Agenda Document Pack - Planning Committee - 12/09/2024
North Lanarkshire Council · 12 September 2024
Back to Planning Committee — 12 September 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
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 Meeting of the Planning Committee is to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, ML1 1AB on Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 10:00 AM 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, B Baudo, G Brennan, B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, T Carragher, M Coyle, S Coyle, K Docherty, T Fisher, M Hughes, L Jarvie, T Johnston, J Logue, H Loughran, C McManus, M McPake, A McVey, L Mitchell, J Reddin, D Robb, A Smith, G Woods. Page 1 of 70
Page 2
Page 2 of 70
Page 3
Agenda 1 Declarations of Interest In Terms of the Ethical Standards In Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 2 Planning Applications Index Submit Planning Applications Index 5 - 70 Page 3 of 70
Page 4
Page 4 of 70
Page 5
North Lanarkshire Council Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee Committee Date: 12th September 2024 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved Item 2 Page 5 of 70
Page 6
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 12th September 2024 Page No Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation 8-17 23/01189/FUL Mr Ronnie Chalmers Extension to Dog Kennels and Retrospective Change of use Dog Day Care Facility Grant 18-33 24/00144/FUL Mr John Hannigan Holiday Lodge Development Comprising 65 Holiday Units, Managers House and Agricultural Shed Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld G67 4AE Refuse 34-48 24/00208/PPP Grimaldi Developments Residential Development and Associated Infrastructure (Application for Planning Permission in Principle) Land At Coltness Avenue Allanton Refuse (P) 49-57 24/00622/S42 Baynes Co. Ltd Application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to Amend the Wording of Condition 16 (Operating Hours) of Planning Permission 23/00668/FUL Site Of Former Willowbank School 299 Bank Street Coatbridge ML5 1EG Refuse 58-69 24/00709/FUL WB Properties Scotland Ltd Two Detached Houses Land At Hawthorn Avenue Crindledyke Newmains Refuse Page 6 of 70
Page 7
(P) 24/00208/PPP - If minded to grant, planning permission should not be issued until a legal agreement has been secured in relation to the education contribution. Page 7 of 70
Page 8
Application No: 23/01189/FUL Proposed Development: Extension to dog kennels and retrospective change of use doggy day care facility Site Address: Woodend Farm Dullatur Road Westerwood Cumbernauld G65 0PZ Date Registered: 22nd November 2023 Applicant: Mr Ronnie Chalmers Woodend Farm Dullatur Road Westerwood Cumbernauld G65 0PZ Agent: ADR (Design) Ltd Mr David Rose 5 Tak Ma Doon Road Kilsyth G65 0RS Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 01 Kilsyth Jean Jones, Heather Brannan-McVey, Denis Johnston Representations: 26 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve (Subject to Conditions) Reasoned Justification: The proposed extension to dog kennels and retrospective part change of use is acceptable as it could be accommodated within the site without adversely affecting the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or residential character of the surrounding area. As such, the proposal accords with the policy provisions of NPF4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 Page 8 of 70
Page 9
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 23/01189/FUL Name (of applicant): Mr Ronnie Chalmers Site Address: Woodend Farm Dullatur Road Westerwood Cumbernauld G65 0PZ Development: Extension to dog kennels and retrospective change of use doggy day care facility Page 9 of 70
Page 10
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To clarify the documents on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 3. That the day care part of the business, for which planning permission is hereby granted, shall take place only between the hours of 0800 and 1800 on Monday to Friday with a maximum number of 10 dogs. Reason: Reason: To define the permission. 4. That the maximum number of dogs looked after shall be limited to 50, this number applies only between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00, at all other times the maximum is 40 dogs. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding residents. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) dated 22 November 2023, 29 January 2024 and 5 August 2024. Contact Information: Alex Reid at 01236 632487 or planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 22 August 2024 Page 10 of 70
Page 11
APPLICATION NO. 23/01189/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located at Woodend Equestrian Centre which is accessed from Dullatur Road on the eastern edge of Kilsyth. The site includes numerous buildings relating to the riding centre itself and also the existing kennels. The Equestrian Centre and Kennels are situated on flat land which is screened to the east by a wooded hillock, and to the west (and to a lesser degree) by a row of trees alongside a watercourse. There is another burn to the east and both watercourses feed into the canal. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for additional kennels and a retrospective part change of use for doggy day care. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The application is for an extension to the existing dog kennels that was approved under planning ref: 19/00069/FUL. The site currently holds 10 kennels, it is proposed to have an additional 14 kennels taking the total from 10 to 24 kennels with a new reception area. There is no planning restriction on numbers and the site is currently licenced for 20 dogs (it is possible to board 2 dogs in one kennel if they are from the same household). 3.2 The location of the proposed extension is on the south-west side of the existing kennels building. The new entrance to the kennels is via the proposed extension on the south-west side of the building. 3.3 The width of the proposed extension is 8.9m and 27.7m in length. With these dimensions the floor space of the extension is 246.53 sqm. The height of the eaves is 3m and the total height is 3.7m. 3.4 The finishing materials for the proposed kennel extension are: • Plastic coated profile aluminium cladding, green in colour to match existing. • Profile roof sheeting and translucent rooflights. • Aluminium box gutters and downpipes. 3.5 A site investigation was conducted. The site is considered low risk on coal mine gas, very low risk of surface water and low on risk from site soils meaning no further investigation is required. 3.6 A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was carried out. It advises that the sound emanating from the existing kennels and proposed extension have been analysed both outside and inside the most exposed of the houses, it was found the noise levels are within the suggested limits. The assessment was carried out in accordance with the Scottish Government’s publication Planning Advice Note 1/2011: Planning and Noise (PAN1/2011). This in turn refers to Technical Advice Note 2011: Assessment of Noise (TAN 2011) for technical guidance on sound assessment. The noise is assessed against the BS4142:2014 rating system. 3.7 It is worth noting that NLC pollution control are satisfied with these findings. More information on this can be found under the consultation section of this report. Page 11 of 70
Page 12
3.8 Further details of the business and how it would operate were submitted by the applicant. It is proposed to have the ability to hold a maximum of 50 dogs at the premises. Of this number a total of 10 dogs would be assigned to the daycare part of the business operation. The remaining 40 dogs would be assigned to the kennels side of the business. The applicant has advised that 20 of the kennels would be able to accommodate 2 dogs from the same household and 4 kennels would for single dogs only. 3.9 Although the kennels would in theory have the ability to hold a maximum of 50 dogs, it is most unlikely the kennels would ever operate at this maximum capacity. For this to occur the 20 ‘double’ kennels would have to booked by customers that had 2 dogs in their household (only dogs from the same household would ever share a kennel). Having viewed the bookings diary for the existing kennels business the planning service is satisfied that the kennels will seldom, if ever operate at full capacity. As detailed above, the business has a licence for 20 dogs to be boarded at any one time and the bookings viewed showed that this was not the norm. A busy period (as identified by the business themselves) was viewed and this showed that the maximum in the kennels over the course of a week was 14 dogs in the kennels 29/04/2024 – 10 dogs (all kennels) 30/04/2024 – 12 dogs (5 in kennels, 7 in daycare) 01/05/2024 – 10 dogs (5 in kennels, 5 in daycare) 02/05/2024 – 16 dogs (10 kennels, 6 daycare) 03/05/2024 – 20 dogs (14 kennels 6 daycare) 04-05/2024 – 13 dogs (All kennels) Further information was provided by Hotel K9 advising, that, depending on the time of year, the number of dogs on site varies. The dog numbers listed below are an average number in kennels and the day care part of the business by quarter. January – March - 3 to 8 dogs per day April – June 10 to 12 dogs per day July – September 15 to 18 dogs per day October to December 8 to 10 dogs per day. 3.10 In order to help reduce any unwanted noise from the dogs, the owner has put in place certain procedures, detailed below. • Customers can drop off dogs using the kennel at specific times. These are limited to twice a day. These times are strictly limited to 0800 to 1000 and 1600 to 1800. • Previously new clients visited the premises on a Sunday afternoon. This however changed to Friday mornings as of 5th April 2024. • The dogs also get walked through Carron Valley and not at the canal in a bid to reduce meetings of other dogs that may cause unwanted barking for the local residents. • The proposed extension has a fence between the kennels and exercise area, this is in aid to help keep dogs calm while inside the kennels. 3.11 The dog daycare part of the business is situated in the north-west corner of the existing building. 3.12 The operating details of doggy day care are as follows. • Daycare is open Monday-Friday • Opening hours are 8am-6pm • Maximum of 10 dogs per day Page 12 of 70
Page 13
• One member of staff is present to attend to the daycare dogs. • Only available to existing customers. 3.13 The applicant has stated that the above information is the standard rules of their daycare, however, they do not usually have dogs in all 5 days per week and rarely have 10 dogs in a day. They are predominantly a kennel and offer daycare as an extra to their existing customers. 4. Site History • 05/00042/FUL Conversion of Steading to Form a Total of 10 Dwellinghouses and Relocation and Construction of Buildings to Form Equestrian Centre granted 17th May 2005 • 15/00061/FUL Erection of Detached Dwelling (Managers House for Woodend Equestrian Centre and Farm) granted 10th March 2016 • 19/00069/FUL Commercial Dog Boarding Kennels (Partially Retrospective) granted 20th June 2019 5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) adopted on the 13th February 2023 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (LDP) adopted 2022. 5.2 Relevant NPF4 Policies are Policy 8 (Greenbelt), Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and Policy 28 (Rural Development). With regards to the LDP the site is allocated as green belt so policy PP4 (Greenbelt) and AD4 Policy (Amount of Development) apply. EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) are also relevant. 6. Consultations 6.1 NLC Pollution Control were consulted on 22 November 2023. A response was received on 2 December 2023 advising that an up-to-date Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) be provided along with a full site investigation report (SI). 6.2 The required reports were received on 6 February 2024; a further consultation request was issued on 29 January 2024 to NLC Pollution Control. A response was received on 21 February 2024 advising they found the report satisfactory. It is also noted NLC Pollution Control officers have been investigating noise complaints, however, no statutory nuisance has been found to date. 6.3 The initial NIA report was reviewed by David Chapman Principle Acoustic Consultant on behalf of one of the objectors. It was his view that the assessment was not carried out to the appropriate standard and the individual conducting the assessment did not hold the correct qualification. This information was submitted to NLC Pollution Control for comment. After reviewing the report further, a response from NLC Pollution Control was received on 9 May 2024, advising a new report should be required and carried out by an individual who holds a recognised acoustic qualification. It was agreed before the new NIA was carried out that a proposed methodology would be sent to, and agreed, by NLC Pollution Control. The methodology was approved by NLC Pollution Control on 13 June 2024. 6.4 A revised NIA was received 19 July 2024. A further consultation request was issued to NLC Pollution Control on 22 July 2024. A response was received on 5 August 2024 concluding that the barking from the existing kennels and day care is within the guidelines and the noise from the proposed development will also be within the guidelines, therefore, no noise Page 13 of 70
Page 14
mitigation measures are deemed necessary. The report advises that if barking was to occur, the levels that would be experienced inside nearby houses both at night and during the day would be within appropriate limits. The nature of the maximum sound levels is such that they will not increase proportionally to the number of dogs. This is because they are due to the individual barks. 6.5. Once again, this revised NIA was reviewed by David Chapman on behalf of an objector. The review was sent to NLC Pollution Control for commenting on 22 August. A response was received 29 August 2024. They advise that there is currently no approved procedure for assessing alleged noise nuisance emanating from dog barking in dog kennels in the UK. As a result, the methodology employed by local authorities and noise consultants when carrying out assessments varies considerably. Each assessor will use their own knowledge and experience to try to assess the impact on noise sensitive receptors. Inevitably, there will be differences of opinion between different assessors on what methodology they think should be used. As different types of dogs produce different types and levels of sound over variable and random time periods, unlike constant noise from a piece of machinery, it can be difficult to predict the level of impact and consequently difficult to prove statutory nuisance. That is one reason NLC Pollution Control do not assess dog barking from domestic premises. 6.6 NLC Pollution Control also advise that officers from this service have attended the site on numerous occasions for up to an hour at a time and have not witnessed any dog barking associated with the K9 Hotel. They advise that some complainants have been unhelpful when they have been trying to gather evidence. They were unable to provide times of occurrence despite being asked to keep a diary and were unwilling at times to turn on the noise meter which had been provided to allow evidence to be gathered. One complainant advised that any night noise would probably not be picked up by our meter inside the house. All complainants were advised of the simplest way to pursue dog barking complaints, i.e. through the Justice of The Peace Court and all declined to attempt this. 6.7 Whilst acknowledging that in the absence of an approved methodology for assessing such developments, differences of opinion will continue. That said, NLC Pollution Control are satisfied with both the report itself but also its conclusions i.e. that they do not object to the development, nor do they require any noise mitigation measures. They advise that noise associated with the existing development and the proposed extension is within the current noise guidelines. 7. Representations 7.1. No neighbours were notified due to no neighbouring boundary lines within 20m buffer of the proposed development. 7.2 An advert was placed in Cumbernauld News/Kilsyth Chronicles, which was published on 6 December 2023. Due to the advert, 26 letters of objection were received. The objections raised can be summarised as follows. • Noise from dogs barking • Deliberate non-compliance with Planning re dog day care. Started July 2019. • Historic Noise Impact Assessment submitted. • Intentionally excluded from Neighbour Notifications for planning applications. • No acknowledgment or response that the business has been subject of an Enforcement Order in 2023. • Increase in traffic would have a detrimental effect on the area. • Extension is within a high flood risk area. Page 14 of 70
Page 15
8. Planning Assessment 8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. 8.2 NPF4 forms part of the development plan; given the nature and scale of this development, the most relevant considerations are already enshrined in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan policies (assessed below). The policies within NPF4 that are relevant to the application include Policy 8 (Greenbelt) Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), Policy 28 (Rural Development) Policy 8 (Greenbelt): Development proposals within a green belt designated within the LDP will only be supported in certain circumstances. For example, if they are for development associated with agriculture, woodland creation or forestry related or, as in this particular case, the development relates to it is an intensification of established uses. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place): Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale Policy 28 (Rural Development): Development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported which includes diversification of existing businesses. 8.3 Assessment: The existing kennels were granted planning permission in 2019, Planning ref 19/00069/FUL. It is viewed that Policy 8 and Policy 28 within NPF4, support this application as the proposal is an intensification of an established use and it is regarded as a diversification of an existing business. The design and location have been assessed against Policy 14 of NPF4 (and the EDQ policies in the LDP) and it is deemed appropriate in scale and nature within a rural location 8.4 The proposal must comply with policies set out in PP4 (Greenbelt) and AD4 Policy (Amount of Development) within the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2022. PP4 Greenbelt Policy aims to protect the green belt area through restricting development to acceptable types which shall have a positive economic benefit whilst minimising any adverse environmental impacts. EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) are also relevant as these policies consider issues such as massing, height, style, finishing materials of any building, as well as orientation and topography of the site. 8.5 Assessment: The proposed extension and day care application has been assessed against the above policies. As the kennels already exist within the boundary of Woodend Riding Centre it is viewed that the proposal will not have any adverse environmental impact stated in Policy PP4. The orientation and design of the proposed kennels were taken into consideration. The proposed kennels face away from the residential properties and the extension matches the existing building in height, style and facing materials which is supported by EDQ1 and EDQ3. With regards to the potential noise impacts of the development these have been assessed in detail through the submission of a Noise Impact Assessment the findings of which have been accepted by NLC Pollution Control. 8.6 The proposal is considered to comply with the development plan. 8.7 The matters raised in the letters of representation are addressed in turn below. Page 15 of 70
Page 16
• Noise from dogs barking Comment: While it is noted that there is noise created by dogs within the existing kennels. The findings of the Noise Impact Assessment NIA show that daytime noise levels produced at the closest dwellings because of uncontrolled constant barking of multiple dogs in the open air are of marginal significance according to the BS4122 rating system. Nighttime noise levels were found to be well below the external and internal noise levels that are recommended. It is also noted that not all noise created by dogs barking within the area is from the kennels. There is a walking trail at the canal is a well-used spot for dog walkers. • Deliberate Non-compliance with Planning Re Dog Day Care which started in July 2019. Comment: An enforcement case was created after receiving correspondence from Councillor Heather Brannan-McVey regarding noise exacerbated by doggy day care. While investigating the complaint, it was brought to our attention the owner thought the day care was covered by the same class use as kennels. Retrospective planning permission has been sought for the day care element of the business. • Historic Noise Impact Assessment Comment: One of the original documents submitted with the planning application was the Noise Impact Assessment NIA dated 2019. An up-to-date assessment was received on 6 February 2024, which was used as part of the planning assessment. • Intentionally excluded from Neighbour Notifications for planning applications. Comment: Standard procedure for neighbour notification is to notify any neighbour that is within a 20m buffer from the proposed development. In this instance, no property boundaries are within this distance, therefore no residents were notified within this process. The application was advertised in the local press • No acknowledgment or response that the business has been subject of an Enforcement Order in 2023. Comment: It should be noted that the enforcement case raised in 2023, ref 23/00130/COMP is still ongoing pending the outcome of the current planning application. No enforcement order is currently in place and no formal enforcement action has been taken. • Increase in traffic would have a detrimental effect on the area. Comment: It is viewed that there will be no significant increase in traffic. • Extension is within a high flood risk area. Comment: As stated in the Site Investigation Report. The site is considered to be very low risk of surface water flooding. 8.8 As covered in the consultation section above, one of the objectors commissioned their own noise consultant to assess the noise impact assessment reports submitted in support of the application. On both occasions the reports submitted by David Chapman were passed to NLC Pollution Control for comment/review. NLC Pollution Control did agree that the first report was unsatisfactory and that a revised NIA was required. They agreed the scope and Page 16 of 70
Page 17
signed off on the methodology for this report. Notwithstanding, they were asked for comment on David Chapman’s comments on the shortcomings and conclusions of this second NIA report. NLC Pollution Control are satisfied with both the report itself but also its conclusions i.e. that they do not object to the development, nor do they require any noise mitigation measures. They advise that noise associated with the existing development and the proposed extension is within the current noise guidelines. With regards to the recommended planning conditions restrictions have been put in place to control overall numbers to be boarded at the extended premises and also maximum numbers of dogs in doggy day care. This alongside the operational practices of the business should mean that impacts arising from the development are within acceptable limits. 9. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, considering all the circumstances relevant to this application, the proposed kennel extension and retrospective change of use to doggy daycare is considered acceptable. The proposal will not have a detrimental effect the green belt or on local residential amenity. As such it is recommended that planning permission granted subject to conditions. Page 17 of 70
Page 18
Application No: 24/00144/FUL Proposed Development: Holiday lodge development comprising 65 holiday units, manager’s house and agricultural shed Site Address: Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld North Lanarkshire G67 4AE Date Registered: 12th March 2024 Applicant: Mr John Hannigan Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld North Lanarkshire G67 4AE Agent: Planning Services UK Mr Philip Landa The Circle Westerwood Business Park 69-71 Aberdalgie Road Glasgow G34 9HJ Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 08 Airdrie North Alan Beveridge, Sophia Coyle, Henry Emerson Dunbar, Richard Alan Sullivan Representations: 92 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: The proposed development would represent an unacceptable departure to the Green Belt policies within both NFP 4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The development is poorly located in terms of access to amenities and public transport. Any benefits from the development would be insufficient to merit the approval of planning permission. Page 18 of 70
Page 19
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 24/00144/FUL Name (of applicant): Mr John Hannigan Site Address: Coathill Farm Stirling Road, Luggiebank Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire G67 4AE Development: Holiday lodge development comprising 65 holiday units, manager’s house and agricultural shed Page 19 of 70
Page 20
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons: - 1. That the proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policy PP 4 and AD 4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and policy 8 Green belts of NPF 4. In particular, the development would result in the suburbanisation of the site resulting in an adverse impact on the character, appearance, and function of the Green Belt. No adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated to merit a departure from the development plan. 2. That even if the proposed development were to be considered to be acceptable in principle in the Green Belt (as already indicated in reason 1, it is not acceptable in principle), the proposed development would be contrary to NPF 4 policies 13 (Sustainable Transport), 29 Rural Development and 30 (Tourism) in that it will be primarily accessed by private vehicles rather than by more sustainable modes of transport. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Scottish Water The Coal Authority Health and Safety Executive Scottish Gas Network Archaeology Service Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) Traffic & Transportation Assistant Community Partnership Manager NLC Greenspace Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Patricia Beaton at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk. Report Date: 28th August 2024 Page 20 of 70
Page 21
APPLICATION NO. 24/00144/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located to the south of Luggiebank and the Glenhove Reservoir and is approximately 6.4 hectares in size and is accessed from Stirling Road via Coathill Farm Road. Coathill Farm Road is an unadopted single track private road without footways or streetlighting. The application site is currently in agricultural use with the majority of the site being agricultural fields. The site also contains an existing detached dwellinghouse, agricultural buildings and hard standing. Whilst the existing detached dwellinghouse is to be retained, the agricultural buildings and hard standing on site are to be removed. Directly adjacent to the application site boundary to the north is a converted former steading building (known as 1 to 3 Coathill Farm). These buildings are outwith the application site. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The applicant proposes a holiday lodge development comprising of the construction of 65 holiday units (lodges), a manager’s house and agricultural shed. The applicant also proposes road improvements and other infrastructure associated with the development. 2.2 The proposed 65 holiday lodges will consist of a mix of two- and three-bedrooms chalets each would have raised decking. The proposed two-bedroom chalet will be approximately 11.2m long and 4.4m wide (5.9m wide including raised decking). The proposed three- bedroom chalet will be approximately 12.9m long and 4.4m wide (5.9m wide including raised decking). It is indicated that the holiday lodges are intended for use by tourists rather than as permanent residential lodge accommodation. 2.3 The proposed manager’s house (which the applicant also refers to as a farmhouse) and agricultural building will be located at the west of the application site. The proposed manager’s house will be one and a half storey dwellinghouse with integral garage (with annex living accommodation above). including three bedrooms and three bathrooms. The agricultural building will have a footprint of approximately 200sqm. 2.4 The proposed development also includes SUDs, upgrades to Coathill Farm Road, children’s play areas and the creation of a large area of open space to the north of the application site. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The Applicant has submitted the following in support of the application: • Architectural Drawings • Preliminary Ecological Assessment (With Updated Addendum) • Planning Statement • Noise Impact Assessment • Visibility Splay Statement • Design and Access Statement • Strategic Development and Community Impact document • Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits document • Sustainable Development Proposal Aligned with council Motto document • Sustainable Transport report • Sustainable travel proposal document • Financial Viability Document Page 21 of 70
Page 22
• Response to public objections was also received. 4. Site History 4.1 A major development application (22/01225/FUL) for Holiday lodges (65 units), farmhouse, enabling residential development (18 units), agricultural building and road improvements and associated infrastructure was submitted by the applicant in October 2022. As part of the applicant’s submission for this application, it was advised that the residential development of 18 units was required to cross fund the proposed holiday lodge development. This application was subsequently refused by Planning Committee on 25th May 2023. 4.2 Planning application 22/01225/FUL was refused by Planning Committee for the following reasons: a) That the proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policy PP 4 and AD 4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and policy 8 Green Belts of NPF 4. In particular, the development would result in the suburbanisation of the site resulting in an adverse impact on the character, appearance and function of the Green Belt. No adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated to merit a departure from the development plan. b) That the proposed development is contrary to Housing Development Sites policy PROM LOC 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and policy 16 Quality Homes of NPF 4, in that the residential aspect of the proposed development does not fall meet the criteria outlined in policy PROM LOC 3 and policy 16 which would justify residential development on this Green Belt site. c) That even if the proposed development were to be considered to be acceptable in principle in the Green Belt (as already indicated in reason 1, it is not acceptable in principle), the proposed development would be contrary to NPF 4 policies 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation), Local Living and 20 minute neighbourhoods (15), and Tourism (30) in that it will be primarily accessed by private vehicles rather than by more sustainable modes of transport 4.3 Following this refusal, the applicant appealed the decision to the DPEA (Planning and Environmental Appeals Division). Following the appropriate process the Reporter concluded ‘… that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan, being NPF4 Policies 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 29 and 30, and LDP Policies PP4 and AD4. There are no material considerations which would still justify granting planning permission.’ The date of this decision was 28th December 2023. 4.4 It should be noted that the current application being assessed a re-submission of the development previously refused by both Planning Committee and the DPEA with the 18 enabling residential dwellings removed. 4.5 Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the conversion of the farm steading at Coathill Farm to form 3 dwellinghouses (known as 1 to 3 Coathill Farm). Subsequent applications for detached garages and extensions to the converted steading were received between 2005 and 2007. Whilst 1 to 3 Coathill Farm are out with the application site, these properties also access Stirling Road from Coathill Farm Road. 4.6 Planning permission was granted on 8th January 2018 for a detached double garage with adjoining carport and rear decking to Coathill Farm. Page 22 of 70
Page 23
5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan consists of the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) (published on 13th February 2023) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP) (adopted on 6th July 2022). 5.2 The following NPF4 policies are considered to be relevant: 5.3 NPF 4 policy 3 Biodiversity sets out criteria how development proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, and development proposals for major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the plans will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. 5.4 NPF4 policy 8 Green belt seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate compact urban growth and use the land around our towns and cities sustainably and to ensure the following outcomes: • Development is directed to the right locations, urban density is increased and unsustainable growth is prevented. • The character, landscape, natural setting and identity of settlements is protected and enhanced. • Nature networks are supported and land is managed to help tackle climate change. 5.5 NPF4 policy 13 Sustainable Transport sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 5.6 NPF4 policy Rural Development 29 supports development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported under certain circumstances which includes supporting existing uses and diversification 5.7 NPF4 policy Tourism 30 supports development proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation, including caravan and camping sites, in locations identified in the LDP, will be supported. 5.8 The following policies are relevant within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: • PP4 Greenbelt • AD4 Amount of Development • Policies PP 2C and AD 2C Visitor Economy Areas • Policy PROT A Category A5 • EDQ 1, 2, 3 assess the Environmental and Design Qualities 5.9 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP) identifies the application site as part of the Green Belt under policies PP 4 and AD 4 Green Belt. This policy sets out that the council seeks to support developments for agriculture, forestry, recreation, or developments that need a non-urban location. The purpose of the Green Belt is to protect the setting of communities, support regeneration by directing growth to urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high quality environment. 5.10 NLLDP policies PP 2C and AD 2C Visitor Economy Areas and Locations supports proposals that cater for leisure and tourism. Striking an appropriate balance between the benefits from sustainable economic growth and any impacts arising that could compromise the character of an area or location may require suitable mitigation. Page 23 of 70
Page 24
5.11 NLLDP policy PROT A Category 5 is also applicable proposals will only be supported for proposals potentially affecting Local Sites if it can be demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that there will be no adverse impact or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact 5.12 The NLLDP requires that all proposed development be assessed against policies EDQ 1 (Site appraisal) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development). EDQ 1 – Site Appraisal EDQ 2 – Specific Features for Consideration EDQ 3 – Quality of Development These three polices look for proposed developments to create a successful place or enhance existing places by integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to neighbouring amenity. To do this a range of criteria is listed within these polices which includes amongst other things aspects of design, massing, materials, topography and aspects to protect the existing urban area and its specific characteristics, assets and attributes. They consider hazardous zones, utilities infrastructure and management areas and look to promote biodiversity and the environment whilst meeting the challenges of the climate change via suitable and safe access for all users to promote sustainable public travel or for example the provision of electrical charge points where the car is still a requirement. 6. Consultations 6.1 Scottish Water has advised that they have no objections to this application. 6.2 The Coal Authority has advised that the application site falls within the Coal Authority’s defined Development Low Risk Area. On this basis the Coal Authority had no specific comments to make. The Coal Authority has requested that, if this application is approved, the Coal Authority’s Standing Advice note should be drawing to the applicant’s attention as an informative. 6.3 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was consulted on this application due to the proximity to a high pressure pipeline. The HSE has confirmed that it does not advise against the granting of planning permission in this case. 6.4 Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) was consulted and initially advised that it objected to the application due to the proximity of the proposed development to SGN’s high pressure pipeline. Following discussions between SGN and the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, SGN has withdrawn their objection. However should the application be approved, an informative advising the applicant to contact SGN prior to any development works taking place would be added to any permission. 6.5 The council’s Archaeological Service has advised that the proposed development has the potential to damage previously unknown archaeological remains. Any permission should include conditions in relation to the submission of a Written Scheme of Investigation and the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. 6.6 NLC’s Pollution Control Service has no objections to this application and has advised that conditions should be attached to any permission in relation to site investigations and remediation works. The Noise Impact Assessment (previously submitted as part of application 22/01225/FUL) has been resubmitted as part of this current application. NLC’s Pollution Control has advised that the findings of the Noise Impact Assessment are Page 24 of 70
Page 25
acceptable and can be applied to the development proposed in this current application. No conditions in relation to noise impact are required. 6.7 NLC’s Roads Development Service has advised that they have no objection to this application. A visibility splay of 2.4m x 160m is required in both directions of the development access on Stirling Road and a condition requiring the implementation of this visibility splay should be attached to any permission. The Roads Development Service has also advised that as the proposed development takes access from a private road, this road will not be considered for adoption by the council. 6.8 NLC’s Community Partnership Team (dealing with play provision) has advised that as the holiday park is intended as a private leisure destination where the maintenance and liability of the play area(s) are expected to remain the responsibility of the facility operator. Should this application be approved conditions requiring the submission of a full specification for each proposed Local Equipped Area for Play should be attached to any permission. 6.9 NLC’s Greenspace Development Service has advised that it accepts the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Updated Addendum. Conditions requiring mitigation measures and enhancement measures should be attached to any permission. In addition, a condition requiring a further updated Preliminary Ecological Assessment to be submitted should no development being undertaken within 12 months of any permission should also be included. Furthermore, Greenspace Development has welcomed the inclusion of landscaping and potential biodiversity enhancements within the proposed development. Should this application be approved conditions requiring a full scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to be submitted for approval and its implementation should be attached to any permission. 7 Representations 7.1 A total of 92 representations were received including 45 objections and 45 comments of support being received (including several from the same household) during the neighbour notification and advertisement period for this application. In addition a further 2 representations were received after the neighbour notification and advertisement period had ended. 7.2 In summary, the objections to this application raise concerns in the following areas: • proposed development is contrary to planning policy as the site is located within the Green Belt and is not in keeping with the surrounding area or the natural environment of where it is being situated. • impacts to existing natural habitats, nearby Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation and nature reserves and wildlife (including bats, barn owls and deer) should this application be permitted. • the safety of the proposed access to the site from Stirling Road, the use of Coathill Farm Road and the lack on footways and streetlights on these roads and other surrounding roads • potential noise and light pollution from the proposed development and traffic associated with it as well as concerns regarding the suitability of the site in relation to its mining and contamination history. • lack of infrastructure to serve the proposed development such as sewage and water, as well as the impact on the application site’s existing natural drainage 7.3 Other issues were raised; however, they are not material planning considerations. These include concerns such as the potential impact on property values, potential disruption to local Page 25 of 70
Page 26
residents should development be approved especially during the construction, anti-social behaviour as well as the potential impact on existing tourist accommodation providers. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The assessment will therefore identify the development plan policies relevant to the proposal and will make an assessment based on these policies along with other material considerations. National Planning Framework 4 8.2 NPF 4 policy 3 Biodiversity sets out criteria by which proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, and development proposals for major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that it will conserve, restore, and enhance biodiversity. The development is located outwith any designated nature conservation sites but would include proposals for the creation of open space, landscaping, hedgerows, and a wildflower meadow. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (with Updated Addendum) was submitted as part of this application. NLC’s Greenspace Development Service has advised that it accepts the findings of these and that conditions requiring mitigation measures and enhancement measures should be attached to any permission. A condition requiring a further updated Preliminary Ecological Assessment to be submitted should no development being undertaken within 12 months of any permission should also be attached to any permission. Furthermore, Greenspace Development has welcomed the inclusion of landscaping and potential biodiversity enhancements within the proposed development. Should this application be approved conditions requiring a full scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to be submitted for approval and its implementation should be attached to any permission. On assessment, it is considered that the proposed development could be sufficiently compatible with the Biodiversity policy (3) within NPF 4. 8.3 NPF 4 policy 8 (Green Belts) in relation to the holiday lodges, it is noted that development proposals will only be supported if they accord with a list of criteria. One of these is “outdoor recreation, play and sport or leisure and tourism uses; and developments that provide opportunities for access to the open countryside (including routes for active travel and core paths).” The development does come under this, however, the policy goes on to say that additional requirements must also be met namely: • reasons are provided as to why a green belt location is essential and why it cannot be located on an alternative site outwith the green belt; • the purpose of the green belt at that location is not undermined; • the proposal is compatible with the surrounding established countryside and landscape character; • the proposal has been designed to ensure it is of an appropriate scale, massing and external appearance, and uses materials that minimise visual impact on the green belt as far as possible; and • there will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. 8.4 As noted above, there are 65 holiday lodges proposed and these are each of a similar scale and impact associated with a standard dwelling house. There is no clear evidence as to why the holiday lodges must be located in this particular Green Belt location (and not in an appropriate location outwith the Green Belt) and it is considered that this suburbanisation of the countryside would be at odds with the other criteria listed above resulting in an adverse Page 26 of 70
Page 27
impact on the character, appearance and function of the Green Belt. 8.7 Also included in the proposal is a new agricultural building to complement the existing farm operation and this accords with the Green Belts policy. The applicant has advised that the manager’s house is ancillary to the running of the holiday park and its inclusion in the proposal is essential to the running of a rural business. Policy 8 does support the development of residential accommodation for a key worker within the immediate vicinity of their place of employment where the presence of a worker is essential to the operation of the enterprise. Residential accommodation for an agricultural worker for example, could be supported under this aspect of policy 8, however the applicant has not provided any justification for the lodge development which the manager’s accommodation relies. It must therefore be concluded that the development does not accord with Green Belts policy (8) of NPF 4. 8.8 NPF 4 policy 13 Sustainable Transport is intended to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Policy 13 d) advises that development proposals for significant travel generating uses will not be supported in locations which would increase reliance on the private car, taking into account the specific characteristics of the area. The proposed development of 65 holiday lodges includes the provision for two parking spaces per lodge (130 spaces in total) which would likely generate a significant number of vehicle journeys at a location which is currently served by a single-track road. It is noted that the applicant proposes opportunities for sustainable travel within the development as well as an electric minibus service for guest. Whilst the applicant’s minibus proposal may eliminate a small number of private car journeys, the limitations to the existing local area bus services and lack of realistic opportunities for walking, cycling, and wheeling on the existing road network much of which is high speed and without public footways, will likely result in the primary use of private vehicles to and from the proposed development. It must therefore be concluded that the development does not accord with policy 13 of NPF 4. 8.9 NPF4 Rural Development policy 29 a) sets out criteria similar to that set out with NPF 4 policy 8 above for acceptable development for developments within Rural Areas. However, although these policies set out circumstances where rural homes and development would be supported, this list of circumstances does not include supporting rural homes or developments located within the Green Belt. With regards to part b) of policy 29, this section advises that development proposals in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited, and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. They should also consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. As detailed above within our consideration of NPF 4 policy 8, the proposed development of 65 holiday lodge would represent the suburbanisation of the countryside to a scale which would not be in keeping with the rural isolated character of the area. Furthermore, whilst there may be some financial benefit to local areas, any tangible contribution would be limited given the holiday lodge development (and any limited facilities within it) would be for private fee-paying guests only. As also detailed above, given the isolated nature of the development site and the limited sustainable transport opportunities available, the primary transportation option available will be private vehicle which is considered contrary to policy 13 (Sustainable Transportation) and consequently policy 29 of NPF 4. 8.10 NPF 4 policy 30 Tourism sets out that proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation in locations identified in the NLLDP could be supported however the application site has not been identified within the NLLDP as a location for new tourism accommodation. Proposals of this nature also require to take into account its contribution to the local economy, compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of scale and impacts on local communities, impacts of increased visitor numbers, opportunities for sustainable travel Page 27 of 70
Page 28
etc. It is considered that following on from the matters discussed in terms of Policy 13 in relation to sustainable travel, that the remoteness of the site would not achieve this. 8.11 Further to paragraph 8.11 above, in terms of the development contribution to the local economy, the applicant has advised that the development proposed is estimated to produce a revenue of over £1m for potential investors and stakeholders and has the potential to create jobs through the construction and operation of the development (the exact number of permanent jobs to be created is unclear). It is accepted that the proposed development could provide additional jobs and a degree of economic benefit to the local area due to the increase in visitor numbers as a result of this development. However, the applicant has not provided any details of other alternative sites for this development which were previously appraised to enable the applicant to conclude that development could only be located on this particular Green Belt site. Accordingly, the net economic benefit from its development would also be afforded by a similar development on a suitable location. The proposed development compatibility with its Green Belt location is a significant consideration and given the impact of the development on the Green Belt and the developments rural and isolated location it is not considered that any economic benefits would outweigh the impact of this development on the Greenbelt. The lack of public transport from the development site to Luggiebank and Cumbernauld, will likely result in visitors being dependent on private transport increasing vehicle numbers (even with the proposed guest minibus service being considered). Therefore, it would not be sympathetic to opportunities for sustainable travel. For these reasons it is considered that the proposed development is not compatible with NPF 4 Tourism policy (policy 30). North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.12 The application site is designated as Green Belt under policies PP 4 and AD 4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) 2022. In terms of development plan policy, new development in the Green Belt is covered by policies PP 4 and AD 4. Policy PP 4 sets out that the council will protect the setting of communities, support regeneration by directing growth to urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high-quality environment. The council will support developments for agriculture, forestry, recreation, or developments that need a non-urban location, including, where appropriate, Visitor Economy related development. 8.13 The relevant element of this policy is visitor economy, in the first instance the application site is not located within an area designated for the purpose. In addition any proposal requires to evidence significant economic benefits, satisfying the EDQ policies so that the need can be balanced against any adverse impacts on the purposes of the Greenbelt. The concerns regarding these impacts have been previously discussed above and include the lack of transport and connectivity of the location to the wider area. The application has also not shown that there would be significant economic benefits for the wider economy. In addition the proposed scale and design of the proposed holiday lodge development would result in the suburbanisation of the countryside which would be at odds with the other criteria listed above resulting in an adverse impact on the character, appearance and function of the Green Belt. 8.14 In terms of other individual elements also proposed this includes the proposed manager’s house would not be acceptable where the overall development it is to serve is unacceptable. In terms of the agricultural building this could be applied for separately if this is required for the existing agricultural unit. 8.15 With regards to the development’s location requirement, the applicant has indicated that the application sites proximity to Glasgow and Edinburgh as well as proximity to major transportation links as justification for choosing the application site for the proposed development. It is Page 28 of 70
Page 29
considered that the applicant has not provided clear evidence as to why the proposed development must be located in this particular Green Belt location and could not be located within alternative urban sites with similar proximity to major urban centres and road links within the central belt of Scotland or any details of alternative sites out with the Green Belt which have been considered and discounted. 8.16 The application also indicated that it is considered that part of the development site is brownfield as there has been previous agricultural related development within the development site and to the north of the application site (out with the application site boundary) the former Coathill Farm steading (now known as 1 to 3 Coathill Farm) has been converted into three dwellinghouses. 8.17 NPF 4 defines brownfield land as land which has previously been developed and that the term may cover vacant or derelict land, land occupied by redundant or unused buildings and developed land within the settlement boundary where further intensification of use is considered acceptable. Whilst it is noted that there has previously been development within a small section of the application site and to the north of the site at the form steadings, the application site is not considered to be vacant, or derelict given its current agricultural use of both the land and existing buildings. Although there may be areas of hardstanding and farm buildings which are not currently in use, the application site as a whole is not considered vacant or derelict and only accounts for a small proportion of the development site. Furthermore, NPF 4 defines brownfield as being developed land within the settlement boundary, the application site is isolated and not within the defined settlement boundaries of the either of the two nearest settlements of Luggiebank to the northeast or Greengairs to the southeast. This site is not considered as brownfield as defined by NPF 4 and as such its Green Belt designation still applies. The now superseded North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 designated the application site within the Green Belt and the newly adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan adopted in July 2022 maintains this designation. It is therefore considered that as the application site remains fully within the Green Belt and has not been allocated for urban expansion, any development on this site should be assessed under policy PP 4 Green Belt. 8.18 With regard to policy AD 4, applications for planning permission for new development will be assessed for their implications related to the amount of development proposed. The need for an assessment depends on the combination of type (Use Class), scale and location of development. For Class 9 uses (houses), any residential development (such as the manager’s accommodation proposed) would need to be in support of a Green Belt appropriate use. Tourism development on the other hand could be considered (in principle) to be an acceptable use within a Green Belt location for the reasons outlined above. 8.19 Policies PP 2C and AD 2C Visitor Economy Areas and Locations sets out that the council will support the provision of tourism and leisure facilities in the Visitor Economy Locations. The proposed development is not supported by policies PP 2C and AD 2C, as the site is outwith a designated Visitor Economy Area and is not a designated Visitor Economy Location. 8.20 Policy PROT A Category A5 sets out that development that significantly affects a species protected by law will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that the protected species would not be compromised; or any significant adverse effects on the protected species are mitigated through planning conditions. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (with Updated Addendum) as part of this application. As detailed above the council’s Greenspace Development Service has no objection to the development and has advised that, should this application be approved, conditions regarding the implementation of ecological mitigation measures and enhancement measures, the Page 29 of 70
Page 30
submission of an updated Preliminary Ecological Assessment and a proposed scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements should be attached to any permission. 8.21 Policy EDQ 1 Site Appraisal requires any development to be appraised in terms of the site and its surroundings to ensure it will integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity. This appraisal addresses matters such as design, massing, topography and transportation aspects. The applicant has provided information in relation to their assessment of the application site including Architectural Drawings, a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (With Updated Addendum), Planning Statement, Noise Impact Assessment for proposed residential and holiday lodge development (previously submitted as part of application 22/01225/FUL), Visibility Splay Statement, Design and Access Statement, a Strategic Development and Community Impact document, an Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits document, Sustainable Transport report and Sustainable travel proposal document. 8.22 Policy EDQ 3 Quality of Development sets out that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Aspects such as siting; overall layout; density; form; scale; height; massing; proportion; detailing; colour; materials for the proposed development need to be considered. Policy EDQ 3 also includes aspects related to creating areas which provide a sustainable, safe, secure, and convenient access to and from the development that makes it easy to move around, and is attractive to pedestrians, cyclists, and people with disabilities. Any development would need to integrate well with public transport, green networks, and wider links. The assessment of and (where necessary) the mitigation of pollution impacts is also included within policy EDQ 3. In terms of the development, it is considered that the proposed scale of the holiday lodge proposed (65 individual lodges in total) is unacceptable and would result in the suburbanisation of the Green Belt site. Each holiday lodge whilst not intended for permanent uninterrupted residency is of a similar scale and impact of that associated with a standard dwelling house. It is considered that the proposed holiday development would result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Green Belt site where development is proposed. 8.23 With regards to the landscaping aspects of policy EDQ 3, it is noted that the applicant proposes a scheme of landscaping and native species planting are part of the development. The applicant also proposes the creation an area of open space to the north of the application site, following the demolition of the existing buildings on site). The inclusion of an extensive scheme of landscaping and the creation of an area of designated open space are welcomed and should this application be approved, conditions requiring a full detailed landscaping scheme to be submitted for approval and implementation will be attached to any permission. Any permission should also include conditions requiring the designation of the area proposed as open space to be kept in perpetuity as well as conditions restricting developer rights to potential development this area in the future. 8.24 For the transportation and parking aspects of policy EDQ 3, NLC’s Roads Development Service has no objection to this application or to the proposed works to Coathill Farm Road and the access onto Stirling Road from the application site. The Roads Development Service has advised that conditions in relation to the proposed roads works and access visibility splay should be attached to any permission. 8.25 Policy EDQ 3 also includes the requirement for the assessment of and (where necessary) the mitigation of noise or pollution impacts cause either by the development or within the development site. Information in relation of ground contamination and a proposed remediation strategy were submitted as part of this development. Pollution Control has advised that conditions relating to site investigations and possible remediation works should be attached to any permission. Page 30 of 70
Page 31
8.26 With regard to potential noise impacts, the applicant has submitted a copy of the Noise Impact Assessment previously included as part of application 22/01225/FUL. It should be noted that the holiday lodge development current under assessment is all but identical to that proposed within the recently refused application 22/01225/FUL. Given this, the council’s Pollution Control has advised that the findings of that Noise Impact Assessment are acceptable and can be applied to the development proposed in this current application. No conditions in relation to noise impact are required. 8.27 Taking into account the assessment above it is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with policies EDQ 1 and EDQ 3. 8.28 Although the proposed development may be consistent with NPF 4 policy 3 (Biodiversity) and policies PROT A Category A5, EDQ 1 and EDQ 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022, it is deemed that the proposed development as a whole fails to comply with 8 (Green Belts), 13 (Sustainable Transport), 29 Rural Development, 30 (Tourism) of NPF 4 and policies PP 4 and AD 4 (Green Belts) and PP 2C and AD 2C (Visitor Economy Areas and Locations), of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 as detailed above. 8.29 Since the proposal is contrary to development plan policy it should be refused in accordance with Section 25, unless there are any other material considerations that suggest it should be approved despite non-compliance. 8.30 45 objections have been received during the neighbour notification and advertisement of this application. The main the issues raised by objectors have been responded to as part of the assessment below. 8.31 Concerns have been raised that the proposed development is contrary to planning policy as the site is located within the Green Belt and is not in keeping with the surrounding area or the natural environment of where it is being situated. Response: As set out above, in this case, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to both NPF 4 and NLLDP policies and would have an adverse impact on the character, appearance and function of the Green Belt. 8.32 Concerns have been raised regarding impacts to existing natural habitats, nearby Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation and nature reserves and wildlife (including bats, barn owls and deer) should this application be permitted. Concerns have also been raised that the proposed development is contrary to other council policies including the council’s Biodiversity Action Plan. Response: The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Update Addendum as part of this application and proposes mitigation measures and enhancement measures as part of the development. The council’s Greenspace Development Service has been consulted regarding the proposed development and they have no objection to the development. Further detail of Greenspace Development comments are outlined above. 8.33 Concerns raised by objections have been noted regarding the safety of the proposed access to the site from Stirling Road, the use of Coathill Farm Road and the lack on footways and streetlights on these roads and other surrounding roads. Concerns regarding the lack of clarity of the proposed parking provision for the holiday lodges were also raised. Response: The applicant has advised that two parking spaces are proposed per lodge (130 spaces in total). NLC’s Roads Development Service has no objection to this application or to the proposed works to Coathill Farm Road and the access onto Stirling Road from the application site. The Roads Development Service has also advised that conditions in relation Page 31 of 70
Page 32
to the proposed upgrade works to Coathill Farm Road (including the installation street lighting and footways) and the implementation of the required visibility splay at the proposed development’s vehicle access from Coathill farm Road onto Stirling Road should be attached to any permission. 8.34 The concerns raised by objectors have also been noted regarding potential noise and light pollution from the proposed development and traffic associated with it as well as concerns regarding the suitability of the site in relation to its mining and contamination history. The proximity of the proposed development to a nearby gas pipeline has also been raised. Response: NLC’s Pollution Control Service were consulted on both the suitability of the development proposed on this site, and on any potential impacts with would arise due to the proposed development. Pollution Control has advised that conditions regarding site investigations would be required should this application be approved. They have also advised that they have no concerns regarding potential noise issues and no mitigation measures are required. Pollution Control did not raise any concerns regarding possible light pollution because of this development. This site has been identified as being at low development risk by the Coal Authority. Scottish Gas Networks (SGN) was consulted on this application due to the proximity of the proposed development to SGN’s high pressure pipeline. Should this application be approved, an informative advising the applicant to contact SGN prior to any development works taking place would be attached to any permission. 8.35 Concerns regarding lack of infrastructure to serve the proposed development such as sewage and water infrastructure as well as the impact on the application site’s existing natural drainage have been raised. Response: The proposed development includes proposals for drainage provision and it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that this provision complies with the relevant requirements of both Scottish Water and SEPA. 8.36 With regard to concerns about the notification and advertisement of this application, the objectors consider that the neighbour notification and advertisement of this application to be deficient Response: The advertisement and neighbour notification of this application has been undertaken in line with the statutory requirements of the planning legislation. 8.37 Other concerns were raised by objectors including potential impact on property values, potential disruption to local residents should development be approved especially during the construction as well as the potential impact on existing tourist accommodation providers. Response: Whilst these issues are important, they do not represent material considerations which can be taken in to be considered as part of the assessment of this application. 8.38 It is considered that not all the concerns raised by objectors can be supported. However, their concerns regarding the proposed compliance with NPF 4 and NLLDP are a material consideration, as previously discussed above the development plan supports the view that the proposal be refused. 8.39 Finally, the applicant has also stated that the proposed development is aligned with the council’s motto ‘Live, Learn, Work, Invest, and Visit’ and embodies it core values. As North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 is considered as the land use planning policy is an expression of the council’s ambition to achieve this vision, it has been demonstrated above that the development plan does not support this development due to the site’s Green Belt designation. 8.40 In light of the above it is considered that there are no other material considerations that lead to the proposal being regarded as acceptable. Page 32 of 70
Page 33
9. Conclusions 9.1 The relevant legislation requires that planning application decisions are made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case it is recommended that the application be refused as it is considered to represent the suburbanisation of the countryside which is at odds with the Green Belt policies in both NPF 4 and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. It is considered that the potential economic benefit of the proposed development does not outweigh the resulting impact on the greenbelt location should this application be approved. Page 33 of 70
Page 34
Application No: 24/00208/PPP Proposed Development: Residential development and associated infrastructure (application for planning permission in principle) Site Address: Land At Coltness Avenue Allanton North Lanarkshire Date Registered: 14th March 2024 Applicant: Grimaldi Developments 139 Comiston Road Edinburgh EH10 5QN Agent: Holder Planning 139 Comiston Road Edinburgh EH10 5QN Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 13 Fortissat Martin McCulloch, Margaret Hughes, John Jo Leckie, Representations: 1 letter of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: The proposed residential development is considered contrary to the countryside polices of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 as it does not do not satisfy any of the policy requirements for housing in the Countryside and it is not considered that there are material considerations justifying a development of this nature, Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to policies 3 (Biodiversity), 13 (Sustainable transport), (15) Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods and 16 (Quality Homes), 17 (Rural homes) , and 29 (Rural development) of National Planning Policy Framework 4 and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 greenbelt policies PP5 and AD5. It is considered that there are no material considerations to justify a development of this nature. Legal Agreement If minded to grant, planning permission should not be issued until a legal agreement has been secured in relation to the education contribution. Page 34 of 70
Page 35
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 24/00208/PPP Name (of applicant): Grimaldi Developments Site Address: Land At Coltness Avenue Allanton North Lanarkshire Development: Residential development and associated infrastructure (application for planning permission in principle) Page 35 of 70
Page 36
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:- 1. That the proposed development is contrary to Countryside policies PP 5 and AD 5 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. In particular, the development would represent a significant extension to the village of Allanton significant extension which is at odds with the intension of PP 5. The proposed development would adversely impact the character, appearance, and function of the Countryside at this location. It is considered that no adequate justification, special circumstances or material considerations have been demonstrated to merit a departure from the development plan. 2. The proposed development is contrary to policy 16 Quality homes of NPF 4, in that the proposed residential development does not meet the criteria which would justify residential development on a site that has not been allocated for housing in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2023. 3. The proposed development would be contrary to NPF 4 Sustainable transport (13), Local Living and 20- minute neighbourhoods (15), Rural homes (17) and Rural development (29), in that the proposal is not for a use requiring a rural location and will be primarily rely on private vehicles rather than by more sustainable modes of transport. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Traffic & Transportation Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) NLC Greenspace Asset Team Education Assistant Community Partnership Manager Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Patricia Beaton at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk. Report Date: 2 September 2024 Page 36 of 70
Page 37
APPLICATION NO. 24/00208/PPP REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located on Coltness Avenue in Allanton. The site is to the east of Mill Road and west of existing residential properties on Allanbank Street. There are existing residential properties to the north and east of the application site which includes several individually designed detached residential properties also on Mill Road. The application site is approximately 3 hectares in size and with proposed accesses from Coltness Avenue and Wilson Road. The site is currently vacant with existing vegetation and trees, it slopes upward from the north to south. Previously a small portion of the site included some buildings and possibly a residential property, all of which have been demolished. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The applicant seeks planning permission in principle for a residential development of up to 73 units and associated infrastructure. An indicative layout with proposed vehicle access points and areas of landscaping has been provided which details the proposed dwellinghouses as a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellinghouses. 2.2 While these design details have been provided in the supporting information, this has been to assist assessment of the principle of development. Matters of internal layout and design of the site would still be subject to a further detailed Matters Specified by Condition (MSC) planning application should this application be approved. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The Applicant has provided the following information: • Draft Layout Plan • Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement • Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report • Transportation Assessment • Road Safety Report • Tree survey • Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Report • Statement of Community Benefit • Pre-application Consultation Report • Coal Mining Report. 4. Site History 4.1 A Proposal of Application Notice (ref 21/01744/PAN) was submitted in November 2021 setting out the proposals to consult with the local community as this considered to be a major application due to the number of proposed dwellings. 4.2 In 2019 an application for planning permission in principle (19/01025/PPP) which sought approval for four dwellinghouses was refused through delegated powers and was considered to be contrary to the development plan (North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012). The reasons for refusal were as follows: Page 37 of 70
Page 38
• The proposal is contrary to policy NBE 3 B of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012, in that it would involve residential development in the Rural Investment Area where there is a presumption against such development other than in limited circumstances which are not applicable to this proposal. • The proposal is contrary to policies DSP 2 and DSP 4 of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012, in that it would result in sporadic housing development on the edge of Allanton which would undermine the urban boundary of that settlement, and that the number of units proposed would not reflect the prevailing density of development in the immediate vicinity of the site. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The Development Plan consists of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4). NPF 4 was adopted by the Scottish Parliament in February 2023 and prevails over any policies in the Local Development Plan that are incompatible with its aims and objectives. 5.2 NPF 4 policy 3 Biodiversity sets out criteria by which development should be assessed. Development proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, and development proposals for major development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. 5.3 NPF4 policy 13 Sustainable Transport sets out to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. 5.4 NPF4 policy 14 Design, Quality and Place seeks to ensure that developments are of a good design that are not detrimental to the amenity of surrounding area and are consistent with the 6 qualities of successful places – Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable 5.5 NPF 4 policy 15 - Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods sets out that to establish this goal consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area 5.6 NPF 4 policy 16 - Quality Homes supports new homes on land allocated for housing in Local Development Plans and sets out various requirements including, and not limited, to meeting local housing requirements, providing or enhancing local infrastructure, facilities or services and improving the residential amenity of the surrounding area. 5.7 NPF 4 policy 17 - Rural Homes states that development proposals for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development. It goes on to further state that any sites should, for example, be allocated for housing in the development plan, reuse redundant buildings, be enabling development for historic assets etc. 5.8 NPF4 policy Rural Development 29 supports development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported under certain circumstances which includes supporting existing uses and diversification 5.9 The following policies are relevant within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: • PP5 Countryside Page 38 of 70
Page 39
• AD5 Amount of Development • EDQ 1 Site appraisal • EDQ 2 Specific Features for Consideration • EDQ 3 Quality of Development • PROT A Category 5 Natural Environment - Protected Species • CI Contributions to Infrastructure 5.10 PP5 Countryside and AD5 Amount of Development This policy sets out that the council seeks to support developments for agriculture, forestry, recreation, or developments that need a non-urban location. The purpose of the Green Belt is to protect the setting of communities, support regeneration by directing growth to urban areas, protect natural assets and provide a high quality environment. Policy AD4 requires that housing proposals support a Green Belt appropriate use. 5.11 CI Contributions to Infrastructure This policy sets out that the council will seek developer contributions for new developments that individually or cumulatively generate a requirement for new or enhanced services or infrastructure in respect of Affordable Housing, Education, Transport and Green Infrastructure, Amenity Space and Play. 5.12 Environmental and Design Quality Policies EDQ 1 – Site Appraisal EDQ 2 – Specific Features for Consideration EDQ 3 – Quality of Development These three polices look for proposed developments to create a successful place or enhance existing places by integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to neighbouring amenity. To do this a range of criteria is listed within these polices which includes amongst other things aspects of design, massing, materials, topography and aspects to protect the existing urban area and its specific characteristics, assets and attributes. They consider hazardous zones, utilities infrastructure and management areas and look to promote biodiversity and the environment whilst meeting the challenges of the climate change via suitable and safe access for all users to promote sustainable public travel or for example the provision of electrical charge points where the car is still a requirement 5.13 PROT Natural Environment and Green Network Assets Planning permission will only be granted for proposals potentially affecting Local Sites if it can be demonstrated to the Council’s satisfaction that there will be no adverse impact or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact. 6. Consultations 6.1 The following consultation responses have been received in respect of the application. 6.2 NLC’s Pollution Control Service has reviewed the Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Report submitted as part of this application and gave no objections. They have advised that, should this application be approved, conditions in relation to site investigations and remediation works should be attached. 6.3 NLC’s Roads Development Service initially raised concerns regarding the potential impact Page 39 of 70
Page 40
the proposed development would have on the existing local road network. Following discussion with the applicant’s consultant and the submission of a Road Safety Review (dated 4th July 2024) NLC’s Roads Development Service has advised that should this application be approved, conditions requiring the upgrade of pedestrian crossing points at the junction of Coltness Avenue and Allanton Road as well as the installation of speed control measures along Coltness Avenue and Wilsons Road should be attached to any approval. A detailed specification of the proposed internal development layout, access points, visibility splays and the requested upgrade of pedestrian crossing points and installation of speed control measures should be included as part of any subsequent MSC application for the proposed residential development should this application be approved. 6.4 NLC’s Property Service (Asset Team) has advised that part of the application site includes council owned land. Property Services has advised that prior to any development taking place the applicant should contact NLC’s Property Service to discuss the potential acquisition of this land. Should this application be approved an informative in relation to this would be attached to any permission. 6.5 NLC’s Community Partnership Team which oversees play provision as advised that for developments of 10 – 99 dwellings a Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) is required. Should this application be approved, conditions requiring the submission of detailed proposals for the proposed LEAP as part of any subsequent MSC application for the proposed residential development should be attached to any permission. 6.6 NLC’s Greenspace Development Service reviewed the ecological reports, bat and tree surveys and have indicated that they are satisfied with the information provided. Should this application be approved, conditions requiring the implementation of biodiversity enhancements and mitigation measures detailed in both the Ecological Assessment and Bat Update report should be attached to any permission. NLC’s Greenspace Development has also advised that the application site is directly adjacent to the north west corner of the Kingshill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which is also a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). A buffer zone (15m) between the application site and the LNR and SINC boundary should be implemented as part of any development within the application site. This buffer should be included within any detailed scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements for the proposed development and conditions requiring the submission of these detailed proposals as part of any subsequent application for the proposed residential development should be attached to any permission. In addition, prior to any development taking place on site an updated Bat Survey should be undertaken and submitted for consideration and a condition requiring this should be attached to any permission. 6.7 NLC’s Education Service notes that as a result of the cumulative impact of known housebuilding in the local area, the Service anticipates capacity constraints in the denominational school sector going forward. Should planning permission in principle be approved, there would be a requirement for a financial contribution of £8769.71 towards education provision to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. 7. Representations 7.1 Following the advertisement and neighbour notification of this application one objection and one comment of support were submitted. The comment of support was from Allanton Tenants & Residents Association. 7.2 The objection received raised concerns related to the following: Page 40 of 70
Page 41
• An increase traffic on Coltness Avenue and Mill Road due to the proposed development • The developments impact on road users (both vehicles and pedestrians) • The potential for additional accidents due to increased amount of road traffic • The removal of trees from the application prior to submission of this application • The lack of notification of neighbouring properties of applications submission. 7.3 Other issues were raised; however, they are not material planning considerations. These include concerns such as the potential disruption to local residents and road users (vehicles and pedestrians) especially during the construction phase. The objector also raised their disagreement with the applicant’s the description of the site as being subject to fly-tipping and vandalism as well as being a 'sizeable urban area'. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Subject to suitable restrictions on the extent and nature of the development, it is considered that the proposal raises no issues of a strategic nature. The Development Plan comprises the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) and the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) with NPF4 prevailing over any NLLDP policies that are incompatible with its aims and objectives. National Planning Framework 4 8.2 The introduction of NPF4 in February 2023 requires that these policies be taken into account in assessing all developments. The most appropriate of these are discussed below. 8.3 NPF 4 policy 3 Biodiversity indicates that proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity and should only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. Whilst it is noted that the proposed development is located outwith any designated nature conservation sites and includes proposals for landscaping and biodiversity enhancements, the application site is directly adjacent to Kingshill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) which includes a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). An Ecological Assessment, Bat Update report and Tree Survey have been submitted as part of this application. NLC’s Greenspace Development Service has advised that they are satisfied with the information provided and that the implementation of biodiversity enhancements and mitigation measures detailed in both the Ecological Assessment and Bat Update report should be conditioned. Greenspace Development has also advised that a buffer zone between the application site and the LNR and SINC boundary should be implemented as part of the proposed development. This buffer should be included as part of a detailed scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements for the proposed development. Furthermore, prior to any development taking place on site an updated Bat Survey should be undertaken and submitted to Planning. A condition requiring this should be attached to any permission. On assessment, it is considered that the proposed development would sufficiently be compatible with policy 3 (Biodiversity) within NPF 4 so long as the appropriate mitigations are undertaken. 8.4 NPF 4 policy 13 Sustainable transport is intended to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. Policy 13 a) sets out that proposals to improve, enhance or provide active travel infrastructure, public transport infrastructure or multi-modal hubs will be supported including for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Whilst it is noted that the proposed development will include the creation of opportunities for more sustainable forms of travel such as electric vehicles, walking and cycling through the Page 41 of 70
Page 42
construction of footways and the installation on charging points, the development does not directly promote sustainable transport. It is considered that although opportunities for more sustainable travel could be created as part of the proposed development, given the existing limitations to the local area bus services and rural location of the application site, it remains likely that private vehicles would be the primary mode of transport to and from the development. It is therefore be concluded that the development does not accord with policy 13 of NPF 4 given the scale of the proposals for potentially 73 units. 8.5 Policy 15 Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods of NPF 4 seeks 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. When assessing a proposal, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to sustainable modes of transport (local public transport and safe, high-quality walking, and cycling networks), shopping, education and health and social services. It is noted that Allanton is a small village with a limited range local services with only small shops, a primary school and a bus service. Whilst these services are noted, it is likely that proposed residents will need to travel elsewhere to access services and facilities not available in the village and that a high proportion of residents will need to travel elsewhere for work, as well as to access services and facilities. Although it is noted that there are local bus stops located on Allanton Road within a 5 to 10 minutes walk from the application site, providing onward travel to Shotts, Wishaw, Newmains and Motherwell would be required to access everyday services such as large retail stores such as supermarkets. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is not compatible with Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhood policy (15), which is considered significant given the scale of the development. 8.6 NPF 4 policy 16 Quality homes seeks 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. Policy 16 a) advises that development proposals for new homes on land allocated for housing in LDPs will be supported. The proposed development is not consistent with this as the application site is not allocated for housing within the NLLDP. 8.7 With regards to policy 16 b) it is noted that a Statement of Community Benefit has been submitted by the applicant. The applicant considered that the proposed development would provide both choice and competition for prospective homeowners and the new residents of this development would contribute to the vitality of existing local businesses and support job creation. The applicant also advises that the proposed development will amount to a significant investment in the area contributing to local and regional community wealth. It is noted that any proposed development including those for residential development is likely to create jobs (particularly during the construction phase) and would likely support local businesses. 8.8 Policy 16 c) of NPF 4 advises that Development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, will be supported. This includes: i. self-provided homes; ii. accessible, adaptable and wheelchair accessible homes; iii. build to rent; iv. affordable homes; v. a range of size of homes such as those for larger families; Page 42 of 70
Page 43
vi. homes for older people, including supported accommodation, care homes and sheltered housing; vii. homes for people undertaking further and higher education; and viii. homes for other specialist groups such as service personnel. 8.9 In this regard to applicant has put forward the following justification: a) The applicant considers that there is a clear gap in the provision for first-time buyers in Allanton which the applicant believes is evidenced by responses (including from the Allanton Tenants & Residents Association) to the preapplication consultation exercise. The applicant further advises that this has led to the loss of young adults from Allanton as they have to move away to find suitable accommodation leaving the village with an increasingly ageing population. The applicant considers this loss of younger residents would in turn impact the sustainability of the local primary school as well as other community facilities such as shops. Many established settlements across the central belt of Scotland experience fluctuating population and it is not unusual for Allanton to be subject to this. Given that this is a nationwide issue, it is considered that the building of housing alone cannot fully address this issue. Whilst it is noted that the applicant has provided and indicative layout this application is for planning permission in principle only, and detailed proposes for the proposed development are yet to be provided we can only conclude that this development has the potential to comply with policy 16 c). b) Also relevant is policy 16 f) sets out that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances where: i. the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and ii. the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; iii. and either: • delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline. This will be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that general trend being sustained; or • the proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes; or • the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary; or • the proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. c) The applicant has raised the recent letter from the Scottish Government’s Chief Planner dated 26th June 2024 as a material consideration when assessing their application. This letter was intended to provide further clarification on application of NPF 4 including policy 16 Quality homes. This letter advises that Scottish Ministers have continued to reinforce that policies in NPF 4 should be read and applied as a whole and that conflicts between policies are normal and to be expected. The planning system requires decision makers to weigh up all relevant policies, for example, quality homes, brownfield development and town centre living, as well as relevant material considerations in applying balanced planning. This letter further sets out that policy 16 contains different parts with some aspects relating to location and others to types of homes. They should be weighed up as relevant to the proposal there is no hierarchy and no one part of policy should always outweigh others. A balanced planning judgement should be reached in each case. Page 43 of 70
Page 44
d) The applicant has advised that whilst they note the Chief Planners letter, in principle policy 16 c) can be given more weight than policy 16 f) in the determination of an application. Whether or not it can be given more weight will be a matter of planning judgement related to the particular circumstances of the application in hand. In this case it is noted that the applicant considers that the proposed development satisfies policies 16 b) and 16 c) and further considers that the developments compliance with these policies should be given more weight than any inconsistency the development may have with policy 16 f) when determining this application. Furthermore, should it be considered that the proposed residential development is not supported by the NLLDP due to the site’s Countryside designation, it is the applicant’s view there is robust justification to conclude that the more recent NPF 4 Policy 16 c) prevails, albeit in the very specific circumstances of this case. e) In assessing the application the main implication of this here is that a proposal’s noncompliance with NPF 4 16(f) (or indeed any other part of that policy) does not necessarily imply non-compliance with policy 16, if the proposal meets the 'policy intent'. Similarly, compliance with one part of policy 16 obviously does not mean that a proposal necessarily accords with the policy as a whole. The ‘policy intent’ of NPF 4 policy 16 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. Further indication of the intent of policy 16 is provided by the three policy outcomes: • Good quality homes are at the heart of great places and contribute to strengthening the health and wellbeing of communities. • Provision of land in the right locations to accommodate future need and demand for new homes, supported by the appropriate infrastructure. • More energy efficient, net zero emissions homes, supporting a greener, fairer and more inclusive wellbeing economy and community wealth building, tackling both fuel and child poverty. 8.14 It is noted that the above policy outcomes are quite broad and could be subject to different interpretations. However, it is considered that the intent of policy 16 is clear and is not intended to enable house building of any description to be undertaken anywhere. Any applications would instead need to be robustly assessed to determine whether proposals would achieve the desired outcomes. It is therefore considered that house building proposals should be considered against all relevant parts of policy 16. In terms of our assessment this proposed development, given the scale and designation of the site, as detailed above this application is considered contrary to both parts a) and f) of policy 16 and that the other relevant parts of policy 16 are broadly neutral towards the proposal. Overall, the proposed development is considered contrary to policy 16 as a whole. 8.15 NPF 4 policy 17 Rural homes is intended to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. To be consisted with policy 17 development proposals for new homes in rural areas need to be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. The proposed development is not located within a site allocated for housing within the NLLDP nor does it reuse a redundant or unused building. Policy 17 a) ii) advises that development that reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention will be supported. NPF 4 defines brownfield land as land which has previously been developed and that the term may cover vacant or derelict land, land occupied by redundant or unused buildings and developed land within the settlement boundary where further intensification of use is considered acceptable. Whilst it is noted that there has previously been development within a portion of the application site, the Page 44 of 70
Page 45
wider application site is not within the settlement boundary. The site currently does not have a defined use could be considered as vacant, it is not considered derelict. This site has not been included within the council’s Vacant & Derelict Land Survey for 2022 and is therefore not considered as brownfield as defined by NPF 4. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is not consistent with policy 17 Rural homes or of policy 16 f) iii, as outlined in para 8.9e above. 8.16 Rural development policy 29 of NFP 4 intends to encourage rural economic activity, innovation and diversification whilst ensuring that the distinctive character of the rural area and the service function of small towns, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded and enhanced. Policy 29 a) advises that development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported. This includes developments which reuse of brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention. As detailed above the application site is not considered to be a brownfield site. Policy 29 b) sets out that development proposals in rural areas should be suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. They should also consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. Whilst it is noted that, should this application be approved, any subsequent MSC application will include proposals for open space and an equipped play area with the development. The proposed development does not include any other potential infrastructure which could be used by the local community. With regards to transport needs, due to the application sites rural and Countryside location residents of the proposed development will likely rely on private vehicles given the limited availability of public transportation within Allanton. The rural nature of the location and its limited infrastructure and services, also reduces opportunities for more sustainable means of travel such as walking and cycling. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is not consistent with policy 29. 8.17 It is considered that our assessment that the proposed development as a whole fails to comply with policies Sustainable transport (13), Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods (15), Quality homes (16), Rural homes (17), and Rural development (29) this gives weight to our recommendation that this application should be refused. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.18 The application site is designated Countryside under policies PP 5 and AD 5 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) 2022. Under policy PP 5 the council will support the Countryside, by accommodating limited development such as Visitor Economy related development, extending existing businesses and settlements, and agricultural diversification. The council will resist pressure for sporadic and isolated development in the Countryside, protect and enhance local landscapes and encourage the creation of jobs and services to serve Countryside communities. All of the uses that are appropriate in the Green Belt are appropriate in the Countryside. However, in addition to these, proposals for limited expansion of existing businesses and settlements, agricultural diversification and local job creation will be encouraged. Policy AD 5 advises that applications for planning permission for new development will be assessed for their implications related to the amount of development proposed. The need for an assessment depends on the combination of type (Use Class), scale and location of development. For Class 9 uses (houses), any residential development would need to be in support of a Green Belt appropriate use. It is clear that the proposed residential development is not intended to support any Green Belt appropriate use such as for agriculture, forestry, recreation or with the proposed tourism accommodation. Instead, the proposed development is considered by the applicant to be an extension of the existing settlement of Allanton. Page 45 of 70
Page 46
8.19 The applicant has advised that as the principle of extending existing settlements may be acceptable under policy PP 5, the development of the application site would ‘round off’ the development form of the village. With regards to the council’s intention to resist pressure for sporadic and isolated development in the Countryside, the applicant considered that given the application sites location which is surrounded by existing development, and it is accessibility to existing facilities within Allanton, the development of this site would not be comprised of sporadic and isolated development. 8.20 Policy PP 5 and AD 5 advises that an assessment of appropriateness of any proposal for development should be undertaken. The applicant has provided several documents as part of their appraisal of the proposed development and believes that although the site is identified as Countryside, it is a degraded piece of land which does not provide an attractive setting for the village and would benefit from regeneration. They further indicate it is a logical site to be developed for housing in Allanton due to having housing, existing and proposed, on three sides. The scale of the application site could accommodate 73 new homes which are to be directed primarily at first-time buyers at the affordable end of the market. The applicant believes that the proposed development would have a significant economic benefit to Allanton and the increase in population aiding the viability of existing services, such as Allanton Primary School. 8.21 Policy PROT A Category A5 sets out that development significantly affecting a species protected by law will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that the protected species would not be compromised; or any significant adverse effects are mitigated through planning conditions. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Assessment and Bat Update report as part of this application. NLC’s Greenspace Development Service has no objection to the proposed development and has advised that they are satisfied with the findings these reports. Greenspace Development has advised that, should this application be approved, conditions requiring the implementation of a buffer zone between the application site and neighbouring Kingshill Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The proposed layout of the development should detail this proposed buffer. Any subsequent MSC application should include the implementation of biodiversity enhancements and mitigation measures detailed in both the submitted Ecological Assessment and Bat Update report and a detailed scheme of landscaping and biodiversity enhancements for the proposed development. A condition requiring this should be attached to any permission. 8.22 With regards to policies EDQ 1 to 3, these three polices look for proposed developments to create a successful place or enhance existing places by integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to neighbouring amenity. To do this a range of criteria is listed within these polices which includes amongst other things aspects of design, massing, materials, topography and aspects to protect the existing urban area and its specific characteristics, assets and attributes. They consider hazardous zones, utilities infrastructure and management areas and look to promote biodiversity and the environment whilst meeting the challenges of the climate change via suitable and safe access for all users to promote sustainable public travel or for example the provision of electrical charge points where the car is still required. 8.23 The application under consideration is in principle and as such a number of the design elements do not require to be provided at this stage. Notwithstanding this some information has been provided in order to assess potential impacts by the proposal. It is noted above that both the council’s Community Partnership Team (in relation to play provision) and the Roads Development Service have advised that any subsequent MSC application would need to include the provision of play facilities within the site and the upgrade of pedestrian crossing Page 46 of 70
Page 47
points at the junction of Coltness Avenue and Allanton Road as well as the installation of speed control measures along Coltness Avenue and Wilsons Road. The failure to include these aspects as part of the proposed development would result in a development with would have significant impacts on the health, safety and wellbeing of future residents which would be contrary to the EDQ policies of the NLLDP. Similarly with regards to ecological aspects of these policies it is considered that the inclusion of conditions in relation to any subsequent MSC application is vital when considering whether the proposed development would be compliant with these EDQ policies. 8.24 Policy CI – (Contributions to Infrastructure) sets out that the council will seek to secure developer contributions for new developments that, individually or cumulatively, generate a requirement for new or enhanced infrastructure or services, covering Education, Amenity Space and Play. The council’s Education Service notes that as a result of the cumulative impact of known housebuilding in the local area, the Service anticipates capacity constraints in the denominational school sector going forward. Should planning permission in principle be approved, there is a requirement for a financial contribution of £8769.71 towards education provision to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. 8.25 Taking the above into account, the proposed development may be consistent with NPF 4 policy Biodiversity (3), and policies PROT A Category A5, EDQ 1, EDQ 1 and CI of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022, it is deemed that the proposed development as a whole fails to comply with policies Sustainable transport (13), Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods (15), Quality homes (16), Rural homes (17), and Rural development (29) of NPF 4 and policies PP 5 and AD 5 Countryside of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 as detailed above. Since the proposal is contrary to development plan policy it should be refused in accordance with Section 25, and it is not considered that there are any material considerations that would warrant approval. Representations 8.26 In response to the grounds of representation, these are summarised as follows and the respective responses should be noted: a) Potential to increase traffic on Coltness Avenue and Mill Road and road safety Response: NLC’s Roads Development Service have advised that, the upgrade of pedestrian crossing points at the junction of Coltness Avenue and Allanton Road and the installation of speed control measures would make the development acceptable in this regard. b) Removal of trees from the application site prior to the submission of this application. Response: The application site is not located within a Conservation Area or has any Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) associated with it, and as such In this case no consent for works was required. c) The applicant’s description of the application site Response: In determining an application such as this any narrative provided about the site can be subjective any application is determined based on the facts of the site. d) Concerns about the notification and advertisement of this application Response: it is unfortunate that the objector does not appear to have received their notification letter. However, the advertisement and neighbour notification of this application was undertaken in line with planning legislation. Furthermore, as this application is a major application, the applicant undertook public consultation prior to this application being submitted to Planning, and a Preapplication Consultation Report was submitted with this application and is available to view on the council's website. e) Concern regarding potential disruption to local residents and local road users (vehicles and pedestrians) especially during the development’s construction phase Page 47 of 70
Page 48
Response: should it be approved, whilst this concern is important, it does not represent a material consideration in the assessment of the proposed residential use of the site. 9. Conclusions 9.1 To conclude, the residential development of up to 73 units is considered to represent an unacceptable departure from the development plan and is at odds with the application sites Countryside designation and the policies PP 5 and AD 5 within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. The proposed development also fails to comply with policies Sustainable transport (13), Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods (15), Quality homes (16), Rural homes (17), and Rural development (29) of NPF 4. 9.2 It should be noted however that if the committee were minded to approve planning permission in principle the decision should not be issued until a legal agreement covering education contributions has been concluded. Page 48 of 70
Page 49
Application No: 24/00622/S42 Proposed Development: Application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to amend the wording of condition 16 (operating hours) of Planning Permission 23/00668/FUL Site Address: Site Of Former Willowbank School 299 Bank Street Coatbridge ML5 1EG Date Registered: 21st June 2024 Applicant: Baynes Co. Ltd Orwell Bakery Loanhead Avenue Lochore KY5 8DD Agent: Bracewell Stirling Consulting 38 Walker Terrace Tillicoultry FK13 6EF Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 10 Coatbridge West Kevin Docherty, Lesley Mitchell, Gary Robinson, Representations: 7 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: That the proposal is considered contrary to Polices PP3 General Urban and EDQ policies 1&3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the early morning delivery and opening times would introduce activity at this time to the detriment of the residential amenity of neighbouring homes. Page 49 of 70
Page 50
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 24/00622/S42 Name (of applicant): Baynes Co. Ltd Site Address: Site Of Former Willowbank School 299 Bank Street Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 1EG Development: Application under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to amend the wording of condition 16 (operating hours) of Planning Permission 23/00668/FUL Page 50 of 70
Page 51
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:- 1. The proposed alternative wording to condition 16 would be to the detriment of residential amenity due to the introduction of very early morning activity on a daily basis which is incongruous to the context of the site and immediate residential neighbours and therefore contrary to the aims of policies PP 3 POLICY Purpose of Place (General Urban Area), EDQ 1&3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) 03 July 2024 Contact Information: Susan Hunt at 01236 632487 or planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 02 September 2024 Page 51 of 70
Page 52
APPLICATION NO. 24/00622/S42 REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site extends to 0.19 Ha and takes vehicular access from Bank Street (A89). The site was previously occupied by Willowbank Primary School which was declared surplus by NLC and subsequently demolished leaving the vacant site. The site is predominantly made up of residual hard standing with some rough grass areas around the perimeter and overgrown shrubs to the rear of the site. The site is bound to the North by Bank Street (A89) with the BP petrol station directly opposite, to the East by two storey tenement flats with restaurant and recently completed flats located on Kirkwood Road (the car parking area being immediately adjacent), to the West by residential flats, to the South by residential properties made up of two storey detached and semi-detached houses on Burnside View. The site itself is relatively flat adjacent to Bank Street but there is a drop to the rear boundary and a marked level difference between the site and the houses on Burnside View which sit at a lower level. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning Permission 23/00668/FUL for a Bakers Shop with Drive-Thru was granted under delegated powers on 26th April 2024 subject to conditions. This application seeks permission to alter the wording of Condition 16 to extend the operating hours of the business. 2.2 Condition 16 was worded as follows: That the development for which planning permission is hereby granted (including hours of operation and deliveries), shall take place only between the following hours: • Monday to Friday 7am-7pm • Saturday 7am-7pm • Sunday 9am – 7pm Reason: In the interests of Residential Amenity 2.3 The application wishes to alter the wording of the condition to the following: That the development for which planning permission is hereby granted (including hours of operation and deliveries), shall take place only between the following hours: Deliveries: • Monday to Friday 4am-7pm • Saturday 4am-7pm • Sunday – 6am -7pm Opening Hours: • Monday to Friday – 5.30am-7pm • Saturday – 6am – 7pm • Sunday – 8am-7pm Reason: In the interests of Residential amenity and to reflect the findings of the Noise Impact Assessment undertaken by New Acoustics (7696-00-00) dated 1st December 2023. Page 52 of 70
Page 53
2.4 The applicant was asked to consider a later start time for deliveries and opening hours and subsequently proposed the following hours to be inserted to the proposed condition above: Opening hours: • Monday to Saturday – 6am-7pm • Sunday – 7.30-7pm Deliveries • 1.25 -1.5 hours before opening hours (4.30/4.45am and 6.00/6.15am) 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The applicant submitted a supporting statement justifying the proposed wording of the condition with the key points as follows. 3.2 The applicants confirm that the noise mitigation measures set out in the Noise Impact Assessment prepared by New Acoustics and required by conditions 13 & 14 remain unchanged. 3.3 They argue that the Condition 16 as currently worded restricting early morning delivery and opening hours is unreasonable and not needed as there are adequate controls imposed by Condition 13 and 14. 3.4 Condition 16 as currently worded, fails the tests for conditions which are set out in Circular 4/1998 and NPF4 Policy 18(b) on the basis that it is not necessary and is not reasonable. 3.5 The consequence of the restricted delivery and opening hours set out in Condition 16 would mean that the proposed development is not viable and not capable of being progressed. 3.6 The applicant provided a Supporting Statement and Noise Impact Assessment. 3.7 The anticipated delivery arrangements are that a single delivery would be made to the unit per day, by means of a 7.5T refrigerated van with tail lift to allow restocking prior to opening of the unit. The loads would be 25% of the capacity of the van and the loads would be moved in baskets. The waste would also be collected by this vehicle thereby minimizing delivery and servicing movements. 3.8 The Noise Impact Assessment was informed by vehicle trips recorded at another Drive-thru site and are considered to represent a worst case scenario with 3 vehicle trips per 15 minutes during 5.30-7am and 4 vehicle trips per 15 minutes thereafter. 3.9 The applicants advise that the restriction in hours makes the development unviable form their perspective. 4. Site History 4.1 23/0668/FUL – Bakers Shop with Drive Thru granted subject to conditions on 26th April 2024 5. Development Plan 5.1 The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 and the North Page 53 of 70
Page 54
Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. 6. Consultations 6.1 NLC Protective Services reviewed the supporting statement together with the Noise Impact Assessment and had no objections on the basis of noise. They highlighted that the delivery hours in the NIA were based on 5.30am modelling and not 4am as initially proposed. 7. Representations 7.1 Following standard neighbour notification and press advert procedures 7 letters of representation were received objecting to the application. The points raised can be fairly summarised as follows: • Noise and disturbance from activity on the site early in the morning • Proximity to residential properties • No need for earlier opening • Increase in litter and vermin • Devalue neighbouring properties. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8.2 As this application proposes solely to alter the wording of Condition 16 of the approved planning permission 23/00668/FUL and given the scale of the development it is considered that the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan policies PP3 General Urban Areas and EDQ1-EDQ3 Environmental Design Qualities are the most relevant policies to assess this application against as they encapsulate the relevant policy intentions of NPF4. The thrust of policy PP3 is to maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development that is in keeping with their residential character. The use was considered to comply but subject to a control over operational hours. Policies EDQ 1 & 2 are of relevance to this particular case. EDQ1 advises that any proposed development will require to be appraised in terms of the site and its surroundings to ensure it will integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity. In particular, the impact of “Bad Neighbour” Development on the site and surrounding Land Use Character should be considered. The original planning application (and this S42 application) were advertised in the local press as a potential bad neighbour development on the basis that it would introduce activity and associated noise between n the hours of 8pm and 8am. The restriction in hours imposed by condition 16 was in response to this. 8.3 Policy EDQ3 advises that Development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Planning Applications will need to demonstrate that the proposed development takes account of the site appraisal. As part of the required appraisals the need to mitigate noise is highlighted. Whilst the use itself was considered to be appropriate for the site this was subject to a planning condition (condition 16) to control operational hours in the interests of residential amenity. 8.4 The previous delegated report acknowledges that the 2.4m high timber fence required as part of the noise mitigation measures identified in the Noise Impact Assessment would adequately protect the surrounding residential properties from adverse noise impact and Page 54 of 70
Page 55
would also prevent any adverse privacy issues. 8.5 It was accepted that the commercial use of the site would introduce more activity and noise, however, the technical reports concluded that the development was acceptable, and any impact would not be such to merit the refusal of the application. However, it was considered that the given the proximity of the residential properties to the site it was considered reasonable to restrict the opening hours by condition to 7am at the earliest to protect residential amenity. 8.6 The consideration of the proposal on residential amenity is not solely based on noise impact. Indeed, the acoustic mitigation measures proposed with the original application were considered acceptable. It is considered that the proposed delivery window and opening hours would introduce a level of early morning activity that has not been present on site, would be a daily occurrence which would be incongruous to the context of the site and the immediate residential neighbours. 8.7 It is acknowledged that the site was previously occupied by a School which would have attracted its own level of activity distinct from the neighbouring residential properties; however, this activity was limited to a handful of vehicular traffic and children’s voices in outside areas during school hours. It would not be unreasonable to assume that there was limited activity on the site prior to 8am. 8.8 It is noted that the applicant has stated that the vehicle trip generation numbers represent the worst case scenario; however, should the hours be extended to opening earlier than 7am then there is no way to restrict the level of visitors should the business prove very popular and generate a higher number of visitors and the general activity that this would bring to the site. 8.9 Whilst it is noted that the applicant advises that the restriction in hours imposed by Condition 16 potentially makes the development unviable form their point of view this is not considered to be sufficient justification to set aside our concerns that proposed operational hours would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents immediately adjacent to the site. Members should note that the site is still owned by the Council and if the developers decide to walk away from the site that a potential capital receipt may be lost. Again, this is not of relevance to the consideration at hand. 8.10 Following standard neighbour notification and press advert procedures 7 letters of representation were received. The points objection can be fairly summarised and responded to as follows: • We are concerned about the early morning deliveries • The disturbance from the workspace due to noise and light exposure • 4am is very early • My property is no more than 20m away from the proposed loading bay area and the noise and disturbance from the engines and unloading equipment of possibly refrigerated vehicles and roller blinds and shutters at this early hour would have a very negative impact on the sleep and wellbeing of the residents. • Noise Pollution from vehicle doors opening and closing, engines idling, music playing within vehicles, telephone calls on hands-free taking place within vehicles waiting, mechanical tail lift, refrigerated units and reversing beepers. • A residential area is an unsuitable location for a drive-through establishment • The development is in a residential area replacing an old school building which generated little to no noise when in operation. The small numbers attending and working within the school meant that less than a handful of cars were parked to the Page 55 of 70
Page 56
front of the building on weekdays (term time) causing no disruption to nearby residents. • The ordering point/intercom is within 20m of residential properties • The BP petrol station opens at 6.30am • The noise pollution at such an early hour would contravene the Environmental Protection Act • The amount of traffic it will attract will make the area noisier Response: As discussed in the report above it is considered that the noise mitigation measures identified in the Noise Impact Assessment were considered acceptable in the previous application and are again so. It is noted that residential amenity is not solely assessed on the basis of noise and it is acknowledged that there are concerns about the introduction of such early morning activity on the site. • Concern that the applicant would wish to extend operating hours further in the future to 24hours. Response: This application can only assess the currently proposed hours. Any further alteration would be the subject of a separate application. • It will impact and reduce the value of my property Response: This is not a material planning consideration. • Increase in litter and vermin Response: It is not considered that the proposed hours of operation would result in increased litter or vermin. • There is no need for the bakery to operate at these times Response: The proposed hours are based on the applicant’s business operational requirements. • Title deeds provide access through the site for neighbours Response: This falls outwith the planning remit and is covered by separate legislation. • Exhaust fumes will cause air pollution. Response: The assessment over air pollution in the original application still stands in that it is not considered to significantly impact on air quality and the proposed opening and delivery times would not alter this conclusion. • Query over the structural integrity of the proposed acoustic fence mitigation measures Response: It is for the applicant to ensure that the acoustic fence is structurally sound and fit for purpose. • Planning permission should be sought for residential development on the site. Response: This application requires to assess solely the proposed hours of operation and cannot consider other alternative uses for the site. Page 56 of 70
Page 57
8.10 On balance it is considered that delivery and opening hours earlier than 7am detailed in the condition attached to planning permission 23/00668/FUL would introduce activity to the site early in the morning, which was not present in previous uses, in close proximity to residential dwellinghouses to the detriment of their residential amenity. The original application was determined under delegated powers and the fact that we have had 7 letters of representation in relation to the proposed change of hours (thus requiring a committee report) is considered to support our assessment that a change of the consented hours would have an adverse impact on residential amenity. 9. Conclusions 9.1 Taking into account the above discussion it is considered that the application should be refused as the proposed alternative wording to condition 16 would be to the detriment of residential amenity due to the introduction of very early morning activity on a daily basis which is incongruous to the context of the site and immediate neighbours and therefore contrary to the aims of policies PP3 Policy (General Urban), EDQ1 & 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. Accordingly, on the basis that it is still considered to be necessary and reasonable, condition 16 should remain as worded in planning permission 23/00668/FUL. Page 57 of 70
Page 58
Application No: 24/00709/FUL Proposed Development: Two detached houses Site Address: Land At Hawthorn Avenue Crindledyke Newmains North Lanarkshire Date Registered: 29th July 2024 Applicant: Mr Drew Dingwall 209 Bonkle Road Newmains North Lanarkshire ML2 9AA Agent: WB Properties Scotland Ltd. Daldraco 3 Birniehill Road Hareshaw North Lanarkshire ML1 5GX Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 20 Murdostoun Robert John McKendrick, Cameron McManus, Louise Roarty, Nicky Shevlin Representations: 7 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: The proposal would involve the construction of two large detached houses within the Green Belt in circumstances which do not satisfy any of the policy requirements for housing in the Green Belt and it is not considered that there are material considerations justifying a development of this nature. Furthermore, the application site is within a SINC and wildlife corridor, and its development along with the significant associated earthworks would be likely to have a detrimental impact upon these natural heritage assets. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to policies 3 (Biodiversity), 4 (Natural Places), 8 (Greenbelts) and 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Policy Framework 4 and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 greenbelt policies PP4, AD4 and protecting natural environment policy PROT A. Page 58 of 70
Page 59
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 24/00709/FUL Name (of applicant): WB Properties Scotland Ltd Site Address: Land At Hawthorn Avenue, Crindledyke, Newmains, North Lanarkshire Development: Two detached houses Page 59 of 70
Page 60
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:- 1. The proposal would be contrary to National Planning Framework 4 policies 8 (Greenbelts) and 16 (Quality Homes) and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan greenbelt policies PP4 and AD4, as it would result in unjustified housing development within the Green Belt. 2. The proposal would be contrary to National Planning Framework 4 policies 3 (Biodiversity) and 4 (Natural Places), and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan protecting natural environment policy PROT A in that it would give rise to detrimental impact upon a wildlife corridor and designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Page 60 of 70
Page 61
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Coal Authority response dated 6 August 2024 Archaeology Service response dated 7 March 2024 (previous application) Environmental Health response dated 6 August 2024 Traffic & Transportation response dated 13 June 2024 (previous application) Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Keith Bathgate at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 30 August 2024 Page 61 of 70
Page 62
APPLICATION NO. 24/00709/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application relates to an area of undeveloped land at the end of Hawthorn Avenue, on the southern edge of Newmains. It borders the back gardens of houses on Bonkle Road to the north west, a small parking area and further undeveloped land to the south west (with houses on Hawthorn Avenue and a playing field a short distance beyond), and the steep- sided valley of the Auchter Water / Crindledyke Burn to the east. The site is roughly square in shape and extends to approximately 0.19ha. It is overgrown in long grass and rosebay willowherb with a few small trees and bushes. The land falls from its northern corner (adjacent to the parking area) down towards the watercourse to the east of the site. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for two detached houses with associated garages, access and land engineering works. The two houses would be of the same type, and would be three-bedroom bungalows. Within the back gardens each house would have a single garage building of almost double-garage proportions, the two garages being built alongside each other as a semi-detached pair. The houses would be accessed by a shared private drive continuing from the car park at the end of Hawthorn Drive. One house would face north-west towards the rear of houses on Bonkle Road, while the other would face south- west along Hawthorn Avenue. Due to the slope of the land some significant cut and fill would be needed to create level ground for the buildings, with the western house involving excavation of up to approximately 1m, and the eastern house requiring land raising and underbuilding next to the valley, as well as two garden retaining walls of up to 2m. Details of precise materials and boundary treatments have not been specified at this stage. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The application is supported by a planning statement, a drainage strategy, a preliminary ecological assessment and a coal mining risk assessment. Two letters of support from members of the applicant’s family have also been submitted along with medical information about two children. 4. Site History 4.1 An application for outline planning permission (02/01056/OUT) for residential development of a substantially larger 1.5ha site along the western side of the Auchter Water burn, of which the current application site forms a part, was called in by the Scottish Ministers and refused in 2004 on the grounds that the site was within the Green Belt and a SINC. 4.2 An application for two houses was submitted by the applicant in 2021 (reference 21/00545/FUL), this was withdrawn due to lack of information required for validation. An identical application (23/00815/FUL) was then submitted in 2023. Both of these applications were for a similar layout to the present application but featured larger two-storey house types. The second application was refused by the Planning Committee in June 2024 due to it being contrary to Green Belt and natural environment policies. Page 62 of 70
Page 63
4.3 The current application is very similar to the application which was refused earlier this year, having the same site boundary and a near-identical layout. However, there are several differences: • The house types have changed from six-bedroom two-storey houses to three-bedroom bungalows; • The orientation of the house on Plot 2 (easternmost) has changed, so that it would face south west rather than north west; • The applicant has clarified that the houses are intended to be occupied by two households which both include disabled children (rather than one as previously understood); • The applicant is willing to transfer an area of land to either the council or to a nominated third party if permission is granted (which forms part of the adjacent recreation ground but which is within the applicant’s ownership); • It has been confirmed that the owner of the land is the applicant and that the housing developer is merely acting as their agent (there having previously been confusion about this due to the application forms being incorrect). 5. Development Plan National Planning Framework 4 3 (Biodiversity) 4 (Natural places) 8 (Green belts) 14 (Design, quality and place) 16 (Quality homes) North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 PP4 (Green Belt – Purpose of Place) AD4 (Green Belt – Amount of Development) PROM LOC3 (Housing Development Sites) PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets) EDQ1 to EDQ3 (Environmental and Design Qualities) 6. Consultations 6.1 The Coal Authority has no objection to the application. It is noted that the coal mining risk assessment concludes that the stability of the site would not be affected by any historic mine workings. 6.2 NLC’s Environmental Health Service has no objection subject to a condition requiring that comprehensive site investigation for potential contaminated land be submitted and approved prior to development commencing. 6.3 The council’s Archaeology service provider (commenting on the previous application) had no objection to the application but noted that the site has potential to contain medieval remains on national significance, and therefore recommended a condition requiring archaeological investigations prior to any commencement of development. 6.4 NLC’s Transportation Service had not yet responded at the time of writing, but when commenting on the previous application with an identical road layout they had no objection Page 63 of 70
Page 64
subject to adequate pedestrian access and to car parking and turning for bin lorries within the adjacent car park remaining unimpeded. 7. Representations 7.1 Seven representations have been received, all of which object to the application for reasons which can be summarised as follows: • Loss of privacy due to new houses facing directly into the rear gardens and windows of existing houses on Bonkle Road; • Scale and massing of houses being out of character with surrounding houses, and will dominate neighbouring bungalows and block outlook; • Loss of sunlight and overshadowing of existing bungalows and gardens on Bonkle Road; • Adverse impact on wildlife and biodiversity. The site is within an area inhabited by nesting birds, deer and various small animals; • Site is part of an area used for recreation and the development will obstruct a route used for dog walking; • Detrimental to character of Green Belt and contrary to Green Belt policies; • Light from development will affect neighbours and wildlife; • Noise and disruption during construction period; • Contrary to Scottish Planning Policy and National Planning Policy Framework. • Planning permission for housing on this site was previously refused by the Scottish Ministers in 2004, and permission for two houses was refused by the council earlier this year; • This repeat application is a waste of taxpayers’ money; • Access to the site is via Hawthorn Avenue which is a quiet cl-de-sac, so residents in that street should have been neighbour notified and would potentially have objected; and • Using a different address for the site compared to the previous application is suggested to be an effort to mislead objectors. 8. Planning Assessment Development Plan Policy 8.1 Under section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, applications for planning permission are required to be determined in accordance with the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (the LDP), with the former taking precedence in the event of any conflict between policies. 8.2 The application site is within the designated Green Belt. NPF4 policy 8 seeks to promote compact urban growth by restricting development within the Green Belt to specified types and circumstances, which in the case of residential development are limited to houses required for key workers in countryside businesses (e.g. farming and forestry), replacements for existing dwellings and conversions of suitable existing buildings. Policy 8 also requires that development proposals must demonstrate that a Green Belt location is essential as the development could not be accommodated on an alternative site, and that the proposal should not undermine the purpose of the Green Belt. LDP policies PP4 and AD4 are substantially similar in effect in relation to housing development in the Green Belt. The application Page 64 of 70
Page 65
proposal does not involve a type of residential development allowed by these policies, and the applicant has not demonstrated a requirement for a Green Belt site. Furthermore, allowing incremental housing development on the edge of the settlement boundary would undermine one of the purposes of the Green Belt, i.e. to protect the countryside around towns from unplanned encroachment. In this case, whilst the proposal would not significantly extend the urban area or affect the landscape setting of the settlement, it would cause the urban area to encroach into the valley of a watercourse which forms a natural boundary for this part of the settlement. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to NPF4 policy 8 and to LDP policies PP4 and AD4. 8.3 National policy on new housing development is contained in NPF4 policy 16, which sets out the means by which LDPs should establish a deliverable housing land pipeline to meet local housing needs. Proposals for new homes on land which is not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances, such as where the proposal is within an existing settlement boundary or is consistent with the policy on rural homes, neither of which is the case for this proposal. The policy does also support new homes which address identified gaps in provision, including self-provided and wheelchair accessible homes, however it is implicit that support for these types of homes within the Green Belt depends upon a demonstrated need and a lack of alternative locations, and as discussed below it is not considered that the circumstances of this application provide such a justification. As the application site is Green Belt land outwith the settlement boundary the relevant LDP housing policy PROM LOC3 indicates that housing development will only be supported where this complies with policies PP4 and AD4, which (as explained above) this proposal does not. The proposal is therefore contrary to both NPF4 policy 16 and also to LDP policy PROM LOC3 (although the latter policy has in practice been superseded by NPF4 policy 16 for reasons which do not relate directly to this proposal). 8.4 The application site lies within a larger area along the valley of the watercourse which is designated as a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC). The SINC designation lists this area as being of interest due to its running water and grassland habitats. NPF4 policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Development proposals should avoid potential adverse impacts and should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity including strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Local development proposals should include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. NPF4 policy 4 seeks to protect and enhance natural assets, and includes a requirement that development proposals which affect local nature conservation sites will only be supported where it does not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or any significant adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits. LDP policy PROT A3 indicates that planning permission will only be granted for development affecting locally designated nature sites (such as SINCs) or urban green network sites (such as urban wildlife corridors) if it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact or that such impacts can be mitigated against. The applicant has provided a Preliminary Ecological Assessment which concludes that the impact on the SINC would be limited (discussed below), however it is considered that the proposal would encroach into a grassland area forming part of the already narrow valley of a watercourse and risks eroding its connectivity with the South Calder Water SINC to the north. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to NPF4 policies 3 and 4, and to LDP policy PROT A. 8.5 NPF4 policy 14 supports well designed development which makes successful places. Development proposals are to be designed to improve the quality of their area, and should deliver the six qualities of successful places (i.e. healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable and adaptable). Proposals which are poorly designed or detrimental to the Page 65 of 70
Page 66
amenity of the surrounding area will not be supported. LDP policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 collectively have similar requirements, specifying that development proposals be subject to an appropriate site appraisal and achieve a high quality of development. The proposed houses would be of a style and layout which is in keeping with the existing mixture of building types in the vicinity, and the impact on existing neighbouring houses would be acceptable. Overall, it is not considered that there would be any conflict with NPF4 policy 14 or with the LDP EDQ policies. Applicant’s Circumstances 8.6 Supporting information submitted with the application indicates that the two houses would be occupied by the families of the applicant’s two adult daughters, each of whom has a child with a medical condition. One of the families includes a child who has a neurological condition and uses a wheelchair, and they are currently living in an upper storey flat which is unsuitable for their needs because it is not accessible by wheelchair, lacks a disability-friendly bathroom, and is too small. The other family has a child who displays traits of neurodevelopmental disorders and is currently on the waiting list for assessment. Their current home is not conveniently accessible by public transport for the child’s grandparents (i.e. the applicants) which complicates childcare. The applicant therefore wishes to provide more satisfactory and conveniently located homes for both daughters’ families at a location where immediate 24-hour support would be available from the extended family. To this end they have attempted to purchase two proximate houses (one for each of their daughters’ families) but have not been able to secure suitable properties. Therefore, it is proposed to build two large family homes on the application site, so that the two families can live immediately adjacent to each other (and close to the applicant), thereby ensuring that additional support and respite care is always available. This would also provide increased financial security to enable them to make provision for the children’s futures. 8.7 The applicant’s planning statement argues that the proposal is consistent with NPF4 policy 16 because there is a lack of properties suitable for disabled children and “the council and other landlords are not building any”. The council is in fact building accessible properties, but it is acknowledged that private housebuilders tend not to provide accessible bungalows. No information has been provided to suggest that the families concerned have sought accessible social housing, and the information which has been provided suggests that only one of the two families requires a fully wheelchair accessible home. The applicant’s reasons for wanting to develop this particular site therefore seem to have as much or more to do with proximity and the fact that the land is already in family ownership as they do to accessibility. 8.8 The applicant’s submissions are noted and there must obviously be a great deal of sympathy towards the family’s wish to provide better accommodation and care for their disabled members, however the circumstances described are not considered to justify a proposal which is contrary to development plan policy. It has not been demonstrated that no other disabled-friendly housing is available. Whilst it is recognised that it would be convenient for the extended family to live immediately adjacent to one another, it is not considered that this provides a justification for building houses in the Green Belt. 8.9 The personal circumstances described therefore do not demonstrate that there is no alternative to building houses on a site which is within both the Green Belt and a SINC, and it is not considered that these circumstances would justify allowing the development of housing on a site which is contrary to development plan policies as described above. Ecology 8.10 A Preliminary Ecological Impact Assessment has been provided, but it was undertaken Page 66 of 70
Page 67
during 2021. Due to the age of that document fresh survey work would require to be undertaken before any development could take place, though there has been no obvious change to the site during this period. The 2021 survey found no evidence of protected flora or fauna on the site, and although there was evidence of protected otters in the nearby Auchter Burn the site itself did not provide suitable otter habitat. The site did contain potentially suitable habitat for various species of birds, badgers, small mammals and invertebrates, but the Assessment concluded that the habitats provided are not rare and as the site is relatively small the impact of its loss would not be significant. In terms of impact on the designated SINC, the Assessment concluded that as the site is adjacent to the built- up area and on higher ground than the riparian corridor which is the core of the SINC, its development would not result in fragmentation of the SINC. Whilst all of that is noted, the SINC designation covers not only the watercourse but also areas of natural space along its banks which act as a green buffer and contribute to the value of the watercourse as a wildlife corridor. The SINC is already constrained in its width just to the north of the site, where the burn passes under Bonkle Road, and it is considered that removing this area of land would further constrain the width of the wildlife corridor. Whilst the site is on higher ground than the watercourse, the proposal involves significant earthworks including underbuilding and retaining structures within the valley of the watercourse. Overall, it is considered that the proposal would inevitably have a detrimental impact upon wildlife habitats forming part of a designated SINC, and as such the proposal is contrary to the policies outlined above. Design and Amenity 8.11 The proposed houses would be positioned behind existing bungalows on Bonkle Road, but they would not be readily visible from that street. Rather, the houses would effectively become an eastward extension of Hawthorn Avenue, with its existing two-storey terraced houses. There is a mixture of house types and sizes in the surrounding area and the design and layout of the proposal is not considered to conflict with the amenity or character of the adjoining residential area. Objectors have expressed concern about overlooking of the back gardens of houses on Bonkle Road, but the nearer of the new houses would be at least 15m back from the rear boundaries of the existing houses, and around 30m from the rear elevation of the nearest house. These separation distances are well within the Council’s acceptable minimums for new housing development, and when compared to most modern urban housing the gardens would be sizeable and the buildings well-separated. The orientation of the proposed house on plot 2 (closest to neighbouring houses) has also been changed since the previous application so that it would face south-west, with only a kitchen window in the side gable facing towards Bonkle Road. It is acknowledged that existing neighbours whose properties currently back onto open space would inevitably experience a loss of outlook from their rear windows and a greater degree of overlooking of their garden if the adjacent land is developed for housing, but overall the proposal provides adequate privacy and there would be no impact upon sunlight or daylight. Some of the objections refer to the size of the proposed houses being excessive and to them being over-dominant or overshadowing the bungalows on Bonkle Road, but the current proposal is for two bungalows which would be similar or smaller to the size of the existing houses (and it is possible that those comments were aimed at the house types from the previous application). Other than a small amount of additional traffic in the street there would be no significant impact upon the existing houses in Hawthorn Avenue. Overall, the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of neighbours would be considered to be acceptable. Technical Consultations 8.12 The proposed drainage arrangements (a mains sewer connection for foul sewage and SUDS for surface water) are appropriate, and the Coal Authority is content with the conclusion of the coal mining risk assessment that there are no shallow mineworkings under the site. The Page 67 of 70
Page 68
Environmental Health Service has indicated that a site investigation for potential contaminated land would be required, however that would normally be a matter capable of being addressed by a condition. The Transportation Service had not yet responded at the time of writing this report, however they had no objection to the previous application which had an identical road layout. Overall, the technical aspects of the proposal appear to be acceptable. Proposed Gift of Land 8.13 The applicant has offered to gift approximately 0.31ha of land to the council (or a nominated trust or other organisation) if planning permission is granted. The land in question is part of the recreation ground adjacent to the site. The majority of the recreation ground is owned by the council, but apparently a wedge of it is owned by the applicant. There is no differentiation between the applicant’s land and the council land on the ground, and in principle the consolidation of ownership would seem desirable, however the suggested gift of land does not directly relate to any impact arising from the proposed development and therefore it is not a material planning consideration and it would not be appropriate to take it into account in determining the application. Furthermore, when the applicant first suggested this (in the context of the 2021 application which was ultimately deemed withdrawn), consultation with Property Services highlighted the fact that the council could not accept a gift of land without assurances as to its condition (e.g. detailed site investigations and coal mining risk assessments) in case the land proved to be a liability rather than an asset. Such documents are not currently available. Other Supporting Information 8.14 In addition to matters addressed above, the applicant’s planning statement argues that the principle of development in the Green Belt at this location has already been established by a recent planning permission to change the use of a small area of open space lying between the adjacent car park and the back gardens of houses on Bonkle Road to garden ground. However the circumstances of that application were entirely different to the current proposal, as it involved a small area of ground which formed a salient in the Green Belt boundary, and its inclusion into neighbouring gardens simply straightened the settlement edge. 8.15 The planning statement also argues that the application site is vacant brownfield land which was previously used as a yard, and that its development is therefore supported by policies including NPF4 policy 9 (brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings). This claim seems to be based upon a circa 1950 aerial photograph which shows a small area of differently coloured ground occupying around a quarter of the application site, but the image is not clear enough to show what if anything the area was being used for, and there is no evidence that it was a yard or any other commercial use. The site is not shown as developed in any pre- or post- World War II Ordnance Survey maps, so even if there was some ephemeral use of the land it has long since ceased and the site has returned to nature. The site is therefore not regarded as being “brownfield” and its development does not draw any support from NPF4 policy 9. Representations 8.16 Issues raised by objectors which have already been addressed earlier in this report included: • the design of the proposed houses • impact on the amenity of neighbours • the impact on wildlife and • non-compliance with Green Belt policies, Page 68 of 70
Page 69
The other matters raised by objectors were as follows: • Development will obstruct a route used for dog walking Response: Several informal paths are present in the grass on the west side of the Auchter Burn, and the development of the site would affect some of these. However, the paths do not appear to have any formal status and it is not considered that their loss would significantly affect the availability of recreational or dog-walking routes in the area. • Planning permission for housing on this site was previously refused by the Scottish Ministers and the council, and this application is a waste of taxpayers’ money; Response: The 2002 refusal of outline planning permission has been noted above, but since that time there have been numerous changes in planning policy and the recent proposals are for a significantly smaller development. The current proposal is very similar to the application which was refused earlier this year, but the applicant has changed the house types and has submitted additional supporting information. Under the circumstances the council has no power to decline to entertain the new application, so it requires to be considered afresh. • Noise and disruption during construction period; Response: Some disruption is inevitable during development, but that is not a sufficient reason to prevent development from taking place. • Concerns about the site address being misleading and neighbour notification being insufficiently wide: Response: The application is the same site as the previous application but has been given a different address because the new address is considered to better describe the site. All of the same neighbours were notified and received a map showing the location of the site so there should not have been any confusion. Neighbour notification is carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements which only cover properties that immediately border the site. 9. Conclusions 9.1 The proposal would involve the construction of two detached houses within the Green Belt in circumstances which do not satisfy any of the policy requirements for housing in the Green Belt and it is not considered that there are material considerations justifying a development of this nature. Furthermore, the application site is within a SINC and wildlife corridor, and its development along with the significant associated earthworks would be likely to have a detrimental impact upon these natural heritage assets. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to policies 3 (Biodiversity), 4 (Natural Places), 8 (Greenbelts) and 16 (Quality Homes) of National Planning Policy Framework 4, and to North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 greenbelt policies PP4, AD4 and protecting natural environment policy PROT A. Page 69 of 70
Page 70
Page 70 of 70