Agenda pack
North Lanarkshire Council · 25 May 2023
Back to Planning Committee — 25 May 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Our Ref: Your Ref: Contact: Tel: Fax: E-Mail: Date: Mark Hamill 07811294702 hamillm@northlan.gov.uk 16 May 2023 Members of the Planning Committee Chief Executive’s Office Archie Aitken Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street Motherwell ML1 1AB DX 571701, Motherwell 2 www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk Notice is given that a Meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE is to be held within the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Motherwell on Thursday, 25 May 2023 at 10:00 am which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Chief Officer (Legal and Democratic) Members : Councillors: B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, A Campbell, M Coyle, S Coyle, G Currie, K Docherty, L Jarvie, T Johnston, J Logue, H Loughran, F MacGregor, P McDade, F McNally, M McPake, D Robb, G Robinson, N Shevlin, A Smith, L Stubbs and G Woods. Page 1 of 33
Page 2
Page 2 of 33
Page 3
AGENDA (1) Declarations of Interest in terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (2) Planning Applications Index (page 5 - 30) Submit Planning Applications Index (copy herewith) (3) Notice of Planning and Enforcement Appeals Lodged (page 31 - 32) Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) advising of two planning and enforcement appeals lodged (copy herewith) (4) Notice of Planning and Enforcement Appeals Decisions (page 33 - 33) Submit report by the Chief Officer (Place) advising of one planning and enforcement appeals decisions (copy herewith) Page 3 of 33
Page 4
Page 4 of 33
Page 5
North Lanarkshire Council Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee Committee Date: 25-05-2023 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved AGENDA ITEM 2 Page 5 of 33
Page 6
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 25th May 2023 Page No Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation 7-16 22/00378/FUL Grove Retail Ltd Erection of Restaurant (Class 3) with drive through, petrol filling station (sui generis), with ancillary shop (Class 1), electric vehicle charging points, car wash, HGV wash, internal roads, landscaping and drainage (with SUDs) Land South Of Junction Of Lancaster Avenue And Bellside Road Chapelhall Grant 17-29 22/01225/FUL Mr John Hannigan Holiday lodges (65 units), farmhouse, residential development (18 units), agricultural building and road Improvements and associated infrastructure Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld G67 4AE Refuse (P) (P) 22/01225/FUL - If minded to grant, legal agreement required to allow for education contributions. Page 6 of 33
Page 7
Application No: 22/00378/FUL Proposed Development: Erection of Restaurant (Class 3) with drive through, petrol filling station (sui generis), with ancillary shop (Class 1), electric vehicle charging points, car wash, HGV wash, internal roads, landscaping and drainage (with SUDs) Site Address: Land South Of Junction Of Lancaster Avenue And Bellside Road Chapelhall Date Registered: 25th April 2022 Applicant: Grove Retail Ltd Southwark Service Station 2-4 New Cross Road, London SE14 5BE Agent: Neil Gray Gray Planning & Development Ltd AYE House Admiralty Park Rosyth Dunfermline KY11 2YW Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 12 Airdrie South Michael Joseph Coyle, Paul Di Mascio, Sandy Watson, Michael McBride, Representations: 3 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: Planning permission is already in place on this site for a mixed use development and therefore the development proposal represents an acceptable exception to Green Belt policy despite it being contrary to both the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 and NPF 4. Page 7 of 33
Page 8
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 22/00378/FUL Name (of applicant): Grove Retail Ltd Site Address: Land South Of Junction Of Lancaster Avenue And Bellside Road Chapelhall Development: Erection of Restaurant (Class 3) with drive through, petrol filling station (sui generis), with ancillary shop (Class 1), electric vehicle charging points, car wash, HGV wash, internal roads, landscaping and drainage (with SUDs) Page 8 of 33
Page 9
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- PL_001, PL_002, PL_100 RevA, PL_102 RevA, PL_103 RevA, PL_005 RevB PL_110, 4007PL_111 REV A, PL_112, PL_113, PL_114, PL_200, PL_201, PL_202, PL_203, PL_204, 2116.L.G(92)001 REV P06, 2116.L.G(92)002 REVP07, 2116.L.G(92)003 REVP06, PL_003 REVL Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That prior to any works of any kind (including site investigations) start on the application site, a breeding bird and a survey for violet species shall be undertaken and a report shall be submitted to and for the approval by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, any agreed mitigation works (contained withing the surveys) shall be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable. Reason: In the interests of protecting nature conservation interests. 3. That should no development commence before May 2024 then an updated protected species surveys shall be provided for the written approval of the Planning Authority before any development starts on site. Thereafter, any agreed mitigation works (contained withing the surveys) shall be implemented in accordance with an agreed timetable. Reason: In the interests of protecting nature conservation interests. 4. That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175 : 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required. Information on the required format of the report and how it should be submitted to us can be found online: https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/planning-and- building/planning-applications/how-discharge-contaminated-land-planning-conditions Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. 5. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 4, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. 6. That prior to any works of any description start on the application site a programme of Archaeological works to establish the presence or absence of cultural heritage remains is submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the programme shall consist of trial trench evaluation. In the event of any remains being uncovered then no works shall take place until suitable mitigation is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Any mitigation shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in advance. Reason: In the interests of the preservation of cultural heritage. 7. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water can be fully met to demonstrate that the development will not have an impact on their assets, and that suitable infrastructure can be put in place to support the development. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements. Page 9 of 33
Page 10
8. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the surface water drainage scheme detailed on drawing PL-003 REVL and with the Plot Drainage Strategy & Flood Risk Assessment by Waterman Infrastructure & Environment Limited dated March 2022 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans. Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users and existing residents adjacent to the development site. 9. The proposed surface water drainage scheme to be implemented under condition 8 above should ensure that there shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system are implemented or being proposed. Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users and existing road users adjacent to the development site. 10. That, prior to the operation of any of the development hereby permitted, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the acoustic barrier specified within the Report on Sound from Service Station and Restaurant by Charlie Fleming Associates (dated 11th July 2022) and drawings PL-003 REVL and 4007PL_111 REVA shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the acoustic barrier to be constructed must comply with the recommendations of the approved the Report on Sound from Service Station and Restaurant by Charlie Fleming Associates (dated 11th July 2022) and drawings PL-003 REVL and 4007PL_111 REVA. Reason: In the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users and nearby residents. 11. That, prior to the operation of any of the development hereby permitted, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, a verification report (signed by a suitably qualified Acoustic Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that acoustic barrier approved by Planning Authority in terms of condition 10 above has been installed and is in operation. Reason: In the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users and nearby residents. 12. That prior to any works of any kind being undertaken on site, a report confirming the full technical specification (including noise level specifications) which also identifies any necessary noise mitigation measures to ensure that the rated noise level from the plant can be shown to have no adverse impact when assessed in terms of BS4142 against the prevailing background noise level at the nearest noise sensitive receptor and a location plan showing the location of all plant, shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users and nearby residents. 13. That prior to the operation of plant specified in the condition 12 above, a verification report (signed by a suitably qualified Acoustic Engineer) confirming that the plant and any noise mitigation measures approved by the Planning Authority in terms of the above condition 12 above have been installed and are in operation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. Reason: In the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future development users and nearby residents. 14. That before any of the development hereby permitted is operational, the 3.8 metre wide footway and all access and manoeuvring areas as detailed on drawing PL-003 REVL shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines Page 10 of 33
Page 11
published by the said Roads Authority. Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety and to facilitate future development outwith the application site. 15. That before any of the development hereby permitted is operational, the landscaping and planting scheme detailed on drawings 2116.L.G(92)001 REV P06, 2116.L.G(92)002 REV P07 and 2116.L.G(92)003 REV P06 shall be implemented in full, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full operation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Archaeology Service Traffic & Transportation Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) The Coal Authority Transport Scotland NLC Greenspace Scottish Water Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Patricia Beaton at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk. Report Date: 11th May 2023 Page 11 of 33
Page 12
APPLICATION NO. 22/00378/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is an area of unkept grass to the south east of Chapelhall which is part of a larger area of land between Lancaster Avenue and the A8 with levels rising upwards gently from east to west. The site is surrounded by housing, woodland and more open space to the north, the A73, a roundabout and open space to the east, a SUDs pond and junction 6 (Newhouse) of the M8 to the south and open space to the west. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of Restaurant with Drive Through (Class 3), Petrol Filling Station (Sui Generis) with Ancillary Shop (Class 1), Electric Vehicle Charging Points, Car Wash, HGV Wash, internal roads, landscaping and drainage (with full-site SUDs) 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The applicant has submitted the following in support of the proposal: • Air Quality Impact Assessment • Protected Species Ecology Surveys • Invasive Non-Native Species Survey • Drainage Strategy Report • Noise Study • Design and Access Statement • Planning Supporting Statement • Coal Mining Risk Assessment • Report on Site Investigations • Transport Statement 4. Site History 4.1 Planning permission in principle (18/00266/PPP) was previously granted on 25th October 2018 at this location for a Mixed Use Development Comprising Class 3 (Food & Drink), Class 7 (Hotel), Class 11 (Assembly/Leisure), Class 1 (Ancillary Retail) and Sui Generis (Roadside Fuel/Electric Charging, Hot Food Takeaway, Public Bar) with Associated Infrastructure (Drainage, Ground Treatment Landscaping). An indicative layout plan was provided as part of that application, but the conditions of the planning permission make it clear that this layout was not accepted. 4.2 Condition 1 of permission 18/00266/PPP required a further application for approval of matters specified in condition (MSC) to be submitted. Any MSC application would need to include all land within the application site boundary of permission 18/00266/PPP. The development seeking permission within this application (22/00378/FUL) only includes part of the wider site approved under 18/00266/PPP. This application is therefore a standalone application separate from permission 18/00266/PPP. 4.3 In 2021 an application (21/01434/S420) was submitted under the terms of Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to amend condition 15 and 16 of planning permission 18/00266/PPP. This permission was approved on 27th January 2022. 5. Development Plan 5.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that a planning application should be assessed against the relevant Development plan policies unless material consideration indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not of strategic significance and as such, should be assessed in terms of the relevant local plan policies. 5.2 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) has now been adopted and was published on 13th February 2023. NPF4 is now part of the Development Plan and replaces NPF3 and Scottish Planning Policy. Page 12 of 33
Page 13
Previous Scottish Planning Policy and the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan are no longer in force and their provisions are no longer to be considered when making planning decisions. 5.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP) identifies the application site as part of the Green Belt under policies PP A4 and AD 4 Green Belt. The site is further designated as a Specialist Business Site (NLC00532) under policy PROM LOC 2 Business Development Site. Policy PROT A Category 5 will also be applicable. 5.4 The NLLDP requires that all proposed development be assessed against policies EDQ 1 (Site appraisal) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development). 6. Consultations 6.1 Transport Scotland has no objection subject to a condition ensuring that no drainage connections to the truck road drainage system are made. 6.2 The Coal Authority has advised that they no objection to this planning application. 6.3 Scottish Water has advised that they have no objection to this planning application. 6.4 The council’s Archaeological Service has advised that the development has the potential to impact 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. 6.5 The council’s Pollution Control has no objections to this application and has advised that whilst some site investigation information has been submitted as part of this application, this information is incomplete and further detailed site investigation information is still required, conditions should be attached to any permission in relation to this outstanding site investigations and remediation information. Pollution Control requested the submission of a noise study and Air Quality Assessment. These reports have been submitted and Pollution Control has advised that conditions with regards to the implementation and verification of the recommended noise mitigation measures should be attached to any permission. No conditions in relation to Air Quality are required. 6.6 The council’s Roads Development Service has advised that they have no objection to this application and made comments in relation to the provision of footways and the site assess. A condition regarding the implementation of a footway should be attached to any permission. 6.7 The council’s Greenspace Development Service advised that a Protected Species Ecology Surveys and Invasive Non-Native Species Survey is required as would details of any landscaping proposed as part of this development. Greenspace Development has advised that they are satisfied with the findings of the species surveys all recommendations within these reports should be implemented through conditions. Greenspace Development has advised that additional protected species surveys should be undertaken prior to any development on site. These additional surveys should be conditioned should permission be granted. Should development not begin with 12 months of any approval all protected species surveys should be undertaken. Greenspace Development has advised that the proposed Landscaping proposals are acceptable. Conditions regarding the implementation and ongoing maintenance of landscaping should be included within any permission. 7. Representations 7.1 We have received three comments of support of this application and one objection during the neighbour notification period and advertisement of this application. 7.2 The objection received raises concerns regarding increased noise pollution and impacts on wildlife. 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, will make an assessment against these policies and come to a conclusion on which decision (grant or refuse) would accord with them. It will then look at other material considerations to Page 13 of 33
Page 14
establish if there are any that would suggest a decision different from the one reached in relation to the development plan. National Planning Framework 4 8.2 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) is a long-term plan for Scotland that sets out where development and infrastructure is needed. NPF4 sets out policies in relation to creating a sustainable place, a liveable place, and a productive place. NPF4 policies Green Belts (8), and Business and Industry (26) are considered in this case. 8.3 NPF4 policy 8 Green Belts sets out criteria for acceptable uses within the Green Belt including development associated with agriculture and outdoor recreation but does not include developments of this nature. Clearly this development does not accord with that policy 8.4 NPF 4 policy 26 Business and Industry sets out that development proposals for business and industry uses on sites allocated for those uses in the LDP will be supported. Development proposals for business and industry will take into account any impact on surrounding residential amenity, sensitive uses and the natural and historic environment. The application site is designated within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP) as both Green Belt and as a Specialised Business site. This designation as a Specialised Business site is essentially a continuation of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 designation of the site as a High Amenity Location under policy EDI1 B3 which seeks to promote the site for a specialist industrial development. Whilst the application site is designated for business within the NLLDP, it is considered that given the nature of the development proposed, it does not comply with the wider criteria of policy 26. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development is contrary to policy 26 of NPF 4. 8.5 NPF 4 policy 27 City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development in our city and town centres by applying the Town Centre First approach. Policy 27 requires development proposals will be consistent with the town centre first approach and advises that development proposals including drive through for non-retail uses will not be supported if further provision of these services will undermine the character and amenity of the area. The proposed development is located within the Green Belt, outwith the network of centres designated within the LDP and as such is considered to be contrary of policy 27 of NPF 4. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.6 The application site is designated as Green Belt under policies PP 4 and AD 4 and PROM LOC 2 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) 2022. In terms of development plan policy PP 4 and AD 4 Green Belt, these policies set 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. The council will encourage development appropriate for a Green Belt location by resisting development that is not for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism, or needs a Green Belt location, whilst allocating appropriate land for urban expansion. 8.7 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. In terms of the proposed uses within this development, any development would need to be assessed in terms of its impact on Strategic Town, Other Town and Local Centres and through an assessment of appropriateness. 8.8 The proposed mixed-use development is not related to any of the acceptable uses such as agricultural as set out in policy PP 4. The application site has not been allocated within the NLLDP as an area for urban expansion. The proposed mixed-use development would therefore be considered to be contrary to policy PP 4. 8.9 This site does however have a dual designation as a site for Specialised Business under policy PROM LOC 2. PROM LOC 2 Business Development sites sets out that the council will support and direct business development to the Strategic and Local Business Centres identified in the Plan. This designation as a Specialised Business site is essentially a continuation of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 designation of the site as a High Amenity Location under policy EDI1 B3 which seeks to promote the site for a specialist industrial development. It is considered that given the nature of the development proposed, it does not comply with the site’s designation as a Specialised Page 14 of 33
Page 15
Business Site. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development is contrary to policy PROM LOC 2. 8.10 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 Protected Species Ecology Surveys, Invasive Non-Native Species Survey as part of this application. The council’s Greenspace Development Service has no objection to the proposed development and has advised that they are satisfied with the findings these reports and conditions requiring the proposed mitigation measure and enhancement measures detailed within these be an included within any permission. Conditions regarding the undertaking of a protected species survey prior to any development on site (including any site investigations) should be attached to any permission. 8.11 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 Air Quality Impact Assessment, Protected Species Ecology Surveys, Invasive Non-Native Species Survey, Drainage Strategy Report, Noise Study, Design and Access Statement, Planning Supporting Statement, Coal Mining Risk Assessment, Report on Site Investigations, Transport Statement. 8.12 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 (including noise pollution) is also included within policy EDQ 3. 8.13 In relation to policies EDQ 3 it is considered that the scale, density, design and overall layout of the proposed development would be acceptable and would integrate successfully into the local and wider area. It is considered that the proposed finishing details are likely to be acceptable. Due to the site layout and design of the development, it will not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing or visual amenity. 8.14 With regard to the transportation and parking aspects of policy EDQ 3, it is considered that the proposed site access, proposed footways and parking provision (including disabled parking provision) provided as part of this development is acceptable and will enable this development to be accessible by pedestrians, walkers and by those with disabilities. The council’s Roads Development Service has advised that they have no objection to this application and made comments in relation to the provision of footways and the site assess. A condition regarding the implementation of a footway should be attached to any permission. 8.15 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. Although information in relation to site investigations and potential remediation were submitted as part of this development, further information is still required. Pollution Control has advised that conditions relating to site investigations and remediation works should be attached to any permission. 8.16 With regard to potential noise impacts, a Noise Study was submitted by the applicant which assess the impact of HGV vehicle washing and in relation to plant noise. The applicant proposes that an acoustic barrier to be constructed to mitigate from any potential noise impact due to washing of HGVs. The council’s Pollution Control Service has advised that conditions in relation to the require acoustic barrier and proposed plant to be used as part of this development should be included within any permission. 8.17 Since the proposed development is considered to be contrary to development plan policy it should be refused in accordance with Section 25 unless there are any other material considerations that Page 15 of 33
Page 16
suggest it should be approved despite non-compliance. 8.18 As detailed above, Planning permission in principle (18/00266/PPP) was previously granted on 25th October 2018 at this location for a Mixed Use Development Comprising Class 3 (Food & Drink), Class 7 (Hotel), Class 11 (Assembly/Leisure), Class 1 (Ancillary Retail) and Sui Generis (Roadside Fuel/Electric Charging, Hot Food Takeaway, Public Bar) with Associated Infrastructure (Drainage, Ground Treatment Landscaping). Condition 1 of permission 18/00266/PPP required a further planning application for approval of matters specified in condition (MSC) to be submitted. 8.19 The development seeking permission within this application only includes part of the wider site approved under 18/00266/PPP and is considered to be a separate standalone application from that of permission 18/00266/PPP. Implementation of this permission would not preclude the development of the wider area. 8.20 Planning Committee’s previous approval of permission 18/00266/PPP previously confirmed the acceptability of the principle of mixed use developments (which includes the uses prosed in this application) within this site despite its Green Belt designation. At that time, the committee took on board the likely limited impact of the development on the network of centres and also on the impact on the character and appearance of the green belt. As such permission 18/00266/PPP is a significant material consideration in our assessment of this application. 8.21 It is noted that the Specialised Business Site designation in the NLLDP is essentially a continuation of the previously High Amenity Location designation under the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. Furthermore, it is also noted that this local plan designation had been in place since 2012 but there have been no high amenity development proposals brought forward on this site to date. 8.22 Despite the conclusion that the development is contrary to the development plan, the planning history of the site should be given significant weight and it is considered that this outweighs the presumption to refuse this application. In terms of matters of details design and layout, the proposed scheme has been found to be acceptable subject to suitable conditions and these will address the concerns raised by the one objector. 9. Conclusions 9.1 To conclude whilst the proposed development is unacceptable, as it fails to comply with development plan policy, it is considered that there are significant material considerations by way of the pervious approval for mixed use development on the application site to justify a departure from the development plan. 9.2 It is considered that the proposed development would represent an acceptable exception of the development plan and that the approval of such a development would not set an undesirable precedent for other similar development within the Green Belt given the particular circumstances in this instance. Page 16 of 33
Page 17
Application No: 22/01225/FUL Proposed Development: Holiday lodges (65 units), farmhouse, residential development (18 units), agricultural building and road Improvements and associated infrastructure Site Address: Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld G67 4AE Date Registered: 20th October 2022 Applicant: Mr John Hannigan Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld G67 4AE Agent: TmC Planning and Property Development Ltd Suite 112, Stadium House Alderstone Road Livingston EH54 7DN Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 08 Airdrie North Alan Beveridge, Sophia Coyle, Henry Emerson Dunbar, Richard Alan Sullivan, Representations: 60 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 sufficient to merit the approval of planning permission. Legal Agreement If minded to grant, planning permission should not be issued until a legal agreement has concluded which allows for improvements to the capacity of local schools. Page 17 of 33
Page 18
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 22/01225/FUL Name (of applicant): Mr John Hannigan Site Address: Coathill Farm Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld North Lanarkshire G67 4AE Development: Holiday lodges (65 units), farmhouse, residential development (18 units), agricultural building and road Improvements and associated infrastructure Page 18 of 33
Page 19
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 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. 3. 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. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Traffic & Transportation NLC Greenspace Assistant Community Partnership Manager Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) Archaeology Service Education Scottish Water Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Patricia Beaton at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk. Report Date: 12th May 2023 Page 19 of 33
Page 20
APPLICATION NO. 22/01225/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located to the south of Luggiebank and the Glenhove Reservoir. The application site 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 onsite which are to be removed as part of the development. 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 the construction of sixty-five holiday lodges, eighteen dwellinghouses, a Farmhouse, Agricultural building, road improvements and other infrastructure associated with the development. 2.2 The proposed sixty-five holiday lodges located to the south and east of the application site will consist of a mix of two and 3 bedrooms chalets. Each chalet will have raised decking. The proposed two bedroom chalet will be approximately 12.2m long and 4.2m wide (5.8n wide including raised decking). The proposed 3 bedroom chalet will be approximately 12.4m long and 6m wide (7.5m wide including raised decking). 2.3 The proposed eighteen dwellinghouses will be located at the north of the application site and will consist of sixteen, two storey semi-detached dwellinghouses (each with four bedrooms and three bathrooms) and two, one and a half storey (with single storey section) semi-detached dwellinghouses (each with three bedrooms and three bathrooms). 2.4 The proposed farmhouse (which the applicant also refers to as a manager’s dwelling) and agricultural building will be located at the west of the application site. The proposed farmhouse will be one and a half storey farmhouse with garage (with annex living accommodation above). The farmhouse will have three bedrooms and three bathrooms, with a separate annex above the garage having a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living area. The agricultural building will have a footprint of approximately 200sqm. 2.5 The proposed development includes SUDs, upgrades to Coathill Farm Road and children’s play areas. 2.6 The applicant has advised that to enable them to fund the construction of the tourism aspect of this development (essentially the 65 holiday lodges), they require the construction and sale of the 18 dwellinghouses proposed. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The Applicant has submitted Architectural Drawings, a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (With Updated Addendum), a Net Economic Benefit Statement, Planning Statement, Noise Impact Assessment, Visibility Splay Statement, Design and Access Statement, and Pre-Application Consultation Report. 4. Site History 4.1 There is no significant planning history on the majority of the application site. Being a ‘Major’ planning application, the council was obliged to agree the pre-application consultation procedure between the developer and the local community, and this was agreed as per Proposal of Application Notice ref 22/00839/PAN. 4.2 Planning permission was granted on 1st August 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 Page 20 of 33
Page 21
detached garages and extensions to the converted steading were received between 2005 and 2007. Whilst 1 to 3 Coathill Farm are outwith the application site, these properties also access Stirling Road from Coathill Farm Road. 4.2 Planning permission was granted on 8th January 2018 for a detached double garage with adjoining carport and rear decking to Coathill Farm. 5. Development Plan 5.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that a planning application should be assessed against the relevant development plan policies unless material consideration indicate otherwise. 5.2 National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) has now been adopted and was published on 13th February 2023. NPF4 is now part of the Development Plan and replaces NPF3 and Scottish Planning Policy. Previous Scottish Planning Policy and the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan are no longer in force and their provisions are no longer to be considered when making planning decisions. 5.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (NLLDP) identifies the application site as part of the Green Belt under policies PP A4 and AD 4 Green Belt. 5.4 NLLDP policies PP 2C and AD 2C Visitor Economy Areas and Locations, PROM LOC 3 Housing Development Sites and Locations, PROT A Category 5, CI Contributions to Infrastructure will also be applicable. 5.5 The NLLDP requires that all proposed development be assessed against policies EDQ 1 (Site appraisal) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development). 6. Consultations 6.1 Scottish Water has advised that they have no objections to this application. 6.2 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. 6.3 The council’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. Pollution Control requested the submission of a noise impact assessment. The requested noise impact assessment has been submitted and Pollution Control has advised that the findings of this report are acceptable and no conditions in relation to noise impact are required. 6.4 The council’s Play Service has advised that based on the number of dwellinghouses proposed, no play provision would be required. 6.5 In t6erms of impact on the local road network, the council’s Roads Development Service has advised that they have no objection to this application and conditions in relation to the proposed roads upgrades should be attached to any permission. 6.6 The council’s Greenspace Development Service has no objection to the proposed development and have advised that they are satisfied with the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Updated Addendum. Conditions requiring mitigation measures and enhancement measures should be included within any permission. A condition requiring an updated Preliminary Ecological Assessment being submitted should no development being undertaken within 12 months of any permission should also be included. Greenspace Development has also advised that as the existing buildings (including outbuildings) within the application site are to be removed as part of this development, a protected species survey should be undertaken prior to any works of any kind (including demolition) being undertaken on site. 6.7 The council's ‘Education’ Service notes that there are capacity issues within the catchment area including Greengairs Primary and St David’s Primary schools as well as Academy and St Margaret’s Page 21 of 33
Page 22
High School. If planning permission were to be agreed to be granted, there would be a requirement for a financial contribution of £26,309.13 towards education provision secured by way of a Legal Agreement. 7. Representations 7.1 We have received 60 (including several from the same household) objections during the neighbour notification period and advertisement of this application. 7.2 In summary, the objections to this application raise concerns in the following areas: • The site is designated Green Belt and the proposed development does not comply with LDP policy (specifically Green Belt policy) and with NPF4 • The development site is not allocated for development including for housing development to reduce any housing supply shortfall. The LDP has allocated sites for housing development as part of the housing land supply. • Development such as this would be better suited in the urban area. • Proposed development is contrary to the council’s Bio-diversity Action Plan. • The council’s Tourism number targets cannot be met by development which does not align with policies within the LDP. • Would reduce buffer between Airdrie and Cumbernauld. • Impact on existing landscaping, wildlife, forestry, traditional field patterns on the site and surround area. • Potential impact and disruption of nearby Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation (Greens Marsh & Blairlinn Meadow and Cameron Burn: Muirhead Glen), the Luggie Glen Nature Reserve and on livestock on neighbouring farms. • The development would result in the loss of existing habitat, wildlife and specific protected species. • The proposed wildlife corridors are not adequate compensation for lost habitat and wildlife. • Increased visitor numbers could adversely impact local nature sites, wildlife and habitats. • Stirling Road and other local roads have no street lighting or pavements, making the site inaccessible by foot. Increased numbers of pedestrians and cyclists on Stirling Road and other local roads could increase the already high number of accidents on local roads. • Impacts on local road network including congestion due to higher volumes of traffic, cyclist, pedestrians and potential parking on Stirling Road. • Concerns regarding safety of the proposed access to the site from Stirling Road is a private single-track road with no street lighting. • There is no local transport links to the development area therefore car or walking is the only options. • The amount of footfall and associated traffic that this proposed development will generate will be detrimental to the village of Luggiebank. • Potential impact on noise and light pollution from increased traffic to/from the development. Not enough information has been submitted to confirm that potential noise and light pollution can be mitigated. • Increase air pollution due to congestion and increased vehicles on local roads. • Development site is unsafe for building due to mining and contamination history. There are gas and water pipes running through the site. • A development of this size would dwarf neighbouring settlements. • Design issues including scale, bulk, massing and density of proposed dwellinghouses lodges is too high and are out of character for the largely rural area. • Impact of mental health due to increase crowds, impacts on privacy (people entering neighbouring fields and properties) and the loss of green spaces. • Concern about lack on infrastructure (sewage, water, electricity to service the development. • This development would increase existing strain on services (including increased electricity ‘brownouts’, and the reduction of internet networks and water pressure). • The lack of facilities for tourism in the local area including shops, restaurants, and entertainment facilities for the additional visitors • Concerns regarding surface water run-off and potential increase in flash flooding due to the development. • Any permission would set precedence for other development in the Green Belt. • proposal is purely speculative and could set a precedence for more housing on site. • Direct notification not given to all residents of Luggiebank. • Greengairs Community Council were not informed of proposals. • The information provided by applicant as part of this application is incorrect and the applicant has Page 22 of 33
Page 23
not demonstrated need for this development on this specific site. 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, will make an assessment against these policies and come to a conclusion on which decision (grant or refuse) would accord with them. It will then look at other material considerations to establish if there are any that would suggest a decision different from the one reached in relation to the development plan. National Planning Policy Framework 4 (NPF 4), and the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (LDP) make up the development plan. National Planning Framework 4 8.2 The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF 4) is a long-term plan for Scotland that sets out where development and infrastructure is needed. NPF4 sets out policies in relation to creating a sustainable place, a liveable place, and a productive place. NPF4 policies Tackling the climate and nature crises (1), Climate mitigation and adaptation (2), Biodiversity (3), Green Belts (8), Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods (15), Quality Home (16), Rural Homes (17), Rural Development (29) and Tourism (30) are considered in this case. 8.3 Policies 1, 2, and 3 of NPF 4 relate to all developments. NPF policy 1 ‘Tackling the climate and nature crises’ and policy 2 ‘Climate mitigation’ both seek to address the global climate emergency and nature crisis by encouraging, promoting and facilitating development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change and adapt to current and future risks of climate change by promoting nature recovery and restoration in the area. The development proposed is located on an isolated site which is primarily access by private vehicle and is located within a Green Belt site. Whilst there may be opportunities for walking, cycling and for mobility vehicles within the development site, there is limited opportunities for the safe use of more sustainable travel methods when using the existing road network. It is considered that given the site’s isolated nature, and lack of sustainable transport options available to potential home owners and tourists alike, the proposed development does not accord with policy 2. 8.4 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. The proposed development is located outwith any designated nature conservation sites and includes proposals for landscaping, hedgerows and a wildflower meadow. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (with Updated Addendum) was submitted as part of this application. The council’s Greenspace Development Service has advised that they are satisfied with the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Assessment and Updated Addendum submitted as part of this application. Conditions requiring the proposed mitigation measure and enhancement measures detailed within the Preliminary Ecological Assessment should be conditioned. On assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is sufficiently compatible with the Biodiversity policy (3) within NPF 4. 8.5 Looking at NPF 4 policy 8 (Green Belts) in relation to the proposed 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).” Looking at how the holiday lodge element of the proposal complies with this criteria, it could be argued that the development could accord in principle with the ‘leisure and tourism’ aspect. However, the policy goes on to say that additional requirements must 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 Page 23 of 33
Page 24
• there will be no significant long-term impacts on the environmental quality of the green belt. 8.6 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 the suburbanisation of the countryside (which would occur on the back of the holiday lodge development) 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. 8.7 Looking next at the 18 proposed houses, these units are proposed as a mechanism to raise capital to fund the tourism aspect of the proposed development. As indicated within the planning application, the tourism aspect of this development would not be financially viable without the revenue from construction and sale of the proposed residential units. It is noted that in terms of acceptable residential development within the Green Belt, policy 8 does not include support for ‘enabling development’ to fund another use. In any case, as noted elsewhere in this report, the development which the 18 houses would facilitate are also not considered to be acceptable in planning terms. 8.8 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 farmhouse (which the applicant also refers to as a manager’s dwelling) 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 proposed Farmhouse/Manager’s accommodation in addition to their stated need for residential accommodation in association with the proposed holiday lodges. It must therefore be concluded that the development does not accord with Green Belts policy (8) of NPF 4. 8.9 NPF 4 policy 15 Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods intends to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. When considering 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. With regard to the proposed development, the development site is located outwith the existing urban area and is not compatible with the aims of policy 15, 20-minute neighbours. The application site is primarily accessed by private vehicles and the surrounding existing road infrastructure does not provide safe walking and cycling opportunities. Similarly in terms of access to shopping, education and health and social services, the proposed development is remote for these services located in Cumbernauld (which is approximately 2.5m from the development site). It is therefore considered that the proposed development is not compatible with Local Living and 20-minute neighbourhoods policy (15). 8.10 NPF 4 policy 16 (Quality Homes) sets out that development proposals for new homes on land allocated for housing within LDPs will be supported. As noted above, this site is not zoned for housing. Development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances (policy 16 (f). Circumstances which would be acceptable include the proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods and are consistent with policy on rural homes; or the proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary. As noted elsewhere in this report, the proposed residential aspect of the development is not considered to be consistent with the spatial strategy of NPF 4 or the NLLDP. In particular given its Green Belt location and lack of allocation as a housing site or a site allocated for urban expansion as detailed above. With regard to the proposed development being consistent with policy on rural homes, whilst Rural Homes policy (17) sets out similar criteria for development as that of Green Belts policy 8 for supporting development in rural areas, this policy does not include supporting rural homes or developments located within the Green Belt. The proposed development also does not represent a smaller scale opportunity for residential development within an existing settlement boundary given its Page 24 of 33
Page 25
non-urban Green Belt designation. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is not consistent with the Quality Homes policy (16). 8.11 Both NPF 4 Rural Homes policy (policy17) and Rural Development policy (policy 29) set 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. It is therefore considered that policies 17 and 29, whilst noted, are not applicable in this case. 8.12 NPF 4 policy 30 Tourism sets out that development proposals for new or extended tourist facilities or accommodation in locations identified in the LDP, will be supported. Proposals are 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. The application site has not been identified within the LDP as a location for new tourism accommodation. It is accepted that there may be some economic benefit to the local area due to the increase in visitor numbers as a result of this development. However, given the impact of the development on the Green Belt, given its rural and isolated location and the lack of public transport from the development site to Luggiebank and Cumbernauld, visitors will likely be dependent on private transport increasing vehicle numbers. 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). The applicant has advised that the proposed development would create 27 additional job opportunities across the region. Although we have not verified the proposed number of jobs to be created, it is accepted that the proposed development could provide additional jobs and a degree of economic benefit to the local area. However, the proposed development is located within the Green Belt. 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 tis development would also be afforded by a similar development on a suitable location. In addition, the proposed tourist element of this development can only be delivered following the initial subsidy from the construction and sale of the proposed 18 dwellinghouses. This approach raises concerns regarding the long-term sustainability of the tourist element of the development. On this basis, it is suggested that little or no weight should be given to the suggested economic benefits from the development. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.13 The application site is designated as Green Belt under policies PP 4 and AD 4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (LDP) 2022. In terms of development plan policy, new residential 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. The council will encourage development appropriate for a Green Belt location by resisting development that is not for agriculture, forestry, recreation, tourism, or needs a Green Belt location, whilst allocating appropriate land for urban expansion. 8.14 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 would need to be in support of a Green Belt appropriate use. Tourism development on the other hand can be considered (in principle) to be an acceptable use within a Green Belt location. 8.15 It is considered that as the proposed development includes proposals for an agricultural building associated with an existing agricultural business, then this particular element has the potential to be compatible with the Green Belt policy PP4 and AD 4. The applicant has advised that the farmhouse (which the applicant also refers to as a manager’s dwelling) is ancillary to the running of the holiday park. Residential accommodation for an agricultural worker for example, could be supported under policy PP 4, however the applicant has not provided any justification for the proposed Farmhouse/Manager’s accommodation in addition to the need for residential accommodation in association with the proposed holiday lodges. Page 25 of 33
Page 26
8.16 The proposed 18 mainstream private dwellinghouses units are not associated with developments for agriculture, forestry, recreation or with the proposed tourism accommodation. These residential units are primarily proposed to raise capital to fund the tourism aspect of the proposed development. The applicant has indicated that the tourism aspect of this development would not be financially viable without the construction and sale of the proposed residential units. The applicant has not provided any evidence of a specific location requirement for residential development in this Green Belt location. It is noted that policy PP4 and AD 4 do not include references supporting the approval of enabling development to fund an acceptable use within the Green Belt. As with the assessment of Green Belt policy in NPF4 above, the principle of tourism development withing the development can be acceptable but in this case the scale and nature of the impact of 65 ‘house’ sized holiday lodges would have a significant and unacceptable impact on the Green Belt. 8.17 With regard to the allocation of appropriate land for urban expansion under policy PP 4, the current North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan was adopted in July 2022, and defines that extent of the Green Belt as well as allocates land for as part of any urban expansion. It is noted that the applicant is of the view that part of the development site should be considered as brownfield as there has been previous agricultural related development within the development site and to the north of the application site (outwith the application site boundary) the former Coathill Farm steading (now known as 1 to 3 Coathill Farm) has been converted into three dwellinghouses. The applicant considers, due to this, further residential development is therefore acceptable. 8.18 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 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. 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. 8.19 In terms of compatibility with Green Belt policies PP 4 and AD 4, it is considered that although aspects of the proposed development have the potential to be compatible with these policies, the proposed residential and holiday lodge elements of the development is not compatible with these Green Belt policies. 8.20 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. 8.21 Policy PROM LOC 3 Housing Development Sites sets out that the council will provide a generous supply of land to maintain a minimum five-year effective housing land supply at all times for each Housing Sub-Market Area and the local authority area. Those sites promoted in the Plan will be brought forward through consideration of applications for planning permission and/or in accordance with the Action Programme. The application site, where these 18 residential units are proposed, is not a site allocated for housing development through policy PROM LOC 3. The proposed development site is designated as Green Belt. PROM LOC 3 advises that any sites proposed outwith the parameters of policy PROM LOC3 will only be supported if they accord with policies PP 4, PP 5, AD 4 and AD 5 of this Plan. As set out above, the proposed residential development is not considered compatible for Green Belt policy. The proposed residential development of 18 units therefore cannot be supported as a housing development under policy PROM LOC 3. 8.22 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 Page 26 of 33
Page 27
through planning conditions. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Assessment (with Updated Addendum) as part of this application. The council’s Greenspace Development Service has no objection to the proposed development and has advised that they are satisfied with the findings these reports and conditions requiring the proposed mitigation measure and enhancement measures detailed within the Preliminary Ecological Assessment be an included within any permission. Conditions regarding the undertaking of a protected species survey prior to any development on site (including demolition) and an updated Preliminary Ecological Assessment should be attached to any permission. 8.23 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, Visibility Splay Statement, and Design and Access Statement. 8.24 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 relation to policy EDQ 3 it is considered that the scale, density, design and overall layout of the proposed single storey dwellinghouse could be acceptable and could integrate successfully into the local and wider area. It is considered that the proposed finishing details are likely to be acceptable. Due to the site layout and design of the development, it will not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of privacy or overshadowing. 8.25 With regard to the transportation and parking aspects of policy EDQ 3, following comments from the council’s Roads Development Service regarding the proposed access to the site from Stirling Road and the lack of footways and streetlights to Coathill Farm Road, the applicant has proposed upgrade works to Coathill Farm Road, widening the road as well as providing streetlights and footways. The Roads Development Service has no objection to this application and to the proposed works to Coathill Farm Road and have advised that conditions in relation to the proposed roads upgrades should be attached to any permission. 8.26 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. 8.27 With regard to potential noise impacts, a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was submitted by the applicant which assess the impact of traffic noise. The council’s Pollution Control Service has advised that the findings of this report are acceptable and no conditions in relation to mitigating adverse noise impacts are required. 8.28 Taking into account the assessment above it is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with policies EDQ 1 and EDQ 3. 8.29 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. Should this application be approved there is a requirement for a financial contribution of £26,309.13 towards education for this development which would be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. 8.30 Although the proposed development may be consistent with NPF 4 policy 3 (Biodiversity) 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 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation), 8 (Green Belts), 15 (Local Living and 20 minute Page 27 of 33
Page 28
neighbourhoods), 16 (Quality Homes), Tourism (30) of NPF 4 and policies PP 4 and AD 4 (Green Belts), PP 2C and AD 2C (Visitor Economy Areas and Locations), and PROM LOC 3 (Housing Development Sites) of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 as detailed above. 8.31 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. 8.32 60 objections have been received during the neighbour notification and advertisement of this application. A summary of these objections is detailed above. A number of the issues raised by objectors have been responded to as part of our assessment above. 8.33 The objections primarily relate to being contrary to the development plan, issues relating to the proposed access and surrounding roads (road and pedestrian safety), impact on wildlife, impacts on privacy. 8.34 Concerns have been raised that the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to planning policy as the site is located within the Green Belt. The applicant has advised that they consider that part of the application site is brownfield and is suitable for a non-Green Belt use such as the proposed dwellinghouses. As set out above, it is considered that whilst aspects of the proposed development could be considered acceptable in this Green Belt local, the proposed development must be assessed as a whole. Given the significant proposed residential development is not acceptable in this Green Belt, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to both NPF 4 and LDP policies. 8.35 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. 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 subject to conditions being attached to any permission should this application be approved included a protected species survey being undertaken prior to any works (including any demolition) being undertaken on site, mitigation measures to protect any protected species found within the site or any existing building and biodiversity enhancement measures are to be implemented on site. 8.36 The 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. Following these issues being raised with the applicant, road widening works and upgrades to Coathill Farm Road including installing street lighting and footways will be undertaken should this application be approved. 8.37 The Concerns raised by objection 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 council'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. Following this consultation, a noise impact assessment was submitted by the applicant. 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. If approved, conditions could be added to address issues of light pollution in relation to local amenity and nature conservation. This site has been identified as being at low development risk by the Coal Authority. 8.38 Concerns regarding lack of infrastructure to serve the proposed development such as sewage and water infrastructure as well as impacts on other services such as electricity supply and internet provision were raised. The proposed development includes proposes 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. With regard to impacts on other infrastructure such as electricity and Internet provision, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with any requirements Page 28 of 33
Page 29
of any relevant regulatory bodies. 8.39 With regard to concerns about the notification and advertisement of this application, it is noted that objectors consider that the neighbour notification and advertisement of this application to be deficient, however the advertisement and neighbour notification of this application has been 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. 8.40 It is noted that 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. Whilst these issues are important, they do not represent material considerations which would be taken in to be considered as part of the assessment of this application. 8.41 As regards other material considerations, it is noted t that the applicant puts forward, the argument about needing the revenue from the significant housing development to fund other aspects. It is accepted that in certain exceptional circumstances, on balance, a breach in the Green Belt may be admissible when the significance of the other benefits (for example, economic, environmental etc) clearly outweigh the significance of the breach itself. There is no automatic allowance though, as each case would have to be carefully considered on its merits. In this case, the significance of any economic benefit is much less than the significance of the Green Belt breach (18 houses in an open greenfield area). Therefore, this claimed cross funding requirement is not a considered to be a material consideration of the type relative to Section 25, that would suggest the assessment position of development plan should not be adhered to. 8.42 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 LDP are a material consideration which supports and adds weight to the development plan conclusions that the proposal be refused. There are no other material considerations that lead to the proposal being regarded as acceptable despite the development plan position. 9. Conclusions 9.1 To conclude, the proposed holiday lodges are considered to represent the suburbanisation of the countryside which is at odds with the Green Belt policies in both NPF 4 and the Local Development Plan. 9.2 Whilst the agricultural building may be acceptable in this Green Belt location, the proposed Farmhouse/Manager’s accommodation which is primarily required to manage the holiday lodges would not be considered acceptable. The applicant has not provided by justification in terms of the use of this dwellinghouse in association with the existing agricultural use of the application site. 9.2 The proposed significant residential aspect of the development does not meet the necessary criteria to justify this site being approved for housing development and would been an unacceptable and significant departure from planning policy. It is considered that the potential economic benefit of the proposed development does not outweigh the resulting breach and impact on this Green Belt location should this application be approved. Page 29 of 33
Page 30
Page 30 of 33
Page 31
North Lanarkshire Council Report PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda item _________ approval noting Ref PH/SW Date 25/05/2023 PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEALS LODGED From Chief Officer (Place) Email humphriesp@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 632500 Executive Summary 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 This report is to advise the Committee of the undernoted planning appeals recently lodged with the Scottish Ministers. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee notes the position. Background Application No. Applicant Date of Council Form of Note & Proposal & Site Decision Appeal 21/01460/MSC Erection of 75 Homes with Associated Works (Phase 3) 22/00364/S42 Section 42 application for variation of Condition 16 'No Build Areas' attached to planning permission in principle 13/01958/PPP regarding residential development of up to 450 units, access and associated works 21/01460/MSC Land East Of Lochend Road Gartcosh North Lanarkshire Bellway Homes & Deuchny Properties Site At Johnston Road Gartcosh North Lanarkshire 02/02/2023 02/02/2023 Written Submission Written Submission AGENDA ITEM 3 Page 31 of 33
Page 32
PAMELA HUMPHRIES Chief Officer (Place) Page 32 of 33
Page 33
North Lanarkshire Council Report PLANNING COMMITTEE Agenda item _________ approval x noting Ref LB/ES Date 25/05/2023 NOTICE OF PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS DECISIONS From Chief Officer (Place) Email humphriesp@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 632500 Executive Summary 1. Purpose of Report 1.1 This report is to advise the Committee of the recent decisions in respect of the undernoted planning appeals. Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee note the decision in respect of this appeal. Background Application No. & Proposal Applicant & Site Appeal Decision & Date Note 22/00868/FUL Installation of a new 40m high lattice telecoms tower with 12 x antennas and ancillary equipment and the relocation of 4 x 300mm diameter dishes, all contained within a new compound enclosed by way of a 2.5m high palisade fence Wireless Infrastructure Group Fir Park Stadium Fir Park Street Motherwell North Lanarkshire ML1 2PR Appeal Allowed 02/05/2023 PAMELA HUMPHRIES Chief Officer (Place) (25/05/2023) AGENDA ITEM 4 Page 33 of 33