscape Services noted the development site would be visually intrusive in this predominantly rural upland location. SNH also noted that the proposals may have the potential to create negative impacts on the surrounding sensitive areas and protected species. It was suggested that such circumstances may be avoided provided any approved layout was of a good quality and incorporated an appropriate grouping and integration of buildings with appropriate open spaces and robust landscape scheme. SNH suggested they may comment further at any detailed stage however from consideration of the developer’s indicative Masterplan, it is my view the proposals do not address such landscape integration measures. Moreover due to its overall scale, (241 units) a.nd rural upland location, this high density development would have a detrimental impact on the existing rural landscape character and as such may be considered contrary to policy LI 1/2.

Policy HG2 (Private Sector Residential Development) sets out that private sector residential development should be geared towards infill and redevelopment sites within existing urban areas with the aim of protecting agricultural and greenbelt land. The proposals would in part involve the development of agricultural land and as such be considered contrary to this policy.

Policy HG 10 sets out the local plan position for residential development outwith residential areas and states that new build residential development will not be permitted outwith existing residential areas as defined under policy HG9, unless it is within an identified housing site or is a minor development in a Secondary Core Area, General Urban Area, small development site identified in Appendix 12 or is justified under the terms of GB2. As noted above the proposals are not justified under GB2 and therefore do not accord with HG10.

4.7

4.8

4.9 Policy NAT 2 sets out to protect the nature conservation value of “key” conservation sites and the Council would seek appropriate advice from nature conservation bodies. In this regard SNH have raised concerns over the proposal’s impact on the migrant populations of bean geese which are the qualifying interests of the strategically important Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area (SPA). As such it is considered the proposals are contrary to the terms of NAT 2.

Given consideration of the above policies the proposals are also considered contrary to the terms of policies GB2, LI 1/2, HG2 and HGlO of the current local plan.

MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.10 As noted above planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.10 The terms of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (FDNNLP) 2008 needs to be considered as this document offers advice on the Council’s emerging policies for development and once adopted would replace the current local plan.

4.1 1 The FDNLLP offers some potential for a limited amount of development as it includes a revised settlement boundary for the Upperton settlement. However this only allows for the development of the former Remand Centre and perhaps some vacant gap sites located within the settlement. The outline application site includes the existing housing area, the former Remand Centre land and additional rural land extending north to the B803, which is designated as Rural Investment Area. In this respect, final draft policy NBE 3 B does not support the scale of residential development proposed as this effectively amounts to more than double that intended by the Council in the finalised draft plan. The main concern is that this scale of development may result in an even greater unsustainable volume of residents in a remote rural area and thus increase reliance on private transport to access basic community facilities as it is further considered that the notional community aspirations cannot be guaranteed.

The proposals would also need to be assessed against policies DSP 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the FDNNLP as follows.

4.12

DSP 1 (Amount of Development) sets out that any proposed development that does not form part of the Established Housing Land Supply 2008 and that cannot be justified by demand assessment are Development Plan departures and require to be justified in terms of both need and benefit under Structure Plan Strategic Policy 10. As noted above the proposals are considered not to be in accordance with SP9 and are not justified as an acceptable departure under SP10. Therefore the proposals are considered an over-development under the terms of DSPI (Amount of Development) in the FDNLLP.

0 DSP 2 (Location of Development) sets out that planning permission for new developments may only be granted if they are consistent with the policy’s locational criteria. In this respect the proposed development does not meet the criteria on the following basis.

B1. (Urban Regeneration) - The proposed development does not use brownfield land and/or existing infrastructure and services. It involves a significant new housing development in a rural area requiring additional infrastructure and services.

84. (Accessibility) - The proposed development does not support the hierarchy of walking/cycling/public transportlprivate transport. The proposals would result in additional reliance on the private car due to its remote rural location. It can be noted the Transportation Section disagreed with the information presented in the submitted TA that the proposals would be considered as a sustainable development under Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 17 Planning for Transport.

85. (Community) - The revised Planning Statement (May 2009) states that an economic appraisal has ... . ‘identified the scale of development (241 units) required at Upperton in order to deliver meaningful regeneration and establish a sustainable community’ (Para 5.5) However, it is considered that any sustainable community requires a substantially more complex combination of services and infrastructure that cannot be guaranteed by the basic provision of enhanced roads and street lighting, shops and a commercial unit which according to the planning statement ‘...could be used for a variety of purposes, including a community centre.’ As such the supporting information does not demonstrate that a commensurate increase in benefits to the community would be justified by the increased scale of development proposed. For example the increased amount of development does not guarantee that a community centre, increased public transport services, local school facilities or local employment opportunities would be realised or guaranteed though this proposal.

DSP 3 - (Impact of Development) - sets out that development proposals outwith any requirements for Traffic, Retail or Environmental Impact Assessments, require assessment in terms of their impact on the economic, social or environmental infrastructure of the community. As stated above, there is concern that insufficient justification has been provided that demonstrates how this proposal will improve these aspects in a sustainable manner. As noted above SNH have raised concerns over the proposal’s impact on the migrant populations of bean geese which are the qualifying interests of the strategically important Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area (SPA). In this aspect it can be advised that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the impact of the development would be acceptable.

DSP 4 Quality of Development - developments will only be permitted where high standards of site planning sustainable design are achieved. It is accepted the proposals are at this stage in outline and such matters may be addressed at any reserved matters stage provided the outline proposals are acceptable. Such consideration would also need to comply with supplementary guidance, which has yet to be published by the Council.

0

4.13 In concluding an assessment against the terms of the above policies, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2008.

CONSULTATIONS

4.14 The Transportation Section considered that the Transportation Assessment has not provided sufficient justification to establish that the proposed development could be considered as a sustainable development under SPP 17 and that a development of this scale would be dependant private car ownership. This advice would strengthen the above policy considerations that the proposed development would not accord with the current development plan and FDNLLP. It is accepted that issues relating to the layout design i.e. visibility splays etc, could be resolved at any reserved matters stage, however such consideration would not overcome the view the proposed scale of development is not sustainable in transportation terms.

4.15 There was no objection from NLC Protective Services, Learning and Leisure Play Services, Education, provided appropriate conditions or legal agreements were included. However Conservation and Greening would require further stringent measures to ensure there would be no impact on the protected bean geese species and their habitatlroosts. Landscape Services noted that the site is located on an upland rural area, which is fairly prominent and would require a quality landscaping proposals to minimise its impact. In this regard it is considered that due to the proposed scale and density of the proposals, particularly where the development would encroach onto agricultural land that it would be difficult to adequately landscape the site to enhance its setting in accordance with LI 1/2.

4.16 SNH advised that insufficient information was provided in the submitted Appropriate Assessment, and could not agree with the conclusion that there would be no negligible disturbance to the nationally important population of migratory Taiga bean geese as a result of the development. SNH advised that further information would be required to be submitted to the Council before it would be in a position to consider that such impacts would be acceptable. This is a significant consideration in determining the planning application as the Council as the competent authority must have regard to any representations made by SNH and would be expected to follow such advice. SNH do not fully support the planning application in this regard.

SNH also had some concerns over the visual impact of the development on this rural area and suggested a suitable landscaping plan be included with any detailed application.

4.17 Scottish Water and SEPA had no significant concerns with the proposed drainage site arrangements.

4.18 There were no objections from Scottish Gas as there are no domestic gas supply pipes in the area. Scottish Power objected, however it is considered this objection may be removed provided they are made aware of any detailed proposals.

4.19 CSFT had no comments and WoSAS comments could be covered by a condition.

REPRESENTATIONS

4.20 One letter of objection was received the basis that the proposals are contrary to the development plan.

As noted in this assessment, the proposals are considered contrary to the development plan and to the FDNNLP. As such this objection can be sustained.

One letter of support was received from Cllr S Coyle who considered that the current proposals represent the only opportunity to improve facilities at Upperton and as such should be supported by the Council.

4.21

It is not agreed that this proposal represents the only opportunity to achieve improvements at Upperton. Whilst the current local plan offers very limited policy support, the FDNLLP offers some potential for a limited amount of development through the introduction of a new settlement boundary that includes the former Remand Centre site. This site offers a development opportunity that would be supported in principle by the new local plan. Whilst it is noted that the Upperton settlement has limited facilities and that the existing roads, footpaths and lighting need to be upgraded to adoptable standards, it is considered that a much reduced development scheme may still achieve appropriate improvements provided any such scheme accords with the FDNLLP newly designated settlement boundary. In the course of my consideration of the planning application, the developer was given an opportunity to consider a reduction in the scale of the proposed development, to be more in keeping with the new settlement designation of the FDNLLP, however this opportunity was rejected on the basis that a reduced scheme would not allow the developer to provide upgrades to the sub-standard roads, pavements and lighting, or provide the shopskommunity unit and open space areas desired by the local residents and would moreover be financially unviable as highlighted in the submitted Economic Appraisal. This Appraisal document includes a list of development costs but was produced by the applicant’s agent and has not been independently verified or endorsed by a recognised Bank or Financial Services Company. Significantly it does not include written verification of the suggested site acquisition costs that the developer claims to have pre-application agreements with the respective landowners. It is noted from the Economic Appraisal document that the site acquisition costs listed as €3.9 million for the prison site and € 9.9m for the entire site, which may be considered unrealistically high given the site’s location and development constraints. It is suggested the Financial Appraisal should be treated with some caution in terms of its content and in my view cannot be used to justify the full scale of the proposals and overcome existing and emerging policy considerations.

CONCLUSION

4.22 Pre-assessment discussions with the developer highlighted that the scale of land release at Upperton was a very important issue particularly as there is very limited policy support and that the residential unit numbers (achieved) need to reflect the regeneration benefits. The proposals claim that that a proposed development of 241 additional houses is required to enable the provision of infrastructure improvements, shopskommunity hall, open space areas and that this scale of development would trigger improvements to the current public transport provision. As discussed above the proposed scale of the development is of a strategic significance and is contrary not only to the current structure plan and development plan but also to the emerging policy of the finalised draft local plan. The supporting appraisals can be noted however the accuracy of some of the costings must be treated with caution and overall it is not accepted that the proposed release of additional land (beyond that supported in the FDNNLP) for housing purposes is neither justified or appropriate measured against these regeneration benefits.

In terms of the development plan it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the Structure Plan, Monklands District Local Plan and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The proposed scale of development far exceeds that which may otherwise have been considered as an acceptable departure when weighed up against the benefits of the proposal against the FDNLLP, which offered some material support provided the scheme was reduced in scale.

4.22

4.23 The proposals cannot be considered to be a sustainable development under the terms of SPP17 as the development would be dependent on private cars and due to the site’s remote location other more sustainable means of accessing the site would be difficult to provide and maintain. The proposals are considered to be contrary to SPP17.

4.24 It is considered the proposals would result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of this rural area due to its site’s location on a rural upland. Due to the northern slope of the part of the site, there would be little scope through the submission of a landscape plan to minimise the impact of this dense housing layout, where the indicative street layout is considered to be urban in nature and does not reflect the rural characteristics of the surrounding area. The proposals therefore do not accord with the aims of policy LI 1/2.

The comments raised by SNH in respect of the submitted Appropriate Assessment document are significant as they did not support the conclusion that there would be negligible impacts on the migratory bean geese that populate the Slamannan Plateau Special Protection Area. (SPA). The Council as competent authority are obliged to accord with Regulations 48 and 49 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 and undertake its own appropriate assessment in agreement with SNH. Whilst SNH note that suitable mitigations measures may be identified and agreed, it is considered that it would not be appropriate for the Council to support the proposals without the full support of SNH on this issue.

Taking all of these considerations into account it can be concluded that the proposed development is not acceptable and it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons noted.

4.25

4.26

4.26 Finally, it should be noted that Cllr S Coyle has requested that the Committee consider a site visit to ascertain the requirements for the regeneration of this area and that the applicant has requested a site visit and hearing in order to explain the rationale for the development, to advise the committee of discussions with local residents and their representatives and to advise the committee of the regeneration benefits.

C/09/00502/OUT Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

7th May 2009

Mr W McAllister Whinrigg Farm Stirling Road Riggend Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7SS

Erection of Dwellinghouse (In Outline)

Whinrigg Farm Stirling Road Riggend Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7SS 07 Airdrie North & Morgan

Councillors Cameron, Sophia Coyle, McGuigan

276445670700

C/PL/RGS7285012000/1 J/GL

95/05389/COU Stirling road, Riggend Use of Land for Storage of 44 Touring Caravans (unoccupied) Granted Nov. 1995 98/01 1 06/FUL First Floor Extension to Kennel Administration Block to form Flatted Dwellinghouse Granted Nov. 2000 05/00073/FUL Change of Use to Caravan Storage Area (In Retrospect) Granted April 2005 05/00673/OUT Erection of Dwellinghouse in Connection with Existing Caravan Storage Area Refused July 2005 07/00083/FUL Formation of Extension to Caravan Storage Area and Improvement to Existing Access Granted Aug. 2007 09/00503/FUL New Access Road to Arcadia Pet Hotel from Old B8039, Stirling Road Pending

Development Plan: Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating Fourth Alteration 2008 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Consultations: Scottish Power No objections

Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objections Scottish Water No objections British Gas No objections

Representations: 1 letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 27th May 2009

P La c

C c

._

s"


1, That the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to the development plan in that it does not accord with policy GBI (Restrict Development in the Green Belt) in the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 as it is not a use in connection with agriculture or forestry and the applicant has failed to demonstrate a specific locational need.

That the development is contrary to the aims of The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Fourth Alteration 2008 and is unacceptable departure as it fails to meet the criteria B(ii): Safeguarding the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt and B(v): Avoid isolated and sporadic development in the Green Belt and wider countryside of Strategic Policy 9.

2.

3. That the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to the terms of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009 in that it does not accord with policy ENV 6 (Assessing Development in the Green Belt) as it is not a use in connection with agriculture or forestry, does not provide facilities for outdoor recreation, and does not demonstrate a specific locational need.

Background Papers:


Letter from Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 3rd June 2009 Letter from Scottish Power received 8th June 2009

Letter from Gerry Gillougley, Breckenridge House, Stirling Road, Riggend, received gth May 2009.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Fourth Alteration 2009 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

APPLICATION NO. C/09/00502/0UT

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

DescriPtion of Site and ProPosal

The application site forms part of the former farmyard area of 1 ., ,inrigg Farm (now Breckenridge House), Stirling Road, Riggend. The application site is currently laid out as a caravan storage area as a result of previous planning permissions. The site is located within a predominantly rural area and is bounded to the west by the A73 Dual Carriageway, to the south and east by the 88033 Stirling Road, and to the north by open fields (currently being laid out as an extension to the caravan storage area as a result of a separate planning permission C/07/00083/FUL).

Being in outline, no details have been submitted at this stage in respect of potential house type, site layout etc. as these matters would be considered as part of a reserved matters submission should this present application be considered favourably. The only known factor is that vehicular access into the site to serve any dwellinghouse will most probably be taken from the existing access point on the B8033 that currently serves the caravan storage area.

DeveloPment Plan

The relevant development plan is the Approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Fourth Alteration 2008 and the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991.

Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Fourth Alteration 2008 requires the continued safeguarding of the Greenbelt and presumes against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside.

The site is located within an area designated as GBI (Restrict Development in the Green Belt) in the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991. Policy HGI 0 (Residential Development outwith Residential Areas) is also of relevance.

Scottish Planning Policy 21 (Green Belts) is also of relevance for this application.


Following the standard neighbour notification procedures one letter of objection was received. The only relevant point of objection raised is in respect of the lack of details provided on the type, size or positioning within the site of any proposed dwelling. Reference is also made to the lack of any treelshrub screen planting, lack of improvements to visibility splays on Stirling Road and unauthorised storage of boats, cars, motor homes etc. These matters relate specifically to the caravan storage operations and the relevant previous planning permissions granted for that use.

None of the statutory consultees offered any objections to this proposal.

While the Transportation Section has not responded on this proposal they have previously offered no objection to previous planning applications relating to the storage of static caravans on this same site. NLC Community Services is of the view that the proposal will not pose any adverse effect on the visual quality of the surrounding landscape.

4.

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

Planning Assessment and Conclusions

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the proposed site is located within the Green Belt and relevant planning policies in both the Structure Plan and Local Plan presume against new housing unless justification can be provided.

Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Incorporating the Fourth Alteration 2008 requires the continued safeguarding of the Greenbelt and presumes against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside. The relevant Development Management policy is Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals). Failure to comply with any criteria results in the development being contrary to the Structure Plan. However, further opportunity to demonstrate a development's appropriateness is afforded by Strategic Policy 10 'Departures from the Structure Plan'.

In assessing the application in relation to the structure plan it is evident that it does not accord with Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) in that it fails the following criteria:

B(ii): Safeguarding the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt B(v): Avoid isolated and sporadic development in the Green Belt and wider countryside

The development is therefore considered contrary to the terms of the approved structure plan.

When assessed against the criteria of Strategic Policy 10 (Departures from the Structure Plan) it is found that the proposal fails to be an acceptable departure as it does not meet the requirements of that policy.

Local Plan Policy GB1 (Restrict Development in Green Belt) states that no development will be permitted except for (amongst other things) new houses for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture. Policy HGIO states that new build residential development will not be permitted outwith existing residential areas unless it is justified under (amongst other things) Policy GBl as noted above. The proposed dwellinghouse is not associated with forestry and agriculture and therefore would be seen to be contrary to the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The applicant has not provided any justification for the departure form Local Plan policy.

The Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009 is a material consideration. The site remains zoned as Green Belt and requires to be assessed against policy ENV6. This policy does not support the proposed development.

The proposed development is also contrary to the policy set out within Scottish Planning Policy 21 (Green Belts) which reiterates the exceptional circumstances for which development in the green belt should be allowed. In this instance the development does not fall within any of the categories outlined as appropriate uses within this document nor does the justification meet with the requirements set out for proposals of non-conforming uses as it is not of national importance and does not meet an established need. The proposal must be deemed to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy 21.

4.8 The proposed dwellinghouse is not required for any person associated with an on-going greenbelt use and the applicant has advised that the new house is being sought for the security of the caravans which are stored within the site, In policy terms “security” is not in itself a relevant justification for allowing a new house in the greenbelt. Having regard to the security issue it should be noted that while the application site is within a rural location the applicant currently resides only a short distance to the north of the application site in a recently constructed dwellinghouse which is tied (through a Section 75 Agreement) directly to the adjacent boarding kennel business. Also, there is also a separate flatted dwellinghouse located beside the kennels which is owned by and previously occupied by the applicant (prior to the construction of the new dwelling) and that structure has no such restrictions.

It is also relevant to note that a similar previous planning application (C/05/00673/OUT) for the erection of a dwellinghouse on this same site was refused permission by decision notice dated July 2005 on the grounds of the proposal being contrary to Green Belt policy. That proposal also argued that the dwellinghouse was required for security of caravans although at that time the applicant resided in the existing flatted dwellinghouse pending the construction of the new dwellinghouse (tied through Section 75 Agreement).

4.9

4.10 In conclusion, it has been determined that the proposals are contrary to the terms of the development plan and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 21 and there are no material considerations, including the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009, that would justify an acceptable departure from the constraints imposed by the green belt policies. I therefore recommend the application is refused for the stated reasons. If the Committee is minded to grant planning permission, then the dwellinghouse should be tied to the ongoing caravan business through a Section 75 Agreement and no consent notice should be issued until that Agreement has been concluded.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:

21 st May 2009

Mr John Truesdale 3 Nairn Crescent Cairn hill Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 9XD

Stephen Miles Architects Flat 12 33 Kent Road Charing Cross Glasgow G3 7BY

Addition of Two Storey Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse

3 Nairn Crescent Cairnhill Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 QXD

11 Airdrie South Councillors M. Coyle, Curley, Fagan and Love

276318664051

C/PL/AIN037000000/CMN/GL

The application site falls within an area designated as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Planning Application No C ~ 9 ~ 5 ~ 9 / ~ U L

Addition of Two Storey Extenson to Side of ~wel l iR~house

3 Nairn Crescent Airdrie Jsr Representation



Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:-

AL(0)OOI AL(0)lOO AL(0)IOI (as redacted) AL(0)204 AL(0)205 AL(0)206 AA(2)OOl


That before the extension, hereby permitted, is occupied, two car parking spaces shall be formed as shown on the approved plan AL(O)101 and shall thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

3.

Reason: To ensure adequate incurtilage parking is maintained within the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 8th May 2009 Amended Plans received 21" May 2009, and 23rd June 2009 Design Statement received 23d June 2009

Letter from Armando Watson, 1 Nairn Crescent, Cairnhill, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 9XD received 19th May 2009.

Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236 812375.

Date: 23 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. C1091005091FUL

REPORT

1.

1 .I

1.2

1.3

1.4

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

4.

4.1

Descriution of Site and Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey side extension to a dwellinghouse at 3 Nairn Crescent, Airdrie.

The property to which this application relates is a two storey semi-detached dwellinghouse and its garden ground. The dwellinghouse is located within a predominantly residential area where there are similar two storey detached and semi-detached properties. The site slopes upwards from east to west so that the neighbour at 5 Nairn Crescent is slightly higher than the site.

The proposed side extension would project 2.5 metres from the side of the house' over the existing side driveway and would project 1.3 metres from the frontage. It would match the height and pitch of the existing roof, with window proportions to match the existing. A double width driveway has been proposed to replace the existing side driveway. A single obscure glazed gable window is proposed from a ground floor toilet.

Plans as originally submitted included a fully rendered gable. Facing brick is now proposed as the external material although some render would remain on the front and rear elevations.

Development Plan

There are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to Local Plan Policy. The site falls within an established residential area and is covered by policy HG9 - Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.


Following the standard neighbour notification procedure one letter of objection was received from a neighbour whose property is located to the east of the application site (see location plan). The comments can be summarised as follows:

i.) Insufficient space to accommodate parking on site ii.) Reduction in daylight to garden, lounge and main bedroom. iii.) Proposal too close to boundary iv.) Would adversely affect objector's parking options by providing obstacle to opening car

doors. v.) Inability of applicant to maintain new gable wall.


In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application is not of strategic significance and therefore requires to be assessed against the relevant Local Plan for the area.

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

Since the proposal is for an extension to an existing house, Policy HG9 of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 is of relevance. It states that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the Council. This states that extensions should relate to the scale and design of the original house and should not adversely affect the amenity of neighbours. It should integrate into the surroundings by virtue of its scale, form, proportions and materials and it should not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result Of overshadowing or overlooking. In the case of an extension it’s positioning and proportions should be in keeping with the existing building and should be finished in materials with colours and textures which complement the existing building and other buildings in the locality. The guidance also states that side extensions should leave garden ground appropriate for the size of the house and plot and access to the rear should be maintained.

The scale and design of the proposal is considered in keeping with the existing property and similar extensions within the vicinity. In addition the proposed external materials and window proportions are adjudged suitable for the building and area and would not adversely affect the amenity of the area.

With regards to sunlight and daylight it is considered there would be limited affect on the surrounding area and minimal loss to neighbouring properties because of the orientation of the buildings and neighbouring window positions. In this respect it is considered that there would not be a significant loss to residential amenity.

There are no concerns raised about privacy as the main windows would not face directly onto neighbours’ property and the gable window to the ground floor toilet would be obscure glazed. Although external access to the rear has not been retained in practical terms the proposed vestibule ‘bin store’ would provide a screened area to store bins and maintain the visual amenity within the wider streetscape.

A consequence of the projecting vestibule would be the substandard parking dimensions. The normal dimensions of a standard double width driveway is 6 metres by 5 metres as opposed to the 5.2 metres (minimum length) to 6.2 metres (maximum length) by 4.7 metres width proposed. The proposed parking arrangement is considered a minor and acceptable concession since the key requirement to accommodate two cars within the curtilage would be satisfied and the front door wouldn’t open directly onto the driveway.

It is considered that the proposal generally accords with the design principles noted above and therefore is in accordance with the development plan.

With regards to the points made in the letter of objection, I would respond as follows:

The concerns about incurtilage parking are accepted but in this case they do not provide an overarching reason to refuse the application. The concerns about daylight to garden areas and to household rooms are considered to be unreasonable. It is adjudged that much of the neighbour’s rear garden would receive direct sunlight and the internal rooms would be unaffected. It is recognised that concerns about ownership and positioning of the boundary are a civil legal matter and is not material to the consideration of this planning application. In planning terms the distance to the neighbouring property would not be unusual in the local context. Similar to point (iii), any legal rights the objector has to access i.e. open car doors over neighbouring property is not material to the consideration of this planning application Similar to point (iii), while it is advisable to set buildings off boundaries to allow access and maintenance to be undertaken any requirement the applicant has, or would have to access the objector’s property would be a legal matter between the two parties. It is not a material planning consideration.

4.9 It is concluded that the proposed extension generally complies with the design requirements set out in the Development Control Advice design guidance for 'House Extensions' in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Policy HG9 supports the principle of house extensions where there is no significant adverse affect on residential amenity. It is considered that the proposal would adequately integrate with the surroundings and would not have a significantly negative affect on residential amenity. The proposal therefore accords with the relevant Local Plan policy. The concerns of the objectors are addressed in the above paragraph and there are no other overarching reasons why the application should be refused. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


S1071010421FUL

12th September 2007

William Boyd 14 Leander Crescent Mossend Bellshill ML4 IJB

Change of Use of Open Space to Garden Ground

14 - 28 Leander Crescent & 6 Pegasus Road Mossend Bellshill North Lanarkshire ML4 IJB

15 Mossend And Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

275266660268

SIP LIB Fl5174lKD

None relevant

The Southern Area Local Plan (2008) zones the site as Policy HSG 7 (Established Housing Areas)

No

No external consultations required.

1 letter of representation received

Not Required

Produced by Nanh Lanarkshire Council Planning and Ernironment Dapl Fkminp HOUSB 2 Tryst Road Curnbetrnauld 067 1JW hl01236616210 lax 01238 616232

Planning Application No. S I07 / 01042 / FUL

Change of Use of Open Space to Garden Ground hl

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:-

1. That the proposal is contrary to Policies HSG 7 and ENV 10 of the Southern Area Local Plan (2008) in that the change of use from open space to garden ground would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area as it would result in the loss of a section of established wooded landscaped ground and also if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals, the incremental impact of which would be an unacceptable reduction in the established character of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th June 2007

Memo from Conservation 8, Greening Manager received 2Eith July 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 3rd March 2009

Letter from P Skillin, 15 Leander Crescent, Mossend, ML4 1 JA received 19th June 2007

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01698 274107.

Date: 24 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. S1071010421FUL

REPORT

1.

1 .I

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.

4.1

DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from an area of open space to private garden at land to the west of properties 14-28 Leander Crescent and 6 Pegasus Road, Bellshill. The subject properties have rear gardens of approximately 10 metres in depth.

The application site is located at the periphery of an existing residential area and the site is bordered to the north, south and east by the residential properties of Leander Crescent and Pegasus Road. To the west of the site is a former electricity substation beyond which are railway lines. This site was granted outline consent (S/08/01423/OUT) for residential use in February 2009.

DeveloDment Plan

The site is zoned as HSG 7 (Established Housing Areas) in the adopted Southern Area Local Plan (2008).


No external consultations were required.

The Head of Protective Service has no objection subject to a site investigation being undertaken with respect to contamination.

The Conservation & Greening Manager did not object to this proposal, however he stated that the removal of this area of scrub/hedge will further shrink the area of semi-natural habitat on this site in which some mitigation for the loss would be appropriate. This mitigation should include the planting of a new species-rich hedgerow along the new boundary. Clearance of the habitat should not be between mid-March and late July as this is the main bird breeding season. It was confirmed that no protected species survey is required.

One letter of representation has been received signed by four neighbouring residents. The points of objection raised can be summarised as follows:

i.) The proposal would result in the loss of established mature trees, shrubs and bushes. ii.) The proposal would cause an impact upon existing birds and wildlife utilising the trees and bushes. iii.) The proposal would result in the removal of a bund and also trees and bushes which act as a screening barrier between the dwellinghouses from the noise created by the nearby railway line, gas plant, roads and licensed premises/restaurant. iv.) The applicants have no legal right to the common ground to be utilised in the application.


In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application is not of strategic significance and therefore

requires to be assessed against the relevant Local Plan for the area. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan (2008) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG 7 (Established Housing Areas). Policy ENV 10 (Trees & Woodland Management) is also of relevance to this application.

Policy HSG 7 seeks to protect the character and amenity of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. The application site acts as a buffer to the former utilities land to the west and previously formed a barrier between these two land uses to protect the amenity of this residential area. The application site contains a mature woodland area which contributes to the character of the area as well as the visual amenity of the residential setting and is considered to be worthy of retention. The loss of this area would be even more significant given its purpose as a buffer and would result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area. Therefore the proposed change of use is considered to be contrary to policy HSG 7 as it would adversely affect the character and amenity of this residential area.

Policy ENV 10 encourages the protection and enhancement of trees and woodlands by resisting development that adversely affects woodland areas. Given that the proposal would result in the loss of an established wooded buffer resulting in a detrimental impact on the character and amenity of the area. Although the Conservation & Greening Manager did not object to this proposal, a concern was raised regarding the removal of this area of scrublhedge that would further shrink the area of semi-natural habitat on this site. It is therefore considered that the proposed use of land as a garden is contrary to policy ENV 10.

4.2

4.3

4.4 A material consideration is the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan, however, the zoning and policy position remains unaltered from the Adopted Plan.

4.5 With regards to the points made in the letter of representation, I would respond as follows:

i.) This loss of established mature trees, shrubs and bushes is noted and as discussed in detail above, is considered contrary to policies HSG 7 and ENV 10. ii.) With regard to the impact upon existing birds and wildlife, the Conservation & Greening Manager commented in paragraph 3.3 that the removal of any scrublhedge areas should be replaced along the boundary of the new garden and that the clearance should only be undertaken outside the bird breeding season. iii.) It noted that the loss of the screening barrier between the dwellinghouses and the former utilities land could result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. iv.) The question of ownership of the application site is not a material planning consideration.

4.6 In conclusion the proposed change of use from open space to garden ground would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area as it would result in the loss of a section of established wooded landscaped ground and also if approved, would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals. The incremental impact of which would be an unacceptable reduction in the established character of the area and as such, the proposed development is considered contrary to Policies HSG 7 and ENV 10 of the Southern Area Local Plan (2008). It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


S/08/01401/OUT

25th September 2008

Mr & Mrs J S Chidley East Belmont Horseley Brae Overtow n Wishaw ML2 ORU

Alex Cullen & CO 18A Bloomgate Lanark M L l l 9ET

Residential Development (In Outline)

204 Alexander Street Wishaw ML2 OHQ

20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland

278822 6551 31

S/PL/BF/10/17/FM

No Relevant Site History

The site is covered by Policy RTL9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008

Yes

None

No letters of representation received.

Advertised on 8th October 2008


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

That before the development hereby permitted starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:- (a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the layout of the site, all roads, footways, and parking areas; (c) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (d) the provision of public open space; (e) provision of equipped play areas; (f) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (c), (d) and (e) above; (9) the phasing of the development; (h) the provision of drainage works; (i) the disposal of sewage; (j) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (k) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; and (I) details of existing and proposed site levels.


That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within 5 years of the date of this permission, or within 2 years of the date of which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.


That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 1 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.


That the site shall be developed in accordance with the Council's 'Developer's Guide to Open Space' in terms of the minimum space standards and space around dwellings and the provision of play facilities and shall comply with the Council's Guidance on parking provision for residential dwellings on the minimum basis of : Flatted dwellings- 1-2 bedroom- 1.5 spaces, 3-4 bedroom - 2 spaces Houses: 1-2 bedroom dwellings- 2 spaces, 3-4 bedroom dwellings- 3 spaces, 5+ bedroom dwellings- 4 spaces. In addition unallocated parking shall be provided at the rate of 0.3 spaces for lay-bys in pairs and 0.5 spaces in shared surfaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory amenity space and parking provision for the dwellings.

The development shall not exceed three storeys in height.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, access to the site shall be constructed to the requirements and specifications of North Lanarkshire Council and nothing shall be placed or allowed to grow over 1.05m in height above carriageway level within visibility splays, prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

Reason: To ensure adequate access and egress to and from the site in the interests of vehicular and pedestrian road safety.

That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, parking bays shall be 5.0 long x 2.5m wide with a 6.0m aisle.


That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175: 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required.

Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of environmental protection.

8.

9. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 8 above, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

That the development shall accord with the recommendations contained in the submitted Noise Impact Assessment dated February 2009 submitted with the application and before any affected dwellings are occupied confirmation shall be supplied in writing to the Planning Authority that these works have been completed.

10.


11. That no earthworks shall commence on site until a Protected Species Survey is submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. As a result of the above studies, should any remediation measures be required for the protection or relocation of any protected species found on the site, these shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail in the interests of the wildlife habitats within the site.

12. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled 'Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland' and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme required under Condition 12 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

That before the development hereby permitted starts, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water have been fully met in respect of providing the necessary site drainage infrastructure to serve the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory site drainage arrangements.

That, the reserved matters application required under the terms of Condition 1 above shall include a flood risk report from a suitably qualified person and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt this report shall:

(a) Confirm that the finished floor levels and proposed site levels are appropriate and the site will

(b) Assess the potential for flooding from intense rainfall or overflowing sewers. be at no risk of flooding from a 1 in 200 year flood event.

Reason: In order that the Planning Authority might be satisfied that the proposed development will not give rise to flooding within the application site and will not increase the flood risk elsewhere.

That any flood mitigation works required under the terms of Condition 15 above, shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of all of the flood mitigation works, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in flood mitigation) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the flood mitigation works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that the development site and adjacent land and property will not be subjected to unacceptable flooding in the interests of public safety and amenity.

That all scrub removal, tree removal and tree works (branch removal, pruning, etc) shall be undertaken outside of the bird nesting season (March to July inclusive).

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detrimentally affect the local bird population

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th September 2008 Noise Impact Assessment, February 2009 by Nicol Acoustic Consultancy received 31" March 2009.

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 14'h October 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 16th October 2008 Memo from Conservation and Greening received 2gth October 2008.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Fraser Miller at 01698 2741 19.

Date: 24 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. S/08/01401/0UT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.4

3.5

4.

4.1

4.2

4.3


Outline planning permission is sought for a residential development on land at 204 Alexander Street, Wishaw. A two storey dwelling is located centrally within the site and the site had formally been used in association with the motor trade, as well as other uses in the past. It is bounded by an area of vacant ground to the east, a railway embankment to the north, an industrial unit to the west and by Council sports facilities to the south on the opposite side of Alexander Street.

The application is in outline only and is accompanied by indicative plans, showing 16 flatted dwellings, two stories in height gaining access from Alexander Street. In addition an Environmental Noise Assessment has been submitted in support of the application.

Development Plan

The site is identified as Other Commercial Uses (RTL9) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008


The Transportation Team Leader has raised no objections to the application. It has however been advised that the development layout would be required to be designed in accordance with the SRC Guidelines for Development Roads 1986.

Protective Services have commented that a site investigation report should be submitted. In relation to the submitted noise impact assessment, Protective Services have advised that they are satisfied with the methodology used within the report and the recommendations of the report.

The Conservation and Greening Section have raised no objections to the application, and have commented that detailed landscaping proposals will be required.

There have been no letters of representation received following the neighbour notification and press advertisement procedures.


In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It should be noted that the application raises no strategic issues. This application must therefore be assessed against the relevant development plan policies, which are the Southern Area Local Plan 2008, Policies RTLS (Other Commercial Uses), HSG 9 (Assessing Applications for Housing Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are relevant.

Policy RTLS states that whilst any changes of use or proposed new uses will be considered in light of the other policies contained within the Local Plan, particular regard should be given to their potential compatibility with surrounding land uses. In terms of the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses, a noise assessment has been carried out and was found

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.1 1

to be acceptable by the Pollution Control Team Leader, subject to conditions. Furthermore the site is currently residential in nature given the existence of the original dwelling on the site. Therefore, the proximity of the development to the industrial yard to the west is acceptable. In addition, the character of the area is a combination of industrial, commercial and residential, with residential properties to the east of the site on Alexander Street, therefore the principle Of residential development on the site is established and therefore acceptable.

Local Plan Policy HSG9 details criteria against which new housing sites will be assessed. These include: impact on the existing built and natural environment; risk of flooding; design and layout; landscaping, open space and play areas and provision of roads, access and parking. The site has a history of residential use albeit it is within a fairly mixed use area. An area of vacant ground adjoins the site to the east and ground associated with the sports centre adjoins the site to the south and it is considered that a residential development would be in keeping with the character of the adjacent areas and that the existing character and amenity of the area will be enhanced. The site’s dimensions of 0.31 hectares afford the opportunity for a small scale residential development. The proposals are in outline thus layout and design details will be assessed through a reserved matters application. Conditions are proposed to ensure that any development approved meets the Council’s requirements in terms of design and the impact on the surrounding area. I am therefore satisfied that the development would accord in principle with Policy HSG9.

Policy TR13 requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria relating to traffic generation, road safety, access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As indicated in paragraph 3.1 above the Transportation Team Leader has raised no objections to the application subject to the sites compliance with the SRC Guidelines for Development Roads 1986. It is considered that suitable planning conditions could be attached and as such the proposals are considered to be in compliance with Policy TR13.

A material consideration in the assessment of the application is the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (FDNLLP) and policies DSPI (Amount of Development); DSP2 (Location of Development); DSP3 (Impact of Development); and DSP 4 (Quality of Development) apply.

Policies DSP 1, DSP 2, DSP 3 and DSP 4 apply to all development proposals and cover the strategic nature of developments. The proposed development is for a residential development on a gap site in accordance with local plan policy. The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with the strategic nature of policies DSP 1, DSP 2, DSP 3, and DSP 4 of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

Policy HCFIA states that there will be a presumption against developments detrimental to the residential amenity of primarily residential areas. The proposed development is considered acceptable and will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area given that it will infill a gap site suitable for residential purposes. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with policy HCFIA.

In terms of Protective Services comments in relation to the noise impact, conditions are recommended which ensure that the mitigations measures specified be design into the reserved matters application. In addition it is proposed to attach a condition to the consent requiring the submission of a detailed site investigation prior to the start of works on site.

In relation to the comments received from Conservation and Greening, it is proposed to attach a suitable condition for the submission of a landscaping scheme in association with the reserved matters application.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that justification exists for departing from the approved zoning of the site for commercial purposes. Following detailed assessment of the application, I consider

that the proposed development is acceptable when considered against the relevant policies of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The proposed development will positively enhance the landscape and visual impact of this site and that the conditions proposed can direct the development in a satisfactory manner. I therefore recommend that the application be granted subject to conditions.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations :


12th May 2009

Mr & Mrs Mitchell 47 Vennacher Street Shotts ML7 4DT

Hardie Associates Ltd 78 Hopetoun Street Bathgate EH48 4PD

Erection of Replacement Dwellinghouse and Detached Garage

Rimmon Cottage Benhar Road Shotts ML7 5BJ

12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson

288262 660924

SlPLlBFll7122/FM


The site is identified as Rural Investment Areas (ENV8) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008

No

Scottish Water (Glasgow) (No Objections)

One letter of representation received.

Advertised on 20th May 2009

I 4 I

f )

PIANNINCI APPLlCATt ON No 6 f 08 i 0001 8 f FUC

ERECflON OF REPLACEMENT DWELLINGHOUSE

trf 01698 27411; ta: 01698 Q)4ftrs3


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.



That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details and finish of all external materials to be used, including roof tiles, wall finish, door, window details and gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the planning authority.


That notwithstanding the windows shown on the approved drawings, the details of the new windows to be installed in the positions shown are specifically not yet approved, and further detailed 1:20 drawings showing window type and opening details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The windows installed shall comply with the approved scheme.


That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.


That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied, all fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of condition 4 above. shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied, all of the relevant parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surface work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.


That before any works start on site, full details of the septic tank and soakaway system to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the applicant shall confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the drainage arrangements to be provided are to the satisfaction of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The septic tank and soakaway must be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements set out in The Scottish Building Standards : Technical Handbook : Domestic issued in May 2005. In terms of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations (CAR) 2005, the discharge of treated sewage effluent will require registration with SEPA. Further details on this matter can be found @ www.sepa.org.uk.wfd. Surface water should be excluded from the foul drainage treatment system. In order to reduce the risk of contamination of controlled waters, any soakaway should be located at least 50 metres from any private water supply or other groundwater resource and at least 10 metres from any watercourse or permeable drain. (Note: If poor soil porosity or risk to groundwater resources preclude the use of a soakaway, alternative arrangements will have to be agreed with SEPA. Further advice on the disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available, is contained within Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 4 which is available on the SEPA website www.sepa.org.uk/guidance or from any SEPA office).


That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no development shall take place within the curtilage of the application site, including the location of the septic tank and soakaway or on the buildings other than that expressly authorised by this permission.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the building and the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside.

8.

9. That the use of the garage hereby permitted shall be restricted to private use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse on the site and no commercial activity shall be carried out, in, or from, the garage.


10. That the accommodation in the garage roofspace hereby permitted shall be used solely as domestic accommodation ancillary to the main dwellinghouse and not as a separate dwelling house.


Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 8th January 2009. Amended plans received 12'h May 2009.

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 22"' June 2009. Letter from Scottish Water (Glasgow) received 29th May 2009

Letter from Mr & Mrs Mooney, C/o Marshall Ross & Munro, 106 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, MLI 3DG received 20th February 2009.


Date: 24 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. S/09/00018/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4


Planning permission is sought for the erection of a replacement dwelling and a garage at Rimmon Cottage, Benhar Road, Shotts. The site is bound by a single storey dwelling to the east with Shotts Golf Club House beyond and the golf course itself to the north, west and south. The cottage (166 square metres) is a single storey building with a stone, roughcast and slate finish and has a traditional Scottish simple rural design with a well proportioned extension to the front and rear. It is proposed to replace it with a single storey dwelling on approximately the same footprint of the original cottage, whilst increasing the height of the building to provide attic accommodation and extending the footprint of the building through extending the footprint at the rear of the building. This will in turn increase the footprint of the unit to approximately 218 square metres. The end result will be a single storey dwelling with roof accommodation in the form of a T shape, with a sizeable rear garden, well in excess of the Council’s minimum standards in relation to open space around dwellings. It is also proposed to erect a pitched roof garage in the south western corner of the site with a floorspace of 100 square metres. Within the attic area of the garage it is proposed to install habitable accommodation to be used as guest accommodation in association with the dwellinghouse. The proposed replacement dwelling is traditional in style and nature, utilising modern design elements, materials and building standards in achieving an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally conscious development. The proposed dwelling is complemented with a simple design that incorporates a number of rural themes such as modest and well proportioned windows and traditional dormer windows.

Development Plan

The site is zoned as Rural Investment Areas (ENV8) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.


The Transportation Team leader has commented that the private access road currently forms the access to a golf club and several properties. In addition it is narrow and can only accommodate single file traffic resulting in vehicles standing on Benhar Road. This in itself is detrimental to road safety and therefore the increase in vehicles that the proposed development could generate could exacerbate this problem.

The Conservation and Greening Manager has raised no objections to the application.

Scottish Water have raised no objections to the application and have advised that a separate drainage system will be required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. They have further advised that a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) as detailed in Sewers for Scotland, will be required if the system is to be considered for adoption.

One letter of representation has been received following the neighbour notification and press advertisement procedures. The points of objection can be summarised as follows:

(1) There are concerns that the boundary lines shown on the applicants plans are erroneous.

(2) There are concerns that the proposed dwelling shall not be located on the site of the

existing cottage and that the proposed new dwelling would over shadow their property resulting in a loss of natural light and privacy. The visual appearance of the proposed dwelling is dissimilar to the existing cottage and they are concerned that the proposed dwelling will not be in keeling with local surroundings. There are concerns that the proposed garage is to be built upon the soakaway area of the objectors property. According to their Land Certificate there is a servitude right of wayleave for the aforementioned soakaway together with a right of access thereto. The existing septic tank has not been repaired for a number of years and the septic tank is located within the objectors property,. There are concerns that the existing septic tank would be inadequate to deal with the proposed new dwelling. Flooding has been caused in the objectors property as a result of the inadequate infrastructure for the disposal of surface water.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)


4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The application is not of strategic significance and as such only requires to be assessed against the local plan. Relevant policies within the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 are ENV8 (Restrict Development in Countryside around Towns), HSGl l (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) and TRI 3 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development), together with other material considerations.

4.3 Policy ENV8 is designed to protect the openness and rural amenity of countryside areas by restricting inappropriate new development. Relevant appropriate developments are those related to agriculture, forestry, outdoor leisure and recreation or other appropriate rural uses. In this case the proposal relates to the replacement of an existing dwelling which has fallen into disrepair. The more detailed policy relevant to the consideration of this application is Policy HSGI 1, and this is assessed below.

4.4 Policy HSG 11 indicates that the replacement of existing houses will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the existing buildings are of poor quality. Any development shall not result in an increase in the number of units or a significant increase in overall floorspace and shall be located, as nearly as possible, within the existing footprint. It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling meets all the above criterion given that the existing dwelling is of poor quality as has been demonstrated by the applicant. As discussed above, it is proposed to increase the floorspace of the dwelling by an additional 60 square metres, it is acknowledged that this is sizeable, however given the generous setting of the site it is considered that no adverse affects will be placed on the resultant new dwelling or the adjacent dwelling located to the south east of the site. Furthermore the proposed replacement dwelling is traditional in style, albeit using modern design elements and materials to create an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally conscious development. It is proposed to finish the dwelling in smooth profiled roof tiles and Douglas fir logs as opposed to block work or render, which is considered to be appropriate in this location. The proposed garage is to be located at the south western corner of the site in excess of 30 metres from the adjacent dwelling to the east. The materials to be utilised in its construction are to match the proposed dwelling. Habitable accommodation is to be provided within the roof space of the garage and it is proposed to restrict the use of the garage to that of being incidental to the dwelling through the application of an appropriate planning condition. The application site lies outwith the SEPA Flood Risk Maps, and in accordance with the SEPA Consultation Protocall, it is proposed to attach a planning condition to the consent requiring the submission of finalised drainage details, including details of the location of the septic tank and soakaway, prior to the start of works on site. Furthermore it is

considered that the site benefits from adequate access, although the transportation issues will be assessed more fully in section 4.5 below. In light of the above, the proposal is held to comply with policies ENV8 and HSGl1 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) requires assessment of roads and transportation issues. The comments made by the Transportation Team Leader are noted. It is observed that the existing cottage has provision for 2 off street parking spaces and as such there may be current vehicle movements associated with the existing dwelling. Although there may be some increased vehicular movements associated with the proposed replacement dwellinghouse, these will be insignificant and the applicant has detailed the provision of 3 off street parking spaces and a turning facility. The access, parking and manoeuvring facilities proposed within the site are considered acceptable and the application is therefore considered to accord with policy TRI 3.

A material consideration is the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan, however, the zoning and policy position remains unaltered from the Adopted Plan.

4.5

4.6

4.7 In terms of the objections raised, I would offer the following comments:

(1) Following the submission of amended plans and a revised application form including the land ownership certificate, it is considered that the boundary lines accord with the application. In the event that there is a discrepancy in land ownership, I can advise that this is a private legal issue between both parties involved. Should the application site boundaries require to be changed at a later date, I can advise that an amended application may be required.

(2) Policy HSGl 1 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008, requires replacement dwellings to be located as near as possible within the footprint of the original dwelling. The proposals as submitted are considered to accord with the requirements of policy HSGl l as detailed in paragraph 4.4 above. In relation to the issue of over shadowing, the objectors property is situated to the south east of the proposed dwelling. As a result of being located to the south of the application, there will be no adverse effects in terms of loss of sunlightldaylight as any shadows cast by either dwelling, would predominantly be located within the front garden ground of each dwelling given their orientation.

(3) The visual appearance of the proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable in the chosen location, as detailed in paragraph 4.4 above. Furthermore, it is proposed to attach a planning condition to the consent requiring the submission of materials for approval, prior to the start of works on site.

(4) The proposed garage to be erected as part of the application site is to be located on the footprint of the existing garage. In addition, this matter is considered to be a private legal issue between both interested parties.

(5) Full details in relation to the proposed drainage arrangements will be required to comply with Scottish Water's and SEPAs requirements in addition to the Councils requirements. Full details of the proposed means of disposal of foul and surface water are to be sought, with the use of planning conditions.

(6) Surface water will be required to discharged to a suitable outlet. In addition, a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS), as detailed in Sewers for Scotland 2, will be required if the system is to be considered for adoption.

4 .8 It is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of local plan policy as the impact of a replacement residential dwelling on the site and surrounding area and the access and transportation implications can be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding countryside area. Furthermore, the proposals do not constitute a significant increase in floorspace, therefore, taking into account the local plan and other material considerations, I recommend that this application be approved subject to conditions.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


S/09/00232/FUL

20th April 2009

1st Access Rentals Limited Greenside Depot Biggar Road Newarthill

David Findlay Associates Ltd 34 Cooper Avenue Carluke ML8 5US

Erection of Two Galvanised Metal Storage Buildings (Retrospective)

Greenside Depot Biggar Road Newarthill Motherwell North Lanarkshire

01 5 Mossend And Holytown Councillors James Coyle, Kevin McKeown,& Paul Delaney

279065660787

SlPLl5I87lGA

05/01 174/FUL Erection of Workshop & Office Accommodation with Ancillary Parking for Storage Depot

Zoned ENV 6 (Green Belt) on the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

YES

Scottish Water (No objection) British Gas (comments) Scottish Power (No objections) SEPA (No Comment) No letters of representation received.

Advertised on 30th April 2009

Planning Application MO S i 09 I 00232 I FU.

Erection o f T w Galvanised Met& Staage Br~ilrhngs (R&rospactive)

Greenstb, Depot, Biggar Road, Newarthill, Mothewefi

Site area = 1 1 &a J %I 01119% 474273 #x 01898 493053

I


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.



That the permission hereby granted shall relate to the use of the units coloured yellow on the approved plan solely for plant hire and for no other purpose.

Reason: To define the permission

That before the development hereby permitted is occupied, if further ground breaking is to take place, a phase one desk study requires to be submitted to the satisfaction of the local Authority. Depending on the findings of this study a comprehensive site investigation may be required. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175: 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required.

Reason: In order to ensure that the site is free from contamination.

That before development hereby permitted is brought into use, details of a scheme, which provides sufficient space within the curtilage of the application site for the parking and manoeuvring of 3 cars for staff employed at the site shall be forwarded for the approval of the planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking facilities within the site.

That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use all the parking and manoeuvring areas outlined in condition 4, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the drainage arrangements to be provided are to the satisfaction of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). The preferred method for the disposal of septic tank effluent is the provision of a sub soil soakaway system. The septic tank and soakaway must be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements set out in The Scottish Building Standards : Technical Handbook : Domestic, issued in May 2005.

In terms of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations (CAR) 2005, the discharge of treated sewage effluent will require registration with SEPA. Further details on this matter can be found @ www.sepa.org.uk.wfd. Surface water should be excluded from the foul drainage treatment system.

In order to reduce the risk of contamination of controlled waters, any soakaway should be located at least 50 metres from any private water supply or other groundwater resource and at least 10 metres from any watercourse or permeable drain.

(Note: If poor soil porosity or risk to groundwater resources preclude the use of a soak away, alternative arrangements will have to be agreed with SEPA. Further advice on the disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available, is contained within Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 4 which is available on the SEPA website www.sepa.org.uk/guidance or from any SEPA office).


That there shall be no external storage of vehicle parts, components, tyres, oil drums or cans or other receptacles.

7.


8. That there shall be no burning of material on the site.

Reason: To define the use of the land and to safeguard the amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd March 2009

Letter from British Gas received 27th May 2009 Letter from Scottish Power received 21 st May 2009 Letter from Scottish Water received 12'h June 2009

Memo from Head of Protective Services received 27th May 2009

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01698 274103.

Date: 30 June 2009

APPLICATION NO. S1091002321FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4

4.1

4.2


Planning permission is sought for the erection of two Metal Storage Sheds, (in retrospect) to be used for storage at an established mechanical engineering and plant hire business at Greenside Depot, Biggar Road, Newarthill, Motherwell.

The site supports an established tool and plant hirehepair and supply business and located within the designated Green Belt to the east of Biggar Road, Newarthill. At present there is single storey office building and office building and a workshop unit. There is existing car parking provision associated with these buildings. A yard exists to the rear (west) of the workshop. The site is located immediately to the north of a stream, which is the lowest point of the site and slopes upwards towards the north, otherwise the site is relatively flat. The proposed buildings comprise of two galvanised metal sheds with barrel vaulted roofs measuring 4.8 metres in height. One shed is some 335 square metres, the other 175 square metres. The larger shed is located between two existing buildings and is substantially screened by these buildings. The smaller shed is at the rear (north east) of the site and is screened from Biggar Road by existing buildings. While the site is visible from Motherwell Road, it is a significant distance from that road so is not intrusive.

Development Plan

The site is zoned ENV 6 (Green Belt) on the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

Consultations

The Transportation Team Leader no objections and has provided comments on parking levels.

The Head of Protective Services has no objections, subject to a phase 1 desk top survey being carried out prior to any development and any contaminants discovered being removed or rendered harmless. This would be dealt with by way of a condition, were permission to be granted.

Scottish Power has no objections has provided comments with regard to their apparatus.

Scottish Gas has provided comments confirming that they have no apparatus in this area.

Scottish Water has no objections and has provided comments with regard to their apparatus.

Planning Assessment

In accordance with Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application is not of strategic significance and therefore only requires to be assessed against the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

The site is zoned as ENV 6 (Green Belt). Policies also relevant are IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development).

4.3 Policy ENV6 seeks to safeguard the character and function of the green belt within which there will be a presumption against development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewable sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. Proposals to extend established industrial and business uses will be acceptable only where the development would not result in an adverse effect on the character and function of the Green Belt. In assessing this particular proposal in terms of Policy ENV 6 it is considered acceptable given that it will constitute the provision of additional storage facilities at an existing business within the Green Belt and, as does not involve any encroachment of the site into the surrounding land, and will have no adverse impact on the character and function of the Green Belt as an established industrial business use. The site has been in constant operational use for a considerable period of time, it is considered that the use has been clearly established on the site and as such the ongoing development of the site for an existing business is considered acceptable when assessed against policy ENV 6.

Policy IND 9 outlines criteria that should be taken into account when assessing applications for Business and Industrial Developments. The proposal lies within an established business yard within the Green Belt and is considered suitable in character for location within this context. Similarly detailed design elements such as building height, materials and positioning are in keeping with the existing single storey buildings on this site. Provisions made for servicing, access, vehicle circulation; manoeuvring and parking are discussed below under policy TRI 3. The proposal is considered acceptable when assessed against Policy IND 9.

4.4

4.5 Policy TR13 requires account to be taken of criteria including: the impact of development on road traffic circulation, road safety and provision made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As detailed at paragraph 3.3 above, the Transportation Team Leader raised no objections to the proposals. Additional areas are available within the site for parking, if required. The development is therefore considered to comply with policy TRI 3.

4.6 With regard to the consultation responses, as the surface water is proposed to dispose to a soak away, a condition is recommended to cover the requirements SEPA as this development falls below the threshold under current standing advice for this scale of development.

With regard to the visual impact of the redevelopment of the site, it should be noted that the business currently has a number of single storey buildings on this site. The location of the site is not considered to be prominent as the site is only clearly visible from the road to the east and south-east of the buildings and therefore their visual impact, on balance, is considered to be acceptable.

4.7

4.8 In conclusion the proposed development is considered acceptable when assessed against policy ENV 6 and IND 8 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008. The further development of an established business is acceptable when assessed against both these policies and the impact of the extension of the business will be minimal in terms of the surrounding Green belt area and will not constitute an unacceptable development for the site.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


S/09/00247/F U L

9th April 2009

Mr Strock 21 Croftpark Street Bellshill ML4 IEY

Erection of Single Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse

21 Croftpark Street Bellshill ML4 I E Y

014 Bellshill: Councillors Curran, McGuigan and Lyle

273282 660916

SlPLlBFlRMClLR

No relevant site history

The site is zoned as HSG7 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan

No

None

One letter of representation received.

Not Required




2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling.


That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers: RS 01, RS 02 Rev A, RS 03 Rev A, RS 04, RS 05, RS 06 Rev B

3.


Background Papers:

Attplication form and plans received 3rd March 2009, 1 7'h March 2009, 2dh March 2009 and 9 April 2009

Letter from Josephine Vitale, 23 Croftpark Street, Bellshill, ML4 1 EY received on 20th March 2009.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gary McEwan at 01698 2741 17.

Date: 24 June 2009


REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

a)

b)

c)

4.

4.1

4.2


This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 21 Croftpark Street, Bellshill. The site measures approximately 523 square metres and is bounded by residential dwellings on all sides. The application property is a single storey semi-detached dwellinghouse located within an established residential area characterised by a mixture of one and two storey detached and semi- detached houses. Access is taken from Croftpark Street and there is provision for five off-street parking spaces.

The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the dwelling and would replace the existing conservatory. The extension would create a bedroom and enlarged kitchen dining area. The extension would project 5 metres from the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse and would be 8.5 metres in width. The roof would be pitched and would be 5.8 metres in height to match the existing roof height and finished in materials to match the existing dwellinghouse. There is timber decking proposed to adjoin the extension, however this would be under 300mm in height and thus considered to be permitted development.

Development Plan

The site is zoned under Policy HSG7 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.


No consultations were undertaken in relation to this application.

Following the neighbour notification procedure, one letter of representation has been received in relation to this application. The grounds of their representation can be summarised as follows:

The extension would not be in keeping with the scale of the existing dwellinghouse and would dominate the rear garden area. The single storey, pitched roof design would dominate the skyline and would impact on the sunlight and daylight and cause overshadowing of the house and garden at No. 23 Croftpark Street. The proposed extension could have a serious impact on the value and future re- saleability of the dwellinghouse at No. 23 Croftpark Street


In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations state otherwise. The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

In terms of local plan policy the site is zoned under HSG7 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008. Policy HSG12 (Housing Extensions) is also relevant to this application.

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

a>

c>

4.8

Policy HSG 7 (Established Housing Areas) seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development which adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSGl2 (House Extensions).

Policy HSG12 (House Extensions) sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the street scene, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, sunlightldaylight and parking provision and access.

With regards to the size, design and scale of the extension it is considered to integrate and be in keeping with the existing house. The surrounding area is characterised by housing comprising of a variety of different designs, size and scale, it is considered that the proposal will not be detrimental to the amenity and character of the surrounding residential area. A site visit indicated that there have been a number of properties on Croftpark Street which have been previously extended, including those at No. 28 which has a single storey rear extension, No. 26 which has a two storey rear extension and No 14 which has a slightly larger extension to the proposed subject of this application. As there have been similar proposals within the surrounding area which have been granted permission previously, it is considered that the principle of the proposed extension has been established within the locality. The dwelling in question is situated in a large plot and as such the rear garden area would not be significantly reduced. The north elevation would be blank and there would be an obscured glass window on the south elevation. There would be windows and French doors on the west elevation of the extension, however there would be no impact on privacy levels at any other properties as the property site is adequately screened by a 1.8m high timber fence. A sunlight and daylight test was undertaken and it was concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties due to the positioning and orientation of the dwellinghouse and the pitched roof design of the extension. Access and parking within the site would be unaffected by the proposal. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policies HSG7 and HSG12.

A material consideration is the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Policy HCF 1 Protecting Housing and Community Facilities Resources is relevant to the current application. This policy states that there is a presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in residential areas. The zoning and policy position remains unaltered from the Adopted Plan and it is therefore considered that the proposal complies with Policy HCF 1 of the Finalised North Lanarkshire Local Plan (2009).

On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

As discussed in paragraph 4.5 above, the design and scale of the extension and the materials proposed are considered to integrate and be in keeping with the existing house and it is considered that an adequate area of rear garden ground would be retained. It is considered that the height of the roof is in keeping with the existing dwellinghouse and would not dominate the skyline or impact the amenity and character of the neighbouring dwellings. A test confirmed that the extension would not impact on the sunlight or daylight received by No. 23 Croftpark Street. The perceived impact of the proposal on property prices is not a material planning consideration to warrant refusal of this application.

In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is in compliance with Policies HSG7 (Established Housing Areas) and HSG12 (Housing Extensions) of the Southern Area Local Plan and HCF 1 of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location :

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:

SI09100451 IFU L

13th May 2009

AMI Healthcare Brandon House 81 Motherwell Road Motherwell

GLG Design Beech Studio 10 Berryhill Road Giffnock G46 7NJ

Erection of 60 Bed Care Home with Associated Parking

2 Loanhead Road Newarthill Motherwell MLI 5BA

017 Motherwell North Councillors McAuley, Mckenna, Nolan and Stewart

278086659538

SIP LIB Fl5160lGA

0 97110624lFUL Erection of Food Supermarket (Class 1) with Associated Access, Car Parking and Landscaping- Granted 27.01.1998 981001 72lAMD Amendment to Position of Retail Supermarket and Alteration of Site Layout -Granted gth March 1998 08100302lOUT Residential Development (In Outline) -Granted 17th April 2008.

Designated RTLI (Retail Development Opportunities) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No Comment) British Gas (comments) Scottish Power (comments) Scottish Water (West Region) (No Objection)

Rep resen tat ions: No letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 10th June 2009

This map is reproduoed from Ordnance Survey material mth the permisson of Ordnancs Survey on &halt of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office 0 Crown mpyrlght Unauthorised reproduction infnnges C r m mpyrlght and may lead to prosecunon or CN~I proceedings NoFth Lanarkshire Council 100023396 20%

PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I 0 9 I00451 I FUL

ERECTION OF 60 BED CARE HOME WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING

2 LOANHEAD ROAD, NEWARTHILL, MOTHERWELL

Site Area 0.39 ha.

Produced by North Lanarkshire Council Environmental Services. Dakiel Buildina,

tei 01698 274274 fax 01698 403053


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.



That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.


That before the care home hereby permitted, is occupied, the fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected.


That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.


That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 101 75: 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required

Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 5 shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

That before the care home is occupied:

(i) Access should be via a 5.5 metre wide dropped kerb footway crossing and should be paved or surfaced for the first 2 metres.

(ii) A pedestrian link shall be provided From Loanhead Road into the site.

(iii) That a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 60 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided shall be provided from the access on to Loanhead Road and nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

(iv) An offset of lmetre should be provided at parking bay 1 to allow for vehicle manoeuvres.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and it shall include: - (a) Details of earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) A scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety

and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) An indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and

measures for their protection in the course of development, and; (d) A timetable for the implementation of these works contemporaneously with the

development.


That all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 8 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved time table and before the last dwelling house in the development is occupied and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the last flat within the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

8.

9.

Reason: To ensure proper implementation of the landscaping scheme.

10. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of: - (a) The proposed parking areas and footpaths. (b) The proposed grassed planted and landscaped areas.

Reason: To ensure proper maintenance of the area.

11. That before the development is brought into use; the maintenance and management scheme approved under the terms of Condition (10) shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure proper maintenance of the area.

12. BEFORE any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by ClRlA in March 2000.


13. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in terms of the relevant ClRlA Manual and other. advice published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). If the area of ground illustrated on the submitted site location plan for the notional SUDS is inadequate for the purpose, a revised layout drawing shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect

14.

15.

adjacent watercourses and groundwater, and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future users adjacent to and within the development site respectively.

That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 10 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS have been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard any adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future users.

That except as may be otherwise agreed in writing by the planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers 8-38/003B, 8-38/004A,8-38/005A & 8-38l007A


Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 22nd April 2009.

Letter from British Gas received 19th June 2009 Letter from Scottish Power received 24th June 2009

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 1 7'h June 2009 Memo from Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 16th June 2009

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01698 274103.

Date: 30 June 2009

AP PLI CAT10 N N 0. S/09/00451 IF U L

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

1.3

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

4.

4.1


This application seeks permission for a 60 bed residential care home, on land at 2 Loanhead Road, Newarthill, Motherwell. The proposed building will be 2 storeys in height with a pitched roof and form a 'T' shape in plan. Materials will comprise of facing brick on the ground floor level with render covering the remaining first floor to the eves. The site benefits from a number of mature trees to the south of the site on Loanhead Road.

The site is currently occupied by the former Silver Burn Hotel which has been vacant for a number of years and has fallen into disrepair. The site slopes gently in an easterly direction along the boundary with Byres Road but is otherwise level. The site is bound to the north by two storey terraced dwelling houses on Byres Road and to the east and west by the rear service area of small single storey shop units in blocks of 4 and 3 respectively. These units are interrupted by irregular areas of open space which contain a number of mature trees. The south of the site is bounded by mature landscaping containing a number of mature trees and eventually Loanhead Road beyond. The wider area is predominantly residential.

The site will be accessed via the existing entrance on Loanhead Road.

Development Plan

The site is designated RTLl (Retail Development Opportunities) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.


Scottish Gas and Scottish power do not object subject to any developer having due regard to their services.

Scottish Water has no objection to the proposal and advised that the drainage train should be via a Sustainable Urban Drainage System.

The Transportation Team Leader raised no objections to the proposal and has provided comments on access, visibility & parking requirements for the site.

NLC Protective Services have no objections to the proposal but have advised that a desk top study which includes the site history requires to be provided by the applicant to ascertain if the site has previously been used for any potential contaminative purposes. Depending on the results of this investigation further intrusive ground investigations may be required.

No representations were received following neighbour notification or following the press advert.

Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

In accordance with Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application is not of strategic significance. The proposal for residential development which were previously considered acceptable by virtue of existing permissions and can therefore be assessed in terms of be assessed against the

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

Southern Area Local Plan 2008. In this instance the adopted Southern Area Local Plan 2009 zones the site as RTLl (Retail Development Opportunities

Policies RTLl (Retail Development Opportunities), Policy HSG 3 (Brownfield Housing Development), Policy HSG 11 (Infill Housing Development) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 are also relevant.

Policy RTLl seeks to enhance retail provision within the plan area where such provision can be supported by an appropriate catchment population is compatible with adjoining uses and does not undermine the vitality and viability of commercial areas. This zoning has been applied in recognition of the adjacent commercial units to the east and west of the site. However the only planning submissions for this site date from 1997/98 for supermarket use, with no further interest being demonstrated such that consideration of alternative uses is now considered ap ro riate. Permission for a residential development in outline (08/00302/OUT) was granted 17 April 2008 accepting the principle of residential development. P P

With regard to the relevant housing policies, Policy HSG 3 (Brownfield Housing Development) is material in that it seeks to bring forward and facilitate the development of Brownfield sites for housing development. As such the proposal is held to comply with this policy.

Policy HSG 11 (Infill Housing Development) sets out criteria when considering planning applications for infill residential developments including the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area as well as detailed design matters. As stated above the site has adjoining residential areas to the north and small commercial units to the east and west of the site and it is considered that residential development would be in keeping with the predominantly residential character of the area resulting in the least intrusive alternative use for the site and enable the removal of the existing Silverburn hotel which is currently in a poor state of repair. It is considered that the existing character and amenity of the area will be maintained if not enhanced. The sites dimensions afford the opportunity for a medium sized development of this type allowing potential space for parking and compliance with the Council’s standards on open space, such that it would not appear detrimental to the street scene. The design details are considered acceptable. The proposal accords with policy HSG 11.

The Transportation Team Leader has no objection to the proposal on the grounds that access should be via a 5.5 metre wide dropped kerb footway crossing with a visibility splay 4.5 x 60 metres required in both directions. A turning facility is also required within the site to allow vehicles to service the development. The transportation Team Leader requested that this of industrial commercial dimensions. However given that this is a residential development the applicant has amended the layout providing a turning facility of residential dimensions considered suitable to accommodate site requirements and thus the proposal is therefore considered acceptable when assessed with respect to policy TR13.

NLC Protective Services raised issues of potential contamination on the site and requested that a site investigation be carried out. A condition can be imposed requiring the submission of a further site investigation report if Committee grant this application.

Taking into consideration all material considerations including the current local plan it is considered that although the proposal constitutes a departure from the local plan, the current condition of this site and its position relative to the existing residential area support the proposals acceptability and justifies a departure. The proposal accords with policies HSGl1, HSG3 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.) Overall the proposal is considered acceptable.

I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Application No:

Date Registered:

Applicant:

Agent

Development:

Location:

Ward:

Grid Reference:

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan:


Consultations:

Representations:


S/09/00513/FUL

14th May 2009

Mr Banniameen Khan Flat 2/2, 9 West End Park Street Charing Cross Glasgow G3 6LH

John Wagner (Architect) 51 Colquhoun Street Helensburgh G84 9JR

Subdivision of Retail Shop (Class 1) to Form a Retail Shop (Class 1) and Hot Food Takeaway (Sui Generis)

142 Station Road Shotts ML7 4BA

12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson

287074659944

S/PL/BF/l7/48(6)/FM


The site is identified as an Established Housing Area (HSG7) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

Yes

None

Ten letters of representation received.

Advertised on 27th May 2009


1. That the proposed development is contrary to the Council's aim of directing such development to the town centre or secondary retail areas and would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the adjoining residential area by virtue of noise, odours and general disturbance through the introduction of an inappropriate use to the area. It would also pose a hazard to traffic safety as there is inadequate car parking at the site and this would result in vehicles parking on-street to the detriment of road safety and the amenity of the surrounding residential area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies HSG7, RTLl , RTL4, RTLI 1 and TRI 3 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11 th May 2009

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 22"' June 2009 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 23'' June 2009

Letter from Helen McDowell, 3 Windsor Street, Shotts, ML7 4DW received 6th June 2009. Letter from Alexander Steel, 6 Clive Street, Shotts, ML7 4BE received 29th May 2009. Letter from Mr John Sweeney, 197 Station Road, Shotts, ML7 4BA received 27th May 2009. Letter from Mr M McNeil, 12 Clive Street, Shotts, ML7 4BE received 27th May 2009. Letter from Mrs Dorothy Rennox, 7 Clive Street, Shotts, ML7 4BE received 27th May 2009. Letter from M McLean, 9 Clive Street, Shotts, ML7 4BE received 27th May 2009. Letter from Mr & Mrs J Lamond, 14 Clive Street, Shotts, ML7 4BE received 27th May 2009. Letter from Douglas McLean, 195 Station Road, Shotts, ML7 4BA received 20th May 2009. Letter from Mr & Mrs I Beveridge, 144 Station Road , Dy.$ehead, Shotts received 21st May 2009. Letter frem Jean Bissett, no address given, received 11 June 2009.


Date: 24 June 2009


REPORT


Planning permission is sought for the subdivision of a retail shop (class 1) to form a retail shop and hot food takeaway (sui generis) at 142 Station Road, Shotts. The application site is a single storey detached unit, located within a residential area. The site is bounded by residential properties on all sides. It is proposed to locate the hot food takeaway within the western section of the building adjacent to 144 Station Road, whilst the convenience store would be relocated to the eastern section of the building. As part of the application submission it is proposed to install a new shop frontage. Access to the site is taken directly from Station Road, and, there are no parking facilities within the application site boundary. The proposed hours of operation have not been provided with the application.

Development Plan

The site is identified as an Established Housing Area (HSG7) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008


The Transportation Team Leader has recommended that the application be refused as a development of this nature requires the provision of 5 parking bays within the site boundary. The lack of bays within the site boundary will lead to parking on-street which would introduce a conflict of vehicle manoeuvres on Station Road.

The Protective Services Section have made comments in relation to noise from plantlequipment at the development.

Ten letters of representation have been received following the neighbour notification and press advertisement procedures. The points of which can be summarised as follows:

(i) The proposed development is contrary to the Local Planning Authorities aims of directing such developments to Town Centres or Secondary Retail Areas as the area is residential in nature.

(ii) There are already existing and hot food take away shops within the established retail centre of Shotts.

(iii) Adverse affect on adjoining residential amenity as a result in the increase in noise, fumes, litter and general disturbance.

(iv) Concerns over the opening hours associated with the hot food takeaway. (v) There are already issues with the lack of parking facilities for the existing newsagents and

it is considered that the lack of dedicated parking facilities would result in more cars parking on Station Road and Clive Street which is a private road, leading to congestion in the area and conflict with vehicles and pedestrians.

(vi) Noise associated with the parking and manoeuvring of commercial vehicles and customer vehicles visiting the site.

(vii) Damage to services serving the residential dwellings in the area. (viii) More neighbours should have been notified when the application was submitted. (ix) The proposed hot food takeaway goes against the promotion of healthy eating as

advocated by the Scottish Government.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 It should be noted that the application raises no strategic issues. This application must therefore be assessed against the relevant development plan policies, which are the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 Policies HSG7 (Established Residential Areas), RTLl (Retail Development), RTL4 (Assessing Applications for Retail Development), RTLl 1 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Developments) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development), together with other material considerations.

4.3 Policy HSG7 and its supporting text states that the Council will seek to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. Within the plan area there are a range of land uses that have the potential to cause hazard or nuisance to adjoining properties. Examples include developments that generate, pollution, noise or are visually intrusive. While any changes of use or proposed new uses will be considered in light of the detailed development control policies contained within the local plan, particular regard should be given to their potential compatibility with surrounding land uses. The site currently operates as a convenience store and is therefore in a commercial use, however the locale is predominantly residential in nature, with residential dwellings located on all sides of the application site. It is considered that the introduction of a hot food takeaway would have an adverse impact on the residential character and amenity of the surrounding area by virtue of noise, odours and general disturbance from the increased number of visitors to the site by car and foot. The lack of off street parking at this location is likely to result in parking on the road outside the hot food takeaway. This would also result in an adverse affect on the amenity of the adjacent residents as a result of increased noise, disturbance and congestion. Traffic details will be considered in further detail at DaraaraDh 4.6 below. I therefore consider this to be an inappropriate location for a hot food takcaway and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HSG7.

4.4 Policy RTLl (Retail Development) seeks to direct lesser retail development to town centres, village, neighbourhood and secondary commercial areas. Policy RTL 4 (Assessing Applications for Retail Development) details criteria against which retail development proposals should be assessed and includes: the availability of suitable alternative sites in or around town centres and the provisions made for vehicular access and parking and the proposal’s impact on pedestrian safety and traffic circulation. In relation to the proposed hot food take away, I consider that permitting this would be contrary to the aims of policy RTLl. Given that the site is not defined as a town centre, or a secondary, village or neighbourhood commercial area and taking into account the proximity of nearby residential properties I consider this to be an inappropriate location for a hot food takeaway. No justification has been provided to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites in or around the Shotts area for the proposed hot food take away. Therefore the proposal is also contrary to Policy RTL4. The traffic issues relating to the proposal will be considered under assessment of the application against policy TR13 in paragraph 4.6 below.

4.5 Policy RTL 11 ‘Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Developments’ is also relevant to this application. This Policy lists several criteria to be taken into consideration, including; the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the adjoining properties and surrounding environment; the provisions made for vehicular access, servicing, parking, and the proposal’s impact on pedestrian safety and traffic circulation. As noted at paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 above, it

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

is considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and surrounding environment and as such is considered to be contrary to Policy RTLII . While the site is current used as a shop, this location is not identified as a Neighbourhood Commercial Area and the proposed use should be located outwith residential areas in accordance with RTLI 1. In respect to additional traffic movement's, vehicular access, servicing, parking, and the proposals impact on pedestrian safety, this is assessed in Policy TRI 3 below.

Policy TR13 requires an assessment of the level of traffic generated from the proposal, the impact that the development will have on the road network and the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As detailed at paragraph 1.1, the application site does not benefit from dedicated off street parking. As indicated at paragraph 3.1 above, the Transportation Team Leader has recommended refusal of the application as the proposed development is likely to result in on street parking which would introduce a conflict of vehicle manoeuvres given the sites' close proximity to the Clive Street junction. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to TRI 3.

With regard to the consultation response received from my Protective Services Section, should planning permission be granted planning conditions can be used to cover issues associated with noise from the extraction system.

In relation to the points of objection, I would comment as follows:

(i) It is considered that the proposal is contrary to policies HSG7, RTLI, RTL4 and RTLII of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 as detailed in paragraphs 4.3 - 4.6 above.

(ii) The over provision of hot food takeaways is not a material consideration in the assessment of the application.

(iii) Anti-social behaviour is not a material planning consideration and is a matter dealt with by the Police.

(iv) Adverse affects on the amenity of the adjoining properties as a result of opening hours has been considered in paragraphs 4.3 - 4.6 above.

(v) The Transportation Section have recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of road safety as discussed in paragraphs 4.6 above.

(vi) Disruption caused by noise and general disturbance has been discussed in paragraphs 4.3 - 4.6 above.

(vii) It is considered unlikely that the proposed development would cause disturbance to services serving the residential dwellings.

( v i ) The neighbour notification procedure was correctly carried out, in that those required to be notified where correctly detailed on the application form and confirmation was provided detailing the date on which the neighbour notification forms were sent. Furthermore the application was advertised in the Wishaw Press published on the 27'h May 2009.

(ix) Whilst the promotion of Healthy Eating is advocated by the Scottish Government, it is not considered to be a material consideration in the assessment of the application.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policies HSG7 (Established Residential Areas), RTLI (Retail Development), RTL4 (Assessing Applications for Retail Development) RTLl1 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 in that the development is located outwith a defined Town Centre or neighbourhood shopping area and the proposal is likely to be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding area by virtue of noise, odours and general disturbance from the introduction of an inappropriate use to the area and would cause a traffic and road safety hazard due to on street parking congestion. On this basis, I recommend that permission be refused for this application.

Nodh Lanarkshire Council · Newspaper Advertisement: N1091002061F U L 28th May 2009 Mr Ajay...

Documents

Transcript of Nodh Lanarkshire Council · Newspaper Advertisement: N1091002061F U L 28th May 2009 Mr Ajay...