Agenda Document Pack - Council - 12/06/2025
North Lanarkshire Council · 12 June 2025
Back to Council — 12 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Clerk Name: Mark Hamill Clerk Telephone: 07811294702 Clerk Email: committee@northlan.gov.uk 3 June 2025 Members of the Council Chief Executive’s Office Rachel Blair Chief Officer (Legal & Democratic) Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell ML1 1AB www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk Notice is given that a Special Meeting of the Council is to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, ML1 1AB on Thursday, 12 June 2025 at 11:30 AM or immediately following the conclusion of the Planning Hearings Committee, which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Des Murray Chief Executive Members : D Ashraf, A Ballinger, C Barclay, B Baudo, A Beveridge, M Boyd, H Brannan-McVey, G Brennan, B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, A Campbell, T Carragher, C Costello, M Coyle, S Coyle, D Crichton, G Currie, P Di Mascio, K Docherty, K Duffy, A Duffy-Lawson, H Dunbar, T Fisher, F Fotheringham, W Goldie, H Gray, K Harmon, M Hughes, J Hume, L Jarvie, D Johnston, T Johnston, J Jones, P Kelly, J Keltie, A Khan, K Larson, J Leckie, G Lennon, J Logue, H Loughran, F MacGregor, A Masterton, M McBride, B McCluskey, A McCrory, B McCulloch, M McCulloch, P McDade, F McKay, R McKendrick, J McLaren, C McManus, M McPake, J McPhilemy, A McVey, L Mitchell, L Nolan, P Patton, C Quigley, J Reddin, L Roarty, D Robb, G Robinson, N Shevlin, W Shields, A Smith, A Stubbs, L Stubbs, R Sullivan, A Thomas, J Toner, S Watson, C Williams, N Wilson, G Woods. Page 1 of 90
Page 2
Page 2 of 90
Page 3
Agenda 1 Declarations of Interest In Terms of the Ethical Standards In Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 2 Planning Application 18/00890/PPP - Proposed Residential-led Mixed Use Development Masterplan, including Residential (Mixed Types/Tenures), Employment Facilities, Local Neighbourhood Centre (Potentially Including Retail, Food and Drink Uses, Public House, Leisure Uses, Healthcare, Community Facilities), Education Facilities, Energy Centre, Parkland, Open Space and Landscaping, with Associated Access Roads, Parking and Infrastructure - Land to North of A8 and South of Sykeside Road and Calderbank Road, Airdrie Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) on an application for planning permission by Orchard Brae Ltd. 5 - 90 Page 3 of 90
Page 4
Page 4 of 90
Page 5
Application No: 18/00890/PPP Proposed Development: Proposed Residential-led Mixed Use Development Masterplan, including Residential (Mixed Types/Tenures), Employment Facilities, Local Neighbourhood Centre (Potentially Including Retail, Food and Drink Uses, Public House, Leisure Uses, Healthcare, Community Facilities), Education Facilities, Energy Centre, Parkland, Open Space and Landscaping, with Associated Access Roads, Parking and Infrastructure. Site Address: Land to North of A8 and South of Sykeside Road and Calderbank Road, Airdrie Date Registered: 13th June 2018 Applicant: Orchard Brae Ltd. 1 George Square Glasgow Scotland G2 1AL Agent: Stantec 5th Floor 9 George Square Glasgow G2 1DT Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 12 Airdrie South: Councillors Michael Joseph Coyle, Paul Di Mascio, Michael McBride, Sandy Watson Representations: 2099 representations received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 and to the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and would represent a significant departure from the development plan spatial strategy. It is not considered that any material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify the release of this site from the Green Belt for the proposed purposes. Item 2 Page 5 of 90
Page 6
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 18/00890/PPP Name (of applicant): Orchard Brae Ltd. Site Address: Land to North of A8 & South of Sykeside Road & Calderbank Road, Airdrie Development: Residential-led Mixed Use Development Masterplan including Residential (Mixed Types/Tenures), Employment Facilities, Local Neighbourhood Centre (Potentially Including Retail, Food and Drink Uses, Public House, Leisure Uses, Healthcare, Community Facilities), Education Facilities, Energy Centre, Parkland, Open Space and Landscaping, with Associated Access Roads, Parking and Infrastructure. Page 6 of 90
Page 7
Recommended Reasons for Refusal: - 1. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 8 (Green Belts) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policies PP 4 (Green Belt – Purpose of Place) and AD 4 (Green Belt – Amount of Development) as the development would result in the loss of a valuable area of Green Belt which strongly contributes to defining the settlements of Airdrie, Calderbank and Coatbridge and to the landscape character and countryside recreational opportunities of the local area. The development of this site would significantly undermine the integrity and value of the remainder of the Green Belt between the M8 and the Monklands settlements and result in urban sprawl which would erode the identity of individual settlements. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from these policies. 2. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policies 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises), 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) and 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policy PROM LOC 1 (Regeneration Priorities) as the development would involve the use of a large greenfield site for purposes which are neither allocated for or explicitly supported by the development plan. By developing this site, the proposal would undermine the prospects of achieving regeneration of more sustainable brownfield sites and promoting the physical regeneration of the existing urban area. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from these policies. 3. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) as the residential part of the development does not satisfy the requirements of part (f) of the policy in respect of the limited circumstances where new homes may be supported on land which is not allocated for that purpose in the local development plan. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from this policy. 4. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) as the industrial, storage and distribution part of the development does not satisfy the requirements of part (a) of the policy in respect of the circumstances where such development may be supported on land which is not allocated for that purpose in the local development plan. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from this policy. 5. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policies 27 (City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres) and 28 (Retail) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policy AD4 (Green Belt – Amount of Development) as the proposed local centre and other retail / food and drink / service uses within the proposed industrial area would not accord with the Town Centres First approach or satisfy the sequential approach to the location of such uses, and as the proposed residential and industrial uses which these areas are intended to serve are themselves contrary to the policies of the development plan the retail (etc.) uses cannot be justified as being ancillary to an acceptable use. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from these policies. 6. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policies 2 (Climate, Mitigation and Adaptation), 13 (Sustainable Transport), 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policies PROM ID 1 (Transport Improvements) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) as the development is poorly sited for active travel and public transport, with a limited range of services and facilities within a convenient walking distance of many parts of the site. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from these policies. 7. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policies PROT B (Historic Environment Assets) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) as the development would detract from the setting of the Monkland Page 7 of 90
Page 8
Canal and Woodhall House scheduled monuments and of High Palacecraig listed building. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from these policies. 8. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policies PROM LOC 4 (Special Landscape Areas and Green Network Improvements) and PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) as the development would result in detrimental impacts upon a valuable area of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network. The development as a whole is inconsistent with the wider policies of the development plan and therefore its adverse impacts on the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network cannot be justified. It is not considered that any adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated which would justify a departure from these policies. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Coal Authority response dated 28 June 2018 Historic Environment Scotland response dated 27 March 2024 NatureScot response dated 27 July 2018 NLC Archaeology Consultant response dated 27 March 2024 NLC Education response dated 30 January 2025 NLC Protective Services response dated 12 July 2018 NLC Landscape response dated 30 May 2019 NLC Infrastructure & Transportation response dated 8 October 2024 Scottish Canals response dated 24 October 2018 Scottish Forestry response dated 6 December 2021 Scottish Gas Networks response dated 19 March 2024 Scottish Environment Protection Agency response dated 13 January 2025 Scottish Power Environmental Planning response dated 1 November 2021 Scottish Water response dated 4 April 2024 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport response dated 26 Juny 2019 Transport Scotland response dated 20 June 2024 Woodland Trust Scotland response dated 3 May 2024 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Keith Bathgate at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 29 May 2025 Page 8 of 90
Page 9
Executive Summary A. Background, Site & Proposals A.1 The application relates to 244-hectares of countryside situated between Airdrie, Calderbank, and Carnbroe, and bounded to the south by the A8 / M8 road corridor. It is currently agricultural land interspersed with large areas of woodland and crossed by both the Monkland Canal and the North Calder Water. Heritage features on the site include the canal and the remains of Woodhall House (scheduled monuments), and High Palacecraig House (‘B’ listed building). A.2 The application seeks planning permission in principle for a mixed use development of residential, storage/distribution and industrial uses along with associated uses and infrastructure. The proposed development would transform this countryside into a substantial new urban quarter. The northern part of the site (on the southern edge of Airdrie) would become a residential area containing up to 980 dwellings in a mix of housing types and tenures, of which the applicant proposes to designate 20–25% as affordable housing. Within this area there would also be a new local centre (expected to contain local shops and community facilities), and a new primary school campus. The southern part of the site (to the south and west of Calderbank) would be the employment area containing an estimated 84,540sq/m of storage and distribution space in two large units, 27,870sq/m of general industrial floorspace in multiple smaller units, and a small amount of ancillary retail / food and drink floorspace. A new spine road would connect Sykeside Road in the north to Woodhall Mill Road in the south, facilitating access to the site (and effectively serving as a bypass for Calderbank). A youth football academy is also proposed. A large proportion of the site would remain undeveloped, including most of the existing woodland and large areas where new woodland planting is proposed. The applicant proposes that the woodland and other public greenspace become a community-owned country park. A.3 This planning application was originally submitted in 2018 and has been under consideration for a considerable period due to the time taken to resolve technical consultations and amendments to the proposal which necessitated further consultation and publicity. The proposal has changed significantly during the course of the application, and some of the original proposals including a new connection to the Europark motorway junction have been removed from the scheme. B Consultations B.1 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has no objection to the proposal. Whilst the proposal would adversely affect the setting of Woodhall House, HES consider that this impact would not be of national significance. Locally significant heritage issues would be outwith HES’ remit and are matters for the Council to consider. B.2 NatureScot has no objection to the proposal, subject to further surveys and mitigation which could be addressed by conditions. B.3 NLC Education indicate that all of the local primary and secondary schools in this area have existing capacity constraints and that additional capacity would be needed to accommodate the development. This would include the construction of a new primary and nursery campus and a review of local catchment boundaries. A developer contribution of £12,739,191 plus land for a new education campus would be needed and this would require a planning obligation. As the site is not allocated for housing the council has not budgeted for the construction of new schools, and these would need to be provided at a relatively early stage in the development as existing schools are so close to capacity. The location and size of the new school campus would also require to be agreed as the location shown on the masterplan is not optimal. Page 9 of 90
Page 10
B.4 NLC Infrastructure and Transportation has no objection subject to conditions and a planning obligation covering a range of matters. In order to accommodate and mitigate the impacts of the development off-site road improvement works would be required including the addition or widening of footways on Paddock Street, Calderbank Road, Woodhall Mill Road and at Eurocentral, and junction improvements at the Sykeside Road / B802 junction and within the B802 / B799 / A8 / M8 junction complex. The completion of the full spine road through the site would need to be completed before more than 300 houses were occupied to avoid excess traffic through Calderbank, and additional traffic surveys would be needed at that point to confirm how it was impacting upon local traffic patterns. The proposal is poorly connected to public transport and the developer may need to subsidise a bus service to meet minimum accessibility requirements. B.5 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport comment that the proposal did not appear to give sufficient consideration to public transport and that if permission was granted a sustainable travel strategy should be required. These comments related to an earlier version of the proposal but are still considered to be applicable. B.6 Transport Scotland has no objection subject to off-site road improvements corresponding with some of those required by NLC Infrastructure and Transport and to technical conditions relating to trunk roads matters. B.7 Woodland Trust Scotland objected to the application because of the loss and fragmentation of ancient woodland. However their comments related to an earlier version of the proposal and it has since been amended to include much more new woodland planting, which would offset the small amount of ancient woodland affected. B.8 The Mining Remediation Authority, NLC Archaeology, NLC Protective Services, Scottish Canals, SEPA, Scottish Water, Scottish Gas Networks and SP Energy Networks all have no objection to the proposal subject in some cases to conditions covering technical matters. C Representations C.1 Public consultation has generated substantial interest, with 3,625 total representations received, although that number includes many multiple representations from the same household, duplicates from people who have made more than one representation and invalid representations from people who have failed to provide a complete name and address. Discounting those, there have been 2,029 objections, 66 expressions of support and 4 neutral comments from the public and a range of organisations. All material planning considerations raised in representations have been taken into account in the report. C.2 Objections have been received from 2014 households or individuals, 6 current or former MPs and MSPs, 2 local community councils (Cairnhill and Monkland Glen), and 7 other organisations including the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Ravenscraig Ltd., and the Woodhall, Faskine and Palacecraig Conservation Group. Reasons for objection include: the loss of an attractive and valued area of countryside; urban sprawl in the Green Belt filling the space between settlements; urbanising an area which is well used for countryside recreation; adverse impact on woodland and wildlife; impact on historic setting of heritage assets and destruction of historic landscape; lack of need for development; additional traffic and air pollution, noise and disturbance during construction and from traffic; and development being inconsistent with policies and climate change commitments. C.3 Expressions of support have been received from 58 households or individuals, 2 community councils from elsewhere in the Monklands (North Calder and Plains), and 6 other organisations or companies including Calderbank Bowling Club, Gartcairn Football Academy and the Page 10 of 90
Page 11
Scottish Junior Football Association). Reasons for supporting the proposal include: the major investment in the area; creation of jobs; provision of new road, school and other facilities; need for more new houses including affordable homes; improvements to green space and provision of a country park; provision of football academy; and sustenance of local businesses and sports clubs through additional population. C.4 Four neutral comments (from two individuals, Scottish Badgers and an amusements business) related to the phasing of community infrastructure, the desirability of a connection to the Europark junction being reinstated, the need for updated badger surveys and the undesirability of a cinema on the site (which is no longer proposed). D. Assessment Against Development Plan and Material Considerations D.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the site is currently designated as Green Belt, and the proposal would be significantly contrary to the development plan (which consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP)). D.2 In particular, the proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policies (NPF4 Policy 8 and NLLDP Policies AD 4 and PP 4). These policies support development in the Green Belt only under very specific circumstances, such as for agriculture, forestry, recreation, or essential infrastructure. The proposal does not fall into any of the allowable categories or circumstances. Furthermore, it is considered that the development would erode the physical separation between Airdrie, Calderbank, and Carnbroe, undermining the identity and setting of these communities. The proposal would therefore significantly compromise the integrity of a valuable area of Green Belt along the M8 corridor, leading to further development pressure on the remaining pockets of countryside in and around the site. D.3 The proposal is also inconsistent with NPF4 Policy 16, which governs the delivery of new homes. The site is not allocated for housing in the local development plan, and the proposal does not meet the limited exceptions under the policy. There is no demonstratable need for large-scale additions to the housing land supply in North Lanarkshire, as the existing supply already comfortably exceeds the Minimum All-Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR). The proposal does include a significant proportion of affordable housing, which is appropriate for housing development but does not justify the release of Green Belt land. D.4 In terms of employment land, the proposal would provide two large storage and distribution plots, and there is acknowledged to be a limited availability of allocated sites suitable for such units. However, the size, shape and levels of the proposed plots are not considered to be optimal for this type of development and as the application is speculative it is not certain that they would actually be developed in the manner suggested. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate that there are a lack of suitable alternative sites , as there are existing allocated sites within the industrial land supply that could accommodate such uses, albeit that (like the application site itself) these may be subject to constraints. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) in respect of the development of unallocated land for such purposes. D.5 The proposal is also considered to be contrary to various other key policies. It does not align with the principles of prioritising brownfield development and achieving compact urban growth. Allowing a large housing development and significant new industrial floorspace on what is effectively a greenfield site without a clear need for additional land for these purposes would undermine the prospects of securing the development of more appropriate sites, including the Page 11 of 90
Page 12
regeneration of brownfield land within existing urban areas, and the proposal is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policy 9 and NLLDP Policy PROM LOC 1. D.6 Whilst the site is located on the edge of a settlement the site is relatively distant from most local services and facilities and it is considered that public transport access is poor. On the other hand it has excellent access to the major roads network, which would encourage car use. The applicant proposes to address this by providing a local centre and a new school campus, which would reduce the need to travel somewhat, but overall for a development of the scale proposed it is not regarded as being sufficiently accessible by sustainable means. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to various NPF4 and NLLDP policies which relate to sustainable travel, local living and greenhouse gas emissions. D.7 The site is currently an attractive area of countryside which is readily accessible to the local population due to an existing footpath network including the well-used canal towpath. This landscape provides the setting for the historic environment features on the site, and parts of the site comprise the surviving areas of the former Woodhall House designed landscape. The proposal would retain almost all of the existing woodland within this area and would plant a large amount of new woodland, and it is proposed to designate the area as a country park which would preserve public access. Whilst the proposed masterplan is considered to be well designed and potentially attractive in its own right, the development would irreversibly alter the existing countryside character of the area and would result in the remnants of the designed landscape no longer being legible. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be detrimental to the setting of historic environment assets and to the urban green network and would therefore conflict with NPF4 and NLLDP policies applicable to those matters. D.8 The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which identifies several significant impacts. The most notable is the adverse effect on the landscape, particularly the loss of open countryside and the remnants of the designed landscape associated with Woodhall House. The development would also have locally significant adverse impacts on the setting of the Monkland Canal, a scheduled monument, and High Palacecraig House, a listed building. While the EIA concludes that many of these impacts would be mitigated over time through landscaping and management, it is considered that the adverse effects on landscape and heritage assets would be permanent and significant and it has not been demonstrated that they can be justified. D.9 Ecological impacts are also assessed in the EIA. The site supports a range of habitats and species, including ancient woodland, badgers, bats, and great crested newts. The proposal includes mitigation measures such as habitat retention, new woodland planting, and ecological management plans. While these measures would reduce the impact on biodiversity and result in some habitat loss and fragmentation, this would be offset by the large amount of new woodland planting which is proposed, and which is potentially of net ecological benefit. D.10 Socio-economic impacts are presented by the applicant as a key benefit of the proposal. The applicant estimates that the development would create over 1,800 full-time equivalent jobs and generate significant economic output. However, the assumptions underlying these estimates are questioned and it is considered that the actual economic benefits are likely to be lower than projected. Similar benefits would arise if the employment development took place on alternative, more sustainable, sites, which the proposal would potentially undermine. The proposal would generate temporary construction employment, but this would be similar to that arising from development on allocated sites. D.11 The proposal would give rise to significant additional traffic, including heavy goods vehicle movements between the proposed storage / distribution and industrial units and the M8 Chapelhall junction. However, subject to a package of proposed mitigation and to further traffic assessments at later stages in the development process, it is considered that these impacts Page 12 of 90
Page 13
would be acceptable. There would be a need for increased capacity at local primary and secondary schools, and the provision of a primary school campus on the site would form part of that mitigation. These issues would require a planning obligation to secure developer contributions and off-site work. All other technical matters in this regard would be capable of being addressed through conditions. D.12 The applicant acknowledges that the proposal is contrary to the Green Belt policies but argues that the site does not satisfy the present requirements for being designated as Green Belt and that it should instead be regarded as being within an urban area. For that and other reasons they do not consider the proposal to have any significant conflicts with other development plan policies, and they consider that material considerations justify the departure from Green Belt policy. In particular, the applicant considers that there are shortfalls in housing and industrial land supply which the proposal would address, that the proposal would have major economic benefits (including the new jobs discussed above), that the proposal would improve the local environment by providing a large amount of new landscaping and woodland planting with improved maintenance of these areas, and that the creation of a country park, community allotments and a football academy would be of benefit to the local community. However, as explained above it is considered that the site is an appropriate and valuable part of the Green Belt, and the proposal is significantly contrary to its associated policies. The material considerations raised in favour of the proposal are not considered to be sufficient to justify this major departure from the development plan, especially when the development also has significant negative impacts and these are considered to outweigh any benefits. E Conclusion E.1 In conclusion, the proposed development is contrary to multiple policies of the development plan and represents a significant departure from the established spatial strategy. It would result in the unjustified loss of Green Belt land, significant adverse impacts on landscape and heritage assets, the creation of an unduly car-dependent community and would undermine the prospects of securing the development of more appropriate sites that are identified within the development plan. While the proposal includes some benefits, these are not sufficient to outweigh the policy conflicts and environmental harms. It is therefore recommended that planning permission in principle be refused. E.2 Should the Council be minded to approve the application, it is recommended that permission not be released until a legal agreement is concluded to secure developer contributions and specify responsibilities in respect of education provision, road improvements, sustainable transport infrastructure, public transport support, and the management of open space. Page 13 of 90
Page 14
APPLICATION NO. 18/00890/PPP REPORT 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 To advise the Council of a planning application for a major development which would be significantly contrary to the development plan, and which is therefore required to be determined by the Full Council. The Council is asked to determine the application, having regard to evidence heard at the pre-determination hearing and to the contents of this report. 2. Background 2.1 This planning application was submitted in 2018, and the details of the proposal have evolved over the years. When originally submitted the application sought up to 2,600 houses / flats and a larger mixed-use local / commercial centre, but during the course of the application the number of dwellings has been reduced, the mixed-use centre has been reduced to a smaller local centre and an industrial / storage and distribution area has been added. The original proposal had a larger development footprint that included development of the area immediately north of Calderbank, and would have included new road connections from the site to the Eurocentral A8/M8 roundabout (Junction 7) to the south and to Calderbank Road to the east, but these have all since been deleted. The amount of new woodland planting proposed has also been increased. These changes were made by the applicant in response to comments from consultees and from the Planning Service, as well as to changes to the property market over the last seven years. Updated supporting documents have been provided to reflect these changes, as well as to respond to changes to local and national planning policies (including the adoption of a new local development plan and of National Planning Framework 4 during the application period). 2.2 The application has therefore been subject to an extremely prolonged consideration period, which was partly due to the complexity of technical consultations in respect of traffic impact. The proposal involves construction of a new road which would in effect form a bypass for Calderbank, and as noted above earlier versions of the proposal also included a new direct connection to M8 Junction 7 (since dropped). Consequently there are implications for traffic patterns in the surrounding area, and discussions with Transport Scotland and with the Council’s Infrastructure and Transportation Service have been extensive. Additional traffic survey work was required, which was complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic, and as noted above the applicant’s proposals for the site have also changed over time requiring revised documents including an update to the Environmental Statement. Three separate public consultation periods were therefore required in 2018, 2021 and 2024. However, there is now sufficient information to allow determination of the application as it stands. 2.3 Masterplan drawings have been provided showing the broad outline of the applicant’s proposal, however in terms of detailed layouts and land uses the masterplan is indicative only. If permission in principle were to be granted, future applications for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions (AMSC) would be required in order to confirm the masterplan and allow the consideration of fully detailed proposals for each development phase. 3. Site Description 3.1 The application relates to some 244 hectares (603 acres) of countryside at Faskine on the southern edge of Airdrie. Broadly, the application site is bordered by residential areas in Airdrie (Sykeside Road and Calderbank Road) to the north, by the valley of the North Calder Page 14 of 90
Page 15
Water (separating the site from housing at Carnbroe) to the west, by Calderbank Road and housing in the village of Calderbank to the east, and by the A8 / M8 road corridor to the south, with the Eurocentral / Maxim business park opposite. Nearly all of the application site is currently either agricultural fields, woodland or unused grassland, but it also contains an active farmstead (Faskine Farm) and a large house (High Palacecraig). Also within the site, but excluded from the application boundary, are another eight individual houses at dispersed locations. The immediate neighbouring land is mainly countryside, roads or housing on the edges of the aforementioned urban areas, but other neighbouring uses include a coach depot, a courier firm and boarding kennels. The North Calder Water and the Monkland Canal both traverse the site from south-east to north-west, and there is also a small lake (Lilly Pond) as well as various smaller burns and ponds. The canal towpath along with numerous other footpaths and privately maintained roads cross the site and are used for recreational walking, some of these being designated as Core Paths. Due to the very large size of the site its ground levels are undulating, but in general it is lowest across the centre of the site (i.e. the valley of the North Calder Water), with land rising gently to both the north and south. 3.2 Within the site there are various features of historic or natural interest. Designated heritage features comprise the Monkland Canal and the remains of Woodhall House (both scheduled monuments) and High Palacecraig house (a category B listed building). Most of the woodland and watercourse areas within the site are designated as sites of interest for nature conservation (SINCs), while some of the woodland is also subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs). The woodland and fields in the southern part of the site were once part of a designed landscape for the Woodhall House estate, though it is not included on the national Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. The earthworks of an ancient hill fort (Crogals Castle) straddle the application boundary south of Calderbank, and there are various surviving remnants of historic industrial and railway infrastructure as well as potential for other features of archaeological interest from the early industrial revolution and earlier periods across much of the site. 4. Proposed Development 4.1 A copy of the proposed masterplan for the site is attached as Appendix 1 to this report. The application seeks planning permission in principle, so the unit numbers and floorspace figures given here are approximate only. The applicant proposes to develop up to 980 new homes as a mixture of houses and flats, 84,540sq/m of storage and distribution floorspace, 27,870sq/m of general industrial floorspace, an unspecified quantity of retail and other commercial floorspace to form a new local centre, up to 650sq/m of ancillary retail / commercial floorspace within the industrial area, a new school campus and a youth football academy, along with associated infrastructure including a new spine road through the site connecting Sykeside Road with Woodhall Mill Road. The description of development also includes health care and community uses (which may form part of the local centre), and hotel, public house and petrol filling station uses (which were all part of the original 2018 proposal and were retained in the description, but are now thought unlikely to be viable and are not shown in the masterplan). 4.2 The proposed new housing would be located within the north-western quarter of the site, between Sykeside Road and the Monkland Canal, and also on part of the strip of land between the canal and the North Calder Water, totalling around 43.7ha in area. Around 20-25% of these new houses and flats (up to 245 units) are intended to be affordable homes. Within this area the category B-listed High Palacecraig house would be retained, as would several other existing houses which are surrounded by but not part of the application site. Just north of the canal near the centre of the residential area it is proposed to create a new local neighbourhood centre (0.5ha) on the west side of the new spine road, and a new primary school campus (2.2ha) and a community sports facility along with the football academy (0.6ha) on the east Page 15 of 90
Page 16
side of the spine road. Maximum building height within the new centre and school campus is envisioned to be 3-5 storeys, whereas the housing would be predominantly 2-storey. The application also covers an energy centre for a district heating system, although the applicant indicates that it is now anticipated that shared ground source heat pumps would be used instead. 4.3 The storage, distribution and general industrial units would be dispersed throughout the southern half of the site, totalling around 36ha in area. The location and size of these development plots would be dictated by the existing gaps in the woodland cover, which it is intended to retain. The two largest plots are intended for major storage and distribution uses (with buildings of 55,740sq/m and 28,800sq/m respectively), whilst the other four smaller plots would be for general industrial use with buildings totalling 27,870sq/m. (These floorspace figures are approximate because in practice such large plots usually require bespoke designs tailored to the specific needs of whichever business would occupy them, and that is not currently known). It is also proposed to provide approximately 650sq/m of ancillary retail and/or food and drink floorspace in the southern part of the site in order to serve workers and visitors to the industrial area. 4.4 The proposed new spine road would connect Sykeside Road near the north-west corner of the site with Woodhall Mill Road in the south-east corner. The indicative layout shows around 300m of the present Sykeside Road being realigned further to the south, where a new roundabout would be built at the junction of the proposed new spine road. The spine road would pass through the centre of the proposed residential area and cross the Monkland Canal and North Calder Water on new bridges. It would then loop through the southern (industrial) part of the site following a route intended to minimise its impact on existing woodland, and would connect to Woodhall Mill Road (B802) where another new roundabout would be created. Along the spine road new roundabouts would be formed at various points to serve the new development. Although the intended purpose of the new spine road is to access the proposed development, in practice it would also provide a new connection between Coatbridge and the M8 Chapelhall junction bypassing Calderbank so it would inevitably also become a route for through traffic. 4.5 Around 64% of the total site area (157.7ha) would remain as green space, with some parts of this being enhanced and managed, including biodiversity and environmental improvements along the canal (subject to agreement with Scottish Canals). There is currently approximately 59ha of woodland on the site, approximately 94% of which would be retained. The other 4ha of the existing woodland would be removed in order to facilitate new roads, but it is proposed to plant 27.5ha of new woodland resulting in a net increase in the woodland area of 23.5ha (almost 40%). New or formalised paths would be provided throughout the woodland areas which would become a country park. Other areas of green space would include allotments and community gardens. The applicant proposes to transfer the green space into community ownership, with an initial investment from the developer and a proportion of factoring fees being used to fund its ongoing management and maintenance. 4.6 The development would be phased to start at each end of the proposed new spine road, with the first 300 homes (Phase 1A) and the majority of the industrial area (Phase 1B) being developed concurrently as two separate temporary cul-de-sacs. These two sections of road would then be joined together to create the new spine road, with the balance of the housing together with the local centre, school and football facility (Phases 2A-2C). Finally the balance of the industrial floorspace would be provided as Phases 2D and 3. The development is estimated as taking 15-18 years to complete. A breakdown of the proposed phasing is as follows: Page 16 of 90
Page 17
Phase Houses & Flats Storage & Distribution (sq/m) General Industrial (sq/m) Other development Spine Road 1A 300 - - - north third 1B - 55,740 14,870 Ancillary retail / food in industrial area south third spine road - - - - middle third 2A 270 - - Local centre (retail, food/drink, community etc.) (following completion of spine road) 2B 270 - - Primary school and football academy 2C 140 - - - 2D - - 13,000 - 3 - 28,800 - - 5. Applicant’s Supporting Information 5.1 Updates to documents and additional information have been submitted throughout the duration of the application, and some of the original documents have been superseded. The applicant’s current supporting information includes the following: • Application Forms and Location Plan; • Parameters Plan, Indicative Masterplan, Green Masterplan and Phasing Plan; • Planning Statement (February 2024); • Environmental Statement (May 2018), including addendum (February 2024) and Wintering Bird Survey (April 2024); • Design and Access Statement (June 2018) as amended by Masterplan Vision Statements (October 2021 and February 2024); • Transport Assessment (January 2024); • Climate Change Assessment (February 2024); • Technical Memorandum on Flood Risk (October 2024); • Pre-Application Consultation Report (June 2018); • Arboricultural Constraints Report (March 2018); • Development Services Report (June 2018) partially superseded by Commercial Property Market Report (February 2024); • Utilities Report and Statement (April 2018); and • Alternative Infrastructure Options Report (June 2018). 6. Site History 6.1 Whilst it has always been predominantly countryside, the application site was historically the location of some the earliest industrial-era coal and ironstone mining in Scotland. These industries required transport, and both the Monkland Canal (one of the earliest in Scotland) and the Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway (the first public railway in Scotland) had their eastern termini on the site, opening in 1771 and 1826 respectively. By the end of the Victorian period the site contained numerous small coal and ironstone mines, brickworks, two railway lines, multiple rows of miners’ cottages and a school, as well as a large Eighteenth Century country house (Woodhall House) and its associated policies (i.e. ornamental parkland). However, the minerals were worked out by the early Twentieth Century and the associated industries and railways closed. The former mining village of Faskine was cleared, and Woodhall House was also demolished in the 1920s. The Monkland Canal closed to navigation in 1942, by which date its section through the application site was already moribund. The previously developed sites were either returned to agricultural use or allowed to rewild. As a result, over the last century the area has regained its rural appearance and character. Page 17 of 90
Page 18
6.2 The site has long been allocated as Green Belt in successive development plans, although between 1999 and 2009 the former Structure Plan also designated an undefined area at Woodhall / Faskine as a “nationally safeguarded inward investment location” for single-user high-amenity class 4 (business) uses only. That designation reflected national policies at the time, which sought to ensure that suitable sites were available for major employment uses requiring large, high-amenity sites, and in which Woodhall / Faskine was described as a “specialised supply site”. There were never any specific proposals for Woodhall / Faskine, but it is likely that what was envisaged was a campus type development with a single very large corporate headquarters or factory set within the existing parkland, and providing a large number of new jobs possibly as an inward investment to Scotland. The policy did not allow any other types of development, and in the absence of any requirement for the site from a major employer the site remained part of the Green Belt. After 2009 the structure plan allocation at Woodhall / Faskine was deleted because the Scottish Government left it to planning authorities to identify sites for major inward investment, and by that time preferable alternative sites had been identified to meet the very limited demand for this type of facility. 7. Development Plan 7.1 The following development plan policies are considered to be of relevance to this application. An assessment of the proposal against these policies is contained in Section 10 below. National Planning Framework 4 • Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises) supports development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crises. • Policy 2 (Climate, Mitigation and Adaptation) supports development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. • Policy 3 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, have development deliver positive effects on biodiversity, and to strengthen nature networks. • Policy 4 (Natural Places) seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets, making best use of nature-based solutions. • Policy 5 (Soils) seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatland and minimise disturbance of soils by development. • Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. • Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. • Policy 8 (Green Belts) supports compact urban growth and using the land around towns and cities sustainably. • Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) supports the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and reducing the need for greenfield development. • Policy 12 (Zero Waste) supports development which is consistent with the Scottish waste hierarchy. • Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) supports developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel, and which reduce the need to travel unsustainably. • Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) supports well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. • Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods) supports the application of the Place Principle and the creation of connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their Page 18 of 90
Page 19
home, preferably by walking, wheeling, cycling or using sustainable transport options. • Policy 16 (Quality Homes) supports the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures and meeting the diverse needs of people and communities. • Policy 18 (Infrastructure First) supports an approach to land use planning which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. • Policy 19 (Heat and Cooling) supports development featuring decarbonised solutions to heat and cooling demand and ensuring adaptation to more extreme temperatures. • Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure) seeks to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. • Policy 21 (Play, Recreation and Sport) supports spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. • Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and by reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. • Policy 23 (Health and Safety) seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, to mitigate risks arising from safety hazards, and to support development that improves health and wellbeing. • Policy 26 (Business and Industry) supports business and industry uses and seeks to enable alternative ways of working such as home-working, live-work units and microbusinesses. • Policy 27 (City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres) supports development in town and city centres, recognising these as a national asset. The Town Centre First approach will be applied to help centres adapt positively to long-term economic, environmental and societal changes. Town centre living is encouraged. • Policy 28 (Retail) supports retail investment in the most sustainable locations that are most accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes. • Policy 30 (Tourism) supports sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with Scotland’s net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. • Policy 31 (Culture and Creativity) supports development which reflects our diverse culture and creativity, and which supports our culture and creative industries. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022) • Policy PROM LOC1 (Regeneration Priorities) promotes regeneration and sustainable growth by delivering the right amount of development in the right places, to the right quality and for the benefit of the communities affected. Physical regeneration of the existing urban area and the network of centres therein will be given priority. • Policy PROM LOC2 (Business Development Sites) supports business growth and directs it to the Strategic and Local Business Centres and to other existing or allocated business sites. • Policy PROM LOC3 (Housing Development Sites) is no longer applicable, as it has been superseded by the new approach to housing land supply set out in NPF4 policy 16. • Policy PROM LOC4 (Special Landscape Areas & Green Network Improvements) promotes the enhancement of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network. • Policy PROM ID 1 (Transport Improvements) supports sustainable, multi-modal transport improvements. Transport developments will be assessed for their contribution to modal shift in line with the sustainable modal hierarchy. • Policy PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) protects natural and resilient, sustainable places by safeguarding natural heritage assets, including national and locally designated sites, the urban green network and protected species. • Policy PROT B (Historic Environment Assets) seeks to protect and create resilient sustainable places by safeguarding historic environment assets, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings, designed landscapes, canal corridors, and sites of Page 19 of 90
Page 20
architectural interest. • Policy PP 2C (Visitor Economy Areas & Locations – Purpose of Place) supports the provision of tourism and leisure facilities in designated Visitor Economy Locations (such as the Monkland Canal). The impact of development proposals on the attractiveness of sites as Visitor Economy Locations should be considered. • Policy AD 2C (Visitor Economy Areas & Locations – Amount of Development) sets out criteria for assessing the amount of development proposed in Visitor Economy Locations. • Policy PP 4 (Green Belt – Purpose of Place) seeks to protect the setting of communities, support regeneration of urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high quality environment by promoting a Green Belt, within which only development of specific types or under specific circumstances will be supported. Development will be resisted unless it is for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism or it has a requirement for a Green Belt location and can be balanced against any adverse effects on the purposes of the Green Belt. • Policy AD 4 (Green Belt – Amount of Development) sets out criteria for assessing the amount of development proposed within the Green Belt. • Policy CI (Contributions to Infrastructure) indicates that the council will seek to secure developer contributions for new development which generates a requirement for new or enhanced infrastructure or services, including affordable housing, education, transport, green space and play facilities. • Policy EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) requires that any proposed development be appraised in terms of the site and its surroundings to ensure that it will integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity. Applications are to be accompanied by documents sufficient to allow the appraisal of all matters relevant to the proposal. • Policy EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) details specific technical matters requiring special assessment, including flood risk, contaminated land, ground stability, utility pipelines and environmental management areas. • Policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) indicates that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of site appraisal, technical and protected asset policies as listed above and achieves a high quality of development, including delivering the qualities of successful places and moving towards a low-carbon economy, amongst other requirements. 8. Consultations 8.1 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) initially objected to the application because of concerns about the impact of new bridges on the setting of the Monkland Canal, but following the submission of further information about the rationale for the bridges and their location, HES withdrew their objection. (Subsequent amendments to the proposal have also resulted in one of the two new canal bridges that were originally proposed being deleted). Detailed design of any new bridge(s) over the canal will however require careful consideration, and work directly affecting the canal would require separate Scheduled Monument Consent. HES comment that the proposal is likely to have an adverse impact upon the setting of the Woodhall House site, however given the previous major changes to the landscape in this area they do not consider that impact to be of sufficient national significance to justify an objection on their part. HES have confirmed that their position is merely that the proposal does not raise historic environment issues of national importance so it is outwith their remit, which should not be taken as support for the proposal. (For the same reason they have not commented on the impact on the setting of High Palacecraig, because as it is a category ‘B’ listed building that impact is regarded as a local matter for the council to consider itself). Page 20 of 90
Page 21
8.2 The Mining Remediation Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring that intrusive site investigations be carried out prior to the submission of detailed applications, and that appropriate information including any necessary remediation proposal be included with such applications. They comment that the site has a long history of shallow coal mining and there is a potential for unrecorded workings, but that the recommendations contained in the applicant’s coal mining risk assessment are appropriate. 8.3 NatureScot has no objection to the application and has commented they are content with the ecological assessment overall. With regard to those protected species which fall within NatureScot’s remit for planning consultations (i.e. bats, otters, great crested newts, badgers and breeding birds), they do not consider that species protection plans would currently be required. However, detailed and updated surveys would be needed as part of any applications for approval of matters specified in conditions, and mitigation work for badgers and nesting birds would be required. These matters could be addressed by conditions. NatureScot also comment that the impact of the proposed development on existing public footpaths and rights of way should be considered by the council, and a recreation and access assessment should be required as a condition of any approval. 8.4 NLC Archaeology Consultant has no objection subject to a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a scheme of archaeological investigations. It is noted that the proposal seeks to minimise its impact on features of archaeological interest which are known or likely to survive, however as large parts of the site are previously undeveloped arable land it is possible that there is previously unknown medieval or prehistoric material in those areas. The recommendations contained in the archaeology section of the Environment Statement are considered to be generally appropriate. 8.5 NLC Education indicate that the development site currently straddles the catchment areas of two sets of non-denominational and denominational primary and secondary schools, and as there are already significant capacity constraints across the Monklands some redrawing of catchment boundaries would be necessary if a development of the size proposed were to be approved. Based on the predicted number of pupils from the development (294 primary and 235 secondary) it is considered that two new primary schools with nursery provision would be needed, and that all four secondary schools would require extension. The Education Service therefore requests a developer contribution of £12,739,191 and the provision of land for a two-primary and nursery campus, which would become necessary as a result of the development but would serve wider new catchment areas. They also indicate that as the existing primary schools are already very close to capacity the new primary schools would be needed earlier in the development than the current phasing plan proposes (Phase 2B), as otherwise there would not be sufficient local capacity to cope with children from the early phases. Additionally, the Education Service notes that as the application site has not been identified as a site for housing within the local development plan the council has not programmed or budgeted for these new schools, so their delivery would be challenging. Further negotiations would therefore be needed with the applicant about the precise location and size of the school campus and the funding and phasing of it in the event of the council being minded to grant permission. 8.6 NLC Landscape team (commenting on the original 2018 masterplan) objected to the application on the grounds that it would result in the infilling of the current green space between Carnbroe and Calderbank and the continuation of the spread of ribbon development along the M8 corridor between the outskirts of Glasgow and Chapelhall. It would include the permanent loss of the open field system which largely informs the character of the site, along with the remains of the former designed landscape in the southern part of the site. (The Landscape team has since been disbanded so there are no comments on the present revised masterplan which reduced the area of development, however the comments on the original proposal are still considered to be applicable). Page 21 of 90
Page 22
8.7 NLC Protective Services has no objection subject to conditions relating to potentially contaminated land and noise impact. The conclusions of the noise and vibration and the ground conditions chapters of the Environment Statement are generally accepted, but any detailed applications will require more detailed supporting information on these matters including the results of invasive site investigations were appropriate. It is important that detailed surveys are carried out in a comprehensive manner so the phasing of site investigation and noise impact surveys would need to be agreed as part of the phasing of development of the site, if this application was to be approved. 8.8 NLC Infrastructure & Transportation has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions covering a range of matters including works to mitigate traffic impacts on the local road network, the development being designed in accordance with appropriate road design and parking standards, and provision for pedestrians, cyclists and buses. Their main comments and requirements can be summarised as follows: • Based on the current TA, mitigation works will be needed on the local road network at the new junctions and a number of off-site locations as follows: - Provision of a pedestrian footway on the south side of Paddock Street west from the Monkland Canal towpath to connect to the existing footpath; - Provision of pedestrian footways on both sides of the realigned Sykeside Road and the site frontage of the existing road, and of new controlled pedestrian crossings on each arm of the new roundabout; - Remodelling of Sykeside Road / Cairnhill Road / Calderbank Road (B802) junction, including new pedestrian crossings. The applicant envisages the existing mini- roundabout being replaced by a signalised junction, but Infrastructure and Transportation suggest that a roundabout might be needed as this junction is already operating over its capacity. The design of this junction would be a matter for a future detailed AMSC application and would need to demonstrate that there was no net detriment to traffic flow at this junction as a result of the development; - Provision of a pedestrian footway on the south side of Calderbank Road. Detailed proposals for the Calderbank Road alterations should ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access to bus stops on Calderbank Road, including relocation of stops and/or additional pedestrian crossing points if necessary to achieve this; - Widening of the footway on the western side of Woodhall Mill Road to 3.5m between Calderbank village and the proposed new roundabout into the site in order to facilitate active travel. The new roundabout would also need to include suitable pedestrian crossing routes within its design; and - Alterations to the B802 Woodhall Mill Road / B799 Bo’ness Road / A8 Connection roundabout at Chapelhall including signalisation and provision of an additional lane between the B802 approach and the B799 northbound exit (i.e. accommodating vehicles travelling from Calderbank to Chapelhall); • Not more than 300 homes (or the equivalent trip generators for the industrial area) can be served by a single means of road access (including a single roundabout serving multiple roads). In practice as Phase 1A is intended to contain 300 houses accessed from the proposed new roundabout on Sykeside Road, this would mean that no more of the proposed housing could be occupied until the whole of the spine road connecting through to Phase 1B / Woodhall Mill Road had been completed; • The impact of the proposed new spine road on local traffic patterns is difficult to predict with certainty because it has significant potential to divert existing traffic and the design of the new road is not yet confirmed. Additionally, the traffic implications of potential major trip generators (e.g. the proposed new storage and distribution centre and new schools) are not currently known so would need to be taken into account once information became available. Therefore updated Transport Assessments (TAs) would be needed at Page 22 of 90
Page 23
appropriate stages to confirm or revise the findings of the present TA and identify any amendments to the off-site road infrastructure works which might become necessary. Infrastructure and Transportation therefore request that updated TAs be provided (1) after completion of the spine road but prior to the completion of the 500th dwelling; and (2) as part of detailed applications for the subsequent phases of development. If these showed a requirement for additional off-site mitigation works the developer should be required to pay for these and an appropriate mechanism for securing this would be needed; • Some technical anomalies in the current traffic modelling data have been noted, and whilst these are not considered to affect its overall conclusions the matters could be addressed in future TAs; • Detailed road, footway and parking design within the development should conform to the council’s standards, including the design of the spine road which should have no direct development frontage and should not include direct accesses into the proposed local centre or schools. Street design should follow an appropriate hierarchy with residential areas designed in accordance with the principles of Designing Streets, and street engineering reviews should be provided in support of any detailed applications for those areas; • Infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and buses should be included in the detailed design, including provision of direct pedestrian routes towards existing facilities (e.g. shops, schools, employment, public transport). This should include pedestrian connections to Calderbank Road and the Eurocentral roundabout, active travel foot/cycleways on main roads in and around the site, suitable pedestrian crossing facilities and the new spine road being suitable for buses with stops at appropriate locations; • Access to existing local services and facilities from much of the site is poor due to the long walking distances involved, with similarly poor access to existing public transport. Providing the necessary bus infrastructure on the spine road would not guarantee provision of a bus service so the developer may have to subsidise this in order to enable the development to meet minimum requirements for accessibility; and • Due to the potential volume and duration of construction traffic, a construction traffic management plan would be needed and the developer should be required to enter into an agreement in respect of repairs to local roads necessary because of damage by construction traffic 8.9 Scottish Canals neither supports nor objects to the proposal. The proposal would provide an opportunity to regenerate this section of the Monkland Canal by renewing infrastructure and improving public access, but this is balanced by concerns about the scale of the development and its potential impact on the setting of the canal. (These comments related to the original 2018 proposal and Scottish Canals have not commented on the most recent masterplan, however other than the deletion of one of the proposed new bridges, it is considered that the opportunities and impacts in respect of the canal remain similar). 8.10 Scottish Forestry has drawn attention to the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy, and have indicated that the proposed loss of woodland has not been justified in the manner required by the policy. Ancient semi-natural woodland (of which around 1ha would be lost) is an irreplaceable resource which should be protected from adverse impacts, whilst existing woodland of all types should only be removed where it would achieve clearly defined public benefits. They recommend that if the application is approved it should be subject to suitable compensatory planting which should be secured by conditions. (These comments dated from 2021, and the applicant has since amended the application to increase the amount of compensatory planting from around 8ha to 27.5ha). Page 23 of 90
Page 24
8.11 Scottish Gas Networks and SP Energy Networks have no objections. Normal requirements for any development in the vicinity of utility infrastructure would apply. 8.12 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has no objection subject to conditions requiring a drainage impact assessment and a site waste management plan. 8.13 Scottish Water has no objection to the proposal. There is currently sufficient water supply capacity to accommodate the development, although capacity cannot be reserved. The developer should provide further information to Scottish Water in respect of waste water. Surface water must not be discharged into the public sewers and this should be disposed of by way of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). These are normal requirements which are typically expected of all new development proposals. 8.14 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) provided comments on an earlier version of the proposal but have not responded in respect of the most recent amendments. They expressed concern that the development did not appear to give sufficient consideration to public transport given the scale of the proposal and recommended that if permission was granted a sustainable travel strategy should be required for the whole site. (At the time of those comments the application included a much larger number of houses and a larger mixed-use centre, which are no longer proposed, however it is considered that SPT’s comments about the poor public transport accessibility of the site remain applicable). 8.15 Transport Scotland has no objection to the application subject to conditions covering the following Trunk Roads matters: • Alterations to the B799/B802/A8 Connection roundabout, as detailed above (para. 8.8); • Various alterations to the four M8/A8 roundabouts within Junctions 6 (Eurocentral) and 6A (Chapelhall) including widening/additional lanes, and the signalisation of the Eurocentral north roundabout with new puffin crossings; • Agreement of phasing, construction traffic management plan, measures to keep roads clear of construction materials, and of boundary treatments, lighting and drainage insofar as these might impact upon trunk roads; and • Requirement for a green travel plan to reduce dependence on the private car. Observations have also been provided on local transport matters, which have been incorporated into the discussion below. 8.16 Woodland Trust Scotland objects to the application due to its impact upon native long- established plantation-origin (LEPO) woodland. They consider that the proposal would adversely affect important LEPO woodland due to direct loss and fragmentation of woodland (mainly by forming roads through it), impact on the remaining woodland from noise, light and dust pollution, threats to the long-term retention of trees near development, adverse hydrological impacts and the cumulative effects of these impacts resulting in long-term deterioration of the woodland on the site. 9. Representations 9.1 This application has been subject to three separate notification and publicity exercises over an extended period and has generated 3,625 individual representation submissions, however this figure includes a large number of duplicates from people who have made more than one submission and also numerous invalid submissions from people who have not provided their full name or signature and full address. Both sides have encouraged the submission of representations, including the collection of large numbers of signed pro-forma objection letters Page 24 of 90
Page 25
akin to a petition, and measures taken by the applicant to encourage the submission of supporting comments. Both sides have therefore argued that some of the opposing representations should not be treated as valid for various reasons. However, applying the standard set out in the approved Scheme of Delegation (i.e. multiple submissions from the same address are treated as a single representation) while discounting submissions without a full name and postal address, the number of representations is as detailed below. Ultimately, it is the content of the representations (i.e. the material planning considerations which they raise) that is relevant, not the final number of them. 9.2 A total of 2029 valid objections to the proposal were received from 2014 households, 6 current or former elected representatives (Steven Bonnar MP, Richard Leonard MSP, Gillian Mackay MSP, Margaret Mitchell MSP, Graham Simpson MSP and Elaine Smith MSP), 2 community councils whose areas border the site (Cairnhill and Monkland Glen Community Councils), and from 7 companies or organisations (the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, Helensburgh Green Belt Group, Kilmacolm Eco Space, Ravenscraig Ltd., Save Woodhall and Faskine Greenbelt Campaign, and Woodhall, Faskine and Palacecraig Conservation Group. Excluding comments which were specific to previous versions of the proposal, the reasons for objection can be summarised as follows: Countryside and Landscape • Loss of attractive area of countryside, most attractive part of the Monklands; • Loss of green buffer between Airdrie, Carnbroe, Calderbank and M8 corridor. Settlements will instead be joined together by urban sprawl; • Loss of agricultural land which contributes to food security; • Loss of designed landscape of former Woodhall House estate (enclosed fields, geometrically-planted woodland, lake, arboretum); • Countryside / Green Belt has already been harmed by M8 and new housing at Carnbroe, and should not be further eroded by non-essential development such as this proposal; • Development of Green Belt contrary to national and local planning policies; • Potential for huge industrial ‘boxes’ in the landscape. • Too much local greenspace has already been lost to development; Open Space • Application site well used by local people for countryside access (walking, cycling, running, dog walking, horse riding, organised exercise groups, fishing, wildlife watching, metal detecting, etc.), especially canal towpath and other footpaths. Appeal of these will be lost if they are surrounded by urban development; • Ready access to the countryside at this location benefits whole community regardless of age, wealth and access to car, etc. • Importance of countryside access for mental and physical health in a community with high levels of poor health, as well as encouraging children to be active and tackling the national obesity crisis; • Lack of alternative places for similar countryside recreation in vicinity; • Countryside irreplaceable and future generations will be deprived of this area if it is lost; • Whole site should become a country park, not just the parts that are not viable to develop; • Some objectors favoured the site becoming a country park but did not consider the proposed development to be a price worth paying to achieve that. Other objectors viewed the applicant’s proposal to transfer undeveloped parts of the site to community ownership as a means of avoiding responsibility for its future maintenance; • Proposed football facility with synthetic pitches for those who pay to use them is not a substitute for community access to countryside; • Tranquil area of countryside close to town would be lost; Page 25 of 90
Page 26
Ecology and Natural Environment • Adverse impact upon existing woodland, including ancient woodland which will take hundreds of years to replace; • Detrimental impact on wildlife habitat due to loss of feeding grounds, fragmentation of woodland due to construction of roads, noise, light and human activity; • Adverse impact on large number of wildlife species, including many bird species, great crested newts and other amphibians, badgers, deer, otter, water vole and insects; • Adverse impact on flora including trees and wildflowers, including rare species. Areas described in the application as scrub actually have varied vegetation and are important habitats; • Large parts of site are designated as a SINC and should be protected; • Loss of large section of Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network; • Ecological survey data out of date; • Amount of wildlife understated in application documents; Historic Environment • Adverse impact on setting of Monkland Canal, a scheduled monument of national importance. • Importance of Woodhall / Faskine area as a centre of early Scottish industrialisation. Archaeological remains of early mining, metal working, shipbuilding, tramways and former Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway would be destroyed; • Potential destruction of older archaeological features on site where there is evidence of neolithic farming, Roman settlement and medieval monastic farming; • Loss of social history asset for local families whose ancestors lived or worked on the site; Housing and Industrial Development • Ample brownfield land available including at Ravenscraig, Maxim, Eurocentral and throughout Monklands area so no need to develop greenfield land. North Lanarkshire has 4th highest extent of derelict land in Scotland; • Development will undermine efforts to regenerate strategic and other preferable brownfield sites; • No requirement for additional housing land on the scale proposed; • Houses likely to be expensive luxury houses as opposed to houses for local people, and promises of social housing may be broken; • Additional industrial land not needed as there are vacant plots in Eurocentral and elsewhere, and demand for speculative new-build industrial units is currently very limited; • Indicative layout for industrial plots is poorly laid out and unlikely to meet needs of potential users. The industrial area appears to have been included to establish the principle of development not to actually build; • Lack of information about who might occupy the industrial plots and doubts about whether these (and the promised jobs) will materialise; • Density of proposed development with maximum height of 3-4 storeys not in keeping with surrounding 2-storey housing; • Application claims housing will be zero-carbon and served by a district heating system, but no guarantee that this would be delivered, and even if they were provided it would not make the development of an unsustainable site any more appropriate; • Contrary to government policy on developing in sustainable locations and at odds with international commitments towards addressing climate change Town Centres, Services and Utilities • Lack of detail of proposals for local centre, which potentially could include uses more appropriate for existing town centres in line with Town Centre First principles; • Town centres should be regenerated and compact urban growth promoted, rather than Page 26 of 90
Page 27
building more low density suburban housing and out of centre retail; • Promises of community facilities within housing development have been broken elsewhere and are not likely to be delivered here either, especially as application is for permission in principle only; • Lack of capacity in local schools, nurseries, medical and dental practices. Even if new school is provided local schools would be over capacity until it was complete; • Existing drainage problems in area may be exacerbated; Amenity and Pollution • Development will involve 20 years of disruption to local communities; • Impact on existing homes within the development site – owners moved there to live in the countryside not to live in a housing development; • Lack of consultation with existing homeowners on the site in relation to access and ownership rights; • Damage to air quality – site is pocket of clean air surrounded by towns / roads; • Pollution from additional traffic in surrounding communities where exhaust emissions are already high, and risk that this may trigger need for air quality management area; • Impact of vehicle emissions on a community with existing poor health; • Noise impact of additional traffic and industrial uses on local residents. Site serves as noise buffer between local communities and motorway corridor, whereas proposal would increase noise; • Risk of pollution for North Calder Water, including run-off from construction activity. • Additional light pollution on a site within Scotland’s largest area of light pollution; Traffic and Sustainable Travel • Additional traffic will overwhelm the local road network, which is already subject to significant congestion (e.g. through Calderbank and Chapelhall in peak hours); • Deletion of proposed access to Eurocentral junction will result in all traffic being routed through existing communities exacerbating existing problems; • Adverse impact of additional traffic through existing communities on road safety and pedestrians, especially school children; • Deletion of originally proposed connection to M8 at Eurocentral increases traffic impact on surrounding communities; • New link road through site will become a ‘rat run’ and lead to additional through traffic and existing streets; • Heavy construction traffic through nearby communities during development of the site; • Site not suitable for development due to poor public transport and active transport access, and incompatible with 20 Minute Neighbourhood concept due to distance from town centre; • Site next to the motorway will be car-reliant and will encourage unsustainable long-distance commuting, while any new jobs are also less likely to benefit locals; Other Matters • Increased risk of flooding due to surface water run-off into North Calder Water, and flood risk documents do not provide sufficient detail of intentions to prevent this; • Parts of site at risk from sinkholes and old mineworkings; • Development would not benefit local people, only landowners and housebuilders; • Local community overwhelmingly opposes proposals and has been treated with disrespect by the Applicant, who inaccurately disparages the condition of the site and understates its value to and use by the community; • Applicant has attempted to buy support for proposal by offering to provide new sports facilities for specific groups, and some supporters have undeclared vested interests in the development; • Supporting documents exaggerate the supposed economic and social benefits of proposal Page 27 of 90
Page 28
and ‘greenwash’ over its unsustainable nature; • Environmental Impact Assessment should have been re-scoped for 2024 amendments due to extent of changes. 9.3 Sixty six representations of support were received from 58 households, 2 community councils from elsewhere in the Monklands (North Calder and Plains Community Councils) and from 6 companies or organisations (Calderbank Bowling Club, Cruden Homes, Dundas Estates, Gartcairn Football Academy, the Scottish Junior Football Association and Springfield Properties). Reasons for supporting the proposal can be summarised as follows: • Major investment in area and would benefit local economy and employment and tackle deprivation; • Developing the site would sustain a large number of construction jobs; • Provision of new community facilities (schools, medical facilities, community growing space); • Improvements to local road network including new connection to motorway (though that has since been dropped from the proposal); • Additional housing, including affordable housing, would help local families to stay in the area; • Additional population would sustain local businesses, sports clubs, etc.; • Housing would be ideal for commuting to Edinburgh and Glasgow; • Provision of youth football facility; • Inclusion of environmentally friendly features in proposal (low/zero-carbon features, energy efficiency, district heating system) • High proportion of site to be retained as green space and additional tree planting / re- wilding; • Welcome proposals for country park in community ownership; • Improvements to footpaths and lighting, reduced risk of anti-social behaviour and creation of new public open space would encourage greater and safer use of the site by local people; • Site currently in poor condition with derelict / unmaintained areas and problems of anti- social behaviour, underage drinking, drug use, broken glass, fly-tipping, graffiti, dog mess etc., which proposal would address; • Land is not in productive use and there is plenty of other land available for nature; • Objections should not hold back necessary progress. 9.4 Four comments neither supporting or opposing the application were received from two individuals and two companies or organisations (National Amusements and Scottish Badgers). Their comments can be summarised as follows: • If this goes ahead it is essential that the school, medical centre and dental surgery be provided in order to take strain off existing facilities; • Connection to M8 Eurocentral junction should be provided to take strain off existing roads; • Importance of protecting wildlife in the woodlands during/after development; • Development should not include a cinema as it fails the sequential approach (this comment related to the original proposal and a cinema is no longer proposed); and • Updated badger surveys would be required. 10. Planning Policy Assessment 10.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the policies of the development Page 28 of 90
Page 29
plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP). Where there is any incompatibility between these, the policies of NPF4 take precedence. 10.2 The site is designated as Green Belt in the NLLDP. Parts of the site have additional local or national designations as follows: • The Monkland Canal is a Visitor Economy Location; • Large parts of the site (including much of the woodland and watercourses) are Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation; • Both the Monkland Canal and the former Woodhall House are Scheduled Monuments; • High Palacecraig house is a ‘B’ listed building National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (In the discussion below only those parts of the relevant policies which are applicable to this proposal are discussed, hence the gaps in the numbering of sub paragraphs) 10.3 NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises) indicates that “when considering all development proposals, significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises.” 10.4 Policy Assessment: The NLLDP had already incorporated most of NPF4 Policy 1’s objectives through its own policies and land use allocations (including those for residential and employment development sites), within a wider spatial strategy which seeks to direct development to allocated sites that were selected using sustainability criteria, and promoting the reuse and redevelopment of brownfield sites within the urban area in preference to the development of greenfield and rural land. This application site is in the Green Belt and the spatial strategy for the NLLDP has allocated other sites for both residential and employment uses whilst seeking to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate forms of development. As discussed below it is not considered that there is sufficient justification for the development of this site when the need for development has not been established, and that preferable, allocated, sites are available. The planting of additional woodland and other proposals for habitat mitigation measures would potentially be beneficial in some respects, but it is not considered that they would offset the wider environmental disbenefits of allowing development of a valuable greenfield site which is unsatisfactory in terms of sustainable travel. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the aims of Policy 1. 10.5 NPF4 Policy 2 (Climate, Mitigation and Adaptation) supports development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change: a) Development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible; b) Development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change; The Scottish Government issued draft guidance on this policy in December 2024 which emphasises that NPF4 should be read as a whole and that various other policies are closely inter-related to Policy 2. It will be for applicants to demonstrate that proposals have been sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. Page 29 of 90
Page 30
10.6 Policy Assessment: Subject to suitable detailed design, notably in respect of flood risk, there should be no significant conflict with part (b) of this policy. The main question for Policy 2 is therefore whether or not the proposal would minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as required by part (a). Any new-build development of this scale will inevitably be resource-hungry and involve significant greenhouse gas emissions in its materials and construction, however there is nothing to suggest that this proposal would have a greater impact in that respect than any similarly sized development on a greenfield site. Even so, such a development should only take place where there is a clear need for it. As will be discussed below, it is not considered that a need for additional housing and employment land on the scale proposed has been demonstrated, and allowing such a development would risk undermining efforts to secure regeneration of more suitable and sustainable locations. Therefore, the proposal can be viewed as involving unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. 10.7 As with Policy 1, more detail would be needed at AMSC stage to demonstrate how the proposal would minimise greenhouse gas emissions, for example through the use of carbon reduction and carbon capture measures, and this could be required by conditions. However, such details would not address the fact that the development of the site is significantly contrary to the NLLDP spatial strategy, it would involve development of a large amount of greenfield land without a clear needs justification, and as discussed below it is not particularly accessible by sustainable modes of travel. The proposed low-carbon heating system and other carbon reduction measures would be welcome, but such features are increasingly expected of any development of the scale proposed and it is not considered that this site offers any particular sustainability benefits when compared to allocated sites. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not comply with the aims of Policy 2. 10.8 NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, have development deliver positive effects on biodiversity and strengthen nature networks. a) Development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building or strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature- based solutions where possible. b) Development proposals for national or major development, or for development that requires an Environmental Impact Assessment will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, including nature networks so that they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. This will include future management. To inform this, best practice assessment methods should be used. Proposals within these categories will demonstrate how they have met all of the following criteria: i. The proposal is based on an understanding of the existing characteristics of the site and its local, regional and national ecological context prior to development, including the presence of any irreplaceable habitats; ii. Wherever feasible, nature-based solutions have been integrated and made best use of; iii. An assessment of potential negative effects which should be fully mitigated in line with the mitigation hierarchy prior to identifying enhancements; iv. Significant biodiversity enhancements are to be provided, in addition to any necessary mitigation. This should include nature networks, linking to and strengthening habitat connectivity within and beyond the development, secured within a reasonable timescale and with reasonable certainty. Management arrangements for their long-term retention and monitoring should be included, wherever appropriate; and v. Local community benefits from the biodiversity and/or nature networks have been Page 30 of 90
Page 31
considered. d) Any potential adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts, of development proposals on biodiversity, nature networks and the natural environment will be minimised through careful planning and design. This will take into account the need to reverse biodiversity loss, safeguard the ecosystem services that the natural environment provides, and build resilience by enhancing nature networks and maximising the potential for restoration. 10.9 Policy Assessment: Details of the impact on ecology are discussed in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment below (para. 11.5 et seq). By reason of its large size and the mixture of land uses, vegetation and watercourses, the application site contains a range of different habitats, some of which are listed as priority habitats in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. There are no particular areas affected by the proposal which have outstanding biodiversity value in their own right, but overall the site’s patchwork of fields and woodland crossed by watercourses makes a valuable contribution to local biodiversity. The proposal would result in the development of large parts of the site, and whilst the areas affected are mostly agricultural fields of less biodiversity value than other parts of the site there would nevertheless be a loss of habitat for those species which require grassland or which would be disturbed by human activity nearby. On the other hand, the application includes a substantial amount of new woodland planting which would in due course be of benefit to local biodiversity. Whilst short sections of new roads would divide existing woodland, the new planting would improve connectivity between areas of woodland, and on balance it is considered that this would result in biodiversity benefits. Therefore, subject to suitable detailed mitigation proposals at the AMSC in the event of permission being granted, the proposal is considered to be capable of complying with part (a) of Policy 3. The impact on biodiversity has been thoroughly assessed in the Environment Statement, whose conclusions are broadly accepted, and the mitigation measures including the extensive woodland planting are capable of being of net benefit to biodiversity interests. The proposal is therefore also capable of complying with part (b) and (d) of the policy. Overall, subject to extensive mitigation measures which could be secured by conditions, the proposal is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 3. 10.10 NPF4 Policy 4 (Natural Places) seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. a) Development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. d) Development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: i. Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. e) The precautionary principle will be applied in accordance with relevant legislation and Scottish Government guidance. f) Development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on species protected by legislation will only be supported where the proposal meets the relevant statutory tests. If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on a site or may be affected by a proposed development, steps must be taken to establish its presence. The level of protection required by legislation must be factored into the planning and design of development, and potential impacts must be fully considered prior to the determination of any application. 10.11 Policy Assessment: The application site as a whole also cannot be regarded as a “natural place” because a large proportion of it is in use as farmland, however within the site there are large areas (particularly of woodland and watercourses) which are effectively natural or Page 31 of 90
Page 32
semi-natural places, even if they were formerly part of a managed landscape or are subject to some ongoing estate management. By and large, the proposal would develop the farmland while minimising the direct impact on the more natural parts of the site, and as noted above the proposal would involve substantial new woodland planting which (subject to suitable native species being used and an appropriate management regime) would add to the amount of semi-natural space of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal is capable of complying with part (a) of the policy. 10.12 Most of the woodland and the main watercourses are designated as Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and therefore part (d) is applicable. The proposal would have some adverse effects on the quality and integrity of the existing SINCs due to the new spine road cutting through them, as although the areas affected are relatively small as a proportion of the overall size of the designated sites there would inevitably be fragmentation of the woodland at these points. As discussed elsewhere the social and economic benefits of the proposal are not considered to be particularly significant, but the new woodland planting would have ecological benefits and on balance it is considered that the requirements of part (d)(ii) would therefore be met. It is also considered that the extent of the proposed mitigation would satisfy the requirements of the precautionary principle (which holds that lack of full scientific certainty on an issue should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental damage). Effects on protected species are discussed in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment, and it is concluded that whilst some further surveys and detailed remediation proposals would be needed as part of any detailed AMSC applications, the proposal as a whole is not likely to give rise to adverse impacts on any protected species. Overall, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 4. 10.13 NPF4 Policy 5 (Soils) seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatland and minimise disturbance of soils by development. a) Development proposals will only be supported if they are designed and constructed: i. In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; and ii. In a manner that protects soils from damage, including from compaction and erosion, and that minimises soil sealing. b) Development proposals on prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, as identified by the LDP, will only be supported where it is for [specified purposes] 10.14 Policy Assessment: None of the site is designated as prime agricultural land (i.e. land within categories 1, 2 or 3.1). The majority of the site is Class 3.2 (“land capable of average production though high yields of barley, oats and grass can be obtained. Grass leys are common”), while a smaller area in the south-eastern corner is Class 4.2 (“land capable of producing a narrow range of crops, primarily on grassland with short arable breaks of forage crops”). There is therefore no conflict with part (b) of the policy, and the site does not include any significant areas of peat. Therefore, subject to the detailed design of the proposal following the mitigation requirements of part (a) of the policy, the proposal does not conflict with Policy 5. 10.15 NPF4 Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. a) Development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. b) Development proposals will not be supported where they result in: i. Any loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees, or adverse impact on their Page 32 of 90
Page 33
ecological condition; ii. Adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees or high biodiversity value, or identified for protection on the Forestry and Woodland Strategy; iii. Fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy; iv. Conflict with [notices or directions] issued by Scottish Forestry. c) Development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with relevant Scottish Government policy on woodland removal. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will most likely be expected to be delivered. d) Development proposals on sites which include an area of existing woodland or land designated in the Forestry and Woodland Strategy as being suitable for woodland creation will only be supported where the enhancement and improvement of woodlands and the planting of new trees on the site (in accordance with the Forestry and Woodland Strategy) are integrated into the design. 10.16 Relevant to the interpretation of Policy 6 are the Forestry and Woodland Strategy for the Glasgow City Region (2021), and the Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal (2009). Both of these contain a general presumption in favour of protecting existing woodland, and a strong presumption against the loss of certain types of woodland including ancient semi-natural woodland and against the fragmentation of woodlands. Removal of woodland should only be allowed where this would achieve significant and clearly defined public benefits. In appropriate cases, a proposal for compensatory planting may form part of this balance. 10.17 Annex C of the woodland removal policy document sets out circumstances where woodland removal might be acceptable, including situations where “the change in land use along with compensatory planting would contribute significantly to … sustainable economic growth and rural/community development”. In such cases woodland removal may be acceptable if it enables appropriate economic development in areas of low income or high unemployment, amongst other scenarios. 10.18 Policy Assessment: The proposal includes significant new woodland planting which would greatly increase the amount of woodland on the site and would provide some new connections between existing areas of woodland, offsetting both the loss of woodland and the fragmentation, and this part of the proposal would be supported by part (a) of the policy. However, much of the woodland in the southern half of the site is listed on the ancient woodland inventory as “long established woodland of plantation origin”, while an area along the southern bank of the North Calder Water is “ancient woodland of semi-natural origin”. There is a strong presumption against the removal of any such woodland and against fragmentation of woodland. The proposal involves removal of a relatively small amount of this ancient woodland in order to provide the new link road, and whilst the amount of ancient woodland affected has been kept to a minimum there would inevitably be some fragmentation of the woodland due to the construction of a road through it, so the proposal is inconsistent with part (b). In terms of part (c) for the reasons discussed elsewhere it is not considered that the proposal would achieve significant and clearly defined public benefit, so the removal of woodland would not be supported by this part of the policy. However, as extensive new planting would be integrated into the proposal it would potentially be consistent with part (d) of the policy. Overall, some ancient woodland would be lost and it is not considered that an overriding need has been demonstrated for it or that sufficiently clear public benefit would arise from the development to justify such a loss in the manner required by the policy, however the loss of ancient woodland would be relatively small and would be offset by a disproportionately large amount of new compensatory woodland planting, which the policy supports. On balance, it is considered that NPF4 Policy 6 is neutral towards the proposal. Page 33 of 90
Page 34
10.19 NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places) seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. a) Development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. The assessment should identify the likely visual or physical impact of any proposals for change, including cumulative effects and provide a sound basis for managing the impacts of change. Proposals should also be informed by national policy and guidance on managing change in the historic environment, and information held within the Historic Environment Records. c) … Development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. h) Development proposals affecting scheduled monuments will only be supported where: i. Direct impacts on the scheduled monument are avoided; ii. Significant adverse impacts on the integrity of the setting of a scheduled monument are avoided; or iii. Exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the impact on a scheduled monument and its setting and impacts on the monument or its setting have been minimised. o) Non-designated historic environment assets, places and their setting should be protected and preserved in situ wherever feasible. Where there is potential for non- designated buried archaeological remains to exist below a site, developers will provide an evaluation of the archaeological resource at an early stage so that planning authorities can assess impacts. Historic buildings may also have archaeological significance which is not understood and may require assessment… 10.20 Policy Assessment: The application is accompanied by supporting information addressing the impact of the proposal on historic assets, as required by part (a) of this policy. With regard to part (c), High Palacecraig is a category ‘B’ listed Georgian country villa of a locally popular architectural style, and was originally built for William Dixon (owner of Scotland’s first blast furnace) before passing to the Baird family of Gartsherrie (major local ironmasters and colliery owners). The building and its associated outbuildings and two walled gardens are situated in open countryside away from other development, with a view of the North Calder valley and a site which is partially screened by mature trees. The property is within the application boundary, but it is intended to retain the building and the masterplan layout includes a narrow corridor of green space between the front of the house and the canal so as to preserve some inter-visibility. Any detailed design for the proposed development would be required to treat the area around the listed building sympathetically, but inevitably there would be an adverse impact upon its setting as rather than being in open countryside with an outlook across fields the property would instead be largely surrounded by new housing. 10.21 In terms of part (h), the proposal will impact upon the setting of the Monkland Canal and Woodhall House, which are scheduled monuments. This section of the Monkland Canal is scheduled because it is an important example of Georgian civil engineering and played an important role in the early industrial development of central Scotland. This section of the canal is particularly important because elsewhere most of the Monkland Canal has been infilled or built over. The surviving remains include various rare examples of early canal infrastructure, and because it is water-filled the essential character of the original canal is still evident. The canal currently passes through countryside, some of which is farmland that is little changed since the construction of the canal, while other parts border post-industrial sites that have been reclaimed by nature. Page 34 of 90
Page 35
10.22 Direct impacts on the canal would be limited to the addition of one new overbridge at the point where the new spine road would cross it. The new bridge would be subject to a requirement for scheduled monument consent from Historic Environment Scotland and it is considered that a suitably attractive design would be possible, but it would represent a large modern structure over the surviving section of canal where at present there are only small, long-established, bridges. In terms of the canal’s wider setting, whilst it is proposed to provide landscaped buffer zones along the sides of the canal which may be attractive areas in their own right, the proposal would nevertheless result in the loss of much of its present attractive rural setting. The extent to which this rural setting is important to the canal is open to subjective interpretation, as canals by their nature pass through varied landscapes which can change significantly over the centuries. Arguably the features of greatest historic relevance to the setting of the canal were the collieries and other early industries which provided its raison d’etre, but which have long since disappeared from the local landscape. On the other hand, the application site is the most important surviving section of the Monkland Canal, and surrounding it with modern housing would inevitably have some adverse effect upon its setting. Whilst Historic Environment Scotland have not objected to the impact of the development upon the setting of the canal that does not imply that there is no adverse impact, merely that HES does not consider it to be of national significance. On balance, it is considered that the housing and the bridge would detract from the setting of the Monkland Canal. 10.23 Woodhall House is a scheduled monument due to the importance of the former house in the development of the Palladian Revival architectural style in the UK, and although only its foundations and a very few surface features survive these have potential to provide further information about the layout and phases of construction of the former building. Surveys of Woodhall House and its designed landscape were carried out for the Scottish Office in 1995- 96 as part of the planning of the M8 extension project, and these concluded that the value of the designed landscape has been severely reduced by the loss of all of the buildings, the neglect of landscape features and by the subdivision of the estate by former mineral railways and the A8 road. The reports concluded that other than the ornamental lake, a drystone walled ha-ha and the ruins of the walled garden, the designed landscape had already changed too much for it to be worthy of preservation as an entire designed landscape. Since 1995 the construction of the M8 extension will have further eroded its value. As a consequence the Woodhall House estate was not included in the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes. Even so, it is considered that the surviving parts of the estate with its patchwork of fields and woodland are still of historic interest and provide an attractive local landscape. 10.24 The masterplan shows no development around the site of the former house itself, but may impact upon the remains of an ice house and a ha-ha. It is thought that buried remains of an ice house associated with Woodhall House may survive in a field which it is proposed to build on, although no surface remains are visible. Ice houses typically included a substantial underground component which is likely to survive on the site. The precise impact on the ice house will not be known until the detailed application stage but it seems probable that the feature might need to be destroyed to accommodate the largest storage/distribution unit. However, archaeological investigations could be required beforehand in order to document the feature. The ha-ha (a stone wall sunk into the landscape so that it is not visible when viewed from one side) is a notable surviving feature of the designed landscape, although it has previously been breached by a railway embankment. The proposal seems likely to retain the majority of the ha-ha but the new spine road would need to cut across it, and the indicative masterplan also shows the old railway line being developed as an industrial access road. The value of the ha-ha would in any event be reduced if the designed landscape of which it is an integral part were to be lost, so these impacts are considered to be of less significance than the overall changes to the landscape. HES note that the proposed Page 35 of 90
Page 36
development of the open areas within this part of the site would adversely affect the setting of Woodhall House, but again they do not consider this to be of national significance so it is not within their remit to object. It therefore falls to the council to consider the local significance of this adverse impact on the historic Woodhall House setting. In assessment, it is considered that the proposal would result in the loss of what remains of the designed landscape, as although the woodland would remain the development of large industrial units within the grassland and fields would irrevocably alter the character and appearance of the former Woodhall House estate. 10.25 As regards non-designated historic environment assets, there is potential for features of archaeological interest throughout the whole site. The recommendations contained in the archaeology section of the Environmental Statement are considered to be acceptable, and any impact on these assets could be adequately addressed by conditions. The most important known non-designated feature is the earthworks of an ancient hill fort (Crogals Castle) which straddles the site boundary (having already been bisected by Woodhall Mill Road), but which should not be directly affected by the development proposal. Therefore, there should not be any conflict with part (o) of the policy. 10.26 Overall, it is considered that whilst the impact on archaeology could be satisfactorily addressed by conditions, the proposal would have locally significant adverse impacts upon the setting of the Monkland Canal, Woodhall House, and High Palacecraig. The policy indicates that such adverse impacts may be acceptable where there are exceptional circumstances to justify this (e.g. to provide a critical piece of local infrastructure), but in this case it is not considered that there is any such justification as the proposal merely seeks to provide housing and speculative industrial land in excess of identified local requirements. The proposal is therefore contrary to NPF4 Policy 7. 10.27 NPF4 Policy 8 (Green Belts) encourages, promotes and facilitates compact urban growth and using the land around towns and cities sustainably. Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported if: i) they are for: • development associated with agriculture, woodland creation, forestry and existing woodland (including community woodlands); • residential accommodation required and designed for a key worker in a primary industry within the immediate vicinity of their place of employment where the presence of a worker is essential to the operation of the enterprise, or retired workers where there is no suitable alternative accommodation available; • horticulture, including market gardening and directly connected retailing, as well as community growing; • outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourism uses; and development that provide opportunities for access to the open countryside (including routes for active travel and core paths); • flood risk management such as development of blue and green infrastructure within a “drainage catchment” to manage/mitigate flood risk and/or drainage issues); • essential infrastructure or new cemetery provision; • minerals operations and renewable energy developments; • intensification of established uses including extensions to an existing building where that is ancillary to the main use; • the reuse, rehabilitation and conversion of historic environment assets; or • one-for one replacements of existing permanent homes. and ii) the following: Page 36 of 90
Page 37
• reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt; • the purpose of the green belt at that location is not undermined; • the proposal is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character; • the proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible; and • there will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. 10.28 Policy Assessment: Large scale residential or industrial / storage and distribution developments of the types proposed are not included within any of the categories listed as being appropriate for the Green Belt, and whilst the application includes some outdoor recreation / sport facilities these are a relatively minor part of the overall proposal. The proposed uses are therefore incompatible with part (i) of the policy, meaning that the proposal is contrary to Policy 8 as a whole. 10.29 Compliance with part (ii) of the policy could not outweigh the fact that the proposal is contrary to part (i), but in any event the proposal is not considered to comply with part (ii) either. It is not considered that a clear justification has been provided for allowing this type of development in a Green Belt location. The local development plan has allocated land for housing and industrial development on the basis of need and demand, and as discussed below it is not considered that there is currently a requirement for additional housing land. To the extent that there is a potential requirement for additional very large industrial / business plots, the application proposes two relatively large plots but these are not considered to offer any significant advantage over allocated plots elsewhere, and as the proposal is speculative it is not clear whether there is a likelihood of these units being developed in that manner at all. If implemented, the proposal would eliminate a large proportion of the section of Green Belt which separates Airdrie, Carnbroe and Calderbank, and whilst Policy 8 does not list the prevention of coalescence as an objective such an outcome would be incompatible with its stated aim of facilitating compact urban growth. The proposal would significantly alter the appearance and landscape character of this part of the Green Belt, which is currently a patchwork of fields and woodland, parts of which have a parkland character arising from its origins as a planned landscape, but which would be transformed into a mix of built development and more extensive woodland. 10.30 The intended policy outcomes of Policy 8 include protecting the “character, landscape, natural setting and identity of settlements”. This is of particular relevance in North Lanarkshire because many of our towns and villages are relatively close to one another and historically they have coalesced to such an extent that the boundaries and identities of individual settlements are no longer distinct. To the south of the site, the series of once entirely separate settlements including Motherwell, Wishaw, Bellshill, Holytown, New Stevenston, Carfin and Newarthill have grown into one another to the point that these now form a single polycentric urban area stretching from Powburn in the west to Newhouse and Newmains in the east (and in places only separated from neighbouring urban areas in the Monklands and South Lanarkshire by the width of the M8 and M74 motorways). North of the M8 motorway this has not occurred to the same extent, as although Airdrie and Coatbridge have coalesced at Coatdyke and Sikeside there is otherwise a relatively clear boundary between them, and the surrounding villages on Calderbank, Chapelhall, Plains and Glenmavis maintain a clear physical separation from the central Monklands urban area and therefore retain their own setting and distinct identity. This proposal would significantly erode the separation which exists between Airdrie and Calderbank, and would lead to a further blurring of the boundary between Airdrie and Coatbridge (as the development would share a Page 37 of 90
Page 38
long boundary with Carnbroe, albeit that there would not be direct road or footpath connections to Carnbroe due to watercourses). It is also considered that if this development were to take place this would inevitably give rise to development pressure on the remaining pockets of agricultural land between Airdrie and Calderbank, as this was the applicant’s original intention when the application was submitted in 2018 and the value of that land as Green Belt would be significantly eroded if the proposed development were to go ahead. Along with other permissions for development of former Green Belt land along the M8 motorway corridor (i.e. the Mossend International Railfreight Park and at sites south of Lancaster Avenue in Chapelhall) the proposal would result in the almost complete loss of a meaningful Green Belt between the Monklands and the Motherwell-Wishaw-Bellshill urban areas. It is therefore considered that the proposal would detract from the setting and identity of Calderbank and Airdrie and would have a serious detrimental impact upon the integrity of this part of the Green Belt. (The applicant has argued that the site should not be treated as a Green Belt site, but this is not accepted and the issue is discussed at para. 12.2 below). 10.31 Therefore, for all of these reasons, the proposed development is significantly contrary to NPF4 Policy 8. 10.32 NPF4 Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. a) Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. b) Proposals for greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. c) Where land is known or suspected to be unstable of contaminated, development proposals will demonstrate that the land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for the proposed new use. d) Development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings will be supported, taking into account their suitability for conversion to other uses. Given the need to conserve embodied energy, demolition will be regarded as the least preferred option. 10.33 Policy Assessment: The great majority of the site is greenfield land which has not previously been developed. There is a group of existing farm buildings within the site which would be redeveloped, and this small area is therefore brownfield land. Various other parts of the application site are technically brownfield in the sense that they were historically developed (mainly for coal mining, brickmaking and employee housing), but those areas have long since been cleared and have been subject to natural regeneration for around a century or longer. Apart from an area of undeveloped grassland on the site of the former Faskine Brickworks (closed 1930s), the land is used overwhelmingly either for agricultural purposes or as woodland. Whilst it is intended to retain the existing listed building at High Palacecraig, and retention of some of the other existing buildings might also be possible, these would be minor parts of the overall development. The development proposal therefore relates overwhelmingly to greenfield agricultural land, the development of which is discouraged by Policy 9. 10.34 The site is likely to contain pockets of contamination arising from previous uses, but detailed site investigations and remediation proposals would be matters for future approval of matters specified in conditions applications in the event of permission being approved. 10.35 The proposal does not draw any significant support from parts (a) or (d) of the policy, and it would be directly contrary to part (b), which indicates that proposals for development of Page 38 of 90
Page 39
greenfield sites will not be supported unless this is explicitly allowed by LDP policies (which is not the case here). Allowing the development of such a large greenfield site would undermine the prospects of regenerating vacant brownfield land, and therefore the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 9. 10.37 NPF4 Policy 12 (Zero Waste) encourages, promotes and facilitates development which is consistent with the national waste hierarchy. Development proposals will seek to reduce, reuse or recycle materials in line with the waste hierarchy, and proposals will be supported where they: (i) reuse existing buildings and infrastructure; (ii) minimise demolition and salvage materials for reuse; (iii) minimise waste, reduce pressure on virgin resources and enable building materials, components and products to the disassembled and reuses at the end of their useful life; (iv) use materials with the lowest forms of embodied emissions, such as recycled and natural constructed materials; and use materials that are suitable for reuse with minimal reprocessing. 10.38 Policy Assessment: The proposal involves a completely new development on what is effectively greenfield land, and would therefore use more materials than would be the case for development involving re-use of existing buildings and infrastructure. To the extent that alternative sites exist for some of the proposed development (i.e. the smaller business / industrial units) and the need for other parts of the development (i.e. the housing and the large storage / distribution units for which no end-user has been identified), the proposal is contrary to the objectives of policy 12. However, these matters are more closely aligned with Policy 9, discussed above) and compared to other greenfield developments for the uses proposed there is no reason to anticipate higher than normal generation of waste. Subject to suitable detailed design, NPF4 Policy 12 is neutral towards the proposal. 10.39 NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) supports developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel, and which reduce the need to travel unsustainably. b) Development proposals will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the transport requirements generated have been considered in line with the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and where appropriate they: i. Provide direct, easy segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation; ii. Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services; iii. Integrate transport modes; iv. Provide low or zero-emission vehicle and cycle charging points in safe and convenient locations, in alignment with building standards; v. Supply safe, secure and convenient cycle parking to meet the needs of users and which is more conveniently located than car parking; vi. Are designed to incorporate safety measures including safe crossing for walking and wheeling and reducing the number and speed of vehicles; vii. Have taken into account, at the earliest stage of design, the transport needs of diverse groups including users with protected characteristics to ensure the safety, ease and needs of all users; and viii. Adequately mitigate any impact on local public access routes c) Where a development will generate a significant increase in the number of person trips, a transport assessment will be required to be undertaken in accordance with the relevant guidance. d) Development proposals for significant travel generating uses will not be supported in locations which would increase reliance on the private car, taking into account the specific characteristics of the area. f) Development proposals for significant travel generating uses, or smaller-scale developments where it is important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the Page 39 of 90
Page 40
development, will only be supported if they are accompanied by a Travel Plan with supporting planning conditions / obligations. Travel plans should set out clear arrangements for delivering against targets, as well as monitoring and evaluation. g) Development proposals that have the potential to affect the operation and safety of the Strategic Transport Network will be fully assessed to determine their impact. 10.40 Policy Assessment: Part (b) of the policy covers both design and siting issues. In terms of the design matters it would be expected that any detailed applications for approval of matters specified in conditions would include appropriate provision for disabled people, active travel, public access routes, electric vehicle charging and road safety, as would be required of any development of the scale proposed. As noted by the Infrastructure and Transportation Service, there are two important active travel links which it would be appropriate to include if the site were to be developed: (1) a direct connection to the Calderbank Road/Sykeside Road junction to allow convenient access to Cairnhill Road (and thus Airdrie town centre and station, etc.) and Calderbank Road (with its bus stops); and (2) a connection from the site to the Eurocentral north roundabout, to allow local people working at Eurocentral / Maxim Park to walk or cycle there more easily. Of these, the connection to Calderbank Road is not shown on the masterplan but should be straightforward to provide, while the connection to the Eurocentral roundabout is shown on the masterplan but involves a significant ramp so would require careful design to ensure that it was safe and convenient. 10.41 However, even if these additional links are provided, it is considered that the development would not have particularly good pedestrian access to existing services (discussed under policy 15 below). Additionally, the site is considered to have insufficient public transport accessibility (criteria [ii]) which cannot easily be addressed. The closest railway stations are 1.6km (Airdrie) and 2.2km (Whifflet), while the closest existing bus stops are 250m (Calderbank Road) and 600m (Sikeside Street) away from the nearest of the proposed new houses. These distances are the minimum distances from the closest edges of the proposed housing areas assuming direct pedestrian routes, but houses in the southern part of the proposed housing area would be 1km or more further away. For example houses at the western end of “Phase 2C” (i.e. the most distant part of the proposed housing area) would be around 1.8km walk from the bus stops on Calderbank Road. Good practice is for all new homes to be within 400m walk of a bus stop. The proposed industrial area has similar issues, in that whilst the south-easternmost unit would potentially be capable of being accessed from new bus stops on Woodhall Mill Road, other units nearer the centre of the site would involve a walk of over 1km from bus stops. Therefore, satisfactory public transport access could only be achieved if bus services were provided into the site itself, using the new spine road. 10.42 It would be intended to design the spine road to include bus stops, but that would not in itself ensure that bus services were actually provided along it. Given that the use and provision of bus services has been in long term decline it is not considered realistic to expect a new service purely to serve this development to be viable. The applicant has indicated a willingness to subsidise the operation of such a bus service, but such arrangements are temporary measures intended to allow a service to become established before the development is fully occupied after which the subsidy would cease. If the bus service was not commercially viable at that time it would also cease unless public funding was available to subsidise it in perpetuity. As indicated by the policy it is therefore preferable for new development to be accessible by existing public transport services (to support their viability and avoid additional operating costs), and it would in theory be possible for existing bus routes to be diverted to serve the new spine road, but that would have undesirable consequences. Currently the existing bus services south from Airdrie (to Motherwell and Eurocentral) use the B802 through Calderbank, and diverting these to serve the new spine road would leave Calderbank without a bus service. The other nearby bus service links Carnbroe with Coatbridge town centre, but again diverting this to serve the application site instead would leave Carnbroe without a bus. Convoluted routes serving both the application Page 40 of 90
Page 41
site and Calderbank or Carnbroe might be possible, but would result in extended mileage and journey times which would erode the attractiveness and viability of the services. Ultimately what bus services were provided would be a matter for the commercial operators and SPT, but it does not appear that the site would be adequately served by public transport unless that was achieved at the expense of established communities. 10.43 In contrast to its limited public transport accessibility and walkability, the proposed development would have ready access to the motorway network, with the new spine road leading directly towards the Chapelhall motorway junction, with access to both the M8 and the B799 (which is intended to form part of the “Pan Lanarkshire” orbital route with projected improvements north and south including the “East Airdrie Link Road” City Deal project). In principle good road connectivity is to be supported but the combination of poor public transport with good motorway access makes it likely that the development will be very reliant on car travel. For some business users (e.g. major distribution centres) access to the motorway network may be a critical requirement, but the proposal is speculative so it is not clear that any such user is likely to emerge. Even if there were a major business user requiring a site next to a motorway junction and able to demonstrate a lack of viable alternative sites, that would not justify any of the other industrial and housing development which is proposed. It is therefore considered that taking into account the particular characteristics of the area, the proposed development would increase reliance on the private car and thus conflict with part (d) of the policy. 10.44 Any detailed proposal for a major trip-generating use would be expected to include a green travel plan in line with part (f) of the policy, but such measures cannot be expected to offset the underlying shortcomings of the site in terms of sustainable transport. 10.45 The application is supported by a transport assessment as required by part (c) of the policy. In terms of traffic impacts, these are complicated because in addition to the new traffic generated by the development itself the inclusion of the proposed spine road through the site has potential to alter existing travel patterns in the area. The spine road would be needed to connect the proposed industrial area with Airdrie and Coatbridge, and to avoid the need for traffic generated by the new housing to pass through Calderbank or Chapelhall (where there are existing capacity problems at peak times). It is not intended as a through traffic connection but it would inevitably function as one, as it would allow traffic from Coatbridge towards Newhouse to bypass Calderbank. Subject to the various infrastructure improvements and to updated transportation assessments being provided in the future, the Council’s Infrastructure and Transportation Service and Transport Scotland have no objections to the proposal in respect of road safety or traffic management, so there is no conflict with part (g) of the policy. 10.46 Overall, whilst the impact of the proposed development on traffic is likely to be acceptable subject to suitable mitigation and monitoring, and the transport infrastructure within the sites would be capable of being designed to an appropriate standard, it is considered that the proposed development would not be suitably accessible by public transport and that it would be unduly reliant upon the private car. These shortcomings are such that the proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of policy 13. 10.47 NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) supports well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. a) Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. b) Development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: • Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and Page 41 of 90
Page 42
mental health. • Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces. • Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency. • Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity. • Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, plat, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions. • Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. c) Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. 10.48 Policy Assessment: Part (a) of the policy requires that development proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area regardless of scale, while part (c) indicates that development which is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places will not be supported. In this case the proposal involves the permanent loss of an area of attractive countryside which forms an important part of the Green Belt, and if it is considered that this area ought to be preserved then no matter how well the proposed development might be designed then overall it would be detracting from the quality and amenity of the area. The proposal would however provide opportunities for localised environmental improvements (for example, new landscaping at locations which might improve the appearance of that particular spot), and overall the indicative masterplan shows a well-designed development which is designed to fit into the local landscape to the extent that this is possible given the nature of the proposal. Therefore, whether or not the proposal can be viewed as consistent with parts (a) and (c) depends upon whether or not the principle of the development is accepted. Given that the proposal involves large-scale greenfield development and the loss of a sizeable area of Green Belt, and that there is little or no justification for this in terms of housing or industrial land requirements, it is concluded that the adverse impacts this would have upon the quality and amenity of the area are also unjustified. 10.49 Part (b) requires assessment of the proposal against the six qualities of successful places. As the application is for Permission in Principle only it is not possible to fully assess this at this stage, however in broad terms it is assessed as follows: • Healthy – The development would retain and in some cases enhance most of the existing walking and cycling routes on the site. It would potentially increase the use of these routes as residents of the new housing would use them and the increased natural surveillance may lead to enhanced feelings of security, although current path users may regret the loss of the countryside setting and be less likely to walk on the site as a result. Detailed proposals would be expected to demonstrate adequate safety and the provision of routes and spaces which promote health, though as discussed elsewhere the site has limitations in terms of walkability and sustainable travel. Overall impact on health is therefore assessed as neutral. • Pleasant – The proposal involves the loss of large areas of existing agricultural and undeveloped land which currently provide a pleasant countryside landscape. However, in itself, the proposed development should provide a pleasant and attractive environment. Subject to appropriate detailed proposals, the development should deliver attractive built spaces, and it retains many of the green spaces on the site with enhancements to improve the appearance and ecological value of these. Page 42 of 90
Page 43
• Connected – The proposal should include suitable active travel routes within the site, however as discussed under Policies 13 and 15 the location is not well connected to existing facilities by convenient walking or public transport, and as such it is considered likely to be disproportionately reliant on the private car. As such, the proposal does not achieve the level of connectivity which would be desirable for a proposal of this nature and scale. • Distinctive – The masterplan seeks to incorporate local landscape features into the design by retaining existing woodland and other features of interest, although inevitably the development of the fields would result in the loss of the ‘parkland’ character of the surviving parts of the Woodhall Estate. Architectural styles would be a matter for detailed applications, and it should be possible to ensure that the buildings were of a suitable quality. In itself, the proposed development should be suitably distinctive. • Sustainable – The proposal seeks to develop a large greenfield site when there is no clear requirement for the additional housing or employment which this would result in, and therefore the proposal cannot be regarded as being sustainable. Whilst it would be possible to design the new development to incorporate low-carbon and other sustainable features this would not offset the sustainability shortcomings which arise from it being located on this particular site. • Adaptable – Detailed proposals for the new buildings and spaces should reflect good practice in respect of adaptability. 10.50 Overall it is considered that in and of itself the proposed development would be well designed and would provide a pleasant, high quality environment. However, this cannot overcome the adverse impacts on local amenity which would arise from the loss of this important section of the Green Belt, the inherent unsustainability of developing a large area of greenfield land without a clear locational need or land supply justification for doing so, and the shortcomings of the site in terms of sustainable transport. Accordingly the proposal is on balance considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 14. 10.51 NPF4 Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and to create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling, cycling or using sustainable transport options. Development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to the existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to: • Sustainable modes of transport including local public transport and safe, high quality walking, wheeling and cycling networks; • Employment; • Shopping; • Health and social care facilities; • Childcare, schools and lifelong learning opportunities; • Playgrounds and informal play opportunities, parks, green streets and spaces, community gardens, opportunities for food growth and allotments, sport and recreation facilities • Publicly accessible toilets; • Affordable and accessible housing options, ability to age in place and housing diversity 10.52 Guidance on the 20 Minute Neighbourhood concept confirms that it is based on research which explored the associations between walking and local destinations, and the ease of Page 43 of 90
Page 44
access to local services, infrastructure and community spaces when travelling by foot. The “20 minutes” means a walk of 10 minutes to any destination and a 10 minutes return journey (a 10 minute walk covering about 800m at a typical adult walking speed of 5km/h). The approach is not meant to be prescriptive as times and distances are not fixed maximums, but rather they are an indication of how convenient it will be for people to walk to destinations and how likely they are to do so. 10.53 Policy Assessment: The proposed 980 dwellings would be situated on the southern edge of Airdrie, with the closest edges of the new housing area being around 1.8km and 2.8km walking distance from Airdrie and Coatbridge town centres respectively. The nearest designated Local Centre is 600m away (Lorne Place, where there is a small Tesco Express store and five smaller units in various uses). The minimum walking distances to the nearest existing primary schools are 600m (Riverbank PS), 900m (St Stephen’s PS), 1.3km (Rochsolloch PS/All Saints PS). The four local secondary schools are all between 2.5km and 3km walk from the closest parts of the site (Coatbridge HS, St Margaret’s HS, Airdrie Academy and St Andrew’s HS). All of the distances quoted above are the minimum distances possible from the closest of the new houses, and in practice most of the new houses would be further away from these destinations, in many cases by 1km or more. Therefore, with the exception of a small proportion of the new houses located in the north- western corner of the application site, most of the new homes would be outwith the desirable 800m walking distance from existing schools and local services. 10.54 The proposed industrial and storage / distribution plots would be widely dispersed across the southern half of the site. The northernmost plot would be around 1.2km walk from Sykeside Road, whilst the large storage / distribution plot at the south-east corner of the site would be around 800m walk from the centre of Calderbank. Most of the proposed employment uses would therefore be within a reasonable walking distance of either the proposed new housing area or from the southern part of Calderbank, although some of the plots in the centre of the industrial area would be relatively distant from both, and somewhat isolated due to their position in the woodland. 10.55 In order to address the local living requirement the proposal incorporates a new local centre, as well as a new primary school campus to address school capacity shortfalls. The application does not specify a precise size or mix of uses for the local centre, however it is understood that up to 2,000sq/m is envisaged, potentially comprising convenience retail along with compatible local food and drink, leisure, medical and/or community uses. Such a centre would help to address the site’s shortcomings in respect of the 20 Minute Neighbourhood concept, however it would be important that any new local centre was limited in size and use to ensure that it did not detract from existing centres or draw in car-borne custom from further afield (which would be contrary to town centre and retail policies). The current position shown for the local centre is central to the application site but relatively distant from existing housing off Calderbank Road and therefore it is not considered to be the optimal location on the site for such a use in terms of maximising its accessibility, however the precise location would be capable of being controlled by condition and confirmed as part of a detailed AMSC application. 10.56 The issue of school provision is discussed under Policy 18 below. If a new primary school campus is provided on the application site it would obviously be readily accessible on foot to the new homes. However, the precise location of such a campus would need to be agreed with the Education Service as it would also need to be accessible to existing housing which would also fall within the new catchment areas, so again the location shown on the masterplan is not considered to be optimal. As noted above, all of the local secondary schools are at least 2.5km away from the closest edges of the proposed housing area, and pupils living in the new houses in the southern part of the site would have a walk of around 4km to these schools, however it is unlikely that any of the houses would exceed the Page 44 of 90
Page 45
council’s 4.83km (3 mile) threshold for free school transport. Secondary schools are therefore within what is deemed to be an acceptable walking distance for such facilities, albeit one that is well beyond the 20-Minute Neighbourhood envelope 10.57 Essentially, whilst the application site is on the edge of the built-up area, the established housing areas which border it to the north of Sykeside Road and Cairnhill Road are themselves relatively low-density suburban estates which do not contain many local services, and inevitably the construction of a large housing development on the application site would be even further away from Airdrie town centre and other local facilities. The proposed inclusion of a local centre within the site would help to some degree but, as urban expansion areas go, the site is not considered to be a particularly good location on which to achieve ‘local living’ objectives, and it is likely that a high proportion of trips will be made by car. Therefore, whilst the proposal meets some of the objectives of the policy, on balance it is considered to be contrary to Policy 15. 10.58 NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) supports the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures and meeting the diverse needs of people and communities. b) Development proposals that include 50 or more homes, and smaller developments if required by local policy or guidance, should be accompanied by a Statement of Community Benefit explaining the contribution of the proposed development to: (i) meeting local housing requirements including affordable homes; (ii) providing or enhancing local infrastructure, facilities and services; and (iii) improving the residential amenity of the surrounding area. c) Development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, will be supported. This could include (i) self-provided homes; (ii) accessible, adaptable and wheelchair-accessible homes; (iii) build to rent; (iv) affordable homes; (v) a range of size of homes such as homes for larger families; (vi) homes for older people, including supported accommodation, care homes and sheltered housing; (vii) homes for people undertaking further and higher education; and (viii) homes for other specialist groups such as service personnel. e) Development proposals for new homes will be supported where they make provision for affordable homes to meet an identified need. Proposals for market homes will only be supported where the contribution to the provision of affordable homes on a site will be at least 25% of the total number of homes, unless the LDP sets out locations or circumstances where a higher or lower contribution is justified. f) Development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances where: i. the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and ii. the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; iii. and either: • delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline. This will be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that general trend being sustained; or • the proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes; or • the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary; or • the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported housing plan. Page 45 of 90
Page 46
10.59 Following a Court of Session decision regarding a planning application for housing on an unallocated greenfield site in West Lothian, it has been confirmed that the former approach of allowing the development of suitable unallocated sites in the event of a shortfall in the housing land supply is no longer to be used as it is incompatible with NPF4 Policy 16, even in circumstances where the LDP is older than NPF4 and its policies support such an approach. Subsequently, the Scottish Government has clarified its position in a Chief Planner’s Letter dated 26 June 2024 which indicates that Policy 16 (and indeed all other NPF4 policies) should be considered in the whole, and that all of the various parts of the policy should be taken into account in reaching a view on whether a proposal complies with the policy overall. 10.60 Policy Assessment: A statement of community benefit covering the three issues specified by part (b) of this policy has been provided as part of the applicant’s planning statement. These benefits are discussed as follows: i. The proposal will provide a significant number of new homes, including affordable homes. However the need for these homes is not considered to have been demonstrated, given that there is currently no requirement for this number of additional houses in order to satisfy North Lanarkshire’s housing land requirements. It is therefore considered that the community benefit arising from the provision of additional homes in this proposal would be modest. ii. The proposal includes a new local centre, school campus, employment areas, sporting facilities, and a new spine road which may improve connectivity. Of these, the local centre, school campus and spine road are needed wholly or primarily to serve the proposed development, so although they may also be useful to people in the wider community this benefit is limited and may be offset by disbenefits. The probability of and need for the local centre is discussed elsewhere, but it is not considered desirable to create a local centre serving a significantly larger catchment than the development site itself as this would detract from existing (and potentially more accessible) centres. The need for the employment sites is also discussed below (and is disputed), whilst the benefits of the new football academy would be limited to the users of that facility. It is therefore considered that the benefits of the proposal in terms of infrastructure and services for the existing community would be modest. iii. The proposal would include environmental improvements to the canal corridor and other areas of the site, including significant new tree planting. Public access to some parts of the estate would be formalised and the green spaces would potentially be gifted to the community as a country park. The applicant indicates that anti-social behaviour and fly- tipping are currently problems on the site and considers that these would be reduced due to additional activity and natural surveillance from the proposed development. In assessing these benefits it is acknowledged that environmental improvements and the formation of a country park would be significant benefits to the amenity of the area, however this requires to be balanced against the loss of large areas of existing countryside to development. Public access to the estate is already available through existing footpaths (including the well-used canal towpath) and the ‘right to roam’. The extent of the fly tipping and anti-social behaviour problem is disputed by objectors, and whilst these doubtless occur to some extent it is not considered that they render the site unsightly or unsafe as the applicant suggests. The main impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area would be the detrimental impacts arising from the loss of countryside and to some extent the increase in traffic, and that whilst the proposed new country park and additional landscaping / woodland planting would be beneficial to amenity, it is not considered that these would be sufficient to offset the disbenefits. 10.61 Overall, the proposal provides some community benefits but it is not considered that these would be sufficient to offset the disbenefits to the community arising from the development of Page 46 of 90
Page 47
this part of the Green Belt, so part (b) of Policy 16 does not provide support for the application. 10.62 Part (c) of the policy supports provision of adaptable new homes that improve affordability and choice. In this case the applicant proposes to provide a significant number of affordable homes (discussed under part (e) below), and due to the large scale of the development it may be assumed that the housing would vary in size and type, and would probably include some wheelchair accessible homes (at least within the affordable housing). Also due to the scale and mixed-use nature of the proposal it is also possible that specific types of housing such as sheltered housing or a care home might be provided, although there are no specific proposals for that at this time. Nevertheless, it is likely that the majority of the new homes would be conventional open market houses for owner occupation, and there is nothing to suggest that the overall housing mix would be significantly different from any other commercial housebuilding project of this scale. Accordingly, policy 16(c) does not provide support for the proposal. 10.63 Part (e) supports the provision of affordable homes as a proportion of all new housing developments, unless otherwise indicated in the local development plan. In North Lanarkshire the LDP does not require any affordable housing provision (other than within the Cumbernauld area) because the availability and delivery of new affordable units is considered to be sufficient to meet local needs. There is therefore no policy requiring affordable homes, although for a development of this scale it would be good practice to provide a mix of house types and tenures. The applicant proposes that 20-25% of the housing would be affordable homes, and this is to be welcomed. The proposal therefore exceeds the amount of affordable housing which the development plan requires and is therefore consistent with this part of the policy. 10.64 Part (f) indicates that new homes on unallocated sites will only be supported in limited circumstances, where the proposal satisfies all of the three listed criteria: i. There must be an agreed timescale for build out, in order to ensure that any sites are capable of being developed without undue delay and thus to avoid clogging the housing delivery pipeline with land-banked sites that are unlikely to be developed quickly. In this case the applicant has given a broad timescale for build-out (15-18 years). Given that the site is greenfield and is relatively unconstrained it may be assumed that the site would be attractive to housebuilders and therefore the housing development would be likely to take place, although the requirement to provide the full spine road connection and school campuses in a relatively early phase may present challenges. ii. It is required that developments be otherwise consistent with the development plan spatial strategy including policies on local living and 20 -minute neighbourhoods. In this case the proposal is contrary to the development plan spatial strategy as the site is allocated as Green Belt where there is a strong presumption against developments of the type proposed, and it is also inconsistent with other policies including those on sustainable transport and 20-minute neighbourhoods, for the reasons discussed above. iii. It is required that development fall into one of the four specified circumstances where the principle of development of an unallocated site might be capable of being acceptable. In this case, three of these are not relevant to the application proposal. The only circumstance with potential to apply to the application proposal would be if the delivery of allocated sites within the housing delivery pipeline was happening faster than anticipated, in which case there would be a need for additional housing land. It is currently not possible to calculate the rate of delivery of sites relative to the housing delivery pipeline in the manner prescribed by the Scottish Government because that requires at least two consecutive years of housing land audits from the date on which the council adopted its LDP Delivery Programme (December 2024). However, the Minimum All-Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) set by the Scottish Government Page 47 of 90
Page 48
requires at least 7,350 units over 10 years, whereas the most recent housing land audit (for the period to March 2024) showed an established housing land supply of 16,945 units, of which 8,775 were programmed as deliverable through the 10 year pipeline. These figures demonstrate that there is significantly more housing land available in the current supply than is required by the MATHLR, (which until such time as the evidence report for the next local development plan sets an alternative figure is the local housing land requirement for North Lanarkshire). Therefore, there is no evidence that housing delivery is occurring more quickly than anticipated and even if it were there is sufficient land available in the housing land supply which could be brought forward if required. The proposal therefore does not satisfy any of the requirements of part (f)[iii]. 10.65 In the Report of Examination into the local development plan, the Reporter concluded that whilst the housing land supply for North Lanarkshire as a whole was sufficient there was a shortfall within the Airdrie and Coatbridge Housing Sub-Market Area (HSMA), and the applicant considers that the application proposal would address this shortfall. However, NPF4 has since completely changed the methodology for determining housing land requirements, including dispensing with the former HSMAs and superseding LDP policy PROM LOC 3 (in which context this issue had been discussed). Therefore, the fact that the former HSMA had a shortfall is no longer relevant and has no bearing on the assessment of the application against NPF4 Policy 16. 10.66 In conclusion the proposal is clearly contrary to part (f) of the policy, which is the part specifically relating to the development of unallocated sites, and whilst it is not contrary to parts (b), (c) or (e), these parts of the policy offer limited support at best for the proposal, which is not considered to be sufficient to outweigh its disbenefits. The provision of affordable homes in excess of the requirement of part (e) is welcome but does not justify the development of a site which is not actually required to meet local housing needs, affordable or otherwise. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy 16. 10.67 NPF4 Policy 18 (Infrastructure First) supports an infrastructure-first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Development proposals which provide (or contribute to) infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in LDPs and their delivery programmes will be supported. The impacts of development proposals on infrastructure should be mitigated, and proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. Where planning conditions, planning obligations or other legal agreements are to be used, the relevant tests will apply. 10.68 Policy Assessment: The types of infrastructure for which the LDP identifies a potential for development contributions are set out in LDP policy CI, discussed below. In this case the relevant categories of infrastructure are: (1) Education; (2) Transport; and (3) Green Infrastructure, Amenity Space and Play. (1) In terms of education, the application would have significant implications for school capacity as it straddles the catchment boundaries of several different schools, all of which have capacity constraints which mean that additional capacity would be needed to accommodate the additional pupils generated by the proposal. The Education Service considers that the most effective way to deal with this would be to build a new campus containing two primary schools and a nursery on the application site, and has requested that land and a developer contribution towards the construction be provided. The applicant is in broad agreement this, although precise details would need to be worked out, including the location and size of the campus and its phasing. The development would give rise to problems for the Education Service as it would bring forward requirements for new primary schools in the area, and whilst the developer could be required to provide land and contribution towards these, in practice the schools would Page 48 of 90
Page 49
need to be large enough to serve wider catchment areas and therefore would need to be partially funded by the council, which has not budgeted for this. This funding gap would be a matter for the council to resolve. (2) The proposed development would have implications for the local transportation infrastructure in relation to: (a) mitigating the impacts of additional traffic upon the surrounding road network; and (b) measures required to make the site more accessible by means of active travel and public transport. Transport Scotland and NLC Infrastructure and Transportation Service consider the proposed mitigation to be appropriate, and it is considered that the application complies with part (a). In terms of (b) whilst the site’s shortcomings in respect of sustainable transport have been discussed above, it would be expected that any detailed masterplan for the development would incorporate such infrastructure as it is possible to achieve to make the site more accessible, which would meet the requirements of part (b). (3) The proposal retains large areas of green space within the site, so there would be no difficulty in meeting the council’s minimum requirements for green infrastructure. Arrangements for long-term management and maintenance of the open space, including the applicant’s proposal for community ownership of a country park, would require to be confirmed, and it would be expected that new housing areas incorporate suitably located and equipped children’s play areas in accordance with the council’s standards. Overall, it is considered that the infrastructure required as a result of the proposal would be capable of being secured by way of a Section 75 Planning Obligation and by matters specified in conditions, so the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 18. 10.69 NPF4 Policy 19 (Heat and Cooling) supports development featuring decarbonised solutions to heat and cooling demand and ensuring adaptation to more extreme temperatures. f) Development proposals for buildings that will be occupied by people will be supported where they are designed to promote sustainable temperature management, for example by prioritising natural or passive solutions such as siting, orientation, and materials. 10.70 Policy Assessment: Much of Policy 19 relates to supporting existing or planned heat networks, and is not directly not applicable to this proposal because there is no planned heat network at this location. The applicant initially proposed to provide a district heating system within the development but now expects that a smaller-scale solution using shared ground- source heat pumps would be used, either of which would be consistent with this policy’s support for such infrastructure. This could be addressed through matters specified in conditions. Similarly, the requirement for buildings to be designed to promote sustainable temperature management is also a detailed matter which could be addressed by conditions. The provision of decarbonised heating and cooling systems within major new development is therefore consistent with the objectives of Policy 19, and it is likely that such infrastructure will increasingly become a normal requirement for development of the scale proposed. Therefore, the provision of a district heating system, whilst welcome, does not overcome other concerns about the sustainability of the proposed development. The proposal is therefore capable of being consistent with NPF4 Policy 19, subject to suitable detailed proposals. 10.71 NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure) seeks to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. “Blue and green infrastructure” refers to green spaces, vegetation and water bodies which provide environmental benefits and contribute to our quality of life. Such areas include woodland, parks, playing fields, allotments, street trees, road verges, green roofs, SUDS basins, watercourses, canals and all other green or water spaces which have ecosystem benefits. a) Development proposals that result in fragmentation or net loss of existing blue and green infrastructure will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal Page 49 of 90
Page 50
would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. The planning authority’s Open Space Strategy should inform this. b) Development proposals for or incorporating new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will be supported. Where appropriate, this will be an integral element of the design that responds to local circumstances. Design will ensure the proposed blue and/or green infrastructure is of an appropriate type(s), quantity, quality and accessibility and is designed to be multi-functional and well integrated into the overall proposals. e) Development proposals that include new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will provide effective management and maintenance plans covering the funding arrangements for their long-term delivery and upkeep, and the party or parties responsible for these. 10.72 Policy Assessment: Given that the application site is currently undeveloped Green Belt land, the proposal to develop it would clearly result in a loss of existing green infrastructure and some fragmentation of that which remained as a result of the development parcels and the new road cutting through the site. Most of the land which would be lost is currently farmland, but the great majority of the more valuable green spaces (i.e. the woodland) and water environments would be retained. Nevertheless, the proposal would result in the redevelopment of large areas of a section of greenfield land within a small pocket of Green Belt that is already surrounded by urban development, and it is therefore considered to be contrary to policy 20(a). 10.73 The applicant also proposes to carry out a substantial amount of new woodland planting as mitigation, which would consolidate some of the existing areas of woodland and improve linkages between them. Other sizeable areas of green space would be retained on the site as parkland, sports pitches, community orchards, allotments, etc. For a new urban area the proposal would have a very high level of blue and green infrastructure which would be of a high quality and well integrated into the layout. Policy 20 (b) offers support for these aspects of the proposal. 10.74 The arrangements for the long-term management and maintenance of the open spaces would require to be agreed in order to demonstrate compliance with policy 20(e). The applicant’s proposal to pass the majority of the green space to community ownership for use as a country park is in principle to be lauded, but a funding stream to pay for the ongoing upkeep of this area would need to be established. Smaller areas of green and blue infrastructure within or around the development would likely be maintained through a communal factoring arrangement as is normal for housing developments and industrial estates. These matters should be capable of being addressed by conditions. 10.75 Overall, if the development of this particular site were consistent with land use policies, the proposals for blue and green infrastructure would be appropriate for a development of the scale and nature proposed, subject to detailed proposals and to suitable arrangements for long-term management and maintenance. However, as there is not considered to be a sound justification for the development of this part of the Green Belt, the proposal would represent an unnecessary loss of existing green infrastructure, and it is therefore considered to be contrary to the objectives of NPF4 Policy 20. 10.76 NPF4 Policy 21 (Play, Recreation and Sport) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. d) Development proposals likely to be occupied or used by children and young people will be supported where they incorporate well-designed, good quality provision for play, recreation, and relaxation that is proportionate to the scale and nature of the development and existing provision in the area. Page 50 of 90
Page 51
e) Development proposals that include new streets and public realm should be inclusive and enable children and young people to play and move around safely and independently, maximising opportunities for informal and incidental play in the neighbourhood. f) New, replacement or improved play provision will, as far as possible and as appropriate: i. provide stimulating environments; ii. provide a range of play experiences including opportunities to connect with nature; iii. be inclusive; iv. be suitable for different ages of children and young people; v. be easily and safely accessible by children and young people independently, including those with a disability; vi. incorporate trees and/or other forms of greenery; vii. form and integral part of the surrounding neighbourhood; viii. be well overlooked for passive surveillance; ix. be linked directly to other open spaces and play areas. g) Development proposals that include new or enhanced play or sports facilities will provide effective management and maintenance plans covering the funding arrangements for their long-term delivery and upkeep, and the party or parties responsible for these. 10.77 Policy Assessment: Parts (d) and (e) of this policy cover development likely to be occupied by young people (which would include the proposed new housing as well as the potential new school campus) and development including new streets or public realm. These are required to be inclusive and suitable for young people, with appropriate provisions for play and relaxation. These would be matters that required to be demonstrated in subsequent detailed applications, but there are no obvious barriers to achieving a successful design. Parts (f) and (g) specify desirable standards for new play areas and require that suitable management and maintenance regimes be put in place, and these again are matters which could be addressed in subsequent detailed applications. Overall, subject to appropriate detailed proposals at the approval of matters specified in conditions stage, the proposal would comply with NPF4 Policy 21. 10.78 NPF4 Policy 22 (Risk and Water Management) seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and by reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. a) Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported if they are for: i. essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons; ii. water compatible uses; iii. redevelopment of an existing building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use; or iv. redevelopment of previously used sites in built up areas where the LDP has identified a need to bring these into positive use and where proposals demonstrate that long- term safety and resilience can be secured in accordance with relevant SEPA advice. In such cases, it will be demonstrated by the applicant that: • all risks of flooding are understood and addressed; • there is no risk of floodplain capacity, increased risk for others, or a need for future flood protection schemes; • the development remains safe and operational during floods; • flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods are used; and • future adaptations can be made to accommodate the effects of climate change c) Development proposals will: i. Not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; ii. Manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), which should form part of and integrate with proposed and existing blue- Page 51 of 90
Page 52
green infrastructure. All proposals should presume no surface water connection to the combined sewer; iii. Seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. d) Development proposals will be supported if they can be connected to the public water mains. If connection is not feasible, the applicant will need to demonstrate that water for drinking water purposes will be sourced from a sustainable water source that is resilient to periods of water scarcity. 10.79 Policy Assessment: The application includes a flood risk assessment and additional information was provided in response to SEPA comments. There are some parts of the site (mainly along the North Calder Water) where there is a risk of fluvial flooding but the proposed masterplan would not involve incompatible uses within these areas, and whilst further information would be needed at the detailed application stage the submitted documents demonstrate that flood risks are understood and capable of being satisfactorily addressed. The proposal will incorporate SUDS for surface water, and new public sewers and water mains. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 22. 10.80 NPF4 Policy 23 (Health and Safety) seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, to mitigate risks arising from safety hazards, and to support development that improves health and wellbeing. a) Development proposals that will have positive effects on health will be supported. This could include, for example, proposals that incorporate opportunities for exercise, community food growing or allotments. d) Development proposals that are likely to have significant adverse effects on air quality will not be supported. Development proposals will consider opportunities to improve air quality and reduce exposure to poor air quality. An air quality assessment may be required where the nature of the proposal or the air quality in the location suggest significant effects are likely. e) Development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. The agent of change principle applies to noise sensitive development. A Noise Impact Assessment may be required where the nature of the proposal or its location suggests that significant effects are likely. 10.81 Policy Assessment: The proposal would include community allotments and formalised open space and walking / cycling routes, which would be consistent with part (a). Impacts on air quality and noise are discussed in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment below (para. 11.22 et seq) and it is considered that whilst the proposal would give rise to additional traffic in the area the effects on air quality are not likely to be significant. Details of the intended industrial and storage / distribution uses are not currently known and if any of these would give rise to disproportionate emissions or noise beyond what the application documents estimate then details would need to be provided at the appropriate stage. It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with NPF Policy 23. 10.82 NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate business and industry uses and to enable alternative ways of working such as home-working, live- work units and micro-businesses. d) Development proposals for business, general industrial and storage and distribution uses outwith areas identified for those uses in the LDP will only be supported where: i. It is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP or identified in the employment land audit; and ii. The nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area e) Development proposals for business and industry will take into account: i. Impact on surrounding residential amenity; sensitive uses and the natural and historic environment; Page 52 of 90
Page 53
ii. The need for appropriate site restoration at the end of a period of commercial use. f) Major developments for manufacturing or industry will be accompanied by a decarbonisation strategy to demonstrate how greenhouse gas emissions from the process are appropriately abated. The strategy may include carbon capture and storage. 10.83 Policy Assessment: The application site is not allocated for business / industry development, so part (d) of this policy is of primary relevance as it sets out the circumstances where business and industrial development may be acceptable outwith allocated areas. In addition to the proposed use being compatible with the surrounding area, a need for the development must be demonstrated in terms of the employment land supply. The applicant has argued that the proposal complies with this policy because they consider there to be a need for additional industrial land, in particular for very large units. A market report has been provided indicating that the local vacancy rate for industrial buildings is relatively low (3.7% of floorspace) and that as some of the vacant floorspace may not meet modern requirements the actual rate of lettable industrial accommodation is lower still. The applicant submits that there has been a drop in industrial take-up over the past few years and considers that this is not due to lack of demand but rather it is due to an insufficient supply across all size brackets. In terms of very large “big box” units (such as those suitable for major storage and distribution uses) there is an identified demand for these across central Scotland, but a shortage of allocated sites capable of accommodating such large units. An analysis of commercial units larger than 100,000sq/ft (9,290sq/m) then on the market identified only six available in the Glasgow region, only two of which were relatively unconstrained and considered to meet the needs of warehouse operators (one of these being in North Lanarkshire, and was under offer at the time of the report). Whilst there are also various vacant or undeveloped sites allocated for business use at Eurocentral and elsewhere the applicant considered these to be constrained for various reasons. The report therefore concludes that there is a need for more new industrial and warehouse floorspace, especially very large units, which cannot be accommodated on existing or allocated industrial sites. 10.84 The council has also recently obtained independent information about the local employment land situation. The Glasgow City Region partnership commissioned a property consultant to provide a market intelligence report on employment land and property across the region, in order to inform emerging local development plans, the future regional spatial strategy and potentially support other development and regeneration initiatives around the region. The final report was provided in late 2024 and examined the availability and land supply for new- build industrial property, refurbished industrial property, office and business space, and serviced employment land. The report concludes that across the region there is a continuing need for new-build industrial property to meet market demand including manufacturing and logistics, and to replace old industrial buildings which are aging towards obsolescence, particularly to meet the needs of local small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Medium-sized modern units appear to be in particularly short supply, and demand for medium and larger industrial / warehouses is also high. There is private sector investment at locations close to motorways and trunk roads, but other areas may require intervention by local authorities. Much of the older stock is located in traditional towns. The regional report identifies that North Lanarkshire has the most modern industrial stock in the region, but although old buildings are a relatively low proportion of the stock the quantity is substantial so new units are still required. A large number of sites and an extensive land area are allocated through the LDP, with North Lanarkshire accounting for more than half of the available employment land within the Glasgow City Region, although a significant amount of this is in large regeneration sites requiring substantial up-front investment which will require public funding. There is some market supply of readily developable larger plots, but limited local supply for SMEs. Sites are taken-up regularly in the area and pipeline supply for both the local market and sectors with larger requirements are priorities. Page 53 of 90
Page 54
10.85 It is therefore clear that there is an ongoing need to renew the local industrial property stock, but it is not considered that either the applicant’s report or the regional report demonstrate a quantitative shortfall in the local industrial land supply. It is obvious that greenfield sites next to the motorway will be attractive to business developers (just as they are to housebuilders), but that does not mean that there is a shortage of allocated land. Whilst some businesses do genuinely require a site close to a motorway (e.g. major storage and distribution businesses), many others do not and may be better located within towns. Whilst large regeneration sites may require extensive up-front infrastructure and the renewal of older industrial estates may require public infrastructure, the prospects of such necessary investment taking place will be reduced if Green Belt land along the motorway corridor is instead allowed to be developed without a clear requirement for additional industrial land having been established. This would risk undermining efforts to secure the development of more appropriate and sustainable sites, including strategically important sites and regeneration priorities, and may increase the requirement for public sector regeneration funding. 10.86 The application proposes approximately 27,870sq/m of general industrial floorspace and 84,540sq/m of storage and distribution floorspace. The masterplan shows the general industrial floorspace split between four plots of varying size. Even if the largest of these was built as a single relatively large unit, it is not considered that it would be of a scale that could not be accommodated within the existing industrial land supply. It is therefore not considered that a land supply or locational need for the proposed general industrial units has been demonstrated. 10.87 As regards the proposed storage and distribution floorspace, the masterplan suggests two units of 55,740sq/m and 28,800sq/m respectively. (By way of comparison, the largest units within the Eurocentral and Newhouse industrial estates are the Lidl and Co-op distribution centres of 58,828sq/m and 46,783sq/m respectively). The availability of sites capable of accommodating such large buildings is limited, however some potential sites do exist within the industrial land supply. For example, Plot Z at Eurocentral extends to 71 acres, and permissions are in place at Mossend Industrial Rail Park (between Mossend and the M8) and Ravenscraig which could potentially accommodate units of the size proposed. There are also several sites that could potentially accommodate a unit of 28,800sq/m, including at Legbrannock Road, Newhouse and at Glasgow & Edinburgh Road, Carnbroe. These sites are all acknowledged to have various constraints and challenges, but so too does the application site. 10.88 The application is speculative in that no specific occupiers have been proposed. Whilst the general industrial units (of 8361sq/m, 4645sq/m, 3716sq/m and 1115sq/m) are of a size which would appeal to a broad range of businesses, especially if further subdivided, but there are comparatively few businesses requiring such large buildings such as the proposed storage and distribution units of 55,740sq/m and 28,800sq/m. The applicant’s own market report notes that the upper limit for speculative development was traditionally around 4645sq/m (50,000sq/ft), albeit that this is changing due to an increasing demand for larger units, and the Planning Service considers that such large units are unlikely to be built unless occupants are lined up in advance. The shape of the largest plot would also dictate a relatively long and narrow building which may limit its appeal to some users. Whilst it is accepted that the granting of planning permission in principle would make the site more appealing to prospective occupants, the possibility that no occupants may emerge for the proposed large units needs to be considered. 10.89 It is therefore accepted that there is some requirement for sites large enough for very large storage and distribution uses, and that this site could potentially accommodate two relatively large units. However it is not clear that these two plots would actually meet the needs of the relatively small number of businesses which require such large units, or that there would not Page 54 of 90
Page 55
be any preferable alternative sites available to meet these requirements. Furthermore, even if a specific locational need had been demonstrated, compliance with part (d) of Policy 26 also requires that the nature and scale of the development be compatible with the surrounding area. The application site is part of an attractive area of mixed woodland and farmland whose nature and appearance would be significantly changed by the proposal. Whilst there are similar large commercial buildings nearby at Eurocentral, there is a clear physical and visual barrier (i.e. the motorway corridor) separating these from the application site. The impacts of the proposal on this area of countryside are discussed elsewhere in this report, and it is considered that these impacts would be incompatible with the established character of the area. 10.90 In terms of part (e), the proposed industrial and storage and distribution areas would be separated from existing and proposed houses and would have access to the motorway network without traffic directly passing houses, so subject to detailed proposals (including detailed noise impact assessments, etc.) these aspects of the proposal are not considered likely to give rise to a loss of amenity for residential properties or other sensitive uses. There would, however, be a detrimental impact upon the natural and historic environment as detailed elsewhere in this report. As the need for the proposed development has not been established it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to point [i] of part (e). 10.91 Part 26(f) relates to the decarbonisation of major developments for manufacturing and industrial processes, but as the application is for permission in principle only and the nature of the end users is not known, it is not possible to consider this issue at this stage. However, future detailed proposals for the commercial uses might require a decarbonisation strategy. 10.92 Overall, the proposal is considered to be contrary to parts (d)[ii] and (e)[i] of Policy 26, and that whilst part (d)[i] has potential to provide support for the largest of the proposed units, it is not considered that the lack of suitable alternative sites which this part of the policy requires has been satisfactorily demonstrated. In any event the application is not simply for large- footprint storage and distribution units (and these would only form a relatively small part of the development), so even if the need for the large units had been established it would not justify releasing a swathe of Green Belt for housing and other industrial development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 26. 10.93 NPF4 Policy 27 (City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres) supports development in town and city centres, recognising these as a national asset. This will be achieved by applying the Town Centre First approach to help centres adapt positively to long-term economic, environmental and societal changes, and by encouraging town centre living. b) Development proposals will be consistent with the town centre first approach. Proposals for uses which will generate significant footfall, including commercial, leisure, offices, community, sport and cultural facilities, public buildings such as libraries, education and healthcare facilities, and public spaces: i. will be supported in existing city, town and local centres, and ii. will not be supported outwith those centres unless a town centre first assessment demonstrates that: • all centre and edge of centre options have been sequentially assessed and discounted as unsuitable or unavailable; • the scale of development cannot reasonably be altered or reduced in scale to allow it to be accommodated in a centre; and • the impacts on existing centres have been thoroughly assessed and there will be no significant adverse effect on the vitality and viability of the centres. d) Drive-through developments will only be supported where they are specifically supported in the LDP. Page 55 of 90
Page 56
10.94 Policy Assessment: This policy applies to all applications for “town centre” type uses, although there is also a more specific policy covering retail use as discussed under Policy 28 below. This application seeks to provide such uses in the new local centre, as well as in the smaller ancillary retail/commercial unit that is proposed within the industrial area. 10.95 Part (b) indicates that such uses will only be supported in existing centres, and will not be supported outwith them unless a sequential justification can be demonstrated. In this case, the site is not an existing centre and would be regarded as an out-of-centre location where town-centre type uses would not normally be appropriate. As discussed above the site is relatively distant from most local facilities so were the proposed residential and industrial development to be allowed it would be desirable to provide some local facilities in line with the 20 Minute Neighbourhoods concept. However, as both the housing and industrial development are themselves contrary to the relevant development plan policies it therefore follows that the establishment of a new local centre and other ancillary retail (etc.) floorspace on the site must also be inconsistent with Policy 27. 10.96 If the council was minded to allow the proposed housing and industry then the local centre and ancillary services area could be justified against Policy 27 provided that it was purely local in its function, and was not drawing trade away from existing centres as required by part (b)(ii) of the policy. In this case the application does not define the precise size or nature of uses within the proposed local centre, and therefore additional detail would be needed. Some of the application documents assume a floorspace of 2,000sq/m, but depending upon what uses were proposed it is possible that this might conflict with Policy 27 or at very least require a sequential assessment to demonstrate compliance with that policy. The ancillary retail / service floorspace is suggested as 650sq/m, but that seems rather large if intended purely to serve the industrial area, and it would not be desirable to create a roadside facility aimed at passing motorists. By way of comparison, at their most recent (2019) survey the villages of Calderbank and Chapelhall had 2,588sq/m and 2,222sq/m of local centre floorspace, whilst the nearby local centre at Lorne Place in Coatbridge has only 962sq/m, so it is considered that 2,650sq/m for the application site may be excessive. The proposed location of the local centre is also not ideal in terms of maximising its benefit to the existing community as it is positioned towards the southern edge of the new housing area. However, these are all matters which could be controlled by a condition requiring that the location and size of the local centre and ancillary service area be further defined in a future AMSC application. 10.97 Part (d) of the policy covers new drive-through restaurants. There is currently no specific proposal for such a use, although the proposal lists “food and drink, public house and leisure” amongst possible uses, which could potentially cover drive through restaurants. As the proposal incorporates a new spine road it would be readily accessible by car and therefore potentially attractive to drive-through operators. Were such a use to be proposed at the detailed stage its acceptability would require to be demonstrated in terms of its impact on amenity and sustainable travel patterns. As the current LDP predates NPF4 it does not have a policy covering the locations of drive through facilities, any such proposal would need to be assessed on its own merits. This could also be controlled by a suitably worded condition. 10.98 Overall the proposal is contrary to NPF4 Policy 27 because the development as a whole is significantly contrary to multiple development plan policies, and consequently a new local centre is not justified. However, in the event of the council being minded to grant the wider development, then the inclusion of a modest amount of local centre and ancillary development would be compatible with Policy 27 provided this was limited to a scale and type which did not conflict with existing centres. Page 56 of 90
Page 57
10.99 NPF4 Policy 28 (Retail) supports retail investment in the most sustainable locations that are most accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes. a) Development proposals for retail (including expansions and changes of use) will be consistent with the town centre first principle. This means that new retail proposals: i. will be supported in existing city, town and local centres, and ii. will be supported in edge-on-centre areas or in commercial centres if they are allocated as sites suitable for new retail development in the LDP. iii. will not be supported in out of centre locations (other than those meeting policy 28(c) [or 28(d) which is not relevant to this proposal]). b) Development proposals for retail that are consistent with the sequential approach (set out in a) and click-and-collect lockers pick up points, will be supported where the proposed development: i. is of an appropriate scale for the location; ii. will have an acceptable impact on the character and amenity of the area; and iii. is located to best channel footfall and activity, to benefit the place as a whole. c) Proposals for new small scale neighbourhood retail development will be supported where the proposed development: i. contributes to local living, including where relevant 20 minute neighbourhoods and/or ii. can be demonstrated to contribute to the health and wellbeing of the local community. 10.100 Policy Assessment: As discussed under Policy 27 above the proposal seeks a new local centre up to 650sq/m of ancillary floorspace in the proposed industrial area. Some of this would be retail floorspace, although the precise amount is not currently known. 10.101 In terms of part (a), the site is not within an existing town or local centre, on the edge of any existing centre or allocated for retail use in the LDP. Rather, it is an out-of-centre location where retail development is not supported unless it is in accordance with part (c). 10.102 Part (b) requires that any new retail developments have an appropriate design, accessibility and impact on amenity. These are all matters that would be considered at the detailed application stage. Provided the retail was intended to serve only the immediately surrounding housing and industry there should be no difficulty in achieving a suitable level of accessibility, however if (as the current floorspace proposals suggest) it is intended to serve a wider catchment area the level of public transport access would be unsatisfactory for the reasons discussed above. 10.103 Part (c) allows small-scale neighbourhood retail development which will contribute to local living and the wellbeing of the local community. As discussed under Policy 27 above, in the event of the proposed housing and industrial development taking place then it would be desirable that there be local convenience retail within a convenient walking distance, so in those circumstances a limited amount of retail development would be consistent with Policy 28(c). However, as the development as a whole is inconsistent with development plan policies it follows that there is also currently no justification for the provision of ancillary retail development. Additionally, the amount of retail floorspace would need to be limited so as to ensure that it was purely local in its function and did not become an out-of-centre development drawing trade away from surrounding centres. 10.104 The proposal therefore conflicts with parts (a), (b) and (c), and is contrary to NPF4 Policy 28 as a whole. However, as with Policy 27 above, in the event of the Council being minded to grant permission for the wider development then Policy 28 (c) would support some limited retail development to satisfy Local Living / 20 Minute Neighbourhoods requirements, which could be controlled through planning conditions and future AMSC applications. Page 57 of 90
Page 58
10.105 NPF4 Policy 30 (Tourism) supports sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with Scotland’s net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. a) Development proposals for new of extended tourist facilities or accommodation, including caravan and camping sites, in locations identified in the LDP, will be supported. 10.106 Policy Assessment: As noted below the Monkland Canal is designated as a Visitor Economy Location within the LDP and the applicant suggests that the proposal would encourage the use of the canal for recreational purposes. Proposals to encourage tourism would therefore be consistent with NPF4 Policy 30, however there are no specific proposals for tourism development and these would be at most a very minor part of the development which is proposed. 10.107 NPF4 Policy 31 (Culture and Creativity) supports development which reflects our diverse culture and creativity, and which supports our culture and creative industries. a) Development proposals that involve a significant change to existing, or the creation of new, public open spaces will make provision for public art. Public art proposals which reflect diversity, culture and creativity will be supported. 10.108 Policy Assessment: The application includes substantial new public open spaces and detailed proposals would therefore be required to include provision of public art in order to demonstrate compliance. Subject to this, the proposal should comply with NPF4 Policy 31. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, 2022 (NLLDP) 10.109 Although the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan was adopted in June 2022, nine months before NPF4 came into effect, many NPF4 policy objectives are reflected in NLLDP policies. The NLLDP policies relevant to this application are discussed below. 10.110 NLLDP Policy PROM LOC 1 (Regeneration Priorities) indicates that the council will promote regeneration and sustainable growth by delivering the right amount of development in the right places, to the right quality and for the benefit of the communities affected. Physical regeneration of the existing urban area and the network of centres therein will be given priority. 10.111 Policy Assessment: The application site does not comply with the council’s regeneration priorities in terms of its location as it is an unallocated site in an area designated as Green Belt, and other land is allocated and available locally for both housing and industrial development in preferable urban and urban-edge locations. The proposal does not promote the physical regeneration of the existing urban area or identified centres, and instead could serve to undermine the regeneration of such areas. The proposal is therefore contrary to LDP Policy PROM LOC1. 10.112 NLLDP Policy PROM LOC 2 (Business Development Sites) indicates that the council will support and direct business development to the Strategic and Local Business Centres and Industrial & Business Land Supply. This comprises of: • buildings and land located in the Strategic and Local Business Centres, • marketable / potentially marketable sites identified in the 2017 Industrial & Business Land Survey, • sites for specific uses, and Page 58 of 90
Page 59
• proposed business sites confirmed by the local development plan examination Additional sites identified in the Industrial & Business Land Supply will be brought forward through consideration of applications for planning permission, subject to any specific restrictions than may be identified in the Area Strategies. 10.113 Policy Assessment: The proposal does not direct business to any of the strategic or local business centres or to sites within the industrial and business land supply, and to that extent it conflicts with the objectives of this policy. However, the policy is only applicable to sites which are allocated as business centres and the assessment of development proposals which lie outwith these is left to the relevant land use policies (in this case those relating to the Green Belt). Therefore, LDP Policy PROM LOC2 is neutral towards the proposal. 10.114 NLLDP Policy PROM LOC 3 (Housing Development Sites) set out the council’s former approach to housing land supply. However, this policy has been superseded by the new housing land delivery pipeline approach set out in NPF4 policy 16. It is therefore considered that LDP Policy PROM LOC3 is no longer applicable, and this view has been affirmed by recent appeal decisions. 10.115 NLLDP Policy PROM LOC4 (Special Landscape Areas & Green Network Improvements) promotes understanding and awareness of the distinctive character and special qualities of designated landscape areas and the enhancement of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network. Green Networks are a means of attracting people into their local natural environment by improving community access, recreational opportunities, and environmental and ecological quality close to and within communities. They are seen as a key mechanism for reversing the effects of fragmentation on biodiversity. Any proposals affecting the Green Network and other natural areas or green spaces which contribute to the quality of life of local communities will be required to satisfy the provisions of all EDQ and PROT policies, and new development should include appropriate integrated blue-green infrastructure. 10.116 Policy Assessment: The application site is not subject to any specific landscape designation and neither is it designated as a green network opportunity location. Whilst part of the site is a designed landscape, it is not formally designated as such for the reasons explained above. However it is a sizeable green space which forms part of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network and which contributes to the quality of life of neighbouring communities. The proposal would result in the loss of large areas of primarily agricultural countryside and would in some respects reduce the attractiveness of the area for recreational use (e.g. to people who use the canal towpaths and value their present rural setting). On the other hand, the proposal would retain and enhance footpaths and recreational access to the countryside, potentially making the area more accessible to a larger number of people. The proposal would largely retain the existing woodland and would add a significant amount of additional woodland, which could potentially be of net benefit to ecological interests. Existing blue infrastructure would be largely unaffected, and new / retained blue-green infrastructure would be well integrated into the proposed development. Therefore, were the proposal supported by other LDP policies, it would be considered to be broadly neutral in respect of PROM LOC 4. However as the proposal is contrary to policies PROT B and EDQ 3 (as discussed below), by extension the loss of green network which it involves must also be considered contrary to LDP policy PROM LOC 4, as these impacts upon the Green Network have not been sufficiently justified. 10.117 NLLDP Policy PROM ID 1 (Transport Improvements) supports sustainable, multi-modal transport improvements identified through local and national transport strategies and arising from the Contributions to Infrastructure (CI) policy. Other developments will be assessed for their contribution to modal shift in line with the sustainable modal hierarchy and current Strategies, in accordance with the plan’s EDQ policies. Page 59 of 90
Page 60
10.118 Policy Assessment: The proposed new spine road does not feature in any local or national transport strategy or programme and therefore requires to be assessed for its contribution to modal shift in line with the sustainable modal hierarchy. That hierarchy is set out in local and national transport strategies, including National Transport Strategy 2 (2020), the regional Transport Strategy for West of Scotland 2023-2038 (2023) and the North Lanarkshire Local Transport Strategy (2010) as prioritising (1) walking and wheeling; (2) cycling; (3) public transport, (4) taxis and shared transport and lastly (5) private car use, which is the least favoured mode. The spine road is likely to divert some existing traffic away from Calderbank which would be of some localised benefit to Calderbank, though this would be offset somewhat by the new traffic arising from the development itself. As discussed above, due to its position on the edge of the built-up area the proposed development would have very limited access to existing services and facilities within a ten minute walk, and would be reliant upon new facilities being constructed within the site in order to satisfy 20 Minute Neighbourhood principles. Even so, some facilities (e.g. town centres, secondary schools and railway stations) would require a lengthy walk, and it is considered that the proposed development is unlikely to be well served by buses. These limitations, together with the proposed development’s ready access to the motorway and major road network, would serve to encourage car use. Therefore, the proposal is not consistent with local or national transport strategies and accordingly it is also contrary to LDP Policy PROM ID 1. 10.119 NLLDP Policy PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) indicates that the council will protect natural and resilient sustainable places by safeguarding natural heritage assets. Several categories of natural heritage sites are identified, including: • Category A2 (National Sites) including Ancient Woodland. When assessing suitability for woodland removal, applicants should refer to the Clydeplan Forestry and Woodland Strategy and adhere to the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. • Category A3 (Local Sites) including Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), tree preservation orders (TPOs), core paths and rights of way. Planning permission will only be granted for proposals potentially affecting Local Sites if it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact. • Category A4 (Urban Green Network) comprising natural areas such as urban wildlife corridors, trees, woodland, watercourses and flood plains, and other green open spaces contributing to quality of life in local communities. The council will maintain community wellbeing in residential areas by protecting the Urban Green Network. Planning permission will only be granted for proposals potentially affecting the Urban Green Network if it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms. Policy EDQ3 outlines how development proposals may protect, enhance and manage existing and provide new Green Network infrastructure. • Category A5 (Protected Species). Development that significantly affects a species protected by law will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that the protected species would not be compromised; or any significant adverse effects on the protected species are mitigated to facilitate protection of individual species members, reduce disturbance to a minimum and provide appropriate alternative habitats to sustain at least the current levels of the species locally. 10.120 Policy Assessment: As discussed in relation to NPF4 Policy 6 the proposal does not fully comply with national and regional policies in respect of ancient woodland, but the small amount of ancient woodland and TPO woodland which would be lost would be balanced by substantial new planting so the proposal is considered to be neutral in this respect. Impacts on ecology including protected species are detailed in the discussion of the Environmental Page 60 of 90
Page 61
Impact Assessment below (para. 11.5 et seq), and it is concluded that subject to suitable mitigation there would be no unacceptable impacts. The proposal would maintain the existing path network and provide new and enhanced paths. As discussed under LDP Policy PROM LOC 4 above there would be a negative impact on the Urban Green Network due to the proposal resulting in the loss of an area of countryside around towns which is contiguous of the wider urban green network, albeit that woodland and other more sensitive parts of the site would be retained and public recreational access to the remaining green network assets would be maintained and potentially enhanced. The proposal therefore has a series of negative impacts which are each relatively minor and would be capable of being mitigated against if the development as a whole was considered to be necessary or desirable. However as it is not considered that the wider development has been sufficiently justified it follows that the negative impacts on the natural environment and green network are also not justified, and that the proposal is therefore contrary to LDP policy PROT A. 10.121 NLLDP Policy PROT B (Historic Environment Assets) seeks to protect and create resilient sustainable places by safeguarding historic environment assets. Categories of heritage environment asset include: • Category B2 (National Assets) including Scheduled Monuments. Development shall preserve archaeological features in sit and within an appropriate setting. Adverse impact on the integrity or setting of the monument shall not be permitted unless there are exceptional circumstances. • Category B3 (Regional/Local Assets) including category B and C listed buildings, canal corridors and sites of archaeological interest. Applications for planning permission in principle are not normally considered appropriate to listed buildings. The layout, design, materials, scale, siting and use of any development should be appropriate to the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting, and there is a presumption against demolition or other works adversely affecting the special interest of a listed building. Canal corridors are important to the preservation and setting of the Monkland Canal, and development within defined Canal Corridors shall be consistent with protecting this environment through the application of EDQ policies. For sites of archaeological interest, the aim should be to preserve in situ wherever feasible. An archaeological evaluation report may be required, and the council will weigh the significance of the archaeological resources and impacts upon them against other merits. 10.122 Policy Assessment: As discussed above in relation to NPF4 Policy 7, it is considered that the proposal would have adverse impacts on the setting of the Monkland Canal (Scheduled Monument and a canal corridor) and High Palacecraig House (B-Listed Building), while the impacts on Woodhall House and other heritage assets would be capable of being satisfactorily controlled by conditions. The policy does allow for development which adversely affects listed buildings where this is essential to delivering significant benefits to economic growth or for the wider community, and if there was an established need for the proposed new housing (which is the part of the development that would most directly affect both the canal and High Palacecraig House) then it is possible that the need for additional housing land would provide such a justification, however as there is currently no such requirement the proposal is contrary to LDP Policy PROT B. 10.123 NLLDP Policy PP 2C (Visitor Economy Areas & Locations – Purpose of Place) supports the provision of tourism and leisure facilities in designated Visitor Economy Locations. The policy is primarily concerned with the assessment of applications for tourism and leisure facilities, however all applications for development within designated Visitor Economy Locations should be subject to an assessment of appropriateness including consideration of its impact on its attractiveness as a Visitor Economy Location. The related Policy AD 2C (Visitor Economy Areas & Locations – Amount of Development) sets out criteria for assessing the amount of development proposed in Visitor Economy Locations. Housing, Page 61 of 90
Page 62
business, general industrial and storage or distribution are all listed as inappropriate uses within Visitor Economy Locations. 10.124 Policy Assessment: The Monkland Canal corridor is a designated Visitor Economy Location. The proposal involves development in the vicinity of the canal, but other than bridge and public access works no development is anticipated within the canal boundary. Whilst there are no detailed proposals for specific tourism facilities the application does cover food and drink and hotel uses, which could potentially contribute towards tourism if sited next to the canal. The appellant considers that the development as a whole will improve the appearance and amenity of the canal corridor by providing for increased maintenance and natural surveillance to discourage anti-social behaviour such as fly tipping. On the other hand, developing the land on either side of the canal will result in the loss of its rural setting and may make the canal less appealing to some visitors. Overall, it is considered that LDP policies PP2C and AD2C are neutral towards the proposal. 10.125 NLLDP Policy PP 4 (Green Belt – Purpose of Place) seeks to protect the setting of communities, support regeneration of urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high quality environment by promoting a Green Belt, within which only development of specific types or under specific circumstances will be supported. The purpose of the Green Belt is to protect the setting of communities, support regeneration by directing growth to urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high quality environment. Applications for agriculture, forestry, recreation, development that need a non-urban location and appropriate visitor economy development will be supported, but other types of development will be resisted. Proposals for development requiring a Green Belt location require to be balanced against any adverse effects on the purposes of the Green Belt. 10.126 Applications for development in the Green Belt will be subject to an assessment of appropriateness including (but not limited to): • A business plan or statement justifying that the development is compatible with the Green Belt; • A statement explaining why the proposal is not best suited to being located in a Centre or General Urban Area, taking the Town Centres First sequential approach where appropriate; • A statement on the scale and nature of existing development in the Green Belt; • Evidence that there is a specific locational requirement for the proposal; • Evidence that the proposal will result in significant economic benefit; and • Details of its impact on travel patterns and accessibility by sustainable modes of transport. 10.127 Policy Assessment: The proposed development does not fall into any of the categories listed as being supported in the Green Belt, and is instead comprised primarily of types of development which the LDP seeks to direct to urban areas and allocated sites. Other than relatively minor and ancillary parts of the proposal (i.e. the open space and outdoor recreation areas) none of the proposed development is of a type requiring a “non-urban location”. Whilst the applicant seeks to justify the development on the basis that the large storage / distribution plots have a specific locational need and that the development as a whole would have significant economic benefits, as discussed elsewhere in this report these arguments are not accepted. The large storage / distribution units are not considered to be of a type / scale that could not be accommodated elsewhere, and in any event these form a relatively small part of the overall proposal. Such economic benefits as might arise from the proposal would be no greater than that arising from similar housing or industrial development on allocated or otherwise preferable sites and the need for additional greenfield land within the Green Belt has not been demonstrated. The accessibility of the proposed development Page 62 of 90
Page 63
by sustainable modes of transport is also considered to be unsatisfactory. 10.128 In terms of the proposed local centre and other retail, food and drink floorspace, the policy confirms that any such development must also satisfy with Town Centre First objectives and accord with the sequential approach which prioritises existing centres over the construction of new out-of-centre retail (etc.) development. This has been discussed in relation to NPF4 policies 27 and 28 above, and these elements of the proposal cannot comply with the policy’s requirements because the wider development to which they are intended to be ancillary is itself contrary to the development plan, meaning that there is no justification for retail or other town centre type development on this site. 10.129 Taken as a whole, the proposal is incompatible with the purpose of the Green Belt and would result in the unjustified loss of a sizeable and important section of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore significantly contrary to LDP Policy PP4. 10.130 NLLDP Policy AD 4 (Green Belt – Amount of Development) sets out criteria for assessing the amount of development proposed within the Green Belt. Proposals exceeding the specified threshold require to be assessed for their implications. Thresholds relevant to the current proposal are: Use Class Assessment Threshold Housing All development other than houses required to support a Green Belt appropriate use Business, Industry, Storage and Distribution All development (which shall also be subject to an assessment of appropriateness under policy PP4) Shops, Services, Food and Drink All development (which shall also be assessed in terms of impact on existing centres and subject to a sequential assessment) Non-Residential Institutions (e.g. Schools), Assembly and Leisure (e.g. Sports Facilities), Hotels, Hostels, Residential Institutions (e.g. Care Homes) All development (which shall be subject to a sequential assessment) Assessments shall include (but shall not be limited to): • A statement on whether the proposal is an intensification of an existing use; • Consideration of its impact on planned land supplies, including housing land supply where more than 10 units are proposed; and • Evidence regarding the existence of suitable alternative sites. 10.131 Policy Assessment: The proposal involves up to 980 houses which are not related to any existing or proposed Green Belt-appropriate uses, and which as discussed under NPF4 policy 16 are not needed to meet an identified local housing land requirement. The proposed industrial / storage and distribution development is not intended to be used for Green-Belt appropriate businesses, and as discussed under Policy PP4 it is not supported by the assessment of appropriateness under that policy. As discussed above the local centre uses cannot be justified in circumstances where the residential and industrial development that they are intended to serve is itself unjustified, and the scale of development proposed is also considered to be inappropriate in terms of its impacts on existing centres, with no proper sequential justification having been demonstrated for requiring the amount of floorspace proposed. Ancillary community-type uses such as the school campus or a health centre could only be justified if these were shown to be necessary and no sequentially preferable Page 63 of 90
Page 64
site was available, and as the need for new schools arises in large part from the development itself this does not amount to a justification for these facilities being needed on this particular site. The proposal is not an intensification of any existing countryside use, and it seeks speculative development beyond the requirements of planned land supplies. Under the circumstances it cannot be demonstrated that there is a need for the development and a lack of suitable alternative sites. Accordingly, the proposal is significantly contrary to LDP Policy AD4. 10.132 NLLDP Policy CI (Contributions to Infrastructure) indicates that the council will seek to secure developer contributions for new developments that, individually or cumulatively, generate a requirement for new or enhanced infrastructure or services. Contributions may be required for affordable housing, education, transport, green infrastructure, amenity space and play facilities. 10.133 Policy Assessment: As discussed above the proposal would give rise to education capacity issues and the need for off-site road works and supported public transport, which would require a planning obligation covering developer contributions and the developer’s responsibility for off-site work. Within the site, green infrastructure including amenity spaces and play areas would be provided as part of the development and the specifications and management arrangements for these would require to be agreed as part of future applications for approval of matters specified in conditions. There is no policy requirement for a proportion of the development to be affordable housing in this area, however the applicant proposes to provide this voluntarily. Subject to an appropriate planning obligation and conditions the proposal would comply with LDP Policy CI. 10.134 NLLDP Policy EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) requires that any proposed development be appraised in terms of the site and its surroundings to ensure that it will integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity. Applications are to be accompanied by documents sufficient to demonstrate that all relevant matters have been taken into account in the design, and to allow the appraisal of the proposal. 10.135 Policy Assessment: The proposal contains the level of information appropriate for an application for Planning Permission in Principle (PPP), and it is considered that all relevant matters have been taken into account. Whilst opinions may differ as to the overall acceptability of the application, the applicant has carried out a thorough site appraisal which has informed the proposal. Further assessment of detailed design proposals would occur at the approval of matters specified in conditions (AMSC) stage if permission were to be granted, and such proposals would be expected to reflect the site appraisal which has been undertaken. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of LDP Policy EDQ 1. 10.136 NLLDP Policy EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) details specific hazards and other technical matters which require special assessment, including flood risk, contaminated land, ground stability, utility pipelines and environmental management areas. Applications for planning permission are required to be accompanied by documents demonstrating that the proposal is acceptable in these respects. 10.137 Policy Assessment: The application is supported by a set of documents covering the relevant technical matters to a standard appropriate for a PPP application of this nature. These documents include an Environmental Statement with chapters covering water resources and flood risk, ground conditions, noise and air quality, along with supplementary technical information on flood risk. The information supplied is considered to be satisfactory by the relevant technical consultees, who consider that these issues could be addressed by conditions in the event of the application being approved. Additional survey work and detailed mitigation proposals (where applicable) would be addressed at the AMSC stage. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of LDP Policy EDQ 2. Page 64 of 90
Page 65
10.140 NLLDP Policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) indicates that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Applications are required to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of site appraisal, technical and protected asset policies as listed above and achieves a high quality of development, including delivering a safe, pleasant, inclusive, convenient and welcoming place, being adaptable, sustainable and well integrated with public transport, green networks and wider links. Developments should contribute to the move towards a low-carbon economy and promote health and well-being, amongst various other requirements. The policy also covers mitigation of any air quality or noise issues, protection of water bodies, provision of adequate drainage, maintenance of landscaped areas and protection of green network and historic environment assets, all of which have already been discussed above. 10.141 Policy Assessment: As this is a PPP application only, the detailed design would be a matter for subsequent AMSC applications. The proposal has been assessed against the qualities of successful places under NPF4 Policy 14 above, which are broadly similar to the requirements of policy EDQ3, and it is concluded that although the proposed development would be well designed and should provide a pleasant, high quality environment, this cannot overcome the adverse impacts on local amenity which would arise from the loss of this important section of the Green Belt, the inherent unsustainability of developing a large area of greenfield land without a clear locational need or land supply justification for doing so, and the shortcomings of the site in terms of sustainable transport. Accordingly, the proposal is on balance considered to be contrary to LDP Policy ENQ3. 11. Environmental Impact Assessment 11.1 The application has been subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which was originally carried out in accordance with a scoping exercise dating from 2016. It was therefore undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2011, which have since been superseded by the equivalent 2017 Regulations. As this EIA was undertaken under the earlier regulations some of the procedures and terminology differ slightly from current practice – for example the report of the EIA was known as an Environmental Statement (ES) rather than an EIA Report. The ES has been updated to reflect the changes to the proposal, updated surveys, and other changes (such as new legislation and committed development with which there might be cumulative impacts). The ES seeks to predict the significance of the environmental effects of the proposal using a consistent scoring methodology, and each impact is assessed using two factors: • The sensitivity of the environmental receptor (i.e. its importance and whether it is capable of absorbing change without fundamentally altering its present character). Sensitivities are categorised as high, moderate or low. • The magnitude of the impact which is likely to take place, categorised as major, moderate, minor or negligible. (Such impacts may be either adverse, neutral or beneficial) This results in impacts being given a significance rating as follows: High Sensitivity Moderate Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Major Magnitude major major/moderate moderate/minor Moderate Magnitude major/moderate moderate/minor minor Minor Magnitude moderate/minor minor minor/negligible Negligible Magnitude negligible negligible negligible Page 65 of 90
Page 66
11.2 Whether or not an impact is judged to be a “significant” environmental impact as defined in the EIA regulations is a matter of judgement, but typically major or major/moderate impacts will be significant, moderate/minor impacts might be significant depending on the issue, and the cumulative effect of a large number of minor impacts can also be significant. The ES assesses impacts during the construction phase (i.e. actually building the development, including vegetation clearance and planting of new landscaping) and during the operational phase (i.e. after the development has been built and brought into use, including long-term effects such as the new landscaping growing to maturity). Cumulative impacts with other developments in the area are also considered. 11.3 In terms of Landscape and Visual Effects, the site lies within the Clyde Basin Farmlands regional character area (RCA) as defined in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Landscape Assessment (SNH, 1999) which comprises much of the lowland area of the Clyde Basin surrounding the Glasgow urban area. Many areas within this RCA have been subject to mineral working or industrial development, resulting in areas of derelict or damaged land. Applying National Character Areas, the centre of the site falls within category STC8 “Incised River Valleys” while the higher ground is STC7 “Fragmented Farmlands”. The ES concludes that the development would have the following impacts: • Impact on agricultural fields including the irreversible alteration of land use would result in a major adverse landscape impact during the construction phase, however in the longer term new planting would soften this impact to moderate adverse during the operational phase; • Loss of existing hedgerows and tree belts to accommodate construction would be kept to a minimum so would have a moderate adverse landscape impact during construction, but this would be offset by a large amount of new landscaping implemented as part of the development, resulting in a minor beneficial residual effect in the operational phase; • Impact on Ancient Woodland and woodland subject to tree preservation orders would be of small magnitude as only 3.54% of the woodland would be affected, but the value of this woodland is high so the effect during construction is assessed as moderate adverse. Again, new planting would over time soften the residual impact to minor adverse; • Impact on other woodland would initially be moderate adverse due to the loss of 2.54 hectares of young woodland, but over time the significant amount of new planting would result in a minor beneficial residual landscape impact; • There are seven ponds on the site (Lily Pond and six smaller ponds) which would be retained, with enhanced maintenance. As such the construction phase impact on the ponds is assessed as negligible adverse shifting to negligible positive during the operational phase; • Impact on the landscape of the North Calder Water would include a new road bridge and a new pedestrian bridge, resulting in a moderate adverse impact during construction. Over time green network improvements and maintenance would result in a moderate/minor beneficial residual effect; • Similarly, impact on the landscape of the Monkland Canal is assessed as moderate adverse during construction but would soften to a minor adverse residual effect once landscaping and maintenance improvements were in place. (This difference being due to the new canal bridge being a modern feature over a historic waterway); • Impact on High Palacecraig (listed building) would not involve direct effects on the building itself, but there would be indirect effect on its setting, assessed as a moderate adverse impact during construction and softening over time as new landscaping matures to a minor adverse residual effect; • Impact on the existing unlisted buildings within the site would be of large magnitude (assuming these would be demolished), but these buildings are of little historic or architectural value. The impact during construction is therefore assessed as moderate Page 66 of 90
Page 67
adverse, softening to a minor adverse residual effect; • The impact on the Woodhall House scheduled monument is limited by the fact that the buildings no longer exist and the designed landscape has been much altered over the years, so the effect is assessed as moderate/minor adverse during construction, with new landscaping and maintenance resulting in a minor/negligible beneficial impact in the operational phase; • Impact on the walled garden within the Woodhall House estate would be neutral during construction as no works are proposed which would directly affect it, however improved maintenance would have a minor beneficial impact in the longer term; • Impact on the landscape of the road network is similarly assessed as minor adverse during construction, shifting to negligible beneficial in the operational phase as a result of new landscaping; • Impact on overall landscape of the site and its immediate setting is assessed as major/moderate adverse during construction, but over time new landscaping is assessed as improving the appearance of the site resulting in a minor beneficial residual impact; • Of the two landscape types within the site (as defined by the site context plan), the proposal; the initial moderate adverse impact is assessed as softening to negligible beneficial (in the case of “North Calder Fragmented Farmlands”) and minor beneficial (“North Calder Water Incised River Valley”); • Based on assessments of the impact on 29 receptors (i.e. residents, road users, part users, etc.) at 24 viewpoints around the site, significant impacts on visual amenity (moderate or major adverse) are considered likely to occur for seven receptors during the construction phase, but in the operational phase these would soften to (at worst) moderate/minor adverse. The receptors most affected are residents’ view south from Calderbank Road in the vicinity of Credon Drive/Ayr Drive (where the view of open countryside would be replaced by housing, albeit with new landscaping), and the 360° view of path users from the canal towpath in the centre of the site (where the new road bridge would be located and where views of countryside would be replaced by housing and new landscaping); • Taking account of the approved Mossend International Railfreight Park, an approved industrial site within Eurocentral, and a small brownfield site allocated for housing at Sykeside Road, the ES concludes that there would not be any significant cumulative landscape impacts. 11.4 It is considered that the Environmental Statement’s conclusions in respect of landscape and visual impacts are reasonable and in most respects the values given are accepted. The ES recognises that there will be significant adverse impacts on the overall landscape and setting of the site, on the fields and woodland areas, watercourses and heritage features during and immediately after construction, but concludes that once the intended new landscaping, woodland planting and improved maintenance regime have become established the impacts will all be reduced substantially and in some cases will result in minor beneficial changes to the landscape, leading the ES to conclude that the only significant long-term residual impact would be the loss of the open fields. However, the assessment of landscape impact is inevitably somewhat subjective and while the Planning Service concurs with the generality of this assessment, it is considered that the mitigating effects of the new landscaping etc. are given too much weight. This would not compensate for the loss of so much of the current attractive green space between Carnbroe, Airdrie and Calderbank and the permanent loss of the open field system as well as the remaining parts of the designed landscape which characterise the current landscape. It is also intended that some of the proposed storage / distribution / industrial buildings would be very large, which would further impact on the existing landscape. The Planning Service therefore considers that there would be a significant adverse impact on the landscape in these respects. Page 67 of 90
Page 68
11.5 In terms of Ecology and Nature Conservation, the baseline study identifies multiple habitat types across the site, of which the greatest impacts of the development would be on semi- improved natural grassland (100% to be lost), unimproved natural grassland (51% lost) marshy grassland (44% lost) and dense/continuous scrub (33% lost). Of the plantation broadleaved woodland 9% would be lost, while only 1.5% of the land designated as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) would be affected. Protected species present include bats, badgers and great crested newts. It is indicated that best practice working methods would be employed during construction, including appointing an Ecological Clerk of Works, undertaking updated surveys as necessary, and following a Habitat Management Plan, and the detailed design would incorporate many wildlife-friendly features. Significant ecological effects are defined as those which support or undermine biodiversity conservation objectives for important ecological features (IEFs) or biodiversity in general. The ES concludes that the development would have the following impacts: • No nationally designated ecological or nature conservation sites would be affected by the proposal; • Locally designated sites (i.e. the six SINCs within the site and those in the surrounding area) would have little direct impact from the development as these areas would be retained, but they would be subject to a minor adverse impact due to disturbance during construction. However most such impacts would be reversable. In the operational phase there would likely be an increase in recreational use of these areas but the impact of this is assessed as negligible adverse. • Some 28 different habitat types have been identified within the site, of which the following are considered to be of importance: i. Semi-Natural Broadleaved and Mixed Woodland. Of around 58.6ha of this habitat, around 1.54ha (5.25%) would be lost, which would result in a minor adverse impact during construction. However the planting of 27.5ha of new woodland would in due course result in a minor beneficial impact. Increased recreational use of the woodland following completion of the development would have a negligible adverse impact; ii. Ancient Woodland. Of 25.0ha of woodland listed in the ancient woodland inventory, 0.87ha (3.4%) would be lost. The quantity and proportion of such woodland lost would be relatively small so this is assessed as a minor adverse impact, but this effect would be irreversible and not mitigated over time. These areas would not contain paths so the operational phase is unlikely to increase recreational use and the residual impact is assessed as negligible; iii. Species-Poor Hedgerow (i.e. hedgerows of limited importance as habitats). The proportion of such hedgerows lost has not been quantified but given their limited value the effect would be minor adverse during construction and negligible in the longer term; iv. Standing Open Water: All such areas would be retained however there is a risk of pollution during construction (from runoff etc.), and were this to arise there could be minor adverse impacts, albeit that mitigation measures would be designed to prevent such an occurrence and any such effects would likely be reversible. New SUDS ponds would be constructed as part of the development which would have a minor beneficial ecological impact. Operational phase impacts would be negligible; v. Watercourses: Greenspace corridors would be retained along the Monkland Canal and North Calder Water to retain safe passage for fauna, although new bridges could result in accidental pollution during construction and/or creation of barriers to wildlife movement. Such impacts would be minor adverse. In the operational phase there would a very slightly raised risk of pollution or siltation which is assessed as negligible adverse; • Some non-native invasive species are present on the site and there is a risk of these Page 68 of 90
Page 69
being spread by construction activities which would be a minor adverse construction impact, with a negligible residual impact; • Bluebells are found within semi-natural woodland and some would be lost within the areas of woodland to be removed, though these areas are small. There would be a risk of hybridisation with non-native bluebells if these were included in the new landscaping. Such impacts would be minor adverse in the construction phase, becoming negligible adverse in the operational phase; • Six active badger setts are located within the site, two of which would be within 30m of areas of proposed development, and the construction activity may cause disturbance and potentially abandonment of these setts and a badger license with mitigation may be required. Development of grassland would result in loss of foraging habitat, however the new woodland planting would help to compensate for these effects. The construction phase impact on badgers is therefore assessed as minor adverse. In the operational phase the increased human presence would increase disturbance and there would be an increased risk of road casualties especially as some proposed roads are close to setts, and this would make the site less attractive as badger habitat however it is not likely that the size of the badger population in the wider area would be significantly affected. The impact is therefore also assessed as minor adverse. • No otters were recorded on the site but the watercourses would provide suitable habitat, and the proposal would retain these. Construction activity would cause temporary disturbance and new bridges could lead to barriers to movement, which would be minor adverse impacts, while longer term impacts would be negligible; • No bat roosts were found in the areas of woodland likely to be directly affected by the proposed development, although re-surveying would be needed before development. Some of the trees affected would be suitable for bat roosting but as only around 5% of the semi-natural broadleaved woodland would be lost the impact on local bat populations would be small. Surveys have found evidence of use of the site by the relatively rare Leisler’s bat, but this appears to be for foraging or commuting rather than roosting, and Leisler’s bats avoid open areas so the loss of over fields is not likely to affect them. Other bat species recorded on the site (common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, Daubenton’s bat) also favour woodland or riparian foraging habitat, and may benefit from the creation of new woodland edge habitats as a result of the proposal. However this would be offset by the adverse impact of additional artificial lighting. The overall impact on roosting bats is assessed as insignificant, but the effect of construction on foraging bats would be minor adverse. Over time as new landscaping reaches maturity and bat- friendly features in new buildings (e.g. bat bricks) the impact would become minor beneficial; • Surveys for great crested newt (GCN) were carried out at 13 ponds within the site or within 500m of its boundary. Of these, six ponds were either no longer present or were assessed as being of low suitability as newt habitats. Testing for GCN environmental DNA (eDNA) at the remaining seven ponds revealed no trace of GCN in four of these, inconclusive results and two, and GCN eDNA at one pond. This, and one of the inconclusive ponds, were assessed as having high suitability for amphibians and although detailed surveys did not observe GCN they did have frog and toad populations. Further surveys would be required before construction but given the proposal’s limited impact on standing open water habitats it is not anticipated that there would be any significant impact on GCNs; • The construction phase would result in removal of a small percentage of the woodland and clearance of scrub and field margins which would result in disturbance to nesting birds, however such work ought to take place outwith nesting season to minimise this, and new planting is likely to compensate for habitats lost. In terms of wintering birds the main impact would be the loss of fields and field-edges used by thrush species (e.g. redwing and fieldfare), though this impact would be minor in the context. There would be no significant effect on foraging geese. The impact of the construction phase on nesting Page 69 of 90
Page 70
and wintering birds is therefore assessed as minor adverse. The operational phase should have a negligible effect on birds. 11.6 The Planning Service generally concurs with the conclusions of the ES in respect of Ecology and Nature Conservation. The site is large and contains a range of different habitats, but the survey results and mitigation proposals indicate that none of the impacts are likely to be significant in EIA terms. This does not mean that there will not be any adverse impacts, as clearly the proposal would involve substantial changes to the area which would inevitably impact on wildlife, but either the scale of impact is small or the receptors are not particularly sensitive (in terms of scarcity or ecological importance). More detailed surveys would be required to support applications for approval of matters specified in conditions, however it is considered that the ES demonstrates that the impact on the natural environment would be acceptable for a development of the type proposed. 11.7 It should be noted that in addition to the species discussed above there would potentially be adverse impacts on various non-protected species of wildlife, however these impacts would not normally be defined as significant in the context of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Non-protected species raised by objectors include roe deer, which often graze in fields around woodland edges that would be developed as a result of the proposal, and they may be disturbed by increased human activity in the woods. However, they would benefit from increased woodland planting and are an adaptable species which is capable of taking advantage of semi-urban habitats. Roe deer are locally abundant so the impact on them is not considered to be significant. 11.8 In terms of Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, the baseline identified 52 heritage assets within 1km of the site. The most notable of these assets are the Monkland Canal, Woodhall House, High Palacecraig house (all nationally designated) and the earthworks of Crogals Castle (non-designated but regionally significant). The other heritage assets (most of which are industrial or mining-related features) are all assessed as being of local or lesser importance and of low or negligible sensitivity. The ES concludes that subject to the intended mitigation measures, the development would have the following impacts: • Direct impacts on the Monkland Canal would arise from the new bridge, which is assessed as having a potential moderate adverse effect during the construction phase, though the detailed bridge design would be expected to be sympathetic to the canal. Additionally, repairs to existing bridges and abutments (which form part of the scheduled monument) would have moderate beneficial effects. New development would take place on the land surrounding parts of the canal, although a minimum 20m buffer and the present tree-lined character of the canal would be retained, and new landscaping has potential to be attractive. The operational phase is therefore assessed as having a moderate/minor adverse effect on the canal; • The proposal would introduce new development to the surviving parts of the parkland surrounding the remains of Woodhall House, although most of the structural remains of the designed landscape (i.e. the walled garden, ornamental land and most of the ha-ha) would remain, as would most of the woodland and some of the surviving industrial features (e.g. colliery bings and railways) which are also part of the history of the estate. The legibility of the Woodhill House estate and its history would therefore survive to some extent, although the parkland character of the designed landscape would be lost. The ES assesses the proposal as having a major/moderate effect on the setting of Woodhall House; • The proposal would breach a ha-ha which is a notable feature of the former designed landscape. However the ha-ha’s importance lies in it being an integral part of the wider designed landscape, and as that designed landscape is non-designated and degraded by Page 70 of 90
Page 71
previous development the impact on the ha-ha is also assessed as a minor/negligible adverse effect; • The impact on the ice house feature is not known at this stage but it seems probable that the feature might need to be destroyed. However the ice house is categorised as a low- sensitivity receptor so its loss would be classed as a moderate/minor adverse effect during the construction phase. Archaeological work would be expected to document any remains before they were removed; • Palacecraig House would have new development built around it, although the masterplan seeks to protect the vista between the front of the house to the Monkland Canal, and new landscaping would also mitigate the impact. The impact on the setting of Palacecraig House is therefore assessed by the ES as moderate/minor adverse; • Nationally designated heritage sites outwith the site boundary, including the Calderbank Iron Works scheduled monument, the B-listed Cairnhill Stables, and the C-listed Calderbank Parish church would be subject to negligible effects; • Crogals Castle and other known archaeological features adjacent to the North Calder Water south of Calderbank would not be affected by the proposal and would be preserved in situ. • The only potential cumulative impact on cultural heritage which has been identified is that, when combined with existing permissions for housing at Carnbroe, the proposal could result in an adverse effect upon remains of an historic ironstone mine. However as the surviving parts of the mine which lie within the site are spoil heaps within woodland areas which are to be retained, these should not be affected. (It should be noted that the ES contains some inconsistencies arising from amendments to the proposal not fully having been taken into account in the revised ES, but the above conclusions are understood to reflect the current proposal). 11.9 The Planning Service’s assessment of the proposed impacts on cultural heritage and archaeology has been discussed in relation to NPF4 Policy 7, and concluded that the proposal would have locally significant adverse impacts upon the setting of the Monkland Canal, Woodhall House and High Palacecraig. That conclusion is considered to be consistent with the conclusions of the ES, which assessed the impacts on the setting of the canal and High Palacecraig as “moderate/minor” and on the setting of Woodhall House as “major/moderate”. 11.10 In terms of Socio-Economic Impacts, guidance on environmental impact assessment recognises the importance of impacts on human or community health and welfare, including matters such as employment and economic conditions, and the availability of recreation and open space, amongst other factors. The ES focuses on economic impacts and identifies the baseline conditions in North Lanarkshire, which include localised areas of deprivation and higher than Scottish average unemployment, but also higher than average earnings for those who are in employment. In terms of employment the significance of effects is assessed in terms of its overall impact on the local economy, thus creating a limited number of new jobs might be classed as a minor beneficial effect, though of course the benefits to the individuals concerned may be considerable. The ES assesses economic impacts as follows: • Temporary construction employment during the implementation phase of development is estimated as providing 257 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs. (Note that in this context ten temporary jobs are deemed to equate to one FTE job). This is assessed as having moderate/minor beneficial effects. Related effects in terms of training and skills, reduction in unemployment and expenditure in local services are also categorised as minor or moderate/minor beneficial, being essentially temporary though with some residual benefits (e.g. persons gaining skills while working in the construction would retain these skills and therefore gain enhanced employability); Page 71 of 90
Page 72
• Upon completion of development, the ES estimates that it would create around 1,851 additional local FTE jobs (this calculation being discussed below). Such a number is assessed as a moderate/minor beneficial impact in terms of the wider North Lanarkshire economy. The related increase in training/skills opportunities and reduced unemployment are assessed as minor beneficial effects; • Estimated Gross Value Added (GVA – i.e. the economic output of businesses on the site, minus input costs) of £12.8m per annum, assessed as a minor beneficial effect on the North Lanarkshire economy; • Generation of around £7.4m per annum of additional council tax revenue from the new properties, assessed as a minor/negligible beneficial effect; • Creation of around 245 affordable and 735 market homes for sale, assessed as having a minor beneficial effect on the local housing market; • Generation of an estimated £56.5m per annum in additional household disposable income, a percentage of which would be spent locally, and which is assessed as a minor beneficial effect on the local economy; • Cumulatively, along with two previously consented developments at Eurocentral, it is estimated that the construction phase for the three projects would provide 293 FTE construction jobs (equivalent to 1.8% of the construction labour force in North Lanarkshire), and that if all three were fully developed the resultant gross permanent operational jobs (2,687) would equate to 1.6% of the total number of persons in employment in North Lanarkshire, which in itself is assessed as a moderate/minor beneficial effect. However the ES also notes that 2,687 jobs equates to 44.9% of the number of people in North Lanarkshire categorised as both ‘unemployed’ and ‘wanting a job’, which it assesses as a major/moderate beneficial cumulative effect. (Note, however, that the gross permanent operational jobs would not all be “new” jobs). 11.11 The Socio-Economic Impact Assessment estimates operational phase (i.e. permanent) FTE employment arising from the proposal as set out in the table below. The three measures used are: • gross direct jobs (all jobs within the development, for example people employed at the proposed industrial units and shops); • net local jobs (the net number of additional jobs which are taken up within the local Travel To Work Area, taking account of existing jobs relocated to the site, jobs which would have been created anyway, jobs created but taken up by people from outwith the local area, and new jobs created locally as an indirect ‘downstream’ effect of increased economic activity); and • net Scottish jobs (the net number of additional jobs across Scotland as a whole) Gross Direct Net Local (NLC) Net Scotland General Industrial Units 796 484 766 Storage and Distribution Units 1057 1091 1617 Ancillary Retail etc. Area 33 51 76 Local Centre 100 176 260 Primary School 28 49 73 Total 2014 1851 2792 11.12 These figures are at first glance impressive, however it is considered that they should be taken with caution. The estimates for permanent employment are based on industry- standard calculations that new floorspace for different uses will result in a certain ratio of jobs per square metre, with different deductions and multipliers for each type of use and taking account of local factors. This methodology accords with guidance, but even so the estimates it produces are inevitably something of a ‘rule of thumb’ as employment will vary significantly between different employers, and as this application is speculative it is not known what Page 72 of 90
Page 73
employers might emerge to occupy the proposed units. As noted above, the proposed floorspace figures for the employment units are themselves estimates, and the Planning Service considers that they are somewhat optimistic given the constraints of the site, including the shape and contours of the plots. If practical considerations meant that these units had to be smaller, then the estimates for the number of jobs created would also shrink proportionately. Even if the gross employment in the development did prove to be close to the estimate, the variables applied to estimate net new employment (i.e. the actual number of new jobs created as a result of the development) might still result in the net employment benefit being significantly lower than the estimates. 11.13 The estimates for general industrial floorspace assume a 25% “displacement” (i.e. a quarter of the jobs would be relocated from elsewhere in the local area, for example if an existing firm relocated to the site and vacated its existing premises), while for other types of floorspace a lower displacement rate is used. For all floorspace a standard 10% “deadweight” is assumed (i.e. whilst these might be “new” jobs they would have been created anyway even if the proposed development had not happened, for example because the employer would have gone to a different site instead). Thus it will be seen that the applicant’s estimates predict that around two thirds of the jobs in the general industrial units on the site will be completely “new” jobs which would not be created if the proposal did not happen, and for other types of floorspace (e.g. the storage and distribution) this figure is higher still. However, to reiterate, it is not known which firms might occupy the proposed units, and as these would comprise a small number of large units the estimates for displacement and deadweight could proved to be very different. For example, some 689 of the predicted gross direct jobs would arise from the larger of the storage and distribution units and the low displacement rate used implies that this would be an inward investor, but if the business which would occupy that unit would otherwise have found an alternative site the deadweight rate would be 100%, meaning that the net new jobs figures arising from that floorspace would effectively be zero. That one change would eliminate over a third of the net additional jobs estimated to arise from the whole development. It will be appreciated that any inward investor actually proposing to create 689 new jobs in the Central Belt would receive strong encouragement from the relevant authorities who would work with them to find a suitable site, and there is little reason to assume the application site would be the only viable option. The same would also apply to the other storage and distribution and general industrial units, which might very easily be occupied by businesses with a much higher displacement or deadweight factor than the applicant’s modelling assumes. 11.14 The methodology used to estimate employment benefits is widely used, but it is not above challenge. The estimate includes 28 jobs directly provided by the proposed new primary school, and the high (260%) “multiplier” factor used for education jobs mean that the net additional jobs figure for Scotland is calculated at 73. However, in practice the pupils attending the new school would be displaced from other schools elsewhere. As it is impossible to know where the families moving to the new housing will come from or who will occupy their present / alternative homes it follows that the upstream impact on their previous schools is also impossible to calculate, but ultimately there will be no additional children in the Scottish education system, and in some schools there will be fewer children which may enable staffing reductions (i.e. displacement of employment). The employment estimate therefore takes full account of potential downstream impacts while not taking account of the upstream impacts which offset them. The Planning Service therefore does not agree that there is likely to be any measurable net increase in education employment or in downstream impacts that could result in the predicted 73 net additional jobs across Scotland. 11.15 The employment estimates also predict 133 FTE direct jobs in the new local centre and in the ancillary retail / food & drink floorspace, rising to 336 net additional jobs once the multiplier is applied. Although the local centre floorspace is not defined in the application, the employment calculations appear to be based on 2,000sq/m (plus 650sq/m for the Page 73 of 90
Page 74
ancillary floorspace within the industrial area). Again, it is not known what uses would occupy the new floorspace so it is impossible to verify whether the displacement and deadweight ratios used are realistic, but as discussed in relation to NPF4 policies 27 and 28 it is possible that some of the anticipated uses would conflict with Town Centres First and retail policies, in which case it would not be desirable to provide that level of floorspace. There is also the potential that, as with education, the displacement factor may be understated simply because it is impossible to calculate – e.g. even if a new local convenience shop was provided on the site to serve the residents in the new houses, ultimately the people who would live in the new houses will have moved from somewhere else, with little or no measurable increase in their net convenience retail expenditure and consequently very little net impact on the amount of retail employment across the area. 11.16 Clearly any net increase in local jobs would be an important benefit, especially as these jobs would be accessible to communities with elevated unemployment rates. However, as explained above the methodology used to estimate employment benefit is guaranteed to predict a large number of new jobs because a large amount of new floorspace is proposed, but the Planning Service does not consider that this estimate is likely to prove accurate even if the full extent of the proposed employment uses were actually to be developed (which is itself subject to doubt). 11.17 As regards the temporary construction employment, the estimated figures (i.e. around 2,570 temporary jobs of various durations at different points in the construction process, roughly corresponding to 257 FTE jobs), these figures are based on typical employment in construction projects of this nature and are therefore considered to be a reasonable estimate. However, similar levels of construction employment would arise from developing a like amount of housing and commercial floorspace on other sites. Allowing the development of such a large quantity of new housing and commercial floorspace on an unallocated and in some respects unsatisfactory site would inevitably soak up local demand for such accommodation and thus reduce the likelihood of new housing and commercial development taking place on other (potentially more appropriate) local sites. Therefore, at least some of the construction jobs would also arise from displacement, for which the applicant’s estimates do not include any allowance. It is therefore considered that the net benefit of employment during the construction period is also overestimated. 11.18 The Planning Service therefore does not accept the conclusions of the Environment Statement in respect of the socio-economic benefits of the proposal, as it is considered that the number of actual “new” jobs which are likely to be created by the proposal is likely to be significantly lower than the ES estimates. Consequently other economic benefits such as the Gross Value Added and the impact on local unemployment would also be less significant than the ES predicts. The estimated increase in council tax revenue is also considered to make insufficient allowance for displacement. Inasmuch as the proposal would undoubtedly create some new jobs and that these would be of benefit to the local community, it is considered that the proposal would only have a minor beneficial socio-economic impact, and that this benefit would itself be partially offset by a reduced likelihood of similarly economically beneficial development taking place at preferable locations as a result of the proposal. The socio-economic impact of the proposal is therefore not considered to be significant. 11.19 In terms of Traffic and Transportation Impacts, the ES assesses the environmental impacts of the proposal in respect of six factors: • Severance (i.e. the perceived division of a community when separated by new roads or increased traffic flow). Existing severance levels around the site are assessed as high due to traffic flows on the B802, Sykeside Road and connections. To the south the Page 74 of 90
Page 75
motorway forms an absolute barrier, and existing severance levels on the B799 crossing the motorway bridge are also very high due to traffic levels. • Non-Motorised User Amenity (i.e. changes to the pleasantness of journeys by foot, wheelchair or bicycle) • Fear and Intimidation (as might be experienced by road users due to traffic speed, etc.) has been assessed using a scoring that takes account of traffic flow, HGV traffic flow and average speed. It is currently assessed as “moderate” in most of the main streets around the site, again due primarily to existing traffic levels. • Road Safety (covering existing and estimated accident rates). Recent (2018-22) personal injury collision data for the area around the site is assessed as being typical for urban roads of this nature and no underlying road safety issues are evident. Those accidents which involved pedestrians or cyclists occurred at different locations with no clustering, and did not occur close to the proposed new junctions. • Driver Delay relates to the amount of additional time drivers (and passengers) in motor vehicles take to complete their journeys as a result of the proposed development. Such delays might arise from additional traffic or new / revised road infrastructure causing longer queues or reduced speed, and has an economic and social cost to society. Normally driver delays would only be considered significant in situations where either an extremely large number of drivers were affected, or where the length of delay was excessive; • Pedestrian Delay similarly relates to the additional time that pedestrians and other non- motorised road users take to complete their journeys. Reasons for pedestrian delay might include inability to cross busy roads due to additional traffic, longer waiting times at crossings or less direct walking routes. Again, the significance of such delays is assessed in terms of the number of people affected and the length of delay arising. 11.20 Receptors considered include various transport infrastructure users (i.e. pedestrians, wheelchair users, cyclists, public right of way users, motorists, freight vehicles, public transport and emergency services) as well as other special interests (people at home or work, sensitive or vulnerable groups, retail, recreation and tourist areas, and locations with concentrations of vulnerable users or safety or capacity concerns). The ES assessed the effects of the proposal as follows: • During the construction phase the proposal would give rise to only minor increases in traffic levels, not exceeding 2% on any local road. However the increased traffic would include a disproportionately high proportion of heavy vehicles, so the number of heavy vehicles passing through Calderbank would increase by 10-13% during the construction period, but that would amount to only around 5 extra 2-way movements per day. South of the proposed new Woodhall Mill Road junction to the B799/motorway junction heavy vehicles would increase by 38% (15 two-way movements), however that section of road has few pedestrians and the existing traffic flow through Calderbank is around 12,200 vehicle movements per day. These temporary increases in construction traffic are therefore assessed as negligible in respect of all seven factors. • Predicted traffic levels for 2045 (after completion of the whole development, and when compared to the predicted baseline level for that year) would vary across the local road network. Some roads are expected to see a drop in traffic due to the diversion of through traffic onto the new spine road (e.g. Sykeside Road and Calderbank Road would see a predicted 13-15% reduction in total traffic). On the other hand the eastern section of Paddock Street (immediately west of the junction into the proposed development) would see a 22% increase in total traffic. Guidelines indicate that changes of 30%, 60% and 90% are regarded as causing “slight”, “moderate” and “severe” increases in severance respectively, although thresholds may be lowered to take account of the sensitivity of receptors. On this basis, five stretches of road are identified as having effects that require detailed consideration: Page 75 of 90
Page 76
(i) Paddock Street west of Sikeside Street, with a predicted 14% increase in daily traffic, albeit with a reduction in heavy vehicle usage. In this case there are numerous sensitive receptors on this section of road (a primary school/nursery campus, local centre, care home and church) so increases in traffic are of more than usual significance, however the baseline level of severance on Paddock Street is already considered “high”, and a 14% increase in traffic flow would normally be considered the be negligible in terms of severance; (ii) Woodhall Mill Road (B802) between the new spine road junction and the B799/A8/B802 roundabout, with a predicted 65% increase in traffic movements, including an 800% increase in heavy vehicle movements due to the proposed industrial storage and distribution units. Severance is assessed as rising from “high” to “very high”, with the increase being “moderate”. However, there are no sensitive receptors on this stretch of road, and significant new road infrastructure will be needed to install the new junction along with mitigation work at the existing roundabout. At the moment there are few reasons for pedestrians to cross this road, but the proposal would create reasons to do so and therefore the junctions would be required to include appropriate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, which would represent an improvement for these users and which would serve to reduce the level of severance; (iii) A8 connector road between A8/M8 Junction 6A north roundabout and the B799/A8/B802 roundabout, where average daily traffic would increase by an estimated 22%, including a 46% increase in heavy vehicle movements This is assessed as “medium” rising to “high” severance, albeit that a 22% increase in traffic is below the threshold for a “minor” impact on severance. This road has no frontage or pedestrian footpaths though it has a pedestrian crossing, and mitigation work at this roundabout would again be required to ensure safe and convenient crossing facilities were provided; (iv) South end of new spine road at the Woodhall Mill Road (B802) junction, where the new road would have an estimated 11,200 daily traffic movements, resulting in “high severance”. However, as it would be a new road this would be designed from the outset with pedestrian and cycle infrastructure appropriate for the level of traffic anticipated. (v) North end of new spine road near new Sykeside Road junction, where the new road would have an estimated 6,800 movements, assessed as “medium” severance”, but again incorporating appropriate infrastructure to address this into the detailed design. Overall, due to the nature of the roads affected and the proposals for mitigation the ES concludes that the impact on severance would be negligible. • Changes in non-motorised user amenity are typically assumed to be significant only where overall traffic flow or HGV traffic flow doubles. The only place where this is predicted to occur would be the 800% increase in HGV movements at the southern end of Woodhall Mill Road as discussed at point (ii) above, however the absence of any sensitive receptors on this section of road, limited footfall, and the adequacy of existing and proposed footpath widths mean that the impact on non-motorised user amenity is assessed as negligible. • Fear and intimidation experienced by road users as a result of traffic volume, speed and heavy vehicles using the scoring system employed by the ES does not alter to any significant extent at any existing location. The only location where there is a change in the scoring is the southern end of Woodhall Mill Road (as discussed above), where the increased overall traffic level results in a slightly higher score but one which is still categorised as “moderate”. The 800% increase in heavy vehicles at this location does not alter the score because the daily number of such movements (960) is still judged to be “small” because it is below the “medium” threshold of 1,000 HGV movements. (Whilst there are no commonly agreed thresholds for scoring, the ES uses thresholds that are Page 76 of 90
Page 77
suggested in relevant guidance). As a result the effect on road users’ fear and intimidation is assessed as negligible. • The existing pattern of road accidents in the vicinity of the site is typical for the types of road concerned and does not suggest any underlying problems. The ES therefore concludes that whilst adding additional traffic to the network is likely to result in a proportional increase in the number of accidents, the absolute number of accidents would be small. Across most of the local road network the proportionate increase in traffic is relatively small, and those streets / junctions where traffic would increase more significantly the proposal would include mitigation where necessary. The design of new road infrastructure will meet current standards which include embedded road safety mitigation. The overall effect on road safety is therefore assessed as negligible. • Driver delay is only likely to be significant in situations where a development will overwhelm the capacity of the local road network, which is not the case here. The submitted Transport Assessment demonstrates that subject to some mitigation work the local road network is capable of accommodating the traffic from the new development, albeit that the full impacts of the proposed new spine road and of any major trip- generating uses within the new development would require further information at the appropriate future stages. The proposed off-site mitigation is primarily intended to improve road capacity so as to limit the need for additional queuing during peak periods. Subject to this, whilst limited residual impacts in driver delay may occur during peak periods, the overall magnitude of these is assessed as negligible. • Pedestrian delay is related to severance as discussed above. As the ES has concluded that the proposal would have a negligible impact on severance of existing communities, and the proposal itself would be designed to incorporate suitable pedestrian infrastructure including suitably sited and designed crossing facilities, the ES concludes that impacts on pedestrian delay would also be negligible. 11.21 The conclusions of the ES in respect of traffic and transportation impacts are accepted by the Planning Service. By creating what amounts to a bypass for Calderbank there would be some benefit to that village in terms of reduced through traffic, though this would be offset by additional traffic from the new development. The proposed industrial and storage / distribution uses have potential to create significant amounts of heavy goods vehicle movements but the routing of these would be overwhelmingly towards the M8 / A8 with limited impact on local roads. Traffic volumes are already relatively high on the main routes surrounding the site, and subject to the proposal not giving rise to undue congestion (covered elsewhere) the additional traffic from the site is not anticipated to result in significant environmental effects. (This assessment relates only to the impacts of the predicted traffic on the surrounding environment and does not relate to the wider sustainable travel issues which are discussed elsewhere in this report). 11.22 In terms of Noise and Vibration Impacts, the existing noise survey has established baseline noise levels on the site, and this shows that the site does not currently have any major noise sources but it is affected by traffic noise at its edges, in particular in the southern part of the site where background noise from the M8/A8 corridor is constant throughout the day and night. The application seeks industrial and storage distribution development in that part of the site, whereas the new housing and other more noise-sensitive uses would be in the northern part of the site where existing noise levels are much lower. The ES noise chapter does not consider the impact of additional noise from the development affecting the peacefulness of existing countryside areas, as that is a matter concerning the value of the countryside rather than a noise issue per se. The potential noise and vibration impacts are assessed by the ES as follows: • The construction phase of development will involve various noisy activities and due to the size of the development the construction period will be of extended duration, although Page 77 of 90
Page 78
much of the site is not particularly close to noise-sensitive premises. If no construction noise mitigation measures were implemented there would be a major adverse impact on many of the homes within and around the site. However, it is intended to implement measures to control construction noise and vibration through a construction environment management plan (CEMP). Subject to mitigation, the noise impacts are assessed as moderate adverse at most of the surrounding homes (at Calderbank, Woodhall Mill Road, Carnbroe, Low Palacecraig and Faskine Farm). Impact on housing on the southern edge of Airdrie is assessed as negligible; • Some vibration-intensive work would be required and if these were to take place within 15m of sensitive receptors then this could result in moderate adverse effect. However almost all such activity will be at a greater distance away from sensitive receptors so the impact would be negligible. • Noise from construction traffic on existing receptors is assessed as negligible, based on estimated traffic flows and routings compared to existing traffic volumes and composition on the affected roads; • The new housing and other noise sensitive premises would be built in parts of the site where existing motorway traffic noise is lower and it is anticipated that suitable internal noise levels will be achievable with an ‘open windows’ noise mitigation scheme. The impact of existing traffic noise on the new development is therefore assessed as negligible; • The precise use of the non-residential parts of the development are not currently known, so future detailed applications may require detailed noise impact assessments and specific mitigation. However, the large industrial and storage/distribution units would be at a distance from housing, and subject to suitable noise control measures the effect fixed plant and non-residential activities is likely to be negligible. • Once operational the development will give rise to increased traffic on the local road network, but the precise amount and nature of this will depend upon what uses might emerge for the commercial plots. The ES considered two scenarios – one with the distribution traffic split 85%/15% between the strategic and local road network, and the second with a 60%/40% split. For both scenarios the only roads where increased traffic noise is assessed as being above negligible are Woodhall Mill Road (B802) between B799 Chapelhall roundabout and the proposed new spine road junction, and the eastbound A8 approaching M8 Junction 6A (Chapelhall) north roundabout. All such effects are assessed as minor adverse other than the impact on Woodhall Mill Road in the 85%/15% scenario which is assessed as moderate adverse. There are no noise sensitive premises fronting or directly adjoining these sections of road, and this area is already affected by noise from the motorway corridor; • The new link road through the site will give rise to traffic noise within the site and new houses, etc., may require noise mitigation to address this, however no existing noise- sensitive premises are likely to be affected so the effect is considered to be negligible; • The proposed non-residential uses, including the local centre, general industrial units and storage / distribution units, may give rise to operational noise, but assessment of these would require details of the future occupants and could be addressed by noise impact assessments as part of future detailed applications. The ‘worst case’ scenarios are considered to be if a particularly noisy storage / distribution use were proposed for the large unit in the south-eastern corner of the site, close to the small group of houses at Woodhall, or a noisy commercial use was proposed for the local centre. In either case it would be up to the proposed developer to demonstrate satisfactory mitigation as part of a detailed application. The occupational noise from these uses is therefore assessed as negligible; • The only appreciable cumulative noise or vibration effect that has been identified would be if the proposed development was being implemented concurrently with the two previously approved developments at Eurocentral, in which case the combined construction traffic would give rise to a temporary minor adverse effect. Page 78 of 90
Page 79
11.23 The above conclusions of the ES in respect of noise and vibration are considered to be reasonable. The main unknown is the nature of the occupants of the large storage / distribution units and the nature of their operational noise and traffic, but these are matters which would be considered further at a detailed application stage, and it is not considered that noise or vibration impacts from the development as a whole are likely to be significant. 11.24 In terms of Air Quality Impacts, the site is not within or close to any existing air quality management area (AQMA). However, the site is surrounded by busy roads where exhaust emissions will be high, and the former Chapelhall AQMA was around 1km east of the site (the AQMA was revoked during 2024 though it continues to be monitored). The ES concludes that subject to the implementation of suitable mitigation measures the effects of the development on air quality would be as follows: • During construction the main air quality effect would be the potential for dust and exhaust emissions from vehicles and plant. These would be of a temporary nature. Normal good practice methods for control of construction dust would mean that the effects of dust would be negligible. Emissions from construction vehicles and plant would also be temporary and dispersed over a large site and road network, while mitigation measures (such as routing strategy and minimising of HGV movements during peak times) are proposed. Therefore, even a worst-case assessment based on the peak construction period results in the effects being classified as negligible; • Upon completion of the development, the main air quality effects are likely to arise from traffic emissions. As there is some uncertainty about how the construction of the link road would affect existing traffic patterns, this uncertainty also applied to traffic emissions. However, it is possible that at some locations traffic may reduce as a result of trips being diverted onto the new link road instead. Modelling of the year 2045 suggests that nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels at sensitive receptors (basically housing and other populated places) would be virtually identical whether the development takes place or not, while particulate matter would vary slightly both up and down. However, other than within the site itself, both NO2 and particular levels would in all cases be lower than the 2018 baseline level (largely due to reduced emissions from more modern vehicles). Within the site, levels would be higher than they are presently, but in line with levels in the surrounding area. The ES therefore assesses the effect of both categories of vehicle exhaust emissions on local air quality as negligible. • Cumulative impacts with consented developments are assessed as negligible in respect of dust and plant emissions. A worst-case scenario where peak construction traffic from all of the developments coincide at the same time and place would result in a temporary minor adverse impact. The cumulative impact of emissions from operational phase traffic is also assessed as negligible. 11.25 The conclusions of the ES in respect of air quality are accepted. It should be noted however that the ES does not assess emissions from the new buildings within the site (e.g. the new industrial units and district heating system). These are matters which would require more information and therefore would need to be assessed as part of future detailed applications. In respect of transport emissions the ES concludes that the impacts on air quality the local area would be negligible based on predicted traffic levels, but that is not a commentary on the overall sustainability of the site in terms of carbon emissions from transport, which has been discussed earlier in this report (para 10.40 et seq). 11.26 In terms of Water Resources and Flood Risk Impacts, existing receptors include the North Calder Water, various smaller watercourses, the Monkland Canal, several ponds within the site, existing Scottish Water drainage infrastructure and private water supplies, and Page 79 of 90
Page 80
groundwater. Parts of the site are at risk of flooding (mainly low-lying ground alongside the North Calder Water). The ES assesses the effects of the development on these as follows: • There is potential for impacts on the receptors arising from construction phase activities (e.g. vegetation clearance, earthworks, soil erosion, spillages and new bridge construction resulting in pollution of water resources), but subject to the proposed mitigation measures to prevent such occurrences, the ES assesses the construction phase as having negligible effects on these receptors; • The operational phase (completed development) would also involve potential for contamination of surface water (e.g. by spilled vehicle oils/fuels, domestic chemicals, road salt etc.). This would be managed through the SUDS infrastructure to prevent pollution of water bodies. Any specific risks from the new industrial uses would require to be considered as part of a detailed application. Subject to mitigation the effects of the construction phase are therefore assessed as negligible; • The construction of large areas of new hardstanding would result in increased surface water runoff which could increase flood risk, however this would be managed using SUDS as is standard for all new developments. New bridges would also require to be designed to ensure that they did not cause changes to flood risk. The proposed masterplan avoids siting incompatible forms of development within the flood plain. Therefore, subject to suitable design and mitigation measures, the impact on flood risk is assessed as negligible; • No cumulative risks have been identified in respect of water resources or flood risk. 11.27 The conclusions of the ES in respect of water resources and flood risk are accepted. Additional detail including more detailed surveys and remediation proposals would be needed as part of any future detailed applications, however it is considered that the development would not give rise to significant environmental impacts in these respects. 11.28 In terms of Ground Conditions Impacts, the site is very large and invasive site investigations have not yet been carried out, however a ‘Stage 1’ desk study has been carried out to identify known risks, and more detailed ‘Stage 2’ site investigations would be carried out prior to development taking place. The site has a history of mining and other industrial activities, some of them very old and poorly documented, so there is a high likelihood of adverse ground conditions such as contaminated or made ground, shallow mineworkings and mineshafts being encountered within the site. The ES identifies and assesses the potential impacts relating to the ground conditions as follows: • Construction phase risks to site workers or users of previously completed phases from exposure to historic contaminants, ground instability from old mineworkings, ground gas accumulation in excavations, mishandling or leakage of materials used in decontamination work, etc., arising from construction activity These risks would be mitigated by detailed site investigations prior to commencement of development and by appropriate mitigation including site health and safety measures, and therefore the residual effects are all assessed as negligible; • Construction and operational phase risks of environmental pollution from contaminant migration (e.g. existing contaminants in the ground spreading or getting into watercourses). Again, such risks would be managed by appropriate site management practices so the residual effect is assessed as negligible; • The risk of site users being exposed to historic contaminants on the site following completion of development would be addressed by the detailed site investigations and remediation which would be carried out prior to development. Whilst more people would be using the site, the contaminated ground would be either treated, removed or capped so the risks of persons being exposed contamination hazards should be reduced overall. The effect is therefore assessed as negligible/minor beneficial. Page 80 of 90
Page 81
• Similarly, the risks to site users and property from ground instability due to old mineworkings would be addressed by identifying and remediating areas of concern, so that although use would increase the risks would be removed. This is assessed as moderate/minor beneficial in undeveloped parts of the site and as major beneficial in development areas; • Risks of ground gas accumulating in buildings would also be addressed through detailed remediation proposals so residual effects are assessed as negligible; • The only potential cumulative impact relating to ground conditions would be if construction traffic associated with ground remediation peaked at the same time as construction traffic from other sites, however this could be addressed by construction traffic management measures and the effect is assessed as negligible. 11.29 The conclusions of the ES in respect of ground conditions are accepted. Additional detail including more detailed surveys and remediation proposals would be needed as part of any future detailed applications, however it is considered that the development would not give rise to significant environmental impacts in these respects. 11.30 In Summary of the Environmental Statement, the ES concludes that the environmentally significant adverse impacts of the development would be: • Major adverse effect on the landscape during construction due to loss of agricultural fields; • Moderate adverse effect on landscape and visual amenity due to construction activity; • Potential for cumulative adverse effects on landscape during construction if other nearby developments take place concurrently; • Moderate adverse noise effects during construction; and • Moderate/minor adverse noise effects at Woodhall Mill Road due to increased traffic. Other than the last point, these would all be temporary effects which would either be reduced or would cease once development was complete. The ES also concludes that the proposal would have the following significant beneficial impacts: • Moderate/minor beneficial landscape effect due to new woodland and other landscape planting and ongoing management and maintenance of the landscape; • Moderate beneficial effect during construction due to repairing and retaining the existing canal bridges; • Major/moderate socio-economic effect due to reduction in unemployment, in cumulation with other local developments; and • Minor beneficial effect due to stabilising of old mineworkings. 11.31 The Planning Service concurs with the majority of the ES but disagrees with certain of these conclusions. Specifically, it is considered that: • The adverse effects on the landscape would be major and permanent due to the urbanisation of the site and the irreversible loss of the open field system and of the remaining designed-landscape character of the Woodhall House estate, which are important and attractive features of the local landscape; • There would be locally significant adverse permanent effects upon cultural heritage due to the impact on the setting of the Monkland Canal, Woodhall House estate, and High Palacecraig; • The estimated socio-economic benefits of the proposal are considered to be based on unduly optimistic assumptions and to be overestimated. Based on the available information, the beneficial effects on employment and the local economy are not considered likely to be significant. Page 81 of 90
Page 82
12. Other Material Considerations 12.1 The majority of material considerations have already been covered in the discussion above, but there are a few matters which have not yet been addressed, including: • Applicant’s views on the site’s Green Belt designation • Planning history of the site • Country park and community ownership proposals • Football academy • East Airdrie Link Road • Matters raised in representations 12.2 The applicant has suggested in their planning statement that the application site ought not to have been included in the Green Belt, on the basis that NPF4 states that Green Belt may be zoned “around” settlements whereas the application site is “almost in the middle of a settlement”. Whilst acknowledging that the site has value as greenspace, the applicant considers that the site “is not a countryside site” and “it is in an urban location and therefore should not be considered to meet the objectives of the green belt”. It is suggested that had the Council held off adopting the LDP until after NPF4 was adopted the site might have been removed from the Green Belt, and that the current application is an “opportunity for the Council to change the status of the land”. These arguments are not accepted. This section of Green Belt is serving a clear purpose in facilitating compact urban growth, and in preventing further urban sprawl. Whilst the section of the Green Belt along the M8 corridor has been under significant development pressure and has shrunk as a result of previous planning decisions, the application site covers a large and relatively unspoilt area of countryside which is important to the landscape setting and identity of the adjacent settlements. The suggestion that the LDP should have been delayed to await NPF4 is not realistic, and if the applicant disagreed with the site’s inclusion in the Green Belt then that should have been raised at the appropriate stage in the LDP process. The suggestion that the current application provides an opportunity to change the status of the land amounts to an invitation to the Council to disregard the policies of the statutory development plan, but that would not be an appropriate way to address the matter. Such a major proposed change to the Green Belt boundary should properly be considered as part of the formal Green Belt review process, and if the applicant considers that parts of the site should instead be allocated for major housing and/or industrial development in the emerging local development plan then they should put the site forward through the Call For Ideas process for the proposed plan. That would allow the full consideration of the appropriateness of the Green Belt boundary and of the sustainability of the site relative to alternative locations, which this planning application process cannot replicate. Unless that takes place the site will remain in the Green Belt, of which it is considered to be an important and integral part. 12.3 As noted above (para. 6.2), part of the application site was once designated as a “nationally safeguarded inward investment area”, and it has been suggested by the applicant that this fact counts in favour of the proposal, as the proposed industrial units (and in particular the large storage and distribution plots) would support inward investment in the strategically important M8 corridor, and because the previous designation implied an acceptance of development within the Woodhall House estate. However, the fact that for a limited period some years ago the site had a dual Green Belt / strategic investment designation is no longer relevant when set against the fact that the investment designation was explicitly removed from the site in later plans, and the fact that the current statutory development plan designates the site solely as Green Belt. The designation was removed because the council identified more suitable and less environmentally valuable sites to be safeguarded for such uses, though typically these have not been taken up because of limited demand for the type of development they covered. Notably, part of the Green Belt south of Lancaster Avenue in Chapelhall effectively replaced Page 82 of 90
Page 83
the Woodhall / Faskine site as it was given a dual Green Belt / Specialised Limited Use and dual Green Belt / High Amenity Location designations in the 2012 local plan and the 2022 LDP respectively, however it has not been developed for any such purpose and this lack of developer interest was a factor in the council deciding to approve non-conforming development on parts of that site. In any event, the historic investment designation at Woodhall / Faskine was extremely limited in its scope, as it was intended to ensure the availability of land for very large inward-investment proposals (e.g. multinational firms requiring a large factory which would provide a large number of genuinely new jobs) for which no more suitable site could be found. In the absence of such a proposal the land was intended to remain as Green Belt. Even if the historic designation were still in effect it would not have supported the types of industrial development which this application proposes, and still less would it have supported the development of 980 houses on a different part of the application site. It is therefore considered that the previous designation of the site does not carry any significant weight and does not establish the suitability of the site for any kind of development other than that which would be compatible with its Green Belt status. 12.4 The application includes proposals for a country park, and the applicant proposes to pass ownership of the woodland along with other open space including the allotments and community gardens to a community-owned trust. The applicant invited local community groups to take part in a steering group which they have set up, although thus far only a few community groups who support the application have participated in this. Understandably the community groups which oppose the development have to date not wished to take part in the steering group, though if permission were to be granted the applicant hopes that a wider range of groups may take part. The applicant proposes to set up the trust and to provide five years of funding, with long term funding coming from a share of the factoring charges from the development. However, whilst it is normal for modern private housing developments to be subject to factoring fees covering the maintenance of landscaped areas and for social housing landlords to undertake such maintenance within their own developments, the upkeep of a substantial area of woodland including a country park open to the entire community would go beyond what is usual and has potential to be quite onerous. If the proposed business uses are also intended to contribute to the upkeep of the country park then this again would be an abnormal expense which may reduce the attractiveness of the proposed units, while problems might arise if a high proportion of the funding was sourced from a few large units and these fell vacant. Therefore, although the principle of a community-owned country park is of course to be supported and there is no objection in principle to the funding method suggested, more detail would be needed in order to demonstrate that this will be viable in the long term and will not result in the trust having insufficient resources to maintain the country park properly, or an expectation that the council assume responsibility for it. 12.5 The proposal includes a football facility for the benefit of Gartcairn Football Academy, a youth / junior football club which is a registered charity and which currently rents its home ground in Rawyards Park adjacent to Airdrie Leisure Centre. The proposal would provide the club with a significantly enhanced facility, which would benefit the young people who take part in the club’s sporting activities. This is in principle to be welcomed, and conceivably a sporting use might in itself be compatible with Green Belt policies depending on the details of the facility proposed (in respect of which little information has been provided). However, the facility would be a very small part of the development and it is not considered that its inclusion in the application would serve to justify the remainder of a much larger proposal which is significantly contrary to multiple development plan policies as set out above. 12.6 The East Airdrie Link Road is a planned new road between Newhouse and Stand / Riggend, which would allow the A73 to bypass Chapelhall and Airdrie and would form part of the intended Pan-Lanarkshire orbital transport corridor. It is intended to improve journey times and reliability, improve connectivity between towns, businesses and facilities, and improve local air quality by reducing traffic congestion through towns. The project is to be partially Page 83 of 90
Page 84
funded through City Deal, and an application for planning permission for the new road is expected to be submitted shortly. This planned road should further improve the (already very good) road connections which make the M8 corridor attractive for business development but which also encourage private car use. The EALR is likely to result in changes to traffic levels which the transportation assessment for this application has not been able to take account of, but these changes may be expected to mitigate against some of the impacts of the development (for example by relieving traffic congestion in Chapelhall). No significant conflicts between the EALR and the application proposal are anticipated. Overall, it is not considered that the EALR project has any significant bearing on the application proposal, either for or against. 12.7 There has been some antagonism between those supporting and objecting to the application over the quantity and veracity of representations submitted to the council. The application was subject to three rounds of public consultation over six years, with many people making several representations and it is therefore impossible to state a precise number of individuals who have objected. However, the council’s protocols specify that multiple representations from the same address are to be counted as a single representation and that all representations must include a full name and postal address, and by this measure the number of valid representations is as stated in para 9.1 above. All of the matters raised which were material planning considerations have been included in this report. Most of the issues contained in representations have been discussed above, but the following is a summarised response to the points raised: 12.8 Countryside and Landscape Objections: If the principle of development been acceptable then it is not considered that “big box” style industrial and warehouse buildings would have been inappropriate given the existence of similar-sized buildings in the local landscape at Eurocentral and elsewhere. The loss of any agricultural land reduces food security but the impact of this proposal would be small and the land concerned is not designated as prime agricultural land. However, the wider concerns raised by objectors in respect of the adverse impact on the appearance of this area of attractive countryside and on the setting of Airdrie and Calderbank, the loss of the designed landscape, the risk of urban sprawl and the impact on the integrity of the Green Belt are all acknowledged and are reflected in the recommendation of refusal 12.9 Open Space Objections: It is acknowledged that the site is well used and valued by local people for countryside walks and other recreational and healthy living pursuits, and the site currently has a peaceful and attractive rural environment which is readily accessible to people of all ages and means. The development of large parts of the surrounding land would make the area less attractive to some users, and there are few other areas of equivalent size or quality nearby, so public access to the countryside would be reduced. This would be balanced by the proposed improvements to the path network and the proposed formalisation of public access through the creation of a country park on parts of the site. The principle of a country park is to be welcomed although as explained above its funding and management arrangements would need to be agreed. The proposed football facility has been discussed above and whilst it is potentially an appropriate use for a Green Belt site and would improve local sports facilities, it is a very small part of the proposal which consequently carries limited weight as a material consideration. Overall, many of the open space / countryside access issues are addressed in Green Belt policies, and are therefore reflected in the recommended reasons for refusal. 12.10 Ecology and Natural Environment Objections: The impact on ancient woodland, other habitats and wildlife are discussed above, and broadly it is concluded that while there would be some adverse impacts these would be relatively minor and capable of being addressed by mitigation, notably the proposed additional woodland planting. This reflects the survey findings which found that few parts of the site are in themselves of elevated environmental value, and the fact Page 84 of 90
Page 85
that the proposal would largely avoid woodland areas and confine development to farmland of lower ecological value. Even so, there would inevitably be disturbance to wildlife and changes to many parts of the site which would impact upon some (generally non-protected) species and habitats, and the development of large parts of the site would be detrimental to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network. Such impacts could be justified if there was a clear need for the development or if the benefits of the development would give rise to significant and clearly defined benefits, but that is not considered to be the case. The impact on the green network is therefore reflected in the recommended reasons for refusal. 12.11 Historic Environment Objections: The impact on the Monkland Canal, the Woodhall House estate and High Palacecraig are discussed above and it is considered that the proposal would detract from the setting of these assets, which is reflected in the recommended reasons for refusal. Archaeological interests would be capable of being addressed by conditions, and the social history of the site is not considered to be an overriding issue in this case. 12.12 Housing and Industrial Development Objections: As discussed above it is considered that there is already an ample supply of housing land across North Lanarkshire and no requirement to release additional Green Belt land for a further 980 houses. The council is not able to dictate the size or price of new open market houses as this would be for the market to determine, however the proposal includes a significant number of affordable homes and it would be possible to secure their delivery by way of a condition or legal agreement. The height and design of any housing would be a matter for subsequent detailed applications. Industrial land supply issues are more complex, however it is not considered that the application proposal represents a necessary or satisfactory solution to the limited availability of very large single- user sites, and allowing its development would make the development of preferable and more sustainable sites less likely. Doubts about the predicted employment benefits are acknowledged and shared. These matters are reflected in the recommended reasons for refusal. 12.13 Town Centres, Services and Utilities Objections: Some of the objections in respect of town centres and retailing related to the original 2018 proposal and are less relevant to the current amended proposal. It is acknowledged that there is little detail about what the proposed local centre might contain, and that it would not be appropriate for it to contain uses that would detract from existing centres or for which sequentially preferable sites might be available, but as discussed above it is considered that this would be capable of being controlled by conditions in the event of the council being minded to approve the development. School capacity constraints have also been discussed above and details of the developer contribution towards addressing this would need to be agreed and controlled by a planning obligation in the event of approval. Drainage impact is considered to be acceptable, but detailed designs would be needed as part of any AMSC applications. 12.14 Amenity and Pollution Objections: Noise and air pollution matters have been discussed above and it is considered that there should be no material increase in air pollution or noise, except for construction noise which should be mitigated against by suitable working methods and additional traffic noise on a section of Woodhall Mill Road where there are no houses. If any of the industrial units was to be used for a purpose generating abnormal noise or emissions then that would be considered as part of a future detailed application. Construction activities would require to be carried out in accordance with appropriate site management practices to minimise risks of pollution and disturbance, which could be controlled by conditions. Any development of this scale would involve some disruption and disturbance during the construction period but subject to the aforementioned controls it is not considered that this would be excessive. It is not considered that the development would give rise to a significant amount of light pollution as it lies adjacent to an extensive existing urban area, and any external lighting with potential to affect either residents or road users would also be controllable by conditions. Page 85 of 90
Page 86
12.15 The residents of those houses which are surrounded by or directly adjacent to the application site would inevitably be at greatest risk of disturbance during construction so the site management arrangements would need to include specific mitigation to minimise this. Issues relating to the access and ownership rights and the applicant’s consultations with those householders are private legal matters, but the developers would obviously need to ensure that access and services to third party landowners was maintained throughout the construction period. The residents in these properties currently live in or adjacent to the countryside and would therefore experience a major change to their surroundings if the fields onto which their properties face were to be developed, which is something to which they might understandably be strongly opposed, however future detailed applications would be expected to maintain an appropriate level of residential amenity for those residents so this would not be sufficient as a reason for refusal. 12.16 Traffic and Sustainable Travel Objections: Traffic impacts have been discussed above, and it is not considered that the development would exacerbate existing peak hour congestion in Calderbank or Chapelhall. The construction of the new spine road bypassing Calderbank would be likely to provide some relief for Calderbank, and traffic to/from the north via the A73 might be expected to use Brownsburn Road rather than Chapelhall. By the time the development was complete it would be hoped that congestion in Chapelhall would have been addressed by the planned East Airdrie Link Road. Other roads would experience additional traffic, but this has been the subject of extensive discussions with the local and national roads authorities and with the proposed mitigation work and further surveys once the spine road is complete, the traffic impacts (including construction traffic) are considered to be acceptable. It is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on road safety. 12.17 Opinions differed amongst respondents about the previously proposed connection to the M8 / A8 at Eurocentral (Junction 7). Some respondents felt that this would create a ‘rat run’ through existing residential areas and encourage unsustainable long-distance commuting, whereas others felt that it would relieve congestion elsewhere and improve access to jobs at Eurocentral so should be reinstated into the proposal. The connection to Junction 7 is no longer part of the application because traffic modelling indicates that it is not required to accommodate traffic from the current proposal, as has been confirmed by the local and national roads authorities. There would also have been significant engineering challenges to its construction due to ground levels in this part of the site. A pedestrian / cycle connection would however be provided which would improve active travel access to Eurocentral. 12.18 Concerns about the site having poor public transport, being over-reliant on car use and not meeting 20 Minute Neighbourhood expectations have been discussed above and are reflected in the proposed reasons for refusal. 12.19 Other Objections: Flood risk and ground conditions have been adequately addressed for a permission in principle application. The updated Environmental Statement and other supporting documents are considered to comply with legal requirements and to be sufficient to allow a proper consideration of the application. The applicant’s documents inevitably present the proposal in a positive light with which objectors may disagree, but the application has been assessed on its merits and where the Planning Service does not agree with the applicant’s conclusions the reasons for this have been explained above. 12.20 Representations of Support: The economic impacts of the proposal including employment likely to be generated have been discussed above, and whilst there would be some benefit it is considered that this is not likely to be nearly as much as the applicant suggests. The provision of new housing in the Green Belt would require a strong justification, but in this case there is considered to be a sufficient supply of housing land without the need to release greenfield sites. Provision of new schools is in principle welcome, but the developer would Page 86 of 90
Page 87
only be required to fund that proportion of the cost which directly relates to their own development, so allowing a development which necessitates unplanned expansion of the schools estate has significant implications for the Education Service. The inclusion of low- carbon design features in new housing would be welcome but this is increasingly required of all new housing and does not overcome other concerns about the sustainability of the proposal. The proposed woodland planting, plans for community ownership of greenspace and provision of sports facilities are also welcome, but these things are proposed as mitigation for the loss of a large area of countryside. Comments about the site being in poor condition and subject to anti-social behaviour are noted although these are disputed by others, and ultimately they would not provide a justification for development of the Green Belt. Overall, whilst the various benefits of the proposal are noted, it is not considered that they are sufficient to overcome its many disadvantages. 13. Conclusions 13.1 The application seeks planning permission in principle for up to 980 houses and 112,410sq/m of storage, distribution and industrial floorspace along with various ancillary uses including a new local centre and primary school campus and infrastructure including a new spine road, on land within the Green Belt. The applicant considers that the housing is justified because there was a shortfall of housing within the former Airdrie and Coatbridge Housing Sub-Market Area at the time of the local development plan enquiry, and that the application site is a suitable and sustainable site on which to address that shortfall. The applicant also considers that there is a need for additional employment land within North Lanarkshire, in particular along the M8 corridor and for sites which are large enough to accommodate very large storage and distribution facilities, and it is similarly argued that the site would meet this requirement. Additionally, the applicant considers that the application site ought not to have been included in the Green Belt, and that the need for the development justifies the development of this land. The applicant has also indicated a range of community benefits which they believe would arise from the development, including a substantial number of new jobs, other economic benefits, the provision of new road and community infrastructure, new woodland planting and environmental improvements, the creation of a new country park and provision of a youth football facility. In respect of the various historic and natural environment assets within the site, the local landscape, the Monkland Canal and other protected sites, the applicant considers that the impacts of the proposal would be acceptable and in some respects beneficial. 13.2 The application has been carefully considered against the development plan, taking into account the environmental impact assessment, the applicant’s supporting documents, representations received and all other material considerations. It is concluded that the application is contrary to multiple policies of the development plan, and in particular the proposal would represent a significant departure from Green Belt policies and from the Council’s spatial strategy, meaning that development would likely occur on the application site at the expense of alternative, more sustainable and socially beneficial, locations. The proposal is also considered to be unacceptable due to having a significant adverse impact on the landscape and built heritage at this location, and to be unsatisfactory in terms of the site’s limited sustainable travel opportunities. It is acknowledged that the proposal has some benefits, but the need for additional housing land and the justification provided for the employment land are not accepted, and it is considered that the employment and economic benefits are likely to be substantially less than the applicant estimates. The benefits of the proposal are therefore not considered to be sufficient to justify such a significant departure from the development plan, and for this reason it is recommended that planning permission in principle should be refused. Page 87 of 90
Page 88
13.3 Should the Council be minded to approve planning permission in principle, then the permission should not be released until such time as a legal agreement had been concluded to secure developer contributions and to specify the developer’s responsibilities in respect of increasing education capacity, road network improvements, sustainable transport infrastructure, public transport support, and the management of open space, all of which would be necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development. Page 88 of 90
Page 89
The scaling of this drawing cannot be assured Revision Date Drn Ckd ScaleDate RevisionProject No Drawing No Drawing Title Project Stantec UK Limited Check byDrawn by stantec.com\ukCertificate FS 29637U:\333100588\A4 - Drawings & Registers\Masterplanning\Adobe files\333100588-EH-M-Ind02,3-A-Masterplan and Parameters-B (RL Changes).indd (1) N The Blade Abbey Square Reading RG1 3BE T: 0118 9430 000 EuroPark Indicative Masterplan 26-02-24 1:5000@A1 HJ MW 333100588 Ind02 B - - -- Legend Primary Street Secondary Street Residential Urban Block Water Body SuDS Art Trail School Local Centre Industry Open Space Existing Woodland Proposed Woodland Paths Allotments Orchards Sports Pitches Community Sports Facility Site Boundary (c.243.9ha) EUROCENTRAL CALDERBANK CALDERBANK ROAD CARNBROE M8 B802 SYKESIDE ROAD ScaleDate RevisionProject No Drawing No Drawing Title Project Drawing1.dwg - A1 Check byDrawn by bartonwillmore.co.uk Certificate FS 29637 DRAFT 0 10 20 5 15 25m Development Site Under Construction New Educational Campus Now In Place Page 89 of 90
Page 90
Page 90 of 90