Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 05/02/2026
North Lanarkshire Council · 5 February 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 5 February 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Clerk Name: Clare Louise McDonald Clerk Telephone: 07350 435308 Clerk Email: committee@northlan.gov.uk 27 January 2026 Members of the Planning Committee Chief Executive’s Office Rachel Blair Chief Officer (Legal & Democratic) Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell ML1 1AB www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk Notice is given that a Meeting of the Planning Committee is to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, ML1 1AB on Thursday, 05 February 2026 at 10:00 AM which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Rachel Blair Chief Officer (Legal & Democratic) Members : N Shevlin, G Currie, A Beveridge, B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, M Coyle, S Coyle, K Docherty, A Duffy-Lawson, T Fisher, M Hughes, L Jarvie, T Johnston, J Keltie, J Logue, H Loughran, J McLaren, C McManus, M McPake, A McVey, L Mitchell, D Robb, A Smith, G Woods. Page 1 of 42
Page 2
Page 2 of 42
Page 3
Agenda 1 Declarations of Interest In Terms of the Ethical Standards In Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 2 Planning Applications Index Submit Index 5 - 26 3 Planning and Place Performance Report 2024-2025 Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place)providing feedback from the National Planning Improvement Coordinator on the outcome of the Annual Report and updating on the performance of the service against the key performance indicators for 2024-25. 27 - 34 4 Notice of Planning and Enforcement Appeals Lodged Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) advising of Planning Appeals recently lodged with the Scottish Ministers. 35 - 38 5 Notice of Planning and Enforcement Appeals Decisions Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) advising of a recent decision in respect of Planning Appeals. 39 - 42 Page 3 of 42
Page 4
Page 4 of 42
Page 5
North Lanarkshire Council Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee Committee Date: 5th February 2026 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved Item 2 Page 5 of 42
Page 6
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 5th February 2026 Page No Application No Applicant Recommendation 7 23/01328/FUL Mr Daniel Lowden Refuse 17 24/01205/FUL PP Builders & Son Ltd Grant Development/Site Subdivision of Existing Building into 4 Units and Change of Use of Sui Generis to Class 5 and Construction of Building Containing 3 Units (Classes 4 & 6) Holytown Road Holytown ML4 1EE Use of Premises as Builder's Yard and Construction of Storage Building (In Retrospect) 31A Rothesay Crescent Shawhead Coatbridge ML5 4JP Page 6 of 42
Page 7
Application No: 23/01328/FUL Proposed Development: Subdivision of Existing Building into 4 Units and Change of Use of Sui Generis to Class 5 and Construction of Building Containing 3 Units (Classes 4 & 6) Site Address: Holytown Road Holytown ML4 1EE Date Registered: 17th January 2024 Applicant: Mr Daniel Lowden 351 High Street Motherwell ML1 5HR Agent: Architectural Design Practice Ltd 166 Park Street Motherwell ML1 1PF Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 16 Mossend and Holytown Jim Reddin,Beth Baudo,Helena Gray Representations: 8 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: It is considered that the proposed change of use, scale and layout of the development are contrary to the policies and criteria set out in the development plan. Whilst the proposed change of use and workshop units have the potential to be acceptable due to the site being an existing car repair garage, it is considered that the proposed units are intensification of the existing use class considering the proposed development’s deemed impact on pedestrian and traffic safety grounds. The proposed workshop units would also likely have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings due to potential impact on noise sensitive receptors, and the proposed development has not demonstrated this impact will be effectively mitigated. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused Page 7 of 42
Page 8
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: 23/01328/FUL Name (of applicant): Mr Daniel Lowden Site Address: Holytown Road Holytown ML4 1EE Development: Subdivision of Existing Building into 4 Units and Change of Use of Sui Generis to Class 5 and Construction of Building Containing 3 Units (Classes 4 & 6) Page 8 of 42
Page 9
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons: - 1. The proposed development is contrary to policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of NPF4, along with policies PP 3 (Purpose of Place) and EDQ 1-3 (Environmental Development Qualities). This is due to the lack of competent information on assurance of traffic and pedestrian safety as it has not been successfully demonstrated that articulated HGV’s vehicles can safety enter and exit the site as per the required turning manoeuvres. 2. The proposed development is contrary to policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) of NPF4, along with policies PP 3 (Purpose of Place) and EDQ 1-3 (Environmental Development Qualities). This is due to lack of competent information in relation to the noise impact assessment, as it has not been demonstrated that noise from the proposed units will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties given the use of units are currently unknown. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: NLC Pollution Control (Environmental Health) received on 28th February 2024, 21st May 2025, 14th January 2026 NLC Food Safety/Business Regulations received on 9th May 2024 NLC Estates received on 13th May 2024, 22nd April 2025 NLC Infrastructure & Transportation received on 13th March 2024, 29th May 2025 Network Rail received on 22nd January 2024, 24th April 2025 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Joe Gannon at planningenquiry@nortlan.gov.uk or 01236 632487. Report Date: 16th January 2026 Page 9 of 42
Page 10
APPLICATION NO. 23/01328/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site comprises of an existing commercial property and yard (approximately 0.2 hectares in size) equidistant between Holytown and Mossend. The site previously operated as a used car dealership and garage. The land to the south of the site is currently vacant, brownfield land. The surrounding land is largely mixed-use, which includes a railway track leading to Mossend rail freight terminal, new-build residential properties (circa 2021) which are two storeys in height, commercial properties including a tyre repair shop and car wash, industrial manufacturer, and open green space. 1.2 During the course of the application, a large amount of works had taken place on-site including a trench being dug and caravans currently being in situ. These works were subject to an ongoing enforcement case (25/00084/COMP); however, it was established that the activities were permitted development. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The proposed development comprises of subdividing the existing building into 4 units and construction of 3 terraced units in the south section of the site. The existing property (Units 1-4) which is currently vacant as stipulated within the planning statement, is characterised by a mixture of facing stonework and timber, as well as concrete roof tiling. In addition to the internal subdivision, there are external alterations proposed which includes infilled doors and new roller shutter doors to separate the different units. 2.2 The proposed units (5-7) will have a total footprint of approximately 131m2. The full details of the facing materials to be used on the external walls and roofing are not specified within the application. There is also no new artificial lighting proposed as part of the development, and no section/level drawings have been submitted to fully assess the proposed development’s deemed impact on neighbouring residential properties in terms of scale. There is also no information on any proposed boundary treatment for the site. 2.3 The operation hours and days of the site are Monday to Friday 0800 – 1800 and Saturday to Sunday 0800 – 1200 and would be restricted as such. Whilst the use of the units is currently unknown and will be leased should the application be granted; Units 1-4 will be restricted to Class 5 (General industry) which is the existing use class of the property, and Units 5-7 will be restricted to Class 4 (Business) and Class 6 (Storage or distribution). 2.4 There are 17 parking spaces proposed in total within the application site, with each space measuring approximately 6 x 2.5m each. This will provide the proposed development with an average of 2.5 spaces per workshop unit. The proposed development will be accessible via an existing entrance off Holytown Road. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 Supporting information includes the following documents: Supplementary Statement, Supporting Statement, Noise Impact Assessment (3 versions), and Transport Statement. 3.2 A supporting and supplementary statement prepared by the applicant was submitted in support of the application. The supporting statements detail the context of the application, stipulating that there are insufficient properties to satisfy the demand for commercial and light industrial businesses. The statements also detail the site history, as well as the benefits the proposed development would bring to the area. As aforementioned, the statement also details the proposed operation days and hours of the units. The content of the statements and justification for the proposed development is largely acceptable. Page 10 of 42
Page 11
3.3 Prepared by The Airshed (November 2025), the applicant has also provided a noise impact assessment. This submission follows a previous assessment undertaken by Noise Assessments Ltd (August 2024 and revised March 2025), which was deemed insufficient by NLC Pollution Control following consultation due to limited information to accurately characterise the potential noise impact from the proposed development. The NIA identifies several noise sensitive receptors which will be impacted by the proposed development, where the proposed development has potential to have an adverse impact on the amenity of these properties. Given the tenancies of the units are currently unknown, the assessment has been carried out on a worst-case scenario basis. Whilst the report concludes that impacts are low subject to proposed mitigation, the proximity to existing residential properties and modelling uncertainty due to the unknown use of properties represent material planning concerns and are likely to have an impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. 3.4 A Transport Assessment (TA) was also prepared and submitted by Dougall Baillie Associates (February 2025), to aid and address initial concerns raised by NLC Infrastructure & Transportation when initially consulted in March 2024. As stipulated within the TA, it is demonstrated that the proposed development is well situated in terms of sustainable modes of transport and the wider area of Mossend, it will generate a negligible amount of traffic on the existing road network and meets the council’s standards for parking provision. As demonstrated by NLC Infrastructure & Transportation, the applicant has been unable to demonstrate the required visibility splays to accommodate articulated vehicles due to existing access constraints, as requested by NLC Infrastructure & Transportation. Whilst the supporting statement stipulates that no articulated HGV’s will be permitted on-site due to there being insufficient turning within the site, the future operators of the site have no control over how and when deliveries will be undertaken, emphasised by the use class of the units being unknown. This can also not be covered by a planning condition as suggested by the applicant as it is not enforceable in planning terms, thereby not meeting one of the 6 tests for planning conditions. 3.5 The proposed development could therefore lead to inappropriate vehicles manoeuvres on Holytown Road as well as HGV’s using Holytown Road as an opportunity to park on the pavement causing a visibility issue, which raises concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety. It is considered that the proposed development is an intensification of the existing use of the site considering NLC Infrastructure and Transportation’s objection on pedestrian and traffic safety grounds. 4. Site History • 08/00330/PREAPL residential development (COM – Comments) • 09/00946/FUL Erection of Single Storey Dwellinghouse (WDN – Withdrawn) • 10/00068/FUL Erection of a Single Storey Dwellinghouse (REF – Refused) • 10/00941/FUL Erection of Dwellinghouse (REF – Refused) • 19/00878/PPP Residential development in principle (ALLOW – Appeal Allowed) 5. Development Plan 5.1 National Planning Framework 4: 1 (Tackling the climate and nature crises) 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation) 3 (Biodiversity) 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) 14 (Design, quality and place) 26 (Business and industry) North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (LDP): General Urban Area: - PP 3 Purpose of Place - AD 3 Amount of Development Environmental Development Qualities (EDQ) 1-3 Page 11 of 42
Page 12
6. Consultations 6.1 NLC Estates – have raised no objections to the proposal in principle 6.2 NLC Protective Services (incl. Pollution Control) – requested that a Noise Impact Assessment should be undertaken as well as any associated impact and mitigation measures proposed due to the proposed development’s potential adverse impact on the adjacent residential properties. A Light Impact Assessment was also requested to be carried out which seeks to compare predicted and existing lighting levels for noise sensitive receptors. However, the applicant has confirmed as per the supporting statement that no artificial lighting will be proposed as part of the development. Several noise impact assessments have been submitted for consideration with the most recent in November 2025. However, after assessing these reports NLC Pollution Control have found there have been various shortcomings in respect to methodology and how this matter has been assessed. The applicant has therefore not adequately demonstrated that noise can be effectively mitigated and NLC Pollution Control have objected to the application on this basis. The applicant submitted the NIA which was carried out on the 20th of March 2025. Several substantive issues were identified by NLC Pollution Control, who maintained their existing objection to the proposed development on the basis that insufficient information had been submitted to confidently assess and characterise the potential noise impact from the workshop units. In response to this, the applicant submitted a revised Noise Impact Assessment carried out by an acoustic consultant in November 2025. The revised report fails to meet the requirements of NLC Pollution Control on several grounds in terms of clarity on operation days and hours, sound frequency, prediction modelling and calculation methodology. As such, the potential noise impact and mitigation for sensitive receptors have been presented insufficiently. Should the planning application be approved, a revised Noise Impact Assessment would be required for the consideration of the Local Planning Authority. 6.3 NLC Infrastructure & Transportation – have provided a response following consultation, requesting that the application be deferred until sufficient parking spaces are incorporated within the site, as well as requesting the applicant to demonstrate adequate turning manoeuvres for articulated HGV’s. The applicant provided a transport statement in response to their comments (February 2025). Having reviewed the statement, NLC Infrastructure & Transportation requested that the tracking diagrams for rigid HGVs are re-examined with additional requirements (e.g., full width of carriageway and entering and exiting demonstrated) and reiterating previous concerns that the applicant has no control over whether articulated HGVs enter the site. This can also not be controlled by a planning condition as it does not meet one of the tests of planning conditions as it would not be enforceable. It was suggested that the applicant provide this information to aid assessment of the application in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety. This has not been carried out. The applicant has therefore not adequately demonstrated that the proposed development can accommodate adequate turning manoeuvres for articulated HGVs and NLC Infrastructure & Transportation have objected to the application on this basis. Therefore, the proposed development is considered an intensification of the existing use in light of these concerns. 6.4 NLC Food Safety/Business Regulations – have raised no objections to the proposal in principle. 6.5 Network Rail – have raised no objections to the proposal in principle regarding proximity to an existing railway line. Page 12 of 42
Page 13
7. Representations 7.1 Following a second standard neighbour notification (22nd April 2025) and press advert (31st January 2024), 8 letters of representation were received, all of which have objected to the proposal in principle. The comments received are summarised as follows: • Height of units will exceed boundary fence with residential properties • Adverse impact on privacy • Noise, disruption and light pollution, as well as odours • Sunlight/daylight impacts • Not in-keeping with building materials/appearance of estate • Safety and security issues • Increased vermin • Site currently in operation during incongruous hours • Proposed development cannot be formally assessed given tenancies are unknown • Increased traffic 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises of National Planning Framework 4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022), with the former taking precedence in the event of any conflict between policies. 8.2 In terms of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the most notable policies relevant to the proposal include Policies 1 (Tackling the climate and nature crises), 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation), 3 (Biodiversity) 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings); 14 (Design, quality and place); and 26 (Business and industry). 8.3 Policies 1 and 2 of NPF4 overlap and can be reasonably assessed together. The Scottish Government issued draft guidance on this policy in December 2024, emphasising that NPF4 should be read as a whole and that various other policies are closely related to Policy 1 and 2 specifically. 8.4 Policy 1 (Tackling the climate and nature crises) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate emergency and nature crisis. Policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The development would lead to increased carbon emissions both during the construction and operational phases without evidence to demonstrate that the associated climate change effects could be mitigated or significantly outweigh by the socio-economic benefits. In the absence of information to justify this location and mitigate the effects of climate change, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policies 1 and 2. 8.5 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. The main body of the site appears to be of poor value in terms of biodiversity. Trees and shrubs should be retained and protected during the construction period and in the long-term where possible if no additional planting is proposed. It is considered that the proposed development neither complies nor does not comply with the provisions of Policy 3. 8.6 Policy 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Given the development proposal would result in the sustainable reuse of a vacant building it is considered that the proposed development complies with the provisions of Policy 9. Page 13 of 42
Page 14
8.7 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. It is considered that the development proposal’s design does not improve the overall quality of an area and is inconsistent by the six qualities of successful places as identified by NPF4, by intensifying the existing use class of the property and application site without improving the existing access facilities and having an adverse impact on noise sensitive receptors. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of Policy 14. 8.8 Policy 26 (Business and industry) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate business and industry uses and to enable alternative ways of working such as home working, live-work units and micro- businesses. It is considered that the proposed development of general industrial uses within the General Urban Area is not incompatible with the nature and scale of the surrounding area, given the site was used previously for vehicular repair garage. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the provisions of Policy 26. 8.9 The site is also designated within the General Urban Area in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022), where PP 3 (Purpose of Place) is relevant. This policy seeks to maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development that is in keeping with their residential character and encouraging diversity in more mixed-use areas. It is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable, however, as set out below, in the below paragraphs of 8.10, the development does not meet the requirements of EDQ 1-3 and as such the application cannot be supported at this time. 8.10 LDP Environmental and Design Qualities Policies EDQ 1 – Site Appraisal EDQ 2 – Specific Features for Consideration EDQ 3 – Quality of Development These three policies look for proposed developments to create a successful place or enhance existing places by integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to neighbouring amenity. To do this a range of criteria is listed within these policies which includes amongst other things aspects of design, massing, materials, topography and aspects to protect the existing urban area and its specific characteristics, assets and attributes. They consider hazardous zones, utilities infrastructure and management areas and look to promote biodiversity and the environment whilst meeting the challenges of climate change via suitable and safe access for all users to promote sustainable public travel or for example the provision of electrical charge points where the car is still a requirement. 8.11 Policy EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) and Policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) require development to provide suitable safe access including site entrances, roads, paths and visibility splays to the site. The proposed development would be accessed from an existing entrance/exit on Holytown Road. However, no evidence has been submitted to show appropriate turning manoeuvres for articulated HGVs as required by NLC Infrastructure & Transportation following consultation. No further evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the required visibility splays (4.5m by 60m) can be achieved in each direction. Due to manoeuvring challenges and the absence of the require visibility splays, it is unlikely that any articulated HGVs could enter or exit the site safely and in forward gear without potentially endangering vulnerable pedestrians, road users and other vehicles. Given NLC Infrastructure & Transportation requested that the application is deferred pending this information being required in respect to visibility splays and turning manoeuvres, in its current form, the proposed access off Holytown Road is unacceptable and for that reason fails to meet the requirements of Policies EDQ 1 and EDQ 3 of the LDP. 8.12 Policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) requires development to demonstrate how noise impacts will affect the amenity of noise sensitive receptors in achieving sustainable design and high standards of site planning. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate that the development itself is unlikely to generate unacceptable levels of noise for the adjacent residential properties nor proposed acceptable mitigation measures. Furthermore, given the use of the workshop units is not currently known and that they are to be leased, it is considered that the Noise Impact Assessment does not sufficiently and confidently characterise the potential noise impact from the proposed development. The proposed development therefore fails to address the policy provisions of Policy EDQ 3. Page 14 of 42
Page 15
8.13 Representations 8.14 In response to the grounds of representation, these are commented on in the same order as they appear above and the respective responses should be noted. 8.15 Comment: Height of units will exceed boundary fence with residential properties Response: There is no statutory requirement in planning terms that any new development will not exceed the height of an existing boundary treatment. The proposed workshop units were assessed in terms of their scale and are considered broadly acceptable 8.16 Comment: Adverse impact on privacy Response: It is considered that reusing the existing building and the proposed units facing away from the residential properties, the privacy situation is deemed to be largely indifferent from how the site was used previously. 8.17 Comment: Noise, disruption and light pollution, as well as odours Response: NLC Pollution Control were consulted on the application in relation to potential increased noise levels and confirmed that a Noise Impact Assessment should be undertaken to fully assess the development. Following review of the Noise Impact Assessment, they confirmed that the presumed noise levels from the workshop units would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, regardless of the restricted operational days of the workshop units. 8.18 Comment: Sunlight/daylight impacts Response: It is considered that the size of the proposed units and distance from neighbouring residential properties will not result in any adverse impacts on sunlight/daylight levels currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties. 8.19 Comment: Not in-keeping with building materials/appearance of estate Response: The design of the proposed workshop units are considered broadly acceptable. However, the choice of materials would be covered by a pre-commencement condition should the application be approved. 8.20 Comment: Safety and security issues Response: Increased criminal activity because of a development is not a specific material planning consideration and would be a policing matter. 8.21 Comment: Increased vermin Response: Planning has no control over an increase in vermin because of such a development. If such issues do occur, this would be a matter to be addressed under environmental health legislation. 8.22 Comment: Site currently in operation during incongruous hours Response: The existing operation hours and days of the site is not a consideration for the current application, it is the proposed operation that is being assessed in terms of acceptability. 8.23 Comment: Proposed development cannot be formally assessed given tenancies are unknown Response: The application has been assessed in terms of the proposed use classes for the site, and therefore whilst the use of the units is unknown, the proposed development has been assessed on a worst-case basis in terms of impact on neighbouring amenity. Page 15 of 42
Page 16
8.24 Comment: Increased traffic Response: Following consultation with NLC Infrastructure & Transportation, aided by a transport statement, it is considered that the additional volume of traffic forecasted by the proposed development would not have such an impact as to warrant refusal of planning permission. However, that the implications on the existing access for articulated HGVs would warrant refusal of planning permission. 9. Conclusions 9.1 Whilst it is noted that the proposed development is located within an area designated as General Urban Area (PP 3) where mixed-use development is encouraged, given there is insufficient and inadequate information to assess the impact of noise in the area and whether articulated HGVs can safely access/egress the site, a competent decision on the impact and accessibility of the development cannot be made at this time. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to multiple policies of NPF4 and North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022) and it is considered that any material considerations have been demonstrated to justify a departure from these policies. As such, it is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused. Page 16 of 42
Page 17
Application No: 24/01205/FUL Proposed Development: Use of Premises as Builder's Yard and Construction of Storage Building (In Retrospect) Site Address: 31A Rothesay Crescent Shawhead Coatbridge ML5 4JP Date Registered: 27th November 2024 Applicant: PP Builders & Son Ltd F.A.O. Mr Patrick Pyott PP Builders & Son Unit Rothesay Crescent Shawhead Coatbridge ML5 4JN Agent: CD Architects Ltd F.A.O. Grant Johnston The Old School Business Centre Studio 5 40 Rochsolloch Road Airdrie ML6 9BG Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 11 Coatbridge South: Tracy Carragher, Geraldine Woods, Fergus MacGregor, Andrew Bustard, Representations: 9 letters of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposal is considered to be an acceptable use within the General Urban Area that can be accommodated without detriment to road safety and residential amenity. It is therefore considered to be in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 and Policies PP 3, AD 3, EDQ 1 and EDQ 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. Page 17 of 42
Page 18
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: 24/01205/FUL Name (of applicant): PP Builders & Son Ltd Site Address: 31A Rothesay Crescent Shawhead Coatbridge ML5 4JP Development: Use of Premises as Builder's Yard and Construction of Storage Building (In Retrospect) Page 18 of 42
Page 19
Proposed Conditions: - 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That the premises will be used solely as a builder's yard operated by PP Builders and Sons and for no other purpose. For the avoidance of doubt any future alternative use will require planning permission as the current use is classed as being sui generis (of its own kind). Reason: To define the use of the land. 3. That the premises will operate in accordance with the supporting information (including operational hours/days of the week) as supplied by the applicant in the Supporting Statement Revision E received 22nd Jan 2026. Reason: To define the use of the land in the interest of residential amenity Background Papers: Consultation Responses: NLC Infrastructure and Transportation (Roads) received 12th December 2024 and 13th January 2025 NLC Protective Services (Environmental Health) received 10th January 2025 and 2nd December 2025 NLC Food Safety / Business Regulations received 23rd December 2024 NLC Estates received 13th March 2025 Contact Information: Kirsten Devlin at esplanning@northlan.gov.uk or 01236 632487 Report Date: 22nd January 2026 Page 19 of 42
Page 20
APPLICATION NO. 24/01205/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is approximately 520 square metres in area and is located at 31A Rothesay Crescent, Shawhead, Coatbridge. It is bounded to the north by residential properties on Calder Avenue, to south by an electrical substation and a road that provides vehicular access to the rear of properties on both Rothesay Crescent and Howes Street. To the west are residential properties on Howes Street and to the east is a public footpath leading from Calder Avenue to Rothesay Crescent, a parking area that leads to a garage site for local residents and further residential properties. 1.2 The application site consists of a single storey rectangular building located close to the northern boundary, which was originally a Council depot. A further single storey pitched roof storage building 48 square metres in area was constructed from October to December 2024 at the southeastern corner of the application site. Both the original building, the recently constructed storage building and the portion of land between both buildings is owned by the applicant. The remainder of the application site (a rectangular portion of land to the west of the more recently constructed unit) is owned by the Council. This Council owned land houses a material waste skip, forms part of the yard, in curtilage parking and the site access and has been demarcated by the erection of security fencing and access gates. The applicant has applied to purchase this land from the Council. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the use of the premises as a builder's yard and construction of a storage building. A builder’s yard is considered to be a sui generis use (of its own kind) which does not fit into the predefined use class categories; as such planning permission is required for both the change of use and the construction of the more recent storage building. 2.2 The unauthorised change of use and construction of the storage building were brought to the Planning Authority’s attention through the Council’s unauthorised works complaints process in late September 2024. An enforcement case was opened (ref 24/00236/COMP) which led to the submission of this retrospective planning application. 2.3 The original building on site was a Council repairs depot that became surplus to requirements and was subsequently sold. Planning permission to change the use to a facility for testing construction materials was granted in April 2003. The last know use was by Coatbridge Laboratory Services Ltd. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 A supporting statement has been received outlining the operation of the business. The following has been confirmed: • The original rectangular building at no.31A Rothesay Crescent (which accommodates office space, staff welfare and material storage) is owned by the applicant. No members of the public visit the premises and there is no trade counter. • Rothesay Crescent is the applicant’s sole business location, having moved from previous premises at Souterhouse Road, Coatbridge. • The newer storage unit was constructed to create additional storage space for building materials. • No workshop machinery is located within the buildings, and no manufacturing takes place. • Material deliveries (consisting of Gyproc boards, bags of plaster, facings/architraves and skirtings) and refuse collection occur once a month. Page 20 of 42
Page 21
• The external space houses a permanent refuse skip and can accommodate parking for 5 vehicles, including 1 disabled space. 2 public spaces are located out with the site directly opposite the entrance. • The business employs 12 staff, with 1 permanently based at the office. Some members of staff do not present at the application premises, going straight to site. • Business hours are 8 am – 4.30 pm with 4 vans leaving the yard for 8 am and back in a 4.15 pm. Loading of vehicles takes place at the end of each working day. Occasional Saturday morning working is necessary between 8 am to 1.30 pm and no work takes place on a Sunday. The office member of staff works 9 am – 3pm therefore there is no cross over of parking from the office staff and the 4 business vans. 4. Site History 4.1 The following site history is of relevance: • No.31A Rothesay Crescent was originally a Council owned repairs deport that operated for a number of years before closing in approximately 2002. • 03/00206/FUL: Change of Use of Repairs Depot to Facility for Testing Construction Materials – Approved 14.04.2003 • Last know use at the site was by Coatbridge Laboratory Services Ltd. • 24/00236/COMP: Unauthorised Builder's Yard and Construction of Building – Under consideration pending outcome of current retrospective planning application 4.2 During the early stages of the application process correspondence was received from Councillor Carragher, Leader of the SNP Group on behalf of a local constituent querying the neighbour notification and press advertisement procedures and raising concerns with the use and in particular on-street and pavement parking on Calder Avenue. It was confirmed that the necessary neighbour notifications had been carried out and an advert placed in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser. 4.3 In March 2025 Fulton MacGregor MSP contacted the Planning Service on behalf of the same constituent querying the length of time the planning application was taking, why the unauthorised use has been allowed to continue and intended steps to address noise, damage to road verges and authorised parking. It was explained the delay in determining the application was due to the need for a site investigation and ground gas monitoring results to be submitted and reviewed. It was also confirmed that issuing a stop notice and enforcement notice was only appropriate in urgent or serious cases. 2 noise complaints were investigated by NLC Environmental Health with no action required and the cases closed. The issues of damage to road verges and unauthorised parking were more difficult to comment on due to historical damage to verges and Rothesay Crescent being characterised by on- street parking. The issue of parking on Calder Avenue was of a temporary nature which ceased when the storage building being constructed on site was completed. Page 21 of 42
Page 22
5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) 2022. 5.2 Given the nature and scale of this development the most relevant considerations are already enshrined in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan policies. Policy 26 – Business and Industry of NPF4 is most relevant to the consideration of this application. 5.3 In terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 the following policies are of relevance: PP 3 Purpose of Place AD 3 Amount of Development EDQ 1 Site Appraisal EDQ 2 Specific Features for Consideration EDQ 3 Quality of Development 6. Consultations 6.1 The following consultation responses have been received in connection with the application: NLC Infrastructure & Transportation (Roads) recommended the application be deferred subject to in-curtilage parking details being provided. On receipt of the details, they recommended that the application be refused as the required 7 in curtilage parking spaces (based on the floor area of the buildings) cannot be provided and that the siting of a storage skip affected the in-curtilage parking provision. NLC Protective Services (Environmental Health) initially requested further information on the activities at the site before determining whether a Noise Impact Assessment, in accordance with the BS4132 methodology, was required. They confirmed as the site is in proximity to potentially contaminated land due to historical land uses, including a former mineral railway, quarrying and unknown filled ground, a site investigation required to be carried out in accordance with BS 10175:2001 “The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites” and any remediation work be completed and verified. Standard comments relating to external artificial lighting were also received. On receipt of information on the operations at the site it was confirmed a Noise Impact Assessment was not required. The need for a site investigation, and remediation measures (if required) are normally covered by the imposition of planning conditions. However, as this is a retrospective application the site investigation (and remediation details if required) must be submitted and assessed before the retrospective planning application can be determined. The requirement for this has led to a considerable delay in determining the application. A Coal Mining Risk Assessment, Phase 1 Desk Study and Phase 2 Site Investigation have been received and NLC Environmental Health have confirmed they are satisfied the environmental risks are low and no remediation measures are required. NLC Protective Services (Food Safety / Business Regulations) comment that the premises require to comply with the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, with particular consideration to traffic routes, traffic management, separation of vehicles and pedestrians. NLC Estates have no comment to make. Page 22 of 42
Page 23
7. Representations 7.1 9 letters of representations (from 6 households) have been received in connection with the application. The points raised and comments thereon are as follows: Point of Objection: The use is inappropriate for a residential area, with policies in place to protect the character of such areas. It should be situated in an industrial setting. Comment: It is agreed that such a use would more commonly be found within an industrial or business setting. However, the residential policies contained with Local Development Plan seek to maintain and improve the level of amenity appropriate for the local context and encourage diversity in more mixed- use areas. This is a residential area that surrounds a site that has historically been used for various business purposes and was originally a Council depot. Point of Objection: Approving the application could set a precedent for future inappropriate development in North Lanarkshire. Comment: The above is noted however each planning application is decided on its own merits. Point of Objection: Inconsiderate parking of employee’s vehicles close to driveways and on the pavements at Calder Avenue is causing a danger to public safety. Police Scotland have been involved. Comment: The applicant confirmed work’s vehicles were initially parked on Calder Avenue when the storage building was being built and that this practice has ceased. Visits to the site by the planning officer over the course of the application have not witnessed issues with on-street parking on Calder Avenue. Point of Objection: Noise from heavy machinery, vehicles and any construction or preparation activities is inappropriate in a residential setting and detracts from resident’s quality of life. Comment: The business does not manufacture any goods, and no machinery is located on site. NLC Protective Services (Environmental Health) have visited the site and were satisfied the use did not require the submission of a Noise Impact Assessment. The historic business usage combined with the level of traffic associated with the business are not considered to significantly detract from residential amenity. Point of Objection: The builder’s yard is within a densely populated residential area with works vehicles having to drive through the entire estate to gain access. The roads are not suitable for constant use by large vehicles which pose a safety risk to pedestrians. Comment: The level of activity associated with the use is not considered to be significant enough to pose a risk to public safety or significantly impact residential amenity. NLC Infrastructure & Transportation did not raise any road safety issues Point of Objection: The industrial nature of the yard is visually out of place in a residential area. The unit was previously used as a storage facility for Coatbridge Medical Services, where there was little activity. Comment: The original building and yard area (excluding the section currently owned by the Council) has been used by a medical supplies business, a facility for testing construction materials and was initially a Council owned repairs depot. In visual amenity terms the use as a builder’s yard is not considered to be significantly different or detrimental to the residential setting. Point of Objection. The application site shares a boundary with several residential properties with materials being stored against the shared garden fences and walls. There are concerns about the impact on their stability, health and safety and associated costs in the event they require repair. Comment: The above are not material planning considerations; they would be private/civil matters between the relevant parties. Page 23 of 42
Page 24
Point of Objection: The recently constructed storage building is higher than the single storey building on the site and the submitted plans do not show its height or dimensions. It is out of keeping with the existing building on site. Comment: It is accepted that the newer storage building is higher than the original building which has a lower wall head and shallower roof pitch. It is 5.25m in height and given the scale of neighbouring residential properties it is not considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding locale. Point of Objection: Loss of privacy and noise from building works which affected outdoor use of a neighbouring garden in Summer 2024. Comment: The above was disturbance of a temporary nature due to the construction process. Point of Objection: The retrospective nature of the application suggests a disregard for due process and community input, it being particularly disappointing for the Council to allow this. It is implausible for a builder to state they were unaware that planning permission was required. Comment: The above points are noted. The retrospective application requires to be assessed on the planning merits and cannot be refused on the grounds the applicant was allegedly aware planning permission was required. Point of Objection: NLC Property Services were made aware of works on the Council owned land by a member of the public in July 2024 but allowed the development to proceed. It is also disappointing that NLC Planning and Building Standards chose not to intervene. Comment: The Planning Service cannot comment on the practices of other Council services. Planning Service involvement began late September 2024 when a formal complaint was received about the unauthorised works and led to the submission of this retrospective application. Point of Objection: Planning and Building regulations have been breached by fencing off land designated for access as per Land Registry for Scotland ref: LAN167732. Furthermore, a neighbour claims they have a right of access to the rear of their garden; there was a driveway there until a few years ago when the gates were removed and a fence erected. Comment: The above are legal matters that are not material to the consideration of this retrospective planning application. Point of Objection: The business is using a common access road as an extension to their yard area, for parking of vehicles and loading and unloading to the detriment of access for residents on Howes Street and Rothesay Crescent. Comment: The above is again a legal matter, and the applicant will need to ensure that legal rights of access are maintained free of obstruction. The site has been visited on numerous occasions by the case officer, and this has not been witnessed. Point of Objection: The proposal violates the feu disposition terms of no.31A Rothesay Crescent which states the property must not be used in any way that harms the amenity of the neighbourhood or causes nuisance to nearby owners, tenants or others. While rights of the original superiors have been abolished, neighbouring proprietors retain the ability to enforce such burdens under the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003. Granting consent would set a concerning precedent for the disregard of these legal protections. Comment: Again, this a legal matter that is not material to the consideration of this retrospective planning application. Page 24 of 42
Page 25
8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8.2 In terms of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 26 – Business and Industry is the most relevant. This policy aims to encourage, promote and facilitate business and industry uses. It states business and industry uses on sites allocated in the Local Development Plan (LDP) will be supported. If further states such uses out with identified areas in the LDP will only be supported where there are no alternative sites and the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area, including impact on residential amenity. It is accepted that alternative sites are likely available within existing industrial areas. However, the original building on site and the associated land (excluding the portion under Council ownership) was once a Council repairs depot that was subsequently used by a firm for the testing of construction materials and laterally a medical supplies company. Historical use of the original premises for business purposes therefore exists and is an important consideration. Based on the submitted details, the nature and scale of the business activity and impact on residential amenity are not considered to be significantly detrimental. To ensure this remains a business use that is appropriate to the location we are proposing that a personal permission (to the applicant’s company) is given and this will ensure that any other user of the premises would need to seek our approval before operating from the site. 8.3 Within the NLLDP the site is located within the General Urban Area covered by Policy PP3 Purpose of Place which seeks to maintain and improve the level of amenity appropriate for the local context and encourage diversity in more mixed-use areas. This policy also requires such proposals to be assessed against the criteria of AD 3 (Amount of Development), EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal), EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) which consider issues such as size, materials, road safety, contaminated land, ground instability (coal mining) and which states that proposals must integrate successfully with the surrounding area by avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. 8.4 Policy PP3 Purpose of Place seeks to maintain and improve the level of amenity appropriate for the local context and encourage diversity in more mixed-use areas. This is a residential area that surrounds a site that has historically been used for different business purposes. The determining factor in assessing this proposal is whether a builder’s yard will significantly impact on surrounding residential amenity. In this regard, the builders’ yard is used for material storage in connection with a repair and maintenance business. No members of the public visit the premises and there is no trade counter. There is no machinery, and no manufacturing of material takes place on site. The main activity takes place on site in the morning when the vans leave to go to site and early evening when the vans return and are loaded for the next day. Material deliveries and refuse collection occur monthly. The site can accommodate the parking of 5 vehicles, which while less than the 7 required by NLC Infrastructure and Transportation (Roads) is considered an appropriate level for the current business. 8.5 Policy AD3 Amount of Development requires applications for new development be assessed for their implications related to the amount of development proposed. The need for an assessment depends on the combination of type (use class), scale and location of development. The proposed use is sui generis (of its own kind) and as such does not fall under any of the Use Classes outlined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) order 1997 and as such does not require to be assessed. However, based on the business activity, level of usage and historical business use the proposal is considered appropriate for the local context and as indicated above a personal permission (to the applicant’s company) is being recommended. Page 25 of 42
Page 26
8.6 Policy EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) requires all development 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. A number of matters required to be assessed; those most relevant to this proposal are: • massing, height, style, finishing materials of any buildings on the site and surrounding Land Use Character Area • orientation and topography of the site and surrounding Land Use Character Area • building lines, plot ratios, groupings, types of enclosure (e.g. fences, walls, hedges), landmarks in the Land Use Character Area • existence and quality of connections and access including site and building entrances, roads, paths and visuals on the site and surrounding Land Use Character Area The recently constructed storage building is of a size, scale and material palette that is consistent with the surrounding residential area and the security fencing and gates match in height and design the existing boundary treatment at the site. The site levels have not been altered, and the extended site boundary does not impinge on the vehicular access road that serves the rear of the properties on Rothesay Crescent and Howes Street. 8.7 Policy EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) requires the Council to consider development in areas subject to hazards. As the site is in proximity to potentially contaminated land due to historical land uses, including a former mineral railway, quarrying and unknown filled ground, a site investigation required to be carried out in accordance with BS 10175:2001 “The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites” and any remediation work be completed and verified. The need for a site investigation, and remediation measures are normally covered by the imposition of planning conditions. However, as this is a retrospective application the site investigation required to be submitted and assessed before the application can be determined. A Coal Mining Risk Assessment, Phase 1 Desk Study and Phase 2 Site Investigation have been received and NLC Protective Services (Environmental Health) have confirmed they are satisfied the environmental risks are low and no remediation measures are required. 8.8 Policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) applies to all development and requires high quality development in terms of several factors, the most relevant for this application are siting, scale, massing, materials and appropriate parking. The buildings on site including the more recently erected storage building are of size, scale, design and material palette that are considered acceptable for the site and the surrounding locale. The level of in-curtilage parking provision, while accepting it does not meet the requirements of Infrastructure and Transportation (Roads), which are based on the floor area of the buildings on site, is considered appropriate for the use and level of activity associated with it. 9. Conclusions 9.1 Taking account of the above, including the representations received, the proposal is considered appropriate for the local context and is considered to comply with Policies PP 3, AD 3, EDQ 1, EDQ 2 and EDQ 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. It is therefore recommended that retrospective planning permission be granted subject to conditions one of which will make this permission personal to the applicant’s company. Page 26 of 42
Page 27
North Lanarkshire Council Report Planning Committee Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref GM Date 05/02/26 Planning and Place Performance Report 2024-25 From Pamela Humphries, Chief Officer (Place) E-mail McCrackenGwen@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 632487 1. Background 1.1 The Committee will recall that, in previous years, it routinely received the annual Planning Performance Framework (PPF) reports, through which the service reported performance on a voluntary basis under an agreement between the Scottish Government and Heads of Planning Scotland (HOPS). As reported to Committee last year, this voluntary framework has now been replaced by the statutory national performance monitoring arrangements introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. To support the new approach, and to provide planning authorities with advice on Executive Summary The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 introduced statutory reporting of the performance of Planning Authorities. This report seeks to inform the Committee of the feedback from the National Planning Improvement Coordinator on the outcome of the Annual Report, required as part of the new National Planning Improvement Process, and to update on the performance of the service against the key performance indicators for 2024-25. The report also sets out the improvement actions that the service has identified to focus on in the coming period. The timing of this report has been impacted by the delayed publication of the relevant performance data by the Scottish Government necessary to complete the assessment for 2024-25. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee consider the content of this report and endorse the actions being taken to improve performance and service delivery. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve economic opportunities and outcomes Ambition statement All ambition statements Programme of Work Transforming Places Item 3 Page 27 of 42
Page 28
improving the performance of their functions, the role of National Planning Improvement Co-ordinator (NPIC) has been established within the Improvement Service 1.2 The Planning Improvement Co-ordinator was appointed in September 2023 and since then has collaborated with HOPS, planning authorities and other stakeholders to develop an appropriate mechanism for driving improvement across the planning system. The initial priority has been the creation of a new performance and improvement model that builds on the lessons learned from the previous Planning Performance Frameworks. As a result, a new National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) has been introduced. 1.3 The key principles of NPIF are: • A renewed focus on improvement: NPIF aims to draw on planning authorities’ self- assessment to identify areas for development which will inform an improvement action plan. • Peer Collaborative Review: The previous Scottish Government marking system will be replaced by peer review involving NPIC, other planning authorities and relevant stakeholders. • Measuring quality: NPIF seeks to incorporate indicators that better assess impacts, outcomes achieved and the overall quality of service delivery. • A high performing planning authority: NPIF emphasises assessment against the characteristics of a high performing service under the headings: tools and resources; engagement; people; culture; and place. • Recognising dependencies: NPIF acknowledges that planning authorities rely on the input and cooperation of other parties in delivering their functions. • Resources: NPIF has been designed to be proportionate and to avoid adding unnecessary pressure on planning authorities’ resources. 1.4 As this is a new process for planning authorities, the first year of the National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) was delivered as a pilot, undertaken in three cohorts across 2024/25. North Lanarkshire Council participated in this pilot and, as part of the process, was partnered with Fife Council to share learning and act as critical friends. That partnership arrangement continued into Year 2. 1.5 The Year 2 guidance (2025/26) confirms that planning authorities are no longer required to complete a full self-assessment annually. Instead, Year 2 focuses on providing a progress update against the improvement actions agreed in Year 1. As such, each authority is required to update progress on improvement actions and meet with the National Planning Improvement (NPI) team to discuss progress and next steps. 1.6 North Lanarkshire Council has now completed the Year 2 update and has met with the NPI team, who act as a “critical friend” to review progress. The NPI team have used the updated information to prepare a standardised national report template for each authority. The North Lanarkshire Council report has now been endorsed by the National Planning Improvement Champion and will be published online as part of the annual statutory performance reporting requirements under the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Page 28 of 42
Page 29
1.7 In addition to this, the Scottish Government continues to publish Planning Application Statistics and the figures for the performance of the service are detailed in section two below. 2. Report 2.1 The Planning Service is part of the Place Service and is established to: • Deliver a wide range of statutory planning functions including the Local Development Plan, assessing applications for new development, and facilitating place change. • Enable economic growth, further community wealth building, and protect and enhance North Lanarkshire’s built and natural environment. • Deliver some non-statutory planning functions, including planning enforcement. 2.2 The service has a key role in supporting delivery of The Plan for North Lanarkshire by facilitating new development to grow the council’s economic base. Performance KPIs 2.3 Every year the Scottish Government publishes statistics for the 34 Planning authorities, and these were produced in December 2025 for the 2024/25 reporting period. Table 1 shows our performance in the key outcomes for Development Planning. Table 1: National Headline Indicators - Development Planning Development Planning 2023-24 2024-25 Local and Strategic Development Planning: Age of local development plan(s) at end of reporting period Requirement: less than 5 years 1 year 9 months 2 years 9 months Will the local development plan(s) be replaced by their 5th anniversary according to the current development plan scheme? Y Y Has the expected date of submission of the plan to Scottish Ministers in the development plan scheme changed over the past year? N N Were development plan scheme engagement/consultation commitments met during the year? Y Y Page 29 of 42
Page 30
Effective Land Supply and Delivery of Outputs1 Housing approvals 884 units 305 units Housing completions over the last 5 years 5,775 units 5,066 units Land available for Industry and Business 441.10 ha 436.76 ha Take-up of Land for Industry & Business on allocated sites 5.13 ha 6.91 ha 2.4 Table 2 shows the Development Management performance of North Lanarkshire in comparison to the Scottish average. Where no figure is given, the Scottish Government has not published a national figure. Table 2: National Headline Indicators Key outcomes – Development Management Development Management: 2023-24 2024-25 2024-25 Scottish Average Project Planning Percentage and number of applications subject to pre- application advice 7.9% (77) 4.7% (54) Percentage and number of major applications subject to processing agreement 88.9% (9) 80% (15) Decision Making Application approval rate 96.6% 96.% 92.2% Delegation rate 97.1% 95.8% 96.6% Validation 42.1% 43.8% Decision-making Timescales Major Developments 9.8 weeks 12.9 weeks 37.4 weeks Local developments 7.1 weeks 7.1 weeks 11.8 weeks Householder developments 5.8 weeks 5.5 weeks 8.3 weeks Legacy Cases Number cleared during reporting period 32 18 Number remaining 75 71 Page 30 of 42
Page 31
2.5 Table 3 shows the performance of the Planning Service when it comes to appeals. Where appeals are to the Scottish Ministers the percentage of cases where the Reporter upheld the decision of the Planning Committee is higher than the Scottish average, however, the percentage of delegated decisions upheld by the Local Review Body decreased in 2024-25 and was lower than the national average. Table 3: Decision-making: local reviews and appeals Original decision upheld 2024/25 National Statistics 2023-24 2024-25 Total no. 2024-25 Type No. % original decision upheld No. % original decision upheld No. % original decision upheld Local reviews 5 40.0% 1 16.7% 6 60% Appeals to Scottish Ministers 7 85.7% 3 75% 4 63.8% Service priorities for 2025/26 2.6 The service will continue to work to implement improvements across all performance indicators, as stated in paragraph 1.3 above, and to continue to work towards implementing our improvement action plan as endorsed by the NPIC. 2.7 In assessment, overall, the performance of the service is considered to be good. During 2024-25, the NPIF Action Plan delivered significant progress, supported by a staff restructure, the creation of the Invest team, and continued investment in digital innovation. Key achievements included improved workforce capacity through new graduate recruits (three posts) and an enforcement officer, enhanced digital tools such as Power BI dashboards, and strengthened cross service collaboration through the new multidisciplinary Invest NL team. 2.8 Engagement activity, including the “Tell Us About Your Place” survey, provided valuable insights for the next Local Development Plan. Staff workshops also continued to embed a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement. 2.9 A number of challenges required adaptation, including limited uptake for the Agents Forum, the deferral of a planning officer working group (this has been amalgamated into the staff workshops), and delays in completing PRD reviews following the restructure. Work is also ongoing to explore alternative digital solutions where proposed tools were not viable for monitoring planning conditions, and to progress legacy case reviews. Page 31 of 42
Page 32
2.8 We have therefore identified the following actions as our key priorities in the coming year: • Set deadline for completion of PRD process in reporting period to allow any training needs to be assessed and delivered if required. • Implement Elected Members training in accordance with new legislation. • Monitor and evaluate Invest NL team multi-disciplinary workflow processes, performance and track statutory consents linked to Invest pre-applications to assess their impact on project delivery timescales. • Create a collaborative Local Development Plan (LDP) hub to enhance engagement and coordination between services and stakeholders throughout the LDP lifecycle. • Undertake a Planning Processing Agreement (PPA) process review, specifically around the extension to PPA where dates are not fulfilled. • Undertake a process review around stalled sites and legacy cases to establish a methodology to progress cases. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The measures of success are not only in relation to the performance indicators that are set out in the tables in this report but are also more qualitative in terms of ensuring that the Planning service, through its engagement with applicants and other stakeholders, contributes to the delivery of good quality development in the right locations that facilitate delivery of The Plan for North Lanarkshire and the council’s Local Development Plan. 4. Supporting documentation Improvement Action Progress Update 2025 Scottish Government Planning Application Statistics 2024-25 Pamela Humphries Chief Officer (Place) Page 32 of 42
Page 33
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 33 of 42
Page 34
5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 34 of 42
Page 35
North Lanarkshire Council Report PLANNING COMMITTEE Does this report require to be approved? ☐ Yes ☒ No Ref Index 1 Date 05/02/25 NOTICE OF PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS LODGED From Pamela Humphries, Chief Officer (Place) E-mail humphriesp@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 632487 1. Background 1.1 Where a planning application has been refused by the Planning Committee, or Full Council, the applicant may appeal the decision to the Scottish Government within 3 months. 1.2 Applicants may also appeal against a planning condition which has been imposed within a planning consent. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to advice Committee of planning appeals that have been recently lodged with the Scottish Ministers. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee notes the position regarding appeals lodged with Scottish Ministers. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities Ambition statement All ambition statements Item 4 Page 35 of 42
Page 36
2. Report 2.1 The council has received notification that the following appeals have been submitted to the Scottish Ministers. Application No. Applicant Date of Council Form of Note & Proposal & Site Decision Appeal 24/01263/S42 Knight Property 16/10/2025 Written S42 Application for Land at Submission Non-Compliance Belgowan Street with Planning Bellshill Industrial Estate Conditions 1, 5 & 6 Bellshill of Planning Permission 24/00598/FUL (Change to the Approved Drawings; Delete Condition that Restricts 24 Hour Working and Revised Noise Mitigation Measures) 3. Measures of success 3.1 The outcome of appeals will be reported to Committee in due course. 4. Supporting documentation 4.1 Details of appeals submitted to the Scottish Ministers can be found on the DPEA website: Scottish Government - Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) Pamela Humphries Chief Officer (Place) Page 36 of 42
Page 37
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 37 of 42
Page 38
Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☒ Page 38 of 42
Page 39
North Lanarkshire Council Report PLANNING COMMITTEE Does this report require to be approved? ☐ Yes ☒ No Ref Index 2 Date 05/02/26 NOTICE OF PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS DECISIONS From Pamela Humphries, Chief Officer (Place) E-mail humphries@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 632487 1. Background 1.1 Where a planning application has been refused by the Planning Committee, or Full Council, an applicant may appeal the decision to the Scottish Government within 3 months. 1.2 Applicants may also appeal against a planning condition which has been imposed within a planning consent. 1.3 The Planning Committee is notified of appeals that have been lodged with the Scottish Government, and also the outcome of these appeals once a decision has been made. 2. Report 2.1 The council has received notification that the following appeal has been decided by the Scottish Ministers. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to advise Committee of a planning appeal that has been recently decided by the Scottish Ministers. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee note the decision in respect of this appeal. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities Ambition statement All ambition statements Item 5 Page 39 of 42
Page 40
Application No. & Proposal Applicant & Site Appeal Decision & Date Note 25/00815/LUC Mr James Gilhaney Appeal Change of Use Building to the Reaf Dismissed from Day Room of Mill Cottage 08/01/2026 (Sui Generis) to Old Mill Road Dwelling Allanton ML7 5BX 3. Measures of success 3.1 The Planning Committee is kept informed of the outcome of appeals made to the Scottish Government. 4. Supporting documentation 4.1 Details of appeals decided by the Scottish Ministers can be found on the DPEA website: Scottish Government - Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) Pamela Humphries Chief Officer (Place) Page 40 of 42
Page 41
5. Impacts 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality- and-fairer-scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts been discussed and agreed with Finance? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts been discussed and agreed with People Resources? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 41 of 42
Page 42
Where the impact identifies a requirement for significant technology change, has an assessment been carried out (or is scheduled to be carried out) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? 5.10 Armed Forces Covenant Duty Does the report require to take due regard of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty (i.e. does it relate to healthcare, housing, or education services for in-Service or ex- Service personnel, or their families, or widow(er)s)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the provision which has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the particular needs of the Armed Forces community to make sure that they do not face disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public services. 5.11 Children’s rights and wellbeing impact Does the report contain any information regarding any council activity, service delivery, policy, or plan that has an impact on children and young people up to the age of 18, or on a specific group of these? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact and the provision that has been made to ensure there has been appropriate consideration of the relevant Articles from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). If Yes, has a Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment (CRWIA) been carried out? Yes ☐ No ☒ Page 42 of 42