Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 15/10/2026
North Lanarkshire Council · 15 October 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 15 October 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
6 October 2026 Members of the Planning Committee Chief Executive’s Office Rachel Blair Chief Officer (Legal, Democratic and Strategy) 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, 15 October 2026 at 10:00 AM which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Rachel Blair Chief Officer (Legal, Democratic and Strategy) Members : Clerk Name: Clare Louise McDonald Clerk Telephone: 07350 435308 Clerk Email: committee@northlan.gov.uk 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, D Robb, A Smith, G Woods. Page 1 of 126
Page 2
Page 2 of 126
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 Planning Applications Index 5 - 122 3 Notice of Planning and Enforcement Appeals Lodged Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) advising of a Planning Appeal recently lodged with the Scottish Ministers. 123 - 126 Page 3 of 126
Page 4
Page 4 of 126
Page 5
North Lanarkshire Council Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee Committee Date: 15th October 2026 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved Item 2 Page 5 of 126
Page 6
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 15th October 2026 Page No Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation 7 25/00594/FUL Wilson Developments Scotland Ltd Proposed Development of 32 Residential Apartments Across Two Four Storey Blocks with Communal Landscaping,Cycle and Car Parking with Associated Ancillary Development. The Bullfrog 238 Shields Road Muirhouse Motherwell ML1 2DU Grant 24 67 110 26/00081/FUL 26/00190/FUL 26/00488/FUL North Lanarkshire Council and NHS Lanarkshire Ampyr Distributed Energy 1 Ltd Father Caleb Armur Creation of a New Single- Carriageway Road Link Including Associated Junction Improvements, Earthworks, Drainage, Lighting, Landscaping, Signage & Environmental Mitigations (EIA Development) Land off Towers Road, Forrest Street and Airdrie Road (A89) Airdrie Installation of a Ground- Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Array, Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Associated Infrastructure. Land at Biggar Road Newarthill Motherwell Use a Log Cabin in the Garden as a Private Chapel. Grant Grant Grant Page 6 of 126
Page 7
Application No: 25/00594/FUL Proposed Development: Proposed Development of 32 Residential Apartments Across Two Four Storey Blocks with Communal Landscaping, Cycle and Car Parking with Associated Ancillary Development Site Address: The Bullfrog 238 Shields Road Muirhouse Motherwell ML1 2DU Date Registered: 10th June 2025 Applicant: Wilson Developments Scotland Ltd 39 St Vincent Place Glasgow G1 2ER Agent: Porter Planning Ltd 39 St Vincent Street Glasgow G1 2ER Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 19 Motherwell South East And Ravenscraig Kenneth Duffy,Nathan Wilson,David Robb Representations: No letters of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed residential development is considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies contained in National Planning Framework 4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and will provide high-quality residential development that will integrate well with the surrounding area. Note to Committee: Should permission be approved then no decision notice should be issued until a Legal Agreement has been concluded securing the financial contributions to both North Lanarkshire Council Play and Education. Page 7 of 126
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: 25/00594/FUL Name (of applicant): Wilson Developments Scotland Ltd Site Address: The Bullfrog 238 Shields Road Muirhouse Motherwell ML1 2DU Development: Proposed Development of 32 Residential Apartments Across Two Four Storey Blocks with Communal Landscaping, Cycle and Car Parking with Associated Ancillary Development Page 8 of 126
Page 9
Proposed Conditions: - 1. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers: - (10)001 Proposed Block Plan (20)100 (20)101 (20)102 (20)103 (20)104 (EX)002 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_001_P00_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_200_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_201_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_202_P00_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_300_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_400_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_401_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_20_402_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_EX_002_P01_ 250006_HAUS_PR_XX_DR_A_EX_003_P01_ 3125-CDP-XX-XX-DR-C-5202L_P02 3125-CDP-XX-XX-DR-C-5203L_P03 3125-CDP-XX-XX-DR-C-5204L_P03 3125-CDP-XX-XX-DR-C-5203(L) Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, a comprehensive Site Investigation Report for the entire application site (as denoted by a red line on the approved Location Plan), including any proposed implementation phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175: 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11. The report must include a site-specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required, in which case a Remediation Strategy shall be submitted for approval alongside the Site Investigation Report. Information on the required format of the report and how it should be submitted to us can be found online: https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-applications/how discharge-contaminated-land-planning-conditions Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. 3. That any remediation works identified by a Contaminated Land / Ground Gas Remediation Strategy approved under the terms of Condition 2 above, shall be carried out to the approved specification at the specified stage of development. Prior to the occupation of any dwellinghouse a validation report (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) confirming that any remediation works applicable to that property have been carried out in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. Page 9 of 126
Page 10
4. That BEFORE any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by CIRIA in March 2000. Furthermore, site drainage shall be carried out in accordance with Drainage Strategy and General Drainage plan 3125-CDP-XX- XX-DR-C-5240L_P03. Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future users adjacent to and within the development site 5. That the surface water drainage scheme approved under the terms of condition 4 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans. Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution. 6. That PRIOR to the occupation of development, 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 drainage arrangements. 7. That before the development hereby permitted is occupied, all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site. 8. That a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 60 metres and 4.5 metres by 39 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and before the development hereby permitted is occupied, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety. 9. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:- (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 removed, 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. For the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall have a focus on biodiversity enhancement and shall include a mix of native and nectar rich trees, shrubs, hedgerows and wildflower areas. Reason: In the interest of biodiversity enhancement and visual amenity. Page 10 of 126
Page 11
10. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of Condition 9 above shall be completed in accordance with the approved schedule, and any trees shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the flatted properties, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: in the interest of biodiversity enhancement and visual amenity. 11. That before the first flatted dwellinghouse hereby approved is first occupied, details of a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of: (a) Proposed SuDs; (b) Proposed common/open space areas, including grassed, planted and landscaped areas within the development; (c) Proposed footpaths throughout the site; (d) Proposed trees and hedges, including those to be retained, throughout the site; (e) Proposed litter bins. (f) Operational start date for the factoring/maintenance agreement. Reason: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity and biodiversity. 12. That, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, all recommendations, and mitigations set out within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Arcona Ecology Ltd dated June 2023 with March 2025 update shall be implemented in full in accordance with the phasing approved under condition 8 above. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 13. That BEFORE the development commences, an updated Ecological Survey report prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Such a report shall include any proposals for mitigation which may be appropriate, and shall also include proposals for a scheme of ecological enhancements within the development site so as to offset the impacts of the development. In the event of the development not commencing within 12 months of the date of the survey, an updated such survey shall be undertaken and its findings submitted to the planning authority for approval as above. The approved mitigation and ecological enhancements shall thereafter be implemented as approved in accordance with the timescale specified in the agreed report. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 14. That before any works start on site (including site clearance and tree removal works) written confirmation shall be provided to the Planning Authority that the required Bat Nature Scot License has been approved. Reason: In the interests of protected species and minimise disruption to bats and their habitat. Page 11 of 126
Page 12
15. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the entire application site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail in the interest of the amenity of the site and adjacent properties 16. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on the external walls and roofs of the flatted blocks hereby approved, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall then be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail in the interests of the visual amenity of the site and surrounding area. 17. That before any works commence on site a Scheme of Lighting for the site shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt this shall take cognisance of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Wild Surveys dated March 2025 (and any further updates) – change to the one submitted for this application! and shall be a Sensitive lighting design to avoid light spill or artificial light at night (ALAN) to avoid affecting foraging or commuting bats. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and nature conservation 18. That the development will be completed in strict accordance with the acoustic mitigation measures outlined in 'Report on Road Traffic Sound by Charlie Flemming Associates dated April 2025 and 'Report on Commercial Sound' by Charlie Fleming Associates dated June 2025 unless otherwise approved by this Planning Authority – change to the one submitted for this application. For the avoidance of doubt, this will include all glazing and ventilation requirement and the completion of all other acoustic mitigation measures outlined within the approved noise impact assessment. No dwelling will be occupied until the completion of the appropriate noise mitigation measures related to that individual dwelling have been implemented and validated by a suitably qualified acoustician. Any noise mitigation measures required will be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the installation of appropriate noise mitigation measures in the interests of the amenity of future residents. 19. That before any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, an updated landscape scheme shall be submitted with a focus on biodiversity enhancement for all seasons and for the approval of the Planning Authority. Within these proposals trees, shrubs, hedgerows, wildflower areas and planting should be a mix of native and nectar rich species. A detailed timetable for all landscaping works within the site should be provided and shall set out that the works be carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site. Reason: To ensure that appropriate noise mitigation is in place in the interests of residential amenity. 20. That broadband infrastructure shall be installed to the flatted blocks within the site. Reason: To ensure residential broadband capability in line with NPF4 requirements. Page 12 of 126
Page 13
21. That, for the avoidance of doubt, this consent permits the development of the site for 32 social housing units only, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. This condition shall be treated as satisfied and discharged upon the transfer of the site, or the completed units, to a Registered Social Landlord, and written confirmation of that transfer being provided to the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate parking facilities within the site. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: NLC Infrastructure & Transportation, response dated 25th September 2026 NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) response dated 31st July 2026 NLC Arbor, response dated 6th October 2025 NLC Greenspace, response dated 14th September 2026 NLC Education, response dated 28th September 2026 NLC Water Management Team, response dated 4th July 2025 North Lanarkshire Council Community Partnership Manager (Play) 28th September 2026 Coal Mining Remediation Authority response dated 17th June 2025 Scottish Water, response dated 27th June 2025 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Stewart MacCallum at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 28th September 2026 Page 13 of 126
Page 14
APPLICATION NO. 25/00594/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site comprises around 0.46ha of what was formerly the Bullfrog Public House at 238 Shields Road, Wishaw. The property is now empty, derelict due to having been significantly fire damaged and beyond repair in 2023. It consists of the derelict building towards the east boundary of the site, an area of hardstanding which was the associated car parking behind the building and then the remainder of the site is largely vacant open grassland. The site is bounded by some mature trees to the east with Shields Road beyond, woodland to the west which has a Scottish Power sub-station beyond it, trees to the north with tended grassland and housing to the north. Shields Drive with housing beyond form its southern boundary. The site has a height difference of around 2-3 metres from the southern boundary to where it meets Shields Road to the east of the site. There is also a gentle gradient which slopes down from south to north. 1.2 There is a culvert beyond the north-western edge of the site, however this is not within the application site and is not impacted by the proposal. The majority of proposed open space is to the northern portion of the site and there is some additional areas of open space within the site. 1.3 The site is included in this year’s North Lanarkshire Councils Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). The applicant has provided a letter from Trust Housing Association which indicates that they would be interested in working with the applicant in securing these new properties should planning permission be achieved. They also note that they have already several affordable housing sites within the North Lanarkshire Council area. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning permission is sought for 32 flatted units along with the associated access road, open space, parking, cycle parking, landscaping and drainage infrastructure, etc. This would be formed across two separate 4 storey flatted blocks. This would include a variety of flats which would compromise of 15no two-bedroom flats and 17no single bedroom flats. The two residential blocks would be the same design but orientated at different positions with the gables of Block B facing north and south, the gables of Block A facing west and east. 2.2 The two flatted blocks would be of a flat roofed four storey design. The finishing materials would comprise of a mix of red facing brick, but this would see a different texture of brick using both rough and smooth effect finishes. The windows cills would use an anthracite coloured finish. 2.3 Access to the site would be taken from the existing site access taken from Shields Drive, though upgrading would be undertaken to ensure adequate access into the site and suitable sightlines achieved. The site would provide 32 car parking spaces, of which 2 would be accessible spaces. It would also include 40 cycling parking spaces. 2.4 The application would have been considered a delegated application in regards to the number of units proposed, however a small section in the north west of the site is covered by Policy PP4 Green Belt and therefore requires the application to be considered by the Planning Committee. Page 14 of 126
Page 15
3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The application form and plans are accompanied by: • Aboricultural Report • Energy Statement • Design and Access Statement • Planning Statement • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal • Protected Species Survey (Bats) • Site Investigation Report • Transport Statement • Drainage report • Noise Impact Assessment 4. Site History The site was previously a public house with associated beer garden and parking area, however has been vacant since the public house closed and then was significantly damaged by fire back in 2023. The recent applications are noted below, however these related to the public house when in operation. There have been no similar applications to the proposal. • 06/02089/FUL Change of use of Vacant Ground to Smoking Area/Beer Garden and the Erection of a Two Metre Fence • 08/00856/FUL Erection of Public House/Restaurant with Associated Car Parking 5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development plan 2022 (NLLDP). The NPF 4 Policies considered to have particular relevance for the proposals are as follows: Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 Biodiversity Policy 6 Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 9 Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Policy 12 Zero Waste Policy 13 Sustainable transport Policy 14 Design, quality and place Policy 15 Local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods Policy 16 Quality homes Policy 18 Infrastructure first Policy 20 Blue and Green Infrastructure Policy 21 Play, recreation and sport Policy 22 Flood risk and water management Policy 23 Health and safety Page 15 of 126
Page 16
The relevant policies within the NLLDP are as follows: PP3 Placemaking Policy 3 General Urban Area AD3 Amount of Development General Urban Area PP4 Purpose of Place Policy 4 Green Belt AD4 Amount of Development Green Belt Policy PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) Categories A3 Local Sites, A4 Urban Green Network and A5 Protected Species. Policy CI (Contributions to Infrastructure) EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) 6. Consultations 6.1 North Lanarkshire Council Infrastructure and Transportation has no objection to the proposal subject to the access and parking being completed prior to occupation of the houses. 6.2 North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services (Pollution Control) has no objection to the proposal subject to planning on the site in respect of appropriate noise mitigation, site investigation and any remediation requirements. 6.3 North Lanarkshire Education Service indicates that a financial contribution would be required to be paid for the development. This contribution will be secured through a legal agreement. 6.4 North Lanarkshire Council Community Partnership Manager (Play) indicates that as the site cannot accommodate play facilities that the proposal would require to provide a financial contribution towards this. This contribution will be secured through a legal agreement. 6.5 The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposal, the site is identified as a low risk coal zone. 6.6 Scottish Water has no objection to the proposal and advise that there is currently sufficient capacity in the local water supply network. The applicant should contact Scottish Water directly to discuss waste water arrangements. 6.7 North Lanarkshire Council Greenspace has no objection to the proposal subject to suitable consideration of suitable landscaping, and provision of suitable biodiversity and habitat considerations. 6.8 North Lanarkshire Council Arbor has raised concerns in regards to tree loss, however it would be intended to protect as many trees as possible and any tree loss minimised and where possible replanting/landscaping proposed. There would be no objection subject to suitable tree report and tree retention plan, and replacement plans and tree protection proposals. 7. Representations 7.1 No representations have been received. Page 16 of 126
Page 17
8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) and the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) with NPF 4 taking precedence in the event of any conflict. With regard to decision making, development that accords with the Development Plan should be approved unless the adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits that the development could expect to deliver. EIA Screening 8.2 This type of application is considered to fall within the ‘urban development project’ in terms of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. As the application site is not located in a ‘sensitive area’ (as defined by the EIA Regulations) and the application site does not exceed the 0.5ha threshold for urban development projects the application does not require to be the subject of Environmental Impact Assessment. 8.3 NPF 4 policy 1 (Tackling the climate and nature crises) establishes that significant weight must be given to the global climate and nature crises in the assessment of all development proposals. It requires planning authorities to consider how proposals contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing climate resilience and supporting nature recovery and restoration. The proposal would take into account these matters in regard to considerations with the General Urban Area and is supported by a flood risk report and ecological survey. It is considered to comply with policy 1. 8.4 NPF 4 policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation) requires that development proposals are sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to current and future climate risks. Proposals must demonstrate how they reduce emissions through location, design and construction, and support climate resilience by avoiding vulnerable areas and enabling adaptation. Retrofitting measures to existing developments that reduce emissions or improve resilience will be supported. The former public house is a ruin and cannot be reused, however the applicant has provided an energy statement which indicates that the construction of the flats proposes to utilise energy efficient materials and it would be proposed to use air source heat pumps. It is considered to comply with Policy 2. 8.5 NPF 4 policy 3 (Biodiversity) sets out criteria by which development should be assessed. Development proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, and development proposals for major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will Conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. It is concluded that a landscaping scheme, to be secured by condition, can be reasonably considered to offer a proportionate level of biodiversity enhancements through the introduction of habitat rich tree, shrub and grass planting thereby complying with Policy 3. 8.6 NPF 4 policy 4 (Natural Places) seeks to prevent development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. This also states that development proposals that are likely to have an adverse effect on species protected by legislation will only be supported where the proposal meets the statutory tests. If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on a site or may be affected by a proposed development development, then steps must be taken to establish its presence. The level of protection must be factored into the planning and design of development. The site is identified as being partially within a SINC, which is identified as Dalzell Park SINC. This is within part of where the flatted buildings would be located on site. As part of the site assessment, consideration was give to both badgers and bats with appropriate reports and on site assessments determining this would not cause any significant impact to these species. The principles of this policy are enshrined, and expanded upon within the Environmental Design Policies EDQ1-3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and are discussed in more detail below. Page 17 of 126
Page 18
8.7 NPF 4 policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) states that development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. Development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with Scottish Government policy on woodland removal. Where woodland is removed, compensatory planting will almost likely be expected to be delivered. This particular site would be expected to see minimal tree removal or impact proposed as the site is largely clear except to the site boundaries where the mature trees are located. The intention is to retain the mature trees as much as possible, although there would be removal of the scrubby immature trees within the site. However, the application would be conditioned to seek a tree survey and landscaping plans to consider acceptable control of tree removal, any tree replacement and required protection measures. Subject to appropriate planning conditions being applied it would be considered to comply with Policy 6. 8.8 NPF 4 policy 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) outlines that development proposals that support the sustainable reuse of brownfield land, including vacant and derelict sites and empty buildings, will be supported. Proposals must consider the biodiversity value of naturalised brownfield land and demonstrate that reuse is safe and suitable, particularly where contamination or instability is present. The reuse of existing buildings is encouraged, with demolition regarded as the last preferred option due to embodied carbon. Development on greenfield sites will not be supported unless allocated in the Local Development Plan or explicitly supported by policy. In regards to this site, it is accepted that the former public house building is fire damaged beyond repair and the removal of this building allows for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site as a whole. The redevelopment of this site includes what is considered a partial brownfield site (the public house ruins) and would be consistent with the principle of making productive use of existing land and reducing pressure on greenfield sites in line with Policy 9. 8.9 NPF 4 policy 12 (Zero Waste) promotes the principles of the circular economy and the waste hierarchy, encouraging development that reduces, reuses, and recycles materials and minimises demolition and salvages materials for reuse. Uses low-emission and reusable construction materials and provides appropriate waste management infrastructure during operation. The proposal involves demolition of an existing building rather than its reuse or adaptation. Policy 12 states that demolition should be regarded as the least preferred option, given the need to conserve embodied carbon. It is accepted that the building is fire damaged beyond repair and that the removal of the building allows for a comprehensive redevelopment of the site as a whole. The occupied development would thereafter accord with the household refuse collection policies of NLC. 8.10 NPF 4 policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The site is located within the urban area and is near to a regular main bus route on Shields Road. It is also within reasonable walking distance of a train station (Shieldmuir Train Station) and pedestrian routes and facilities remain acceptable. It is therefore considered to comply with Policy 13. 8.11 NPF 4 policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) seeks to ensure that developments are of a good design that are not detrimental to the amenity or surrounding area and are consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places - Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable. It is considered that the proposal is largely consistent with these qualities. However, it is considered that the impact of noise and co-location to the nearby road and electrical substation requires particular consideration and this is assessed below against the Environmental and Design Qualities policies, EDQ 1, 2, 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The principles of this policy are enshrined, and expanded upon, within the Environmental Design Policies EDQ1-3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and are discussed in more detail below. Page 18 of 126
Page 19
8.12 NPF 4 policy 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods) sets out that to establish this goal consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area. Being within an urban area the site is well served by road, bus and footpath links and close to existing amenities. It is considered to comply with policy 15. 8.13 NPF 4 policy 16 (Quality Homes) supports new homes on land allocated for housing in Local Development Plans and sets out various requirements including, and not limited, to meeting local housing requirements, providing, or enhancing local infrastructure, facilities or services and improving the residential amenity of the surrounding area. The application site is not designated as a housing development site within the NLLDP; however, the site is identified in the current North Lanarkshire Councils Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). Information has been provided during the application that the development is intended to provide affordable housing through a registered social landlord and is supported by the SHIP which has identified a need for 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation in this area. The proposed residential development is therefore in accordance with policy 16. 8.14 NPF 4 policy 18 (Infrastructure First) promotes an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, including a requirement that development proposals be subject to appropriate developer contributions to local infrastructure and services where circumstances justify this. In regards to this proposal, it is established that a financial contribution would be required for North Lanarkshire Council Education. It is also noted that a financial contribution is required in regards to North Lanarkshire Council Play Services which would go towards existing play facilities in the general area as the site would not be able to provide on site play facilities. It is considered to comply with policy 18. 8.15 NPF4 policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure) seeks to protect and enhance blue and green infrastructure and their networks. In regards to this site , the SINC and NLLDP Green Network policy covers the northern part of this site which requires consideration. This particular matter is discussed in more detail under the NLLDP assessment below. 8.16 NPF 4 policy 21 (Play, Recreation and Sport) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. In regards to this site there is no play provision proposed to be provided within the site, however a financial contribution has been sought from North Lanarkshire Council Play Services to allow for investment in existing nearby facilities. It would therefore be considered, by providing the financial contribution to comply with policy 21. 8.17 NPF 4 policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) intends to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. The SEPA flood maps do not identify any river or surface water flooding and therefore Flood Risk Assessment is not required. It would therefore be considered to accord with policy 22. 8.18 NPF 4 Policy 23 Health and Safety seeks to protect people and places from environmental harm, mitigate risks arising from safety hazards and encourage, promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. Criteria (e) notes that development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported and that a Noise Impact Assessment may be required where the nature of the proposal or its location raise the potential need for noise to be considered. A Noise Assessment has been submitted for the site which includes acoustic mitigation measures. These matters are discussed further below against the LDP Environmental and Design Qualities policies EDQ1-3 but it is considered that it has been demonstrated the proposal complies with NPF4 23. Page 19 of 126
Page 20
8.19 Policy 24 Digital Infrastructure supports development that provides future proofing by ensuring that appropriate ducting is in place within new development sites that can be used by different broadband providers. An appropriate condition has been imposed to control this matter to ensure the development complies with NPF4 24. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.20 NLLDP policies PP 3 and AD 3 (General Urban Area) seek to maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development that is in keeping with its often primarily residential character and encouraging diversity in more mixed-use areas. General urban Areas are either primarily residential in character or have a mixture of recognisably urban uses. Although it is currently vacant, this had been a long-established public house site and is currently both partially derelict and vacant open land. It does not provide a positive appearance and is visually detrimental due to the burnt out ruin of the former pub and being untended is starting to get overgrown and has also attracted dumping and fly tipping to the further detriment of the site. The site is considered appropriate for residential development and would be considered to meet the requirements of both policies PP3 and AD3 subject to assessment against all other policies. 8.21 NLLDP policies PP4 Purpose of Place Policy 4 Green Belt and AD4 Amount of Development, whilst it would state housing is not supported in the Green Belt it is considered that the majority of the site is designated as General Urban Area. The smaller proportion of the site (22%) would be covered by actual Green Belt of the 6163m2 within this site. In this case it is considered acceptable and for this reason it is not considered necessary to require a full assessment for the amount of residential development. Taking into account the site as a whole and only being a smaller part of the site actually being designated Green Belt, it would be concluded that it is an acceptable departure from the development plan. 8.22 NLLDP policy Cl- Contributions to Infrastructure seeks developer contributions for new developments that individually or cumulatively generate a requirement for new or enhanced services or infrastructure must provide appropriate contributions. Assessment will consider impacts on affordable housing (particularly in the Cumbernauld Housing Sub-Market Area); education provision, transport, infrastructure, and green infrastructure including amenity space and play facilities. Contributions will be secured via planning conditions or legal agreements, in line with Circular 2/2012 and assessed on a case-by-case basis. The site would be unable to provide play facilities, and the applicant has indicated that they would instead be willing to provide a financial payment. North Lanarkshire Council Play Services have confirmed that the figure for such a development would be £8000. This can be secured by a legal agreement, via a S69 or S75 agreement. The applicant has not yet confirmed which route they would prefer to go down in regards to a legal agreement. North Lanarkshire Council Education Service has requested a contribution of £10,795.34 which can be secured with a legal agreement, via a S69 or S75 agreement. The applicant has not yet confirmed which route they would prefer to go down in regards to a legal agreement. Subject to conclusion of a legal agreement, the proposal would be consistent with NPF4 policy 18 and NLLDP policy C1 Page 20 of 126
Page 21
8.23 NLLDP policy PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) indicates that permission will only be granted for proposals potentially affecting local sites or protected species if it can be demonstrated to the Council's satisfaction that there will be no adverse impact or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact. In regard to Category A3, the north west portion of the site is covered by a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) namely Dalzell Park SINC. This portion of the application site is near to where the Scottish Power sub-station is positioned. It would be noted that NLC Greenspace has requested a buffer to the SINC; however the site is considered to be part of the same planning unit as the former public house and is contained separately from the body of the SINC. The grassland area within the site is of low ecological value. The proposal shows the built development located away from the SINC with communal open space at the north and west of the site which would be maintained by the housing operator. There are no mature trees lost within the middle of the site. The only tree loss proposed would be the immature scrub within the site. It is the intention to try and avoid any tree loss near the site boundary where the mature trees are generally located. Whilst this would have an impact, it is considered to be very limited as the proposal would have a very minimal impact and in this case would be considered acceptable. In regard to Category A4 the application site relates to an area of partial brownfield site and largely grassland. It has a Green Network zoning over the northern part of the site This relates to the larger Green Network which stretches from Shields Road, to the east of the site to the policies of Dalzell Park to the west of the site. The application site is unusual in that this has historically been a public house with a related car parking area and associated land. The open grass area which was within the curtilage of the public house and was not wooded inside it, just the outer edge of the curtilage had trees. The pub and associated grassland are considered to form the same planning unit and previous planning applications also recognised this. The proposal largely intends to retain these trees around the curtilage with minimal tree loss and also proposes landscaping to encourage trees and planting within the site. There are no formal footpaths through the site that link the wider Green Network with footpaths contained in an area north of the application site for this purpose which would remain unaffected. In this instance it would be considered that there is no significant or detrimental impact to this part of the Green Network. In regard to Category A5 this requires an appraisal to demonstrate that protected species would not be compromised or create any significant effects on the protected species are appropriately mitigated. The preliminary Ecological Assessment and subsequent Bat Survey has identified a need for a Species Protection Plan and note that a license will be required from Nature Scot to carry out works on site. 8.24 NLLDP policy Cl Contributions to Infrastructure seeks developer contributions for new developments that individually or cumulatively generate a requirement for new or enhanced services or infrastructure in respect of affordable housing, education, transport, green infrastructure, amenity space and/or play. As noted above, financial contributions are required in respect of Play and Education. These can both be secured by use of legal agreement. 8.25 NLLDP policies EDQI to EDQ3 (Environmental and Design Quality) collectively require new 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 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 the 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. The supporting Design and Access statement accompanying the planning application provides an acceptable site appraisal upon which the design has been developed and therefore complies with EDQ1, Page 21 of 126
Page 22
8.26 Policy EDQ2 Specific Features for Consideration states that consideration will be given to development in areas subject to hazards(hazardous zones) and other specific features as in accordance with plans and protocols of the relevant managing agencies. This list includes HSE Hazard Consultation Zones, Flood Risk, Ground Instability(Coal Mining) and Contaminated Land. In regards to this the only specific hazards identified on this site that require to be assessed would be contaminated land and conditions can be applied to require submission of a Site Investigation and Remediation Strategy (if required) prior to works starting on site and ensure the verification of any remediation measure required. It is considered that the application accords with the requirements of policy EDQ2. 8.27 Turning to Policy EDQ3- Quality of Development, the proposed siting, overall layout, density, form, scale, massing, proportion detailing, colour and materials are considered acceptable. In this instance the nearby character of the surrounding area has a variety of different house types and a variance of heights including two storey dwellings, multiple floor flats and also multi storey flats all with a variety of external finishes and design. This proposal and design would be in keeping with that and integrates well due to the topography of the site in which it would be located. The application site is capable of accommodating the additional traffic. The proposed road layout within the application site is acceptable and it is considered that the 32 parking spaces are also consistent with the Councils standards. The site is near to a regular main bus route and is also within reasonable walking distance of a railway station. Pedestrian routes and facilities remain acceptable. Whilst some upgrading would be required to the existing site access and formation of suitable sightlines, the Transportation and Infrastructure Service has no objection to the proposal, and it is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) and NLLDP policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) in this respect. In terms of sustainability, the proposed dwellinghouses will be well insulated and energy efficient. Air Source heat pumps and solar PV are proposed to minimise operational carbon emissions through low carbon technologies. EV Charging is indicated on the design statement to provide for car users within the site. The proposed layout meets the NLC adopted open space requirements which are applied on an area of open space per bedroom. The site is not located in an Air Quality or Noise Management Area. In relation to Noise nuisance, the applicant submitted a Noise Impact Assessment with the application which found road noise from Shields Road And the neighbouring sub-station reached a level which requires mitigation measures to be put in place. Mitigation will take the form of acoustic measures in the building envelope including glazing and will require a mechanical heat ventilation system to allow a windows-closed approach. Protective Services have confirmed that this approach is acceptable and the measures are satisfactory. A condition requiring the mitigation measures to be put in place and verified before occupation can be applied. In terms of protecting water body status the site, the plans include Surface Water Drainage proposal to connect to take run-off to a culvert at the north of the site. It is intended foul water will connect to the existing Scottish Water infrastructure. A condition requiring confirmation that all of Scottish Water’s requirements have been met can be applied in this regard. Adequate provision can be made for the development and maintenance of landscaped areas, SUDs, and biodiversity can be controlled by suitably worded conditions. The application is supported by a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan. Taking the above into account it is considered that the proposal complies with policies EDQ1-3. It is acknowledged that the development is contrary to the development plan in that part of the site is covered by the Green Belt policy, however, for the reasons given above, it is considered that this is an acceptable departure in this instance. The development itself is considered acceptable in all other regards. Page 22 of 126
Page 23
9. Conclusions 9.1 The application seeks to provide much needed new housing to serve an identified need. Whilst part of the site is within the Green Belt and also covered by the Green Network and SINC policies, it is considered that it would not be detrimental nor significantly impact upon this area due to its historic background as being the site of a public house and associated grounds. On this basis, the departure for a small area of the site is considered acceptable. The majority of the site falls within the general urban area in the development plan and the proposed design and layout of the flatted development are considered appropriate. Accordingly, it is recommended that permission be granted for this proposal subject to appropriate planning conditions and the conclusion of a legal agreement to secure the financial contributions for Education infrastructure and off-site Play enhancements. Page 23 of 126
Page 24
Application No: Proposed Development: 26/00081/FUL Creation of a New Single-carriageway Road Link Including Associated Junction Improvements, Earthworks, Drainage, Lighting, Landscaping, Signage & Environmental Mitigations (EIA Development) Site Address: Land Off Towers Road, Forrest Street and Airdrie Road (A89) Airdrie North Lanarkshire Date Registered: 2nd February 2026 Applicant: North Lanarkshire Council and NHS Lanarkshire Agent: Turley 10 York Place Edinburgh EH1 3EP Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 08 Airdrie North Alan Beveridge, Sophia Coyle, Henry Emerson Dunbar, Richard Alan Sullivan, Representations: Representations received from 5 neighbouring properties Recommendation: Approve Reasoned Justification: The proposed development forms part of the proposed East Airdrie Link Road which is a key element of the council’s regeneration strategy. The proposed road will provide vehicular access to the Monklands Replacement Hospital project thus unlocking significant health benefits and will also enhance its accessibility by sustainable means of transport. The planning application has been submitted with an EIA report and other supporting information which adequately describes the nature and extent of likely impacts along with necessary mitigation measures where necessary. The application is considered to be in accordance with the development plan. It is acknowledged that there are adverse impacts relating to long term carbon emissions, noise, tree removal, resultant pressure at some road junctions (albeit likely to be temporary) and localised visual and landscape impacts. However, these adverse impacts have been mitigated as far as reasonably possible and the benefits afforded by the development far outweigh the adverse impacts. Page 24 of 126
Page 25
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: 26/00081/FUL Name (of applicant): North Lanarkshire Council and NHS Lanarkshire Site Address: Land off Towers Road, Forrest Street and Airdrie Road (A89) Airdrie Development: Creation of a New Single-Carriageway Road Link Including Associated Junction Improvements, Earthworks, Drainage, Lighting, Landscaping, Signage & Environmental Mitigations (EIA Development) Page 25 of 126
Page 26
Proposed Conditions: - Compliance with Approved Drawings 1. 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 EALR Section 1 - PLANNING SUBMISSION - PLANS PACK Version 1 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. Compliance with EIA Mitigation 2. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, a Schedule of Environmental Commitments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The schedule will be based on the Environmental Mitigation Commitments noted in chapter 19 of the EIAR but updated to take account of mitigation measures which have been subsequently agreed. The approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in full unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that all of the environmental mitigation measures are properly identified and implemented. Temporary construction access routes 3. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, full details of the temporary construction access routes shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. These details shall include: • the location of access roads and tracks • means of construction including details of surfacing • any resultant changes in levels • necessary drainage works • details of resultant removal of any shrubs or trees • a restoration scheme (including timetable for implementation) showing how the temporary construction access routes will be treated once construction works are complete. The agreed restoration scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with approved details. Reason: To ensure that all proper details are available in the interests of amenity and road safety. Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan 4. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced/enabling works take place, a Construction Phase Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. This should consider the following: (a) proposed construction programme and phasing; (b) forecast daily and peak movements with specific details of HGV movements; (c) approved routes for construction traffic; (d) abnormal load delivery arrangements where required; (e) measures to protect road users, pedestrians and cyclists; (f) temporary signage proposals; (g) details of traffic marshals where necessary; (h) measures to avoid or mitigate works during school arrival and departure times; (i) details of any necessary temporary traffic orders and road closures Page 26 of 126
Page 27
(j) arrangements for maintaining emergency vehicle and public transport access; (k) monitoring and reporting procedures including details of how any necessary remedial actions will be implemented; and (l) complaint handling procedures. Reason: In the interests of road safety and residential amenity. CEMP 5. 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 and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The CEMP shall set out, as a minimum, site specific measures to control and monitor impacts arising in relation to: (a) all relevant mitigation measures identified within the Environmental Impact Assessment Report; (b) construction working methods and phasing; (c) pollution prevention measures; (d) hours of operation, (e) lighting, (f) construction traffic, (g) noise, (h) vibration, (i) dust (j) air pollutants (k) soil management including locations and heights of temporary soil mounds (l) site drainage and surface water management measures and Flood Response Plan (m) waste management procedures including a Site Waste Management Plan (n) procedures for environmental incident response (o) arrangements by which the developer shall maintain communication with residents and businesses in the vicinity of the site, (Stakeholder Management Plan) (p) details of how the developer will monitor and document compliance with the measures set out in the CEMP. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that impacts and risks from works to the future users of the land, neighbouring land, to the water environment, property and ecological systems, are minimised and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks and impacts to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. Deer Management Statement 6. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any advanced / enabling works take place, a Deer Management Statement (DMP) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. This shall be based on the outline DMP in appendix 2.3 of the EIAR and shall describe the potential impact of the development on deer welfare both during the construction and operational phase of the development, including details of measures to minimise habitat loss, reduce deer-vehicle collisions, and maintain ecological connectivity for deer species present in the area. The agreed measures shall thereafter be incorporated and implemented as part of the development. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to protect the welfare of deer on or near the application site. Page 27 of 126
Page 28
CMRA 7. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence on any individual phase until: A – a scheme of intrusive investigations has been carried out on site to establish the risks posed to the development by past mining activity, and: B – any remediation works and/or mitigation measures to address land instability arising from coal mining legacy, as may be necessary, have been implemented on site in order to ensure that the site is safe and stable for the development proposed. The intrusive site investigations and remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with authoritative UK guidance. Reason: To ensure the site is safe and stable for the proposed development. 8. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, prior to any part of the development being 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 the intrusive site investigations and the completion of any remedial works and/or mitigation necessary to address the risks posed by past coal mining activity. Reason: To ensure the site is safe and stable for the proposed development. Site Investigation 9. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, BEFORE the development commences, an updated Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The updated report shall seek to address the outstanding matters listed in the SI peer review report reference 355675-S04-01(01) dated 10/08/2026. Depending on the results of the further investigation, a detailed remediation strategy may be required. The remediation strategy shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority and may (if required) be submitted for individual phases of the development. Reason: To establish whether site decontamination is required in the interests of amenity and wellbeing of future users of the site. Remediation Implementation & Verification 10. Any remediation works agreed as part of condition 9 shall be implemented in full as part of the development. Before any individual phase of road is first brought into use, a validation report (signed by a suitably qualified chartered environmental engineer) shall be submitted to the planning Authority for approval which confirms that the agreed remediation works have been carried out. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users. Archaeology 11. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no development shall take place within the site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in a written scheme of investigation to be submitted by the applicant and agreed by the Planning Authority and then carried out prior to construction works on site. This shall include: • a photographic survey of the site, Page 28 of 126
Page 29
• 5% groundbreaking evaluation of that portion of the development area not previously developed or evaluated. If this exercise identifies sites or objects of merit there should be proposals for further works potentially including excavation, post-excavation, publication and archiving, • A programme of archaeological outreach and engagement should be sought with local communities, particularly focused on the industrial heritage of the region, as agreed by the Planning Authority, details of which shall be outlined within the emerging archaeological mitigation strategy. Reason: To ensure the appropriate recording of potential archaeology remains. Scottish Water 12. That, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, BEFORE any works of any description being commenced on the application site, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from Scottish Water confirming that their requirements can be met. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements. Drainage 13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled `Drainage Assessment: A Guide for Scotland’ and any other advice by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). This shall also incorporate all relevant mitigation measures as set out in condition 2 above and will include additional/revised details required by the NLC Water Management team in their comments of 23/02/2026, 27/03/2026 and 06/05/2026. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements. Flood Risk 14. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works commence on site, an addendum to the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. The updated document shall be based upon the FRA contained within appendix 15.4 of the EIAR and shall address the comments of SEPA in their letter of 13 August 2026 most notably the following: • provision of updated modelling and outputs at the next phase of the project. This should include updated topographic survey, ground truthing, cell size convergence analysis and 1D modelled water levels for North Calder Water and new embankment model cross sections and long profiles. Reason: To ensure that all matters relating to flood risk are known and understood, in accordance with the planning application and EIA report. Page 29 of 126
Page 30
Implementation of Drainage and Flood Measures 15. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the terms of the FRA (as updated by condition 14) and the agreed surface water drainage scheme (as required by condition 13) 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 agreed 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 best practice in water management. Roads Matters: 16. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the following works shall be in place before any part of the proposed road is open to vehicular traffic: • traffic calming measures on Petersburn Road and Towers Road (as described in the Traffic Forecast Report) • change in vehicle priority at the junction of Varnsdorf Way and Petersburn Road (as described in the Traffic Forecast Report) • operational traffic signals at the proposed roundabout on Towers Road/Varnsdorf Way Reason: In accordance with submitted details and in the interests of road safety. Facing Materials 17. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works start on site, full details of the facing materials to be used on the proposed bridge structures 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. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects, in order to ensure that materials are visually acceptable in a local context. Means of Enclosure 18. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any construction works commence on site, 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. Lighting 19. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works commence on site, full details of all external lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. This 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 EIAR. Reason: In the interests of amenity, safety and nature conservation and protection. Page 30 of 126
Page 31
Sports Scotland 20. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence until a method statement (including timescales) for the proposed replacement sports provision at Caldervale High School has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Planning Authority. The method statement shall set out the mechanisms in place which will allow for the timely delivery of the works and actions as set out in the applicant’s document entitled “EALR Section 1 – Response to SportScotland - 26/00081/FUL” dated 29 June 2026 on the public portal. Reason: To ensure appropriate compensation for the loss of the existing grass pitch. 21. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works starts on site, a mitigation scheme to minimise the risk of golf balls straying onto the proposed public road will be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SportScotland. The mitigation scheme will comprise replacement and additional tree planting along the southern edge of the 7th fairway and also any additional temporary protective netting, or any other reasonable scheme be agreed in advance. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to protect the amenity and setting of the golf course. 22. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the agreed schemes of works (as set out in conditions 21 and 22 above) shall be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority before any works start on site. Reason: To ensure the timely implementation of conditions 20 and 21. Tree Felling 23. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no trees shown to be retained shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars or as may be permitted by prior approval in writing from the local planning authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to ensure compliance with the planning application and EIA report. Tree Protection 24. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, details of the nature and location of all tree protection measures shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. These details shall be in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012 (section 6). The tree protection measures shall be in place before any works start on site and shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection and to ensure compliance with the planning application and EIA report. Page 31 of 126
Page 32
Landscaping 25. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include: (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. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall include • provision for a landscaped barrier between the proposed development and the 7th fairway in the adjoining golf course and • details of how all redundant areas of roadway will be treated • woodland compensation as set out in the EIA mitigation scheme agreed in condition 2 Reason: To ensure the timely submission of necessary landscaping details. Landscape Implementation 26. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 25 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable. Thereafter, the landscaping will be maintained in accordance with approved details specified within the LEMP (see condition 29). Reason: To ensure the timely implementation of the landscaping works in the interests of biodiversity, amenity and to properly mitigate the impact of the adjoining golf course. Protected Species 27. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any development starts on site, updated Protected Species Surveys shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Furthermore, should no development commence within 1 year from the date of any updated surveys required under the terms of this condition, further updates shall thereafter be provided for the written approval of the Planning Authority before any development starts. Following written approval by the Planning Authority, the requirements of those reports in respect to habitat and protected species protection shall be complied with in full, including securing any licences from NatureScot. Reason: In the interests of protecting nature conservation interests. Species Protection Plan (SPP) 28. 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: • bats, badger, otter, pine marten, barn owl, kestrel and reptiles Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and protection. Page 32 of 126
Page 33
Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) 29. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works take place, a detailed Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The format of the LEMP shall be agreed in advance. The LEMP shall incorporate all measures identified within the following agreed documents: • Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment • Woodland Compensation and Restoration Plan • badger foraging habitat compensation plan, • Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Management Plan • Species Protection Plan • Deer management plan • Landscaping scheme • mitigation measures as agreed under the terms of condition 2 above. The LEMP will set out how the agreed landscape and biodiversity protection and enhancement measures will be implemented, managed and monitored and will include the following: (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 LEMP; (d) details of a monitoring/maintenance regime with associated reporting including the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW or team of ECoWs. The ECoW(s) will oversee the implementation of the LEMP (e) the LEMP 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 LEMP shall thereafter be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in the interests of ensuring that the approved LEMP is carried out and monitored in accordance with the agreed scheme to secure appropriate biodiversity protection and enhancements and the implementation of all landscape works. Suicide Prevention 30. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any works commence on the proposed bridges, full details of all suicide prevention measures to be incorporated into the design of the bridge structures 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 Page 33 of 126
Page 34
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Scottish Environment Protection Agency NLC Water Management Team NLC Arbor Green Action Trust Coal Mining Remediation Authority NLC Greenspace NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) NLC Archaeology Service Network Rail NLC Traffic & Transportation Scottish Water SportScotland Strathclyde Partnership for Transport NatureScot Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lindsay Kellock at 01236 632500 Report Date: 2nd October 2026 Page 34 of 126
Page 35
APPLICATION NO. 26/00081/FUL REPORT 1. Background and Context 1.1 A key element of the council’s contribution to the Glasgow City Region ‘City Deal’ project is the “Pan Lanarkshire” (or Pan-Lan) orbital transport corridor. This is a large- scale road-based infrastructure project linking the M74 in the south with the M80 in the north. Designed to help stimulate business investment, create new employment opportunities and improving access to jobs, the Pan-Lan is comprised of 3 elements: • East Airdrie Link Road (EALR)- creating a new road link that provides a more direct north-south link between the M8 and Cumbernauld. • Ravenscraig Access Infrastructure - providing new and upgraded road infrastructure in and around the strategic economic investment site of Ravenscraig. • Motherwell Town Centre and Rail Station - improving public transport and active travel interchange at Motherwell train station. 1.2 The planning application for the full scheme EALR was submitted in June 2026 (planning application reference 26/00766/FUL) and will be presented to committee in due course. It might be useful to share the council’s agreed aims for the full EALR scheme, which are as follows: • Improvement in journey times • Improvement in connectivity between complementary land uses (eg residential and business uses) • Improve air quality along the A73 • Provide access to the site of the Monklands Replacement Project 1.3 This report concerns itself purely with one discrete element of the EALR scheme, this being a new section of roadway in and around the site of the proposed Monklands Replacement Project (MRP) which was granted planning permission in June 2024 (planning application reference 23/00800/FUL). The MRP is wholly dependent on the EALR (or part thereof) for vehicular access. 1.4 The reasoning behind the submission of this standalone planning application (referred to as the Section 1 EALR) is to focus on providing the MRP site with the necessary vehicular access and also as to strengthen the MRP’s connection to the surrounding community. This will allow the council and NHS Lanarkshire (joint applicants for this planning application) to progress the road and hospital projects in tandem. This approach will also allow for an earlier delivery date for this section of road (compared to the Full Scheme EALR) which facilitates access to the new hospital. 1.5 In terms of phasing, construction works for Section 1 EALR is planned to commence in 2028 and be open in 2030, with the Full Scheme EALR planned to be open in 2032. Members will be aware of recent announcements from the Scottish Ministers in relation to the MRP and further discussion on this and related matters can be found in paragraphs 10.1- 10.3 below. In terms of programming, the MRP works are also planned to start in 2028 with an opening date partly dependent on the nature and scale of works to be undertaken. This date will become clearer by Summer 2027 when an updated business case is scheduled to be submitted to the Scottish Government for approval. Page 35 of 126
Page 36
2. Site Description and Surroundings 2.1 The application site is ‘L’ shaped’, extends to 43.3ha and connects Towers Road (at the southwest corner of the site) with Forrest Street where it becomes Airdrie Road (A89) at the north of the site. Key aspects of the site are as follows: • 86.3% of the site is comprised of agricultural grazing land • 5.8% of the site is comprised of woodland. This is split into 3 main groupings which are on the edge of The North Calder Water (which bisects the site in 2 locations) and an area on the north side of the site in and around the A89. • The north part of the site is bisected (east/west) by the Edinburgh/Glasgow via Bathgate railway. • At the north end of the site (immediately to the south of the A89) is the remains of a now closed gypsy traveller site • At the southwest corner of the site (on the east side of Towers Road) the site takes in one of the grass playing fields within the boundary of Caldervale High School. • Bisecting the site in 2 locations (roughly in a north/south direction) are overhead power lines and 85m high pylons. • In terms of topography, the site undulates gently for the most part with exceptions being the steep sides of the North Calder Water and the railway line which sits on an embankment. Starting at the junction of Towers Road and Varnsdorf Way, the site currently sits at 150m aod, dropping down to132m aod at the North Calder Water before rising to 189m aod at the eastmost corner of the site (ie where the 2 parts of the ‘L’ shape are joined). From there the site slopes down to 167m aod at the A89 (Forrest Street/Airdrie Road). • There is a degree of overlap between this site and the site of the proposed MRP. In particular, the eastern edge of the site (at the intersection of the ‘L’ shape’) is the basis of land engineering operations associated with the MRP. The site in this location is being flattened and is devoid of planting. • There are a number of public foot paths that intersect the site including the North Calder Heritage Trail which follows the line of the North Calder and passes through the application site on the west side of the Calder to the south of Caldervale High School playing fields. This path also forms part of the council’s core path network. The A89 is also identified as being part of the core path network. 2.2 Within 200m of the site boundary are the following: • Caldervale High School and playing fields are located on Towers Road immediately adjoining the southwest corner of the site. • St Philip’s School adjoins the northeast corner of the site. The school provides educational services and residential care (including some permanent residential accommodation) for vulnerable youngsters. • Easter Moffat Golf course sits immediately to the east of the site • Clarkston Parish Church and halls are located on Forrest Street and adjoin the northwest corner of the site. • Katherine Park (located at the corner of Forrest Street and Towers Road) adjoins the northwest corner of the site. The park contains Clarkston bowling club, playing fields and a children’s play area • Wester Moffat hospital sits close to the northwest corner of the site (to the south of the railway line). Page 36 of 126
Page 37
• 343 houses (185 of which are within 100m of the site). These are primarily located in and around Towers Road and Forrest Street, but there are a number of houses which stand on their own most notably on Katherine Park Lane (immediately east of the park), in and around the Easter Moffat Golf Club and immediately to the west of St Philips School. • 8 shops, these being on the corner of Forrest Street and Connor Street • 3 industrial/commercial premises, these being the extensive Inverhouse Distillers operation adjoining the southeast corner of the site, the Chivas Brothers warehouse on the opposite side of Towers Road and a haulage yard/recycling business off Forrest Street adjoining the north end of the site. • Immediately south of the Chivas Brothers warehouse on Towers Road is the Caldercraig bowling club. • Within the ‘inside’ of the ‘L’ shape of the site is the ongoing land engineering operations for the MRP. • The site of the former Stepends Quarry is located off Stepends Road at the southeast side of the site (see paragraph 5.4 for details of current works at this site). 3. Proposed Development 3.1 It is proposed to construct a road with ancillary works extending to 2.3km as follows: Towers Road Link 3.2 Starting at the southwest corner of the site, the scheme ties into Varnsdorf Way and Towers Road by way of a new non-circular 4 arm roundabout with traffic signals (incorporating pedestrian crossings). The new single carriageway road then proceeds in an easterly direction for just over 1km. This section of road is known as the “Towers Road link”. This would pass through mainly agricultural land but would also see the removal of some woodland and also the removal of one of the sports pitches at Caldervale High School. This section of new road includes a bridge over the North Calder Water and a dedicated roundabout access into the proposed new hospital. This section of road will have street lighting and will incorporate active travel on one side of the road allowing access between the hospital site and Towers Road and beyond. The design of the bridge will allow continued use of the North Calder Heritage Trail (which at this point is routed alongside the North Calder Water) although temporary closures of the path are expected during the construction phase. 3.3 In terms of levels, the road starts at the existing level of Towers Road/Varnsdorf Way (150m aod) before dipping down to approximately 146m aod (in and around the new bridge) before rising to 179m aod at the new roundabout at the junction with the main alignment. Main Alignment 3.4 At the end of the Towers Road link is proposed a 4-arm roundabout connecting (in a north westerly direction) a new single carriageway road extending to 1.3km. The new roundabout will (in due course) also provide access to the Full Scheme EALR heading southwards and will also incorporate a new access to Stepends Road (these elements form part of the planning application for the Full Scheme EALR scheme – planning application reference 26/00766/FUL). This section of new road is known as the main alignment, given that it is planned to form part of the full scheme EALR. This section of road would pass through mainly agricultural land and some areas of woodland. The main alignment will incorporate a new bridge over the North Calder Water and also over the railway line. 3.5 The new 1.3km section of road (main alignment) terminates on the A89 (Forrest Street/Airdrie Road) in a new 4 arm roundabout. Apart from allowing for east/west access on the A89, the roundabout facilitates future access to the northern section of the full scheme EALR. 3.6 In terms of levels on the main alignment, there are areas of both cut and fill and the new road will slope gently from 179m aod (at the roundabout on the main alignment at the end of the Towers Road link) down to 167m aod at the new roundabout on the A89. Page 37 of 126
Page 38
Planning History 3.7 It should be noted that the new section of road extending to 320m (between and including the dedicated roundabout into the new MRP and the new roundabout on the main alignment) already has planning permission by way of the MRP permission (ref 23/00800/FUL). Advanced enabling works have commenced at the MRP site, although as noted in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3) a final decision on the exact nature and scale of the new hospital buildings has still to be agreed. Drainage 3.8 During the construction phase, a series of drainage measures would be put in place, and these would be agreed as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) details of which would be a condition applied to any planning permission. Once operational, the development would benefit from a system of 2-level treatment whereby surface water runoff from the roads would be channelled into either filter drains and/or gulleys and thereafter to one of 5 SuDS ponds. Roundabouts 3.9 The new roundabouts on the A89 and Towers Road/Varnsdorf Way would be built mainly “offline” (ie not on the line of the existing roadways) meaning they can be constructed with limited disruption to road users. The Towers Road roundabout would be controlled by traffic signals which would also incorporate signalised pedestrian crossings. Traffic Calming 3.10 Traffic calming works are proposed outwith the planning application site with the intention of reducing traffic volume on Petersburn Road and Towers Road. This would comprise traffic calming cushions on Petersburn Road (between Glen Road and Towers Road) and on Towers Road (between Petersburn Road and Varnsdorf Way). It is also proposed to change the vehicle priority at the junction of Petersburn Road and Varnsdorf Way. This would encourage traffic to use Varnsdorf Way and thus help traffic to avoid Hilltop Primary School on Petersburn Road and Caldervale High School on Towers Road. Active Travel 3.11 Active travel features are incorporated into the proposed scheme as follows: • Active travel crossing of the EALR on the north side of the Hospital Roundabout • Shared use path along the length of the Towers Road Link • Active travel crossing of the EALR on the south side of the A89 Forrest Street roundabout • Active travel path on Forrest Street • Active travel crossings on all four arms of the Towers Road Roundabout with signalised crossings. Street Lighting 3.12 Street lighting would be provided on all roundabouts and approaches, on the Towers Road link but not on the EALR main alignment. Landscaping/Biodiversity 3.13 In addition to a scheme of roadside landscaping, a replacement tree planting scheme extending to 4.5ha is proposed. Biodiversity mitigations and enhancements are also proposed which (in summary) would provide a habitat net gain of 11.59% and a watercourse net gain of 0.3% within the application site. Construction 3.14 The construction phase is estimated to extend to 2.5 to 3 years with works planned to commence in 2028. The applicant has submitted a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) outlining how the works would proceed and what mitigation measures would be required in order to adequately protect the environment and local communities. Page 38 of 126
Page 39
Sports Pitch Mitigation Works 3.15 The proposed development will necessitate the removal of one grass sports pitch within the southern boundary of Caldervale High School. Following pre-application discussions with SportScotland (a statutory consultee on proposals which result in the removal of sports pitches) a scheme of mitigations has been incorporated in to the proposed scheme, which includes details of how existing users of the pitch will be accommodated in the short term and how the loss of the existing sports pitch can be best mitigated. Although subject to further discussion and agreement with SportScotland, this mitigation package is likely to comprise a double Multi-Use Games Area, associated athletics provision and an additional sports court, all of which would be accommodated within the school. 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. The EIA process includes baseline surveys, impact assessment and mitigation proposals. Normally, the preparation of an EIAR would be preceded by a scoping exercise to help determine what the likely significant environmental effects are likely to be. In this instance, a scoping exercise was not carried out specifically for Section 1 of the EALR but instead was distilled from the scoping exercise for the Full Scheme EALR, and this is considered to be an acceptable approach to take in this instance. 4.2 In addition to the above, reports have been submitted on the following: • design statement; • drainage strategy; • flood risk assessment; • planning statement; • transport forecasting report • sustainability statement 4.3 Although the application under consideration is a ‘local’ application (in terms of the planning hierarchy) it forms part of the wider proposals for the Full Scheme EALR. Being a ‘major’ proposal, that scheme was the basis of statutory pre-application consultation with the local community. That included consultation events held at Airdrie Library (17 June 2025 and 7 October 2025), Chapelhall Library (19 June 2025 and 9 October 2025), Cumbernauld Library (24 June 2025 and 21 October 2025) and Caldervale High School (2 October 2025). 4.4 Prior to the consultation events noted above, the Full Scheme EALR was the basis of an iterative process of option appraisal and consultation dating from 2020. Part of that process (partly dictated by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) was a 3-stage assessment process as follows: Stage 1 – identify environmental, engineering economic and traffic advantage and disadvantages and constraints Stage 2 – identify factors to be taken into account in choosing alternative routes Stage 3 – identify advantages and disadvantages of preferred route. Page 39 of 126
Page 40
5. Site History for Application Site and Surrounding Area Within the Application Site 5.1 Part of the application site boundary overlaps with the application site boundary of the proposed Monklands hospital. Planning permission for the new hospital was granted in June 2024 (ref 23/00800/FUL). Land engineering operations (creation of the new development platform) are now well under way. Further details of the current hospital programme can be found in paragraphs 10.1 to 10.3. 5.2 On the south side of the A89 is the remains of a now closed gypsy traveller site which was set up by the council in the 1990s. The facility was short lived, and the site is now identified by the council in its “Vacant & Derelict Land” register. Outwith the Application Site 5.3 NHSL were granted planning permission for a 2.0 MW photo voltaic farm in January 2026 (ref 25/00965/FUL). This is located to the east of the proposed roundabout at the junction of the EALR and the connection with Towers Road. Works have not started on site. 5.4 Stepends Quarry (ref. 16/02009/FUL and 21/00230/S42) has planning permission to be infilled with imported soils which will eventually allow for its use as a fishery. Works are underway and the planning permission allows the infill works to continue until September 2029. 5.5 Planning permission was granted to Caldervale High School in July 2026 (ref 26/00087/FUL) for the demolition of an annex building. 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 should 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 majority of the site is zoned as Green Belt (policy PP4) within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022) with the exception of the playing field on the south side of Caldervale High School which is identified as being part of the general urban area. 7. Consultations 7.1 The planning application and EIA report were the basis of various statutory and non-statutory consultations, and the responses are summarised as follows: 7.2 NLC Protective Services has examined the noise impact assessment (NIA) and air quality assessment (AQA) which form part of the planning application and EIA report. It has no objections on these fronts subject to the proposed mitigation measures being implemented. In terms of ground contamination, they note that several impacts of the development have still to be fully assessed, but they are happy that these matters can be properly controlled by way of planning conditions. 7.3 NLC Greenspace is satisfied with the scheme subject to suitable requirements being in place for mitigation measures, further detailed information and licencing (this being the responsibility of NatureScot) whilst other matters can be the basis of planning conditions. 7.4 The NLC Water Management Team confirm that in their view, the Flood Risk Assessment is sufficient and that any planning permission should be conditional upon the applicant complying with the recommendations contained in that document. It is also satisfied with the drainage strategy subject to a condition requiring further clarity on detailed matters, which can be addressed by way of a planning condition. Page 40 of 126
Page 41
7.5 NLC Tree Assets has reviewed the Arboriculture Impact Assessment and Landscape and Ecological Mitigation Drawings, and they are satisfied with the recommendations. 7.6 NLC Traffic & Transportation does not object to the proposals. The note that the new road would primarily service traffic associated with the new hospital with limited through movements. On this basis they consider that the overall impact across the road network will be marginal. However, increases in traffic flows could lead to reductions in capacity and increased delays on 5 junctions at these locations: • Brownsburn Road approach to A73 • Petersburn Road approach to A73 • Lauchope Street approach to A73 • A73 northbound approach to A73/Lauchope Street junction • A89 Forrest Street/Towers Road/Connor Street (albeit the junction improvement works required as part of the hospital proposals will mitigate this impact). • It is noted that construction of the full EALR is expected to reduce traffic flows on the A73 corridor and this should mitigate impacts on the junctions. Until such time as the full scheme EALR is in place, it is recommended that the junctions are monitored and (if necessary) additional mitigation works are undertaken. • The proposed traffic calming measures on sections of Petersburn Road and Towers Road should be in in place before the new road is open to traffic. • Additional and/or revised details are required on road layout and geometry, pedestrian access, traffic management, signage and lighting. • A reduction in the speed limit on the A89 (from 40 mph to 30mph) should be considered. • Before works start on site, a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan should be produced for agreement, showing how construction traffic will be managed and mitigated. 7.7 The council’s advisor on archaeology matters has no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of planning conditions requiring the submission and implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation work 7.8 Scottish Water has no objections to the proposals, but notes the following: • There are no records of drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources in the area. • There is live Scottish Water Infrastructure in the proximity of the development, and the developer should liaise directly with Scottish Water on this matter. • Any drainage schemes should avoid surface water running into Scottish Water combined sewer system, • Any new connections to Scottish Water infrastructure will require the developer to make an application for a Pre-Development Enquiry. 7.9 SEPA has no objection to the proposals subject to the application of 2 planning conditions, the first requiring the implementation of the mitigation measures listed in the EIAR and secondly a requirement for the submission of additional information relating to flooding matters at the North Calder Water. They advise that failure to apply these conditions should amount to a formal objection from them, but (as noted above) it is recommended that these conditions be applied to any permission. Page 41 of 126
Page 42
7.10 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 southern edge of the application site being within the consultation zone of a major installation ie the adjoining Inverhouse Distillery site to the south-east. 7.11 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) has no comments to make on the proposals but notes that their policy Historic Environment Policy for Scotland) should be taken on board as a material consideration. 7.12 Sport Scotland notes that the proposed road will result in the loss of an existing sports pitch at Caldervale High School and that there is an intention to replace this with new and higher quality facilities at the school. It also notes that the new road will be located within 100-150 metres of the 7th fairway of the Easter Moffat golf course to the east. SportScotland has no objections to the proposals subject to conditions requiring the implementation of the mitigation works agreed in relation to the replacement pitch proposals, and also a condition requiring mitigation works in and around the 7th fairway to protect its setting and also to prevent stray golf balls entering the carriageway. 7.13 NatureScot notes that there are natural heritage interests of international and national importance close to the development site (Slamanan Plateau, Black Loch Moss and Lady Bell’s Moss) but concludes that they will not be affected by the proposals. They did, in the first instance, provide concerns relating to impacts on badger populations and biodiversity enhancement, but these concerns were withdrawn following receipt of clarification from the applicant. 7.14 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) welcomes the inclusion of the link to Towers Road as it provides alternative access points to the new hospital, creating additional active travel access and additional route options for public transport. It is noted that the new roundabouts on Towers Road and Forrest Street are designed to be built mostly offline thus limiting the impact of traffic flow during the construction phase. SPT asks that these routes be recognised in the detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan and that SPT be given the opportunity to comment on this plan before it is finalised. They ask that any consequential alterations to existing bus stops should be agreed with SPT beforehand, although at present it appears that no existing bus stops will be directly impacted. 7.15 Scottish Forestry acknowledges that the EIAR considers the effects of the proposal on exiting woodland and notes the stated objectives for mitigation, compensatory planting and habitat enhancement. However, significant concerns remain regarding the permanent loss of existing woodland (particularly ancient and potential ancient woodland) and the level of detail on compensation. It suggests that further details are required on a variety of matters including: • the area and type of woodland to be removed, • the area, location and composition of compensatory woodland • how habitat networks will be maintained and enhanced 7.16 The Coal Mining Remediation Authority notes the work undertaken in the submitted Coal Mine Risk Assessment and has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of planning conditions requiring the submission of additional investigations and the subsequent implementation of any agreed works. 7.17 Network Rail has no objections to the proposals but given the nature of the works in and around the new bridge at the railway line, it asks that the applicant co-operates with Network Rail in the design and layout of the new bridge, drainage works, fencing, lighting, landscaping works in and around the railway and also that all construction works should not disturb the operation of the railway. These matters can be added as advisory notes on any planning permission issued. Page 42 of 126
Page 43
7.18 Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN) notes that there are underground cables and a HV overhead line in and around the site. They reserve the right to protect and relocate the apparatus at the applicant’s expense. 7.19 Scottish Gas Networks confirmed that it does not have any high-pressure assets in the vicinity of the application site. 8. Representations 8.1 In response to the neighbour notification procedure and press advert, representations were received from 5 neighbouring and nearby properties. Included in these are representations which were received in relation to the planning application for the Full Scheme EALR but given that they also relate to the works proposed by this application, it is considered fair and reasonable to take these into account as part of this planning application. The representations are summarised as follows: 8.2 A local resident commented as follows: • The new road will increase traffic on Towers Road. This will impact on road safety particularly for those who cross Towers Road at the junction of Katherine Street (including rail users going to and from Drumgelloch Station on foot). The objector suggests that this is already a potential danger which will be made worse by the traffic from the new development. • Pedestrian access to Drumgelloch Station was supposed to be improved through the creation of a new pedestrian access connecting the south platform of the station with Sunny Bank Drive, but this did not materialise. This connection would have improved road safety in the area and would have reduced the need for pedestrians to cross Towers Road on their way to and from the residential areas to the south. • In summary, the objector says that the principle of the new road is welcomed but not at the price of road safety, an issue which could be addressed by way of a proper crossing point on Towers Road and the completion of the pedestrian link to the south of Drumgelloch Station. 8.3 A resident on Forrest Street has objected to the proposals and asked the following questions: • Is there going to be speed cameras installed on the new road • The objector’s house has a private/shared access onto the A89. How will the development impact on this? 8.4 A resident of Katherine Park Lane has stated that they are broadly supportive of the proposals, but they have the following concerns: • Katherine Park lane is listed a potential construction access which has the potential for disruption. • Due to differences in ground levels between the property and the new road, they will suffer from noise and visual impacts once the road is opened. Page 43 of 126
Page 44
8.5 A resident whose house backs onto Varnsdorf Way has objected on the flowing basis: • Is this new road required at present given that the hospital project has been postponed and there is no real commitment to finance it. • If the work goes ahead will there be regular meetings with local residents. • Recent construction works in the area have shown a disregard for local people, with resultant impacts of dust, noise, traffic impacting on health and wellbeing. • The new roundabout with traffic lights (at the junction of Varnsdorf Way and Towers Road) will cause traffic to queue resulting in more pollution from idling cars. 8.6 The Trustees of St Philip’s School/Diocese of Motherwell have submitted several letters relating to the impact of the development on St Philip’s school and also the impact on their land holding in the area. Their objections are summarised as follows: • Consultation process: There has been extensive consultation between the applicant and Caldervale High School, but this has not been matched with St. Philip’s and its smaller but much more vulnerable population of students and residents. • Noise/vibration: The Noise Impact Assessment has not taken on board the possibility that the Diocese’s land (north of the A89) is a suitable housing site. There is also concern relating to the impact of noise on users of the school, who include vulnerable children who live on site. The Noise Impact Assessment has incorrectly noted some accommodation within the school site as educational and not residential. • Visual intrusion: There is concern that the applicant’s supporting information has not adequately addressed the partly residential nature of the school as a sensitive receptor, which is the home to vulnerable children. The applicant’s information has not taken on board the full scale and nature of the impact on the school. • Traffic: Various aspects of the proposals are welcomed by the school, but the proposed reduction in speed limit on the A89 should extend further to the east. Clarification on the impact on the two access points into St Philip’s school is sought. • Land to north of the A89: The Diocese aspires to realise the development potential of this land for residential purposes, and they are currently engaging with the council in the “call for sites” process in the emerging LDP . The proposed road (both in its impact and its land take) would impact adversely on the school’s ambitions in this regard. Also, the new road will result in land at the north-west corner of the A89 roundabout being landlocked. They ask that the matter of access is resolved before the planning application is determined. • Surface Water and Drainage: There is an area on the north side of the A89 that already suffers from surface water flooding. The objector is concerned that the design of the new road will worsen matters in that area and asks that this matter be given further consideration with amended /additional information submitted before the planning application is determined. • Prematurity: Approval of the road at this stage would be premature until current uncertainties over the possible scale and impacts of the replacement Monklands Hospital project (and its interdependency with the new road) are known. • Land Ownership: The land take required from the Diocese for the development is significant. Some areas of the Diocese land are required by the applicant for landscape mitigation (and not specifically road construction). This will impact on the objector’s reasonable ability to develop the land in the future. • Procedural Matters: A concern was raised relating to the identification of owners with an interest in the land within the application site boundary. This procedural matter was subsequently addressed by the applicant. Page 44 of 126
Page 45
9. Planning 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 9.91 onwards) a similar assessment of the NLLDP. 9.3 Policy 1 Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises states that: • significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. 9.4 Partly to address this policy, there are 2 chapters in the EIAR which are relevant, these being chapter 16 (Climate Vulnerability) and 17 (Climate Emissions). In addition, a ‘Sustainability Statement’ has been prepared. Incorporated in these documents is a dedicated climate emissions assessment and a climate vulnerability assessment (both of which are compliant with national guidance on such matters ie Design Manual for Roads and Bridges - DMRB). In this regard, it is clear that the applicant (through the submission of pertinent reports and information) has taken on board the importance of the climate crisis. 9.5 In their submissions, the applicant estimates that the development will generate just over 19,000 tonnes of CO2 during the construction phase and just over 391,000 tonnes of CO2 during the operational phase (over a 60-year period). It should be noted that much of the carbon emissions during the operational phase can be attributed to the fact that the road will facilitate the opening of the MRP development. The applicant notes that operational emissions would represent a small contribution to the relevant UK and Scottish carbon budgets, ranging from less than 0.01% of the UK carbon budgets assessed and between 0.02% and 0.14% of the corresponding Scottish carbon budgets. The applicant therefore concludes that the proposed scheme would not materially prejudice the ability of the UK or Scottish Governments to achieve their emissions reduction targets. The applicant's assessment against the relevant EIA guidance criterion is noted. It is also clear that such impacts cannot (in themselves) be seen as assisting in tackling the climate crisis, and therefore there is an element of tension between the proposals and policy 1 in this regard. 9.6 However, it is also noted that scheme gives weight to the climate crises by other means, and it can be agreed that the development scores strongly in other regards such as: • biodiversity enhancement proposals with long term ecological management and reporting • detailed woodland compensation measures; • climate adaptation measures incorporated into the choice of materials and the design of drainage measures; • active travel provision embedded into the scheme as well as other related benefits to the operation of the hospital; • a commitment to carbon management during detailed design and construction. Page 45 of 126
Page 46
9.7 Making a balanced assessment of whether the proposals have given weight to the climate and nature crisis, it must be acknowledged that most new road schemes will always find it difficult to it demonstrate strong compliance with policy 1. In this instance, the issue of operational emissions of CO2 can be argued to be offset by the level of supporting information and the aforementioned mitigation measures, which together shows that the proposals have given weight to the climate crises. On balance, therefore, it is considered that the proposals can demonstrate compliance with policy 1, albeit with a degree of qualification. 9.8 Policy 2 Climate Mitigation and Adaptation states that: (a) Development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible. (b) Development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. 9.9 Compliance with policy 2 (a) involves a clear overlap with policy 1, particularly in relation to CO2 emissions and the aforementioned mitigation measures. 9.10 In seeking to meet the criteria relating to policy 2 (b), it is noted that the applicant has taken on board the following in the design of the new development: • hotter summers; • increased winter rainfall; • erosion; • soil instability; • impacts on structures; • drought; • wildfire; • electrical infrastructure resilience; • drainage performance under climate change scenarios and on this basis, the design has incorporated the following: • climate-resilient pavement specifications; • heat-resistant structural design; • embankment stability measures; • enhanced drainage and SuDS; • drought-resistant planting; • erosion control • lightning protection and electrical resilience 9.11 The EIAR concludes that with mitigation in place, none of the potential climate vulnerability impacts are found to be significant adverse. It is considered that this demonstrates strong compliance with the climate change criteria of policy 2. 9.12 On balance, taking on board strong compliance with policy 2b, along with the same qualified compliance as outlined in policy 1 above, it can be concluded that the proposal accords with policy 2. 9.13 Policy 3 Biodiversity seeks 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 that require an EIA 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. • Any potential adverse impacts will be minimised through careful planning and design. Page 46 of 126
Page 47
9.14 In response to this policy, it is noted that detailed biodiversity assessments have been carried out demonstrating a variety of habitats within the site boundary (including woodland and water based) and have identified the presence or likely presence of bats, badger, breeding birds, otter, pine martin and reptiles. The main adverse impacts will occur during the construction period including the loss or disturbance of badger setts, the loss of 3.56ha of woodland and impacts on lowland fen habitats. Impacts on other species noted above is considered to be low although further surveys will be carried out prior to the commencement of construction works. The EIAR puts forward a series of mitigation measures for these impacts, and the construction related impacts (with mitigation in place) are not considered to be significant. These will be managed by way of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), and which will be overseen by an Ecological Clerk of Works. 9.15 In ensuring that biodiversity is in a better state after the development has been completed, the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Assessment has demonstrated that a habitat net gain of approx. 11.59% will be achieved and a watercourse net gain of 0.3%. This is achieved through a variety of measures including • An area of new woodland; • species-rich grassland; • wet grassland; • wet woodland; • scrub creation; • wildlife connectivity measures; 9.16 All the agreed mitigation, compensation and enhancement works will be managed by way of a Habitat Management Plan/Landscape & Ecological Enhancement Plan which will set out how the biodiversity measures will be implemented and then managed. 9.17 NatureScot and NLC Greenspace have raised no issues with the level of mitigation and enhancement. 9.18 On balance, therefore., it can be concluded that the development accords with policy 3. 9.19 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 /SAC/SPA etc 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 impact on local designations will only be supported where they will not adversely impact on their integrity, and where significant adverse effects are outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits. • 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. 9.20 The EIAR states that the development will not impact on nearby sites with European designations and this is supported by NatureScot. 9.21 In terms of species, the EIA report has carried out appropriate tests to ascertain the presence of a variety of protected species including bats, badger, otter, pine marten, barn owl and reptiles. Following the implementation of necessary mitigation measures, the residual effects are noted as “not significant” in the EIAR. Page 47 of 126
Page 48
9.22 NLC Greenspace originally raised questions in relation to impacts on the SINCS which traverse the site but confirmed that they were satisfied with the additional information/clarification provided by the applicant. It is acknowledged, however, that the development will have negative impacts on the SINCS, but it should also be acknowledged that weight can be given where (amongst other things) social benefits will be accrued, and in this instance (given that the development affords access to the MRP) is clear that significant benefits to the health and wellbeing of significant numbers of people in West Central Scotland will benefit from the MRP (as outlined in more detail in the report to council for the MRP development in June 2024). 9.23 Any planning permission would be conditional on the production of Species Protection Plans which would set out details of how protected species would be identified and protected during the construction phase and any necessary mitigation works once the road is operational. 9.24 While the proposal would result in adverse impacts on elements of the natural environment, including habitat loss and effects on local nature conservation sites, these impacts have been minimised through route design and would be appropriately mitigated, compensated and enhanced through the measures secured by the development. Subject to the implementation of the proposed ecological mitigation, management and monitoring measures, the proposal is considered to accord with NPF4 Policy 4 Natural Places. 9.25 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. • Development proposals on prime agricultural land (or land of lesser quality that is locally important, as identified in the LDP, will only be supported where it is for essential infrastructure and there is specific locational need. 9.26 As with any new road scheme, there are inevitably land engineering operations integral to the development. 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. 9.27 The EIAR identifies the loss of 22ha of agricultural land as a significant impact. However, looking at the wording of policy 5, this land is neither ‘prime’ nor identified in the LDP as being of local importance. On this basis the 3rd bullet point above is not relevant, but nevertheless, it should be noted that the development is identified as essential infrastructure and it is accepted that there is a specific location need. 9.28 Weighing up the above points, it is concluded that the development accords with policy 5. 9.29 Policy 6 Forestry, Woodland and Trees seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. Relevant extracts of this policy are as follows: • Development proposals that enhance, expand and improve woodland and tree cover will be supported. • 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; Page 48 of 126
Page 49
• 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. • 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. 9.30 The site contains 7.49ha of woodland. Primarily, this is located mainly in and around the North Calder Water (at the 2 locations where the road crosses the river) and also at the north end of the site adjoining the A89. None of these are protected by TPOs and none are idented either as ‘veteran’ or as ‘ancient woodland’ (see below). 9.31 Outwith (but close to) the site are various woodlands some of which are identified as “Ancient Woodland” (which is land which has maintained continuous woodland habitat since at least 1750). This includes an area of woodland on the south side of the site (between the application site boundary and the whisky bond warehouses) and also to the northeast of the site (approx. 100m from the site boundary and within the Easter Moffat Golf Course). The development will not have significant impacts on this woodland. 9.32 The proposals will result in the removal of approximately 3.56ha of trees and hedges. Of these, one has an ‘A’ category (trees of high quality) with the remainder being medium/low quality (other than 6 trees which are ‘unclassified’ due to their poor condition). 9.33 Of the trees to be removed, 0.09ha are identified in the EIAR as “potential ancient woodland”. These are located to the south of the North Calder Water (south of the railway line). The EIAR identifies these as being of limited ecological value and also note that there is evidence of significant ground disturbance over the years (possibly due to mining activity, construction of mineral railways etc). 9.34 Partly in response to the above, a scheme of mitigation and replacement is proposed which includes 4.5ha of new tree planting, as well as the wider scheme of landscaping and habitat creation. This results in a net increase in woodland of 2.9ha therefore meeting part of the first criteria in the policy (as summarised above). 9.35 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 EIAR, was unable to confirm categorically if certain sections of woodland (namely the 0.09ha of woodland at the northmost river crossing) was capable of being identified as “ancient’ or not. This lack of clarity is due in part to the nature and quality of mapping evidence which was unable to confirm categorically if the area was the basis of continuous woodland cover since 1750. The applicant notes that the area in question, apart from being relatively small, is of low ecological value and appears to have been the basis of significant disturbance over the years from mining and other activity (which helps suggest that there may not have been continuous woodland cover since 1750). For the benefit of this assessment, it is accepted that the woodland in question should not be treated as ‘ancient’. Despite this, the applicant has set out mitigation measures akin to those used for ancient woodland, for example in terms of the re-use of soils. 9.36 The development will result in some fragmentation or severance of woodland. Given the constraints over the siting and layout of the road (as well as its linear nature) it is accepted that the impact on woodland has (in the circumstances) been minimised as much as reasonably possible. It is also accepted that in quantitative terms, the new planting schemes provide adequate mitigation for the tree loss mentioned above. The new planting will also assist in integrating the remaining fragmented woodland into its new surroundings. Page 49 of 126
Page 50
9.37 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 facilitating access to the new MRP. The proposals will enhance these benefits further by way of improving accessibility to the east side of Airdrie by active travel means and by vehicular traffic. These benefits should be given significant weight in assessing the merits of the policy and compliance with policy 6. 9.38 The concerns of Scottish Forestry are noted, albeit it is also noted that the council’s own arboriculture officer was satisfied with the level and quality of information submitted. It is concluded that the further clarity sought by Scottish Forestry can be achieved by way of planning conditions. 9.39 Taking on board the above, on balance it is considered that the proposals comply with policy 6. In particular, the fact that the proposed road is essential infrastructure (proving access to a significant health care facility), the nature and extent of compensatory planting and habitat creation all give weight to this conclusion. 9.40 On balance, it is concluded that the proposals accord with policy 6. 9.41 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. • Non designated assets and their setting should be preserved in situ where feasible. Where impacts cannot be avoided, they should be minimised. 9.42 In response to the above, it is accepted that the level and quality of supporting information within the EIAR is appropriate. 9.43 There are 5 listed buildings (2 cat B and 3 cat c) within 500m of the application site and no scheduled monuments or other designations. Within the footprint of the development, there are 10 “non designated assets” mostly related to the area’s industrial history (railways, mine etc). 9.44 Within the EIAR, the significance of effect of the development on the listed buildings is estimated to be “not significant” for both the construction and operational phases and this conclusion is accepted. 9.45 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. 9.46 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. Page 50 of 126
Page 51
9.47 On this basis, the development is considered to comply with the requirements of Policy 7. 9.48 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 (amongst other things) essential infrastructure. 9.49 The definition of essential infrastructure” includes transport proposals and travel networks identified in the Local Development Plan. As noted in paragraph 9.92 below, the development is indeed identified as part of the council’s regeneration priorities and is identified as part of a wider scheme of transport improvements. The proposals therefore accord in principle with policy 8. The policy support is dependent on the following requirements being met: • Reasons are provided why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt. Response: The proposed road forms part of the wider EALR and for many reasons (including environmental, economic, amenity and functionality) there is no reasonable prospect of locating the road in an alternative location outwith the green belt. Furthermore, the road is also constrained in that it is required to provide access to the MRP (which is itself in the green belt). • Purpose of the green belt is not undermined Response: The new road in itself would not result in or justify unplanned outward expansion. Given the justification for the road (found elsewhere in this report) it is accepted that the road would be a sustainable use for the green belt in this location. • Proposal is compatible with surrounding established countryside and landscape character. Response: The EIAR accepts that the construction phase will result in some significant but localised and short-term effects on landscape character but that there would be no significant effects once the road was complete and operational, and this is accepted. • Scale, massing and appearance of development will minimise visual impact on the green belt. Response: As noted in paragraphs 9.106 and 9.107 below (NLLP policy EDQ3) there are 2 long term significant and adverse visual impacts associated with the development. One is from the Towers Road area (which is outwith the green belt), and the other is the impact of the road and bridge over both the North Calder Water and the route of the North Calder Heritage Trail. This is regrettable but quite localised and has been mitigated as far as reasonably possible. • There will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. Response: The proposed mitigation, along with long term management (all of which would be achieved through a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan) point towards the development being acceptable in this regard. 9.50 Taking all of the above into account, it is accepted that the development accords with policy 8 (green belt). 9.51 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 which result in the sustainable reuse of vacant and derelict land will be supported. • 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 the proposed new use. Page 51 of 126
Page 52
9.52 The development will result in the sustainable re-use of the former gypsy traveller site (on the south side of the A89) which is identified as vacant and derelict land. 9.53 The application site is mostly comprised of a greenfield site and although it is not allocated on the LDP proposals map, it is clear that the road is explicitly supported in the LDP (see paragraph 9.92). 9.54 Finally, 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. 9.55 Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the development accords with policy 9. 9.56 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 minimise waste, reduce pressure on virgin resources and enable building materials to be reused will be supported 9.57 The land engineering operation to create the development platform will be based on the “cut and fill” approach whereby material from higher areas is moved to lower areas to create a level surface. The applicant estimates that this approach will account for 84% of the material handling on the site. Clearly this approach (along with the need for road and bridge construction materials) will require the importation of primary materials but the applicant will aim to achieve 25% of this being sought from recycled sources. This approach will also reduce the need for any waste material from the site having to be landfilled. 9.58 Taking on board the proposals to minimise waste, use recycled materials and reduce the use of landfill, all of which are in line with the waste hierarchy, it is accepted that the proposal accords with policy 12. 9.59 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; • 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. 9.60 In support of this policy, it is noted that active travel measures have been embedded into the design of the new road (see para 3.11 for full list). Page 52 of 126
Page 53
9.61 It is noted that the Towers Road link (including the active travel elements) will make a significant improvement to the accessibility of the hospital, particularly for those in the east part of Airdrie. This improvement will apply to active travel users as well as for vehicular access, including benefits for bus services (as noted by SPT in their comments). The MRP report to full council on 20 June 2024 acknowledged that the proposed active travel arrangements for the new hospital were not an optimal solution, and this development will help address that matter. 9.62 The scheme is not designed specifically to address public transport needs but the fact that the new roundabouts on Towers Road and Forrest Street are being constructed “offline” (and therefore, will minimise impact during the construction period for all road users, including bus traffic) is noted and welcomed. 9.63 The proposal complies positively with those aspects of NPF4 Policy 13 relating to active travel provision, accessibility and delivery of essential transport infrastructure supporting the MRP. However, compliance is less strong in relation to the wider objectives of the Sustainable Travel Hierarchy. The evidence indicates that the road principally serves hospital-related car traffic and results in increased congestion at a number of local road junctions. However, these adverse impacts on local junctions would largely be addressed if and when the full EALR was constructed, and this matter is addressed in more detail at paragraph10.8 -10.10 below. Policy support therefore arises primarily from its function as essential infrastructure associated with a strategic healthcare project rather than from any contribution to mode shift or network-wide transport sustainability. 9.64 In weighing up all of the above, it is concluded that the development accords with NPF4 policy 13. (Note, policy 13 is designed solely to address sustainable transport matters, and further assessment on other detailed transportation matters can be seen in LDP policy EDQ3 below). 9.65 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. 9.66 In response to this the following is noted: • By providing vehicular access to the proposed MRP site, the development will facilitate significant health benefits to the wider catchment area, and this should be given significant weight. • As noted in the assessment of LDP policy EDQ3, the built design and layout of the development will be enhanced by significant landscaping. • Whilst the road will not reduce car dependency, there are essential elements which will enhance accessibility by sustainable means (as outlined in the assessment of policy 13). Page 53 of 126
Page 54
• As noted in the assessment of policy 3, the development incorporates biodiversity solutions and climate resilience which are integrated into the development. 9.67 Based on the above, it is considered that the proposals accord with policy 14. 9.68 Policy 15 Local Living and 20-minute Neighbourhoods seeks to provide for connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably through sustainable means. The policy (as relevant to the proposals) is summarised as follows: • Development proposals will contribute to local living. Consideration will be given to the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with (amongst other things) health and social care facilities, sustainable modes of transport and employment. 9.69 As already noted above, the development (and the Towers Road link in particular) will enhance accessibility to the MRP by sustainable means, most notably through the provision of a new means of active travel between the MRP site and the residential areas on the east side of Airdrie. Also, as noted above, SPT are supportive of the Towers Road link in that it will afford bus operators the ability to provide a more usable and direct route from the surrounding area into the hospital site. 9.70 Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is supported by policy 15. 9.71 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. 9.72 Clearly the first bullet point listed above affords the development strong support, given that the proposals are considered to be essential infrastructure which is supported by the LDP (see paragraph 9.92). 9.73 In terms of the proposed development’s impact on existing infrastructure, the proposed use of traffic calming is noted and accepted. The (possibly short term) impacts on local junction capacities is also noted. On balance, although adverse, this is considered to be an acceptable impact in the circumstances. Further discussion on this matter can be found in paragraphs 10.8 to 10.10 below. Network Rail are satisfied that the proposed works (including the new rail bridge) is acceptable subject to further detailed discussions with the applicant before works proceed. 9.74 The development will have impacts on local utilities and the relevant utility companies (ie Scottish Water and SPEN) have confirmed that they have no objections subject to further detailed discussions with the applicant. 9.75 Taking all of the above on board, it is considered that the development meets the terms of policy 18. 9.76 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. Page 54 of 126
Page 55
• Development proposals that include new or enhanced blue and/or green infrastructure will provide effective management and maintenance plans 9.77 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 through the construction of the 2 new road bridges and the creation of 5 new SUDS ponds which will drain into the North Calder Water (and which will themselves be the basis of habitat creation). Whilst there are some issues raised in terms of landscape impact (addressed in the assessment of LDP policy EDQ3) the development will allow the integrity of the North Calder Water (as a piece of blue infrastructure) to remain. In terms of green infrastructure, the iterative design process undertaken by the applicant has sought a design which (as far as possible) tries to avoid green infrastructure and its fragmentation. As noted elsewhere, the development will result in habitat loss including woodland, but this has been mitigated by way of the replacement woodland and Bio- Diversity Net Gain measures. Inevitably with many new road schemes, there is a resultant element of fragmentation and again (as far as reasonably possible) this has been avoided and mitigated at the initial design and layout stage. In particular, connectivity under the bridges is being maintained which is partly facilitated by the bridge design. 9.78 Taking the above on board, it is concluded that on balance the proposals accord with policy 20. 9.79 Policy 21 Play, Recreation and Sport seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate spaces and opportunities for play, recreation and sport. The policy (as summarised relevant to this proposal) states that: • Proposals which result in the loss of outdoor sports facilities will only be supported where (amongst other things) there is a requirement to replace the facility which would be lost either by a new facility of upgrading an existing facility. • Proposals which include new or enhanced sports facilities will include plans for their delivery and long-term upkeep. 9.80 This policy is relevant given the resultant loss of a sports pitch at Caldervale High School and also the proximity of Easter Moffat Golf course to the east of the development. 9.81 In terms of the impact on the sports pitch, the applicant’s case is that the loss of the sports pitch can be properly mitigated through replacement and betterment of sports facilities within Caldervale High School. Whilst the detail of this has still to be confirmed, this may include Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), associated athletics provision, and an additional sports court. Also, existing users of the pitch (limited due to its poor condition) are satisfied with the offer of alternative facilities elsewhere. 9.82 In terms of the impact on the adjoining golf course, it is the case that the presence of the road would have some adverse impact on the enjoyment of users of the course, both during the construction and operational phase (eg in terms of noise, dust, vibration and so on). However, bearing in mind the outcome of studies and mitigation measures on these matters (as outlined and assessed elsewhere in this report) it is concluded that these impacts would not present a significant and adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of the golf course. 9.83 Given the proximity of the road to the 7th fairway of the golf course, SportScotland has highlighted that there is some possibility (albeit limited due to the relative positioning and distances involved) that golf balls may stray onto the road. As a long-term measure, additional tree planting is likely to mitigate this impact adequately, but in the short to medium term some protective netting may be required until the tree planting comes into maturity. 9.84 SportScotland has reviewed the planning application and the proposed mitigation measures and has confirmed that it has no objections subject to planning conditions which require the submission and implementation of mitigation measures. On this basis, it is considered that the proposals accord with policy 21. Page 55 of 126
Page 56
9.85 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. 9.86 The status of the road as “essential infrastructure” means that the development has to be designed to be resilient and operational during current and future risk scenarios. The scheme is designed to be outwith the 200year+ climate change fluvial flood events. The applicant states that the FRA demonstrates that all significant flood risks have been identified, quantified and appropriately managed through design and that the road will remain safe and operational during flood events, is future proofed for climate change and is not likely to increase flood risk. This is supplemented by mitigation measures. On the basis that additional details are provided, SEPA is satisfied with the proposal in terms of flood risk. This will be addressed by way of planning conditions. 9.87 Taking on board the above, it is considered that the development complies with policy 22. 9.88 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. 9.89 In response to this policy, the following is noted: • Health & Social Care Facilities: The development will facilitate the opening of the new MRP which will clearly lead to a significant improvement to health care facilities for many people. Page 56 of 126
Page 57
• Air Quality: An air quality assessment forms part of the EIAR. During the construction phase, it is concluded that objectives on air quality are not breached and that impacts are estimated to be “temporary and not significant” with mitigation measures in place (managed by way of the CEMP). Once operational, the impact on human health is estimated to be “not significant”. NLC Protective Services have reviewed the air quality assessment and are satisfied with its assessment and recommendations subject to the recommended mitigations being put in place. • Noise and Vibration (Construction Phase): A detailed noise and vibration assessment forms part of the EIAR. In terms of noise and vibration during the construction period, the key residential sensitive receptors are some isolated residential properties, the nearby residential areas on the east side of Airdrie and also the residential element of St Philip’s School. There are various non-residential properties most notable of which are the 2 schools and also Wester Moffat Hospital. Most are only operational during the day, but Wester Moffat hospital and St Philip’s School are sensitive to noise and vibration all times of the day and night. Sporting facilities (where quietness is important) include the 2 nearby bowling clubs and Easter Moffat Golf Club. The EIAR concludes that with proper mitigation in place, there are no significant adverse impacts during the construction period. The applicant has produced an outline Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) which would (amongst other things) set out measures to ensure that noise and vibration were effectively managed and controlled during the construction period. Any planning permission would be conditional on a detailed CEMP being produced, which would benefit from input from the appointed contractor. • Noise and Vibration (Operational Phase): : Once operational, 115 properties are predicted to experience an indirect significant adverse effect due to traffic noise. All are situated on existing roads which will have increased traffic levels once the new hospital is open. These impacts are unavoidable and mitigation is largely not possible due to the fact that they are on existing roads. It is noted that many (46 properties) already experience high noise levels without the scheme. Many of the properties will also experience additional traffic noise over time without the scheme due to predicted increases in traffic. It is also noted that 8 houses on Moorcroft Drive will have significant beneficial effects due to the new road being sited further away from their properties than the existing road. The forecasted increases in traffic (and hence noise) on many adjoining roads are unlikely to take place as and when the Full Scheme EALR scheme is in place. It is important to note that whilst the increase in traffic noise levels at some properties is identified in the EIAR as being “significant”, the EIAR does not suggest that this increase will result in unacceptable impacts. None of the effected properties qualify for noise insulation given that they are more than 300 m from new roads. NLC Protective Services have reviewed the noise and vibration assessment and are satisfied with its conclusions subject to the recommended mitigations being put in place. • Suicide Risk: Potential suicide risk has been a factor in the design and layout of the bridges and will be the subject of proactive engagement with Public Health Scotland at the subsequent design stages. Further details of this will be provided by way of a planning condition. Page 57 of 126
Page 58
• Major Accident Hazard Site: The proposals sit within proximity of Inverhouse Distillery. The Health & Safety Executive has set up a consultation zone around the distillery to ensure that any safety implications associated with the storage of large amounts of alcohol are properly acknowledged and, if necessary, addressed. In this case the consultation zone extends into the planning application boundary of the road, but it does not impinge on the carriageway footprint. On consulting the HSE on the proposed development, it confirmed that it has no objections. 9.90 On this basis of the above, it is considered that the proposals are in accordance with policy 23. NORTH LANARKSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2022 9.91 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 NPF4 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 of the LDP considered relevant. 9.92 From a strategic perspective, a key element of the LDP’s vision is to build upon the City Deal projects, of which this planning application forms a key part. In terms of the Council’s regeneration priorities, the proposal is supported by Prom Loc1 Policy (Regeneration Priorities) as it forms part of the Council’s wider programme of infrastructure investment, contributing to its regeneration objectives and supporting sustainable growth across North Lanarkshire. Furthermore, Prom ID1 Policy (Transport Improvements) supports transport improvements identified and delivered through (amongst other things) the Glasgow City Region City Deal Infrastructure Fund (of which this forms a key part). 9.93 The LDP identifies the majority of the site as being part of the Green Belt (with the exception of the section in and around the playing field of Caldervale High School which is part of the urban area). Policy PP4 (Purpose of Place – Green Belt) seeks to protect the setting of communities and will support regeneration and will support development which is appropriate for a green belt location (as noted elsewhere, it is accepted that this development has a locational need). Relevant criteria for such development include the ability to show significant economic benefit, and this is an integral part of the justification for all City Deal projects. It is considered therefore that the proposal accords with the terms of Policy PP4. 9.94 The southwest corner of the site (encompassing one of the playing fields at Caldervale High School) is covered by policy PP 3 (General Urban Area). This policy looks to maintain or improve the level of amenity appropriate for the local context. Relevant criteria in assessing compliance with this policy include evidence that there is a specific locational need (it is accepted that there is) and evidence that the proposal will result in significant economic benefit (and again it is accepted that the road being part of a City Deal project which is predicated partly on demonstrating positive economic outcomes) will comply with this criteria, not to mention the economic benefits which will accrue from the construction of the hospital. Other criteria in this policy relate to the need to comply with other relevant policies eg quality of design and impact on existing neighbours. As noted elsewhere, it has been concluded that on balance, the proposals will not have any unacceptable adverse impacts on neighbours (eg in terms of noise, pollution, visual impact etc) which would merit the refusal of the application Page 58 of 126
Page 59
9.95 Based on the above, it is clear that the proposal (as far as it relates to the area covered by the general urban policy) accords with policy PP3. 9.96 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 sites of national and international importance. • In terms of impacts on the “local sites” (including the Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation) it is noted that there are adverse impacts, but mitigation measures are proposed. NLC Greenspace is satisfied with the proposals in this regard. • In terms of impacts on community parks (namely Katherine Park) there will be adverse impacts but not of a scale that would be a cause for concern. Katherine Park Lane (which adjoins the park) will be used by some construction traffic, but this is likely to be limited to traffic associated with the construction of the railway bridge, so the impact will be adverse but temporary. Clearly there will be impacts during the operational phase, most notably an increase in background noise levels, but this would not be so significant to prevent people from enjoying the amenities of the park. • There will be a requirement to divert core paths and rights of way during the construction phase, most notably at the North Calder Heritage Trail where it passes by the route of the proposed bridge on the Towers Road link. The applicant acknowledges that this will have a significant adverse impact on users of the path network, albeit this would be for a temporary period, as the intention is to re-open the paths once the works are complete. The active travel proposals and the new Towers Road link will have a significant long-term benefit. • In terms of woodland, the policy asks that the Scottish Government’s “Control of Woodland Removal Policy” should be adhered to. The term of that policy is reflected in the wording of NPF4 Policy 6 – (Forestry, Woodland and Trees). As noted earlier in the report, it was concluded that the proposals accord with that policy. • In terms of impacts on the urban green network, it is noted that impacts on woodlands, green infrastructure and sports facilities have already been found to be acceptable within the assessment of relevant NPF4 policies. 9.97 On balance, therefore, it is concluded that the proposals accord with the criteria of Policy Prot A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets). 9.98 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 already been assessed as part of Policy 7 of NPF4 (Historic Assets and Places) and found to be acceptable. On this basis, it is also concluded that the proposal accords with NLLP Policy Prot B. 9.99 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. Page 59 of 126
Page 60
9.100 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. 9.101 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. 9.102 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, flooding, noise and air quality). 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) 9.103 During the construction phase it is accepted that there will be significant and adverse (but localised and temporary) impacts on landscape character. However, there should be no significant impacts once the road is constructed and the landscaping has established itself. In terms of visual impact, there are 2 significant adverse but localised impacts anticipated once the road is operational. These relate to the area in and around Towers Road (where the Towers Road link will be most visible) and also the section of the North Calder Heritage Trail where the new bridge would be constructed. These impacts exist even with reasonable mitigation in place (landscaping etc). • Safe, secure and convenient access • Safe for all road users, and appropriate traffic calming where required. 9.104 Sustainable access issues have been addressed above (NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport) but the 2 matters summarised above remain to be assessed. The following points are relevant: • Fundamentally, the detailed design and layout of the scheme is considered acceptable, but some minor detailed changes are required. These can be addressed through the road construction consent process. • There will 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. (See paragraphs 10.4- 10.7 below for more discussion on the subject of construction traffic). • On its own, this new section of road would have adverse (and most probably temporary) impacts on several local junctions. As a short-term impact (which should be kept under review) this is considered to be an acceptable and unavoidable impact which would be mitigated through the completion of the full scheme EALR. Further consideration on this matter can be found in paragraphs 10.8 – 10.10 below. • One implication of granting this section of road would be that the new MRP could be completed and opened without the need for the Full Scheme EALR being completed. This is dependent on traffic calming measures and a change in traffic priority at the junction of Varnsdorf Way and Petersburn Road. These matters would be the basis of a planning condition. Page 60 of 126
Page 61
• When the MRP was granted planning permission in 2024, there was a requirement for the full scheme EALR to be open to traffic before the hospital could open. This condition reflected the terms of the transportation assessment which was prepared at that time. Clearly, the transportation information submitted with the Section 1 EALR application now indicates that satisfactory access can be achieved with only the section 1 road in place. NHS Lanarkshire is aware that the restrictive planning condition which applies to the MRP will have to be deleted or varied in order for the hospital to open with only the section 1 EALR in place. • There are some changes in access provisions for existing sites (most notably the recycling/logistics business on Forrest Street) but once operational, the changes should not adversely impact on any nearby properties. • The development will result in increases in traffic on Forrest Street, Connor Street and Bowhousebog Road but NLC Traffic and Transportation are satisfied that these roads can accommodate the likely levels of traffic. It should also be noted that sections of Towers Road are likely to have lower levels of traffic. 9.105 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 remaining relevant criteria are also acceptable (albeit with some concerns relating to localised visual impact and junction capacity) it can be concluded that the development complies with policy EDQ 3 in its entirety. 9.106 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 the proposals receive support from all relevant policies in NPF4 and the NLLDP. This support is (in places) qualified, but it must be stressed that the road represents a key piece of essential infrastructure which is offered very strong support by the LDP. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development accords with 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 granted planning permission unless there are material considerations which suggest otherwise. Relevant material considerations are outlined and discussed below. 10. Material Considerations New MRP 10.1 The fact that the new road will facilitate access to the MRP development is a significant material consideration which weighs in favour of approving this planning permission, not to mention the significant health and social benefits that will be unlocked. Planning permission for the hospital envisaged vehicular access to the hospital being solely by way of one access point from the EALR main alignment with a separate dedicated active travel access to Towers Road. By incorporating the Towers Road link (which incorporates active travel provision) the development will significantly enhance accessibility to the hospital over and above what was envisaged by the hospital planning permission. 10.2 It has been raised by 2 objectors that this planning application may be premature given the announcement by the Health Secretary on 25 June 2026 (next steps for the Monklands replacement project). However, the Minister made it clear that the Scottish Government remains fully committed to building a new hospital (with core facilities including A&E) at the Wester Moffat site and that refreshed plans will be presented to Ministers for a decision in 2027 with construction works expected to commence in 2028. (These refreshed plans will undoubtedly require further planning permissions, but the nature and scale of any planning input will be dependent on the changes which are proposed). On this basis, the weight given to the benefits of the proposed road scheme (in relation to facilitating access to the MRP) remains very strong. Page 61 of 126
Page 62
10.3 Members are reminded that at the time that the MRP was granted planning permission, a planning condition prevented it from being opening until the Full Scheme EALR was open to traffic. The reasoning was that the Transport Statement which accompanied the MRP planning application did not envisage a phased approach to the completion of the EALR. Clearly, the supporting information for this application concludes that the MRP (with mitigation by way of traffic calming and changes in traffic priority on Varnsdorf Way and Petersburn Road) can be accessed safely from the Section 1 EALR alone (a view supported by NLC Traffic & Transportation) albeit with the caveat that the council is committed to delivering the Full Scheme EALR (subject to planning permission and other consents being in place). NHS Lanarkshire are aware that they will need to make a further planning application to vary or delete the planning condition before the hospital can open. Construction Traffic 10.4 As raised by one of the objectors, there have been concerns raised in the last 12 months or so by the local community in and around Towers Road/Roughrigg Road/Stepends Road relating to the impacts of construction traffic accessing the new MRP and also the land engineering operations at Stepends Quarry. Clearly, the introduction of additional construction traffic as a result of this new road will introduce the possibility for further issues. It is also noted that both this section of the EALR and the new hospital works are both programmed to start works in 2028. The presence of temporary construction works will always have some degree of adverse impact on a local area, and in this instance the following points should help address concerns: 10.5 Although not in place yet, the primary route for construction traffic for the section 1 EALR will be shared with the new hospital ie from a new temporary haul road that forms part of the MRP proposals. This links Stanrigg Street (on the south side of Plains) and the new hospital site. The fact that this new road proposal is a joint venture between NLC and NHSL will assist in the management of all traffic and construction impacts associated with both projects. It is also noted that works on the advanced enabling works for the hospital will be largely complete by the time that construction works commence on the new road and the hospital structure. 10.6 Construction access is also proposed at Katherine Park Lane, and the occupier of one of the houses on that lane has raised concerns on this matter. The use of the lane will be limited to some of the traffic involved in the construction of the railway bridge. It is noted that in 2024/25 Scottish Power Energy Networks also used the lane for construction access when the overhead pylons were being relocated to make way for the new hospital development, and in that instance the levels of construction traffic were relatively small. Using good practice in terms of site management these works were able to proceed without any undue adverse impacts in terms of safety and amenity, and it is expected that this can be repeated for this development. 10.7 Impacts of construction traffic would be controlled through the use of a Construction Traffic Management Plan and a Construction Environment Management Plan (both of which are required by planning condition). This would ensure that all construction traffic and construction impacts associated with the development would be properly identified and managed. Impacts on Junction Capacity 10.8 As noted above, one implication of the road (along with traffic generated by the new hospital) will be increased delays on the approaches to the following junctions: • Brownsburn Road approach to the A73 • Petersburn Road approach to the A73 • Lauchope Street approach to the A73 • A73 northbound approach to A73/Lauchope Street junction • Junction of Forrest Street/Towers Road/Connor Street. Page 62 of 126
Page 63
10.9 The following points should help allay fears in this regard: • These impacts will be mitigated as and when the full scheme EALR is in place. It is council policy that the Section 1 EALR is just a stop gap measure (allowing the new MRP to open) until such time as the Full Scheme EALR is built and opened. • Part of the mitigation associated with the MRP development requires a significant junction improvement at Forrest Street/Towers Road/Connor Street and this will address the capacity/delay issue at that junction. • NLC Traffic and Transportation has asked that the performance of the affected junctions be kept under review. This would be best addressed by way of discussion and agreement between relevant stake holders (ie City Deal and Transportation Teams in the Council and NHSL) rather than forming the basis of a planning condition. • Additional short term mitigation measures could be considered at the affected junctions if monitoring deems this necessary. 10.10 On balance, therefore, it is suggested that the impacts on these junctions can be seen as an inevitable but acceptable (and most likely temporary) adverse impact of the development, which would be kept under review. Consultation Responses 10.11 None of the consultees objected to the proposed development, and where suggested, planning conditions have been added to ensure that all necessary mitigation works are carried out in a timely fashion. Of all consultees, Scottish Forestry were least satisfied with the proposals, using the term “significant concerns” relating to the loss of woodland (particularly potential ancient woodland) and the level of information on mitigation. As noted above, it is considered that the loss of woodland (which is not considered to be ‘ancient’) along with proposed mitigation is acceptable subject to further details being brought forward as part of planning conditions. Representations 10.12. As noted earlier in the report, representations from 5 properties/landowners were received from the local area. These have been taken into account in the assessment of the merits of this planning applications and responses to the points raised are as follows: Comments submitted on behalf of St Philip’s School/Diocese of Motherwell: Consultation process: As noted above, this planning application did not have to be the basis of statutory pre-application consultation with the local community (ie the PAC process). However, given that this proposal is part of the wider Full Scheme EALR, the local community benefited from (in this case) an enhanced level of consultation. One of the community consultation events was held at Caldervale High School but this was open to any interested party in the area. The applicant advises that any engagement specifically with Caldervale High School (over and above the public meetings) was in relation to the need to address the impact on sports provision, for which SportScotland is a statutory consultee. Noise/vibration: The applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment has identified 2 residential properties on the west side of the school which are closer to the road than the residential blocks within the school. The NIA has treated both residential properties and educational properties as high sensitivity receptors. It is considered that the impact of noise on the school has been assessed properly. As noted above, the NIA has been vetted by NLC Protective Services and has been found to be acceptable. Visual Intrusion: There is clearly a difference in opinion between the applicant and the objector in terms of the approach taken in assessing landscape and visual impacts. Looking at a worst-case scenario, as put forward by the objector, it is considered that the proposals would remain acceptable. Traffic: The eastmost access into the school is not impacted directly by the proposals. The westmost access adjoins the application site boundary but visibility at that access is not impacted adversely. The suggestion by NLC Traffic and Transportation that the speed limit on part of the A89 should be reduced from 40 to 30mph is the basis of further discussion and if promoted will be the basis of local consultation. Page 63 of 126
Page 64
Land Severance Issues (Land to north of the A89): The construction of the road and the new roundabout in and around the A89 will eat into the fields on the north side of the existing road. This is not in the ownership of the applicant (ie the council) and will have to be acquired either by way of negotiation or through the CPO process. It is not accepted that the proposed development will render the land in question inaccessible, as a simple field access would address this matter. It is suggested that the maintenance of access rights is (in this instance) best addressed as part of the land acquisition process. Surface Water and Drainage: The applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment takes on board the fact that part of the objector’s landholding on the north side of the A89 suffers from surface water flooding. The applicant advises that (reasonably) it has not been possible to identify the presence of all historic drainage features under the A89 and therefore a worst-case scenario has been used. The suggestion by the objector that the proposed works could alter existing drainage pathways and increase flood risk elsewhere is noted however it is not supported by information submitted by the applicant. Proposed drainage details include new culverts and drainage infrastructure specifically designed to maintain the existing connectivity. There are proposed planning conditions designed to ensure that all necessary drainage and flooding infrastructure is in place as part of the development (both during the construction phase and also the operational phase). Flooding and drainage matters have been vetted by SEPA and the council’s Water Management Team and found to be acceptable (subject to the additional information required by condition). Prematurity: As noted above the Scottish Ministers have confirmed their commitment to building the MRP with construction works on a new scheme to commence in 2028. This will clearly be different from the scheme which benefits from planning permission, but it will include core facilities including A&E. Land Ownership: The objector’s aspirations for realising the development potential of their land is noted. This will be the basis of consideration as part of the emerging LDP process. It is noted that the land to the north of the A89 referred to by the objector does not currently have any development potential identified in the current LDP. Responses to Other Objections: Road safety on Towers Road (in and around Katherine Street) The transport assessment submitted by the applicant confirms that traffic levels on the northern section of Towers Road will be reduced as a result of the new road. Moreover, the inclusion of active travel measures within the scheme and the use of signalised crossing points at the new Towers Road/Varnsdorf Way roundabout demonstrate that the potential for conflict between vehicular traffic and other road users has been taken on board. • Pedestrian access to Drumgelloch Station The possibility of creating a pedestrian access from Dunrobin Road/Sunnybank Drive to the south platform of Drumgelloch Station had been the basis of significant discussion in the last few years. Most recently, the feasibility of this link was the basis of consideration as part of the planning application for the new hospital. In the report to the Planning Hearings committee of 20 June 2024 (where the new hospital proposals were considered) it was concluded that various constraints (including land ownership and impact on road safety) prevented such a connection being pursued further, and this situation remains the same today. The pedestrian connection in question does not form part of the planning application for the Section 1 EALR and there is no overriding need for this link to form part of the proposals. • Speed cameras: The proposed scheme does not incorporate speed cameras • impact on private/shared access onto the A89. This relates to the private parking court located to the rear of nos. 265-283 Forrest Street. The proposed scheme will not include any physical changes to this access. • Impact of construction traffic on Katherine Park Lane: As noted earlier in the report, most of the construction traffic will be routed through the new temporary construction Page 64 of 126
Page 65
access road currently being built to accommodate construction traffic for the new MRP. Katherine Park Lane would be used on a limited basis for traffic relating to the construction of the new railway bridge. The detailed arrangements would be agreed as part of the Construction Environmental Management Report which would be produced by the appointed contractor and approved by the council by way of a planning condition. • Visual and noise impacts on house on Katherine Park Lane: Noise impacts are discussed above and on balance have been found to be acceptable, albeit some properties will endure significant additional noise impacts. For the objector’s property, the Noise Impact Assessment concludes that there will be an adverse impact but that this will not be significant. It is accepted that the road will be highly visible from the objector’s property, but once the associated landscaping is established, the impact should not be significant. It is accepted that this will take some years to establish. • Need for road given status of hospital project: As noted above, the Scottish Ministers have indicated that the hospital will still go ahead albeit not as per the plans which have the benefit of planning permission. • Meetings with local residents: There is a requirement for the Construction Environmental Management Plan to include provision for a “Stakeholder Management Plan” to facilitate communication with the local community and other stakeholders. • Impact of construction works and traffic: The council is aware that construction works associated with Stepends Quarry and the MRP have been the cause for concern for the local community. Noise, dust, vibration and traffic impacts during the construction phase will be taken on board when the appointed contractor prepares the CEMP and CTMP for approval by the council (as required by planning conditions). • Impact of queuing traffic on air quality at Moorcroft Drive: Based on information from the applicant on traffic patterns and air quality, it is not considered that air quality will be impacted adversely in this way. 11. Conclusions 11.1 The proposed development forms what is considered to be an essential piece of infrastructure and a crucial part of the proposed East Airdrie Link Road and the council’s wider regeneration aspirations. Building upon City Deal projects such as this is a key element of the Local Development Plan’s vision for infrastructure investment, and therefore in principle the proposals receive very strong support from the development plan. 11.2 Taking a more detailed view of compliance with the development plan, section 9 above demonstrates that the proposed development accords with all relevant policies within NPF4 and the NLLDP. On this basis, planning permission must be granted unless material considerations suggest otherwise. 11.3 However, compliance with the development plan is not unqualified. The planning application and EIAR has demonstrated that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable on many fronts but any decision to grant planning permission should be done in the knowledge that there will be some adverse impacts which cannot be reasonably fully mitigated. These include: • road noise impacts on neighbouring properties (once the road is operational) , • localised impacts on visual amenity, (impacting on a small section of the North Calder Heritage Trail and a section of Towers Road) • localised impacts on landscape character (during the construction phase). • increased pressure on some local road junctions, albeit this would be mitigated by completion of the full scheme EALR. Page 65 of 126
Page 66
• the inevitable loss of areas of woodland (albeit this would be mitigated). • Carbon emissions particularly once the road is open to traffic • Although found to be within acceptable limits, it is acknowledged that local communities will have to endure impacts associated with the construction process (albeit mitigation and proper management along with engagement with local communities should ensure that these impacts should be within acceptable limits). 11.4 It is considered that adverse impacts associated with the proposals would be more than made up for by the significant benefits afforded by it. Most notably, the new road will facilitate the opening of the MRP, a significant health facility with all the health and social benefits that the new hospital will bring. More than this, the road will offer an enhanced level of accessibility to the MRP, over and above that envisaged by the planning application for the hospital. In particular, the Towers Road link will provide access (for vehicular traffic and active travel users) for the east side of Airdrie and beyond, not to mention other active travel infrastructure embedded into the wider scheme. 11.5 Taking all of the aforementioned into account, it is recommended that planning permission should be granted subject to the attached conditions. Page 66 of 126
Page 67
Application No: 26/00190/FUL Proposed Development: Installation of a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) array, Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure Site Address: Land At Biggar Road Newarthill Motherwell Date Registered: 10th March 2026 Applicant: Ampyr Distributed Energy 1 Ltd Suite 501, The Nexus Building Broadway Letchworth Garden City SG69BL Agent: Locogen Consulting Ltd 4 West Silvermills Lane Edinburgh EH3 5BD Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 16 Mossend And Holytown Jim Reddin,Beth Baudo,Helena Gray, Representations: 24 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the development plan and meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies of National Planning Framework 4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The proposal is an acceptable Green Belt use and can be accommodated at this location without detriment to the surrounding area subject to the attached conditions. Page 67 of 126
Page 68
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: 26/00190/FUL Name (of applicant): Ampyr Distributed Energy 1 Ltd Site Address: Land At Biggar Road Newarthill Motherwell Development: Installation of a Ground- Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Array, Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and Associated Infrastructure Page 68 of 126
Page 69
Proposed Conditions: - 1. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers: - Location Plan Layout Plan Rev 6.0 Battery Container Elevations Communication Building Elevations Storage Building Elevations CCTV Elevations Deer Fencing Elevation Inverter Elevations Substation Elevations Transformer Elevations PV Panel Elevations Landscaping Plan Rev 3 Fencing Details Rev 1.0 Cross Section Rev 1.0 Site Access Sightlines MTS 14036 SK03 REV A Access Dimensions MTS 14036 SK04 Road Section Access Gate Elevations Noise Transmission Cross Section Rev 1.0 Topographical Survey A0 250783 01 REV 0 Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. The development hereby approved shall cease operation 40 years from the date of first export of electricity from the site. Written confirmation of the First Export Date shall be provided to the Planning Authority within one month of that date. Reason: To define the period for which planning permission is granted and to ensure the development remains consistent with the assessment of its temporary and reversible nature. 3. No later than 12 months following the cessation of electricity generation or upon expiry of the 40-year operational period, whichever is the sooner, all solar panels, battery energy storage infrastructure, buildings, compounds, access tracks (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority), fencing, CCTV equipment, foundations and all associated above-ground apparatus shall be removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development remains a time-limited renewable energy development and that the site is appropriately restored following the cessation of the approved use, in the interests of visual amenity, landscape character and environmental protection. Page 69 of 126
Page 70
4. No later than 12 months prior to the expiry of the 40-year operational period, or within 6 months of the cessation of electricity generation from the site, whichever occurs first, a Restoration and Decommissioning Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Scheme shall include: a) a programme for the decommissioning and removal of all solar panels, battery energy storage infrastructure, substations, transformers, communications equipment, fencing, CCTV equipment, foundations, cabling, access tracks (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) and all other associated above-ground infrastructure and shall ensure that all battery units, associated infrastructure and hazardous materials shall be removed from the site and disposed of or recycled in accordance with all relevant environmental legislation; b) details of site restoration works, including reinstatement of land levels, treatment of disturbed ground and restoration of vegetation and habitats; c) details of waste management and disposal arrangements for all equipment and materials removed from the site; d) a timetable for implementation of the decommissioning and restoration works; and e) arrangements for post-restoration monitoring and remedial works where required. The approved Restoration and Decommissioning Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timetable. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory restoration of the site following the cessation of the approved renewable energy development in the interests of landscape character, visual amenity, biodiversity, environmental protection and the continued openness of the Green Belt. 5. That no later than 12 weeks before the First Export Date, a financial guarantee to cover the costs of decommissioning and site restoration, as required by conditions 3 and 4 of this consent, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The acceptability of such financial guarantee shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Authority. The financial guarantee must: A) be granted in favour of the Planning Authority and shall be maintained in favour of the Planning Authority throughout the duration of this consent and until the completion of all decommissioning and site restoration obligations as required by conditions 3 and 4 of this consent. B) must be provided by an independent financial body with at least an A - rating who will be capable of fulfilling the obligations set out within the financial guarantee. C) be for an amount which covers the value of all decommissioning and site restoration liabilities, such amount to be determined by the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. D) be subject to a review every five years from the date of this consent, or other such intervals as agreed by the Planning Authority. Each review shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified independent professional who has relevant experience in such matters, the identity of whom has been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the review of the financial guarantee commencing. The review of the financial guarantee shall be submitted no later than three months prior to the expiry of the existing financial guarantee, for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Thereafter and at least 28 days prior to the expiry of the existing financial guarantee, the replacement financial guarantee in favour of and in terms acceptable to the Planning Authority and for the value advised by the review noted above, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. Page 70 of 126
Page 71
E) come into effect on or before the commencement of the First Export Date, and expire no earlier than 12 months after the end of the site restoration period. The First Export of electricity shall not start until both: - written approval of the Planning Authority has been given to the terms of such financial guarantee and; - the validly executed guarantee has been delivered to the Planning Authority Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds to secure performance of the decommissioning and restoration obligations in event of a developer/operator default. 6. In the event that the financial guarantee becomes invalid, has expired, or is terminated for any reason following the commencement of operations at the site, all operations at the site shall cease no later than three months from the date the financial guarantee became invalid, expired or terminated. If a replacement financial guarantee, which meets the requirements of condition 5, is approved by the Planning Authority and duly executed before the end of the three-month period, the operations may continue. If the operations have ceased due to this clause, they may recommence only upon the approval and execution of a replacement financial guarantee. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control. 7. Prior to the commencement of development, revised details of the proposed site access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with NLC Infrastructure and Transportation. The details shall include: - Visibility splays of 2.4m x 104m to the north and 2.4m x 81m to the south maintained free from all obstruction above 1.05 metres; - Construction of the first 20 metres of the site access in a bound bituminous surface; - Provision of wheel washing facilities for construction traffic; - Pre and post-construction dilapidation surveys of the affected road network; - Details of construction traffic management arrangements; and - Details of the contractors lay-down area as mentioned under point 4.1 of the Transportation Statement by Ampyr dated February 2026, this should be shown on a dimensioned drawing. The approved measures shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to commencement of the relevant phase of development and retained for the duration of construction. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to protect the integrity of the public road network. 8. That no development shall commence until a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) for speed reduction to facilitate construction works has been confirmed. Reason: To ensure compliance with the relevant legislation. 9. The development will be completed in strict accordance with the recommendations, mitigation measures and drainage strategy outlined in ‘Newhouse Solar Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment 6 February 2026 by Gondolin Land & Water Civil Engineering & Environmental Solutions’ unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory management of surface water runoff and to safeguard the development and surrounding area from flood risk. Page 71 of 126
Page 72
10. That WITHIN three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans. For the avoidance of doubt, The Surface Water Drainage Strategy detailed within the Drainage Strategy Report by Bayne Stevenson Associates Ltd dated February 2026 and in drawings approved under the terms of condition 9 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements. 11. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted commences, a Comprehensive Site Investigation for potential ground contamination and a Mine Gas Assessment shall be carried out by a Competent Person and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 “The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites”. The report must include a site-specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, be carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency, Land Contamination Risk Management procedure (LCRM) formally known as CLR11 and be submitted in electronic format. For the avoidance of doubt, a Competent Person in this context is a person with a recognised relevant qualification, sufficient experience in dealing with the type(s) of pollution or land instability, and membership of a relevant professional organisation. These include, for example: • Suitably Qualified Person (SQP) registered under the NQMS • The SoBRA accreditation scheme • A Specialist in Land Condition (SiLC) • Membership of a professional organisation relevant to land contamination • A specialist in the gas protection verification accreditation scheme (GPVS) Reason: To establish whether site decontamination is required in the interests of amenity and wellbeing of future users of the site. 12. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted commences, any remediation works identified by the site investigation(s) required by Condition 11 above, shall be detailed in a Remediation Strategy and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. The remediation shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in advance with the Planning Authority. Thereafter, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval to confirm that the remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination and that any remediation identified has been implemented in the interests of amenity and wellbeing of future users of the site. 13. No development shall commence on site until any remediation works and/or mitigation measures required to address the mine entry and the shallow mine workings, as may be necessary, have been implemented on site in full and the intrusive site investigations and remedial works shall be carried out in accordance with authoritative UK guidance. Reason: To ensure that the site is safe and stable for the development proposed. Page 72 of 126
Page 73
14. Notwithstanding the terms of condition 13 above and prior to the occupation of the development, or it being taken into beneficial 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 Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. This document shall confirm the methods and findings of the intrusive site investigations and the completion of any remedial works and/or mitigation necessary to address the risks posed by the recorded mine entry. Reason: To ensure that the site is safe and stable for the development proposed. 15. No development shall commence until all ecological mitigation measures identified within the approved Ecological Impact Assessment, Breeding Bird Survey and supporting ecological documentation have been incorporated into a scheme of implementation submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timetable and maintained for the duration of the construction period and operational life of the development. Reason: To safeguard protected species, habitats and biodiversity interests and to ensure the ecological mitigation measures identified during the assessment process are fully implemented. 16. Any ecological surveys relied upon in support of the application which are more than two years old at the time of commencement of development shall be updated and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval prior to the commencement of development. Any additional mitigation measures identified through updated survey work shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard protected species, habitats and biodiversity interests and to ensure the ecological mitigation measures identified during the assessment process are fully implemented. 17. Prior to the commencement of development, a Final Habitat Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Plan shall be based on the approved Outline Habitat Management Plan and shall include: a) details of all habitat creation, enhancement and management measures; b) species-rich grassland establishment and management proposals; c) hedgerow, hedgerow tree and riparian woodland planting specifications; d) grazing management arrangements; e) biodiversity enhancement measures including bird boxes, bat boxes, invertebrate habitats and amphibian/reptile refugia; f) timetables for implementation; g) monitoring methodologies and performance indicators; h) replacement planting and corrective action measures where establishment targets are not achieved; i) reporting and review arrangements; and j) details of the body responsible for ongoing implementation and management. Page 73 of 126
Page 74
The approved Habitat Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and maintained for the operational lifetime of the development. Reason: To secure the delivery, establishment, monitoring and long-term management of biodiversity enhancement measures and habitat creation in the interests of biodiversity, ecological connectivity and nature network enhancement. 18. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Planning Authority at Years 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 following first export of electricity from the development. The reports shall assess the effectiveness of the habitat creation and enhancement measures, identify any failures in establishment and specify any remedial measures required. Any remedial measures identified shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that biodiversity enhancement and habitat management measures continue to achieve the intended ecological outcomes throughout the operational life of the development. 19. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved Landscaping Plan, no development shall commence until a detailed Planting Schedule has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Planting Schedule shall include: a) the species, size, age, stock type and quantities of all trees, hedgerows, shrubs and riparian planting; b) details of all grassland and wildflower seed mixes; c) planting densities and spacing arrangements; d) details of heavy standard trees, including girth and height at planting; e) details of all protective measures, tree guards, stakes and supports; f) details of soil preparation, planting methodology and establishment measures; and g) a timetable for implementation. All approved planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Planting Schedule during the first available planting season following the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the landscaping, biodiversity enhancement and habitat creation measures are implemented to an agreed specification in the interests of visual amenity, landscape integration, biodiversity enhancement and ecological connectivity. 20. The landscaping and ecological enhancement measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Landscaping Plan V4 and associated planting specifications unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. All planting, seeding and habitat creation measures shall be completed within the first planting season following the commencement of development, or such other timetable as may be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory integration of the development into the surrounding landscape and to secure biodiversity enhancement. Page 74 of 126
Page 75
21. Any trees, hedgerows, shrubs, grassland areas or other planting approved as part of the development which die, are removed, become seriously damaged, diseased or fail to establish at any time during the operational lifetime of the development shall be replaced during the next available planting season with stock of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved landscaping and planting shall be inspected annually throughout the operational lifetime of the development, and any failures identified during such inspections shall be replaced in accordance with this condition. Reason: To ensure the long-term establishment, retention and effectiveness of the approved landscape mitigation measures throughout the operational lifetime of the development. 22. Prior to the commencement of development, a Final Landscape Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Plan shall include: a) management prescriptions for all hedgerows, trees, grassland and riparian planting; b) replacement planting procedures; c) maintenance schedules; d) inspection and monitoring arrangements; e) responsibilities for landscape management; and f) a timetable for implementation. The approved Landscape Management Plan shall be fully implemented and maintained for the operational lifetime of the development. Reason: To secure the long-term management and effectiveness of the approved landscape mitigation. 23. All approved hedgerows shall be managed in accordance with the approved Landscaping Plan and shall be allowed to establish and be maintained at a minimum height of 3 metres, except within approved visibility splays where a lower height may be necessary. No approved hedgerow shall be removed without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To provide effective landscape screening, biodiversity enhancement and mitigation of visual impacts. 24. The approved riparian planting corridor adjacent to the Legbrannock Burn shall be retained, protected and managed for the lifetime of the development. No storage of materials, vehicle parking, excavation works or operational development shall take place within the approved riparian planting area except where expressly approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect and enhance the water environment, biodiversity interests and ecological connectivity. 25. The approved heavy standard tree planting shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Landscaping Plan and completed during the first planting season following commencement of development. All heavy standard trees shall be inspected annually during the first five years following planting and any failures shall be replaced with trees of equivalent species and specification. Reason: To secure early establishment of structural landscape screening and visual mitigation. Page 75 of 126
Page 76
26. Landscape Monitoring Reports shall be submitted to the Planning Authority at Years 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30 and 40 following first export of electricity from the site. The reports shall assess: a) the health and establishment of all planted trees and hedgerows; b) the effectiveness of landscape screening; c) management undertaken since the previous report; d) any failures in establishment; and e) proposed remedial measures. Any remedial measures identified shall be implemented within a timescale approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the long-term effectiveness of the approved landscape mitigation measures. 27. Prior to first operation of the plant and equipment hereby approved, all noise mitigation measures identified within the approved Noise Impact Assessment shall be installed and fully operational and a post completion noise survey must be undertaken at the maximum operating output by a competent qualified acoustic consultant. The results of the survey report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 6 weeks of operation unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The post completion testing shall assess performance of the plant and equipment against the noise levels as set out in the ‘Report on Proposed Solar Farm Sound For AMPYR Distributed Energy At Biggar Road, Newarthill’ dated 26th July 2026, Addendum information dated 17th September and Layout Plan Revision 5.0. The final noise mitigation scheme shall be operated and maintained thereafter for the operational lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that predicted noise levels remain within acceptable limits in the interests of residential amenity. 28. Notwithstanding the details approved in terms of drawing Acoustic Fence Elevation Rev 1 and prior to the commencement of development on site full details of the proposed noise barrier shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall include the barrier's siting, height, length, design, materials and acoustic performance specification. The approved noise barrier shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first operation of the plant and equipment and thereafter retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of nearby residential properties through the effective mitigation of noise impacts. 29. Any acoustic barriers, enclosures or noise attenuation measures approved as part of the development shall be retained and maintained in an effective condition for the operational lifetime of the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the continued effectiveness of noise mitigation measures. Page 76 of 126
Page 77
30. No development shall commence until a final Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Plan shall include: • construction waste management procedures; • materials re-use and recycling measures; • pollution prevention measures; • soil handling procedures; • dust suppression measures; and • environmental monitoring arrangements. Development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved Plan. Reason: To minimise environmental impacts and promote sustainable construction practices. 31. No development shall take place within 30 metres either side of the centreline of the existing 400kV overhead transmission line unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority following consultation with SP Energy Networks. Reason: To safeguard strategic electricity transmission infrastructure. 32. Prior to the commencement of development, details demonstrating compliance with all relevant overhead line clearance requirements, construction restrictions and protection measures associated with the existing transmission infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority following consultation with SP Energy Networks. Reason: To ensure the safe operation and protection of the electricity transmission network. 33. Throughout the construction and operational life of the development, unrestricted 24-hour access shall be maintained for SP Energy Networks to Tower XR004, the overhead transmission line and associated maintenance routes. Reason: To ensure ongoing access for inspection, maintenance, repair and future upgrading of strategic transmission infrastructure. 34. Prior to the commencement of development, a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Safety Management Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Statement shall include: a) details of the battery technology to be installed; b) measures to minimise the risk of thermal runaway and fire; c) details of battery monitoring and fault detection systems; d) emergency isolation and shut-down arrangements; e) details of any fire prevention, suppression and containment measures incorporated within the development; f) details of site design measures incorporated to protect human health, residential amenity and the environment in the event of equipment failure or fire; and Page 77 of 126
Page 78
g) details of how fire-water containment measures integrate with the approved drainage strategy. The development shall thereafter be carried out and operated in accordance with the approved Statement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that appropriate design measures have been incorporated to minimise risks associated with the Battery Energy Storage System in the interests of public safety, residential amenity and environmental protection. 35. Prior to the first operation of the Battery Energy Storage System, an Emergency Response Framework shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Framework shall include: a) site layout information relevant to emergency access; b) arrangements for emergency vehicle access throughout the site; c) details of emergency contact procedures; d) arrangements for liaison with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; e) details of fire-water containment infrastructure and emergency drainage controls; f) procedures for the management of any pollution incident affecting surrounding land, watercourses or drainage systems; and g) arrangements for periodic review and updating of the Framework. The approved Framework shall thereafter be maintained and reviewed at intervals not exceeding five years throughout the operational lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure that appropriate emergency response arrangements are in place in the interests of public safety and environmental protection. 36. Prior to the commencement of development, a Fire-Water Containment Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Scheme shall demonstrate that any contaminated fire-water arising from a Battery Energy Storage System incident can be effectively contained, managed and prevented from entering any watercourse, groundwater, drainage network or the wider environment. The Scheme shall include: a) details of containment infrastructure; b) any isolation measures, drainage controls, interceptors, shut-off devices or containment facilities; c) details of storage capacity calculations; d) arrangements for the removal and disposal of contaminated fire-water; and e) maintenance and inspection procedures for all containment infrastructure. The approved measures shall be fully implemented prior to the first operation of the Battery Energy Storage System and retained thereafter throughout the operational lifetime of the development. Reason: To safeguard the water environment and prevent pollution in the interests of environmental protection. Page 78 of 126
Page 79
37. The Battery Energy Storage System shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved application documents. No material alteration to the approved battery technology, storage capacity, container dimensions, layout or operational characteristics that would give rise to materially different environmental, amenity, safety, drainage, landscape, noise or visual impacts from those assessed as part of this planning permission shall take place unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that any future changes to the Battery Energy Storage System remain consistent with the environmental assessment undertaken as part of this planning permission. 38. No external lighting shall be installed within the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Where external lighting is required for operational, maintenance, safety or security purposes, details of a Lighting Scheme shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Lighting Scheme shall include: a) the location, height, design and specification of all lighting columns and luminaires; b) details of lighting levels and illumination contours; c) measures to minimise light spill, glare and upward light emissions; d) measures to protect residential amenity and ecological interests, including bats, otter habitat and other nocturnal species; e) details of operating hours and control systems, including timers, sensors or motion- activated controls where appropriate. The approved Lighting Scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full and no additional external lighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To protect residential amenity, minimise light pollution and safeguard ecological interests, including protected species and habitat corridors. Page 79 of 126
Page 80
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) Scottish Power Environmental Planning Coal Mining Remediation Authority Traffic & Transportation NLC Greenspace NLC Climate Change Team NLC Water Management Team Scottish Environment Protection Agency Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Edward McLennaghan at 01236 632487 Report Date: 2nd October 2026 Page 80 of 126
Page 81
APPLICATION NO. 26/00190/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site extends to approximately 7.75 hectares and is located to the north-east of Newarthill. The site comprises predominantly greenfield agricultural land currently used for grazing. The principal development area extends to approximately 6.27 hectares. 1.2 The main site is bounded by Biggar Road to the west, Motherwell Road/B7066 to the east, residential properties to the south and the Legbrannock Burn, agricultural land and commercial premises to the north. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of land uses including agriculture, residential development, electrical infrastructure, industrial and commercial operations. Newhouse Industrial Estate lies to the north and north-west, while a glass recycling facility and former quarry are located to the east and south-east. 1.3 The site contains existing electricity transmission infrastructure, including a Scottish Power overhead transmission line crossing the site in a north-west to south-east direction, supported by steel lattice towers. A further lower-voltage overhead line on wooden poles runs across the northern part of the site. Existing field access points are present from Biggar Road and from the B7066. 1.4 The land generally slopes from the south towards the north, with levels falling from approximately 163 metres Above Ordnance Datum in the southern part of the site to around 152 metres AOD adjacent to the northern boundary. Legbrannock Burn forms part of the northern boundary of the site. Existing boundary vegetation comprises a combination of hedgerows, scattered trees and watercourse vegetation, with most of the site comprising improved grassland. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks planning consent for the installation of a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) farm incorporating battery energy storage and associated infrastructure with a generating capacity of (solar 3.5MW and the BESS providing a further 500kW) on land to the north-east of Newarthill. The development is intended to generate renewable electricity for supply to local commercial users via private wire connections. 2.2 The proposed solar farm would occupy agricultural land within the application site and comprise rows of ground-mounted PV panels arranged broadly across the central and eastern parts of the site. The submitted PV panel elevation drawing indicates that the panels would be mounted on metal support frames with a typical inclination of approximately 25 degrees, a maximum height of up to 3 metres above ground level and a minimum clearance of approximately 0.8 metres beneath the panels. The spacing between panel rows would generally range between 2 and 6 metres. The development incorporates a 30 metre building stand-off buffer either side of the overhead line that transects the middle of the site such that the panels are broadly arranged across the north-eastern half and within a central pocket at the southern boundary, near existing housing. 2.3 The proposal would include a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) together with associated electrical infrastructure including 2 battery containers, 2 transformers, inverters, a customer substation, communications building, and storage building. Most of this infrastructure would be positioned adjacent to the proposed site entrance in the western part of the development, with the 2 BESS containers and one of the transformers located at the eastern extremity of the access road, and inverters distributed throughout the site in accordance with the submitted layout plan. Page 81 of 126
Page 82
2.4 Vehicular access would be taken from Biggar Road via a new site entrance. An internal access track would extend through the site to facilitate construction, maintenance and operational access, terminating in a turning head within the eastern part of the site. Temporary construction compounds and contractor parking areas are also proposed as part of the development. 2.5 The site would be enclosed by approximately 2-metre-high deer fencing with access gates and inward-facing CCTV cameras mounted on poles around the site perimeter for operational security purposes. In addition, the site incorporates a 2.4m acoustic barrier within the southern corner of the site adjacent to Biggar Road and Motherwell Road and adjacent to the principal infrastructure compound. The barrier would be positioned between the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), substation and associated electrical infrastructure and the nearest residential properties located along Biggar Road and it would form part of the proposed noise mitigation measures associated with the development. Existing wayleave corridors associated with the overhead electricity transmission lines crossing the site would remain free of development. 2.6 In addition to the generating infrastructure, the proposal includes underground electricity cable routes extending beyond the main solar array area to facilitate private wire connections to off-site commercial premises. The cables would be installed predominantly within road verges and would include a crossing of the Legbrannock Burn. The proposed cable route would follow Biggar Road to the north and after crossing the A775 would terminate at the roundabout opposite to the entrance of the Co-operative Food Primary Logistics Services. 2.7 The submitted plans also incorporate landscape and biodiversity measures, including new native tree, hedgerow and scrub planting, retention and enhancement of existing boundary vegetation and grassland management. The only vegetation proposed to be removed from site is at the access point and associated visibility splay with no changes to site levels proposed. The proposed surface water drainage strategy incorporates a range of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) designed to manage and attenuate surface water runoff across the site. These measures include vegetated swales, check dams, permeable access tracks and gravel infiltration features associated with the proposed infrastructure areas. Collectively, these features are intended to control runoff rates, promote infiltration, provide water quality treatment and ensure that the development does not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere. These measures are intended to provide visual screening, ecological enhancement and surface water management throughout the operational life of the development. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 In support of the application the applicant has provided the following information: Planning Statement Transport Statement Noise Impact Assessment (Revised July 2026) Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment Ecological Assessment Outline Habitat Management Plan Outline Landscaping Plan Landscape and Visual Appraisal Glint and Glare Assessment (Revised June 2026) Socio Economic Impact Statement Outline CEMP Position Statement 4. Site History 4.1 The application site has no site history of note with relevance to the proposed development. Page 82 of 126
Page 83
5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 2023 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP). 5.2 The NPF4 policies considered to have particular relevance for the proposals are as follows: Policy 1 Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 Biodiversity Policy 4 Natural places Policy 5 Soils Policy 6 Forestry, woodland and trees Policy 8 Green belt Policy 11 Energy Policy 12 Zero waste Policy 13 Sustainable transport Policy 14 Design, quality and place Policy 18 Infrastructure first Policy 20 Blue and green infrastructure Policy 22 Flood risk and water management Policy 23 Health and safety Policy 25 Community Wealth Building 5.3 The relevant policies within the NLLDP are as follows: PP4 Green Belt – Purpose of Place AD4 Green Belt – Amount of Development PROT A Natural Environment and Green Network Assets - Category A5 Protected Species CI Contributions to Infrastructure PROM ID2 (Utilities Improvements) EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) 5.4 Scottish Government Guidance: Battery Energy Storage Systems (March 2026) 6. Consultations 6.1 NLC Infrastructure and Transportation has confirmed that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable subject to revisions and conditions. In particular, visibility splays measuring 2.4m x 104m to the north and 2.4m x 81m to the south require to be safeguarded and maintained free from obstruction. The Authority has also requested that the first 20 metres of the site access be constructed in a bound bituminous material to prevent debris being deposited on the public road and that wheel washing facilities be provided during the construction period. Matters relating to the proposed cable route within the public road network, temporary traffic management measures and road dilapidation surveys will be addressed through planning conditions and separate Roads Authority consents where required. Subject to these requirements, the Roads Authority confirms that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable road safety or transportation concerns. 6.2 NLC Protective Services has confirmed that it has no objections to the proposed development on noise amenity grounds, having considered the submitted technical information and the amendments to the scheme, including the relocation of a transformer. Conditions are recommended to control operational noise and protect the amenity of nearby residential properties throughout the lifetime of the development. Further conditions are also proposed to ensure that any risks associated with land contamination and mine gas are appropriately investigated and mitigated, and that any necessary remediation and verification measures are implemented prior to development proceeding. Page 83 of 126
Page 84
6.3 NLC Greenspace reviewed the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment and advised that all mitigation and enhancement measures identified within the EcIA should be secured through planning conditions. Greenspace also recommended that habitat creation and enhancement measures should be implemented as early as possible within the construction process to maximise establishment success and ecological benefit. Concern was raised that a Biodiversity Management Plan was not available at the time of consultation and Greenspace requested submission of a document setting out the proposed habitat creation, enhancement, management and maintenance measures for the site. Greenspace also advised that ecological survey information should be updated if more than two years elapse prior to commencement of development. Since the consultation response was received, the applicant has submitted an Outline Habitat Management Plan which details the proposed habitat creation, enhancement, monitoring and management measures associated with the development. This document includes provisions for species-rich grassland creation, hedgerow and riparian planting, protected species enhancement measures and a long-term monitoring and management framework. 6.4 NLC Water Management Team has reviewed the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment and advises that the assessment is satisfactory. No objection is raised to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures contained within the approved Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment. 6.5 NLC Climate Change Team notes that the proposal would contribute towards renewable energy generation and the Council's climate change objectives. The Team identifies a number of matters relevant to the Council's Public Bodies Climate Change Duties, including the selection of solar panel technology, embodied and lifetime carbon considerations, battery energy storage fire risk mitigation, construction waste management, biodiversity enhancement, grazing management and the quantification of biodiversity gains arising from the proposed habitat improvements. The Team also notes the recommendations of the Coal Authority in relation to Phase II site investigations and highlights the need for updated ecological surveys where required prior to commencement of development. 6.6 SEPA advised that the proposal should be assessed against its Development Management Consultation Framework and Standing Advice and requested clarification as to the reason for consultation. Having reviewed the proposal, including the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment and the consultation response from the Council's Water Management Team, it is considered that the development does not fall within any of SEPA's consultation thresholds requiring site-specific comment. The proposal has therefore been assessed having regard to SEPA's published standing advice and the response of the Council's Water Management Team. An appropriate condition can be attached to control the management of drainage. 6.7 SP Energy Networks initially objected to the proposal due to concerns relating to the proximity of the development to the existing 400kV overhead transmission line crossing the site and the need to protect operational transmission infrastructure. The matters raised related to maintaining the established servitude corridor associated with the overhead line, ensuring satisfactory clearance distances are achieved, and safeguarding unrestricted access to Tower XR004, the transmission line and associated maintenance routes. Following further discussions between the applicant, the Planning Authority and SPEN, the applicant confirmed that the layout had been amended prior to submission to maintain the required exclusion corridor associated with the overhead line and indicated a willingness to accept planning conditions requiring compliance with relevant servitude restrictions, overhead line clearance requirements and continued access to SPEN infrastructure. In correspondence dated 24 July 2026, SPEN confirmed that the matters raised within their consultation response could be satisfactorily addressed by planning conditions and indicated agreement with the draft conditions proposed by the Planning Authority. SPEN advised that whilst it would formally maintain its objection, this should not prevent the Planning Authority from determining the application and acknowledged that the proposed planning conditions would address the concerns identified. Page 84 of 126
Page 85
6.8 Coal Mining Remediation Authority (CMRA) advises that the application site lies within a defined Development High Risk Area and that records indicate the presence of historic coal mining legacy features including recorded mine entries, historic shallow mine workings, possible unrecorded workings, a coal seam outcrop and proximity to former surface mining operations. The CMRA notes that, whilst ground-mounted solar arrays are generally exempt from the requirement to submit a Coal Mining Risk Assessment due to their limited ground disturbance, ancillary infrastructure including substations, transformers and associated structures may be susceptible to risks arising from historic mining activity. The CMRA has reviewed the submitted Geoenvironmental Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment and notes that further Phase II intrusive site investigations have been recommended. Given that none of the identified sensitive structures are located over or within 20 metres of the recorded mine entries, the CMRA raises no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions requiring intrusive site investigations, implementation of any necessary remediation or mitigation measures, and verification that the site has been rendered safe and stable prior to operation of the development. 7. Representations 7.1 Following standard neighbour notification and press advertisement procedures, the application was subject to neighbour notification on 17 March 2026 and press advertisement on 25 March 2026. Following the submission of amended plans and additional supporting information, a further round of neighbour notification and press advertisement was undertaken on 27 August 2026 and 9 September 2026 respectively. In addition, all parties who had previously submitted representations on the application were separately notified on 27 August 2026 and provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised submission. As a result of the consultation process, 30 representations have been received from 21 individual representors, including the Secretary of the Woodhall, Faskine and Palacecraig Conservation Group. A neutral comment was submitted by Newarthill Community Council noting that it had invited the applicant to present the proposal at a meeting of the Community Council and respond to concerns raised by local residents. The applicant confirmed that they attended the meeting, as did several residents living in close proximity to the site, who were able to raise questions directly with the developer. 7.2 A range of representations objecting to the proposed development were received and the principal issues raised are summarised below: 7.3 Green Belt, principle of development and policy • Loss of Green Belt land and erosion of the open countryside setting, including reduced settlement separation, loss of openness, loss of agricultural land and gradual encroachment of development into the Green Belt. • Failure to demonstrate a specific locational requirement for development within the Green Belt. • Failure to demonstrate that suitable alternative sites, including brownfield, industrial and previously developed land, have been adequately considered. • Alleged conflict with National Planning Framework 4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, particularly in relation to Green Belt protection, renewable-energy development, placemaking, biodiversity, environmental protection and residential amenity. • Concern that the proposal represents premature development and that wider strategic energy infrastructure requirements, cumulative renewable-energy development and future energy demand have not been adequately assessed. • Concern regarding cumulative effects arising from existing, approved and proposed development and infrastructure, including renewable-energy developments, battery- storage facilities, housing developments, industrial operations and electricity-transmission infrastructure. Page 85 of 126
Page 86
7.4 Landscape and visual effects • Adverse effects on landscape character, the countryside setting of Newarthill and the settlement edge arising from the solar arrays, BESS infrastructure, fencing, CCTV, substations, transformers, communications equipment, access tracks and associated development. • Concern regarding the scale, height, proximity and industrial appearance of the development and its effects on views, outlook, openness and the visual amenity of neighbouring residential properties and gardens. • Concern that the submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal, visualisations and mitigation proposals do not adequately represent or address the likely effects on nearby residential properties and landscape character. • Concern that no Residential Visual Amenity Assessment has been undertaken despite the proximity of the development to neighbouring residential properties. • Concern regarding the effectiveness of the proposed landscape mitigation and screening, including planting-establishment periods, seasonal effectiveness, storm damage, long- term maintenance and the ability of the proposed measures to mitigate effects on nearby residents. • Concern regarding reliance on vegetation within neighbouring residential properties to provide screening, as this vegetation is outside the applicant’s control and cannot be assumed to remain throughout the operational period. • Loss of landscape quality, recreational value, amenity green space and enjoyment of the countryside. 7.5 Glint and glare • Potential glint and glare effects on nearby residents and road users. • Concern regarding the adequacy, assumptions and methodology of the submitted Glint and Glare Assessment. • Concern that the terrain levels, receptor heights and viewing positions used in the assessment may not accurately represent the elevation of neighbouring houses, windows and gardens, particularly at 521 High Street. 7.6 Residential amenity and privacy • Adverse effects on residential amenity arising from visual intrusion, loss of outlook, loss of privacy, noise, lighting, the perceived industrialisation of the area and interference with the enjoyment of houses and gardens. • Potential loss of privacy arising from CCTV cameras and other security infrastructure. 7.7 Operational noise • Operational noise from the solar farm equipment, inverters, transformers, substations and BESS infrastructure. • Concern regarding the noise assessment’s baseline information, methodology, treatment of cumulative effects, consideration of outdoor amenity areas and assessment of tonal and wind-related noise. • Concern regarding the number and selection of noise-sensitive receptors, including the omission of 521 High Street and other potentially affected properties. • Concern that reliance on 32 Biggar Road as the single “most exposed” receptor may not provide a sufficiently representative assessment of operational noise effects at other properties. Page 86 of 126
Page 87
• Concern regarding the assumptions used in operational noise modelling, including meteorological conditions favourable to noise propagation, wind direction, atmospheric conditions, ground effects, source heights and receptor locations. • Concern that the cumulative noise assessment does not clearly demonstrate consideration of relevant existing, approved and pending energy infrastructure, including the Denny–Wishaw Network Upgrade, Newarthill Substation and the approved BESS development under application 24/00810/FUL. • Concern regarding the design, acoustic performance, structural integrity, service life, weather resistance, inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of the proposed acoustic barrier. • Concern regarding how residential amenity would be protected if the acoustic barrier were damaged, degraded or temporarily ineffective. • Concern regarding the long-term enforceability and verification of noise mitigation, including requests for receptor-specific noise limits, independent post-commissioning testing, periodic operational monitoring and arrangements for investigating and remedying non-compliance. 7.8 BESS safety and siting • Public-safety concerns relating to battery fires, thermal runaway, previous BESS incidents, electrical infrastructure and the adequacy of fire-safety and emergency- response arrangements. • Public-safety concerns relating to storm damage, structural failure, wind-blown debris, mine gas and hazards associated with former mining activity. • Concern regarding the siting of the BESS close to residential properties. • Concern that alternative locations for the BESS within the application site, together with alternative cable routes and connection arrangements, have not been adequately considered to reduce noise, safety and residential-amenity effects. 7.9 Mining legacy, ground conditions and contamination • Concern regarding coal-mining legacy, mine entries, mine gas, contamination, land stability and the suitability of the site for solar farm and BESS infrastructure. • Concern that adequate intrusive investigations, geotechnical surveys, coal-mining investigations and contamination assessments have not been completed prior to determination of the application. 7.10 Flood risk and drainage • Concern regarding flood risk, drainage, surface-water management, hydrological effects and the adequacy of the proposed sustainable drainage infrastructure. • Concern regarding potential drainage and hydrological effects on adjacent land and watercourses. 7.11 Ecology and biodiversity • Potential effects on habitats and protected species, including bats, otters, water voles, great crested newts, breeding birds, birds of prey, badgers and amphibians. • Concern regarding the adequacy of the ecological surveys and proposed biodiversity mitigation. • Requests for further species surveys and a cumulative ecological assessment. Page 87 of 126
Page 88
7.12 Access, traffic and construction • Increased traffic and HGV movements, road-safety effects and impacts on the local road network during construction. • Concern regarding the adequacy of construction traffic management, HGV routing and delivery arrangements. • Adverse construction effects on neighbouring residents arising from noise, dust, lighting, working hours, HGV movements and delivery times. • Concern regarding the adequacy and enforceability of construction environmental and traffic management arrangements. 7.13 Environmental and cumulative assessment • Concern that the environmental assessment is inadequate and that cumulative effects on ecology, landscape, noise, hydrology, environmental quality and residential amenity have not been sufficiently assessed. 7.14 Duration, decommissioning and restoration • Concern regarding the description of the development as temporary given its proposed 40-year operational lifespan. • Concern regarding the absence of sufficiently detailed and enforceable arrangements for decommissioning the development, removing associated infrastructure, restoring the site and providing long-term management and aftercare. • Concern regarding the long-term financial certainty of the decommissioning and site- restoration arrangements. 7.15 Economic, energy and community benefits • Concern regarding the scale, duration and long-term real value of the economic, employment and community benefits associated with the proposal. • Concern that the claimed economic and community benefits would not outweigh the perceived environmental, landscape and residential effects. • Concern regarding the identification and location of the proposed future energy users and the claimed geographical relationship between those users and the application site. • Insufficient information regarding strategic energy requirements, anticipated energy output, carbon-reduction benefits and the overall public benefit of the development. 7.16 Consultation, amendments and supporting information • Concern regarding the applicant’s consultation process, community engagement and neighbour-notification procedures. • Concern regarding the accuracy, consistency and robustness of the submitted documents and technical assessments. • Concern regarding the number of amendments and additional submissions made during determination and a perception that deficiencies have been addressed incrementally following advice from the planning authority. • Concern regarding the fairness of the consultation and amendment process, including the burden placed on residents to review successive documents and submit further representations. • Reference to the applicant’s position that statutory public consultation was not required and that it attended a community council meeting by invitation to provide information and respond to concerns. Page 88 of 126
Page 89
• Reference to significant local opposition, including petitions, coordinated community campaigns and objections from community and conservation organisations. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Sections 25(1) (a) and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that this application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 2023 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP). EIA Screening 8.2 As the application site extends to approximately 7.75 hectares, the proposed development falls within Schedule 2, Category 3(a) “Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water” of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. The proposal was screened by the Planning Authority under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 to determine whether it was likely to give rise to significant environmental effects requiring the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Following consideration of the proposal, the characteristics of the site and the potential environmental effects, the Council concluded that the development was not located within a “sensitive area” for the purposes of the EIA Regulations and that, having regard to the nature, scale and location of the development together with the characteristics of the potential impacts and the mitigation proposed, it was not likely to result in significant environmental effects. Accordingly, the Planning Authority determined that the proposal did not require to be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. National Planning Framework 4 (2023) 8.3 The application seeks planning permission for a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic farm, battery energy storage system (BESS) and associated infrastructure on land designated as Green Belt in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The assessment of the proposal should therefore principally be undertaken against NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 8 and 11, together with other environmental and placemaking policies where relevant. 8.4 NPF4 introduces a strong presumption in favour of development which assists in addressing the climate emergency and supports renewable energy generation. Policy 1 requires significant weight to be given to the global climate and nature crises in the determination of all planning applications. Policy 2 further supports development which minimises greenhouse gas emissions and assists adaptation to climate change. 8.5 The Council's Climate & Energy Team has reviewed the proposal in the context of the Council's climate change duties and wider sustainability objectives. The Team notes that the development would provide renewable energy generation capacity and has highlighted a number of matters relating to embodied carbon, battery storage safety, construction waste management, biodiversity enhancement and habitat management. Having regard to the renewable energy benefits of the proposal, together with the biodiversity enhancement measures proposed and the ability to secure mitigation through planning conditions, the development is considered capable of making a positive contribution towards climate mitigation and biodiversity objectives in accordance with NPF4 Policies 1 and 2. Page 89 of 126
Page 90
8.6 Given the site's designation as Green Belt, Policy 8 is a key policy consideration. Policy 8 specifically identifies both renewable energy developments and essential infrastructure as forms of development which may be acceptable in principle within the Green Belt. However, the policy does not provide unconditional support. In addition to being an acceptable use, proposals must demonstrate that: • reasons are provided as to why a Green Belt location is required; • the purpose of the Green Belt would not be undermined; • the proposal is compatible with the surrounding countryside and landscape character; • the scale, massing and appearance minimise impacts on the Green Belt; and • there would be no significant long-term impacts on environmental quality. 8.7 In this case, the submitted Planning Statement indicates that the development is intended to directly supply renewable electricity to local businesses in the immediate area via private wire connections and that the location has been selected in part due to its proximity to those end users and existing electrical infrastructure. The site also occupies a location adjacent to industrial and commercial uses, existing electricity transmission infrastructure and a glass recycling facility. These locational considerations are material to the assessment of Policy 8. 8.8 While the proposal would introduce extensive solar infrastructure into an agricultural field, the development would remain largely reversible in nature and would not represent urban expansion, ribbon development or permanent built encroachment of the type Green Belt policy traditionally seeks to resist. The key matter is therefore whether the scale, appearance and landscape effects can be accommodated without an adverse impact on the character and function of the Green Belt at this location which is assessed in detail below. 8.9 Policy 11 is the principal renewable energy policy within NPF4 and provides explicit support for solar arrays and energy storage infrastructure. The policy states that all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero-emission technologies will be supported in principle. Furthermore, significant weight should be given to a proposal's contribution towards renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. 8.10 The assessment under Policy 11 therefore principally focuses on whether potential impacts have been satisfactorily addressed, including: • landscape and visual effects; • residential amenity; • noise; • biodiversity; • transport impacts; • flood risk and hydrology; • public access; • cumulative impacts; and • restoration and decommissioning arrangements. The key matters noted above require the assessment of the supporting information submitted with the application to assess the impacts in these areas and whether they can be mitigated through siting, layout, landscaping and other operational controls which is key in determining the suitability of the proposed development and its effects which are assessed in detail below. Page 90 of 126
Page 91
8.11 Policy 3 of NPF4 requires development proposals to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and ensure that biodiversity is left in a demonstrably better state than would exist without the development. The submitted Ecological Impact Assessment identifies the site as being dominated by improved agricultural grassland of relatively low ecological value, alongside areas of semi-improved grassland, native hedgerows, riparian habitat associated with Legbrannock Burn and a small area of swamp habitat. The proposals have been designed to avoid the most sensitive ecological features through the incorporation of development buffers around Legbrannock Burn, retention of existing habitats and the avoidance of permanent lighting. The ecological assessment concludes that, following mitigation, no significant adverse effects on ecological receptors are anticipated. 8.12 Policy 4 seeks to protect natural assets, biodiversity interests and protected species from unacceptable impacts arising from development. The EcIA confirms that the development site does not lie within any statutory nature conservation designation and concludes that there would be no likely significant effects on nearby designated sites, including Lady Bell's Moss SSSI and Slamannan Plateau SPA. Existing priority habitats, including native hedgerows and the Legbrannock Burn corridor, would largely be retained, with only limited hedgerow removal required to facilitate site access and substantial compensatory planting proposed as part of the scheme. The EcIA further concludes that, subject to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, habitat enhancement proposals and construction safeguards, the development would not result in significant adverse effects on protected species, including bats, otters, badgers, breeding birds, amphibians and reptiles, and would provide opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and habitat connectivity across the site. 8.13 The submitted ecological information has been reviewed by NLC Greenspace who advised that all mitigation and enhancement measures identified within the Ecological Impact Assessment should be secured as part of any planning permission. Greenspace also highlighted the need for a Biodiversity Management Plan setting out the long-term management, establishment and maintenance of the proposed ecological enhancements. Following submission of the consultation response, the applicant provided an Outline Habitat Management Plan which establishes a framework for the delivery, management and monitoring of habitat enhancements throughout the operational life of the development. The document provides for the creation of approximately 5.28 hectares of species-rich grassland, approximately 990 metres of native species-rich hedgerow planting and enhancement, riparian habitat creation adjacent to the Legbrannock Burn, together with a range of biodiversity enhancement measures for bats, breeding birds, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates. The Habitat Management Plan also includes monitoring, reporting and review mechanisms throughout the lifetime of the development. 8.14 Having regard to the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment, the Outline Habitat Management Plan and the consultation response from Greenspace, it is considered that the proposed ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are capable of being secured by planning condition and would deliver biodiversity enhancement and habitat connectivity benefits over the operational life of the development. Subject to implementation of those measures, the proposal is considered consistent with the requirements of NPF4 Policies 3 and 4 and Policy PROT A of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. 8.15 Policy 5 of NPF4 seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, peatlands and soils of environmental, agricultural and ecosystem value, ensuring that impacts arising from development are avoided, minimised and appropriately managed. The application site comprises an improved agricultural grassland field and there is no evidence within the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment, Outline Habitat Management Plan or Outline Landscape Plan that the site contains peatland, carbon-rich soils or other nationally important soil resources. The development is proposed on existing agricultural land and would involve relatively limited permanent land take for access tracks, hardstanding and associated infrastructure, with the majority of the site remaining undeveloped beneath and between the solar arrays. The solar panels would be pile-driven rather than requiring extensive foundations, thereby reducing soil disturbance during construction. Page 91 of 126
Page 92
8.16 The submitted information indicates that only a small area of improved grassland would be permanently lost due to the proposed access tracks and associated compound areas, whilst the development would result in some loss and alteration of areas of this habitat associated with the installation of solar panels and ancillary infrastructure, the majority of the site would remain vegetated throughout the operational life of the development with most of the site retained and restored through species-rich grassland establishment and long-term low- intensity management. The proposals would also reduce the intensity of agricultural operations, including the cessation of fertiliser inputs and associated soil disturbance over the operational life of the development. Subject to the implementation of appropriate construction environmental controls and restoration measures, the proposal is not considered likely to result in significant adverse effects on soil resources and is considered to generally accord with the objectives of NPF4 Policy 5 8.17 Policy 6 seeks to protect and enhance woodland, forestry and tree resources whilst supporting the expansion of woodland cover where appropriate. The application site does not contain any areas of woodland and the development has been designed to largely avoid impacts on established trees and hedgerows. Whilst limited sections of existing hedgerow require removal to facilitate access arrangements, these losses are proposed to be compensated through the creation of new native species-rich hedgerows, riparian planting and additional tree planting throughout the site. The proposed landscape and habitat enhancement measures would result in a net increase in tree and hedgerow cover across the site and provide opportunities for improved habitat connectivity. Subject to the implementation of the approved landscaping and habitat management measures, it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts on woodland, trees or hedgerows and is therefore consistent with the overall objectives of NPF4 Policy 6. 8.18 Policy 12 of NPF4 seeks to minimise waste generation, promote resource efficiency and ensure that waste is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy. The application is supported by an Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (OCEMP), which incorporates a Site Waste Management Plan and details measures for the prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal of construction waste. The OCEMP confirms that excavated materials and soils will, where practicable, be reused on site, that waste streams will be segregated appropriately, and that any waste requiring removal will be transferred to suitably licensed facilities. The document also includes measures relating to pollution prevention, management of soils, fuels, oils, concrete washout and surface water runoff, with the aim of preventing adverse environmental effects during the construction phase. 8.19 The Position Statement further advises that the development would retain an agricultural function through ongoing sheep grazing during operation and that the site would be restored at the end of the 40-year operational period through a decommissioning and restoration process secured by planning condition. Given the limited permanent land take associated with the development, the proposed reuse and reinstatement of materials, and the commitment to future site restoration, the proposal demonstrates a sustainable approach to resource management and waste minimisation. Subject to the implementation of the final CEMP and associated waste management measures, the proposal is considered to accord with the objectives of NPF4 Policy 12. Page 92 of 126
Page 93
8.20 Policy 13 of NPF4 seeks to ensure that development proposals provide safe, efficient and sustainable access arrangements and do not result in unacceptable impacts on the transport network or road safety. The application is supported by a Transport Statement which assesses the existing road network, traffic conditions and the transport implications of the proposal. The assessment identifies that Biggar Road currently accommodates commercial vehicles associated with nearby industrial uses and records relatively low traffic volumes, with average peak hour flows of 88 vehicles in the morning peak and 80 vehicles in the evening peak. The proposed solar farm would generate limited traffic, primarily during the four-month construction period, with an average of up to five HGV movements per day during the busiest phase of construction and only occasional maintenance visits once operational. The Transport Statement concludes that these traffic levels would not result in any material impact on the capacity or safe operation of the local road network. Measures including delivery management, staff parking within the site, wheel washing facilities, road condition surveys and a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order extending the 30mph speed limit past the site during construction are proposed to mitigate construction-related impacts. An assessment of local accident records identified no inherent road safety concerns that would be exacerbated by the development. 8.21 The Roads Authority initially requested further information and amendments in relation to visibility splays, access design, gate positioning and construction management measures. The applicant subsequently provided additional information and responded to these matters, confirming that several requirements, including road condition surveys, wheel washing facilities, utility works approvals, visibility maintenance and construction traffic controls, could be secured through planning conditions. The Roads response also confirms that the operational phase would generate only infrequent maintenance visits and that the site would function similarly to an agricultural field access once construction is complete. In addition, a detailed Glint and Glare Assessment considered the potential effects of solar reflections on nearby roads. The assessment concludes that, taking account of existing and proposed vegetation screening, any effects on road users would be either low impact or no impact, with no mitigation required. On this basis, and subject to conditions securing the proposed traffic management, access and road safety measures, the proposal is considered to accord with the objectives of NPF4 Policy 13. 8.22 Policy 14 of NPF4 seeks to ensure that development proposals are well designed, contribute positively to place, respond appropriately to local landscape character and protect the amenity of existing and future users. For renewable energy proposals, this requires consideration of the relationship between the development and its surroundings, including landscape character, visual amenity, residential amenity, and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigation. Design, Layout and Accessibility 8.23 The layout has been designed to utilise a broadly contained parcel of land bounded by roads, existing vegetation and nearby development. Solar arrays would remain relatively low in height and the development would follow existing topography and retain substantial areas of open space within and around the site footprint. Existing hedgerows and vegetation are largely retained, whilst additional landscaping is proposed around the site perimeter. 8.24 The Landscape and Visual Appraisal states that the arrangement of the solar arrays, associated infrastructure and landscape framework seeks to minimise visual intrusion and maintain the existing landscape structure. However, notwithstanding these measures, the proposal would introduce a new engineered form of development into an agricultural field which currently remains undeveloped. Inevitably, this would alter the character of the site itself for the operational lifetime of the development. Page 93 of 126
Page 94
8.25 Policy 11(e)(iii) requires consideration of impacts on public access, including long-distance walking and cycling routes and scenic routes. The application site comprises agricultural land and, whilst public roads are present adjacent to the site boundaries, no long-distance walking routes, National Cycle Network routes or recognised scenic routes pass through the development site. The proposal has been assessed in relation to its potential effects on public access and recreation and it is not considered that the development would result in the loss or severance of established public access infrastructure. Public roads and surrounding recreational opportunities would remain available throughout the operational life of the development. Whilst the proposal would introduce development into a currently open agricultural landscape and may alter views experienced by users of surrounding roads and local routes, these effects have been considered as part of the landscape and visual assessment. Taking account of the nature, scale and location of the proposal, it is not considered that the development would give rise to unacceptable impacts on public access, long-distance walking or cycling routes, or scenic routes. Landscape Character 8.26 The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal identifies the site as lying within the Plateau Farmland Landscape Character Type and notes that the local landscape is influenced by a range of existing man-made features including Newhouse Industrial Estate, the M8 corridor, overhead electricity infrastructure and historic mining landforms. The appraisal concludes that the wider landscape has capacity to accommodate development of this nature and scale. 8.27 The assessment acknowledges that the proposal would result in a change from agricultural pasture to a solar energy development, albeit one which would continue to allow sheep grazing beneath and around the panels. The submitted appraisal concludes that landscape effects would be experienced principally at a local level and would reduce over time as mitigation planting matures. It further identifies opportunities for enhancement through additional hedgerow planting, riparian planting, species-rich grassland and strengthened green networks. 8.28 Notwithstanding these findings, some degree of landscape change would occur. The extent to which this change is considered acceptable is a matter of planning judgement. Whilst the development would alter the immediate character of the host field and would introduce built infrastructure into a currently open agricultural landscape, the submitted evidence suggests this change would occur in a landscape already influenced by infrastructure and industrial development rather than within a highly sensitive or designated landscape. Visual Amenity 8.29 The Landscape and Visual Appraisal and associated visualisations consider visibility from a range of representative viewpoints within the surrounding area. The submitted evidence concludes that opportunities for views of the development are generally limited by existing topography, vegetation and surrounding development, with visibility largely confined to the immediate vicinity of the site. 8.30 The appraisal identifies no visual effects from a number of representative viewpoints, including locations around Newarthill, Newhouse and the wider study area. More noticeable effects are identified from locations immediately adjacent to the site, including sections of Motherwell Road, Biggar Road and Greenside Farm, where direct views of the proposed development would be available. The assessment concludes that these localised effects would reduce over time as landscape mitigation establishes. 8.31 The proposed landscape strategy includes: • Retention and enhancement of existing hedgerows; • New native hedgerow planting; • Additional field boundary trees; • Riparian planting along the Legbrannock Burn corridor; • Species-rich grassland and meadow management. Page 94 of 126
Page 95
The submitted appraisal considers that these measures would strengthen the existing landscape framework and assist in integrating the development into its surroundings. The effectiveness of these measures would increase over time as planting matures, although there would necessarily be a period following construction during which the mitigation would not provide its full screening function. Cumulative Impact 8.32 Policy 11 requires consideration of the cumulative impacts arising from renewable energy development. Representations received raise concerns regarding the cumulative effect of existing and proposed energy infrastructure within the wider area, including solar developments, battery energy storage facilities, electricity transmission infrastructure, industrial development and emerging energy demand associated with commercial and data centre uses. 8.33 In assessing cumulative impact, it is noted that the application site is located within an urban fringe landscape which is already influenced by a range of existing infrastructure and industrial land uses, including the Newhouse Industrial Estate, the M8 corridor, electricity transmission infrastructure, commercial premises, the Argent Energy plant and historic mining landforms. The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal concludes that the surrounding landscape possesses a strong existing infrastructure character and that visual effects associated with the proposal would be largely confined to the immediate surroundings of the site and would reduce over time through the implementation of the approved landscape and habitat enhancement measures. 8.34 Whilst the proposal would contribute to the presence of energy-related infrastructure within the locality, it would be viewed in the context of this existing pattern of development and infrastructure. Having regard to the scale of the proposal, the character of the receiving environment, the limited geographical extent of the predicted visual effects and the mitigation proposed, it is not considered that the development would give rise to cumulative impacts of a scale or nature that would render the proposal unacceptable. Residential Amenity 8.35 The application is supported by both a Glint and Glare Assessment and a Noise Impact Assessment which consider impacts on nearby residential receptors. These assessments consider potential effects on nearby residential receptors, and the impacts of Noise are considered specifically under policy 23 below. 8.36 During the course of the application, amendments have been made to the proposed development in response to matters raised by local residents, consultees and the Planning Authority. These revisions included changes to the layout of the solar arrays to increase separation distances from existing residential properties, the introduction of additional landscaping and habitat enhancement measures, the provision of heavy standard tree planting, the incorporation of an acoustic barrier adjacent to the principal infrastructure compound, and the submission of revised technical assessments including updated glint and glare and noise information. The applicant has also submitted a detailed Habitat Management Plan and enhanced landscaping proposals intended to strengthen visual screening, biodiversity enhancement and ecological connectivity across the site. The amendments have been considered in the assessment of the application and have assisted in reducing a number of the impacts identified during the consultation process. Page 95 of 126
Page 96
Glint and Glare 8.37 The application is supported by a Glint and Glare Assessment which considers the potential effects of solar reflections on nearby residential properties and road users. The assessment examined 15 residential receptors and concluded that solar reflections are geometrically possible at six properties. For five of these properties, reflections could theoretically occur for more than three months of the year but for less than 60 minutes on any given day, while one property could experience reflections for less than three months of the year and for less than 60 minutes on any given day. The assessment identifies that existing and proposed vegetation would significantly restrict views of the solar panels from ground-floor windows, although some views from upper-floor windows may remain possible in limited circumstances. The assessment further concludes that any reflections which may be experienced would generally be of short duration and would often coincide with periods of direct sunlight, reducing their prominence to an observer. On this basis, the effects on residential amenity are assessed as low. 8.38 The assessment also considered the potential effects on road users along nearby sections of Biggar Road, High Street and Carlisle Road. Whilst reflections are geometrically possible at a number of locations, the assessment concludes that existing vegetation, proposed landscape planting, buildings and local topography would substantially limit visibility of reflecting panels. No road receptors are predicted to experience more than a low level of effect and no significant impacts on road safety are identified. The assessment was undertaken using a representative panel height of 1.9 metres above ground level, within the proposed development parameters of approximately 0.8 metres minimum ground clearance and a maximum panel height of 3 metres. The principal mitigation relies upon the retention of existing boundary vegetation together with the establishment of proposed perimeter hedgerow and tree planting. Whilst the effectiveness of this mitigation will increase as planting matures over time, the assessment concludes that, taking account of both existing and proposed screening, glint and glare effects on neighbouring properties and road users would remain low and would not require any additional mitigation measures. 8.39 The proposal would result in an evident change to the character of the application site through the introduction of a solar energy development and associated infrastructure on land currently used for agriculture. Some localised visual effects and potential external noise effects are identified within the submitted assessments, particularly in relation to receptors closest to the site. However, it is considered that the site is located within a landscape influenced by existing infrastructure, industrial development and urban fringe characteristics. The sites visibility is generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the site, and the proposals include landscape mitigation to minimise impacts over time. The residential glint and glare effects are predicted to be low or negligible and as assessed under policy 23 below internal residential noise standards are predicted to be achieved using the proposed mitigation measures. On balance, the submitted evidence indicates that the principal effects associated with landscape character, visual amenity and residential amenity would be localised and capable of mitigation. 8.40 Policy 18 seeks to ensure that development is supported by, and does not place unacceptable pressure on, existing or planned infrastructure. The proposed development has been assessed in relation to transportation, drainage, electricity transmission infrastructure, ground conditions and environmental constraints. Consultation responses have been received from relevant technical consultees, including Infrastructure and Transportation, the Water Management Team, the Mining Remediation Authority and SP Energy Networks. Whilst a range of infrastructure and environmental considerations have been identified, consultees generally advise that these matters can be addressed through planning conditions, mitigation measures and separate regulatory approvals where required. Subject to the implementation of the recommended mitigation and safeguarding measures, it is considered that the proposal would not result in unacceptable impacts on infrastructure provision or capacity and has the potential to contribute towards renewable energy infrastructure within North Lanarkshire. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the relevant requirements of NPF4 Policy 18. Page 96 of 126
Page 97
8.41 Policy 20 seeks to protect, enhance and expand blue and green infrastructure networks and ensure that development contributes positively to the quality, connectivity and multifunctionality of natural and semi-natural assets. The application site contains a range of existing green and blue infrastructure features, including agricultural grassland, hedgerows, the Legbrannock Burn corridor and associated riparian habitats. The proposal incorporates measures intended to retain and enhance these assets through the provision of new native hedgerow planting, riparian woodland planting, species-rich grassland establishment and biodiversity enhancement measures across the site. In addition, the proposed surface water drainage strategy incorporates Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), including vegetated swales, check dams, permeable access tracks and infiltration features, which would contribute to the site's blue infrastructure network whilst providing surface water management, biodiversity and water quality benefits. A Habitat Management Plan has been submitted which sets out proposals for the long-term management and monitoring of these features throughout the operational life of the development. Whilst the development would introduce built infrastructure within the site, the proposed enhancement, drainage and management measures have been considered in assessing the extent to which the proposal protects, enhances and contributes to existing blue and green infrastructure networks. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the relevant requirements of NPF4 Policy 20. 8.42 Policy 22 of NPF4 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle, ensuring development is safe and resilient for its lifetime, does not increase flood risk elsewhere, incorporates sustainable water management measures and takes account of the predicted effects of climate change. 8.43 The application is supported by a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment which considers flooding from all sources and assesses the potential effects of the development on flood risk and drainage. The assessment identifies the Legbrannock Burn, located along the northern boundary of the site, and areas of localised surface water ponding as the principal sources of potential flood risk. Detailed modelling has been undertaken using current SEPA climate change allowances and concludes that limited flooding may occur within small areas of the site during extreme events, including climate change and culvert blockage scenarios. However, the assessment notes that predicted flood depths are generally shallow, that key infrastructure has been located outwith identified flood-prone areas, and that solar panels would be above anticipated water levels. A 10-metre stand-off from the watercourse is also proposed as part of the development layout. 8.44 The application is supported by a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment which considers flood risk from all sources together with the proposed surface water management strategy. The assessment concludes that the proposed development can be accommodated without increasing flood risk either within the site or elsewhere and incorporates a range of SuDS measures including vegetated swales, check dams, infiltration features and permeable access tracks designed to manage surface water runoff throughout the operational life of the development. 8.45 The Council’s Water Management Team has reviewed the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment and advises that the assessment is satisfactory. The Water Management Team raises no objection to the proposed development subject to the implementation of the recommendations contained within the approved assessment. Having regard to the conclusions of the submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment and the consultation response from the Water Management Team, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable flood risk, drainage or surface water management issues and is therefore consistent with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 22. 8.46 Policy 23 of NPF4 seeks to protect people and places from unacceptable risks arising from pollution, including noise, dust, vibration, artificial light and other emissions, and to ensure that new development is appropriately located and designed so that impacts on human health, environmental quality, amenity and safety are avoided or satisfactorily mitigated. Page 97 of 126
Page 98
8.47 The application is supported by a Noise Impact Assessment which considers the potential operational noise effects arising from the proposed solar farm and associated infrastructure. The assessment identifies nearby residential properties as sensitive receptors and undertakes a detailed appraisal of anticipated noise emissions from the proposed inverters, transformers, battery storage equipment and other ancillary plant. The assessment identifies 32 Biggar Road as the closest and most exposed residential receptor and therefore adopts this location as the principal assessment point. 8.48 Environmental Health has reviewed the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposal, subject to the implementation of the identified mitigation measures and the attachment of planning conditions. These conditions will secure compliance with acceptable noise limits, ensure the provision and retention of the approved acoustic barrier, and the protection of residential amenity throughout the operational life of the development. Taking account of the technical assessment, proposed mitigation and consultation response, it is considered that the proposal would not result in significant adverse noise effects on nearby residential receptors. Accordingly, the development is consistent with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 23 relating to the minimisation and management of noise impacts. 8.49 In relation to construction and operational effects, the Outline CEMP sets out a range of measures aimed at controlling noise, dust, pollution and other environmental impacts during the construction phase, including restrictions on construction working hours, controls on noisier activities, dust suppression measures, pollution prevention procedures and site management protocols. 8.50 The proposal is considered capable of being developed and operated without giving rise to unacceptable pollution impacts and is therefore considered consistent with the objectives of NPF4 Policy 23, subject to compliance with the recommended mitigation and planning conditions. SP Energy Networks 8.51 The application site is traversed by an existing 400kV overhead transmission line operated by SP Energy Networks. SPEN initially objected to the proposal on the basis of safeguarding its transmission infrastructure and maintaining the established servitude corridor associated with the overhead line. The applicant has confirmed that the development layout was amended prior to submission to ensure that no development is proposed within the protected corridor and has confirmed a willingness to comply with all relevant servitude requirements. Subsequent discussions between the Planning Authority, the applicant and SPEN established that the issues raised are capable of being satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions requiring protection of the transmission corridor, demonstration of appropriate clearance distances, retention of unrestricted access to transmission assets and ongoing engagement with SPEN prior to the commencement of development. Whilst SPEN has formally maintained its objection, it has confirmed that the matters identified can be addressed through planning conditions and that its objection should not prevent determination of the application. Accordingly, it is considered that, subject to appropriate planning controls, the proposal would not prejudice the operation, maintenance or future upgrading of the transmission network. Page 98 of 126
Page 99
Mineral Stability 8.52 The Mining Remediation Authority has reviewed the submitted information and notes that, whilst the principal solar arrays involve limited ground disturbance, some of the proposed ancillary infrastructure constitutes sensitive structures which require further investigation. The Coal Authority has advised that none of the identified sensitive structures are currently proposed over or within the influence distance of known mine entries and has confirmed that it has no objection to the development subject to the imposition of planning conditions requiring intrusive site investigation works, implementation of any necessary remediation measures and subsequent verification that the site has been rendered safe and stable. Having regard to the submitted ground investigation information and the consultation response from the Coal Authority, it is considered that issues relating to land stability and mining legacy can be satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions and therefore do not represent a constraint to the development being brought forward. 8.53 Policy 25 of NPF4 seeks to encourage development that contributes to community wealth building by supporting fair work, local employment, skills development, community benefit and opportunities for local businesses and supply chains. The application is supported by a Socio- Economic Impact Assessment which considers the potential economic effects of the proposed solar farm. The assessment identifies that the development would involve an estimated capital investment of approximately £2.1 million and notes that expenditure on planning, technical and professional services has already generated economic activity within Scotland. It further identifies opportunities for local contractors and suppliers during the construction phase, including civil engineering, groundworks, landscaping, fencing and electrical works. The assessment also indicates that operational expenditure associated with maintaining the development would provide ongoing opportunities for businesses within the Glasgow City Region and wider area throughout the proposed 40-year operational lifespan. 8.54 The submitted assessment identifies a range of potential economic benefits including direct, indirect and induced employment effects, ongoing expenditure within regional supply chains, business rates contributions and a voluntary community benefit package of a minimum of £400 per MWac every year (approx. £1,400 per annum and £56,000 total over the 40 year operational period) which is not a planning requirement and is therefore not material to the consideration of the merits of the proposal, nor subject of provision via a planning condition or legal agreement. The assessment also highlights potential opportunities for training and apprenticeship provision during construction and operation. While the scale of these benefits reflects the relatively modest size of the proposal and some projected outcomes are dependent on future procurement and operational arrangements, the evidence submitted indicates that the development has the potential to contribute positively to local and regional economic activity. On that basis, the proposal is considered capable of supporting the objectives of Policy 25 through community wealth building, investment and supply chain opportunities, alongside the wider benefits associated with renewable energy generation. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.55 Policy PP4 seeks to protect the strategic functions of the Green Belt, including directing development to appropriate locations, protecting the identity and landscape setting of settlements, safeguarding countryside from encroachment and supporting access to recreation and green infrastructure. 8.56 The application site lies within the designated Green Belt and comprises an agricultural field situated between Newarthill and Newhouse Industrial Estate. As discussed above under NPF4 Policy 8, the proposal comprises a form of development that is capable of being acceptable in principle within the Green Belt, as it relates to renewable energy infrastructure. The site is located adjacent to existing industrial development, electricity transmission infrastructure, transport corridors and other built development which already influence the character of the local landscape. The proposal would not result in the outward expansion of settlements, coalescence of communities, ribbon development or the permanent urbanisation of the countryside. Furthermore, the development would be largely reversible, with restoration proposed at the end of the operational period. Page 99 of 126
Page 100
8.57 Whilst the proposal would introduce solar infrastructure into a currently undeveloped agricultural field and would result in a change to the character of the site itself, the assessment under NPF4 Policies 8 and 14 above concludes that effects would be localised and capable of mitigation through landscaping, habitat enhancement and site restoration. Having regard to the surrounding context and the temporary and reversible nature of the development, it is considered that the wider strategic purposes of the Green Belt would not be undermined and the proposal is generally consistent with Policy PP4. 8.58 Policy AD4 seeks to ensure that development within the Green Belt is limited to that which is justified by operational, locational or environmental requirements and is of an appropriate scale and form. 8.59 The proposal comprises a solar photovoltaic farm with battery storage and associated infrastructure intended to supply renewable electricity directly to nearby businesses through private wire connections. As identified under NPF4 Policy 8, the applicant has outlined locational and operational reasons for the selected site, including proximity to end users and existing electrical infrastructure. The development occupies a relatively contained parcel of land bounded by roads, a burn, existing vegetation and surrounding development and avoids encroachment into more extensive areas of open countryside. 8.60 Whilst the solar arrays would cover a substantial proportion of the site, the infrastructure would remain relatively low in height and the majority of the land would remain undeveloped beneath and between the panels. The proposed scale is directly related to the intended renewable energy generation function of the development and is not considered excessive when viewed against the operational requirements of the proposal. Having regard to the conclusions reached under NPF4 Policies 8 and 11, the scale and extent of development are considered proportionate to its intended purpose and generally consistent with Policy AD4. 8.61 Policy PROT A seeks to safeguard biodiversity interests, important habitats and protected species from adverse development impacts and requires appropriate mitigation where impacts are identified. 8.62 As assessed under NPF4 Policies 3 and 4 above, the submitted Ecological Impact Assessment identifies the potential use of the site by a range of protected species including otter, bats, breeding birds, amphibians and badgers. The assessment concludes that impacts can be appropriately avoided or mitigated through a combination of development buffers, habitat retention, pre-construction surveys, species protection measures and the implementation of a Habitat Management Plan. Significant biodiversity enhancements are also proposed through species-rich grassland creation, new hedgerows, riparian planting and the provision of habitat features for protected and priority species. 8.63 The ecological information indicates that no significant adverse effects on protected species are anticipated subject to implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Furthermore, the proposals provide opportunities for habitat enhancement and ecological connectivity beyond the baseline condition. Having regard to the assessment undertaken under NPF4 Policies 3 and 4, the proposal is considered capable of complying with the requirements of Policy PROT A. 8.64 Policy CI seeks to ensure that development is supported by appropriate infrastructure and that any necessary mitigation measures or contributions are secured where development would create additional demands on infrastructure networks. 8.65 The proposal incorporates all infrastructure necessary to support its operation, including on- site drainage, access arrangements, energy infrastructure and private wire connections. The submitted Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, Transport Statement and supporting technical information conclude that the development is capable of being accommodated without creating unacceptable impacts on the road network, drainage infrastructure or surrounding services. Water management and transportation matters are addressed through recommended mitigation and planning conditions. Page 100 of 126
Page 101
8.66 No requirement has been identified for off-site infrastructure improvements or financial contributions arising directly from the development. Subject to the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and any conditions identified through consultation responses, the proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of Policy CI. 8.67 PROMID2 seeks to safeguard and facilitate strategic utility infrastructure improvements required to support existing and future development across North Lanarkshire. In assessing the proposal, regard has been had to the relationship between the development and existing utility infrastructure, including the presence of the 400kV overhead transmission line crossing the site and the proposed private wire connections serving nearby commercial users. Consultation has been undertaken with SP Energy Networks, Infrastructure and Transportation and other relevant consultees. Whilst infrastructure constraints and safeguarding requirements have been identified, consultees have advised that these matters can be satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions, operational safeguards and separate regulatory approvals where required. The proposal would make use of and operate in proximity to existing electricity infrastructure and, subject to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and safeguarding conditions, is not considered likely to prejudice the operation, maintenance or future enhancement of utility infrastructure. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be compatible with the objectives of Policy PROMID2. 8.68 Policy EDQ1 requires development proposals to demonstrate a clear understanding of site characteristics and constraints and to respond appropriately to their physical, environmental and landscape context. 8.69 The application is supported by a comprehensive suite of technical information including ecological, landscape and visual, transport, flood risk, drainage, noise, glint and glare and socio-economic assessments. These documents assess the characteristics of the site and identify the principal environmental and technical constraints associated with the proposal. The layout has been informed by existing topography, watercourses, ecological features, electricity infrastructure and surrounding land uses. Existing vegetation is largely retained and supplemented by additional landscape and biodiversity measures. 8.70 The assessment undertaken under NPF4 Policies 14, 22 and 23 above demonstrates that site-specific constraints have been identified and considered within the design process. On that basis, it is considered that the proposal responds appropriately to the characteristics of the site and accords with Policy EDQ1. 8.71 Policy EDQ2 requires consideration of matters including landscape character, visual impact, access, drainage, biodiversity, amenity, environmental quality and relationships with surrounding land uses. 8.72 The proposal has been assessed against these considerations through the submissions accompanying the application and through the detailed assessment of relevant NPF4 policies. Landscape and visual effects, biodiversity impacts, flood risk, drainage, transport implications, residential amenity, noise and glint and glare effects have all been examined through specialist assessments. Whilst some adverse effects have been identified, particularly in relation to localised landscape change and potential external noise effects at the nearest receptor, the submitted information indicates that these effects can be appropriately mitigated through site design, landscaping, ecological enhancement and operational controls. 8.73 Having regard to the findings of the various technical assessments and the conclusions reached under NPF4 Policies 3, 4, 13, 14, 22 and 23, the proposal is considered to have appropriately addressed the matters set out in Policy EDQ2. 8.74 Policy EDQ3 seeks to secure high-quality development that responds positively to its surroundings, protects amenity and contributes positively to local character and environmental quality. Page 101 of 126
Page 102
8.75 As discussed under NPF4 Policy 14, the proposal would introduce a new form of development into the landscape and would inevitably alter the character of the host site. However, the site is located within a landscape already influenced by infrastructure, industrial development and urban fringe characteristics. The development incorporates a landscape framework, ecological enhancements, habitat creation measures and sustainable drainage features intended to integrate the proposal within its surroundings and reduce visual effects over time. 8.76 The submitted information indicates that impacts on residential amenity, visual amenity and environmental quality are capable of mitigation and that the development would not give rise to unacceptable adverse effects. While the proposal would change the appearance and character of the existing agricultural field, it is considered that the overall design, mitigation strategy and enhancement measures result in a development of an acceptable quality that is broadly consistent with the objectives of Policy EDQ3. Other Material Considerations 8.77 In terms of the representations received, the matters raised have been considered through the assessment of the application against the development plan, the supporting technical information, the consultation responses and the proposed mitigation measures. The principal matters raised are addressed below. Green Belt, principle of development and policy 8.78 The concerns regarding the principle of development within the Green Belt, loss of openness, potential encroachment, alternative sites and alleged conflict with the development plan have been considered principally against Policies 1, 2, 8 and 11 of National Planning Framework 4 and Policies PP4 and AD4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. NPF4 expressly identifies renewable energy development and essential infrastructure as forms of development that may be acceptable within the Green Belt, subject to the detailed requirements of Policy 8. The applicant has identified proximity to the proposed commercial energy users, the ability to make private-wire connections and the relationship with existing electricity and industrial infrastructure as locational reasons for selecting the site. While the development would materially change the character of the application site for its operational lifetime, it would not result in settlement expansion, coalescence or permanent urbanisation, and most of its components would be removable. Alternative brownfield, industrial and roof- based locations suggested within representations have been considered as part of the objections. However, the planning assessment is required to determine whether the application site is acceptable on its own merits rather than whether another site might also be capable of accommodating renewable-energy development. The proposal’s effects on landscape character, residential amenity, biodiversity, infrastructure and environmental quality have been assessed separately, and the permission would be limited to 40 years, with removal, restoration and a financial guarantee secured through conditions. On balance, the proposal is considered not to undermine the wider strategic purposes of the Green Belt and to be capable of complying with the relevant development-plan policies. Landscape and visual effects 8.79 The concerns regarding landscape change, visual intrusion, the scale and industrial appearance of the development, impacts on neighbouring properties and the absence of a separate Residential Visual Amenity Assessment have been considered through the submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal, associated visualisations, site inspections and the assessment under NPF4 Policies 8, 11 and 14 and NLLDP Policies PP4, AD4, EDQ1, EDQ2 and EDQ3. It is acknowledged that the proposal would introduce solar arrays, a BESS compound, electrical infrastructure, fencing, CCTV and access tracks into an agricultural field and would therefore change the character of the site, particularly when viewed from nearby sections of Biggar Road, Motherwell Road and the closest residential properties. The site is, however, located in an urban-fringe landscape already influenced by overhead transmission infrastructure, industrial and commercial development, the M8 corridor and historic mineral activity. The submitted assessment indicates that wider visibility would be restricted by topography, existing vegetation and surrounding development, with the principal effects being Page 102 of 126
Page 103
localised. Although no standalone Residential Visual Amenity Assessment has been submitted, residential visual effects have been considered within the Landscape and Visual Appraisal and the wider amenity assessment. Furthermore, the layout has been refined through discussions between the applicant and the Planning Authority during the assessment of the application. Through discussions with the applicant, the layout has been refined to increase the separation distance between the solar arrays and the nearest rear elevation of adjacent housing along the southern boundary of the site. This has increased from approximately 25m to 31m, providing approximately 6 metres of additional stand-off from the closest dwelling. The revised scheme also incorporates a 2.4m high acoustic barrier, amended infrastructure arrangements and additional landscaping within the buffer area between adjacent residential property boundaries and the acoustic barrier. While visual and amenity effects would remain, these amendments have reduced the potential impact on neighbouring residents and improved the relationship between the development and nearby sensitive receptors. As the proposed landscaping matures, it will further assist in filtering views of the development and reinforce the visual separation between the site and adjoining residential properties. The landscaping scheme includes native hedgerows, heavy standard trees, riparian planting and species-rich grassland. Conditions would secure the final planting specification, early implementation, annual inspection, replacement of failed planting, long- term management and periodic landscape monitoring throughout the operational life of the development. These controls would not eliminate the initial landscape change, but they would assist in integrating the development and reducing visual effects as planting establishes. Reliance on existing vegetation and landscape mitigation 8.80 The concern that the assessment relies upon vegetation within neighbouring gardens, which is outside the applicant’s ownership and control, has been taken into account. Private vegetation cannot reasonably be secured or relied upon through planning conditions and should not be regarded as permanent mitigation. The acceptability of the proposal therefore requires to be based principally on the development layout, retained vegetation within or adjoining the application site that can appropriately be protected, and the new planting that the developer would be required to implement and manage. Conditions would secure a detailed planting schedule, the approved landscaping works, replacement of planting that dies or fails at any point during the operational period, a final Landscape Management Plan and monitoring reports extending to year 40. Conditions would require failed planting to be replaced throughout the operational lifetime, rather than only during a conventional five-year establishment period. These measures provide a mechanism for maintaining the effectiveness of the applicant-controlled landscape mitigation irrespective of future changes to vegetation within neighbouring properties. Glint and glare 8.81 The concerns regarding glint and glare, receptor levels, viewing heights and effects on nearby residents and road users have been assessed through the revised Glint and Glare Assessment. That assessment considered 15 residential receptors and identified six properties where reflections are geometrically possible. It concluded that the potential reflections would be limited in duration and that, taking account of existing and proposed screening, the resulting residential effects would be low. Nearby sections of Biggar Road, High Street and Carlisle Road were also assessed, with no significant road-safety effects identified. The specific representation concerning the topography, window heights and garden levels at 521 High Street has been considered. The assessment used defined terrain data and a representative receptor methodology, although it is acknowledged that standardised modelling cannot reproduce every possible viewing position within a dwelling or garden. The relevant planning question is whether any difference in receptor elevation would be likely to materially alter the conclusion that effects would be low. Having regard to the anticipated duration and timing of reflections, panel orientation, intervening features and the proposed landscape framework, the submitted information does not indicate that significant or unacceptable effects would arise. The landscaping and screening measures relied upon within the development site would be secured and monitored under conditions. Page 103 of 126
Page 104
Residential amenity and privacy 8.82 The concerns regarding visual intrusion, loss of outlook, privacy, noise, lighting, CCTV and the perceived industrialisation of the residential environment have been considered collectively under NPF4 Policies 14 and 23 and NLLDP Policies EDQ2 and EDQ3. A change in a private view is not determinative, however the effect of the development on the overall living conditions of neighbouring occupants is a material planning consideration. The layout has been amended during the application process to increase separation from residential properties, relocate a transformer, introduce additional planting and provide an acoustic barrier adjacent to the principal infrastructure compound. Operational noise and glint and glare have been assessed separately and are addressed through technical mitigation and conditions. The CCTV cameras are shown as inward-facing and are required for site security. Their final specification and positioning would be subject to planning conditions. No external lighting is proposed as part of the development. Notwithstanding this, conditions have been attached to ensure that any future lighting required for operational or security purposes cannot be installed without the prior approval of the Planning Authority through the submission of a detailed lighting scheme. Such a scheme would require to demonstrate that light spill, glare and impacts on residential amenity and ecological interests are appropriately minimised. Subject to the implementation and maintenance of these measures, the proposal is not considered likely to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or residential amenity. Operational noise 8.83 The representations raise detailed concerns regarding background noise levels, tonal and night-time noise, outdoor amenity, meteorological assumptions, receptor selection, cumulative noise and the reliance upon 32 Biggar Road as the principal assessment location. These matters have been considered through the revised Noise Impact Assessment, additional information submitted in September 2026 and the consultation response from NLC Protective Services. The assessment identifies 32 Biggar Road as the closest and most exposed receptor and uses that property as the principal assessment location. While other properties, including 521 High Street, were not separately modelled as principal noise-sensitive receptors, the assessment proceeds on the basis that compliance at the closest and most exposed location would provide protection to receptors subject to lower predicted exposure. NLC Protective Services has reviewed the technical information and amended layout, including the relocation of a transformer, and raises no objection on noise-amenity grounds subject to mitigation and conditions. Conditions would require all mitigation to be installed before operation, followed by post-completion noise testing while the plant is operating at maximum output. Conditions would also secure the detailed specification, acoustic performance, retention and lifetime maintenance of the acoustic barrier. These controls provide a means of verifying the modelling against actual operational performance and require the mitigation to remain effective throughout the development’s operational life. Cumulative noise and future monitoring 8.84 The concerns regarding cumulative noise from the proposal in combination with Newarthill Substation, the Denny-Wishaw Network Upgrade, application 24/00810/FUL for the construction of a Battery Energy Storage Scheme to the north of the site beyond Onestop Acess Scotland and other energy infrastructure have all been considered alongside the wider cumulative assessment. It is acknowledged that the surrounding area contains and is expected to continue to contain significant electrical and industrial infrastructure. The relevant assessment must, however, distinguish between noise attributable to the proposed development and noise generated by separately controlled developments and transmission infrastructure. NLC Protective Services has not identified cumulative noise as a reason for objection and is satisfied that the development can be controlled through operational limits, mitigation and post-completion verification. Conditions would require testing at maximum operating output against the levels established in the approved Noise Impact Assessment and addendum information. Should the post-completion survey identify an exceedance attributable to the development, further mitigation would be required before unrestricted operation. Conditions would also ensure that the acoustic barrier and other attenuation measures remain in effective condition. These controls are considered proportionate to the scale of the proposal and provide an enforceable basis for protecting residential amenity. Page 104 of 126
Page 105
BESS safety and siting 8.85 The concerns regarding fire, thermal runaway, equipment failure, contaminated fire water, emergency access and the proximity of the BESS to residential properties have been considered under NPF4 Policies 11 and 23. The BESS location reflects the proposed access, electrical connections, existing transmission constraints and the operational layout of the development. Alternative siting within the application site has been raised through representations, but relocation would require to be balanced against wayleave restrictions, cable routes, access requirements, flood constraints, ecological buffers and the distribution of other electrical infrastructure. The layout has been amended during the assessment, including relocation of equipment and provision of an acoustic barrier to reduce amenity effects. Conditions would require a BESS Safety Management Plan, an Emergency Response Plan prepared with provision for liaison with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, fire-water containment measures and control over any future change to the approved battery chemistry or container specification. These conditions would also require ongoing inspection, maintenance, monitoring and periodic review of the emergency arrangements. Alongside the operational-noise conditions and approved layout, these measures are considered capable of addressing the material safety and amenity implications of the BESS. In reaching this conclusion, regard has been had to Scottish Government guidance which notes that the planning system should not duplicate other regulatory regimes. Matters relating to operational fire safety, hazardous substances, workplace health and safety, electrical safety and environmental permitting are separately regulated by the relevant statutory bodies and legislation. The planning assessment therefore focuses on whether the siting, layout and design of the development appropriately address land use planning considerations. 8.86 The Scottish Government's Planning Guidance on Battery Energy Storage Systems recognises that whilst BESS developments can be operated safely, guidance from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the National Fire Chiefs Council identifies thermal runaway and associated fire events as key considerations in the planning and design of such developments. The guidance emphasises the importance of appropriate site layout, separation distances, emergency access arrangements, fire-water containment, and operational safety management measures. In this instance the BESS forms a relatively limited component of the overall development, and the proposal incorporates separation from nearby residential properties, dedicated access arrangements, and fire-water containment measures. Conditions are recommended requiring the submission of a BESS Safety Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan and Fire Water Containment Scheme prior to operation. These measures are considered sufficient to address the planning aspects of health and safety whilst recognising that detailed regulation of fire risk and operational safety is controlled through separate regulatory regimes. Mining legacy, ground conditions and contamination 8.87 The concerns regarding historic mine workings, mine entries, mine gas, contamination and land stability have been considered through the submitted Geoenvironmental Desk Study and Preliminary Risk Assessment and consultation with NLC Protective Services and the Coal Mining Remediation Authority. The site lies within a Development High Risk Area and is affected by records of shallow mine workings, mine entries, a coal-seam outcrop and former surface mining. The Coal Mining Remediation Authority confirms that the identified sensitive structures are not located over or within 20 metres of the recorded mine entries and raises no objection subject to further intrusive investigations, remediation and verification. Conditions would require a comprehensive contamination investigation, mine-gas assessment, remediation strategy and verification. Conditions would also separately require intrusive mining investigations, implementation of any necessary stability measures and a competent- person declaration confirming that the site is safe and stable before it is brought into use. It is standard practice for detailed intrusive investigations to be undertaken before development commences where the principle of development is capable of acceptance and where the consultee is satisfied that the identified risks can be addressed through enforceable conditions. Page 105 of 126
Page 106
Flood risk, drainage and the water environment 8.88 The concerns regarding flooding, surface-water runoff, the Legbrannock Burn, SuDS and effects on adjoining land and watercourses have been considered through the Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment. The assessment considers flooding from all relevant sources, including climate-change and culvert-blockage scenarios, and identifies only limited areas of generally shallow flooding during extreme events. Sensitive infrastructure has been positioned outwith identified flood-prone areas, the panels would be raised above anticipated flood levels and a 10-metre stand-off is proposed from the Legbrannock Burn. The surface- water strategy incorporates swales, check dams, permeable access tracks and infiltration measures. NLC Water Management has reviewed the assessment and raises no objection subject to implementation of its recommendations. SEPA has confirmed that the proposal does not meet its thresholds for site-specific consultation and has been considered against its standing advice. Conditions would require compliance with the approved assessment and drainage strategy and certification by a suitably experienced chartered engineer that the SuDS has been constructed appropriately. Conditions would protect the riparian corridor and would require containment of potentially contaminated fire water from the BESS. Ecology and biodiversity 8.89 The concerns regarding habitats, protected species, survey coverage, biodiversity mitigation and cumulative ecological effects have been considered through the Ecological Impact Assessment, breeding-bird survey, Outline Habitat Management Plan and consultation response from NLC Greenspace. The site comprises predominantly improved agricultural grassland of relatively low ecological value, with more valuable features associated with hedgerows, trees, riparian habitat and the Legbrannock Burn corridor. The development has been designed to retain these features wherever practicable, maintain buffers from the watercourse and avoid permanent lighting. The assessment concludes that significant adverse effects on bats, otter, badger, breeding birds, amphibians, reptiles and other ecological receptors are not anticipated subject to mitigation. The proposals would additionally create approximately 5.28 hectares of species-rich grassland, around 990 metres of native hedgerow planting and enhancement, riparian habitat and species-specific enhancement features. Conditions would secure the mitigation, updated surveys where necessary, a Final Habitat Management Plan and monitoring at defined intervals throughout the 40-year operational period. Conditions would also provide corresponding controls over planting, establishment, replacement and landscape management. These measures respond to the advice from Greenspace and provide for corrective action where habitat or planting targets are not achieved. Access, traffic and construction effects 8.90 The concerns regarding HGV movements, road safety, construction traffic, delivery routes, dust, noise, lighting and working hours have been considered through the Transport Statement, Outline CEMP and consultation with NLC Infrastructure and Transportation. Construction traffic would be temporary, with an anticipated average of up to five HGV movements per day during the busiest phase, while operational traffic would be limited to occasional maintenance visits. The Roads Authority raises no objection subject to revised access details, visibility splays, a bound access surface, wheel washing, road-condition surveys and construction traffic controls. Conditions would secure these requirements, including the dimensions of the visibility splays, construction traffic arrangements and a temporary speed reduction. Conditions would also require a final CEMP covering waste, materials, pollution prevention, soil handling, dust suppression and environmental monitoring. The report also records that the Outline CEMP includes construction-hours and noise controls. Separate Roads Authority consents would remain necessary for temporary traffic management and works affecting the public road. Subject to these controls, the temporary construction effects are not considered likely to result in unacceptable road-safety or amenity impacts. Page 106 of 126
Page 107
Environmental and cumulative assessment 8.91 The concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental assessment and the combined effects of energy, transmission, industrial and other development have been addressed through the EIA screening exercise and the topic-specific assessments accompanying the application. The Council screened the proposal under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 and concluded that, having regard to the nature, scale and location of the development, the receiving environment and proposed mitigation, it was not likely to give rise to significant environmental effects requiring an EIA. This does not mean that the development would have no environmental effects; rather, those effects are capable of assessment through the normal planning application process. Cumulative landscape, visual, noise, ecological, hydrological and residential-amenity matters have been considered through the submitted technical information, consultation responses and the assessment under NPF4 Policy 11. The locality is already influenced by industrial, transport and electricity infrastructure, and the proposal would contribute to that infrastructure character. However, its predicted effects would principally be localised, and relevant consultees have not identified an unacceptable cumulative effect that would justify refusal. The mitigation and monitoring conditions provide additional controls where topic- specific effects have been identified. Duration, decommissioning and restoration 8.92 The concerns regarding the description of the proposal as temporary, its 40-year duration, the certainty of removal and the availability of funds for restoration have been addressed through recommended planning conditions. A 40-year development is a substantial long-term land use, and its effects must therefore be assessed over that full period. Nevertheless, the development can properly be regarded as time-limited and physically reversible where the permission specifies a cessation date and secures the removal of the infrastructure and restoration of the land. Planning conditions would limit operation to 40 years from first export of electricity. Conditions would also require removal of the panels, BESS, electrical equipment, buildings, compounds, fencing, CCTV, foundations and associated infrastructure, together with an approved restoration, waste-management and aftercare scheme. In addition, a condition would require an independently backed financial guarantee sufficient to meet the full decommissioning and restoration liabilities, with review at five-year intervals and replacement guarantees submitted before the preceding guarantee expires. The development could not commence first export until the guarantee had been approved and validly executed. These provisions address the risk of operator or developer default and provide a substantially firmer mechanism than reliance upon a general undertaking to restore the site. Economic, energy and community benefits 8.93 The concerns regarding the scale and long-term value of the economic and community benefits, the identity and location of the proposed energy users and the overall public benefit have been considered under NPF4 Policies 1, 2, 11 and 25. The proposal would provide approximately 3.5 MW of solar generation capacity, with a further 500 kW associated with the BESS, and is intended to supply local commercial users through private-wire connections. Its renewable-energy generation and greenhouse-gas reduction contribution carries significant weight under NPF4, independently of any voluntary community payment. The Socio- Economic Impact Assessment identifies capital investment, construction and maintenance expenditure, potential opportunities for local contractors and supply chains, business-rate income and possible training opportunities. The proposed voluntary community benefit of approximately £1,400 per year is not required to make the development acceptable in planning terms and is not a material benefit that can be secured through a planning condition or legal agreement. It has therefore not been treated as compensation for environmental or residential effects, nor relied upon as a determining consideration. The acceptability of the proposal instead rests upon compliance with the development plan and the ability to avoid or mitigate unacceptable impacts. Page 107 of 126
Page 108
Consultation, amendments and supporting information 8.94 The concerns regarding consultation, neighbour notification, successive amendments, fairness and the robustness of the supporting information have been noted. The application was subject to the statutory neighbour-notification and press-advertisement procedures, and 30 representations from 21 individual representees were received. The applicant’s separate community engagement is distinct from the Council’s statutory consultation process and is not determinative of the application’s planning merits. During determination, additional and revised information was submitted in response to matters identified by consultees, residents and the Planning Authority, including amendments to the layout, relocation of a transformer, additional landscaping, an acoustic barrier, updated noise and glint and glare information, and an Outline Habitat Management Plan. It is legitimate for an applicant to amend a proposal or provide clarification during determination, provided that the Planning Authority considers whether further notification or consultation is necessary and that interested parties are given an appropriate opportunity to comment on material changes, and this has been carried out for this proposal. The Planning Authority must assess the proposal as it currently stands, including all amended plans, updated assessments, consultation responses and representations received. Earlier versions remain relevant to understanding how the proposal evolved, but the decision should relate to the final scheme before the Council. The volume of local opposition is a material indication of community concern, but the number of objections is not, by itself, a reason to refuse planning permission; the determining issue is the substance and planning merits of the matters raised. Other matters relating to supporting information and infrastructure 8.95 Concerns regarding the reliability and consistency of the supporting documents have been considered through consultation with the relevant technical services and external bodies. NLC Infrastructure and Transportation, Protective Services, Greenspace and Water Management, together with the Coal Mining Remediation Authority and SP Energy Networks, have reviewed the information relevant to their respective areas of responsibility. While consultees identified matters requiring clarification, amendment or further control, none has advised that the proposal is incapable of being made acceptable through mitigation and conditions. SP Energy Networks formally maintains its objection but has confirmed that the identified matters can be addressed through suitable planning conditions and should not prevent determination. The proposed conditions would protect the overhead-line corridor, secure compliance with clearance requirements and retain unrestricted access to transmission infrastructure. The consultation process and proposed conditions therefore provide a reasonable basis for addressing the identified technical constraints. 8.96 Overall, the representations raise relevant and detailed concerns regarding the location, design and environmental effects of the development. These concerns have been considered in the assessment of the proposal and have resulted in amendments to the layout, additional technical information and a scheme of mitigation measures that can be controlled by the proposed conditions. It is acknowledged that the development would alter the character and appearance of the application site and that some localised effects would remain during its operational lifetime. However, having regard to the submitted assessments, consultation responses, mitigation incorporated into the proposal and the safeguards available through planning conditions, the matters raised in representations are not considered to demonstrate that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable impacts sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission. Consultation Responses 8.97 The relevant internal and external consultees have reviewed the proposal and supporting technical information. No consultee has identified an objection that would prevent the application being approved, subject to appropriate mitigation and planning conditions addressing access and road safety, noise, ecology, drainage, contamination, mineral stability, BESS safety and existing electricity infrastructure. Although SP Energy Networks formally maintains its objection, it has confirmed that its concerns can be satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions and should not prevent determination of the application. Page 108 of 126
Page 109
9. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, the proposal has been assessed against National Planning Framework 4, the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and all relevant material considerations, including the representations received, consultation responses and submitted technical information. It is acknowledged that the development would introduce renewable-energy infrastructure into an agricultural Green Belt site, resulting in a noticeable but principally localised change to its landscape character and appearance over the proposed 40-year operational period. However, renewable-energy development is supported in principle by national planning policy, and the site’s relationship with nearby commercial energy users, existing electricity infrastructure and surrounding industrial and urban-fringe land uses provides a locational basis for the proposal. The technical assessments and consultation responses indicate that the identified impacts relating to landscape and visual amenity, residential amenity, noise, glint and glare, ecology, traffic, drainage, ground conditions, mining legacy, BESS safety and existing transmission infrastructure can be satisfactorily mitigated and controlled through the amended layout and the recommended planning conditions. These conditions would also secure landscape and habitat management, operational noise verification, construction controls, a defined 40-year operational period, decommissioning and site restoration, together with a regularly reviewed financial guarantee. The concerns raised within the representations have been carefully considered; however, having regard to the final submitted proposal, the advice of consultees, the mitigation incorporated into the scheme and the controls available through planning conditions, the identified impacts are not considered to be of a scale or nature sufficient to justify refusal. On balance, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole, and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out below. Page 109 of 126
Page 110
Application No: 26/00488/FUL Proposed Development: Use a Log Cabin in the Garden as a Private Chapel Site Address: 20 Glen Lochay Gardens Craigmarloch Cumbernauld G68 0DY Date Registered: 13th May 2026 Applicant: Father Caleb Armour 20 Glen Lochay Gardens Cumbernauld G68 0DY Agent: N/A Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 02 Cumbernauld North Danish Ashraf, Tom Fisher, Alan Masterton, Gordon Currie, Representations: 13 letters of representation received. 11 letters of objections, 2 letters of support (including correspondence from Cllr Masterton and Cllr Fisher) Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed use of a private chapel within the rear curtilage is acceptable as it could be accommodated within the site without adversely affecting the amenity and character of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal accords with the policy provisions of NPF4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 Page 110 of 126
Page 111
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: 26/00488/FUL Name (of applicant): Father Caleb Armour Site Address: 20 Glen Lochay Gardens Craigmarloch Cumbernauld G68 0DY Development: Use a Log Cabin in the Garden as a Private Chapel. Page 111 of 126
Page 112
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 information on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire 2 years from the date of the decision notice. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control, in order to monitor the impact on surrounding residential amenity. 3. Attendance at Sunday Mass within the private chapel hereby approved shall not exceed 40 persons at any one time and shall be restricted to the hours of 10:00am to 11:00am on Sundays only. Reason: To protect the residential amenity. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), no development permitted by Schedule 1 of the Order shall be carried out within the curtilage of 20 Glen Lochay Gardens, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld, G68 0DY without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority. Reason: To define the permission 5. Any information displayed on websites, social media platforms, advertisements or other promotional material relating to the chapel hereby approved shall accurately describe the facility as a private chapel and shall make clear that it is not a public place of worship and that attendance is restricted to family members and invited guests only Reason: To define the permission 6. The use of the outbuilding as a private chapel hereby approved shall be limited to Father Armour residing at 20 Glen Lochay Gardens, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld, G68 0DY. In the event that Father Armour ceases to reside at the property, the use of the building as a private chapel shall cease and the building shall revert to a use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area. Page 112 of 126
Page 113
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: NLC Infrastructure and Transportation dated 3 June 2026 NLC Protective Services dated 10 June 2026 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Alex Reid at 01236 632500 Report Date: 15th September 2026 Page 113 of 126
Page 114
APPLICATION NO. 26/00488/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description The application site comprises of a two-storey detached dwellinghouse located in the residential area of Glen Lochay Gardens, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld. The dwellinghouse is surrounded by properties of similar age, style and design. Auchinbee Children's Nursery is located at the entrance to the residential estate. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning permission is sought, retrospectively, for the erection of an outbuilding and its use as a private chapel. The proposed use falls within Class 10 and is therefore subject to the sequential assessment approach set out in relevant planning policy. For information, a second structure was erected as an overflow for family gatherings and use for home schooling, this was part of the original application, however, at the applicants request, this was removed from the planning application. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 There was additional information submitted as part of the submission. The information can be summarised as follows. 3.2 The submitted drawings show the outbuilding, which is used as a private chapel, measuring 12.8 metres in length and 8 metres in width, resulting in a footprint of 102.4 square metres. The approved plans indicate an eaves height of 2.5 metres and an overall height of 3.6 metres. However, following construction, a site visit confirmed that the building has been erected with an eaves height of approximately 3.1 metres and an overall height of approximately 4.2 metres. As the structure exceeds the height parameters that would otherwise be permitted, planning permission is required for the development. 3.3 The building is used as a private chapel and does not operate as a parish church or public place of worship. Its use is restricted to family members and a limited number of specifically invited guests. As such, the activities associated with the chapel are private in nature, with attendance controlled by invitation rather than being open to the general public, thereby maintaining the privacy and residential character of the property 3.4 The normal attendance at daily Mass comprises Father Armour, his Mother, Sister and one server. Daily Mass is typically held at 8:00am, although the time may vary between 7:00am and 9:00am to accommodate the applicant's personal schedule. The service generally lasts for approximately 30 minutes, and no vehicle trips are generated in connection with attendance at the daily Mass. This use is considered incidental to the residential dwelling. 3.5 Attendance at Sunday Mass is higher than the daily services, as additional family members and selected guests are invited to attend a silent service. The maximum attendance is approximately 37 people, the majority of whom are family members, with a smaller proportion comprising of invited guests. It is acknowledged that the original application proposed attendance by family members alongside up to 30 non-family guests. However, the applicant has subsequently amended the proposal, reducing the number of non-family attendees to 10-15 invited guests. As a result, attendance at Sunday Mass is expected to remain at approximately 37 persons in total, comprising of family members and a limited number of invited non-family guests. This revised attendance level has been taken into account and forms the basis of the assessment of the application Page 114 of 126
Page 115
3.6 Sunday Mass typically commences at 10:00am and concludes at 11:00am. While some family members may remain at the property after the service has ended, the Mass itself has a duration of approximately one hour. 3.7 The majority of attendees arrive at the site on foot. However, sufficient parking is available within the curtilage of the property to accommodate up to five vehicles. In addition, an arrangement has been made with Auchinbee Nursery to allow a further four vehicles to park within its grounds on Sundays if required. There is on street parking available as well. 3.8 The private chapel can hold up to eleven pews, which can accommodate four people on each. Therefore, there is a limitation on numbers and inability for future expansion. 3.9 The applicant has provided a history of booking council properties which is detailed as such: For a number of years, the applicant successfully hired community facilities for worship services, in particular St Maurice’s High School. However, since 2023, repeated issues with venue bookings and access arrangements have affected the reliability of these arrangements. On several occasions, confirmed bookings could not proceed due to access issues, and difficulties were also encountered in obtaining equipment required for services. The applicant since moved to Greenfaulds High School, they were then advised that regular and consistent bookings were no longer available, requiring services to be arranged on a week- to-week basis and at less suitable times. However other clubs were able to book regular and consistent times. As a result of the ongoing uncertainty and operational difficulties associated with hiring external venues, the applicant sought an alternative and more reliable location to accommodate worship services. 3.10 The original application included an element of home schooling; however, the applicant has subsequently advised that they do not wish to seek planning permission for this aspect of the proposal and has therefore requested that it be removed from the application. The application has been amended accordingly and now relates solely to the chapel use. 4. Site History 4.1 No site history. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) adopted on the 13 February 2023 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (LDP) adopted 2022. 5.2 The following NPF4 policies are relevant: Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport and Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place. 5.3 Additionally, the following policies within the Local Development Plan are relevant: Placemaking Policies PP 3 Policy, Purpose of Place and AD3 Amount of Development, EDQ1 Site Appraisal and EDQ3 Quality of Development 6. Consultations NLC Infrastructure and Transportation were consulted on 14 May 2026. A response was received on 3 June 2026 advising that the parking provisions for this type of development is 1 space per 10 numbers of seats. Parking requirement should be for the total number of attendees and not just non-family members. This comment has been addressed within the report. NLC Protective Services were consulted on 20 May 2026. A response was received on 10 June 2026 advising they have no comments to make. Page 115 of 126
Page 116
7. Representations Standard Neighbour Notification letters were issued on 14 May 2026. 13 letters of representation received. 11 of those were objections, and some were from the same household. 2 letters of support were received for the application. The points raised can be fairly summarised as follows: • Parking implications • Noise • Incompatible within Residential Amenity • Structure was built before permission was granted. • Other church/Religious buildings are available. • Set up as a commercial enterprise • Intention to grow the congregation • No disables access bays • Contradicts local development plan policy • Structure is visibly prominent • No pedestrian footpaths • Increase in traffic All other comments were not considered as a material consideration, therefore, cannot be assessed as part of the proposal. Any comments regarding home schooling is also not considered as a material consideration to this application. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues and can be assessed against the local plan. 8.2 NPF4 forms part of the development plan; given the nature and scale of this development, the most relevant considerations are already enshrined in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan policies (assessed below). The policies within NPF4 that are relevant to the application include Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport and Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place. 8.3 NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport seeks to encourage developments that prioritise sustainable travel, reduce reliance on private car use, and ensure that transport impacts are appropriately accommodated. Assessment: In assessing the proposed private chapel under Policy 13, it is recognised that the use differs significantly from a public place of worship or parish church. Information submitted by the applicant confirms that attendance is generally limited to family members and selected guests, with a maximum attendance of approximately 37 persons during Sunday mass. Daily morning services attract substantially lower numbers. The applicant has advised that the majority of attendees travel to the site on foot due to the localised nature of the congregation and the fact that most attendees are family members residing nearby. As such, the proposal promotes opportunities for active travel and is not expected to generate significant vehicle movements. NLC Infrastructure and Transportation has advised that parking should be provided at a ratio of one space per ten attendees. Based on a maximum attendance of 37 people, a requirement for approximately four parking spaces would be generated. The site is capable of accommodating five parking spaces within the residential curtilage, thereby exceeding the minimum requirement identified. Page 116 of 126
Page 117
In addition, on-street parking is available within the surrounding area. The applicant has advised that a further four parking spaces can be made available through an arrangement with the nearby nursery at the entrance to the estate; however, these additional spaces are not required given the parking provision available within the site curtilage. The available parking exceeds the level of provision requested and is sufficient to accommodate occasional peak attendance without giving rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring properties or the local road network Given the limited scale of the use, the majority of pedestrian trips, the availability of parking provision in excess of Roads requirements, and the absence of any proposed alterations that would adversely affect the local road network, the proposal is not considered likely to give rise to unacceptable transportation or road safety impacts. Overall, the proposal is considered to accord with NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) as it supports sustainable travel patterns, provides sufficient parking in accordance with Roads requirements, and would not have an adverse impact on the safe or efficient operation of the transport network. 8.4 NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place seeks to ensure that development proposals are well designed, contribute positively to their surroundings, and maintain a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupants. Developments should be sympathetic to local character, integrate successfully within their setting, and avoid unacceptable impacts upon neighbouring properties. Assessment: The application relates to the retrospective erection of an outbuilding and its use as a private chapel within the rear garden ground of an established dwellinghouse. The building is situated within the existing residential curtilage and does not alter the established street pattern, building lines or wider settlement structure. Owing to its location to the rear of the property, the development is not a prominent feature within the public realm and has a limited visual presence when viewed from surrounding streets. The design of the building is functional in nature and remains subordinate to the principal dwelling. Whilst larger than a typical domestic outbuilding, the scale and footprint are appropriate with its intended use as a private chapel and is accommodated within the generous curtilage of the site. The building is enclosed by existing boundary treatments and neighbouring garden ground, reducing its overall visual impact. In terms of placemaking, the proposal does not result in the loss of public open space, landscape features, or important townscape characteristics. The development remains contained within a residential plot and does not adversely affect the character or appearance of the wider area. A key consideration under Policy 14 is the impact on residential amenity. The chapel functions as a private place of worship for family members and invited guests only, rather than a public church. Attendance is limited, with a maximum of approximately 37 persons during Sunday mass and significantly fewer attendees at daily services. The use is therefore low intensity in nature and does not generate levels of activity comparable to a public religious institution. The scale of attendance, limited duration of services, availability of off-street parking, and the fact that the majority of visitors arrive on foot significantly reduce the potential for noise, disturbance, traffic movements or general activity that could adversely affect neighbouring residents. Furthermore, the building does not contain windows or openings positioned such that they would give rise to unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy to adjoining properties. Taking account of the siting, scale and design of the building, together with the limited and private nature of the use, the proposal integrates satisfactorily within its residential setting and does not result in any unacceptable impact on the character of the area or the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. Page 117 of 126
Page 118
Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) as it represents a structure that is appropriately sited within the existing curtilage, respects the character of the surrounding area, safeguards residential amenity, and functions without giving rise to significant placemaking or design concerns. 8.5 PP3 General Urban Policy supports development within the urban area where proposals are compatible with the character of the area, protect residential amenity, and do not adversely impact upon the function or environmental quality of the surrounding neighbourhood. Assessment: The proposal comprises the retention of an outbuilding within the curtilage of an existing dwellinghouse and its use as a private chapel. In assessing the proposal against Policy PP3, consideration has been given to both the physical characteristics of the structure and the impact of the use on the surrounding residential area. In terms of the structure, the building is located within a substantial residential curtilage and is positioned to the rear of the existing dwelling. The scale, siting and design of the building can be accommodated within the plot without resulting in overdevelopment or appearing incongruous within the wider urban context. Adequate garden ground remains within the site, and the structure does not adversely affect the established pattern of development or character of the surrounding residential area. Furthermore, the building is not considered to give rise to an unacceptable overbearing impact, loss of privacy or overshadowing of neighbouring properties. With regard to the proposed use, the chapel serves as a private place of worship for family members and invited guests rather than a public church. Attendance is limited, with daily services attracting only a small number of people and Sunday mass accommodating up to 37 attendees for approximately one hour per week. The use is therefore low intensity and compatible with the residential character of the surrounding area. NLC Infrastructure and Transportation advise that one parking space should be provided per ten attendees. The site provides five spaces, on street parking close by with a further four available through an arrangement with the nearby nursery if required. This exceeds the required provision and is considered sufficient, particularly as the majority of attendees walk to the property Taking account of the scale of the building, the contained nature of the use, the availability of adequate parking provision, and the absence of any significant adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity, the proposal is considered to integrate satisfactorily within the established residential environment. Prior to the construction of the private chapel, the applicant held services in hired venues across North Lanarkshire. However, recurring issues, including booking errors and difficulties accessing the premises, led to the decision to erect the structure to provide a reliable and dedicated venue for regular services Overall, the development is considered to accord with Policy PP3 (General Urban Area) of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, as both the structure and its proposed use are compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding urban area and do not give rise to any unacceptable planning concerns. 8.6 AD3 Amount of Development seeks to ensure that development proposals are compatible with their surroundings and do not result in unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, environmental quality, traffic generation, parking provision, or the overall character of an area. Assessment: As already stated, The applicant has advised that the chapel serves family members and invited guests, with attendance generally limited to small daily services and up to 37 attendees at Sunday mass. As such, the use is low intensity and is not expected to result in unacceptable impacts on residential amenity. Page 118 of 126
Page 119
The applicant previously utilised hired venues for worship but experienced difficulties with booking arrangements and access, leading to the provision of a dedicated chapel within the property. NLC Infrastructure and Transportation requested parking provision at a ratio of one space per ten attendees. The site provides five spaces, with a further four available, if required, through an arrangement with the nearby nursery, as well as on street parking, exceeding the required provision. In addition, many attendees travel on foot, reducing parking demand. Having regard to the scale of the building, the limited nature of the use and the parking arrangements in place, the proposal is not considered to adversely affect neighbouring amenity or the character of the area. Accordingly, the development complies with Policy AD3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. 8.7 Policy EDQ1 (Environmental Quality) seeks to ensure that development protects and, where possible, enhances environmental quality and local amenity. Proposals should be appropriately designed and located so that they do not give rise to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring land uses, visual amenity, traffic, parking, noise, privacy or the overall character of the area. Assessment: While the building is larger than a typical domestic outbuilding, it can be accommodated within the generous curtilage without resulting in overdevelopment of the plot. The structure does not disrupt the established pattern of development and is not considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual character of the surrounding residential area. The impact on neighbouring amenity has also been considered. The building's siting and relationship with surrounding properties ensures that there are no significant issues relating to overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impact. The proposal therefore maintains reasonable standards of residential amenity. With regard to the use, the chapel operates as a private place of worship for family members and invited guests rather than as a public church. Daily attendance is limited, with Sunday services accommodating approximately 37 people. The scale of activity is therefore relatively modest and not considered likely to generate unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance. Concerns regarding parking and traffic have been assessed through the consultation process. NLC Infrastructure and Transportation provided comments which has already been addressed earlier in the report. The proposal is therefore considered to operate without causing unacceptable environmental or amenity impacts and is compatible with the established residential character of the area. Overall, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy EDQ1, as both the structure and its use are capable of being accommodated within the site without detriment to residential amenity, environmental quality, road safety or the character of the surrounding area. 8.8 Policy EDQ3 (Design and Accessibility) seeks to ensure that development is of an appropriate design, scale and appearance, and integrates successfully with its surroundings. Assessment: The proposed chapel building is located within the rear garden of the host dwelling and remains contained within a substantial residential curtilage. Although larger than a typical domestic outbuilding, the structure can be accommodated within the plot without resulting in overdevelopment or adversely affecting the established pattern of development. The building's siting to the rear of the property limits its prominence within the public realm and avoids disruption to existing building lines or the character of the surrounding residential area. The scale, massing and design are considered acceptable within the context of the site and do not appear incongruous when viewed alongside neighbouring development. Page 119 of 126
Page 120
Furthermore, the structure does not give rise to significant adverse visual impacts on neighbouring properties through overshadowing, overbearing presence or loss of outlook. Overall, the development respects the character and visual amenity of the area and is therefore considered to comply with Policy EDQ3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.9 The matters raised in the letters of objection are addressed in turn below. • Parking Implications Response: The application was assessed by NLC Infrastructure and Transportation, who advised that parking should be provided at a ratio of one space per ten attendees. Based on the maximum attendance of approximately 37 people, four parking spaces would be required. The site is capable of accommodating five vehicles within the residential curtilage, with a further four spaces available, if required, through an agreement with the nearby nursery, as well as on street parking. In addition, the applicant has advised that the majority of attendees travel to the site on foot. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to result in unacceptable parking impacts. This was confirmed by carrying out several site visits. It should be noted that the property holds family gatherings, out-with religious services, where family members use the on-street parking facilities while visiting the property. This is not part of the application. • Noise Response: The information submitted indicates that the chapel operates as a private place of worship serving family members and invited guests. Daily attendance is limited, while Sunday services accommodate a maximum of approximately 37 people and are typically of one hour's duration. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the use has resulted in unreasonable noise levels or disturbance. Given the scale and nature of the activity, the proposal is not considered to give rise to unacceptable noise impacts. This was confirmed by carrying out several site visits. • Incompatible with residential use Response: It is considered that each application must be assessed on its own merits. The use is a private chapel rather than a public church and serves a limited number of family members and invited guests. Having regard to the scale of attendance, frequency of use, parking provision and limited traffic generation, the proposal is not considered incompatible with the surrounding residential environment. • Structure was built before permission was granted. Response: It is acknowledged that the building was erected prior to the submission and determination of a planning application. However, planning legislation allows retrospective planning applications to be submitted and assessed. The determination of the application must focus on the planning merits of the development rather than the timing of its construction. • Other church/Religious buildings are available. Response: The availability of alternative venues is noted. The applicant has advised that community halls and other facilities were previously utilised; however, difficulties relating to bookings, access arrangements and operational reliability were experienced. Whilst alternative venues may exist, the planning assessment must consider whether the proposed development is acceptable at this location rather than whether alternative sites may be available. • Set up as a commercial enterprise Response: The information provided by the applicant states that the chapel is a private place of worship for family members and invited guests and does not operate as a commercial business. No evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the use functions as a commercial enterprise. The application has therefore been assessed on the basis of the proposed private religious use. Page 120 of 126
Page 121
• Intention to grow the congregation Response: The planning authority can only assess the application as submitted. The information before the Council indicates that attendance is limited to family members and invited guests, with a maximum attendance of approximately 37 persons at Sunday mass, which has been conditioned. Any material intensification of the use beyond that assessed could require separate planning consideration in the future • No disabled access bays Response: No specific requirement has been identified by NLC infrastructure and transportation for disabled parking bays in connection with this development. The use is private in nature and operates on a limited scale. The provision of parking has been assessed by the relevant consultees and found to be acceptable. Consequently, the absence of marked disabled parking bays is not considered to constitute a reason to withhold planning permission. • Contradicts local development plan policy Response: The proposal has been assessed against the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4. For the reasons set out within this report, the development is considered to comply with Policy PP3 (General Urban Area), Policy AD3 (Amenity and Environmental Standards), and the relevant policies contained within NPF4. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan. • Structure is visibly prominent Reason: The building is located within the rear garden of the property and is viewed primarily in the context of the existing residential curtilage. While the structure is visible from certain viewpoints, it is not considered so dominant or intrusive as to adversely affect the overall character of the area. It is considered that the scale and siting of the building are capable of being accommodated within the plot without causing unacceptable visual harm. • No pedestrian footpaths Reason: Concerns regarding pedestrian infrastructure have been noted. The development does not involve alterations to the public road network, and no objection has been raised by NLC Infrastructure and Transportation on pedestrian safety grounds. Furthermore, the applicant has advised that many attendees travel on foot to the site. On this basis, the proposal is not considered to create an unacceptable risk to pedestrian safety. • Increase in traffic Reason: The proposal is expected to generate a limited number of vehicle movements associated with attendance at services. Given the relatively small scale of the congregation, the availability of off-street parking and the applicant's confirmation that many visitors arrive on foot, any increase in traffic is not considered significant. NLC Infrastructure and Transportation have raised no objection to the proposal, and the impact on the local road network is therefore considered acceptable. 9. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, considering all the circumstances relevant to this application, the proposed development is considered acceptable subject to restrictive conditions. It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties and character of the surrounding area, therefore, complies with the relevant policies within National Planning Framework and within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. Taking account of the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions. Page 121 of 126
Page 122
Page 122 of 126
Page 123
North Lanarkshire Council Report PLANNING COMMITTEE Does this report require to be approved? ☐ Yes ☒ No Ref Index 1 Date 15/10/26 NOTICE OF PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS LODGED From Pamela Humphries, Chief Officer (Place) E-mail humphriesp@northlan.gov.uk 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 3 Page 123 of 126
Page 124
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 25/00079/COMP Mr John Gilhaney 14/08/2026 Written Erection of c/o Cameron Submittion Unauthorised Planning Structures and Land at Materials, Partially Old Mill Road in Connection with a Allanton Landscaping, Agricultural and Goundworks Contracts Business 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 124 of 126
Page 125
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 125 of 126
Page 126
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 126 of 126