Agenda Document Pack - Council - 20/06/2024
North Lanarkshire Council · 20 June 2024
Back to Council — 20 June 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
11 June 2024 Members of the Council Chief Executive’s Office Archie Aitken 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, 20 June 2024 at 14:15 PM 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 : Clerk Name: Mark Hamill Clerk Telephone: 07811294702 Clerk Email: hamillm@northlan.gov.uk 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, 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, F McNally, M McPake, J McPhilemy, A McVey, L Mitchell, L Nolan, P Patton, J Reddin, L Roarty, D Robb, G Robinson, N Shevlin, W Shields, A Smith, K Stevenson, A Stubbs, L Stubbs, R Sullivan, A Thomas, J Toner, S Watson, C Williams, N Wilson, G Woods. Page 1 of 74
Page 2
Page 2 of 74
Page 3
Agenda 1 Declarations of Interest In Terms of the Ethical Standards In Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 2 Planning Application 23/00800/FUL - Proposed (Use Class 8) Hospital (Replacement University Hospital Monklands) and Supporting Hospital-Related Facilities, (Use Class 10) Nursery, and all Associated Accesses, Parking, Landscaping, Infrastructure and Associated Miscellaneous Development at Wester Moffat Farm (Land to the East of Wester Moffat Hospital, Towers Road and South of Forrest Street) Airdrie Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) on an application for planning permission by NHS Lanarkshire 5 - 74 Page 3 of 74
Page 4
Page 4 of 74
Page 5
Application No: 23/00800/FUL Proposed Development: Proposed (Use Class 8) Hospital (replacement University Hospital Monklands) and supporting hospital-related facilities, (Use Class 10) Nursery, and all associated accesses, parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated miscellaneous development (with supporting EIA report). Site Address: Wester Moffat Farm (Land to the East of Wester Moffat Hospital, Towers Road and South of Forrest Street) Airdrie Date Registered: 7th August 2023 Applicant: NHS Lanarkshire Headquarters Fallside Road Glasgow G71 8BB Agent: Keppie Design 160 West Regent Street Glasgow G2 4RL Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 08 Airdrie North Alan Beveridge, Sophia Coyle, Henry Emerson Dunbar, Richard Alan Sullivan, Representations: 7 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Grant permission subject to conditions Reasoned Justification: There is a pressing need to replace the existing Monklands Hospital in Airdrie. Given the many, varied and justified criteria in the applicant’s site selection process, there are very few suitable sites available which could accommodate a new hospital and the chosen site is the one most suited to their needs. The site is a greenfield site within the Green Belt; will involve the loss of some ancient woodland and on this basis is considered to be a significant departure from the development plan. However, weighing in its favour is the need for the development, the constraints on site availability, significant improvements in health care for many people and a degree of economic benefit. On balance it is concluded that this is an appropriate development and that adverse environmental and access impacts can either be mitigated or else justified when weighed against the wider benefits of the proposals. Item 2 Page 5 of 74
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: 23/00800/FUL NHS Lanarkshire Site: Wester Moffat Farm (Land to The East of Wester Moffat Hospital, Towers Road and South of Forrest Street) Airdrie. Development: Proposed (Use Class 8) Hospital (replacement University Hospital Monklands) and supporting hospital-related facilities, (Use Class 10) Nursery, and all associated accesses, parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated miscellaneous development (with supporting EIA report) Page 6 of 74
Page 7
Page 7 of 74
Page 8
Executive Summary 1. Background, Site & Proposals 1.1 It is accepted that the existing University Hospital Monklands is in a deteriorating physical state and is in need of significant improvements both internally and externally. In reviewing all possible options for addressing these problems, it has been decided that a new hospital should be built on a new site, and a site selection process was commenced in 2016. To achieve this, NHS Lanarkshire has set out site selection criteria for a new hospital as follows: • it must sit within the hospital care catchment area; • It must be a minimum of 40 developable acres (16.2ha); • The site must have no detrimental impact on adjoining catchment areas of hospitals in Lanarkshire, Glasgow or Forth Valley; • The site must be designated to permit appropriate development; • The site must have sufficient road and transport infrastructure to support the development of a major hospital site. 1.2 An extensive site search of suitable and available sites resulted in a long list of 37 sites, with a short list of 3 sites being brought forward, these being at Gartcosh, Glenmavis and Wester Moffat (east of Airdrie). It was concluded that the site at Wester Moffat was the strongest contender and this has been developed into the planning application and Environmental Impact Assessment report which are now under consideration. 1.3 The site extends to 125ha, although the intended developable footprint would only extend to 33.7ha. The site is broadly contained within an area to the south of Forest Street and east of Towers Road. The main development footprint would be sandwiched between the North Calder Water to the west and the proposed East Airdrie Link Road (EALR) to the east. The EALR is being promoted by the Council (although does not yet have planning permission) and is planned to be open to traffic in 2030 prior to the opening of the new Monklands hospital. 1.4 Neighbouring properties to the site include the residential areas of east Airdrie, Katherine Park, Calderbraes and St. Philips schools, the Inverhouse distillery whisky bond, a golf course and a former quarry which is currently being infilled and turned into a fishery (former Springbank Quarry). 1.5 The site undulates and there are significant ground differences in and around the North Calder Water. Most of the site comprises agricultural fields but there are trees alongside the North Calder Water, on the boundary with Inverhouse distillers and in the centre of the site, some of which is identified as “ancient woodland”. Page 8 of 74
Page 9
1.6 The proposed development seeks permission for a new hospital complex which would replace the existing one. In summary this would comprise a total of 183,074sq m of new hospital buildings including the following: • a 2-storey main hospital block containing a “high street” thoroughfare linking the east and west of the hospital. This block would also contain A&E, outpatient services, Pharmacy, Cancer Care Centre and Radiotherapy. • a 4-storey building comprising 5 interlinked blocks containing 485 single occupancy rooms, • a new “Maggie’s Centre” cancer care building, • a nursery/creche building, • a “facilities management” servicing yard • an energy centre containing a range of renewable and low energy consumption equipment, to service the hospital estate and help meet Net Zero Carbon ambitions. • 2100 parking spaces including a 3 level multi-story car park • Various drainage works • Various landscaping works including the creation of a 2.95ha community woodland, 4.09ha of natural grassland and 983m of hedgerow. 1.7 Access to the site would take various forms including: • Vehicular access to the hospital would be from a new roundabout on the proposed EALR. • Pedestrian and cycle traffic would access the site from a new 4m wide “Active Travel Route” which would connect the main hospital block with Towers Road. • A “resilience” access would be provided onto the EALR for use in emergency situations should the main access roundabout/access road be blocked. • Road widening works are required on Forest Street (at the junction with Towers Road and Connor Street) and this will extend the road into Katherine Park by around a metre or so, likely resulting in the removal of approximately 16 mature trees. • In co-operation with SPT, NHS Lanarkshire will ensure that accessibility by bus will match or exceed that at the existing hospital site. 1.8 The majority of the construction works would be confined to an intended 33.7ha development footprint (see plan at Appendix 1 – page 3 of this report). Preparation for these works would include: • The creation of several temporary construction access roads, most notably a new road between the south-west corner of Plains and the construction compound. • Treatment of old mine shafts etc • Clearance of vegetation followed by significant land engineering works to create a development platform. Although the development footprint comprises mostly agricultural land, it also includes an area of ancient woodland which would be removed as part of the development. 1.9 Impacts during construction works would be the basis of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) designed to ensure that environmental considerations were controlled and mitigated. Ecological impacts would be the basis of controls overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works and an Arboriculture Clerk of Works. Page 9 of 74
Page 10
2. Consultations 2.1 Scottish Water, NLC Protective Services, Scottish Power Energy Networks, Historic Environment Scotland, the Health and Safety Executive, the Coal Authority, Scottish Water, NLC Archaeology, Forestry & Land Scotland, the Green Action Trust and Network Rail are all generally satisfied with the proposals subject (in some instances) to the application of relevant planning conditions, with no objections having been offered. 2.2 NLC Traffic & Transportation has no objections with the overall access strategy but (as with SPT) has concerns about the active travel route and also the lack of an effective secondary access to the hospital. It has suggested that if planning permission is granted, then NHS Lanarkshire should continue to negotiate with the Council (as a City Deal partner) to see if the detailed EALR design could help facilitate a better ATR and secondary access arrangement. 2.3 SPT states that it has had positive discussions with NHS Lanarkshire regarding suitable and sustainable connectivity for the future users of the site. SPT and NHSL have agreed that a finalised Public Transport Accessibility Report be prepared before the hospital opens and its recommendations implemented. This will make provision for financial contributions from NHS Lanarkshire which would then be used by SPT to create new bus services or alter existing ones. This would ensure that bus services would offer levels of accessibility equal to or greater than that enjoyed at the existing hospital site. SPT has also highlighted concerns regarding the attractiveness of the ‘active travel route’ (given that it is 750m long and passes through woodland) and the length of road which bus traffic would have to travel to get to the bus stances at the hospital entrance. 2.4 Sustrans is concerned that the proposals for Active Travel take a minimalist approach and do not match the ambition for achieving sustainable transport development set in policy. 2.5 SEPA has no objections subject to conditions relating to flood risk, protection of private water supplies and the preparation and implementation of suitable CEMP and Habitat Management Plan. 2.6 NatureScot has no objections and is satisfied with proposed levels of mitigation but has noted that the impact of the loss of ancient woodland and the loss of badger foraging areas requires further detail and mitigation. 3. Representations 3.1 Seven representations have been submitted; six being from local residents and one from St. Philips School in Plains. The residents have a variety of concerns relating to impact on local amenity, road safety and nature conservation. The school is concerned that construction traffic will have an adverse impact on the operation of the school and on the future sale of land in their control, which has planning permission for housing. Page 10 of 74
Page 11
4. Development Plan 4.1 The development plan comprises the National Planning Framework (NPF4) which was adopted in 2023 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) which was adopted in 2022. The NLLDP identifies the site as Green Belt and presumes against developments of this scale and nature. There is also a presumption against the development of greenfield land. The development is also contrary to policies which presume against the loss of ancient woodland. The development plan should be read in the round and whilst it is acknowledged that there is support from development plan policies on many fronts, on balance it is concluded that the development is a significant departure from the development plan. Section 25 of the Planning Act states that determination of planning applications shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 5. Material Considerations 5.1 Need for the Development/Site Selection Process/Impact on the Green Belt: It is clear that there is a pressing need for a replacement Monklands hospital, given the age and condition of the existing hospital complex, and constraints imposed on its refurbishment. 5.2 The needs of NHS Lanarkshire, in finding a suitable replacement site, are set out in the site selection criteria noted above. There are very few sites available which could meet their needs. Of the 3 sites in the short list, the site at Wester Moffat was deemed to be most appropriate particularly given its ability to access the relevant catchment area. 5.3 Despite the application site’s location in the Green Belt, the siting of the new hospital, sandwiched between the edge of Airdrie and the line of the proposed EALR (along with appropriate landscaping) should ensure that impacts on the character and appearance of the Green Belt are well contained. 5.4 Access Matters: As noted above, some consultees have raised concerns regarding the attractiveness of the proposed active travel route (albeit NatureScot are supportive of it) and Sustrans have made various other points critical of the over reliance on the private motor car. However, on balance it is concluded that the access arrangements are acceptable (as supported by NLC Traffic and Transportation) subject to various mitigations including the public bus service scheme agreed with SPT and the use of appropriate lighting and security measures on the ATR. Furthermore, NHS Lanarkshire has undertaken to continue discussions with the Council (as City Deal partner) to see what opportunities may arise as part of the design and consultation process for the proposed EALR. Finally, in terms of access, it is unusual (but not unique) for the proposed development to be dependent on a road which does not have planning permission. Clearly the dependency of the hospital on this road will present the applicant with various risks but these can be adequately managed and mitigated. The Council is committed to making progress with the road project through to completion. 5.5 Environmental Matters: The applicant has proposed various protection, mitigation and enhancement measures and these are welcomed. The loss of the ancient woodland is highly regrettable but given the location of the woodland (directly below the site of the main hospital block) there is no reasonable scope to retain the woodland. Weighing up this loss against the wider benefits of the hospital development (plus additional mitigation works) mean that the loss of ancient woodland can be justified. Page 11 of 74
Page 12
5.6 The necessary road widening works on Forest Street will likely necessitate the loss of 16 mature trees but these are generally in poor condition. Their replacement with high quality trees should allow the necessary road improvements to take place but should also allow for medium to long term improvements to the appearance of the park and the surrounding area. 6. Conclusions 6.1 The development is in the Green Belt and will involve the removal of some ancient woodland. Concerns have been raised over some aspects of the access and there are some environmental impacts which cannot be wholly mitigated (eg loss of ancient woodland). On balance, the benefits of the development, including a significant improvement to health care provision for a great many people, will far outweigh concerns regarding the development plan, access and environmental issues. Accordingly it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. Page 12 of 74
Page 13
Proposed Conditions:- 1. Approved Drawings That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the schedule of plans as detailed in the document entitled MRP - PLANNING SUBMISSION - PLANS PACK Version 27/3/24 and for the avoidance of doubt the plans referred to in this condition are those marked as “Current Version Issued to NLC”. Reason: To clarify the drawings upon which this permission is founded. 2. Temporary construction access routes That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, further details of the temporary construction access routes (as shown on plan number L309H-KEP-XX-XX-DR-A-601017 revision P01 and plan number MRP-WSP-SE-XX-DR-C-1101) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. These details shall include: • the location of access roads • means of construction, • any resultant changes in levels • necessary drainage works • a restoration scheme (including timetable for implementation) showing how the temporary construction access routes (once construction works are complete) will be restored back to their previous condition, or any other acceptable restoration scheme agreed with the Planning Authority. The agreed restoration scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable. Reason: To ensure that all proper details are available and to ensure that the risk of flooding is adequately addressed. 3. Construction Access Groundwater Abstractions Unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, in the event that any groundwater abstraction is discovered during advanced/enabling works in relation to any temporary construction access route from Stanrigg Street/Brownieside Road, then the buffer zones (as illustrated on plan L309H-WSP-XX-XX-DR-O-000016) shall apply for the relevant excavation depths. On any such discovery, any advanced/enabling works within the identified buffer zones shall cease immediately, and investigation and monitoring, in accordance with the provisions of ‘Land Use Planning System SEPA Guidance Note 31’, shall be implemented, with the outcome of such investigation and monitoring submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA before works can continue within the buffer zones. Reason: To ensure any advanced/enabling works do not have any detrimental impact on any groundwater abstractions which are relied upon by immediately neighbouring properties or land. Page 13 of 74
Page 14
4. CEMP That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. The first submission of this CEMP shall include information relevant to the advanced/enabling works and a timetable for submitting the remaining information, which shall be submitted before any Hospital building(s) works commence. The CEMP shall thereafter be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in accordance with the agreed timetable. The CEMP will describe generic and detailed site-specific measures to avoid, reduce and mitigate construction phase effects, including information of impacts associated with the construction of the hospital buildings and implementation of the advanced/enabling works including the following works: • Installation of temporary access routes for construction traffic and subsequent removal/ restoration • Establishment of a site compound • Site clearance of vegetation / existing features • Topsoil removal / mounding • Initial platforming earthworks / deep drainage installation • Installation of temporary construction stage drainage basins / ditches / pipework to manage run-off in line with SEPA requirements. • Establishing a temporary foul water connection for site facilities • Establishing a power supply and potable water supply • Treatment of mine workings and any ground remediation works In doing so, the CEMP shall (in general terms) provide details as follows: • Description of the construction works, including proposed timeline, logistics, and responsibilities; • Details of any consultation undertaken to date and proposed consultation and community engagement during construction; • Transport Management; • Environmental Management, Mitigation and Monitoring relating to environmental construction phase effects, • Details of hours of construction works. In particular, the CEMP shall include (but not necessarily be restricted to) plans and information which seek to address the following matters: (a) Construction Phase Traffic Management This should consider aspects such as: construction vehicle access routes; impact of construction vehicles on pedestrians; impact of construction traffic on any narrow rural roads that might be affected; requirement for mitigation at key junctions as a result of increased construction traffic; requirements for temporary traffic management; good site management practices, e.g. vehicle sheeting, wheel washing, road brushing, etc. (b) Soil Management This should set out best practice to be implemented by the contractor in terms of soil stripping, handling, storage and reinstatement. (c) Stakeholder Communication: This shall include details of how the local community will be kept up to date on progress with the implementation of the development, highlighting any particular issues that may be of concern to the community. Page 14 of 74
Page 15
(d) Construction Noise and Vibration Management This shall take account of the proposed mitigation measures contained within the EIA report, including chapter 12 and most notably the works associated with the footbridge construction (including. trenching pipes) and at the works associated with the mine adit (shafts). (e) Construction Dust Management This shall take account of the mitigation measures set out in appendix 6.2 of the EIA report. (f) Groundwater and Surface Water Management and Monitoring This should ensure appropriate monitoring before, during and after the Construction Phase (or any advanced/enabling works such as mine shaft grouting) and should make reference to table 9-16 and 14-14 of the EIA Report. (g) Pollution Events This shall include control measures for the following: • Oil storage and refuelling; • Working with concrete; • Waste management; and • Contaminated land (h) Significant Delays to the Programme A strategy designed to address environmental impacts whereby the advanced / enabling works are commenced and (for whatever reason) are left incomplete, with no substantive works being carried out for 12 months or more. This should include reference to creating a green appearance to any exposed soils and any necessary interim drainage works. Thereafter the agreed CEMP shall be in operation and adhered to for the duration of all construction works in accordance with the agreed timetable. Reason: To ensure that all construction impacts are understood and properly managed and mitigated. 5. Coal Mine Risk That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place on the Main Development Site, Active Travel Route, Foul Water Rising Main or Construction Access Route areas (as identified in Figure 1 – Site Location Plan within Appendix 9.2 of the EIA), the following details shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval: A) The results of intrusive investigations to establish the risks posed to the development by past coal mining activity on said area and B) A Coal Mining Risk Assessment detailing the findings of all investigative works (non- intrusive and intrusive) undertaken and presenting the proposed mitigation measures to address land instability risks on said area arising from coal mining legacy, as may be necessary. The shallow mining risk mitigation measures identified within the Coal Mining Risk Assessment for said area of the site shall be implemented in full as part of the advance/enabling works for that area to ensure that the site is safe and stable for the development proposed. The intrusive site investigations and mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with authoritative UK guidance. Reason: To ensure the site is safe and stable for the proposed development. Page 15 of 74
Page 16
6. Comprehensive Site Investigation That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, a phase 3 comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority. This report shall be based upon the findings of the agreed phase 1 and 2 reports (WSP dated July and December 2023) and shall seek to address the outstanding issues as noted within the review document by RSK Geosciences dated 24/01/2024. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required. Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future users of the development. 7. Statutorily protected species Further updated surveys shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of statutorily protected species. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, these updated surveys should be submitted to the Planning Authority and agreed before any advanced/enabling works take place on site. As a result of the studies, should any mitigation measures be required for any protected species, these shall be incorporated and implemented in accordance with the Species Protection Plan and Habitat Management Plan (see conditions 8 and 15) Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and to ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended); the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended; the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended); and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 8. Species Protection Plan (SPP) That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, a Species Protection Plan (SPP) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. As a minimum, the SPP will cover the following species/ species groups: o fish, herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles), bats, badger, otter, pine marten and breeding birds. The agreed plan then be incorporated and implemented in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan (see condition 15 below) Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection. 9. Badger foraging Habitat Compensation Plan That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, an updated badger habitat and foraging resource assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. This shall provide additional information (as set out in the NatureScot letter 25 March 2024) and thereafter shall detail additional opportunities to mitigate the impact of the development on badger foraging habitat. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to ensure that impacts on badger foraging are mitigated as much as reasonably possible. Page 16 of 74
Page 17
10. Updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, an updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. This shall be based on the report contained within appendix 7.3 of the EIA report, and shall be updated to take account of the recommendations contained within section 4 of that report (page 26). Reason: To ensure compliance with NPF4 and the recommendations of the EIA report. 11. Tree Protection That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced / enabling works take place, details of tree protection measures shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for prior approval. This shall take account of British Standard 5837-2012 ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’ and any additional buffer / exclusion zones (particularly in relation to bat protection) required as part of the Species Protection Plan (see condition 8). The locations and suitability of tree protection should be signed off by a suitably experienced and qualified Arboricultural Clerk of Works (ACoW) prior to construction works. The ACoW should provide appropriate monitoring of the works and any additional recommendations should be adhered to. The agreed measures shall thereafter be incorporated and implemented in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan (see condition 15 below). Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to ensure compliance with the planning application and EIA report. 12. Invasive Non-Native Species That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced / enabling works take place, an Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. This shall be based on appendix 7.9 of the EIA Report and shall include a timetable for implementation. Thereafter, the agreed plan shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to ensure compliance with the planning application and EIA report. 13. Deer Management Statement That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced / enabling works take place, a Deer Management Statement shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. This shall outline potential impact of the development on deer welfare, along with any necessary mitigation measures. The agreed measures shall thereafter be incorporated and implemented in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan (see condition 15). Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to protect the welfare of deer on or near the application site. Page 17 of 74
Page 18
14. Compensation Management Plan (Ancient Woodland) That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced / enabling works take place, a Compensation Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. This plan shall detail the impact of the loss of ancient woodland and put forward commensurate mitigation proposals. In particular, this plan shall examine mitigation opportunities in line with the hierarchy identified in the NatureScot letter 25 March 2024.Thereafter, the agreed compensation management plan will be integrated into the Habitat Management Plan and implemented accordingly. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to ensure that all reasonable measures are undertaken to mitigate the loss of ancient woodland. 15. Habitat Management Plan That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced / enabling works take place, a detailed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The HMP shall set how the agreed biodiversity protection and enhancement measures will be implemented and will be accompanied by: a) an ordnance survey scaled plan which clearly identifies the location and extent of the areas proposed for habitat protection, management and enhancement. b) a detailed strategy of aims/objectives/intended works to be carried out; c) a timetable for carrying out the various works and confirmation of the lifespan of the HMP; d) details of a monitoring/maintenance regime with associated reporting and appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works for the area all costs for which shall be met by the developer; e) provision for the formation of a Habitat Management Group (HMG) to monitor implementation of the plan and details provided on the intended frequency of meetings of the HMG, a minimum of which shall be once per annum unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority; and f) the HMP shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for review every 12 months over its lifespan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved HMP, as amended as the case may be by the HMG, shall thereafter be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. For the avoidance of doubt, unless otherwise agreed, the agreed biodiversity enhancement measures to be implemented (by way of the HMP) shall include any measures identified within the updated Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment (as updated), Compensation Management Plan (Ancient Woodland), badger foraging habitat compensation plan, GWDTE habitat the Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Management Plan and Species Protection Plan. Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in the interests of ensuring that the approved HMP is carried out and monitored in accordance with the agreed scheme to secure appropriate biodiversity protection and enhancements. Page 18 of 74
Page 19
16. Archaeology That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no advanced/enabling works shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the local Archaeology Service and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason; To ensure the appropriate recording of potential archaeology remains. 17. Public Transport That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, the applicant shall submit an indicative programme identifying the anticipated date of the hospital opening. This indicative programme shall include a date 18-months in advance of the anticipated hospital opening date by which time, unless otherwise agreed with the local authority, a Public Transport Accessibility Report shall be submitted for the approval of North Lanarkshire Council in consultation with Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) which outlines the Public Transport Accessibility Strategy to be implemented for the replacement hospital. Unless otherwise agreed in advance by the Planning Authority, this report, and the associated methodology to be followed, shall be as set out in ‘Section 7. Methodology’ of the ‘Public Transport Network Review – Technical Note 1 (FINAL)’ (dated 06 March 2024) approved as part of this permission. Reason: to ensure that a sufficient level of public transport accessibility is provided to the new hospital in advance of its opening. 18. Off Site Road Improvements (Towers Road/Forrest Street/Connor Street) That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, full details of a scheme of road improvements for the Towers Road/Forrest Street/Connor Street junction shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. These details shall seek to address the issues of road capacity (as set out in the Transportation Assessment) and shall include details of the following: • Parking spaces/servicing area to the front of the commercial units on Forrest Street to be retained and/or reconfigured. • Suitable pedestrian crossing facilities (existing or proposed) to be incorporated on all arms of the junction, namely Towers Road, Forrest Street and Connor Street. • A pre-start survey check(s) shall be made on all trees to be removed or altered to determine the presence of bats, and should any bats be evident, mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with a Species Protection Plan submitted to, and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, in consultation with NatureScot. • Details of all necessary mitigation works to address all impacts on Katherine Park, including (but not limited to) a landscaping scheme along the Forrest Street and Towers Road boundary of the park including appropriate native replacement tree planting. • A phasing plan which provides a timetable for the completion of all works agreed as part of this condition. Reason: To ensure the necessary off-site road works are carried out in a timely fashion in accordance with the terms of the submitted Transportation Assessment; to ensure proper assessment and protection of any protected species and to ensure that the function and character of Katherine Park is protected or enhanced. Page 19 of 74
Page 20
19. Resilience/Emergency Vehicular access That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any construction works commence on the hospital structure, further details of the ‘Resilience access / Emergency Vehicular Access’ (as illustrated within the Transport Assessment Appendix B) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, these details shall include the following: • Access to be gated, and gates to be set at least at least 10m back from the East Airdrie Link Road carriageway; • Fencing and other measures shall be in place to dissuade any unauthorised public access. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with these agreed details. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 20. Flood Risk Assessment That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, an updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. The updated document shall be based upon the FRA prepared by WSP (dated December 2023) and shall address the following: • The requirement for further investigation of groundwater matters (and mitigation, if required) as stated in paragraph 8.1.6 of the submitted FRA. • Consideration of the potential for the agreed Scottish Water offsite drainage network to impact on flood risk (including any mitigation, if required) as stated in paragraph 8.1.7 of the submitted FRA. Reason: To ensure that all matters relating to flood risk are known and understood, in accordance with the planning application and EIA report. 21. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the terms of the Flood Risk Assessment (as updated by condition 20) and the agreed surface water drainage scheme (as outlined in approved plans and the agreed Drainage Strategy) shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within 3 months of implementing the necessary mitigation works, and before any part of the new development is first brought into use, a certificate (signed by a suitably qualified engineer expert in flooding matters) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that these works have been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual, approved plans, and recommendations of the Assessments. Reason: To ensure that the agreed measures are implemented in a timely fashion in the interests of flood prevention. Page 20 of 74
Page 21
22. Landscaping That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development. (d) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site. Reason: To ensure the timely submission of all necessary landscaping details. 23. Landscape Maintenance. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the landscaping works as approved under the terms of condition 22 above. This shall take account of the recommendations contained within para 16.4 of the EIA report. Thereafter, the approved maintenance scheme shall be implemented. Reason: To ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity, nature conservation and to ensure compliance with the EIA report. 24. Noise That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, an updated Noise Impact Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall be based upon the submitted Noise and Vibration Report (WSP Appendix 12.1 dated February 2024). The updated report shall take account of the undernoted, and shall (where appropriate) provide details of any necessary mitigation measures: • Impact of traffic noise (or anticipated traffic noise based on information available) from the East Airdrie Link Road on the new hospital development, along with details of any mitigation measures required. • Details of the impact of fixed plant and equipment on the proposed hospital development Reason: To ensure the provision of all necessary information on noise impacts. 25. Scottish Water That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water can be fully met to demonstrate that the development will not have an impact on their assets, and that suitable infrastructure can be put in place to support the development. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements. Page 21 of 74
Page 22
26. External Lighting That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, full details of all external lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. This shall be based on the submitted Lighting Statement (Wallace Whittle – date 19/07/2023) and shall include details of the design, location and appearance of all external lighting apparatus as well as details of brightness and how lighting will be angled. The submitted details shall take account of the safety, amenity and environmental issues as outlined in the aforementioned Lighting Statement. Reason: In the interests of amenity, safety and nature conservation and protection. 27. Suicide Prevention That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works commence on the Active Travel Route bridge (as per drawing L309H-WSP-XX-XX-DR-BR- 009003 P03 – ATR Bridge General Arrangement), full details of all suicide prevention measures to be incorporated into the design of the active travel route bridge structure shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. These details shall consider all relevant guidance in place at the time of submitting the necessary details. Reason: In the interests of suicide prevention and to accord with NPF4. 28. Facing Materials That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be provided to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. Submission of these details can be by way of display panels provided on site. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects, in order to ensure that materials are visually acceptable in a local context. 29. Means of Enclosure That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, the design, location and finishing materials for all fences, walls and gates shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with these approved details. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 30. Surfacing That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, full details of the design and finish of materials to be used in hard surfacing of external areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall include the following: • the active travel route, • new paths within the community woodland area, • all footways and footpaths, • all roadways, parking and manoeuvring areas Reason: In the interests of amenity and design by ensuring that the materials are appropriate for the site. Page 22 of 74
Page 23
31. Publicly Accessible Toilet Facilities That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any Hospital building(s) works commence, revised drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Authority which shows details of at least one publicly accessible toilet facility of a design as set out in section 41B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended and the Town And Country Planning (Changing Places Toilet Facilities) (Scotland) Regulations 2020. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate toilet facilities in accordance with the terms of the Planning Act. 32. Site Security Strategy That, unless agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in advance, before any part of the new development is brought into use, a Site Security Strategy shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. This Site Security Strategy shall provide details of any CCTV or other surveillance (active or passive) or security measures to be provided across the hospital site, including the Active Travel Route and Bridge. Reason: to ensure the safety and security of the users of the hospital site and the use of active travel links to and from the site, in accordance with the requirements of NPF4. 33. Noise Mitigation (Implementation) Before the development is first brought into use, a certificate from a suitably qualified person with Membership of the Institute of Acoustics shall be submitted to confirm that all required noise mitigation works have been installed in accordance with the approved details and the updated Noise Impact Assessment. Reason: To ensure the proper and timely implementation of all necessary noise mitigation works. 34. Ground Remediation Works (Implementation) That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 6 shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works (if required) have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy prior to the hospital being brought into use. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future users of the new development. 35. Treatment of Old Mine Workings (Implementation) Before the hospital is brought into use a signed statement or declaration prepared by a suitably competent person confirming that the site is, or has been made, safe and stable for the approved development shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval in writing. This document shall confirm the methods and findings of any remedial/mitigation works or further investigations undertaken to address the risks posed by past mining activity. Reason: To ensure the site is safe and stable for the proposed development. Page 23 of 74
Page 24
36. Travel Plan That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before the hospital is brought into use, a comprehensive Travel Plan that sets out proposals for reducing dependency on the private car shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. In particular, this Travel Plan shall identify measures to be implemented, the system of management, monitoring, review, reporting, and the duration of the plan. This plan shall make reference to Section 8 (Travel Plan Framework) of the agreed Transportation Assessment. Reason: To ensure sustainable travel is encouraged and promoted, in accordance with the planning application and Transportation Assessment. 37. That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the following: • Ventilation and Extraction Statement (Prepared by Wallace Whittle, dated 19.07.23). • Utilities Statement (Prepared by Wallace Whittle, dated 31.07.23). • Energy and Sustainability Statement (Prepared by Wallace Whittle, dated 31.07.23). • Lighting Statement (Prepared by Wallace Whittle – date 19/07/2023) and as updated by way of condition 26. Reason: To ensure compliance with information submitted as part of the planning application. 38. Waste Management Strategy That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before the hospital is brought into use, an updated Operational Waste Management Strategy –shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. This shall be based on the draft report dated January 2023 and prepared by NHS Lanarkshire entitled “MRP Facilities Management Output Specification – Waste Services”. This updated document shall take account of all relevant waste management guidance in place at the time of the review. The new development (once operational) shall operate in accordance with the agreed Operational Waste Management Strategy. Reason: In the interests of proper waste management and in accordance with NPF4. 39. Further application for Maggie’s Centre For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed “Maggie’s Centre” (as per drawings nos. L309H- KEP-XX-XX-DR-A-601002 P16 - Proposed Site Plan (Hospital) and L309H-HLA-LA-EW-DR- L-000002 P05 - Landscape Masterplan - Outline Design) is approved in principle only. Before construction works commence on the “Maggie’s Centre” structure, a further planning application or applications (an Application for Matters Specified by Condition) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following matters:- a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; b) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; c) the arrangements for surface water drainage; d) details of the proposed landscaping of the site. Reason: This part of the development is granted in principle and to enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. Page 24 of 74
Page 25
40. Phasing That unless agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in advance, before any part of the new development is brought into use, the following works shall be in place: • The East Airdrie Link Road shall be open to traffic along its entire route. (Note: definition of East Airdrie Link Road means a new road between Newhouse and Stand/Riggend, as set out in the submitted Transport Assessment). • Towers Road/Forrest Street/Connor Street junction improvements shall be operational (Note – this requirement relates to the works to the public road. The timetable for other environmental works within Katherine Park are to be agreed separately as per condition 18. • The Active Travel Route shall be operational and complete in so far as agreed surfacing, lighting, suicide prevention measures and security strategy. • The agreed Public Transport Accessibility Strategy (as required by condition 17 below) shall be fully implemented. • The agreed Travel Plan, as required by condition 36, shall be fully implemented and the agreed transport hub (bus stances with associated shelters and seating) shall be complete and operational. • All surfacing and delineation of roads, paths, parking and manoeuvring areas shall be fully completed in accordance with approved plans and condition 30 including the completion of the multi-story car park. • All proposed cycle parking and cycle storage facilities shall be complete and operational. • All agreed drainage works and other mitigation works as set out in condition 21 shall be in place and operational. • The agreed site security strategy shall be implemented. Reason: To ensure that the timely implementation of all necessary measures which are required before the new hospital development opens to the public. Page 25 of 74
Page 26
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: The Coal Authority 24th August 2023 Historic Environment Scotland 31st August 2023 Health and Safety Executive NatureScot 24th March 2024 Network Rail 7th September 2023 Scottish Forestry 6th September 2023 Scottish Power Energy Networks 25th March 2024 Scottish Water 23rd August 2023 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 25th April 2024 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport 15th April 2024 Sustrans 25th October 2023 NLC Archaeology Service 30th August 2023 NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) 23rd August 2023, 21st December 2023, 24th January 2024, NLC Traffic & Transportation 19th March 2024 and 15th September 2023 and Green Action Trust 11th August 2023 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lindsay Kellock at planningenquiery@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 31st May 2024 Page 26 of 74
Page 27
APPLICATION NO. 23/00800/FUL REPORT 1. Background (Existing Hospital Site and Site Selection Process) 1.1 Located on the western side of Airdrie, the existing University Hospital Monklands (UHM), at the time of the planning application, is a 411-bed acute district hospital with a 24 hours a day accident and emergency unit. The main building was constructed in the 1970s but the site has seen a great many additions and alterations since then. Over recent years (starting as far back as 2008) NHS Lanarkshire has carried out various consultation exercises with a view to examining the future of the hospital. Partly, this was initiated due to the deteriorating physical state of the existing hospital facility, the need to modernise internally and the knock- on impact on service delivery. Most recently, an exercise was initiated in 2018 to look at 4 key options, these being: 1. do nothing. 2. refurbish the existing hospital buildings. 3. build a new hospital on the existing hospital site. 4. build a new hospital on a different site. 1.2 The conclusion of that exercise was that a new hospital should be built on a different site. Following an extensive site search, 2 possible sites were identified, one being in Gartcosh and the other being in Glenmavis. Thereafter the Gartcosh site was identified as the preferred site. However, this particular process was not concluded as the Scottish Government initiated an independent review of the appraisal process. Amongst the conclusions of that review were that: • The existing site should be excluded from further consideration as it was not a practical option. • The scoring for the Gartcosh and Glenmavis sites should be re-assessed and • Further sites should be examined. 1.3 Thereafter, several potential sites were examined and NHS Lanarkshire’s site selection criteria were applied, ie. 1. Must sit within University Hospital Monklands care catchment area; 2. Must be a minimum of 40 developable acres (16.2ha); 3. Site must have no detrimental impact on adjoining unscheduled catchment areas of hospitals in Lanarkshire, Glasgow or Forth Valley; 4. Site must be designated to permit appropriate development; 5. Site must have sufficient road and transport infrastructure to support the development of a major hospital site 1.4 Based on this criteria, one additional site was identified (ie over and above the Gartcosh and Glenmavis sites) this being at Wester Moffat, east of Airdrie. Following further assessment, including a public vote, the Wester Moffat site was identified as the top scoring site and has since been taken forward to form the basis of this planning application. Page 27 of 74
Page 28
1.5 In the period between confirming that the ‘Wester Moffat’ site was the preferred site and submitting this planning application in August 2023, NHS Lanarkshire has been in discussion with the Council (and in particular the Planning Service, the ‘City Deal’ Team and the Traffic and Transportation Service) and many other stakeholders. Of particular relevance to the statutory planning process, NHS Lanarkshire has carried out pre-application consultation (PAC) with local communities and also prepared preliminary environmental information which was then the basis of an Environmental Impact Assessment scoping exercise. In addition, NHS Lanarkshire has also carried out consultation as a health care provider. It is also worth noting that the procurement of the hospital is the basis of the “NDAP” process (NHS Scotland Design Assessment Process). This means that funding from the Scottish Government is the basis of guiding principles including input from “Architecture and Design Scotland” (A&DS) who are the Scottish Government’s advisors on architecture and the built environment, and Health Facilities Scotland (who provide operational guidance to the Scottish Government and Health Boards to establish professional and technical standards and best practices). 1.6 In terms of other progress, it is noted that: • the project has funding commitment from the Scottish Government as far as the OBC stage (outline business case) and NHS Lanarkshire hope to get approval for its full business case (FBC) sometime in 2025. • the applicant has acquired all the land required on which the new hospital will be built. • Laing O’Rourke has been appointed by NHS Lanarkshire as a construction partner and would be responsible for carrying out the development. 2. Application Site and Surrounding Area 2.1 Planning Application Site: The entire application site extends to 125ha although it should be noted the extent of the developable area is only around 33.7ha. (as outlined in section 3 below – Proposed Development). The applicant has advised that the application site boundary is deliberately wide, in order to future-proof any potential requirements for construction access or underground infrastructure works. 2.2 The application site is broadly contained within an area to the south of Forest Street and east of Towers Road and is around 2.5km (1.5 miles) east of Airdrie town centre. 2.3 For the most part, the site comprises open fields with various farm tracks, scattered trees, hedges and woodland. At the time that the planning application was submitted in August 2023, there were operational farm buildings and a farmhouse at the western section of the site (immediately south of the railway line and close to Katherine Park) but these will be demolished and removed (see paragraph 5.5 below) in advance of any works on the new hospital commencing. 2.4 Traversing the site (generally from north-east to south) is the North Calder Water, much of which is lined by mature trees. There are other smaller water courses within the site (associated with the North Calder Water) and these are un-named. Also traversing the site (east of the North Calder Water) are the remains of a dismantled railway including the pillars of an old railway viaduct. Along the western edge of the site is a line of 275kv electricity pylons (the pylons being approximately 50m high). Page 28 of 74
Page 29
2.5 In terms of topography, there are significant differences in levels across the site. Much of the site undulates gently but part of the site slopes downwards steeply from a maximum height of 191m AOD at the east part of the site down to a minimum height of 134m AOD to the west (at the North Calder Water). 2.6 Within the application site boundary (but largely unaffected by the development proposals) are the following: • The existing Wester Moffat Hospital (which takes access from Towers Road) sits at the westmost part of the site. Comprising various buildings of various ages and styles, the oldest part of the hospital is a category B listed building. • The Glasgow-Edinburgh (via Bathgate) railway line traverses the north part of the site. • The application site takes in a small part of the playing fields of Caldervale High School at the southwest corner of the application site, accommodating connections to drainage infrastructure; • At the far north part of the site (adjoining Forrest Street) is the site of the former travelling people site and a commercial recycling centre. 2.7 Currently, vehicular access to the site is gained from a variety of locations including the existing farm track to the (to be demolished) farmhouse and farm buildings at Wester Moffat farm. This access is taken via Katherine Park Lane which has a junction with Forrest Street (immediately to the east of Katherine Park). There are other field access points to the farmland at the south side of the wider application site on Stepends Road. Other means of vehicular access (i.e. at the recycling centre at the north and the existing Wester Moffat hospital) are self-contained and do not allow access into the wider application area. 2.8 In addition, pedestrian access can be taken from the woodland area on Towers Road (immediately north of Wester Moffat Hospital) which then links into the path network of the “North Calder Heritage Trail” alongside the North Calder Water. (The majority of the paths of the heritage trail are also identified by the council as ‘core paths’). 2.9 Surrounding Area Immediately adjoining the planning application site boundary are the following: • to the north of the site is St. Philips school (which includes residential accommodation). • To the east of the school is Brownieside Road (also known as Stanrigg Street) and a vacant site which benefits from planning permission in principle for housing (planning ref 23/00287/PPP) • Beyond the northeast corner of the application site (and at the southern edge of Plains) is Plains Country Park and also Plains Wastewater Sewage Treatment Works and various detached houses. • To the east of the application site is the Easter Moffat golf course with club buildings. (including the club house which is a category B listed building). Close to the club house are a group of houses which are also category C listed buildings. • Beyond the southeast boundary (on the other side of Stepends Road) is the former Springbank Quarry which is currently being filled in and developed with a view to creating a fishery (planning permission ref. 21/00230/S42). • Beyond the southmost part of the application site is the large expanse of the Inverhouse Distillery warehouse development. Page 29 of 74
Page 30
• Residential properties and Caldervale High School form an urban edge to the west. • Katherine Park (a council owned and maintained public park) is at the northwest corner of the application site. 3. Proposed Development 3.1 In summary, this planning application proposes a replacement hospital for the existing University Monklands Hospital in Airdrie. The proposals include works to provide a level site platform, provide new hospital buildings and associated structures (including an Energy Centre and Multi-story Car Park), formation of pedestrian accesses, road connections to the proposed ‘East Airdrie Link Road’, landscaping works, surface grade parking and miscellaneous infrastructure and drainage works. Further details of the proposed development is as follows: Extent of Development Footprint 3.2 The majority of the proposed works outlined below (with the notable exception of the temporary construction access routes, the Active Travel Route and the off-site junction improvements) are all contained within a 33.7 ha area within the middle of the wider red line boundary. This ‘development footprint’ is sited immediately east of the North Calder Water and west of the indicative line of the proposed East Airdrie Link Road. This development footprint is identified in the plan found in appendix 1 on page 3 of this report). Advanced Enabling Works 3.3 In advance of any new built development, there are significant preparatory works proposed including the following: • Creation of temporary construction access routes. Most notably this will include the creation of a new construction access between Brownieside Road (also known as Stanrigg Street) at the southwest corner of Plains and the proposed site of the main contractor’s compound (to be located on the north side of the proposed hospital development). This would necessitate the construction of a new temporary bridge over the North Calder Water. This access will accommodate the vast majority of construction traffic and would be removed and restored once construction works were complete. In addition, the main site compound would also be accessed from a secondary construction access from Stepends Road to the south. Other construction access points may be required from in and around the footpaths on Towers Road and from Katherine Park Lane to the north. These would not provide access to the main compound and would be used for ancillary works such as the creation of the Active Travel Route. Details of the exact design and layout of these temporary routes (along with necessary mitigation measures to protect safety and the environment) would be a requirement of planning conditions. • Creation of construction platform As noted above, there are significant differences in ground levels over parts of the site and these are particularly prevalent within the ‘development footprint’. In order to create an area suitable for the proposed built development, the development footprint will be cleared of vegetation and levelled off to create a 2-step building platform which would be 166m and 162m AOD. These works would comprise ‘cut and fill’ with the focus on moving existing soil materials around the site to create the desired levels, although around 25% of the soils are currently assumed to be taken off site for use elsewhere. The applicant continues to develop a strategy to minimise off site materials. Page 30 of 74
Page 31
• Other ancillary works Other work will include the treatment of old mine entries and the creation of construction compounds (including all temporary works associated with this, such as drainage and establishing power, water and sewage connections and so on). 3.4 Once the advanced enabling works are complete then works could commence on construction of the hospital buildings and associated infrastructure. Extending to 183,074m2 the development would be comprised of many different elements which are summarised below. Access/Parking/Manoeuvring Proposed access works to the site are by way of the following: • All vehicular traffic would access the site by way of a roundabout on the proposed East Airdrie Link Road (EALR). (This is a new road proposed by the Council which will connect Newhouse to the south with Stand/Riggend to the north. Further details of the EALR project can be found in paragraph 3.8 below). The EALR is intended for vehicular traffic only and not for pedestrians or cyclists. The new roundabout access on the EALR will then connect into the hospital development by way of a 350m long dual carriageway leading to an internal 4- arm roundabout which then feeds into all parts of the development. The main parking areas would be located on the south-east side of the hospital and would include a multistorey car park at the east side of the development footprint (and on the boundary with the EALR). In total, there would be 2,100 parking spaces, including 130 accessible spaces. Some of these spaces will have EV charging facilities; the exact number and location would be dictated by the Building Regulations. The multistorey car park will comprise a 3-storey structure, with curved ramp access to each deck and solar canopies placed upon the top-deck. At the main entrance to the hospital will be a public transport hub comprising bus stops, travel information and a drop-off area. Cycle parking facilities are provided and will be mostly focussed at the west side of the building along with shower and changing facilities for staff. • An ‘Active Travel Route’ (ATR) path will provide a connection for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users between the west entrance to the main hospital block and Towers Road (at the location of the existing path connection onto Towers Road). This will then allow for onward travel into the east side of Airdrie and to Drumgelloch railway station (260 metres further to the west). The new ATR would be 750m long and 4m wide and would pass through existing and proposed woodland and will include suitable lighting (including lighting/timing controls to balance safety and ecology considerations). Part of the ATR will include a new bridge over the North Calder Water. Extending to around 125m long, the bridge will be 18m above the North Calder Water and will incorporate design elements to minimise suicide risk. • A gated emergency ‘resilience’ access from the EALR is also proposed. This is required for two reasons. Firstly, it provides the necessary service area for the adjacent foul drainage pumping station. Secondly, the access would accommodate emergency access including fire tender and ambulance traffic should the need arise. It is anticipated that the access would be controlled and operated by emergency services for the duration of a significant closure on the EALR which could compromise the essential/emergency functioning of the hospital. Page 31 of 74
Page 32
• Outwith the application site boundary (but required as part of the development) is a scheme of road improvements in and around Towers Road/Forrest Street and Connor Street. Full details of these works would be agreed as part of a planning condition but the following has been discussed to date: o The scheme will focus primarily on the widening of Forest Street (on either side of the junction with Connor Street) and will include suitable pedestrian crossing facilities. o The scheme will allow for the retention or reconfiguration of the parking/servicing area to the front of the shop units on Forest Street. o As a consequence of the scheme, the widened roadway on Forest Street will extend (by a metre or so) into Katherine Park. As a result, approximately 16 mature beech trees may require to be removed. A scheme of mitigation, including tree replacement with suitably mature specimens, will be required. Further details of these proposals can be found in paragraph 10.20 below. Built Structures 3.5 The proposed hospital complex will consist of a variety of structures and works as follows: • Main Hospital Block Located in the centre of the development footprint is the main hospital block. This is comprised of reception foyers and a “High Street” containing shops, cafes and so on, which provides a link between the main access foyer at the east (next to the parking areas and bus stops) and the west access foyer (which then leads to the aforementioned ‘active travel route’). This “High Street” connects with the “emergency care village” which focuses on short stay visits (less than 48 hours) including A&E, outpatient services, Pharmacy, Cancer Care Centre and Radiotherapy. Most of this building includes 2 levels of accommodation plus an additional taller third level of plant space (maximum height approximately 18.4 metres above ‘High Street’ level) which would be faced in a variety of materials including brick and aluminium cladding, whilst the “high street” foyer areas would similarly provide 2 levels of accommodation with a taller third level of plant space and be up to approximately 18.5 metres in height. • Main Hospital Wards The “Ward Crescent” is at the western edge of the development. This comprises 485 single bedroom spaces contained within 5 interconnected blocks each over 4 stories (including “basement” level below the High Street level), with pitched roofs and laid out in an arc formation and orientated towards the west and south-west overlooking the North Calder Water. These blocks would be up to approximately 30 metres in hight (from basement floor level) and would be clad in brick with a dark grey roof cladding. In order to reduce the apparent impact and/or height of these blocks, this part of the development would be built on the lower part of the development platform (i.e. 4 meters lower than the rest of the development). • Energy Centre. Located at the north side of the development (between the main hospital buildings and the line of the proposed EALR) is the energy centre. This is a single-story building but including ‘roof’ plant behind parapets (12.8 metres in height) incorporating 3 chimneys (27.2 metres in height) and which will house a range of renewable and low energy consumption equipment, to service the hospital estate and help meet Net Zero Carbon ambitions. An oil-fired boiler (to meet NHS Scotland guidance on operational resilience) would also be used in case of emergencies only. Page 32 of 74
Page 33
• Maggie’s Centre Designed to replace the existing Maggie’s Centre facility in the current site, this new facility will sit separately but close to the main entrance of the main hospital block. This part of the development is being procured separately from the rest of the hospital development and currently details are only in outline. On this basis, planning permission in principle is sought for this part of the development, and the details of the design and appearance would be the basis of a further application in due course. • Nursery/Creche This is a relatively small single-story building. As with the Maggie’s centre, this will sit detached from (but close to) the main entrance area. • Facilities Management (FM) Area Located between the ward crescent and the line of the new EALR, the facilities management yard would allow for an enclosed area for delivery vehicles. • Other structures Ancillary to (and detached from) the main hospital buildings are a host of smaller outbuildings including a pumphouse, garage, salt store and bottle store. • Landscaping The proposals are the basis of a significant landscaping scheme in and around the new hospital development. In addition, and located at the north side of the ATR, is a 7ha area of new planting comprising community woodland, wild meadow and hedgerows. • Drainage The development is the basis of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme) which incorporates a system of connected basins located between the main hospital development and the North Calder Water (into which the system drains). Relationship with Wider Area 3.6 The following provides an idea of local context: • The closest houses to the new development would be the residential areas on the east side of Airdrie. In particular, the houses on the east end of Lyle Road and Alloway Road would be around 170 meters from the development footprint and 300 metres from the closest part of the hospital building. • Classrooms at Caldervale High School would be around 210 metres from the development footprint and 310 metres from the closest part of the hospital building. • Buildings at St Philips School would be around 350 metres from the development footprint and 420 metres from the hospital building. The temporary access road would be a minimum of 230 metres to the south. • Easter Moffat Golf Club House would be around 500 metres from the development footprint (although it should be noted that the new EALR would be located between the new hospital and the club house). The temporary construction road would be a minimum of 400 metres from the club house. Page 33 of 74
Page 34
EALR and Relationship with Proposed Hospital 3.7 As noted above, the sole vehicular access to the site would be via the proposed East Airdrie Link Road project (EALR). This road forms part of the council’s City Deal programme and is a key component of the Pan Lanarkshire Transport Corridor Project providing a strategic North/South route linking the M74 to the M80. The proposed EALR is a new 10km single carriageway link road that would commence at Lancaster Avenue at Chapelhall (M8) and link to the A73 dual carriageway south of Cumbernauld. The proposed hospital would take access from the new road via a 60m diameter roundabout around 1300 meters south of the new junction formed between Forest Street and the new EALR. 3.8 The ongoing delivery and funding of the EALR is subject to the further funding approvals through the Glasgow City Region City Deal Infrastructure Fund arrangements. It is proposed that an Outline Business Case (OBC) will be presented to the Glasgow City Region Cabinet in August 2024. The OBC approval would secure the next tranche of funding and would facilitate further development of the project to Full Business Case (FBC), which in turn, subject to approvals, would allow for the construction of the EALR. Design consultants have now been appointed to prepare a detailed scheme to be submitted as a planning application in 2025. On the assumption that planning permission for the new road may be granted in 2026, then the current programme sees the road being built over a two-year period and open to traffic in 2030. In the meantime the EALR project is at an early design stage and only a preferred route has been determined. 3.9 The access strategy for the proposed hospital (as described earlier in the report) creates sole dependency on the EALR for access by vehicular traffic. NHS Lanarkshire confirmed that the delivery of the EALR by the Council was one of the key factors in identification of this site as the preferred site for the new hospital development. In order for the hospital project to be successful, it is clear that there requires to be close and careful co-ordination with the EALR project. In terms of phasing, the current plan is that the hospital would be open to patients in 2031 (ie around a year after the new road is likely to open). Given the project dependencies and complexities, the Council (in its responsibility as a City Deal partner) and NHS Lanarkshire have regular technical meetings to discuss project programmes, to coordinate and manage both proposals and to maximise project outcomes within the local area. To be clear, these discussions sit outwith the planning process. 3.10 Clearly, the fact that the planning application for the new hospital is dependent on a project which does not have planning permission presents many issues relating to planning process and risk, however this is not a unique situation, and this scenario and approach is competent. These matters are addressed later in the report (paragraph 10.10). Page 34 of 74
Page 35
4. Applicant’s Supporting Information 4.1 The planning application has been submitted with significant supporting information including the following: • Full EIA report addressing many matters including air quality; biodiversity; cultural heritage and archaeology; hydrogeology, geology and soils; landscape and visual; socio-economics and land use; noise and vibration; traffic and transport; water and flood risk and cumulative effects. 4.2 In addition to the above, reports have been submitted on the following: • design and access statement; • drainage strategy; • energy and sustainability statement; • flood risk assessment; • light strategy; • operational waste strategy; • Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) report; • planning statement; • transport assessment; • utilities statement and • ventilation and extraction statement. 4.3 In support of the application, NHS Lanarkshire estimates that operational employment will amount to approximately 1,000 average annual FTE employees (approximately 870 of which will be retained staff of the current hospital). It is estimated that the proposals will result in the creation of an estimated 146 net additional jobs, of which 102 are estimated by the applicant to be taken up by residents of North Lanarkshire. In addition, it is anticipated that the proposals will generate 1,574.8 jobs on average per annum during the construction period. 4.4 In planning for the operation of the new hospital, NHS Lanarkshire say that they have taken the opportunity to use new technology in the proposed delivery of health care at the new facility. In particular, the proposed hospital is described as “Scotland’s first digital hospital” whereby (in the applicant’s words) “the application of Information, Management & Technology solutions will be a consideration across all aspects of design, and implemented where this will facilitate new ways of working that support safe, patient centred care and maximise operational efficiencies”. 4.5 NHS Lanarkshire states that it has the ambition for the new facility to be Scotland’s first Net Zero Carbon Hospital in operation. This means that energy efficiency is a key consideration at every stage in the design process and also that heat source technology and rooftop photovoltaics will be key in energy provision. 4.6 In relation to the submitted EIA report, it should be noted that during the assessment process, additional information has been sought on Air Quality; Biodiversity; Noise and Vibration; Water and Flood Risk and Contaminated Land. Also, further changes and clarity will be sought by way of planning conditions. The applicant is of the view that these changes do not amount to significant changes to the EIA report and therefore do not require to be the basis of a full tranche of re-consultation or re-notification, and this is accepted. Page 35 of 74
Page 36
5. Planning History of Site 5.1 Historical maps indicate that the site has remained largely in agricultural land use over many years and recently the majority of the site has formed part of the Wester Moffat farm holdings. Since 2021, 4 ‘planning’ submissions have been made to the Council in relation to the proposed hospital development (in addition to this planning application) and these are summarised as follows: 5.2 In November 2021, NHS Lanarkshire submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Report to the Council (planning reference 21/01671/EIASCO) with the view to agreeing the scope of the EIA. Following consultation with all interested parties, the Council issued a ‘scoping opinion’ in January 2022. 5.3 As part of the statutory planning process for ‘major’ developments (such as this) the developer is obliged to agree with the Council the extent and nature of pre-application consultation events to be carried out between the developer and local communities. This was agreed in February 2022. (planning reference 22/00198/PAN). Given the nature of restrictions at that time, the consultation events were restricted to two online live and interactive web-based consultation events. Those responding to the PAC consultation were informed that the focus of this consultation was the development proposals from a planning perspective. Additional and separate consultation activities for the project have taken place over several years leading up to the preferred site and this planning consultation. This has included consultation of the site selection process, the clinical requirements and operation of the new hospital, and early and wide-ranging stakeholder engagement. In response to the Planning PAC process, a total of 69 responses were received, raising issues as summarised below: • Connectivity (27%), • Roads (9%), • Parking (18%), • Green Space (7%), • Site and Site Selection (6%), • the Design (5%) and • Clinical Queries (14%). • Other queries (16%) were received in relation to the consultation process, sustainability, layout and contractor questions. 5.4 NHS Lanarkshire has been in discussion with Scottish Power Energy Networks (the owners of the pylons which traverse the site) with a view to having the pylons and overhead lines moved westwards and thus anticipating and facilitating the proposed hospital development. As part of that process, Scottish Power Energy Networks was obliged to apply to the Scottish Government for consent under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. In turn, the Scottish Government (by way of the Energy Consents Unit) consulted the Council on the proposed relocation of the pylons and overhead lines. In response, the Council confirmed that it had no objections to the proposals. 5.5 In November 2023, NHS Lanarkshire applied by way of the ‘prior approval’ process for the demolition of the Wester Moffat Farmhouse (planning reference 23/01191/PRN). On 13 November 2023 the Council confirmed that prior-approval was not required. The farmhouse will be demolished prior to any hospital works commencing, and the associated steel framed farm buildings have been dismantled and removed. Page 36 of 74
Page 37
6. Development Plan 6.1 The development plan comprises 2 parts. Firstly, the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), was adopted by the Scottish Government on 13th February 2023 and forms part of the Development Plan across Scotland. This is required to be taken into account when determining planning applications. Secondly, the Local Development Plan comprises the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. In circumstances where there are differences between NPF4 and the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP), it should be noted that the NPF4 policy position will supersede the policies in the NLLDP. 6.2 The site is zoned within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022) as Green Belt (policy PP4). 7. Consultations 7.1 The planning application and EIA report was the basis of various statutory and non-statutory consultations and the responses are summarised as follows: 7.2 NLC Traffic and Transportation has no objections to the proposals but has noted the following: • Final design and construction of the site access/roundabout will be undertaken by the Council’s EALR design team. • It is agreed that a 60m diameter roundabout is sufficient to allow access from the EALR into the new hospital site. It is accepted that the remaining junctions which interface with the EALR cannot be analysed until a detailed design has been completed for the new road. • The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted in support of the application concludes that the local road network is unable to accommodate the hospital development traffic without the EALR being in place and that the opening of the hospital is contingent on the EALR being opened to traffic in its entirety. Any prospective planning approval should therefore be conditional on the construction of the EALR in full prior to the opening of the hospital. • Both the hospital and the EALR will need to be constructed in tandem with similar timescales for completion. There is no planning approval for the EALR, or any detailed construction phase programme, at present. This would therefore introduce a risk of delay to the opening of the hospital if construction of the EALR is not complete prior to the construction of the hospital. • Whilst a single point of direct access from the hospital to the EALR would offer good accessibility to the wider NHS Lanarkshire catchment, this would not offer a good level of accessibility for vehicular travel to the site from the surrounding local road network. NHS Lanarkshire should therefore engage further with NLC with a view to developing a suitable secondary vehicular access leading into the hospital from the existing local road network to improve accessibility and journey times for local vehicular trips and bus services. • The proposed active travel route may not be attractive to intended users due to the lack of passive surveillance associated with the local topography, surrounding poorly lit woodland environment and the walking distance required. NHS Lanarkshire should therefore engage further with NLC with a view to developing an alternative active travel Page 37 of 74
Page 38
route via the existing road network in order to improve accessibility to the hospital for the wider community which would be accessible to a whole range of users any time of the day and night. There may be an opportunity to combine the active travel route with a secondary vehicular access as noted above. This could improve passive surveillance for pedestrian/cyclist access and encourage increased access by these modes. • The proposed active travel route should be surfaced in bound material, have a system of street lighting and should be designed to be compliant with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. • There is no direct pedestrian link to the south platform at Drumgelloch train station from Sunnybank Drive or Dunrobin Road. The draft proposals outlined by the applicant would be reliant on 3rd party agreement and do not appear to be deliverable. In addition, there is no footway on the west side of Towers Road between the proposed active travel route and Katherine Street, with no scope to provide this or to provide a controlled pedestrian crossing on this section of Towers Road. Consequently, the connection to the train station would require pedestrians to continue northwards on Towers Road to the existing controlled junction at A89 Forrest Street before either continuing westwards on the Forrest Street or returning southwards on Towers Road to Katherine Street. This would impact on the accessibility of the hospital to public transport. • The Transportation Assessment suggests that the A89 Forrest Street / Towers Road / Connor Street signalised junction will operate over capacity with the addition of hospital development traffic and that mitigation works will be required to off-set the reduction in capacity. Plans originally submitted with the planning application were considered unacceptable for various reasons, but the applicant is in discussions with the Council and it is clear that a satisfactory solution is achievable. • A Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan should be submitted to consider aspects such as: construction vehicle access routes; impact of construction vehicles on pedestrians; impact of construction traffic on any narrow rural roads that might be affected; requirement for mitigation at key junctions as a result of increased construction traffic; requirements for temporary traffic management; good site management practices, e.g. vehicle sheeting, wheel washing, road brushing, etc. 7.3 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) has commented as follows: • SPT has had positive discussions with NHS Lanarkshire regarding suitable and sustainable connectivity for the future users of the site. • From an environmental, social and health and well-being perspective it is essential that users of the site are not reliant on private car use to access the site. • To ensure that public transport accessibility at the proposed site is as good as or better than the existing site, a public transport review was undertaken by the applicant in consultation with SPT. (This established current levels of accessibility at the existing hospital and outlined possible measures to ensure that this level of accessibility was matched or exceeded at the new site). This exercise should be repeated closer to the time that the hospital is due to open and its conclusions implemented. • the public transport offering for the new site is likely to be a combination of commercial and supported services which will require funding support to establish. NHS Lanarkshire would be expected to make financial contributions for the supported services for a period Page 38 of 74
Page 39
until they become financially viable. However, if they do not become viable then it cannot be guaranteed that the service will continue. • Given the distance from the hospital to wider path and road network, the Active Travel Route may be less than ideal to encourage access to the site by walking, wheeling or cycling. As such it will be important to maximise opportunities to promote its use. • Only one vehicular access is proposed for the site which will result in substantial “dead mileage” for bus services accessing the transport hub. Buses will interface with general traffic, including areas of car parking and this could mean delays for buses at peak times. Both these factors may mean that new bus services could be unattractive to commercial bus operators. It is essential that every opportunity to enhance the attractiveness of the proposed access points for active travel and public transport use is considered, including mechanisms for enforcing parking to keep these routes free from parked vehicles. SPT would be supportive should any opportunity arise in future to create an additional local connection into the site which could enhance active travel and public transport connectivity. • The requirement to produce and monitor a Travel Plan should be a condition of any planning consent. 7.4 NLC Greenspace has not commented on the detail of the planning application and EIA report, but has provided input relating to: • procedural matters regarding the necessary temporary closure of parts of the North Calder Water path network whilst the ATR is being constructed, and the consequential temporary diversion which would be routed through Katherine Park, • the impact of any tree removal proposals (and consequential impacts on Katherine Park) due to the off-site junction improvements at Forrest Street/Towers Road/Connor Street. It has also highlighted the need for suitable bat surveys to be carried out on the trees to be removed and has highlighted that these surveys should be carried out in advance of a decision being taken on this planning application. 7.5 NLC Protective Services has reviewed the planning application and EIA report and has commented as follows: • Noise impact – The submitted Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been reviewed and found to be satisfactory. Planning conditions should be added to ensure that further assessment is carried out once the detail of the new EALR and the extent and nature of hospital plant and machinery is known. Otherwise, it is accepted that subject to agreed mitigation, the significant construction works can take place and that the hospital can operate without any undue impact on its surroundings and neighbouring properties. • Ground contamination issues - Phase 1 and 2 ground investigation reports have been submitted and further clarity on some matters is sought by way of a phase 3 report. NLC Protective Services is happy that these additional details can be sought by way of planning condition. • Air Quality – NLC Protective Services has reviewed the Air Quality Impact Assessment which formed part of the EIA report. It agrees with the applicant’s assessment that the effect of the proposed development on air quality is ‘Not Page 39 of 74
Page 40
Significant’ and therefore no further assessment is necessary. Mitigation measures will be required and will form the basis of planning conditions. • Lighting - NLC Protective Services has reviewed the external lighting strategy which forms part of the EIA report as part of its remit to investigate and control complaints of light nuisance. Subject to a planning condition requiring further details, NLC Protective Services is satisfied with the proposals in relation to lighting. 7.6 NatureScot has no objections to the planning application and EIA but has commented as follows: • It is content that the Lady Bell’s Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest (located approximately 800m southeast of the application site) will not be adversely affected by the proposals. • the applicant should either provide more habitat compensation to offset the loss of badger foraging habitat from the hospital development footprint, or explain why additional compensation cannot be provided. A badger licence will be required from Naturescot. • The impact on bats is noted. This will require suitable mitigation and protection measures to be in place and will also be subject of a licence from NatureScot. • Species protection plans are also required for other species. • It has noted that there is woodland within the site (identified as to be removed) that has not been properly identified as “Ancient Woodland”. Further assessment is required of this impact along with suitable mitigation. • The assessment reports an approximate 20% loss of foraging area for badgers. It might have to be accepted that there are likely to be negative impacts of unknown magnitude that cannot be fully mitigated against, or compensated for, if the development goes ahead as proposed, but it would be useful to understand if the loss of foraging habitat could be better compensated for. • Other requirements of the EIA report (eg Ecological Clerk of Works, Construction Environment Management Plan, Biodiversity Net Gain, Habitat Management Plan and others) should be a requirement of planning conditions. Other than the points regarding badger foraging, habitat compensation and ancient woodland compensation, NatureScot are content with the general mitigation proposed. • Compared to earlier iterations of proposed plans (ie at the pre-application stage) the design and layout of the ATR is welcomed as it is segregated from emergency vehicles and is integrated into greenspace areas. 7.7 SEPA has no objections to the proposed development subject to planning conditions being applied regarding the CEMP (Construction Environment Management Plan), the Habitat Restoration Plan (HRP), the protection of private water supply, and flood risk measures associated with the design of the temporary construction access bridge. In particular, SEPA has made the following comments: Page 40 of 74
Page 41
• SEPA is satisfied that the proposed new hospital complex and the temporary construction access (and bridge) from Plains is consistent with NPF4 Policy 22 part a) in relation to flood risk. It is noted that the entire hospital complex will be elevated more than 20m above the fluvial flood risk area associated with the North Calder Water. The proposed site plan indicates that all the buildings will be a minimum of 80m from this watercourse. In the interests of flood prevention, a planning condition should be added ensuring that any design changes to the construction bridge are the basis of discussion and agreement with SEPA. • SEPA accepts that it is unlikely that any remote residential properties or farmhouses in the east part of the site will have private water supplies. However, in order to address any residual risk associated with construction works (most likely to be associated with the temporary access road) severing any private water supply, it has accepted that a suitably worded planning condition would be acceptable. • A review of the drainage strategy confirms the approach is in line with relevant guidance. • This proposal will cause limited direct loss of GWDTE (Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems) particularly along the line of the construction access track. This will require compensatory habitat creation and this should be integrated into the Habitat Management Plan. 7.8 The Health & Safety Executive has confirmed that it has no objections to the proposed development. The remit of the HSE in this instance relates to the inclusion of a small part of the application site being within the consultation zone of a major installation ie the adjoining Inverhouse Distillery site to the south-east. The development footprint is outwith this consultation area. 7.9 Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) has been working closely with NHS Lanarkshire with a view to relocating the existing pylons and cables which traverse the site (see paragraph 5.4 above) and do not object to the proposals. 7.10 The Coal Authority has confirmed that part of the development site falls within a defined high-risk area due to previous mine workings. The applicant, by way of Coal Mine Risk Assessments, has assessed the likely risk from these previous operations and has set out various mitigation measures (including the treatment of old mine workings) which the Coal Authority has reviewed and is happy with. Some further detail is required and this will form the basis of planning conditions. 7.11 Scottish Water has no objections to the proposals. In particular, it has confirmed that there is sufficient water capacity currently available but that connection to the Daldowie Wastewater Treatment Works will be subject to a separate approval process between the developer and Scottish Water. As is normal practice, this will be the basis of a suitable planning condition to ensure that the approval process is successfully concluded before any construction works commence on site. 7.12 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has no objections or comments to make on the proposals or the EIA report. 7.13 NLC Archaeology recommends that an experienced and suitably qualified archaeological contractor undertakes a programme of archaeological investigation works. Page 41 of 74
Page 42
7.14 Forestry and Land Scotland is broadly supportive of the proposals for improved modern medical facilities. It notes that the chosen active travel route through Wester Moffat (the woodland which is owned and maintained by Forestry and Land Scotland) will provide “a green link through existing established woodland and the inclusion of this area will be to the benefit of the hospital and the local community.” 7.15 The Green Action Trust is happy to see that the proposals have a strong landscape context, especially the therapeutic elements associated with areas such as the elderly care section. In terms of active travel, the trust sought clarification on the extent and nature of cycle parking and changing facilities, and also asked about the possible use of a shuttle bus between Drumgelloch Railway and the new hospital development. 7.16 Sustrans (the organisation which promotes active travel and is responsible for the delivery of the national cycle network) is concerned that the proposals for Active Travel take a minimalist approach and do not match the ambition for achieving sustainable transport development set in policy. The following is a summary of the points raised: • access is focused on priority for private vehicles and does not reflect sustainable travel hierarchy. • using a “design/build/finance/maintain” contract will make retrofitting active travel provision difficult and expensive • The route from the train station is not well considered • the site is impermeable from Plains and access via the national cycle network is convoluted. • There are no references to multi-modal travel despite Drumgelloch Railway station being in close proximity and Caldercruix station being within 2-3km. • The catchment area consists of deprived areas with low car ownership which will impact on accessibility and journey choices • Essential discussions with bus operators are needed • 0% modal share to travel actively is at odds with the aims of national policy. • The justification for expansion of the car park does not take account of any work to reduce demand on car parking and rates of single occupancy car journeys, • The report into transport demand is flawed and does not reflect the 24 hour/day nature of the hospital • The Active Travel Route goes through wooded areas, does not include lighting or segregation. 7.17 Network Rail has no objections in principle to the proposed development subject to various stipulations including draining infrastructure being at least 10m away from the railway, certain restrictions on the type and location of landscaping near the railway and the detail of any construction works and plant/machinery close to the railway should be agreed with Network Rail in advance. These matters can be addressed by way of an advisory note attached to any permission. Page 42 of 74
Page 43
8. Representations 8.1 In response to the neighbour notification procedure and press advert, 7 letters of representation have been received. Of these, 6 were from local residents, (5 being objections and 1 being neutral) and one from St Philip’s School which borders the site to the north. Representations from residents can be summarised as follows: Concerns regarding impact on local road network in terms of convenience, disturbance and road safety Concerns regarding impact on local peace and quiet of the area The new hospital is welcomed but not at the expense of the local environment. The area is rich in wildlife and habitat. Adverse impact of development on the existing woodland and footpaths off Towers Road. One ‘neutral’ representation (neither objecting or supporting the proposals) was submitted which suggested that opportunities to build in good walking and cycling routes had been missed. For example, links could have been provided to cross the North Calder Water to the existing core paths and Heritage Trail. Also, the car park layout will allow for conflict between cars and pedestrians. 8.2 A letter of objection has been received from the Board of Managers of the St Philips School (St. Philip’s School is a residential school providing care, psychological support, and education, to young people who have had difficulties in adapting to their previous school environment, and it is located to the north of the application site and on the western edge of Plains). The Board are extremely supportive of the new hospital development, seeing it as a long overdue new health facility for the local area that will benefit everyone, but they have concerns as follows: • The use of Brownieside Road as a construction haul route will potentially cause amenity, noise, and air quality concerns for the school if not properly mitigated. • Noise mitigation (during construction works) by way of a 3m high hoarding alongside the temporary construction route has not been adequately assessed and the Board may appoint their own noise expert to advise them. In any case, the hoarding will be unsightly and will impact on the operation of the school. • The school owns the proposed housing site on Brownieside Road/Stanrigg Road (see second bullet point in paragraph 2.9 above). This is close to the site of the temporary construction road. The majority of construction traffic to the hospital would pass by this site and the sale and development of this site would be almost impossible until the hospital construction works were complete. Page 43 of 74
Page 44
• The school board has suggested ways in which their objection could be withdrawn: o The Board would consent to the widening of Brownieside Road/Stanrigg Road to make it suitable for construction traffic. o The Board would make available their consented housing site for use by the hospital contractor as a compound area, provided that the contractor and the Council consented access to the site on a permanent basis. 8.3 Finally, six objections were received outwith the agreed timescale and therefore there is no requirement for the Council to take these comments into account when assessing the planning application and EIA report. All 6 representations object to the possible creation of a new pedestrian footpath link between the south platform at Drumgelloch railway station and Sunnybank Drive and Dunrobin Road. It is stressed that the planning application does not include provision for the creation of such a link. Further context and commentary on this matter can be found at paragraph 10.22 below. 9. Development Plan Assessment 9.1 As noted earlier, the development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 2023 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Development Plan 2022. Whilst both are up to date, the adoption of NPF4 post-dated the adoption of the NLLDP, and therefore in instances where there are discrepancies between policies in the 2 documents then it will be the policies in NPF4 that will prevail. Development plan policies are designed to be read as a whole. Where a policy states that developments will be supported (or not) it is for the decision maker to determine what weight to attach to it on a case-by-case basis. Should it be concluded (on balance) that the development accords with the development plan then the planning application should be granted permission unless material considerations suggest otherwise, and likewise if found to be a departure then permission should be refused unless material considerations suggest otherwise. 9.2 Below is an assessment of how the development complies with relevant policies within NPF4 followed by (in paragraphs 9.73 onwards) a similar assessment of the NLLDP. National Planning Framework 4 9.3 Policies 1 and 2 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises & Climate Mitigation and Adaptation) 9.4 The first 2 policies of NPF4 overlap and can be reasonably looked at together. These policies are summarised as follows: • When considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. • Development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. • Development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Page 44 of 74
Page 45
9.5 The applicant has pointed out that the new hospital development will be Scotland’s first ‘Net Zero Carbon Hospital’ in operation and there is an ambition to comply with the Net Zero Carbon Public Sector Buildings (NZCPSB) standard. In particular, the development has been selected as a ‘Pathfinder’ project for this new standard which has resulted in the requirement for an all-electric hospital requiring a substantial energy centre to accommodate the required technology. To achieve this the development would incorporate a variety of technologies such as: • Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) and Water Source Heat Pumps (WSHP) • Photovoltaic solar panels mounted for areas of south facing roof space. 9.6 In relation to climate change, it is also noted that there are no significant flood risk issues associated with the site or the development either now or in the future. 9.7 On the basis of the above, it is accepted that the proposals respond positively to NPF4 Policies 1 and 2. 9.8 Policy 3 Biodiversity intends to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Relevant extracts of this policy are as follows: • Development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, • Development proposals for 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 so they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. This will include future management. • 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. 9.9 In response to this policy, it is noted that the planning application is accompanied by a full EIA which includes a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Assessment. In seeking a net-gain in bio-diversity, the application includes various measures most notably 2.95ha of broadleaved woodland; 4.09ha of neutral grassland and 983m of hedgerow. NatureScot confirms that it is happy with the level of mitigation and enhancement subject to further information and additional mitigation relating primarily to ancient woodland and badger foraging (these matters are addressed in more detail in Policies 4 and 6 below). All these works will be the basis of a Habitat Management Plan which will set out how the protection and enhancement measures will be implemented and then managed. Overall (and subject to conditions requiring additional information and mitigation) it is accepted that the proposals accord with policy 3. Page 45 of 74
Page 46
9.10 Policy 4 Natural Places intends to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Relevant sections of this policy are as follows: • Development proposals which will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. • Development proposals that will affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest will only be supported in certain circumstances. • The precautionary principle will be applied in accordance with relevant legislation and Scottish Government guidance. • 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. 9.11 A large part of the focus of this policy is on land and/or species with protected status. In this case there are two Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC) within the site. The Lady Bell’s Moss Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is within 800m of the site and has the potential to be adversely impacted by the development. In terms of species, the EIA report has carried out appropriate tests to ascertain the presence of a variety of protected species and has found evidence of bats and badgers. 9.12 NatureScot has confirmed that it is satisfied that Lady Bell’s Moss SSSI will not be adversely affected by the proposals subject to various mitigation measures which are proposed and will be a requirement of the planning permission. 9.13 Of the two SINCs on the site, one comprises the woodland area alongside the North Calder Water whilst the other is the woodland along the north side of the Inverhouse distillery. Both are outwith the development footprint of the new hospital and any adverse impacts are expected to be small and addressed by protection and mitigation measures. 9.14 In terms of impact on bats (protected under European legislation) within the site, it is noted that one bat roost will need to be destroyed to facilitate the development and others (not directly impacted) will require protection during construction operations. It is noted that NatureScot are satisfied with the mitigation and protection measures proposed. Outwith the site, it is noted that the off-site road improvements on Forrest Street will likely result in the loss of trees with bat potential at Katherine Park. This is not currently supported by a detailed bat roost survey which is normally required before a planning application is determined. In defence of this approach, the applicant has confirmed that a ground visual survey has been undertaken and suggested that a precautionary approach be taken ie it is being assumed that there are bats roosting in the trees and this will help guide the additional assessment, protection and mitigation. Although not in accordance with guidance and established practice, in this instance it is accepted that this matter can be adequately addressed by way of planning condition. Further details can be found in paragraphs 10.20 – 10.21 below. Page 46 of 74
Page 47
9.15 In terms of impact on badgers, the development will impact on badger shelters within the site. NatureScot is satisfied with the level of impact and the control measures proposed by the applicant. These works will require a licence from NatureScot. The main impact on badgers is likely to be the result of a reduction of foraging area of around 20%. It is intended that this be addressed by a planning condition which seeks further information on mitigation works. NatureScot acknowledge that this particular impact may not be capable of being fully mitigated. Policy 4 states that adverse impacts on protected species will only be supported where the proposal meets relevant statutory tests. These tests are mostly relevant to species with European protection (and this does not apply to badgers which are protected under UK legislation due to the level of persecution they suffer). However, it should be noted that the works will require to be the basis of a licence from NatureScot (and given the input from NatureScot on the proposals, there is no indication that the works are not capable of receiving a licence). 9.16 More generally, the EIA report contains details of assessments made to ascertain the presence and potential impact on other protected species, and NatureScot is satisfied with this. This will be followed through by a “Species Protection Plan” the details of which will be obtained by way of planning condition. 9.17 On balance, taking all the above factors into account, it is considered that the development will not (as per the wording of this policy) have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment and on this basis meets the terms of policy 4. 9.18 Policy 5 Soils intends to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. Relevant parts of this policy are summarised as follows: Development proposals will only be supported if they are designed and constructed: • In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; and • In a manner that protects soil from damage including from compaction and erosion, and that minimises soil sealing. 9.19 The development includes significant land engineering operations which the policy would seek to avoid if possible, but the applicant argues that these works are necessary given that the proposals have a specific locational need for the use of this site; that the extent and nature of impacts on the soils has (in this context) been minimised as much as possible and that the manner in which the soils will be managed complies with the policy above. The applicant argues that the hospital development should be seen in the context of the proposed East Airdrie Link Road which will itself require significant alterations to ground levels and soils. Chapter 9 of the EIA report outlines the impact upon soil quality resulting from the hospital proposals. In particular, topsoil on the site will be stripped prior to works commencing and stored in embankments so it can be re-used. It is estimated that circa 75% of the stripped topsoil will be reused on the site with the remaining 25% currently anticipated as being disposed of off-site in accordance with best practice. It is understood that the applicant continues to develop a strategy to minimise off site materials. In order to ensure that the topsoil quality is not diminished during the construction stage it is proposed that a ‘Soil Management Plan’ will be produced which sets out stripping, handling, storage and reinstatement best practice. (This would be a requirement of a planning condition). Page 47 of 74
Page 48
9.20 In assessing the development against policy 5 and looking at the applicant’s case (as summarised above) the fact that such significant works are required in order to create the development footprint certainly weighs against the proposal, and it is clear that the intention of policy 5 is to reduce such disturbance as much as possible. However, it is also acknowledged that the site selection process for a development of this scale and nature will inevitably present very limited options, and in this regard, it is accepted that the mitigation measures set out should ensure that the impact on soil quality will be minimised as much as possible. It is concluded therefore that the development proposals comply with policy 5. 9.21 Policy 6 Forestry, Woodland and Trees intends to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. Relevant extracts of this policy are as follows: o Development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. o Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in: • Any loss of ancient woodlands, • Adverse impacts on native woodlands, hedgerows and individual trees of high biodiversity value • Fragmenting or severing woodland habitats, unless appropriate mitigation measures are identified and implemented in line with the mitigation hierarchy; o 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. o Development proposals on sites which include an area of existing woodland will only be supported where the enhancement and improvement of woodlands and the planting of new trees on the site are integrated into the design. 9.22 In response to this policy, the following is noted: The 3 areas of significant tree cover on or near the development footprint are • The woodland adjoining the east of the North Calder Water. This is largely unaffected by the development and in fact will benefit from biodiversity enhancement measures. • The woodland area at the north-west corner of the site (which currently accommodates the Noth Calder Trail. This will accommodate a large section of the proposed ATR which will result in a degree of tree loss, however this will be mitigated through replacement tree planting. • Areas of woodland within the centre of the development footprint. This would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The proposed landscape strategy focuses on significant landscaping works in and around the hospital complex and also mitigation by way of a 2.95ha community woodland located on the north side of the proposed ATR (on the site of the old farm buildings). 9.23 As noted in NatureScot’s consultation response (see paragraph 7.6 above) they are of the opinion that some of the woodland on the site should be classified as ‘ancient’. It should be noted that there is no single database which confirms whether woodland is ‘ancient’ or not. Ancient woodland is defined as “land which has maintained continuous woodland habitat since at least 1750”. It follows therefore that trees in an ancient woodland need not in themselves be ‘ancient’. The applicant, in preparing the EIA report, concluded that there was no ancient woodland impacted by the development, but it did acknowledge that there would be tree loss, most notably within the centre of the development footprint (as noted above). The impact of this loss was assessed and mitigation (which would otherwise have been assessed as adequate) was put forward as part of the planning application and EIA report. NatureScot, in reviewing the planning Page 48 of 74
Page 49
application and EIA report, concluded that this woodland (and other smaller areas of woodland at the northeast corner of the site where the temporary construction access crosses the North Calder Water) should be properly classified as ‘ancient’ and this is accepted by the applicant. 9.24 In recognition of the value and irreplaceable nature of ancient woodland, policy 6 of NPF4 states that “Development proposals will not be supported where they will result in any loss of ancient woodlands”. Clearly, the proposals would fall into this category. 9.25 Looking at other criteria within this policy, the development will not result in the fragmentation or severance of woodland habitats. Also, it is accepted that in quantitative terms, the new planting schemes provide adequate mitigation for the tree loss mentioned above. The new planting is also well integrated into the development and the locale. 9.26 Policy 6 refers to the Scottish Government policy on the “Control of Woodland Removal”. That policy states that “woodland removal should be allowed only where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits”. Public benefits are defined as including social, economic and environmental benefits. It is accepted that the proposals will bring significant social benefits to a great many people by way of the improvements to health care facilities. However, the control of woodland policy also reinforces the stance taken in policy 6 in having a strong presumption against removing ancient woodland. 9.27 Taking all of the above on board, with particular focus on the loss of ancient woodland, it is not reasonable to conclude that the development accords with policy 6. A wider discussion on the merits of the proposal (in relation to the loss of ancient woodland and the wider benefits of the proposal) can be found under “Other Material Considerations” (paragraphs 10.7 – 10.9 below). 9.28 Policy 7 Historic Assets and Places intends to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Extracts of this policy (relevant to the proposals) are as follows: • Development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places will be accompanied by an assessment. • Development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building should preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. • Development proposals in or affecting conservation areas will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area and its setting is preserved or enhanced. • 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. Page 49 of 74
Page 50
9.29 In response to this: • The EIA report concludes that impacts on nearby Conservation Areas and Scheduled Monuments are negligible. There is potential for a slight adverse effect on listed buildings at Easter Moffat (i.e. the golf club house and nearby houses) and Wester Moffat hospital. However, visibility between these buildings and the new hospital development is already limited due to topography and vegetation. The proposed landscaping scheme would also help to mitigate any residual impacts. • In terms of impact on archaeological interests, the EIA report concludes that the value of any archaeological remains discovered during construction would be ‘Low’. It is intended that archaeological excavation will be undertaken in advance of construction to assess and mitigate any impact upon heritage assets. • Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has no objections or comments to make and the Council’s advisors on archaeology has no objections subject to planning conditions to ensure archaeological assessment and recording. 9.30 On this basis, the development is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy 7. 9.31 Policy 8 Green Belts intends to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and use the land around our towns and cities sustainably. This policy is summarised as follows: Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported if 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 • horticulture, • outdoor recreation, • flood risk management. • essential infrastructure or new cemetery provision; • minerals operations and renewable energy developments; • intensification of established uses, • the reuse, rehabilitation and conversion of historic environment assets; or • one-for-one replacements of existing permanent homes. 9.32 Clearly, the proposals do not fall into any of the categories of acceptable development listed above and on this basis the development does not accord with policy 8. Further discussion on the impact on the Green Belt can be found in paragraphs 10.3 to 10.5 below. 9.33 Policy 9 Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings seeks to promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and help reduce the need for greenfield development. Relevant parts of this policy are summarised below: • Proposals on 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. • Where land is known or suspected to be unstable or contaminated, development proposals will demonstrate that the land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for Page 50 of 74
Page 51
the proposed new use. 9.34 The application site is comprised of a greenfield site but it is not allocated for development in the LDP and therefore application does not accord with the first criterion. On the second point, information submitted by the applicant demonstrates that any issues of ground contamination will be properly addressed (subject to further information required by way of planning condition) and this is supported by input from the Coal Authority and NLC Protective Services. 9.35 Despite according with the criterion on ground condition, it is clear that the focus of the policy is on encouraging the re-use of brownfield land and away from greenfield land (unless allocated in the LDP). On this basis it must be concluded that the proposals do not comply with policy 9. 9.36 Policy 11 Energy intends to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy. Relevant extracts of this policy are summarised as follows: • Development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. These include small scale renewable energy generation technology; • project design and mitigation will demonstrate how the various environmental impacts are addressed: • significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 9.37 Although the intent of this policy is focused on developments for energy production (eg wind farms) the application of this policy is relevant to this development given the incorporation of the energy centre into the development. 9.38 The applicant’s ‘Energy Strategy’ focusses on the use of heat source technology including Air Source Heat Pumps, Water Source Heat Pump and Photovoltaics. On this basis, the applicant claims that the proposals will make a meaningful contribution to renewable energy generation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions thus assisting in the ambition to make this the first Net Zero Carbon hospital in Scotland. As a back-up (and to meet NHS Scotland guidance on operational resilience) there are oil fired boilers but these would only be used in emergencies. 9.39 In considering the above, it is accepted that the proposals are consistent with Policy 11. 9.40 Policy 12 Zero Waste intends to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy. Relevant extracts of this policy are summarised as follows: • Development proposals will seek to reduce, reuse, or recycle materials in line with the waste hierarchy. • Development proposals that are likely to generate waste when operational will set out how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and how it will be managed. 9.41 In response to this, the applicant notes that operational waste generated by the hospital will be managed by NHS Lanarkshire itself and this will be informed by the relevant NHS Scotland Waste Management Action Plan. As the new hospital is not due to open until 2031, the policies and proposals for operational waste management are in their infancy. However, a draft waste strategy is included with this application to illustrate the direction of operations. For clarity, it is noted that incineration does not form part of the proposed strategy. During the construction phase, construction waste will be managed as part of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) details of which will be agreed Page 51 of 74
Page 52
before works start on site. 9.42 In assessing the above, it is accepted that the proposals are consistent with Policy 11 subject to a condition requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) before works start on site and a condition requiring an up-to-date operational waste strategy before the hospital buildings become operational. 9.43 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport intends to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Relevant extracts of this policy are summarised as follows: 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: • Provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation; • Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services; • Integrate transport modes; • Provide low or zero-emission vehicle and cycle charging points in safe and convenient locations, in alignment with building standards; • Supply safe, secure and convenient cycle parking to meet the needs of users and which is more conveniently located than car parking; • Are designed to incorporate safety measures including safe crossings for walking and wheeling and reducing the number and speed of vehicles; • Adequately mitigate any impact on local public access routes. 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. 9.44 This policy is centred around the sustainable travel hierarchy which promotes walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport over the use of the private motor car. In order to gauge whether the proposal has been considered in line with this hierarchy, the following is noted: • The Transportation Assessment includes an estimate of how people will access the new development and how this compares to the existing hospital. The majority of people accessing both the existing and proposed hospital will arrive by private motor car (81% of visits rising slightly to 83% at the new site). For those arriving by public transport (with mitigation in place) it is estimated that there will be slight increase (8% rising to 11%) whilst those arriving on foot is predicted to go down from 5% to 0% (and this latter point forms the core of the concerns outlined by Sustrans). • It is accepted that the application site is intrinsically less accessible than the current site which is sandwiched between Airdrie and Coatbridge and (overall) enjoys good levels of access by bus and rail. Given the constraints imposed by the site selection process, arguably it was inevitable that any new site would be less integrated into the urban area (and hence less accessible on foot) than the existing site. • Looking at the statistics summarised in the first bullet point above, the applicant contends that the site does not “increase reliance on the private car” ,and that large Page 52 of 74
Page 53
hospital developments are unique in terms of “travel generating uses” ‘with a combination of variable shift patterns, 24-hour operation, length of stay and the different needs of staff, patients, and visitors. On this basis, they suggest that most users of the hospital will choose the private motor car given the nature and timing of most visits. Finally, the applicant notes that the policy affords consideration to the “specific characteristics of the site/area” which reinforces the commentary above relating to the inevitable impact of the site selection process on accessibility. It is considered that there is merit in the applicant’s arguments on this matter. • As noted earlier in the report, in order to achieve a net increase in accessibility by bus, the new development will be the basis of a bus mitigation scheme which was produced in conjunction with SPT. Although only produced in draft form for now, the detailed and final scheme will be carried out before 2031 (or whenever the hospital is due to open) and will take account of circumstances at that time. A consideration for the proposed scheme will be how it integrates into other bus and train services in and around the new hospital site. In addition, the development will accommodate a ‘transport hub’ at the main hospital entrance with bus stances, shelters, real time bus information and so on. • Walking, wheeling and cycling networks are catered for by way of the proposed segregated Active Travel Route. The applicant contends that the new route accords with the criteria contained within policy 13 and in particular will be well lit and it has been designed in accordance with industry guidance “Cycling by Design”. NatureScot and the Green Action Trust have expressed support for the design and location of the ATR but NLC Traffic & Transportation, SPT and Sustrans have expressed concerns and believe that its length and location through woodlands (with a lack of proper surveillance) will hamper its usage. In response to concerns regarding safety, the applicant has noted that the route will be well lit (part of Sustrans concerns is based on the misapprehension it would not be lit). In addition, there will be a security strategy in and around the hospital and this will include a scheme of CCTV along the ATR. Whilst not an optimal solution it is concluded that the design and location of the ATR is acceptable. • Since submitting the planning application, requirements for EV charging facilities in new development has been placed on the Building Regulations, therefore this will be confirmed once the necessary warrant application is submitted and approved. • A secure covered staff cycle storage hub is to be located in close proximity to the western entrance along with suitable internal changing and shower facilities, with separate public secure covered cycle storage at the western entrance. • In terms of providing proper safety measures, safe crossing points will be provided on the key desire lines within the site, while speed reduction measures will also be implemented to ensure that vehicle speeds remain slow. The applicant investigated the possibility of creating a new crossing point on Towers Road at the end of the proposed Active Travel Route. Given the many constraints at that location (including the fact that several roads meet at that point) it was concluded that a crossing point was not feasible at that location. Instead, any users of the ATR (travelling between Drumgelloch Station and the hospital) would have to use the crossing point at the top of Towers Road at the junction with Forrest Street. Although less convenient, Page 53 of 74
Page 54
this solution is acceptable and it is noted that NLC Traffic and Transportation do not object to this element of the proposal, • In terms of mitigating any impact on local public access routes, it is noted that there will be some temporary closures of footpaths during construction works (particularly through the woodlands off Towers Road and leading to the North Calder Water). However, suitable diversions will be signposted on site. This has been agreed with access officers in the Council. • In order to accommodate changes to local traffic patterns as a result of the development, junction improvements are proposed at Towers Road/Forest Street/Connor Street. These works (in principle) are found to be acceptable. Further discussion on this matter can be found in paragraph 10.20 below. • A draft Travel Plan has been submitted with the planning application and has been found to be acceptable. A finalised Travel Plan will be prepared for agreement and then implemented as the hospital opens. • It is noted that NLC Traffic and Transportation and SPT are largely supportive of the proposals, subject to conditions and various provisos. • It is noted that Policy 13 is designed to address sustainable travel issues, and therefore matters regarding the suitability of the vehicular access etc are best addressed in NLLDP policy EDQ3 (see paragraphs 9.85 to 9.91 below). 9.45 Looking at all of the above criteria, on balance it is concluded that the development accords with NPF4 policy 13. 9.46 Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place intends to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. Relevant to the development, this policy can be summarised as follows: • Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. • Development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places, which are: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable • 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. 9.47 In response to this the following is noted: • The development in itself will bring significant health benefits to the wider catchment area and this should be given significant weight. • The hospital design contains landscaped areas allowing for social interaction and the development is integrated into the nearby path network allowing for interaction with nature. • As noted in policy 13, connectivity to and from the site is deemed acceptable. • The design, layout and architecture are all considered to be appropriate. Further detailed assessment of this can be found in the assessment of NLLDP policy EDQ3 at paragraphs 9.85 to 9.91 below. Page 54 of 74
Page 55
• The new hospital will be Scotland’s first net zero hospital. • The design and layout already allows for future expansion areas. 9.48 Based on the above, it is accepted that the proposals accord with policy 14. 9.49 Policy 18 Infrastructure First intends to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Relevant to the development, this policy can be summarised as follows: • 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. Development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. 9.50 The application of this policy is most relevant in relation to transportation matters. In particular, the development is dependent on the Council (as part of the City Deal project) constructing the EALR and this is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 3.7 & 10.10. Also, the development will be dependant, initially, on the proposed bus service scheme to ensure adequate public transport infrastructure, and again this is discussed in more detail in paragraph 9.43. At a smaller scale, there will be other impacts on local utilities and the applicant has submitted various documents (including a Utilities Statement, and a Drainage Strategy) which outlines these impacts and how they will be mitigated (if required). These are summarised as follows: • Electrical - There are significant electrical services on the site including a 275kV transmission network with pylons, a 33kV overhead electrical line and 33kV underground electrical line. These will be diverted by Scottish Power Energy Networks under a separate consent process (see paragraph 5.4 above). • Telecoms - it is not envisaged that there will be any major telecoms diversion works required. • Gas - Discussions with Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) have confirmed that an abandoned high pressure gas main which runs through the site can be removed. • Water - There is an existing private water supply running from east to west across the site. Discussions are ongoing between the applicant and Scottish Water. • Drainage The accompanying Drainage Strategy confirms that appropriate infrastructure will provide the development with disposal of surface water and foul drainage. 9.51 In reviewing the applicant’s submissions, it is noted that all consultees with a remit on these matters (including Scottish Power Energy Networks, Scottish Water, SEPA, NLC Transportation and SPT) have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposals subject to conditions where required. Taking all of this on board, it is accepted that the development meets the terms of policy 18. 9.52 Policy 19 Heating and Cooling intends to encourage, promote and facilitate development that supports decarbonised solutions to heat and cooling demand and ensure adaptation to more extreme temperatures. A relevant extract of this policy is as follows: • 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. Page 55 of 74
Page 56
9.53 The outcome of this policy is firstly to ensure that new developments are connected to expanded heat networks where they exist (that does not apply in this instance) and secondly to ensuring that buildings are adapted to more extreme temperatures. In response to this, the applicant notes that the proposed Air Source Heat Pumps, Water Source Heat Pumps, and photovoltaics will feed into the central ‘low temperature hot water heating system’, whilst cooling would come from a central chilled water system. Also, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems would be designed to promote sustainable temperature management, incorporating heat recovery and also providing local control (eg down to including individual rooms). 9.54 On the basis of the above, it is accepted that the development complies with policy 19. 9.55 Policy 20 Blue and Green Infrastructure intends to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. Relevant to the development, this policy can be summarised as follows: • 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 would not result in or exacerbate a deficit in blue or green infrastructure provision, and the overall integrity of the network will be maintained. • Development proposals for or incorporating new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will be supported. • 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. 9.56 In response to this, it is noted that the key piece of blue infrastructure within the site is the North Calder Water which runs through the site. In terms of physical works, the North Calder Water will be impacted in 3 main ways, these being the creation of the ATR bridge, the creation of the temporary construction access bridge and finally the SUDS infrastructure. Otherwise there is a buffer between the development footprint and the North Calder Water. None of this will result in the loss or fragmentation of the North Calder Water as a piece of blue infrastructure, and indeed the creation of the network of SUDS basins will add to it. 9.57 In terms of green infrastructure, the same buffer referred to above allows for the integrity of woodland alongside the North Calder to be maintained and enhancements are planned by way of the new community woodland. This new woodland was originally conceived to replace and enhance woodland cover on the site, partly in recognition of the loss of an area of woodland within the centre of the development footprint. Since then, as noted in paragraph 7.6, it is now concluded that this woodland can be described as ‘ancient’. 9.58 Despite the loss of the ancient woodland (which is addressed in policy 6 above) it is concluded that on balance the proposals accord with the spirit of policy 20. Page 56 of 74
Page 57
9.59 Policy 22 Flood Risk and Water Management seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. Relevant to the development, this policy can be summarised as follows: Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported if they are for essential infrastructure where the location is required for operational reasons. Development proposals will: • not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk. • manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), • seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. Development proposals which create, expand or enhance opportunities for natural flood risk management, including blue and green infrastructure, will be supported. 9.60 As noted earlier, the application has been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy. It is noted that the site sits in an elevated position well above the nearby North Calder Water. The hospital use is classified by SEPA’s Land Use Vulnerability Classification as a ‘Most Vulnerable Use’ and on this basis is required to be located within an area with little or no risk of watercourse flooding and must be located outwith areas with the risk of a 1 in 1000-year storm event. In reviewing the planning application and EIA report (including the FRA) SEPA notes that the water level of the North Calder Water varies between 132.4m AOD and 147.7m AOD and that the finished floor levels of the hospital will be 161m AOD (ie the entire hospital complex will be more than 20m above the level of the river). It also notes that the development footprint will be at least 80m from the river. Based on this (and other considerations of the design and layout) SEPA has confirmed that it is satisfied with the proposals in relation to flood risk and (in its opinion) the development meets the terms of policy 22. 9.61 Subject to planning conditions (relating to surfacing, SUDS and ground water) it is concluded that the proposals comply with policy 22. 9.62 Policy 23 Health and Safety seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage development that improves health and wellbeing. Relevant extracts from this policy are summarised as follows: • Development proposals will be supported where they • have positive effects on health; • are for health and social care facilities and infrastructure • Development proposals will not be supported where they • have a significant adverse effect on health • have significant adverse effects on air quality • raise unacceptable noise issues • Development proposals will be designed to take into account suicide risk. • Development proposals within the vicinity of a major accident hazard site will consider the associated risks and potential impacts of the proposal and the major accident hazard site of being located in proximity to one another. Page 57 of 74
Page 58
9.63 In response to this policy, it is noted that: • The development in itself will clearly lead to a significant improvement to health care facilities for many people. • The application has been accompanied by suitable assessments for noise and air quality, both of which conclude that there are no unacceptable impacts in these regards. • In terms of suicide risk, all areas of buildings at height and roof areas will be restricted or feature appropriate design. Given the height of the bridge carrying the active travel route, potential suicide risk has been a factor in the design and layout of that structure. Further details of this will be provided by way of a planning condition. • The proposals sit within proximity of Inverhouse Distillery. The Health & Safety Executive has established a consultation zone around the distillery to ensure that any safety implications associated with the storage of large amounts of alcohol are properly addressed. In this case the consultation zone extends into the planning application boundary of the hospital but it does not impinge on the development footprint. On consulting the HSE on the proposed development, it confirmed that it has no objections. • NLC Protective Services have reviewed the Noise Impact Assessment and Air Quality Assessment which accompanied the planning application and which formed part of the EIA. They accept that the impacts on both counts will be within acceptable limits and offered no objections subject to conditions. 9.64 On this basis it is accepted that the proposals are in accordance with policy 23. 9.65 Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the roll-out of digital infrastructure across Scotland. Relevant extracts of this policy are summarised as follows: o Development proposals that incorporate appropriate, universal, and future-proofed digital infrastructure will be supported. o Development proposals that deliver new digital services or provide technological improvements, will be supported. 9.66 Whilst it is clear that this policy is more focussed on new digital infrastructure (eg new telecoms apparatus, for example as opposed to new health care facilities) the applicant has suggested that weight should be given to the fact that the new facility will be “Scotland’s first digital hospital”. The land use implications of this may be limited but the applicant makes it clear that their ambition to maximise the use of technology (which is being integrated into the initial design and layout of the new buildings) will bring meaningful benefits to healthcare provision. On this basis, it is accepted that the development complies with the spirit of policy 24. Page 58 of 74
Page 59
9.67 Policy 27 City, Town and Local Commercial Centres seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development in town centres including the application of the Town Centre First approach. Amongst other criteria, this policy states that proposals for uses which will generate significant footfall, including healthcare facilities, will not be supported outwith town and commercial centres unless a town centre first assessment demonstrates that: o all centre and edge of centre options have been sequentially assessed and discounted as unsuitable or unavailable; o the scale of development cannot reasonably be altered or reduced in scale to allow it to be accommodated in a centre; and o 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. 9.68 In terms of considering all sites as part of the site sift, the applicant points out that the Town Centre First approach was part of the site selection process but (for obvious reasons given the scale and nature of the proposals) there were no town centre or edge of centre options available. The applicant points out by way of comparison that the actual development footprint of the new hospital (33.7ha) would take-up most of Airdrie town centre (approx. 50ha.). 9.69 In terms of whether the scale of the development could be reasonably altered or reduced in scale to allow it to be accommodated in a centre, the applicant reiterates that the minimum site size requirements (40 acres/ 16.2ha) were set by NHS Lanarkshire’s clinical model and cannot be reasonably reduced. Indeed, the site size requirements to deliver the new hospital, with all associated services, car parking and infrastructure is 33.7ha. This is larger than the existing (constrained) edge of centre hospital site (approx. 12ha). The scale of development is required to meet identified existing and future healthcare needs, and the selected site must be capable of accommodating future expansion. Accordingly, the applicant concludes that the scale of development cannot reasonably be altered or reduced to allow it to be accommodated in a centre/edge of centre location and these arguments are accepted. 9.70 In terms of the impacts of the new development on existing centres, it is noted that the existing hospital site is currently located at the edge of Airdrie centre. The Transport Assessment submitted with the application notes that the majority of existing staff and visitors reach the exiting hospital via car, and on this basis the applicant suggests that there is limited interaction outwith the hospital complex and this is likely to remain the case in the new site. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore that the new development will not have a significant adverse effect on the viability or vitality of any nearby centres. 9.71 Based on the above, it is accepted that the proposals accord with the spirit of policy 27. 9.72 NPF4 SUMMARY Whilst NPF4 is designed to be read as a whole document, and it is accepted that the proposals are compliant with many policies of NPF4, it fails to accord with certain key policies, these being: • Policy 6 - Forestry, Woodland and Trees • Policy 8 - Green Belts and, • Policy 9 - Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Page 59 of 74
Page 60
9.73 NORTH LANARKSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2022 The NLLDP 2022 represents North Lanarkshire Council’s most up to date Local Development Plan position, prepared in line with the national and strategic planning policy context at the time – notably Clydeplan and Scottish Planning Policy. In application of the policies of NLLDP 2022, consideration is given to the Transitional Arrangements guidance on NPF4 becoming part of the statutory ‘development plan’ alongside local development plans (LDPs). The Chief Planner letter of 8th February 2023, states that ‘…in the event of any incompatibility between a provision of NPF and a provision of an LDP, whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail.’ As NPF4 is the latest adopted policy document, its policies are treated as taking primacy. The paragraphs below offer a response to those policies considered relevant. 9.74 The NLLDP identifies the entire site (with the exception of the existing Wester Moffat Hospital, which includes part of the Active Travel Route) as being part of the Green Belt. Policy PP4 (Purpose of Place – Green Belt) seeks to maintain the integrity of the existing Green Belt by resisting proposals for uses other than those specified in the policy. Relevant extracts of this policy are as follows: North Lanarkshire Council will protect the setting of communities, support regeneration by directing growth to urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high-quality environment, by promoting a Green Belt as defined on the Promote Map and North Lanarkshire Council will encourage development appropriate for a Green Belt location by resisting development that is not for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism, or needs a Green Belt location. 9.75 Clearly, the proposed development is not for agriculture, forestry, recreation or tourism. Furthermore, whilst appreciating the significant constraints imposed on NHS Lanarkshire in terms of the site selection process, it cannot be reasonably argued that the proposed development requires a Green Belt location over and above any other location. On this basis it must be concluded (as with policy 8 of NPF4- (Green Belts) that the proposed development does not accord with policy PP4 (Green Belt) of the NLLDP. This policy goes on to provide criteria for assessing proposals in the Green Belt but this only applies to development which needs a Green Belt location and therefore is not relevant to the assessment of this policy (although it can be taken on board in the ‘Material Consideration’ section below.) 9.76 Policy AD4 (Amount of Development – Green Belt) states that: “Applications for planning permission for new development will be assessed for their implications related to the amount of development proposed.” 9.77 In particular, it asks that any development within class 8 of the Use Class Order (including hospitals) should be the basis of a sequential approach. It is noted that the sequential test was addressed in paragraph 9.67 above (NPF4 Policy 27) and it is also noted that none of the 3 sites in the short list were within areas listed in the sequential test. 9.78 Arguably, this policy seeks to direct developments to suitable sites in a particular sequence, and given that (sequentially) the applicant has made a positive case for choosing this site, it can also be concluded that the development accords with the spirit of policy AD4. Page 60 of 74
Page 61
9.79 Policy Prot A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) states that “The Council will protect natural and resilient sustainable places by safeguarding natural heritage assets.” In response to this, the following is noted: • In relation to SSSI’s, it has already been accepted by NatureScot that the development will not impact unacceptably on the nearby Lady Bell’s Moss SSSI. • In terms of Ancient Woodland, the policy asks that the Scottish Government’s “Control of Woodland Removal Policy” should be adhered to. In that document, it is stated that there will be a strong presumption against removing ancient woodland (and this is also reflected in NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees). • In terms of impacts on the Urban Green Network, SINCs (Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation of which there are 2 within the site), impacts on town parks (in this instance (Katherine Park), core paths and rights of way (ie the network of public paths in and around west corner of the site where the proposed Active Travel Route meets Towers Road) it has already been concluded in the assessment of NPF4 that impacts on these resources can be adequately protected and or mitigated. 9.80 As with policy 6 of NPF4, it is noted that Policy Prot A offers many aspects of the development support, but given the value placed on retaining ancient woodland, it must be concluded that the proposals are (on balance) contrary to the aims of Policy Prot A. 9.81 Policy C1 (Contributions to Infrastructure) is relevant. It states that “North Lanarkshire Council will seek to secure developer contributions for new developments that, individually or cumulatively, generate a requirement for new or enhanced infrastructure or services,” covering (amongst other things) transport. In this regard the proposed public transport scheme (as outlined in paragraph 7.3 above) has been found to be acceptable. Once the bus transport scheme has been finalised (before the hospital opens) then NHS Lanarkshire will be responsible for providing payments (for use by SPT) to ensure that the approved bus scheme can be implemented and any new contracts are procured and paid for by the applicant. On this basis, the proposals are deemed to be in accordance with Policy C1. 9.82 Policy EDQ1 (Site Appraisal) states that “Any proposed development will require to be appraised in terms of the site and its surroundings to ensure it will integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity.” The policy provides a comprehensive list of supporting information and assessments that should accompany planning applications. Following assessment of the planning application and all supporting information (including the EIA Report and the Design and Access Statement) it is accepted that there is sufficient information on which to come to a conclusion on the planning application and its impacts, other than specific matters where planning conditions can be used which require further information or clarity. On this basis, it is agreed that the proposals are in accordance with policy EDQ1. 9.83 Policy EDQ2 (Specific Features for Consideration) states that “The Council will expect applications for Planning Permission to be accompanied by an assessment of how constraints affect sites dependant on the characteristics of the site, its surroundings and the form of development.” In this instance the following constraints are relevant: • HSE Hazard Consultation Zones; Flood Risk; Contaminated Land; Ground Instability (coal mining); pipelines and cables. 9.84 As noted in the summary of consultation responses (in section 7 above) and the assessment of NPF4, it is accepted that these matters have been adequately addressed within the planning application and on this basis, it is concluded that the proposal accords with Policy EDQ 2. Page 61 of 74
Page 62
9.85 Policy Prom EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) states that “Development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved.” Looking at the criteria outlined in this policy, it is noted that the majority overlaps with policies in NPF4 and therefore it is not necessary to address many of the points again (for example sustainable access, climate change, pollution impacts and so on). However, there are some criteria in Policy EDQ 3 which remain to be addressed, namely: • Appropriate design principles (siting, design, external appearance and so on) • Adequate open space areas and • Sustainable access for cars 9.86 These matters are addressed as follows: Design Principles 9.87 The EIA report included a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) of the proposed development. Those most likely to be impacted by the development are walkers along the North Calder Heritage Trail and other local path networks, residents in the neighbourhoods close to the site, and local road users. It should also be remembered that the landscape and visual impact of the hospital will be seen in the context the new EALR. 9.88 The most prominent views of the built development would be from the elevated areas southwest of the site (ie in the raised areas in and around the southern stretch of Towers Road and Craigends Road) where in some viewpoints the 4 storey ward wings would be clearly visible as a prominent new feature above the horizon. Other viewpoints (eg from Forest Street halfway between Airdrie and Plains) would have the hospital being clearly visible but due to local topography the structures would nestle more comfortably into the local landscape and would not be visible above the horizon with the large Inverhouse distillery structures as backdrop. Otherwise, local topography, tree cover and urban structures will restrict many viewpoints of the site. The LVIA accepts that impacts on certain viewpoints will be significant and that the new hospital development would become a noticeable new feature at the edge of Airdrie, but its visibility would be contained to a relatively small area. The report also concludes that the development’s design and landscaping would ensure that it would integrate successfully into the local area and this is accepted. The design and appearance of the structures themselves is varied with the ward wing being designed with residential blocks in mind, whereas the main hospital building would have an appearance more typical of a modern hospital block. Similarly, the choice of material is varied. All of this is deemed to be appropriate for the site. Open Space 9.89 There are no stipulated standards (by the Council, Scottish Government or others) for minimum open space provision within new hospital developments. However, it is reasonable for adequate provision to be made not only for patients but for staff (during breaks etc). The development includes internal courtyard areas (primarily for use by patients) and other external landscaped open space areas with seating etc for use by staff. Access by Cars 9.90 Sustainable access issues have been addressed in paragraph 9.43 above (NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport) but the suitability of access by vehicles remains to be reviewed. As noted earlier in this report, NLC Traffic & Transportation believe that the proposed access onto the new EALR will offer a good level of accessibility for vehicular travel to the site from the surrounding road network are largely satisfied with vehicular access proposals subject to the following: Page 62 of 74
Page 63
• In order to accommodate traffic from the development, the EALR must be operational in its entirety (this is supported by the Transportation Assessment). • In principle, the approach taken to providing the off-site road improvements at Towers Road/Forrest Street/Connor Street is acceptable subject to further detail being provided. These works should be operational before the hospital opens to the public. • The internal layout of the development (including parking) is acceptable. • There should be close co-operation between NHS Lanarkshire and the City Deal team to ensure that both projects can progress in a timely fashion and with no conflicts. • The recommendation for a Construction Traffic Management Plan is noted and will be a requirement of a planning condition. • Whilst the proposed access onto the EALR will offer good access to the wider area, it is suggested that the lack of secondary access (which forms a part of many hospitals of this scale) in this instance means that accessibility by nearby communities will be more limited. This matter (along with associated concerns regarding access on foot, wheelchair and cycle) are addressed in paragraph 10.17 below. It should be noted that these concerns expressed by NLC Traffic & Transportation do not amount to an objection. 9.91 It has already been concluded that the development complies with many criteria outlined in Policy EDQ 3 (ie the policies which overlap with NPF4). On the basis that the 3 remaining relevant criteria are also acceptable, it can be concluded that the development complies with policy EDQ 3 in its entirety. 9.92 Policy PROT B (Historic Environment Assets) addresses (amongst other things) development which may impact on the setting of category B & C Listed Buildings as well as impacts on sites of archaeological interest. These matters have been assessed as part of Policy 7 of NPF4 (Historic Assets and Places) where it was found (with suitable conditions relating to further archaeological investigation) that the impacts were within acceptable limits. On this basis, it is also concluded that the proposal accords with NLLP Policy Prot B. 9.93 NLLDP SUMMARY As with NPF4, the proposals are considered to respond positively to many of the relevant NLLDP policies, but they do not accord with the following: • Policy PP4 (Purpose of Place – Green Belt) • Policy Prot A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) 9.94 Development Plan Assessment - Conclusion Both parts of the development plan are designed to be read as a whole and in the round and it is noted that NPF4 and the NLLDP both offer the development much support on several fronts. However, the proposed development fails to meet key polices relating to the Green Belt, unplanned development on greenfield land and will result in the loss of ancient woodland. On that basis (and given the scale of the development) it is concluded that the development constitutes a significant departure from the development plan. Based on Section 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 (as amended) the planning application should therefore be refused planning permission unless there are material considerations which suggest otherwise. Relevant material considerations are outlined and discussed below. Page 63 of 74
Page 64
10 Other Material considerations Need for New Facilities 10.1 It is clear that there is a pressing need for a new hospital complex to replace the existing facility. In its submissions as part of the site selection process, NHS Lanarkshire stated that: “The existing Monklands Hospital is now more than 40 years old and will struggle to adapt to the rapidly changing needs of the future healthcare environment and its associated infrastructure”. In itself, the new development will address many shortcomings of the current facility and this should be given significant weight when assessing the merits of the proposals. Moreover, it is clear from other submissions from NHS Lanarkshire, that the new hospital is being treated as much more than just a construction project; and that the opportunity is being taken to combine the advantages of the new development with new ways of doing, including the use of new technology (by way of the “Digital Hospital” moniker). All of this will undoubtedly result in significant benefit to a great many people in terms of enhanced healthcare, and again this is a significant material consideration weighted in favour of the proposed development. 10.2 Site Selection The applicant has set out reasonable land use and clinical reasons why the scale and nature of the development cannot be reduced or altered and thus be accommodated within the urban area and on a site where zoning would allow for a hospital development. Bearing in mind the restrictions placed on the applicant in terms of site selection, it was also unlikely that there would be sites forthcoming which would meet the requirements of the development plan in terms of zoning. The site selection process is therefore considered to be another factor which weighs heavily in favour of approving a development which does not accord with land use zoning. 10.3 Impact on the Green Belt As noted above, one of the key reasons for the development being held to be a significant departure from the development plan is the fact that the site is within the Green Belt, and the relevant policies (Policy 8 of NPF4 and Policy PP4 of the NLLP) presume against developments such as this. However, policy 8 of NPF4 provides criteria for new development in the Green Belt. This criteria is designed to apply in instances where the policy allows for new development in the Green Belt (which does not apply in this instance) but nevertheless the criteria should be useful in assessing the impact of the development on the Green Belt. The criteria is as follows: • reasons should be 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 should not be undermined; • the proposal should be 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. Page 64 of 74
Page 65
10.4 In response to the above: • As established earlier in the report, the site selection process demonstrates that there are very few suitable sites for this development which are available. Of the 3 sites in the short list, 2 are in the Green Belt and only 1 (Gartcosh) is in the urban area but that is zoned for strategic business purposes which is also deemed unsuitable (in policy terms) for a new hospital. That site was found (by the applicant) to be less suited to their needs than the Wester Moffat site for several reasons. Accordingly, whilst the applicant cannot reasonably say that the Green Belt is the only suitable location for the development, the site selection process points towards this site as being most suited to the needs of the applicant. Similarly, the limited choice of sites has also meant that a greenfield site has been chosen (and this conflicts with NPF4 policy 9 which promotes development on brownfield land and presumes against development of greenfield land with no appropriate land use zonings). It is noted that there is in fact no site allocated in the NLLDP for a replacement hospital, and that is largely down to issue regarding timing (i.e. a miss-match of timing in the identification of the new hospital site and the preparation and adoption of the 2022 NLLDP). • The purpose of the Green Belt in this location is many fold. It is designed to protect the character and setting of the urban area, it is designed to prevent urban sprawl and it is designed to direct development to more appropriate locations. In this instance the new EALR will inevitably redefine the character and appearance of the east part of Airdrie. Also, the new road would define a new and defensible boundary to the Green Belt and so the new hospital development would not be a starting point for further development. The proposed landscape strategy (including the new community woodland) would assist in integrating the new development into the new edge of the urban area. Finally, as noted above, the fact that the options for site selection are so limited means that this development should not be seen as directing development away from more suitable sites in the urban area. • In terms of scale and massing and its impact on the Green Belt, it is noted that the development would be seen very much as an addition to the existing urban area, and not an isolated stand-out feature in the Green Belt. • In terms of environmental quality, the proposed landscape strategy and biodiversity enhancements, along with long term management, should mean that there are no significant adverse impacts on the quality of the Green Belt. 10.5 Taking all of the above on board, whilst the proposal is clearly a departure from Green Belt policy, it is concluded that the purpose and character of the Green Belt should not be adversely impacted. Economic Benefit 10.6 As noted earlier in the report, it is estimated that the proposals will result in the creation of an estimated approximately 146 net additional jobs, of which approximately 102 are estimated to be taken up by residents of North Lanarkshire. The construction period will result in the equivalent of 1574.8 jobs during the 6-year build programme. Whilst these benefits may not be significant, they remain a benefit to the local economy and therefore should weigh in favour of the development. Page 65 of 74
Page 66
Impact on Ancient Woodland 10.7 Following the consultation response from NatureScot, it was established that some areas of woodland (shown in the planning application as being removed) should be classified as “ancient woodland”. The areas of woodland in question are principally 3 groupings of trees located within the centre of the development platform although the creation of the temporary construction access road will also have a slight impact as well. The 3 groupings amount to 250 trees and the trees themselves are categorised as having moderate value. 10.8 The Scottish Government’s policy on control of woodland removal states that there is a strong presumption against removing ancient woodland and this approach has been fed into the development plan, hence the conclusion that the proposals do not accord with NPF4 policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) and NLLDP Policy Prot A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets). 10.9 Given the great value that is placed on ancient woodland, the resource is considered to be irreplaceable and accordingly, mitigation is essentially by avoidance. In this instance avoidance is not a reasonable option given that the ancient woodland in question is within the development footprint and retention would effectively mean relocating the hospital in an entirely different location within the site. Whilst NPF4 policy 6 states that any loss of ancient woodland will not be supported, it also states that development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve clearly defined public benefits (these being defined as social, economic and environmental). In this case, it is clear that the social benefits of the new hospital (accrued by way of the provision of enhanced health facilities) will be significant and will benefit a great many people within a wide area. Furthermore, it has already been established that there will be economic benefits as well. It is considered that this should carry significant weight when concluding the merits of the proposal including the acceptability of the loss of the ancient woodland. In terms of achieving some form of mitigation for the loss of ancient woodland, the applicant suggested a Compensation and Management Plan. This would be prepared by an arboriculture specialist and would include a detailed assessment of ancient woodland and detail the potential mitigation measures in line with the hierarchy identified by NatureScot. This would include the re-use of the soils from the site of the ancient woodland for use elsewhere (such soils are identified as having notable qualities). It is suggested that this compensation plan could be achieved by way of planning condition. Whilst the loss of the ancient woodland is regrettable, the proposed mitigation measures, along with the significant weight given to the public benefits of the hospital development, suggest that this is a justifiable way to proceed on this matter. EALR/Phasing 10.10 The dependency of the development on a new road which does not have planning permission may appear unusual. However, members should be reassured that across the country this scenario is not unique, and in terms of planning process it is competent for NHS Lanarkshire to submit their planning application at this time. This position was confirmed in pre-application discussions between the Council and NHS Lanarkshire, which included each side taking their own legal advice. 10.11 It must be stressed that this approach is not without risk. The EALR is a key component of the Council’s ambitious City Deal project and this is progressing well, with Outline Business Case expected to be presented for approval in August 2024. Also, design consultants have recently been appointed with a view to submitting a planning application in 2025 which will allow (subject to approvals) the new road to be open in 2030. However, until such time as the road is complete and open to traffic, there are many reasons why the EALR project may be significantly delayed or may not go ahead, and NHS Lanarkshire is aware of these risks. Page 66 of 74
Page 67
10.12 In addressing and minimising these risks as much as possible, one approach open to the Council could be to grant planning permission for the new hospital subject to a condition which prevents any construction work starting on site until the new road is complete and open to traffic. This would mean that construction works on the new hospital would not start until 2030 at the earliest and a possible opening date of around 2036 or thereabouts. Given the pressing need to see the new hospital open as soon as possible, NHS Lanarkshire has put forward an alternative scenario whereby (subject to planning permission being granted) the advanced enabling works (i.e. the site preparation and creation of the development platform) would start in and around 2025. It is possible that this decision would have to be taken in advance of any planning permission for the road being in place and in advance of the FBC (Full Business Case) for the hospital being signed off by the Scottish Government. In terms of risk to the applicant, there would still be the possibility that the road may not proceed and therefore the enabling works would be redundant. As well as being a risk for NHS Lanarkshire, this would pose an environmental risk, as the advanced enabling works would have an environmental impact but without any longer terms benefit from the new hospital. This particular risk could be mitigated (in part) by a planning condition requiring any long-term delay in completing the project to be the basis of a scheme of works designed to see the development platform being greened over. 10.13 Thereafter, the most significant risk would be that construction of the hospital was started (and the works possibly completed) but that the road was not completed on time or delayed indefinitely. One approach to addressing this risk could be applying a planning condition which linked the start date for the construction of the hospital buildings to a particular milestone associated with the EALR project (e.g the award of a contract to build the road). In this regard, NHS Lanarkshire has argued that this approach is unnecessary and could hinder the hospital project unduly. It has, instead, suggested that the only planning condition in this respect should be a simple one which states that the completed hospital development should not open until the EALR is open in its entirety. They say that the risk of a complete and unoccupied hospital (with no vehicular access) is highly unlikely and in this case would be carefully managed by NHS Lanarkshire and overseen by NHS Scotland and Scottish Government. Furthermore, the co-ordination of the hospital and EALR proposals are the basis of a joint working party between NHS Lanarkshire and the Council. On balance, from a planning perspective, this approach is accepted. 10.14 There is a further possible argument that a decision to grant planning permission for the new hospital will in some way help pre-judge the outcome of the planning process for the new road, but this is not accepted. The Council’s commitment to the EALR is certainly noted (and in this case was a key determining factor in NHS Lanarkshire’s decision to choose this site for the new hospital) but the planning process for the new road will be subject to the same scrutiny and transparency as any other planning application of that scale and nature. 10.15 There is also the potential risk of conflicts on the ground associated with 2 large, complex, lengthy and potentially competing construction projects taking place side by side at the same time. This is not a planning consideration but is a matter that would be addressed together by the Council and NHS Lanarkshire in the joint working party. 10.16 The design and layout of the new hospital proposal is based on the assumption that the proposed EALR will be sited in and around the line of the ‘preferred option’ as already agreed in principle by the Council. Clearly, confirmation of this alignment is subject to detailed design and the scrutiny of the planning application and EIA process, and there is no guarantee that the final road (as approved) will be as shown on the planning application for the new hospital. On the basis that the alignment of the road might vary slightly from what is currently anticipated, then (depending on the extent and nature of the deviation) revised plans would have to be submitted to the Planning Service for consideration. A decision would then be taken on whether a further planning application was required, could be Page 67 of 74
Page 68
covered by an update to the approved plans under the proposed relevant condition, or if the matter could be the basis of a “non-material variation”. If the line of the new road was significantly different from what is shown in this planning application, then clearly this could raise significant question marks over the deliverability of the new hospital. Such a scenario would be flagged at an early stage through the joint working party meetings held between NHS Lanarkshire and the Council. Access Opportunities– 10.17 As noted earlier in the report, it has been concluded that the development complies with sustainable transport policies as set out in NPF4 (policy 13) and the NLLDP (policy EDQ3). However, it is noted that whilst access to and from the wider area would be good (i.e. from the EALR and the new bus services) access to the local area would be less satisfactory (albeit, on balance, still considered to be acceptable). 10.18 Whilst these shortcomings are noted, they are not sufficient to merit an objection from either NLC Traffic & Transportation or from SPT and on balance they are also insufficient to merit a recommendation that planning permission be refused. It is clear that the EALR project (on which the new hospital is dependant) will make a significant change to the wider built environment as well as a significant change to the way that people travel in the area. Looking at these changes, it is possible that there may be opportunities afforded by the EALR project for enhancing accessibility to the new hospital. These could take many forms but one option (as outlined in the comments of NLC Traffic & Transportation -see para 7.2 above) might be to create a new secondary vehicular access which may also allow for a relocated and more appealing ATR. The benefit of this approach could include improved accessibility to the local area by sustainable modes (ie foot and cycle); it could help address the concerns of SPT regarding ‘dead’ mileage for new bus services and it could provide the new hospital with a more resilient secondary access in case of local road closures/incidents (albeit NHS Lanarkshire are satisfied that the proposed resilience access currently meets their needs). 10.19 In response to this suggestion, the applicant has confirmed that they are open to further discussions on this matter but that it should not hinder determination of this current planning application. To be clear, this commitment to further negotiations would not be a requirement of the planning permission. It is important to note that this idea has no formal commitment at present from the Council and that any decision to proceed on this basis (apart from requiring co-operation from NHS Lanarkshire) would require further consultations and approvals. Junction Improvements at Forrest Street/Towers Road/Connor Street 10.20 As part of the Transportation Assessment, it has been demonstrated that the junctions of Towers Road/Forrest Street/ Conner Street would be adversely impacted and would operate over capacity without mitigation being in place. As originally submitted as part of the planning application, the applicant proposed various works at this location to address this matter. In summary, these works included the provision of 2 lanes of traffic (in both direction) along Forrest Street on either side of the junction with Connor Street (immediately north of Katherine Park). To accommodate these works, the roadside parking and servicing spaces in front of the retail units (west of Connor Street) were to be removed. In response to this scheme, the applicant was advised that this scheme was deficient on several fronts. Most notably, it was felt that the removal of the parking and servicing area would have an unacceptable negative impact on the operation and viability of the commercial units. Also, NLC Traffic and Transportation had other concerns regarding the detailed design and layout of the road improvements. A revised sketch scheme has been submitted by the applicant which sought to address the concerns mentioned above. However, it was clear that any adequate scheme will likely necessitate road widening works which impinge into Katherine Park (by a metre or so) which is likely to result in 16 or so mature beech trees being removed along the north boundary of the park. Following input from the applicant and NLC Greenspace, it is noted that the trees, whilst currently providing a significant and positive Page 68 of 74
Page 69
feature on a prominent location, are in poor condition and potentially dangerous. The applicant has stated that they are willing to accept a planning condition which requires the submission of further details of proposed road geometry etc, but also details a significant replacement planting scheme which would include 20 or so extra-large semi-mature trees. Whilst these works would undoubtedly result in a short-term adverse impact on the amenity and appearance of the park and wider area, it is noted that the quality of the replacement planting scheme would help mitigate the impact. Furthermore, the scheme would clearly help address an existing problem with the condition of the trees (noting that several other similar trees have been taken down on the edge of the park in recent years). There is also no suggestion that the works would impact on the ability of the park to function (eg the bowling green, children’s play park or paths and cycle paths). 10.21 The applicant also notes that 8 of the 16 trees which would be removed contain potential bat roost features. Normally, it would be the case that a full bat survey should be carried out before any decision was taken on the planning application. In this instance, the applicant has asked that this survey be the basis of a planning condition which required the survey (and any necessary mitigation) to be carried out after planning permission is granted but clearly before any tree removal takes place. The applicant is concerned that a delay in determining the planning application would have significant and serious implications for the programming of the project. As outlined above, the applicant has also suggested that a precautionary approach be taken ie it is being assumed that there are bats roosting in the trees and this will help guide the additional assessment, protection and mitigation. On balance, and in this exceptional circumstance, the suggestion that the matter can be the basis of a planning condition is accepted. In coming to this view, other than accepting the concerns regarding project programming, it is also noted that the preparatory works for the tree removal will not take place for several years, and also the fact that as a stand-alone project, if carried out by the council, the road widening works would not require planning permission. Possible Pedestrian Connection to South Platform of Drumgelloch Station 10.22 In paragraph 8.3 above, it is noted that 6 letters of representation were submitted from people living in and around Dunrobin Road and Sunnybank Drive (the latter forming part of the recently completed Dawn Homes housing development). In these representations, the local residents objected to the possibility of a new pedestrian access point being created between the south platform of Drumgelloch railway station and Sunnybank Drive. By way of explanation, it should be noted that the planning permissions for the new housing development at Sunnybank Drive (including those dating back to 2004, before the Airdrie/Bathgate rail connection was approved and built) required an area of land to be put aside within the housing development to facilitate a possible future pedestrian connection to the south of the railway station. The house builder (Dawn Homes) created a footpath within its own development site with the intention that this could allow for a future connection (by others) to the railway station. Clearly this connection has never been taken forward, and its completion would require significant input from others including Network Rail. In discussions with NHS Lanarkshire regarding ways of improving accessibility between the new hospital and local transport facilities, the applicant was asked to look into the possibility of completing the aforementioned pedestrian link to the south of the railway station. Sketch plans submitted by the applicant suggest that this connection could (in theory) still be implemented. However, this option has not been progressed for a variety of reasons including: • It appears that there is third party land required (other than that controlled by NHS Lanarkshire, the Council and Network Rail) which would act as a significant constraint. • The applicant has demonstrated that through other means, adequate access is available to and from the new hospital site by public transport and active travel. Page 69 of 74
Page 70
• Completion of this access link may impact adversely on road safety and amenity of people living in and around Sunnybank Drive, as outlined in the 6 letters of objection and supported by NLC Traffic & Transportation. 10.23 Accordingly, in discussions with the applicant, it was agreed that the planning application for the hospital should not include any proposals to complete this access link. It remains possible (with co-operation and resources from all interested parties) that this could be taken forward as a separate project, but to be clear, there are no plans to act on this at present. Existing site 10.24 Discussions are on-going as to the future of the existing hospital site in Airdrie. A partnership group has been set up by NHS Lanarkshire as a starting point for developing plans for the future use of the existing hospital site in conjunction with relevant stakeholders. This will be taken forward as a separate project, independent of the proposals for the new hospital. The NLLDP identifies that site as being within the General Urban Area and therefore the potential for alternative uses will be, broadly speaking, quite flexible. Without knowing all of the constraints associated with the redevelopment of the existing site, it is fair to say that its development potential is good ie there is no obvious reason why the site should become derelict if it were to be become vacated. Consultations 10.25 In reviewing responses from consultees, it is noted that Historic Environment Scotland, The Health and Safety Executive and Scottish Power Energy Networks all have no objections to the proposals. In terms of comments from the Coal Authority, Scottish Water, Green Action Trust, NLC Archaeology, Network Rail, Forestry and Land Scotland, NLC Protective Services and SEPA, it is noted that they have no objections subject to matters which can adequately be addressed by way of planning condition and or informative notes attached to the planning permission. 10.26 NLC Greenspace is supportive of the overall approach taken with regards to the works at Katherine Park but has asked that full bat surveys be undertaken before a decision is taken on the planning application. Details of why this requirement is considered to be suited to a suspensive planning condition can be found in paragraph 10.2 above. 10.27 NatureScot is broadly satisfied with the proposals and it is considered that the matters raised in its response (including impact on ancient woodland and badger foraging) can be justified and any residual impacts dealt with by way of planning condition. 10.28 It is noted that NLC Traffic and Transportation and SPT are broadly supportive of the proposals and most of the issues raised can be addressed by way of planning conditions. More generally, NLC Traffic and Transportation, SPT and Sustrans have all raised concerns (to varying degrees) on matters regarding access and accessibility and in particular the merits of the active travel route. These points are addressed in paragraph 9.45 above. Page 70 of 74
Page 71
Representations 10.29 In response to the letters of representation: Impact on local road network in terms of convenience, disturbance and road safety The Transportation assessment has demonstrated that traffic generated by the new hospital development can be properly accommodated subject to provisos including the construction of the EALR, off-site junction improvements and the implementation of a Travel Plan. During Construction works, new temporary access points and the implementation of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) should ensure that the construction works (and resultant traffic) can take place safely and without undue disturbance on the environment. All of this is supported by way of comment from NLC Traffic & Transportation. Impact on local peace and quiet of area: It is accepted that the significant construction works (carried out over a prolonged period) will be disruptive to the wider area, and that this disruption will be added to by the fact that this will overlap with the two-year construction period for the EALR. However, the information submitted by the applicant (and accepted by NLC Protective Services) confirms that impacts on local amenity will be within accepted limits. Implementation of suitable control measures during construction will be the basis of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP). Furthermore, once the hospital is open, it has been accepted by NLC Protective Services that it can operate without any undue impact on neighbouring properties in terms of noise. The new hospital is welcomed but not at the expense of the local environment. The area is rich in wildlife and habitat. There are many references to environmental impact throughout the applicant’s submission and these are all addressed in this report. Adverse impact of development on the existing woodland and footpaths off Towers Road. Whilst there will be some impact on this woodland (owned and controlled by Forestry Land Scotland) this will be mitigated by replacement planting and the overall treed character of this part of the site will be maintained. It is accepted that these works will necessitate short term closure of some paths but these will be the basis of temporary diversions. opportunities to build in good walking and cycling routes had been missed. The car park layout will create conflict between cars and pedestrians. It is accepted that there is an opportunity for an additional path over the North Calder Water, and indeed the applicant did propose (in early iterations of plans) the creation of such a link. However, that particular proposal was dropped due to issues with level changes. In terms of potential conflict between pedestrians and cars, the car park layout incorporates suitable crossing points and speed control measures. Page 71 of 74
Page 72
10.30 In relation to the letter of objection from the Board of Managers of the St Philips School, it is not accepted that the use of the temporary construction road will cause undue adverse amenity, noise, and air quality, concerns for the school (or the proposed housing site) subject to the mitigations required as part of the proposed CEMP. Accordingly, there is no need for the Council or the applicant to pursue the mitigations suggested by the school board. Since receipt of the letter of representation, the applicant has been in discussions with representatives of the School Board to see if further clarity and reasonable changes could be made to the construction programme in the hope that the concerns could be addressed and if possible withdrawn. This culminated in a letter from the applicant to the school board in February 2024 which is summarised as follows: • For clarity, the proposed 3m hoarding would be alongside the temporary access road and not in close proximity to the school. • The submitted Noise Impact Assessment confirms that relevant construction noise criteria are met. • Similarly, the Air Quality Assessment (along with suitable mitigation by way of the CEMP) should ensure that surrounding land uses and occupiers are not unduly impacted. • There is no justification for the widening of Brownieside Road/Stanrigg Street in order to accommodate construction traffic and there would be no benefit to the hospital project in using the proposed housing site as a temporary construction compound. The applicant does not accept that there would be detrimental impact on the proposed housing site. 11 Conclusions 11.1 It is accepted that there is a pressing need for a new hospital facility within the catchment area of the existing Monklands Hospital. In order to find an appropriate replacement facility, NHS Lanarkshire prepared appropriate site selection criteria and unsurprisingly (given the requirements in terms of location and scale) there are very few sites in the area that could accommodate a new hospital complex of this size. None of the 3 sites in the final short list are appropriately zoned in the NLLDP and the site at Wester Moffat scored highest, based partly on its location next to the proposed East Airdrie Link Road, but also on the back of a popular vote. 11.2 With limited options coming through in the site selection process, it is clear that certain trade- offs have had to be made. The site is zoned as Green Belt in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and the development will result in the loss of some ancient woodland. When weighed against all development plan policies (including many which weigh in its favour) it has been concluded to be a significant departure. Accordingly, this planning application should be refused permission unless there are material considerations which (when weighed together) merit the overturning of the terms of the development plan. 11.3 Although located in the Green Belt, it has been demonstrated that the new development will be largely well contained within the surrounding area and should not have a significant adverse impact on the character of the Green Belt at this location or on the setting of the east side of Airdrie, particularly when it is seen in the context of the proposed EALR. Page 72 of 74
Page 73
11.4 The proposed development will not only replace a facility that is facing many challenges in terms of condition and layout, but it will also incorporate new clinical processes all of which will result in a significant improvement in health care provision for a great many people. This weighs heavily in favour of granting planning permission. In addition, there will be a degree of positive economic benefit from the construction operations and the introduction of around 146 new jobs to the area plus the equivalent of 1574.8 construction jobs during the 6-year construction period. 11.5 In terms of environmental impact, the development incorporates the necessary bio-diversity net gain that is now required by NPF4. Clearly the loss of some ancient woodland is regrettable and is one of the reasons that the application is deemed to be a significant departure from the development plan. However, this is outweighed in cases where social, economic and environmental considerations weigh in favour of the development, and it is concluded that this is the case here. 11.6 In terms of vehicular access, the dependency on the East Airdrie Link Road project is somewhat of a double-edged sword. Whilst it will certainly have great benefits in terms of connecting the site by road to a wide area, there are potential risks associated with this approach should the road project be delayed or not go ahead. NHS Lanarkshire is aware of these risks. However, the EALR project is a cornerstone in the Council’s City Deal programme and the Council remains committed to seeing the project through to completion. 11.7 Looking at more sustainable means of accessing the site, the enhanced public bus service agreement should ensure that the site enjoys levels of accessibility by bus which are as good as (or possibly better than) those enjoyed at the existing hospital site. The Active Travel Route has been the basis of concern from some consultees but subject to detailed design (including lighting and CCTV) should provide acceptable access to the site by foot, wheelchair or cycle. 11.8 Responses from consultees and the local community (by way of representations) are material considerations. It is noted that 7 letters of representation were received and it is considered that the comments of the local community and consultees have all been adequately addressed or responded to. 11.9 Weighing up all the pros and cons of the proposals, it is noted that this development is a significant departure from the development plan. However, bearing in mind the pressing need for the development, the significant benefits in terms of improved health care facilities for a significant number of people, the fact that very few options exist for locating the development and the range and nature of measures to mitigate adverse impacts, it must be concluded that the benefits far outweigh the disbenefits. On this basis it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. Page 73 of 74
Page 74
Page 74 of 74