Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 21/12/2023
North Lanarkshire Council · 21 December 2023
Back to Planning Committee — 21 December 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
12 December 2023 Members of the Planning Committee Chief Executive’s Office Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal & Democratic) Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell ML1 1AB www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk Notice is given that a Special Meeting of the Planning Committee is to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, ML1 1AB on Thursday, 21 December 2023 at 14:00 PM which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal & Democratic) Members : Clerk Name: Mark Hamill Clerk Telephone: 07811294702 Clerk Email: hamillm@northlan.gov.uk N Shevlin, G Currie, G Brennan, B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, A Campbell, T Carragher, M Coyle, S Coyle, D Crichton, K Docherty, M Hughes, L Jarvie, T Johnston, J Logue, H Loughran, M McPake, J McPhilemy, A McVey, J Reddin, D Robb, G Robinson, A Smith, G Woods. Page 1 of 34
Page 2
Page 2 of 34
Page 3
Agenda 1 Declarations of Interest In Terms of the Ethical Standards In Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 2 Planning Application Index Submit Planning Applications Index 5 - 34 Page 3 of 34
Page 4
Page 4 of 34
Page 5
North Lanarkshire Council Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee Committee Date: 21-12-2023 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved Item 2 Page 5 of 34
Page 6
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 21st December 2023 Page No Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation 7-33 20/00661/FUL Wilson Developments (Scotland) Ltd Residential Development of 48 Units (Terraced Houses, Semi-Detached Houses and Cottage Flats) Site At Reema Road Industrial Estate Reema Road Bellshill Grant (P) (P) 20/00661/FUL - It should be noted that if Committee is minded to grant this application, Planning Permission should be withheld until the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 69 Legal Agreement for off-site play provision enhancements within the locale. Page 6 of 34
Page 7
Application No: 20/00661/FUL Proposed Development: Residential Development of 48 Units (Terraced Houses, Semi- Detached Houses and Cottage Flats) Site Address: Site At Reema Road Industrial Estate Reema Road Bellshill Date Registered: 24th June 2020 Applicant: Wilson Developments (Scotland) Ltd 106 Hamilton Road Motherwell ML1 6DA Agent: Allison Architecture 13 Royal Crescent Glasgow G3 7SL Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 15 Bellshill Angela Campbell, Pat Patton, Lisa Stubbs, Anne McCrory. Representations: 25 letters of representation (one supporting) received. (Including from Councillor Campbell and Bairdsland View Residents Association). Since the March 2022 Committee a further 6 representations have been received – 5 from the landowners of the former Tata Steel site and 1 from the Operator of Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP). Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposal represents a justifiable exception to Purpose of Place Policy PP2A (Strategic Business Centres) and complies with that part of Policy PP2A relating to non-ancillary development and changes of use and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. Furthermore, in delivering affordable homes the proposal complies with and relevant policies in National Planning Framework 4 as well as the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023. It should be noted that if Committee is minded to grant this application, Planning Permission should be withheld until the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 69 Legal Agreement for off-site play provision enhancements within the locale. Page 7 of 34
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: 20/00661/FUL Name (of applicant): Wilson Developments (Scotland) Ltd Site Address: Site At Reema Road Industrial Estate Reema Road Bellshill Development: Residential Development of 48 Units (Terraced Houses, Semi- Detached Houses and Cottage Flats) Page 8 of 34
Page 9
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers: - 2008-00-004.REV F , 2008-02-101 REV B, 2008-02-103.REVA, 2008-02-104.REVB, 2008-02-105. REVA, 2008-02 06.REVA, 20008_00-005-1REVA and 20008_00-005-2REVA Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That before works commence on site, a site investigation must be carried out in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175: 2011 “The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites”. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency publication, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11, and be submitted in both hard copy and electronic format. Depending on the results of this investigation a detailed remediation strategy may be required. Any remediation work required must be completed and verification provided by the developer to the Local Authority’s satisfaction. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. 3. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 2 shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. 4. That the following information must be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and all actioned works carried to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority either prior to commencement of construction work or the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved (whichever is appropriate). • That prior to the commencement of works on site, drawings detailing the construction of the proposed acoustic barriers on site and details of the proposed materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. • Acoustic Barriers must be constructed as detailed in Appendix 2 (drawing reference Allison Architecture no. 20008_00-004_F). • That prior to the commencement of works on site, a written maintenance scheme for the acoustic barriers must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. • Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, a validation report specifying that the acoustic barriers have been correctly installed must be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this report must be produced by an acoustic consultant or engineer who is a member of the Institute of Acoustics or the Association of Noise Consultants. • All dwellings must be built in accordance with the internal layouts detailed in drawings reference: a. Allison Architecture no 2008_02-106_ A Blocks 2-6 Revised Plans and Elevations. b. Allison Architecture no 2008_02-104_ B Blocks 8+9 Plans. c. Allison Architecture no 2008_02-103_ A Blocks 10+11Revised Plans and Elevations. • That before commencement of works, details of the noise mitigation with regard to area specific acoustic ventilation measures, as identified in REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022, Project Ref: 7137, Prepared by New Acoustics shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Furthermore, for the avoidance of doubt – a. All glazing must meet the specification detailed in Appendix 8 and 9 of the Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022. b. Acoustic trickle ventilation must be provided to each window. Page 9 of 34
Page 10
c. For these internal noise levels to be achieved all other elements of the façade must be specified so as not to degrade the overall sound. Specification of all façade elements must be provided to the satisfaction of the planning authority prior to commencement of construction on site. d. Before any house is occupied verification of the correct installation of all windows in the development must be provided in the form of a validation report produced by an acoustic consultant or engineer who is a member of the Institute of Acoustics or the Association of Noise Consultants. Reason: In the interest of the residential amenity of future residents. 5. That the upstairs bedroom windows on the gable elevations of blocks 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 shall either be of obscured glass or high-level horizontal emphasis windows, details of which to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of future residents. 6. That before the construction of any roads or houses full details of the final surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority and 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 ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater, in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site. 7. That the surface water drainage scheme approved under the terms of condition 6 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 and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site. 8. That prior to the commencement 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 sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements. 9. That prior to commencement of work on site a detailed landscaping plan including tree and shrub planting as well as a range of biodiversity enhancement measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Furthermore, that all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting as subsequently approved shall be completed in accordance with a timetable that is agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before any development starts, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity and to comply with Policy 9 of NPF4. 10. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme (including any elements of phasing of implementation) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas; (b) any communal fences, walls and footpaths; (c) footpaths not adopted by way of the roads construction consent; (d) biodiversity enhancement measures. Page 10 of 34
Page 11
Reason: To ensure the maintenance of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity. 11. That no later than the completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 10 shall be in operation. Reason: To ensure there is an adequate landscape maintenance scheme in place. 12. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, these materials shall respect the palette of materials for the streets, junctions, footways, and driveways agreed under the terms of condition 13 below. Reason: In the interests of amenity and design by ensuring that external materials are appropriate for the site. 13. That before the development hereby permitted starts full details of the design and finish materials to be used in the construction of the streets, footways, junctions, parking courtyards and driveways, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the materials shall be a well-considered palette to reflect the aims of Designing Streets and the materials agreed under the terms of condition 13. The approved details shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical Reason: In the interests of amenity and design by ensuring that the materials are appropriate for the site. 14. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 15. That no dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until the proposed footpath along the frontage of the site at Reema Road is formed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority (to be confirmed in writing) and no later than the completion of the last 5 of the dwellings hereby permitted is occupied; all internal streets, footpaths, footways and manoeuvring areas shall be completed to sealed final wearing course. Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings. 16. That prior to commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Construction Method Statement shall cover: • Details of how the development will be phased • Details of the location of site compound and management facilities; • Details of construction access, parking and manoeuvring areas and; The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area, to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities. 17. That prior to the demolition of the existing buildings on site a further Bat survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Should any roosts be found no demolition shall take place until any necessary approvals and licences have been obtained from Nature Scot and evidence furnished to the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of ensuring nature conservation mitigation measures for the site and surrounding area are implemented in accordance with the approved Habitat Management Plan. 18. For the avoidance of doubt, the consent hereby given does not include any consent in principle for a phase 2 within the site. Page 11 of 34
Page 12
Reason: In the interests of clarity and to define the permission hereby granted. 19. That before development starts, details of secure bike storage and electric charging points for vehicles and bikes shall be submitted for the approval of the planning authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To accord with the aims and objectives of NPF4 Policy 1 in terms of tackling the climate emergency. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: The Coal Authority received 02.07.20. Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 16.07.20. Scottish Water received 03,07.20. Scottish Power Environmental Planning received 03.07.20. NLC Play Services Manager received 28.07.20. NLC Traffic & Transportation received 25.09.20, 15.10.20, 06.01.21 and 27.07.21. NLC Greenspace received 19.08.20, 06.01.21 and 20.01.21. NLC Education received 22.01.21. NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 10.07.20, 13.01.21, 26.01.21, 15.04.21, 02.07.21, 22.07.21, 06.08.21, 24.09.23, 07.03.2022, 26.08.22, 05.09.2022 and 28.04.2023. Contact Information: Paul Williams at Planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 5th December 2023 Page 12 of 34
Page 13
Background Summary of Application and Process to date 1. Members may recall previously considering a report in relation to this planning application at Committee on 28th March 2022. This application proposes a development of 48 residential units comprising of 32 two storey cottage flats, 6 two storey terraced houses and 10 two storey semi-detached houses on a site at Reema Road. At the meeting in March, the committee determined that it was ‘minded to grant’ planning permission pending the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 69 Legal Agreement for off-site play provision enhancements within the locale i.e. that the permission would not be issued until this agreement was concluded. Since the March Committee a number of relevant matters have occurred and this report seeks to update committee and explain why the planning permission has not yet been issued. 2. Given the location of the site and the proximity of industrial land uses, the compatibility of residential development and industrial development side by side, along with the assessment of associated noise impacts on future residents of the application site and the impacts of new residents on the industrial operations adjacent is key to the consideration of the proposal. It was previously assessed that, with a range of mitigation measures, a suitable level of residential amenity would be achieved for residents of the proposed development. The mitigation measures included the removal of an aggregate crushing machine from an adjoining site. The assessment of noise and the mitigation measures were detailed in the committee report and a number of planning conditions were recommended, including one specifically related to the aggregate crushing machine on adjoining land, Condition 19 of the March Committee report stated :- That before the development hereby permitted starts, the crusher within the MJM site to the south of the application site shall be removed or decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Thereafter no replacement or similar plant and equipment shall be used or operated on this site. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. 3. This planning condition was required as part of a number of noise mitigation measures to ensure that an acceptable level of residential amenity would be achieved within the proposed new housing development. Following presentation of the application to Committee on 28th of March 2022, further objections were received from adjoining industrial landowners asserting that the implications of noise potentially emanating from their premises on future residents of the proposed residential development had not been properly assessed or taken into account, as well as raising issues with the proposed planning conditions and, in particular proposed Condition 19 as detailed above. 4. The objectors highlighted a range of concerns in relation to the noise information submitted and assessed by the Council in relation to the planning application. In support of these concerns, they also commissioned and submitted their own noise impact assessment (NIA) report. The applicant was allowed an opportunity to address these concerns and they too also commissioned a further NIA report to argue that the required design mitigations and amendments along with removal of the aggregate crusher on the adjacent site to the south of the application site would bring any future noise issues in terms of residential amenity within acceptable limits (noise reports submitted are available on the planning portal) 5. Given that conflicting noise reports had been produced and submitted, North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services (Pollution Control) professional view was that it was appropriate to commission a Peer Review of all the submitted noise reports (both by the applicant but also the objector) and review the council’s assessment of these and the conclusions drawn in relation to noise impacts of the surrounding land uses on the proposed residential development. The Peer Review was produced by SNC Lavalin Atkins dated 21st of April 2023 and titled Reema Road Development, Acoustic Peer Review (again this is report is available on the planning portal). This Peer Review concluded that the originally submitted REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment Received 18th January 2022 produced by the applicant had appropriately considered the potential noise impacts from surrounding industrial/commercial sites as well as road traffic, and incorporated mitigation measures to mitigate foreseeable adverse noise impacts. In other words, the Peer Review concluded that proposed development, as amended, with design mitigations including acoustic fencing and the removal of the nearby crushing machine on the adjacent MJM Haulage site to the south would be acceptable in terms of noise impacts on future residential amenity in terms of the residential proposal. North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services (Pollution Control) subsequently submitted a final consultation response on Page 13 of 34
Page 14
the 28th of April 2023 confirming that they had no objection and agreeing with findings of the Peer Review. Crucial to this conclusion was the removal of the aggregate crusher from the adjoining site. So long as this is done, and a number of detailed requirements are included in planning condition(s) to be imposed, North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services (Pollution Control) has no objection to permission being granted. For the avoidance of doubt, proposed planning condition 4 covers the matters highlighted. With regards to the aggregate crusher, on the 22nd of August 2023 Council officers from the Planning Service and Pollution Control visited the site of MJM where the crusher operated and observed that the crusher had been removed from the site. This was done under as part of the requirements of a private legal agreement between the applicant and the site operator where the aggregate crusher was located. Any future reoccurrence of a similar operation on the MJM Site or elsewhere which give rise to noise complaints would be considered and assessed as a new event and dealt with as such under separate Environmental Health legislation. As the crusher has now been removed, Condition 19 is no longer required. 6. Another significant change has occurred since the application was considered by Committee in March 2022 and which requires to be considered. The Development Plan has been updated and has replaced with the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP) and National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which has now replaced NPF3 and Scottish Planning Policy SPP both published by Scottish Government in June 2014. Notwithstanding the minded to grant decision by Committee in March 2022, as no permission was issued following committee, the application has not been determined. As such the application requires to be assessed against the new development plan policies. Therefore, this report updates the Committee report considered in March 2022 and provides updates on the further representations received (section 7.6 and 8.7 of the report); further supporting information received and considered (section of 7.6 of the report); consultations regarding the noise objections (section 6.5 of the report) and an assessment of these objections. The development is also considered and assessed against NPF4 & NLLDP (section 8 of the report) and in light of all of the above a fresh recommendation is made (section 9 of the report). Page 14 of 34
Page 15
APPLICATION NO. 20/00661/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The site lies near the northeastern edge of Bellshill and northwestern edge of Mossend between existing industrial areas to the north and east and residential areas to the south and west. The site covers an area of approximately 1.6 Hectares and is land once forming part of the steel works to the east and associated railway access and egress to and from the works. The site is formed by a raised bund which rises up from north to south and then levels out in line with the established residential area to the south. 1.2 The site is bound by Bairdsland View to the west, Reema Road to the north beyond which lies the Mossend International Rail Port, an industrial yard and haul road associated with the Tata steel works to the east and in established residential area of Ravenscraig Court and James Hamilton Drive to the south. The site is semi derelict in nature with established tree belts along the eastern and norther boundaries as well as centrally within the site. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The proposal after revision and as illustrated on drawing 20008 00-004 REV F is for the development of 48 residential units comprising of 32 two storey cottage flats, 6 two storey terraced houses and 10 two storey semi-detached houses all of traditional design with dual pitched roofs. The proposed development would be accessed from the eastern end of Reema Road and after revision, a footpath is proposed along the frontage of the site on the southern side of Reema Road. The proposed layout is a function of the irregular rectangular shape of the site with two sets of terraced dwellings (blocks 10 and 11) and two blocks of cottage flats (blocks 1 and 7) to the north of the site and two blocks of cottage flats (blocks 8 and 9) and five blocks of semi-detached dwellings along the southern half of the site. It should be noted that a revised layout was submitted as described above in order to address the concerns of NLC Protective Services as a result of the Noise Impact Assessments submitted by the applicant concerning possible future noise emanating from surrounding industrial uses. This was manifest in drawing revision F which replaced the originally proposed flats at the eastern end of the southern boundary with five blocks of semis with habitable rooms and bedrooms to the north and non- opening bedroom windows to the south with opening gable windows, along with acoustic fencing to the southern (3.2 metres high) and eastern (4.5 metres high) boundaries in order to address noise from the adjacent industrial yard to the south. Also, the originally proposed two sets of four terraced dwellings at the north eastern entrance to the site were replaced by two blocks of six flats and finally the block of two semi- detached dwellings nearest to the northern boundary was removed. It should be noted that existing tree belts along the eastern and northern boundaries would be retained as part of the proposed layout with a buffer area ranging between 14 metres wide to 4 metres wide between the proposed dwellings and the northern boundaries of James Hamilton Drive to the south. Proposed site levels along the southern boundary range from approximately 3 metres higher at western end of southern boundary than levels at northern boundary of James Hamilton Drive to south to level with James Hamilton Drive boundaries to the east. 2.2 The proposal, as described on amended layout drawing 2008-00-004-REV F also indicates a future Phase 2 development that would be part of a separate forthcoming planning application. This relates to a small parcel of land fronting north onto Reema Road adjacent and to the west of the proposed vehicular and pedestrian access into the site. No footpath links are proposed between the site and the existing residential area to the south. 2.3 It is understood that the intended end user of the development is Trust Housing Association. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 Transportation Statement, Noise Impact Assessments (NIA) and revisions, Preliminary Environmental Assessment , Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Bat Survey, Swept Path Analysis for adjacent haul road demonstrating that it can only accommodate vehicles up to 7.5 Tonnes, Knotweed Treatment Report. Porter Planning NPF4 Planning Statement dated October 2023, Report on 20 Minute Neighbourhoods produced by Wilson Developments and Active Transport Strategy Report produced by Wilson Developments. The applicant has more recently submitted further comments regarding the applicable policies in NPF4 (Climate, Low Carbon, Digital Connectivity and Suicide Prevention). Page 15 of 34
Page 16
4. Site History 4.1 No relevant planning history, however, it should be noted that the site historically formed part of the railway access and sidings for the former steelworks to the east. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The Development Plan consists of the National Planning Policy Framework 4 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) and the relevant policies therein. In this case, most of the site is identified as being within an existing Business Centre. The relevant policy being Purpose of Place Policy PP 2A. This policy states that North Lanarkshire Council will encourage large scale business users to locate to locate in Strategic Business Centres and safeguard their character from dilution by other inappropriate uses and support upgrading premises, amenities, access, parking and green space. Parts of the site (along the southern and western boundaries) is allocated as General Urban Area and is covered by Purpose of Place Policy PP3. Also of relevance are Policies EDQ 1 – 3 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023. 5.2 The following NPF 4 Policies are of relevance - Policy 1 (Tackling climate change and nature crises), Policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaption), Policy 3 (Biodiversity), Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees), Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and derelict Land), Policy 15 (Local Living/20 minute neighbourhoods), Policy 16 (Quality Homes) including 16(f) criteria for non-compliant proposals, Policy 21 (Play Recreation Sport), Policy 23(e) Health and Safety – Noise /Agents of Change Principle and Policy 24 (Digital Infrastructure). 6. Consultations 6.1 The Coal Authority confirmed that the site is not in a High Risk Area. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has issued standing advice. Scottish Water has expressed no objections and that there is sufficient capacity. Scottish Power also expressed no objection. 6.2 NLC Play Services Manager will accept a financial contribution of £500 per house and £250 per flat. Therefore, if Committee is minded to grant this application then a Legal Agreement will be required before Planning Permission can be released. NLC Traffic & Transportation has commented that the layout does not follow the principles ‘Designing Streets’ housing layout guidance and advises that conditions regarding the access visibility splay and 3m footway required on south side of Reema Road frontage should be applied. NLC Traffic & Transportation also concur with the finding of the Transport Assessment as submitted. NLC Greenspace has advised that the Knotweed Remediation Report is acceptable. Greenspace also concurs with findings of Preliminary Ecological Assessment as submitted and advise that if work not started before March 2021 then a further Bat survey will be required and should be a condition of any planning permission (at the time of the report no bat roosts were found in the buildings but these should be resurveyed before they are demolished and this is covered by condition). NLC Education has expressed no objection to the proposal indicating that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposal. 6.3 NLC Traffic and Transportation has not provided any adverse comments with regard to the proposed layout as revised or to any potential issues regarding the increased mixed industrial and residential traffic along Reema that the proposal would result due to future access and egress from the railfreight terminal to the north coming from a new junction and link road in the A8 to the north which will remove such traffic from Reema Road. NLC in and are satisfied with the findings of Transport Assessment as submitted. 6.4 NLC Protective Services – note for completeness the comments received in advance of the committee on 28th March 2022 and included in that report are restated here with their updated position being covered in 6.5 & 6.6 below. NLC Protective Services has commented that a Site Investigation is required as a condition along with other standard advice. A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been submitted along with revisions. Protective Services has concluded that after detailed consideration of the NIA as revised, when assessed alongside the related revised layout and design mitigations that the proposal can be acceptably developed in terms of current Environmental Health Noise standards and regulations and therefore acceptably in terms of the residential amenity of future residents subject to the application of appropriate conditions. Page 16 of 34
Page 17
In terms of these matters NLC Protective Services comments in detail thus – Upon review of the consolidated Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) submitted in support of the above application, namely: REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022 Project Ref: 7137, Prepared by New Acoustics This report is a consolidation of a previous NIA and several addendums produced in response to queries raised by North Lanarkshire Council. The proposed development is situated on a site previously used for industrial purposes. It is bounded by the following: • To the south west James Hamilton Drive, a residential development. • To the south, by an industrial estate with mixed use. • To the east unused industrial land and a large shed currently leased by Tata Steel but unoccupied for some time. Directly North of the site within this industrial estate is MJM who store and process aggregate. • To the north east Mossend Railhead and beyond that a cement works. • To the north west by various buildings on Bairdsland View and Jubilee Way, including NLC’s Civic Amenity site. • Reema Road to the North and Bairdsland View to the West both of which have a large percentage of HGV on route to the Mossend rail terminal. The layout of this development has been designed to provide maximum noise mitigation to these noise sources. In addition, a legal agreement has been signed between the developer and the owner of MJM to remove/decommission the screening/crusher equipment withing 5 days of the applicant informing MJM of receiving planning permission for this development. A suspensive condition can be imposed in this regard. (Please note updated position on this matter as stated below in para 6.6) The mitigation package included within the consolidated noise impact assessment comprise: • 3.2 metre high acoustic fence to the south of the site. • 4.5 metre high acoustic fence to the east of the site on the boundary to the adjacent haul road. • Blocks 2-6 have 2 bedrooms located on north façade facing away from MJM and 1 bedroom with a window in the south façade overlooking MJM but which does not have to be opened for ventilation as a second window is provided in the gable end. Thus, all bedrooms can achieve satisfactory noise levels internally with windows open for ventilation. Blocks 1 and 7 have bedrooms on the south façade only facing away from Reema Road and the Mossend Rail Freight Terminal. Again, these bedrooms can achieve satisfactory noise levels internally with windows open for ventilation. NLC Protective Services therefore has no objection to the granting of this application in relation to noise provided the following conditions are applied to any permission given: • Acoustic Barriers must be constructed as detailed in Appendix 2 (drawing reference Allison Architecture no. 20008_00-004_F). • Drawings detailing the construction of these barriers and providing details of the materials to be used needs to be provided to the satisfaction of the planning authority before construction commences on site. • A written maintenance scheme for the acoustic barriers must be provided to the satisfaction of the planning authority prior to works commencing on site. • A validation report specifying that the acoustic barriers have been correctly installed as per 1 and 2 above must be provided to the satisfaction of the planning authority prior to occupation of the homes. This report must be produced by an acoustic consultant or engineer who is a member of the Institute of Acoustics or the Association of Noise Consultants • All homes must be built in accordance with the internal layouts detailed in drawings reference: a. Allison Architecture no 2008_02-106_ A Blocks 2-6 Revised Plans and Elevations Page 17 of 34
Page 18
b. Allison Architecture no 2008_02-104_ B Blocks 8+9 Plans c. Allison Architecture no 2008_02-103_ A Blocks 10+11Revised Plans and Elevations • All glazing must meet the specification detailed in Appendix 8 and 9 of the NIA. For avoidance of doubt the details are reproduced overleaf. • Acoustic trickle ventilation must be provided to each window. • For these internal noise levels to be achieved all other elements of the façade must be specified so as not to degrade the overall sound. Specification of all façade elements must be provided to the satisfaction of the planning authority prior to commencement of construction on site. • Correct installation of all windows in the development must be provided in the form of a validation report produced by an acoustic consultant or engineer who is a member of the Institute of Acoustics or the Association of Noise Consultants. 6.5 As a result of further representations by neighbouring industrial landowners and businesses regarding the findings of the REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022, Project Ref: 7137, Prepared by New Acoustics as indicated above a Noise Impact Assessment Peer Review was undertaken taking into account the findings of the applicant’s consolidated Noise Impact Assessment, NLC Pollution control’s assessments, all other objections from neighbouring landowners and businesses and their submitted Noise Impact Assessment Reports. This review titled Reema Road Development Acoustic Peer Review dated 21st April 2023 and produced by SNC Lavalin Atkins concurred with findings of the consolidated Noise Impact Assessment. 6.6 Supported by the findings of the Peer Review, NLC Protective Services (Pollution Control) have been able to issue a final consultation response on the 28th of April 2023 confirming that noise impacts had been properly assessed and taken into account. Crucial to this conclusion was the removal or decommissioning of the aggregate crusher from the adjoining site. So long as this is done, and a number of detailed requirements are included in planning condition(s) to be imposed, North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services (Pollution Control) has no objection to permission being granted. For the avoidance of doubt, proposed planning condition 4 covers the matters highlighted. With regards to the aggregate crusher, on the 22nd of August 2023 Council officers from the Planning Service and Pollution Control visited the site of MJM where the crusher operated and observed that the crusher had been removed from the site. This was done as part of the requirements of a private legal agreement between the applicant and the site operator where the aggregate crusher was located. Any future reoccurrence of a similar operation on the MJM Site or elsewhere which gave rise to noise complaints would be considered and assessed as a new event and dealt with as such under separate Environmental Health legislation. As the crusher has now been removed, Condition 19 from the March 2022 report is no longer required. 7. Representations 7.1 When the application was presented to Committee in March 2022 a total of 25 representations had been received and these are summarised in paragraph numbers 7.1-7.5 below. These sections of the original report have been left intact and, for clarification, in parts, these objections refer to the previous development plan (North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012) both in terms of site allocation (HCF1A) and with regards to design quality policies (DSP4). 25 letters of representation were received, two of which are on behalf of the owners of the Mossend International Railfreight Terminal to the north of the site and from the owner of the industrial area to the east. It should be noted that both the above parties were not originally neighbour notified and, as such, they were given opportunity to make representations within a 21 day period up to the 25th of February 2021. In the light of this, all representations received before this date have been included in the assessment. Representations were also made by Councillor Campbell and by the Bairdsland View Estate Residents’ Association. A supporting representation was also submitted on behalf of the applicant by Porter Planning. It should be further noted that a selected number of households were re-notified on the 9thFebruary 2022 as a result of some changes reflected in the submitted revised layout drawing 2008-00-004- REV F. All representations can be summarised as follows :- • Impact on privacy caused by proposed flats overlooking existing residential area to the south. • Impact on wildlife, trees and habitat caused by the proposal. • Increased traffic caused by development along with existing HGV traffic would have road safety issues. • Noise/dirt caused by building site disturbance. • Development will result in drainage issues for existing residents to the south. Page 18 of 34
Page 19
• A future Phase 2 development is proposed which would exacerbate issues above. • Part of the application site is owned by the residents of James Hamilton Drive. • No Playpark Proposed. • Proposed Flats imposing 5 storey. • No Internal footpath links proposed with existing residential area to the south. • Site is on contaminated land. 7.2 Supporting Representation Porter Planning Porter Planning representing the applicant and Clyde Valley Housing Association in response to the representations made on behalf of P.D Stirling and The Trustees of I. D. Meiklam (Mossend International Railfreight Park – (MIRP)) and representation made on behalf of the Samuel family (owners of industrial land and premises to the east of the site). The representation argues that other representations are based on potential perceived noise sources rather than actual ones. The applicant argues that affordable housing is much needed within the area. The emerging Local Development Plan has not been subject to Public Examination and therefore policies and allocations contained within it have not been tested and accepted – this is in relation to policy PP2 A which identifies the site as being within the Eurocentral-Mossend-Newhouse Strategic Business Centre (MNESBC). Furthermore, the irregular shape of the site does not lend itself to class 4, 5 and 6 uses. Also, the proposed residential development accords with the existing Development Plan in terms of the HCF1 A (Protecting Residential Amenity). The layout has been designed and revised to respond to the site surroundings as well as comments made by N.L.C. Roads and N.L.C. Protective Services. Also the proposal accords with the NLC corporate aim of providing affordable housing close to town centres particularly in relation to the ‘Vision for Bellshill’ as it would provide a variety of affordable housing types within the 20 minute walking zone of Bellshill town centre. In terms of policy EDQ1 (site appraisal and context) in the emerging Local Development Plan (LDP), the proposal seeks to re-use a derelict brownfield site and integrate with the existing residential area to the south with no detriment to existing residential amenity. In terms of policy EDQ2 of the emerging LDP, New Acoustics submitted a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) with a ‘windows closed’ solution for road traffic noise. Additionally, the applicant has addressed N.L.C. Protective Services issues by removing an adjacent crusher machine and redesigned the layout with different house types re-orientated, with acoustic fencing along the southern and eastern boundaries to address noise concerns related to the industrial area to the east. A revised NIA re-assessed 24 hour noise from the MIRP and was found to be satisfactory. In terms of policy EDQ3 (Quality of development) within the emerging LDP, the proposed layout meets NLC Roads and space standards and a central street will be created to provide an enhanced community feel. Furthermore, the proposed layout includes appropriate amenity buffers along three boundaries comprising of mature tree belts supplemented by acoustic boundary fencing and enhanced glazing specification. Also, the site sits adjacent to the Green Network with the previously mentioned mature planting buffers along three boundaries. A financial contribution has also been agreed to upgrade existing surrounding play and recreational facilities in lieu of play facilities on the proposed development. The representation argues that the application site should not be included within the MNESBC and that the proposed development sits comfortably between existing residential and industrial uses. The representation also argues that the mitigation for LAmax levels of road traffic noise during the night will be ‘closed windows’ and that this is permissible by NLC in exceptional circumstances and that this has been upheld at a number of recent appeals. In conclusion, the representation argues that the operation of the MIRP and other surrounding industrial uses will not have an adverse impact on the proposed development as any potential noise is sufficiently mitigated by a ‘closed windows’ approach. 7.3 Representation made on Behalf of Samuel Family The representation states that no Design and Access Statements have been produced and no analysis of the site setting or wider area has been carried out and the applicant has not demonstrated how the proposal integrates successfully into the area. It further argues that the proposed layout is an exercise in achieving the required density and that that the criteria of policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) have not been satisfied. The site is considered to be part of the MNESBC in the emerging LDP and as such housing is an inappropriate use and therefore the proposal is contrary to policy PP2 A. In terms of the submitted NIA relies on daytime measurement of traffic noise. More traffic will be generated by the MIRP and also the Tata haul road to the east of the site. There should be acoustic fencing along the eastern boundary of the site. The representation expresses serious concerns regarding the implications that a residential development may have on the financial viability of their tenantable properties in terms of Page 19 of 34
Page 20
complaints from future residents. Industrial noise cannot be mitigated for the site. Furthermore, the cost of sound proofing would be prohibitive and should this residential development have a direct impact on their business and suffer direct consequential losses then the Samuels would seek financial re-dress. 7.4 Representation made on behalf of PD Stirling and the Trustees of I D Meiklam The proposal would undermine the Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP). PD Stirling in partnership with the Trustees of I D Meiklam (with support through the City Deal, Scottish Enterprise and Transport Scotland) are developing Scotland’s largest multi-modal low carbon Railfreight Park which includes a comprehensive re-development of the existing Mossend Railhead. The proposal will provide an extra 200,000 square metres of distribution, logistics and manufacturing supported by the Council’s A8 City Deal Infrastructure Programme regarding a new junction on the A8 to the north which will remove HGV and other MIRP related traffic from the local road network. Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) was granted in October 2017 and a detailed planning application for phase 1 of the MIRP has also been approved. The first ground of objection is that the proposal is contrary to policy PP2 A in the LDP in that a residential development should not be granted within the MNESBC. Residential development would have the potential to restrict operational activity within the consented MIRP site which is required to accept incoming and outgoing trains 24/7. The proposal could limit the capacity of MIRP expansion as approved under the PPP and detailed planning consents which in turn would restrict investment interest and impact on the attractiveness of the MIRP for inward investment, associated economic activity and job creation. The proposed development is within 100 metres of the MIRP boundary directly adjacent to the existing railhead and therefore the application should be refused. The second ground of objection is that the proposal is contrary to policies EDQ1 (Site Appraisal), EDQ2 (Impacts) and EDQ3 (Quality) in the emerging LDP, PAN 1/2011 (‘Agent of Change’) and the Planning (Scotland) Act and on this basis should be refused. PAN1/2011 highlights the importance of protecting existing businesses from proposed development and in this context, any developer/applicant has a duty to demonstrate that there will be no impact on existing businesses through noise related objections from future residents. There is existing noise generating operations from the existing railhead with additional noise generating operations regarding the MIRP. The proposed housing development would sit on a raised platform some 100 metres from the MIRP boundary and some 130 metres from the proposed sidings and associated cranes. The NIA does not adequately assess the impact of existing and proposed expansion noise sources and there is a concern regarding the lack of night time noise assessment. The NIA associated with the MIRP planning application notes that noise impact predictions for the MIRP meet NLC criteria in terms of the closest dwellings on James Hamilton Drive. The proposed residential development is significantly closer to the railhead expansion area and on a raised platform and therefore more exposed than existing dwellings. It is therefore likely that the proposed residential development would be subject to noise levels above NLC criteria putting existing and proposed MIRP operation at risk thus jeopardising the important economic driver of the MNESBC. The proposed residential development would compromise commercial activities at the existing railhead, the approved railhead expansion and the Strategic Business Centre more generally and as such the proposed development is not in accordance with policies EDQ1, EDQ2 and EDQ3 in the emerging LDP as well as contrary to PAN1/2011 and The Planning (Scotland) Act and as such the application should be refused. 7.5 Representation made by RRR Consultants This representation considers that the application is contrary to policy PP2 A in the emerging LDP which identifies the site with in the MNESBC and as such residential development is not compliant. The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan identifies part of the site as falling within the existing industrial estate – policy EDI 1 A1 and the LDP allocates it within PP2 A. There is a lack of detail regarding no Site Investigation for an industrial site in terms of contamination and no Sustainable Urban Drainage Details again in the context of the industrial history of the site. Also there has been no tree survey accrued out, as such, the proposal is contrary to policy EDQ1 (Site Appraisal) in the LDP. Furthermore, the NIA as submitted does not sufficiently demonstrate that the proposed dwellings can be sufficiently protected (in terms of residential amenity) against noise from adjacent industrial uses stating that the application/proposal meets the criteria for ‘exceptional circumstances’ set out in the NLC Supplementary Planning Guidance. The NIA therefore concludes that the proposed development is satisfactory with a ‘windows closed’ approach and suggest the use of acoustic fences up to 3.2 metres high within some parts of the site. Additionally, in terms of the need for housing, the site is not allocated for residential development. Recent appeal decisions in North Lanarkshire have reaffirmed the position that NLC does not consider that there is a housing shortfall. Furthermore, based on the 2018 Housing Land Audit, which was agreed with Homes for Scotland, and using NLC’s preferred calculation methodology, there Page 20 of 34
Page 21
is an effective five year housing land supply, both within and across North Lanarkshire. It is therefore considered that there is no need for additional residential sites. 7.6 Since presentation at the Committee in March 2022, further representations have been received from the Samuel family, landowners of the former Tata Steel site and industrial area to the south and east and a further representation has been submitted from PD Stirling the operator of Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP). These representations, along with newly submitted supporting information are summarised and assessed in section 8.7 below. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 The preceding paragraphs cover representations received prior to the 28th March 2022 Committee and make mention of the old Development Plan and related policies have been left in the report for completeness and reference purposes. Any references to the now superseded North Lanarkshire Local Plan and related policies can no longer be given any weight. Under the terms of sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Planning Authorities are required that in determining planning application proposals, where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, determination should be in accordance with this Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Policy Framework 4 (NPF4) and The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP). Therefore, the proposal requires to be determined under the terms of the relevant policies within NPF4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) as well as the NLLDP Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023 and any other material considerations. 8.2 In terms of the new Development Plan the following aspects are most relevant. Firstly, with regard to NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling climate change and nature crises), Policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaption), Policy 3 (Biodiversity), Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees), Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and derelict Land), Policy 15 (Local Living/20 minute neighbourhoods), Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), Policy 16 (Quality Homes) including 16(f) criteria for non-compliant proposals, Policy 21 (Play Recreation Sport), Policy 23(e) Health and Safety – Noise /Agents of Change Principle and Policy 24 (Digital Infrastructure). These policies in relation to the proposed development will be assessed in turn, firstly :- • NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling climate change and nature crises) The applicant has provided a statement on the development’s response to NPF Policies 1 & 2 and advises that the site is brownfield in nature and involves the re-use of a derelict site. It is well served by public transport and is close to town centre amenities. The applicant argues that these aspects help to promote a reduction in car use including the provision of vehicle and cycle charging points and adequate bike storage within the development both of which aspects can be conditioned. The applicant also proposes to use low carbon technology to provide heating and cooling solutions in the form of Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs), increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy bills. In these terms, it is considered that the proposal complies with this policy. • NPF4 Policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaption) As indicated above the application has provided a statement on the developments response to NPF Policies 1 & 2. In terms of this, the applicant proposes enhanced insulation, energy efficient ASHPs and roof top solar panels to reduce the carbon footprint of the development. A Sustainable Urban Drainage SUDS scheme is also proposed on site to reduce the risk of surface water flooding. In these terms, it is considered that the proposal complies with this policy. • NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) Habitat surveys have been submitted that conclude that there are no significant biodiversity impacts or potential for protected species on the site. NLC Greenspace has concurred with these findings subject to biodiversity enhancements. This can be conditioned as part of landscape proposals including tree retention and new planting. In these terms, it is considered that the proposal complies with this policy. • NPF4 Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) Page 21 of 34
Page 22
This policy states that proposals which enhance, expand or improve tree cover will be supported. In this regard, the trees along the northern and western boundaries of the site will be retained along with landscaping and planting proposals within the site. Furthermore, all trees within the site are small self - seeded and of poor quality. It is therefore considered that the proposal has the potential to improve tree provision within the site. In these terms, it is considered that the proposal complies with this policy. • NPF4 Policy 9 - Brownfield, Vacant and derelict Land This policy intends to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. This policy states that :- a) Development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. b) Proposals 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. c) 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. In this case, the application site is Brownfield in nature formally being part of railway sidings for the former adjacent steelworks site to the east. Furthermore, the site is on the Council’s Vacant and Derelict Land Schedule (and has been since 2020) and the applicant has confirmed that the site is contaminated. This would seem a reasonable assumption given its previous industrial related use. NLC Protective Services agree and have recommended the imposition of planning conditions requiring a Site Investigation to make sure that any potential for historic contamination is fully investigated and if appropriate, remediated to allow residential development. This matter will need to be addressed in advance of any development taking place on the site. The applicant’s additional supporting statement produced by Porter Planning dated 30th October 2023 argues that the sites irregular shape was not suited for Industrial/Business Use (use classes 4, 5 and 6) and that it had been derelict since 1990 and marketed on several occasions with no interest for such uses being evident. In terms of biodiversity, the proposal involves the retention of the existing tree and shrub belt along the northern and western edges of the site. Further biodiversity enhancements could be procured through the application of an appropriate planning condition. • NPF4 Policy 14 Design, Quality and Place (replicates in parts NLLDP Policies EDQ1 & 3) This policy intends to improve the quality of design within development proposals regardless of location and indicates that development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places (healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable and adaptable) It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with these aims as demonstrated when assessed against other related policies in both NPF4 and the NLLDP and in particular Policies EDQ1 & 3 (paras 8.11 - 8.12 below). • NPF4 Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods) This policy intends to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. In this case, the application site is not of a scale itself to form a 20 minute neighbourhood but it is clear that the site is within a short walking distance of all the town centre amenities of Bellshill and Mossend including public transport. The applicant has submitted an additional supporting statement arguing that the proposal complies with aims of this policy. The applicant advises that Day-to-day needs are defined as shopping, leisure activities, access to schools, local services such as a GP practice and ideally access to work. It also means access to green space and a local environment that encourages active travel to promote health and wellbeing, as well as wider connections across and between local neighbourhoods and further afield. A 20 minute neighbourhood is a place Page 22 of 34
Page 23
where people want and can afford to live, so affordable housing must be part of it. As indicated above our assessment of this matter is that the development itself is not a 20 minute neighbourhood but given its location it contributes strongly to local living. By way of example in terms of average walking times a google search would indicate average walking pace is between 80 – 107 metres per minute. Whilst the applicant indicates all local facilities are within 800m radius of the site using google maps as a tool we have assessed that the average walking times for the following facilities are: • Bellshill Train Station is an 18 minute walk – 0.8 of a mile or 1287 metres away • Tesco Extra Bellshill is a 13 minute walk - 0.6 of a mile or 966 metres away • Mossend Aldi is a 12 minute walk - 0.5 of a mile or 805 metres away The majority of the facilities within Bellshill and Mossend are closer so will be less walking time. It is considered that the site is readily accessible to pedestrians in terms of the layout as proposed. The time and distance measurements are taken from the middle of the proposed development site and these could be improved/lessened if a link to Bairdsland View could be delivered. The applicant is in discussion regarding this matter with NLC Estates. These figures would support our assessment that this site would contribute strongly to local living and would be an attractive location to live in. As such the proposal complies with NPF4 Policy 15. • NPF4 Policy 16 (Quality Homes) NPF4 Policy 16 sets out a distinct, new approach to planning for new homes across Scotland that aims to deliver more quality homes that meet diverse needs. Policy 16, Quality Homes, promotes a plan-led approach. The intent of the policy is to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes, in the right locations, providing choice across tenures that meet the diverse housing needs of people and communities across Scotland. In this case, the proposal is for all Affordable Homes with a diverse range of house types. Part (f) of the policy states that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan (LDP) will only be supported in limited circumstances where: • the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out • the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods • the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary • the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. The applicant has provided an agreed timetable for build out as part of the submitted Porter Planning supporting statement. A letter has been submitted by Trust Housing Association confirming their commitment to the site. Trust Housing Association advise that they have been collaborating with Wilson Developments to deliver this project for a number of months. The project is included in the current NLC Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) and is a long standing priority project for both the Council and Scottish Government’s More Homes Division. Scottish Government colleagues are expecting Trust HA to be able to acquire the site from Wilson Developments by 31st March 2024 and this will allow them to enter into a back to back contract with Wilson Developments which would see a site start in Q1 Financial year 2024/25. With regards to the LDP spatial strategy it is of relevance that, notwithstanding the principal land use allocation in the plan, the site is also on the Council’s Housing Land Allocation HLA. The site was added to HLA in 2020 as a Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) site (the LDP is a 2019 HLA position). Of note too is that the site is not in the Industrial Business Land Supply (IBLS). The rationale for this being that the site was considered to constitute a tree belt and not a site per se. In changing the principal allocation from general urban (as it was in the 2012 local plan) the site was seen as a tree belt edge of the industrial area, rather than a tree belt edge of the residential area. When the new plan was being prepared because there appeared to be no definable boundary between the industrial area and the trees, especially as you head east along Reema Road towards Mossend entrance and that Unthank Road clearly continues northwards into the site beyond its current closure point. On balance the site was included within the industrial area albeit it could have equally remained as general urban. As discussed above, the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 15 given the sites close proximity to Bellshill and Mossend town centres. The proposal is for a smaller scale residential development within an existing settlement boundary. Also, with regard to the final criteria, the proposal Page 23 of 34
Page 24
is for less than 50 affordable homes and the site is in the Council’s Strategic Housing Implementation Plan (SHIP). It has also been confirmed that Trust Housing Association will procure and manage the affordable housing. Taking account of the above therefore the development of the site for affordable housing is considered to be consistent with the spatial strategy approved by the Council and is further supported by NPF4 Policy 16(f) • NPF4 Policy 21 (Play Recreation Sport) This policy seeks to promote all forms of sports, play and outdoor recreation. In this regard, the applicant, through legal agreement with council has agreed to make a financial contribution towards of site play facility enhancements within the area. • NPF4 Policy 23(e) Health and Safety – Noise /Agents of Change Principle This policy is intended to protect existing activities that create noise from proposed noise sensitive development (like residential development) in terms of future residents complaining about noise. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on Local Authorities to investigate noise complaints which could then in turn impact on the operation of the noise producing use. Policy 23(e) 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. 23(e) Development proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues will not be supported. The agent of change principle applies to noise sensitive development. A Noise Impact Assessment may be required where the nature of the proposal or its location suggests that significant effects are likely. In this regard, several Noise Impact Assessments have been submitted culminating in the REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022, Project Ref: 7137, Prepared by New Acoustics which assessed all potential noise issues from surrounding business land against the design mitigations including acoustic barriers and layout changes. This found that any future noise could be kept within acceptable levels for future residents of the development provided that the aggregate crushing machine was removed from the adjacent site to the southeast. Officers from the Planning Service and Pollution Control visited the MJM site on the 22nd of August and observed that the crusher had been removed from the site. As a result of further representations by neighbouring landowners and businesses regarding the findings of the REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022, Project Ref: 7137, Prepared by New Acoustics a Noise Impact Assessment Peer Review was undertaken taking into account the findings of the above consolidated Noise Impact Assessment and all other objections from neighbouring landowners and businesses. This review titled Reema Road Development Acoustic Peer Review dated 21st April 2023 and produced by SNC LAVALIN ATKINS concurred with findings of the consolidated Noise Impact Assessment. It is therefore considered that the proposal is compliant with this policy as well as the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023. • 23(f) Suicide Prevention New comments have been received from the applicant regarding this matter. They advise that in designing the Reema Road Development both Trust HA and Clyde Valley HA are Registered Social Landlords and regulated by the Social Housing Regulator and therefore have very similar obligations when it comes to health and well being. In their design process they considered a range of matters that relate to overall health & well being and contribute to suicide prevention Furthermore, Trust Housing Association who will be owner of the development take the health & well being of their tenants extremely seriously. As well as specifically trained Housing Officers they have a wide range of policies and partners as shown on their website: https://www.trustha.org.uk/your- homeservices/health-wellbeing/ . These partners include: • Samaritans :It's ok to not feel yourself and Samaritans are there to listen if you ever need to talk about any topic or if you are worried for someone else, with no judgement. Page 24 of 34
Page 25
• CALM :CALM is the Campaign Against Living Miserably and they're taking a stand against suicide. Need to talk to someone about suicide or worried about someone. • SHOUT : Shout is a free, confidential, 24/7 text messaging support service for anyone who is anxious, stressed, depressed, suicidal or overwhelmed and need in the moment support. The applicant also refers to the following documents submitted in support of the planning application which demonstrate compliance with Policy 23:- • Design and Access Statement; & • Noise Impact Assessment prepared by New Acoustics and peer review by Airshed. • Trust HA’s Health & Wellbeing Policies. With regards to this matter it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that suicide prevention has been considered as required by Policy 23. • NPF Policy 24 (Digital Infrastructure) – part (a) states that ‘Development proposals that incorporate appropriate, universal, and future-proofed digital infrastructure will be supported’. The applicant advises that their development is proposed to connect to the Standard copper-wired broadband, also known as ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) that currently is available in the local vicinity, but as the development is funded by the Scottish Government and the potential requirements of Housing for Varying Needs [Out to Consultation] provision will be made to future proof the site to allow connection to the proposed Full fibre broadband, also known as Fibre to the Premises (FTTP). The practicalities of this will be agreed with Openreach. The development is supported by this policy. 8.3 In terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan NLLDP, Policies PP2A and EDQ1-3 are relevant. The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023 is also relevant. This Supplementary Guidance (SG) forms part of the Development Plan and is a statutory requirement in the determination of planning applications. This Supplementary Guidance states that noise will be a material consideration in any planning application when noise sensitive development (NSD) is proposed close to an existing noise source. The way in which the assessment of noise carried out by the Council complies with this guidance (including Atkins Peer review). 8.4 In this case most of the site is identified as being within an existing Business Centre. The western and southern edges of the site appear to have retained their General Urban status as per previous Development Plan (previous policy being HCF1A). The predominant policy is Purpose of Place Policy PP 2A Strategic Business Centres. This policy states that North Lanarkshire Council will encourage large scale business users to locate in Strategic Business Centres and safeguard their character from dilution by other inappropriate uses and support upgrading premises, amenities, access, parking and green space. The policy identifies appropriate development and potentially acceptable ancillary developments (including limited convenience retail, daycare nurseries and hotels to serve occupiers) whilst also indicating inappropriate developments (comparison shopping, residential institutions, houses, non residential institutions, assembly and leisure). Non-ancillary development or changes of use will not be supported if they will negatively impact on the attractiveness of the Business Centre as a location for industry and business (all proposals require to satisfy the provisions of Policy EDQ3). 8.5 Policy EDQ3 aims to achieve high standards of site planning and sustainable design and to allow consideration of the proposal, Planning Applications will require to take account of the Site Appraisal required by Policies EDQ 1 and, if appropriate, EDQ 2. Advice on creating Successful Places can be found in: Scottish Planning Policy, Planning Advice Notes, Designing Streets, Designing Places, North Lanarkshire Council Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG 15 Good Design Toolkit (in particular the Design Quality Checklist). 8.6 In terms of potential impact on the attractiveness of the Business Centre as a location for industry and business, the consolidated Noise Impact Assessment and Associated Peer Review conclude that the proposed development can be appropriately mitigated against noise issues for future residents. Whilst acknowledging the objections from adjoining industrial land owners with regards to the impact that this residential development may have on their operations (both consented and potential) and the Page 25 of 34
Page 26
attractiveness of the adjoining business centre, it is considered that given the peripheral location of the site and it being located next to existing residential development it would be unlikely to have an impact and certainly not one that would be so significant as would justify a refusal of planning permission. In the last plan the site was identified as being part of the urban area and it would seem that when the current Local Development Plan was being prepared the site was considered as functioning more as a landscaped edge to the industrial area. The site has been marketed without success for industrial business use with the awkward shape of the site being cited as a reason for it not being taken up (also the availability other land in the immediate locale is of relevance). The proposed layout plan retains the tree belt along the boundary with Reema Road and a landscaping scheme will require to be submitted in relation to the redeveloped site. It is considered that in landscape terms the site itself adds little if anything to the attractiveness of the industrial area as a whole. The industrial landowners in objecting about the impact this development may have on future development plans they may have are concerned that this development will hinder their plans. In this regard it is of significance that NLC pollution control are satisfied that proposed residential development will be suitably protected from noise and it should be noted that the existing residential properties already serve as a potential constraint on noise making activities within the Tata site. The Peer Review of the NIA information advises that the New Acoustics assessment showed that the predicted noise levels at the new Reema Road development was similar or even marginally lower than at the existing James Hamilton Drive receptors thus concluding that if the Tata Steel building was to not cause disturbance at the existing James Hamilton Drive receptors it would also not cause disturbance at the new Reema Road development receptors. With regard to the Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP) the activities withing the MIRP at the closest part to the proposed housing site were fully assessed and it was found that the housing could be mitigated against these activities. Also of relevance is that as the site continues to be developed in accordance with their consents HGV traffic will be removed from Reema Road with this being rerouted to a new junction on the A8. Also as indicated as the site develops it will do so further away from the proposed housing site. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with this aim as well as the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023. Representations received since March 2022 8.7 Since presentation to the Committee in March 2022, further representations have been received from the Samuel family, landowners of the former Tata Steel site and industrial area to the south and east and a further representation has been submitted from PD Stirling the operator of Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP). The applicant has also submitted new supporting information in the context of the new Development Plan. Samuel’s further Representations • MJM Crusher noise issues – removal does not ensure it’s replacement on site. Comment: The crusher has been removed from the site as confirmed by the site visit on the 22nd of August 2023. If a crusher or similar type of plant was introduced onto the site this would constitute a new event/occurrence that would be assessed and considered under separate Environmental Health legislation (Environmental Protection Act 1990) in terms of its impact on existing residents in James Hamilton Drive to the south of the application site as well as any potential impacts on future residents of the proposed residential development. • The MJM site/Samuel Land (including Tata building) could go to another Industrial Class 5 use without requiring Planning Permission. Comment: This may well be the case, however from a noise legislation perspective, any other industrial use that was not steel making would represent a new activity/chapter in the use of the site and as such should NLC Pollution control receive complaints in relation to such new noise generating activities they would be investigated and dealt with as appropriate under separate Environmental Health Legislation Environmental as above. • Submission of the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) by Airshed contesting validity of Page 26 of 34
Page 27
Consolidated NIA and highlight they reserve the right to challenge a decision to approve by way of Judicial Review. Comment: Any planning decision is potentially open to challenge by Judicial Review and this would remain the case if planning permission were to be granted. As detailed above the further objections and reports received after the March 2022 committee has resulted in NLC Pollution Control commissioning an independent Peer Review to assess all Noise Impact Assessments and associated correspondence. This Peer Review concluded that the Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment and NLC Pollution Control has appropriately considered the potential noise impacts and their advice to the planning authority has allowed this matter to be appropriately assessed and taken into account in making its recommendation to the planning committee. • Is a private legal agreement sufficient to remove crusher? and the Consolidated NIA does not cover/review the Airshed NIA. Comment: The aggregate crusher has now been removed from the MJM site and as above an Independent Peer Review was carried out taking into account the Airshed NIA and objections. • ‘Minded to grant’ is not a determination in terms of Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Comment: Agreed. This has led to this revised report and re-assessment and new presentation to committee. • Former Tata Steel building is single skinned which would increase potential noise issues. Tata building should be a material consideration in assessing the proposal. Comment: The Tata building has been fully assessed and The Peer Review concluded that if this was the case, the implications in terms of noise could impact on existing residents at James Hamilton Drive as above and again would be dealt with under separate environmental Health legislation. • This inappropriate proposal would jeopardize the long-term benefits that the adjacent MIRP might facilitate. The objector state that they are near to concluding negotiations with a major world wide renewable energy company regarding the lease of the Tata building Comment: This indicated interest in leasing the building demonstrates that the fact that there are existing residential properties in close proximity to their site is not actually a deterrent to investment. In any event, the Peer Review concluded that the findings of the Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment were appropriately founded in that potential noise levels will be within acceptable limits for future residents due to design amendments, noise mitigation measures and in the context of the crusher being removed. It is considered that the existing residential properties to the west of the Tata Steel site would need to be carefully considered in any new activity being undertaken on the site and the methodology used in the Reema Road NIA was to demonstrate that if future activities at the Tata Steel Building was causing adverse noise impacts at the new Reema Road development it would also be causing adverse noise impacts at the existing receptors along James Hamilton Drive which it is understood would not be acceptable. The New Acoustics assessment showed that the predicted noise levels at the new Reema Road development was similar or even marginally lower than at the existing James Hamilton Drive receptors thus concluding that if the Tata Steel building was to not cause disturbance at the existing James Hamilton Drive receptors it would also not cause disturbance at the new Reema Road development receptors. However, if the Tata Steel would be louder, as argued by Airshed, it would cause disturbance at both the existing and the new receptors PD Stirling further Representation Page 27 of 34
Page 28
• The Mossend International Railfreight Park (MIRP)(to the north of the application site) has Planning Permission in Principle as well as detailed Matters Specified in Conditions consents for 200,000 square metres of low carbon 24/7 distribution, logistics and manufacturing space based around a railfreight terminal and a new junction onto the A8 to the north which will take haulage traffic off the local Bellshill/Mossend road network. This should be an important material consideration. Comment: Agreed. The surrounding land uses have been fully considered. In their Peer Review Atkins consider this point of objection i.e. that the residential development is proposed in an inappropriate location close to an established and expanding industrial area and as such could curtail existing and future commercial activity. They advise that ‘….it is our professional opinion, that in the Reema Road Consolidated NIA (see Section 2.2) which was drafted after this objection letter, the Residential Development has assessed likely noise impacts and how these will be mitigated. The assessment has included a BS 4142 assessment of daytime and night-time noise from the MIRP Phase 1 noise sources’. • There has been significant funding through the ‘City Deal’ with further funding and business growth incentives available from the newly formed Glasgow City Region Investment Zone. The proposed development would be within 100 metres of the southern boundary of the MIRP and the proposed development would have the potential to restrict the future operational flexibility and adversely affect the attractiveness of the site for inward investment. The ‘Agent of Change’ principle enshrined in the 2019 Planning etc (Scotland) Act and Pan1/2011 which highlights the importance of protecting existing commercial operators which have potential to bring noise to new residential developments are important considerations. Any noise causing statutory nuisance could put the commercial activity of the MIRP at risk. Comment: It is again agreed that these are important considerations in assessing the proposed residential development. The independent Peer Review concluded that the findings of the Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment were appropriately founded in that potential noise levels will be within acceptable limits for future residents due to design amendments, noise mitigation measures and in the context of the crusher being removed. With regards to assessment of noise from the MIRP assessment was undertaken for HGV movements, freight train movements on the proposed new rail tracks, loading and unloading using the Kone Crane and fixed plant noise emanating from the site. Assessment was undertaken for daytime and nighttime noise from the MIRP Phase 1 noise sources. • If consent is granted, it is considered highly likely that the attractiveness of the site for inward investment and job creation will be adversely impacted constraining investment opportunities. Comment: The independent Peer Review concluded that the findings of the Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment were appropriately founded in that potential noise levels will be within acceptable limits for future residents due to design amendments, noise mitigation measures and in the context of the crusher being removed. There is an existing rail terminal and haulage business within the MIRP site. There are existing pockets of residential areas at a similar distance to the MIRP and the vast majority of overall MIRP site well away from application site. In responding to the objection in relation to the potential for the proposed residential development curtailing existing and future commercial activity the Atkins Peer review advises that the residential development has assessed likely noise impacts and how these will be mitigated i.e. the industrial and residential uses can co-exist. Newly submitted Supporting information from applicant The applicant has submitted further supporting information in terms of Porter Planning NPF4 Planning Statement dated October 2023, Report on 20 Minute Neighbourhoods produced by Wilson Developments and Active Transport Strategy Report produced by Wilson Developments. The applicant has more recently submitted further comments regarding the applicable policies in NPF4 (Climate, Low Page 28 of 34
Page 29
Carbon, Digital connectivity and Suicide Prevention). In these submissions the applicant argues that the proposal accords with following NPF4 policies :- Policy 1.Tackling climate change and nature crisis, 2. Climate mitigation and adaption, 3. Biodiversity, 4. Natural Places, 5. Soils, 6. Forestry, woodland and trees, 9. Brownfield Development, 12. Zero Waste, 13 Sustainable Transport, 14. Design, Quality and Places, 15. Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods, 16. Quality Homes, 19. Heating and Cooling, 20. Blue/green infrastructure, 21. Play, Recreation and sport, 22. Flood Risk and water management, 23. Health and safety and 25 Community well being. It is considered that it can be argued that the proposal complies with all of these policies to a greater or lesser extent. It is however considered that policies 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 15, 16, 21 and 23 are of greater significance and therefore greater weight should be put on the assessment of the proposal against these policies. These policies in relation to the proposed development have been assessed in Section 8.2 above and for the reasons outlined in section 8.2 it is considered that the proposal complies with these main policies. 8.8 In terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, in this case the majority of the site is zoned as being within a Business Centre (Industrial Area) with a southern and western edge being retained with in the General Urban Area. The relevant predominant policy being PP 2A (Purpose of Place Policy). This policy states that North Lanarkshire Council will encourage large scale business users to locate to locate in Strategic Business Centres and safeguard their character from dilution by other inappropriate uses and support upgrading premises, amenities, access, parking and green space. The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023 is also of relevance. Policy PP 2A states that when a non-compliant use is proposed within a Strategic Business Centre it has to be demonstrated that it will not detrimentally impact on the attractiveness of the business centre in terms attracting new businesses. In this regard such proposals are required to satisfy the provisions of Policies EDQ1 and EDQ3. With regards to EDQ2 there are no particular hazard zones, utility infrastructure or management areas impacted by the development. Matters such as contamination, ground stability and noise have been considered as part of the detailed assessment of the development. 8.9 It should be noted that the site does not form part of the Council’s Industrial and Business Land supply and is actually within the Council’s Housing Land Supply and is within the Strategic Housing Implementation Plan (SHIP) with a committed housing association with an agreed build out plan. 8.10 When a site is not allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan, NPF4 Policy 16(f) is activated, this policy states that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances where: • the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out • the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods • the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary • the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. The applicant has provided an agreed timetable for build out as part of the submitted Porter Planning supporting statement. A letter has been submitted by Trust Housing Association confirming their commitment to the site and as indicated above they hope to be able to acquire the site from Wilson Developments by 31st March 2024 and this will allow them to enter into a back to back contract with Wilson Developments which would see a site start in Q1 Financial year 2024/25. The site is also on the Council’s Housing Land Allocation (HLA) and therefore could be considered to be consistent with spatial strategy approved by the Council. As discussed above, the proposal is consistent with principles of 20 minute neighbourhoods given the sites proximity to Bellshill and Mossend town centres. The proposal is for a smaller scale residential development within an existing settlement boundary. Also, with regard to the final criteria, the proposal is for less than 50 affordable homes and the site is in the Council’s Strategic Housing Implementation Plan (SHIP). It has also been confirmed that Trust Housing Association will procure and manage the affordable housing. Although not identified as a proposed housing site in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, Page 29 of 34
Page 30
the site is included in the Council’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan. In terms of design quality and residential amenity, the proposal also has to be assessed against the criterial in policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 as well as policy C1(Impact of proposed development and contributions to infrastructure). The Local Development Plan development strategy describes the Council’s vision for the development of land and buildings in North Lanarkshire. It aims to balance the regeneration of communities with growth that is sustainable, considering not only the amount and location of development, but also the impact on communities, and its quality. As set out in the plan’s development strategy, good quality environments need to be protected and community facilities need to be integrated with housing areas to achieve balanced communities that meet their residents’ needs. The plan also indicates that North Lanarkshire has to retain and attract population to be a successful place. This means there has to be enough housing in appropriate locations and in good quality environments to meet housing needs and anticipated demand. It is considered that a residential development on this site will meet these aims. 8.11 Policy EDQ1 (Environmental and Design Qualities – Site Appraisal) requires any proposed development to be appraised in terms of the site and its surroundings and seeks to ensure that the proposed development will successfully integrate into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity. The appraisal requires rigorous assessment against detailed design matters such as height, massing, style etc in order to assess that acceptable levels of amenity can be achieved. In terms of the preceding assessments regarding potential surrounding noise generators and future residents residential amenity, associated design changes, noise mitigation measures, NIAs, the Peer Review and crusher removal, it is considered that the proposal accords with all relevant policies and guidance as described in the preceding paragraphs. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with policy EDQ1. 8.12 Policy EDQ3 (Environmental and Design Qualities – Quality of Development) seeks to ensure that high standards of site planning and sustainable development area achieved. Policy EDQ3 considers more development site specific impacts and provides a range of assessment criteria requiring development proposals to be permitted only where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. With regards to the proposed layout, as amended and illustrated on layout drawing REV F, it is considered that the proposed layout complies with all relevant design standards, although not with the principles of ‘Designing Streets’ mainly due to the shape of the site. It is further considered that the layout is acceptable in terms of there being no amenity issues such as privacy/overlooking that would justify refusing planning permission, adequate access and parking. It is acknowledged the development of the site will result in a change to the existing setting of existing residential properties with the introduction of new houses to the north and on land that sits higher. However, the minimum 18m window to window separation distance is achieved and in most cases exceeded along the boundary with existing dwellings. It is considered that the design and layout of the site will lead to the creation of a distinct, successful place in accordance with the detailed requirements of this policy (siting; overall layout; density; form; scale; height; massing; proportion; detailing; colour; materials) and this should provide a safe, pleasant, inclusive, convenient and welcoming development. With regards to other matters the applicant has provided further information in relation to climate change and moving towards a low carbon economy and information in relation to digital connectivity. For the above reasons, it is considered that the proposal, as amended, complies with the aims of Policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 and a suitable level of residential amenity will be provided for future residents of this site if permission were to be granted. 8.13 Policy CI (Contributions to Infrastructure) considers the impact of the proposed development in terms of its requirements for additional community facilities or infrastructure which is necessary to meet future demands on existing provisions. In this instance, with the exception of a requirement for offsite play which could be secured via a legal agreement if permission were to be granted there are no other identified impacts needing to be addressed. Taking the above matters into account, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policy CI. 8.14 With regard to the majority of consultation responses, it is considered that the issues raised have been addressed by the submission of a revised layout plan regarding the required access visibility splay and that other points can be addressed through the imposition of appropriate conditions. 8.15 NLC Traffic and Transportation has not provided any adverse comments with regard to the proposed layout as revised or to any potential issues regarding the increased mixed industrial and residential traffic along Reema that the proposal would result due to future access and egress from the railfreight terminal to the north coming from a new junction and link road in the A8 to the north which will remove such traffic from Reema Road. NLC in and are satisfied with the findings of Transport Assessment as submitted. Page 30 of 34
Page 31
8.16 With regard to NLC Protective Services response – Potential noise from the 24 hour Mossend International Railfreight Port, the industrial area to the east, the Tata Steel building to the east which is currently vacant but could be re-occupied at any time with any class 5 industrial use without requiring the benefit of any formal planning permission and general road traffic noise. Furthermore, ‘Agent of Change’ legislation in the Planning Act 2019, means that the onus is on the developer (agent of change) to demonstrate that noise implications for potential future residents can be kept within acceptable limits. In this case, NLC Protective Services originally expressed concern about these matters. However, a re- assessment was carried out in response to the submitted revised REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022 Project Ref: 7137, prepared by New Acoustics and in conjunction with the revisions within revised layout revision F and associated mitigations. These changes as described in paragraph 2.1 above as described in layout drawing REV F drawing replaced the originally proposed flats at the eastern end of the southern boundary with five blocks of semis with habitable rooms and bedrooms to the north with non-opening bedroom windows to the south with compensatory opening side gable windows, along with acoustic fencing to the southern (3.2 metres high) and eastern (4.5 metres high) boundaries in order to address noise issues from the adjacent industrial yard to the south. Also, the originally proposed two sets of four terraced dwellings at the north eastern entrance to the site were replaced by two blocks of six flats and finally the block of two semi- detached dwellings nearest to the northern boundary was removed. As a result of these changes and in combination with the revised Noise Impact Assessment, Protective Services has advised that the proposal as revised, this being the revised layout, housing orientation, acoustic fencing and other design mitigations including as proposed window specification when facilitated through appropriate related imposed planning conditions will ensure that the proposed housing development is acceptable in terms of presenting no significant residential amenity issues for future residents in terms of industrial or road traffic noise that would be unacceptable in terms of present standards. It should also be noted that industrial traffic along Reema Road will be significantly reduced when the junction from the A8 and link road is constructed which will ensure all industrial freight traffic related to the MIRP enter and leave the site from this newly formed junction and link road to the north thus ensuring the removal of such traffic from Reema Road. As a result of further representations by neighbouring landowners and businesses regarding the findings of the REEMA ROAD, BELLSHILL, Consolidated Noise Impact Assessment – Rev00, Received 18th January 2022, Project Ref: 7137, Prepared by New Acoustics a Noise Impact Assessment Peer Review was undertaken taking into account the findings of the above consolidated Noise Impact Assessment and all other objections from neighbouring landowners and businesses. This review titled Reema Road Development Acoustic Peer Review dated 21st April 2023 and produced by SNC LAVALIN ATKINS concurred with findings of the consolidated Noise Impact Assessment. It is therefore considered that the proposal, in terms of potential noise amenity issues is compliant with this policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan as well as policy 23(e) of NPF4, Section 25 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, Planning Advice Note (PAN)1/2011 Planning and Noise and also North Lanarkshire Council Planning and Noise Supplementary Guidance September 2023. 8.17 Protective Services are satisfied that potential road noise from haul road to east will be within satisfactory limits as the submitted Swept Path Analysis demonstrates that only up to 7.5 Tonne vehicles can be accommodated on the haul road. 8.18 With regards to the detailed objections made on behalf of surrounding existing operators and landowners as well as the supporting statement from the applicant these points and issues have been noted and taken into consideration. In terms of the objections made by surrounding industrial operators and landowners, the main issue of concern is that the proposal will result in unacceptable levels of residential amenity for future residents caused by noise associated by surrounding industrial uses which is likely to generate complaints from future residents. The objectors point out that such complaints would have to be investigated by the Council’s Pollution Control Team which could undermine the current and future operation of existing surrounding industrial uses. In this regard the future operation of the Mossend International Rail Freight Park development to the north of the site which is of national significance with substantial government funding has the potential to be adversely impacted by the development as would other surrounding uses, including the Tata Steel premises to the east of the site. In such circumstances, they advise that the Council would be open to legal action by the affected businesses for allowing a residential development that could critically affect the operation and viability of the businesses. In responding to these matters NLC Protective Services has advised that the proposal as revised will be acceptable in terms of noise issues as a result of the design changes in association with the revised Noise Impact Assessment. The changes being the revised layout, housing orientation, acoustic fencing and other design mitigations including proposed window specification when facilitated through appropriate planning conditions will ensure that the proposed housing development is Page 31 of 34
Page 32
acceptable in terms of presenting no significant residential amenity issues for future residents in terms of industrial or road traffic noise that would be unacceptable in terms of present standards. NLC Protective Services has also confirmed that any future expansion if the Railfreight Terminal will be within acceptable limits in terms of noise due to the distances involved. 8.19 In terms of the representations made in this regard, namely, representations made on behalf of the Samuel family, representation made on behalf of PD Stirling and the Trustees of I D Meiklam and the representation made by RRR Consultants, it is considered that the design revisions, mitigations and specifications identified in the revised Noise Impact Assessment as described above, when combined with appropriate planning conditions will address the main concerns. In terms of the Tata Steel building and industrial uses to the east, it is considered that the proposed acoustic fencing along the southern and eastern boundaries and the re-orientating through 90 degrees and changing the house types from terraced to semi-detached with living rooms to the north and associated window specifications will ensure satisfactory levels of amenity for future residents. With regards to the concerns of PD Stirling and the Trustees of I D Meiklam (in regard to the Mossend International Railfreight Port to the north) it is considered that the design changes being the removal of the most northerly proposed dwellings adjacent to the northern boundary of the site as well as changing from 2 rows of four terraced houses to two blocks of 6 no flats at the northern entrance to the site and associated window specifications will ensure satisfactory levels of amenity for future residents at this part of the site as well. The further representations submitted have been assessed in section 8.7 above. 8.20 With regard to the other points of objection, these can be addressed as follows:- • Impact on privacy caused by proposed flats overlooking existing residential area to the south. Response: It is acknowledged the development of the site will result in a change to the existing setting of existing residential properties with the introduction of new houses to the north and on land that sits higher. However, the minimum 18m window to window separation distance is achieved and in most cases exceeded along the boundary with existing dwellings, Furthermore, all proposed flats as amended are two storey and of a traditional design which will assist in this regard. • Impact on wildlife, trees and habitat caused by the proposal. Response: NLC Greenspace was consulted and was satisfied that the relevant reports as submitted but however advised that a suspensive condition be imposed regarding the requirement for a new bat survey should no related development commenced within one year of the previous survey which resulted in no bat activity being evidenced. • Increased traffic caused by development along with existing HGV traffic would have road safety issues. Response: NLC Traffic and Transportation are satisfied that this will not present an issue in the light of the footway being provided along the northern frontage of the site on the southern side of Reema Road as well as the fact that HGV traffic will soon be entering and existing the railfreight site to the north via a new junction and link road at the A8. • Noise/dirt caused by building site disturbance. Response: It is agreed that construction work will involve such issues these are temporary in nature and which are managed with acceptable limits under separate environmental health legislation. • Development will result in drainage issues for existing residents to the south. Response: The proposed development is designed with integrated Sustainable Urban Drainage principles, the details of which can be conditioned. • A future Phase 2 development is proposed which would exacerbate issues above. Response: The acceptability or otherwise of this would be assessed under a separate planning application. Page 32 of 34
Page 33
• Part of the application site is owned by the residents of James Hamilton Drive. Response: This is a private legal matter and not a material planning consideration. • No Playpark Proposed. Response: This is recognised and can dealt with via means of a Legal agreement facilitating a commuted sum of money from the developer to go to upgrading nearby existing facilities in lieu of on- site provision • Proposed Flats imposing 5 storey. Response: All proposed flats, as amended are 2 storey and it is considered that distances between the proposed flats and existing dwellings to the south will ensure a satisfactory relationship is achieved. • No Internal footpath links proposed with existing residential area to the south. Response: This is recognised and considered to be impractical in terms of its procurement, However, an appropriate footpath link will be provided along the site frontage to link into the existing network. • Site is on contaminated land. Response: It is recognised that due to the history of the site that there are likely to be some contaminants on site. NLC Protective Services has therefore recommended a detailed site investigation and any associated remedial works be conditioned as part of any consent. 9 Conclusions 9.1 The determining factor in this case is considered to be whether or not the development of this site can satisfy the criteria stated within Policy 16 of NPF4. Part (f) of this policy relates to the building of houses on land not allocated for this purpose in the local development plan. Of note is that the application site is included within the Council’s Housing Land Supply and is not in the Council’s Industrial and Business Land Supply. The site is an identified site within the Council’s Strategic Housing Implementation Plan SHIP with a committed housing association and there is an agreed build out plan for the site thus complying with the criteria in Policy 16(f) of NPF4. In addition, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the plans spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods. With regards to the Local Development Plan the proposal, as revised, on balance, represents an acceptable non-compliant use in terms of policy PP2 A in particular it is not considered that this development will undermine the attractiveness of the strategic industrial business centre. As indicated above the site is also included in the Council’s Vacant and Derelict Land Schedule. The proposal would result in the re-use of a brownfield site which has been unsuccessfully marketed for business and industry uses for a number of years. The proposal therefore complies with Policy 9 of NPF4. Furthermore, that it complies with policies CI, EDQ1 and EDQ3 of the NLLDP and all other relevant policies within NPF4 as fully discussed above. As such it is recommended that planning permission be granted 9.2 It should be noted that if Committee is minded to grant this application that Planning Permission cannot be granted until the satisfactory conclusion of a legal agreement with regard to a financial contributions for off site play provision in lieu of on site provision of £250 per flat and £500 per dwelling. Page 33 of 34
Page 34
Page 34 of 34