Planning Applications Index
North Lanarkshire Council · 30 June 2022
Back to Planning Committee — 30 June 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
North Lanarkshire Council Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee Committee Date: 30-06-2022 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved
Page 2
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 30th June 2022 Page No Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation 7 - 20 20/01550/FUL Mr Willie Brown Industrial development (Class 4/5) with associated roads, service areas and landscaping, etc. Site East OfBiggar Road Chapelhall Airdrie ML6 8XP Refuse 21 - 26 22/00057/FUL Mr Craig Cameron Erection of 2 metre high fence around dwellinghouse curtilage 27 Crathie Drive Glenmavis Airdrie ML6 0NR Grant 27 - 37 22/00156/S42 Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd Residential Development and Associated Infrastructure (in principle) (Section 42 application to vary condition 31 of planning permission 17/01248/PPP, to adjust the timing and sequencing of the construction of the proposed access roundabouts) Land East Of Main Street Newmains Grant 38 - 46 47 - 53 22/00175/PPP 22/00261/FUL Mr & Mrs Tony & Khalda Stevenson Buchanan Tower Ltd Two dwellinghouses (in principle) Site At Main Street Chapelhall Change of use to film studio (Class 5) Buchanan Tower Buchanan Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps G33 6HZ Grant Grant
Page 3
Application No: 20/01550/FUL Proposed Development: Industrial development (Class 4/5) with associated roads, service areas and landscaping, etc. Site Address: Site East of Biggar Road Chapelhall Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8XP Date Registered: 14th May 2021 Applicant: Mr Willie Brown WB Properties Scotland Ltd. Daldraco 3 Birniehill Road Hareshaw Cleland ML1 5GX Agent: N/A Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 12 Airdrie South: Michael Coyle, Paul Di Mascio, Michael McBride, Sandy Watson Representations: 3 letters of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: The proposal is for a type of development which is incompatible with the high amenity / specialised business use policies of the adopted and emerging development plans, and there is no justification for the removal of the site from the Green Belt. The proposal represents an unacceptable form of development within the Green Belt and would detract from of its rural character and appearance and from the setting of Chapelhall. No locational need for or significant benefit from the development have been demonstrated, and the site is not considered to be an appropriate location for business or industrial development of the type proposed.
Page 4
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 20/01550/FUL Name (of applicant): Mr Willie Brown Site Address: Site East of Biggar Road, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8XP Development: Industrial development (Class 4/5) with associated roads, service areas and landscaping, etc.
Page 5
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:- 1. The proposal is contrary to policy EDI1 B3 of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and to policy PROM LOC2 of the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan in that it would result in piecemeal development of a peripheral part of the High Amenity Location / Specialised Business Site for an inappropriate type of development which would not deliver any significant economic benefits to the area. The proposal therefore does not justify the removal of the site from the Green Belt. 2. The proposal is contrary to policy NBE3 A of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and to policies PP4 and AD4 of the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan in that it would result in an inappropriate form of urban development within the Green Belt for which no locational requirement, need or overriding public benefit has been demonstrated, and the development would detract from the appearance and rural character of this part of the Green Belt and from the landscape setting of Chapelhall. 3. The proposal is contrary to policies DSP2 and DSP4 of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and to policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 of the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan as this greenfield location detached from the existing urban area is not appropriate for a business/industry development of the type proposed, its development as such would undermine regeneration of existing industrial areas and the delivery of new industrial premises within strategical industrial locations, the proposal would represent an unplanned and piecemeal expansion of the urban area with inadequate road and drainage infrastructure, and the development would detract from the appearance of the area due to its prominent location and the absence of landscaping. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Coal Authority – response dated 24 May 2021 NLC Greenspace – response dated 25 May 2021 NLC Environmental Health / Pollution Control – response dated 26 May 2021 NLC Traffic & Transportation – response dated 29 June 2021 Scottish Water – response dated 18 May 2021 Transport Scotland – response dated 28 May 2021 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Keith Bathgate at Planningenquiry@northland.gov.uk Report Date: 17th June 2022
Page 6
APPLICATION NO. 20/01550/FUL REPORT 1. Introduction and Site Description 1.1 This application was previously considered by the Planning Committee on 14 October 2021, when it was agreed to defer the decision in order to confirm the nature of the representations and of previous correspondence between the applicant and the Planning Service. However, the applicant subsequently submitted plans for an entirely revised proposal with the result that description of development has changed and re-notification of neighbours was necessary. It is therefore expedient to provide an updated comprehensive report, rather than an addendum to the previous report. 1.2 The application relates to a 1.93ha area of unused greenfield agricultural land to the south of Chapelhall. The site comprises a rectangle of unkempt grass measuring approximately 270m by 75m which runs along the northern side of the M8/A8 motorway corridor a short distance to the west of M8 Junction 6. In addition to the main roads to the south, the site borders a pair of cottages (“Rowantree Row”) to its west, a Transport Scotland surface water attenuation pond to the east, and further unused agricultural land to its north, between the application site and Chapelhall. Part of the neighbouring land to the north east has planning permission in principle for a mixed-use roadside commercial development. Access to the site is via a truncated section of the former Biggar Road which is now a private access serving the site and Rowantree Row. Biggar Road joins the public road network at Lancaster Avenue around 200m north of the application site. The appeal site undulates slightly, but overall it falls gently from west to east. The trunk roads are elevated above the site on an embankment, whilst Rowantree Row is partly screened from the site by the embankment of a disused section of Biggar Road. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission to develop the site for Class 4 / 5 (business / general industrial) use. One large industrial building measuring approximately 84m by 18m by 7m high with a net floor area of 1525sq/m would be constructed in the south western part of the site, with the balance of the site being used for yard space, a sales area, and a car park with 50 spaces. The building would have a monopitch roof featuring solar panels, and would include a glazed entrance / office corner facing the site access. It would back onto the A8 / M8 road corridor, from which it would be separated by a narrow service yard. Access to the site would be by way of an extension of the private Biggar Road. Foul drainage disposal would be by way of a private on-site biodisc sewage treatment plant and soakaway, and by a soakaway for the surface water. The application was initially speculative but the applicant has since identified a prospective occupier for the development, and the revised proposal has been designed around their requirements. The details of the prospective occupier are commercially sensitive, but they are understood to be a plant / equipment dealership chain seeking to relocate their local dealership to larger and more modern premises. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 In addition to the application form and plans, the application is supported by a planning statement, a socio-economic statement, a mineral stability risk assessment, a drainage strategy and an ecology report. The applicant has also submitted numerous emails explaining why they consider the proposal to be consistent with planning policies and with previous planning decisions. 4. Site History 4.1 An application covering the whole area of land between Lancaster Avenue and the M8/A8
Page 7
corridor from Bellside Road as far west as the junction with Rockcliffe Path was submitted in 1997, seeking outline planning permission for a factory outlet, 150,000sq/ft retail mall, drive- through restaurant and associated parking etc. That application (97/05010/OUT) was withdrawn in 1999, and there have been no subsequent applications for planning permission on the application site. However, permission in principle for mixed-use development on an adjacent area of land at the corner of Lancaster Avenue and Bellside Road was granted in 2018 (18/00266/PPP) and renewed in 2021 (21/01434/S42). There is currently an application for a filling station and drive through restaurant on part of that land (22/00378/FUL). The relationship between this application and permissions on the neighbouring site is discussed in Section 8 below. 4.2 The application field was once slightly larger than it now is, as a narrow strip of land along its southern edge was subject to compulsory purchase as part of the upgrading of the M8/A8, and there was an application in 2018 for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development (CAAD) in relation to that land. The purpose of the CAAD was to establish what types of use would theoretically have been allowed on the land had it not been subject to compulsory purchase, in order that the compensation payable to the landowner reflected the potential value of the land. 4.3 The CAAD application (18/01607/CAAD) sought to establish that the compulsorily purchased land would have been suitable for development falling within Use Classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and for sui generis (outwith use classes) roadside fuel, electric vehicle charging, hot food takeaway and ancillary public house uses. The Council refused the CAAD application in respect of Classes 5 (general industrial) and 6 (storage and distribution) uses on the grounds that such uses were incompatible with both the site’s Green Belt status and with the High Amenity Location policy in the 2012 local plan (discussed below). The Council did however grant a CAAD specifying that the land would have been suitable for the following uses: • Class 10 (non-residential institution) – but only as an educational / tourism facility associated with agriculture or forestry or appropriate for a rural / natural setting. • Class 4 (business / light industrial) – but only for high value, high amenity business premises, which use would only have been permissible after 2012 (i.e. in line with the High Amenity Location policy in the 2012 local plan) • Mixed-use roadside facilities incorporating roadside fuel/electric vehicle charging, Class 3 (food and drink), Class 7 (hotel), hot food takeaway and public bar uses along with ancillary Class 1 (retail) use, and Class 11 (assembly and leisure) use subject to the restriction that this be either ancillary to the roadside services or of a countryside nature (such as a golf course, golf driving range or equestrian centre). Such uses would have been permissible from October 2018 (i.e. the date on which the aforementioned permission 18/00266/PPP was granted on the neighbouring site). 4.4 However, the granting of that CAAD was subject to an appeal by Transport Scotland (the authority responsible for the compulsory purchase), which considered that the CAAD was too broad and covered uses which should not have been included. The appeal reporter agreed that the CAAD should only have covered those uses which would have been permissible on the date of publication of the draft compulsory purchase order (November 2007) and not uses which might subsequently have become acceptable (potentially as a result of the road having been built). Accordingly the Council’s CAAD was cancelled and a new CAAD was issued by the Scottish Ministers indicating that acceptable uses would have been: (1) a hotel; (2) an educational/tourist facility relating to rural or natural heritage interests; and/or (3) an equestrian facility, golf course or golf driving range. 5. Development Plan Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 5.1 Clydeplan Schedule 14 and Diagram 10 set out the methodology for assessing the strategic impact of planning applications. Development within use classes 4 and 5 is not considered to be of a strategic scale unless its floorspace exceeds 10,000sq/m or the site area exceeds
Page 8
2ha. In this case the amount of floorspace currently proposed is 1,525sq/m and the site area is slightly below the 2ha threshold, so the development is not of a strategic scale. North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 5.2 The application site lies within the Green Belt in the adopted local plan. Policy NBE3 A (Assessing Development in the Green Belt) indicates that the Council will protect the character of the Green Belt and promote suitable development therein by restricting development to specified types which must also satisfy the specified assessment criteria. The proposal is not for one of the types of development listed as acceptable development in the Green Belt. The assessment criteria are therefore not directly relevant as the proposal is fundamentally contrary to Green Belt policy, however those criteria which have an indirect bearing on this proposal are that development should: • Have a positive economic benefit; • Minimise adverse environmental impacts; • Not pose adverse infrastructure implications; • Have a specific locational need; • Be of suitable scale and form for the location; • Include a landscape assessment and high quality enhancement scheme to reinforce the rural character and provide a buffer to the development; • Adhere to SPP, Clydeplan and other local plan policies; • Not adversely affect the integrity of European designated environmental sites; • Adhere to the guidance/criteria contained in the SPG on development in the green belt (i.e. SPG 07) • Have regard to design and siting guidance in PAN72 (Rural Diversification); and • In the case of businesses, be supported by detailed and financially robust business plans 5.3 In addition to being part of the Green Belt, the area south west of the Bellside Road / Lancaster Avenue roundabout has a dual designation as a High Amenity Location (HAL). The precise boundaries of the HAL were not defined in the local plan, but the application site has previously been considered part of the area covered by the HAL designation. Policy EDI1 B3 (Protecting Strategic Locations for Business and Industry) sets out the types of industrial and business locations which are strategic in nature and identifies three HALs (Gartcosh, Ravenscraig and Chapelhall), which were intended as medium sized (10-30ha) industrial sites. These HALs arose from national and regional policies which were current at the time of the local plan’s adoption (i.e. SPP2 and the 2006 structure plan, both of which have since been superseded). These required the identification and safeguarding of locations specifically suitable for major inward-investment employment uses with a requirement for high-amenity sites. Furthermore, the designation of the Chapelhall HAL arose from a recommendation in the 2012 local plan’s Report of Examination. The Scottish Government reporter had recommended that “a site of unspecified size at the roundabout junction of the A73, south of Lancaster Avenue and west of Bellside Road” should be reserved “for a high value, high amenity business use”. The reason that precise boundaries for the HAL were not specified was because these would depend upon the specific requirements of an intended major business user. 5.4 Most of the application site is also included in a wider Transport Infrastructure Improvements designation covering the M8/A8 motorway corridor, where policy EDI2 B (Promoting Transport Development) supports improvements to transport infrastructure. However, as the relevant transport improvements (the new section of M8 and associated realignment of the A8) have already been completed, this designation and policy are no longer relevant. 5.5 Development Strategy policies DSP1 to DSP4 apply to all development. Policy DSP1 (Amount of Development) indicates that the Council will maintain an adequate industrial land supply and specifies that additions to this will require a supply / demand justification, and if they exceed specified thresholds (2,000 sq/m floor area in the case of Class 4, 5 and 6 uses) they will also require a needs / benefit justification. Policy DSP2 (Location of Development) sets out locational assessment criteria for additions to the industrial land supply (discussed in para. 8.5 below) and specifies that development which does not comply with these will be regarded as a departure from the development plan that will require a needs / benefit justification. Policy
Page 9
DSP3 (Impact of Development) requires that proposals which would necessitate new infrastructure or community facilities must meet or contribute towards the cost of doing so. Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) indicates that applications will only be approved where the development would achieve high standards of site planning and sustainable design. 6. Consultations 6.1 The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to an informative about mining legacy risks being attached to any decision notice. 6.2 North Lanarkshire Council Greenspace Service has requested additional details in respect of ecological appraisal and landscaping proposals. Whilst an ecological assessment has been provided it was more than a year old by the time that the application became valid, and it is now over two years old. The ecological assessment also recommended further survey work be carried out for great crested newts. An updated ecological survey including a newt survey would therefore be required in advance of any planning permission being granted. 6.3 North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services (Environmental Health & Pollution Control) have no objection to the proposal subject to a condition addressing any unsuspected contamination which might be discovered on the site during development. 6.4 North Lanarkshire Council Transportation Services have no objection to the proposal subject to adequate on-site parking and turning and to ensuring that the Biggar Road access onto Lancaster Avenue meets the appropriate standards for an industrial access. (It appears that the junction already meets or exceeds this standard). Neither the existing private road (Biggar Road) or its proposed extension into the development site require to be adopted to serve a development of the scale proposed, however it is noted that any future intensification of development on the site may necessitate upgrading of Biggar Road to an adoptable standard at that point. 6.5 Scottish Water have no objection to the proposal and note that there is currently sufficient capacity in local water supply and foul sewage infrastructure (although a connection to the public sewer is not actually proposed). 6.6 Transport Scotland (Roads Directorate) have no objection to the application subject to there being no vehicular or pedestrian access into the trunk road, no use of the trunk road drainage infrastructure, and to appropriate screening, boundary treatment and lighting arrangements to prevent access and light spill onto the trunk road. 7. Representations 7.1 When this application was previously considered there were six objections from the applicant himself and several other persons who did not live close to the site, and in deferring the decision the Planning Committee had asked that the nature of these objections be clarified. However, five of those original objections (including that from the applicant) have since been withdrawn. 7.2 As a result of re-notification of neighbours following the amendments, an additional objection was received from a neighbouring resident and one letter of support has been received from a neighbouring developer. There are therefore now two objections, which ask that the application be refused for reasons summarised as follows: • Should not be allowed on a Green Belt site; • Proposal is contrary to development plan policies; • Access would use a private road which the applicant does not own and has no legal right to use; • Proximity of general industrial use to existing cottages would detract from residential amenity; • If road is required to be upgraded to adoptable standards this may result in cost cutting
Page 10
which would further reduce the quality of development; • Increased commercial traffic on Lancaster Avenue; • Impact on wildlife including deer, badgers, nets and birds; • Other more suitable sites are available for this type of development; and • Application should be refused for the reasons previously recommended The third representation is from an agent acting for G S Brown (the developer of the neighbouring site with permission for mixed-use roadside services), who confirms that his client supports the application and is agreeable to the principle of a pedestrian access being formed across their land. 7.3 The applicant has requested that a hearing take place for this application. 8. Planning Assessment Development Plan Policies 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 statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is not of a strategic scale and does not raise any issues for Clydeplan, so the relevant policies are those of the 2012 local plan. In that plan the application site is within an area with a dual designation as both Green Belt and as a High Amenity Location (HAL). In practice, this means that the site remains part of the Green Belt where policy NBE3 A applies, unless an appropriate “high amenity” business development proposal were to emerge that could be justified under policy EDI1 B3. 8.2 The proposed development does not relate to any of the types of development which policy NBE3 A lists as being acceptable within the Green Belt (i.e. agricultural / forestry development, infrastructure uses requiring rural sites, conversion of existing buildings, or facilities for outdoor recreation). Furthermore, the proposal is also considered to be contrary to the impact criteria listed by policy NBE3 A, as the applicant has not demonstrated any locational need for it to be located within the Green Belt, and no satisfactory landscape protection or enhancement scheme is possible given the shape and location of the site. Whilst the applicant has claimed that the proposal would have economic benefits, these are considered to be minimal (as discussed below). The proposal is also not in accordance with the criteria contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance Note SPG07 (Assessing Development in the Green Belt), which mirrors and expands upon policy NBE3 A. Furthermore, as also discussed below it is also considered to be of an unsuitable scale and form for the location, and that it would thus detract from the appearance and character of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore clearly contrary to Green Belt policy NBE3 A. 8.3 Whereas the HAL designation and its corresponding policy EDI1 B3 do allow for certain forms of business development in this part of the Green Belt, as explained in paragraph 5.3 above this support is limited to major inward-investment business users requiring a large, high amenity location. What was envisaged was a major corporate headquarters or a large factory campus requiring a self-contained site of sufficient size to accommodate the development along with high quality landscaping to provide an attractive business environment without detracting from the appearance of the surrounding area. Such a business would have been expected to employ a significant number of people, these potentially being new jobs which might otherwise not come to Scotland. The policy does not provide any support for small or even medium-sized business developments at this location, as there were already suitable sites for these in North Lanarkshire without requiring development of the Green Belt. The local plan did not define the precise boundaries of the HAL because it was recognised that this would depend upon the needs of a specific major business user, however it was clear that any HAL development was expected to be accessed from the Bellside Road / Lancaster Avenue roundabout (which already includes an access stub to serve the HAL site). Policy EDI1 B3 is worded to protect HAL sites specifically for such high amenity business uses, and other types of development are therefore not supported.
Page 11
8.4 In contrast to these intentions for the HAL, this application proposes the piecemeal development of an outlying part of the HAL area for a development of a type and scale that is capable of being accommodated within a normal industrial estate, and for which an adequate supply of suitable new plots exists within designated industrial locations (such as nearby Eurocentral and Newhouse Industrial Estate). The business identified by the applicant as a prospective occupant is a plant / machinery dealership which includes both sales and servicing elements and is akin to a specialised form of vehicle dealership. The number of jobs involved has not been explicitly stated, but is understood to be less than 50 and it can be assumed that most or all of these would transfer from the company’s existing premises a few miles away rather than being new jobs. The proposal is therefore for a type and scale of business which is entirely inconsistent with the HAL designation, and the proposal is thus contrary to policy EDI1 B3. As discussed in paragraph 8.16 below the Council has already approved mixed-use roadside development on a neighbouring site which is also incompatible with the HAL, but that does not amount to an acceptance that other parts of the HAL may be released from the Green Belt for other types of non-compliant use. The main significance of the development being contrary to policy EDI1 B3 is therefore that the site remains part of the Green Belt, so policy NBE3 A (discussed above) remains the operative land use policy. 8.5 The Council maintains a planned land supply for business / industrial development so as to ensure that there is sufficient land to meet the needs of the local economy, and as the proposal would be an addition to this policies DSP1 and DSP2 are relevant. As the proposal involves less than 2,000sq/m of floorspace policy DSP1 does not require a supply and demand justification, although it should be noted that the site is easily large enough to accommodate larger buildings than the 1,525sq/m proposed so there is potential that the development would expand beyond the 2,000sq/m threshold once the principle of development had been established. In terms of policy DSP2, the proposal is not consistent with the locational criteria which that policy sets out for additions to the industrial land supply. The proposal would not contribute to urban regeneration, because rather than using urban brownfield land and existing urban infrastructure, it would occupy a greenfield site that is not contiguous with the current urban boundary, it would undermine the prospects of securing similar investment in existing and more suitable industrial sites within towns, and it would employ inferior private road and drainage infrastructure rather than the adopted roads and mains drainage which would normally be expected on the edge of a settlement. The site is within the Green Belt and its development in the manner proposed would fail to maintain a clearly defined urban / rural boundary, and the site is not particularly accessible by sustainable transport as although there are bus stops on Lancaster Avenue the site itself is accessed by a narrow, poorly surfaced and unlit private road without footpaths. In these circumstances policy DSP2 indicates that the proposal should be treated as a development plan departure and that a needs and benefits justification should be provided in accordance with the former structure plan policy. The applicant’s supporting documents are discussed below, however it is considered that these do not demonstrate a need for the development or any significant benefit arising from it. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy DSP2. 8.6 The proposal would have no significant impact upon community facilities or off-site infrastructure and there is therefore no requirement for developer contributions under policy DSP3. However, issues with the drainage and access infrastructure are discussed in paragraphs 8.19 and 8.20 below. 8.7 Policy DSP4 indicates that development will only be allowed where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved, but in these respects the proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory both in concept and in detail. The development of a sizeable industrial building and large yard space on a Green Belt site which is both detached from the existing settlement boundary and visually prominent alongside the motorway corridor would detract from the setting of Chapelhall and set a precedent for further piecemeal development within the section of Green Belt between Chapelhall and the motorway. The revised proposal now includes planting a tree belt around much of the perimeter of the site, but as the A8 and M8 are elevated above the site the trees would have limited screening effect, and the narrowness of the yard space behind the proposed building leaves little room for the tree belt. The plans show these trees as Mediterranean Cypress and Columnar Aspen, both potentially tall, narrow semi- ornamental types presumably chosen to minimise their land-take, and thus even when mature
Page 12
they would have an unnatural linear form akin to a Leylandii hedge rather than resembling a woodland edge. As noted above, access arrangements for the site are not conducive to sustainable travel. Accordingly, the proposal would not contribute to the creation of distinct and successful places or provide a safe, inclusive and convenient development, and it is therefore contrary to policy DSP4. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (Modified Proposed Plan) 8.8 The LDP Report of Examination was published in May 2021 by the Scottish Government's Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). Following approval by the Planning Committee in November 2021, the council submitted its LDP intended for adoption to the Scottish Government, and is currently awaiting Scottish Government's decision as to whether the plan can be adopted. As the LDP is at such an advanced stage it is a significant material consideration. 8.9 The emerging LDP continues to include the application site within an area on the corner of Bellside Road and Lancaster Avenue that has dual designation as Green Belt and also part of what is now called a Specialised Business Site (SBS). The SBS corresponds with the previous HAL designation, although unlike the HAL its boundary is defined on the LDP proposals map and now unambiguously includes the application site. The effect of this dual designation is the same as that of the adopted plan, in that the application site is part of the Green Belt unless it is required for an appropriate SBS development. 8.10 Policy PROM LOC2 supports and directs business development to Strategic and Local Business Centres identified in the plan, and to sites within the Industrial and Business Land Supply. This includes “sites for specific uses” (i.e. SBS). The nature of SBS is not defined in the plan, although the Airdrie local area partnership area strategy notes that the site at Chapelhall is a “specialised limited use site”, as distinct from the other more general business centres designated in the plan. Furthermore, the issue was specifically addressed during the LDP examination in relation to a representation (SM023) which objected to the application site’s Green Belt designation and sought instead to have it designated as either a mixed-use centre, a proposed business development site, a proposed leisure development site and/or a proposed retail site. Having noted the planning history of the location including the permission for mixed- use development elsewhere in the SBS, the Scottish Government reporter rejected these arguments and affirmed the Council’s position that the site is part of the Green Belt and should only be released to enable major business development which meet the SBS requirements. Indeed, the reporter questioned the logic of the application site being included within the SBS designation at all, given the incompatibility of a SBS development with the neighbouring neighbouring permission in principle, but he considered that it was outwith his remit to make recommendations on that issue. 8.11 As discussed above in relation to the adopted plan’s policy EDI1 B3, the proposal is not for a specialised business use and there is therefore no policy justification for the release of this site from the Green Belt. Furthermore, even if the proposal had involved a high-amenity specialised business development it is unlikely that the application site on its own would be suitable for such a use given its detachment from the settlement edge, its isolated private access, and the fact that its location would cause development to spread further into the Green Belt than necessary to achieve the objects of the SBS allocation. The proposal is therefore contrary to the emerging LDP’s policy PROM LOC2, and as the emerging Green Belt policies are similar in effect to the adopted plan’s policy NBE3 A (discussed above), the proposal is also contrary to emerging policies PP4 and AD4. 8.12 Policies CI (Contributions to Infrastructure) and EDQ1 to EDQ3 (Environmental and Design Qualities) generally reflect the existing local plan’s policies DSP3 and DSP4 discussed above. There is no conflict with policy CI, however the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies EDQ1 and EDQ3 due to the unsatisfactory impacts upon the character and amenity of the section of countryside separating Chapelhall from the motorway corridor which have been discussed above. Other Material Considerations 8.13 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (para. 49) indicates that green belts may be employed to
Page 13
support a development plan’s spatial strategy by: • Directing development to the most appropriate locations and supporting regeneration; • Protecting and enhancing the character, landscape setting and identity of the settlement; and • Protecting and providing access to open space. The proposal would be contrary to these objectives as it is not the most appropriate location for development of this nature, it would detract from regeneration objectives by allowing development more suited to urban brownfield land to take place on a greenfield site, and it would detract from the character, landscape setting and identity of the settlement by developing within the strip of Green Belt which separates Chapelhall from the motorway corridor and the Newhouse Industrial Estate beyond. Whereas SPP (para. 93) indicates that the planning system should promote business and industrial development that increases economic activity, it also indicates that natural and built environments should be safeguarded as national assets. Sites should be allocated to meet the diverse needs of different sectors and sizes of business and flexible enough to accommodate changing circumstances. In this case the HAL/SBS site has been specifically safeguarded to accommodate a particular type of business development requiring a high amenity site in accordance with SPP guidance that allocations should accommodate diverse needs. The application proposal is inconsistent with that land use allocation and no evidence has been presented of any locational need for a Green Belt site or of any significant economic benefit arising from the proposal. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy. 8.14 The applicant has provided a “socio-economic statement” setting out the economic impacts of the proposal, although the figures quoted are understood to be based on generic assumptions about a development of this scale rather than a detailed assessment of the prospective occupant’s business. The development itself would represent a capital investment of £3 million and its construction would provide the equivalent of 20 person-years of employment. Once complete, a development of this size would be expected to provide around 42 jobs and would pay around £200,000 in annual business rates. If 21 of these jobs would be new to the area, the Gross Value Added (GVA) to the local economy is estimated at around £1.3m per year. The report also notes the need for additional employment in North Lanarkshire and the various local and national policies encouraging economic development to support economic recovery and growth. However, the Planning Service does not consider that these figures justify the proposed development. In the first place, the claimed economic benefits are vastly lower than what would have been expected of a HAL/SBS development as originally conceived, and therefore reinforces the fact that the proposal is not consistent with those policies. Secondly, these estimates are generic assumptions about a commercial building of the size proposed and even if they are accurate they do not justify development of this particular site, as the same benefits would arise from the construction of a similarly sized building on a more suitable site. Thirdly, the applicant has identified a specific potential occupier for the site, and it is reasonable to assume that all or most of the jobs would simply be relocated from that firm’s existing premises a few miles away. There would be some benefit to North Lanarkshire in terms of securing the relocation of a small/medium sized employer from a neighbouring council area and over time staff turnover would probably result in a higher proportion of the company’s staff being North Lanarkshire residents, but there would be no significant economic benefit for the region and the local benefits for Chapelhall would be modest and no greater than those which would arise if the business relocated to a more suitable industrial estate site within the area. No evidence has been put forward suggesting that the prospective occupier has any specific locational need for this or any other Green Belt site, and beyond its proximity to the motorway network the only site-specific advantage that the applicant has put forward is that the site is prominent from the motorway and thus visible to potential customers. However, given the specialised nature of the machinery sold it is doubtful that much of their revenue arises from casual passing trade, and the fact that the site is prominent from the motorway is one of the reasons that it is unsatisfactory in Planning terms. 8.15 The applicant has also submitted a planning statement and numerous emails which argue that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the adopted and emerging development plans, however these arguments are based on highly subjective interpretations of planning policy and
Page 14
history which are not considered to be either reasonable or consistent with the facts. For example, the statement suggests that the development would accord with the HAL/SBS policies because the proposal would involve a major multinational company relocating to North Lanarkshire, whereas in reality the prospective occupier is a modestly-sized UK equipment dealership chain, and the fact that they have a sales franchise for a foreign machinery manufacturer does not make the proposal a multinational inward investment. The applicant has also asserted that previous correspondence from council officers had accepted the principle of development of this nature on the site, and the application’s deferral from the October 2021 Planning Committee was in part to allow this to be clarified. However the applicant was asked to identify the correspondence referred to, and the emails identified cannot reasonably be interpreted in the manner that the applicant suggests. 8.16 Reference has been made above to the planning permission which has been granted on the neighbouring site to the north east, located on the corner of Bellside Road and Lancaster Avenue. That site is also within the HAL/SBS, and indeed it is the core of HAL/SBS as it was assumed that any high amenity / specialised business user would locate adjacent to the existing roundabout at this corner, and that their development site would extend only so far south and west as the specific major business user required. Although the neighbouring site is subject to the same policies as the application site, the Council has previously granted planning permission in principle for a mixed-use commercial development on that land. That proposal was acknowledged at the time to be contrary to the policies of the adopted local plan and the emerging LDP, but it was approved as a development plan departure on the basis that the site had been allocated as a HAL for some years without any such use being proposed, and the uses proposed (roadside services including fuel station/vehicle charging, hotel and restaurant etc. together with an element of out-of-centre retail and leisure development) were judged to be acceptable at that location (i.e. adjacent to Bellside Road). The proximity of that site to the M8 motorway junction and the good access into the site itself from the existing roundabout access point had a bearing on that decision. 8.17 The applicant has argued that the granting of planning permission for the neighbouring mixed- use development has established that the HAL/SBS allocation is impossible to implement, that the loss of the Green Belt at this location has already been accepted, and that other types of development within the HAL/SBS area must therefore be acceptable. They consider that the land to the west of the mixed-use site (including the application site) would be a logical extension to the approved development mixed-use development, and that their site would also form a logical extension to it. The applicant also notes that the southern end of the projected East Airdrie Link Road is expected to commence at Chapelhall, with two of the three route options commencing at the Bellside Road/Lancaster Avenue roundabout, and as this would make the location even more accessible by road the applicant believes that it demonstrates the site’s suitability for development. However, none of these circumstances justify the proposed development. It is true that the prospects of attracting a major inward-investment business user to the Chapelhall HAL/SBS now appear slim, and that if the approved mixed-use development is built on the neighbouring site that would effectively extinguish any possibility of securing a HAL/SBS development. However, the mixed-use roadside services development was approved on the basis that those particular uses on that particular scale were judged to be acceptable on that particular site, and that the loss of that particular corner of the Green Belt could therefore be accepted. None of that necessarily applies to other parts of the HAL/SBS or to other types or scales of land use. Any proposal for expansion of the mixed-use site to its west would need to be justified both in terms of need for the proposed development and loss of Green Belt, as recently confirmed by the LDP reporter. Furthermore, the application site itself would never be likely to form a logical expansion of the approved mixed-use site because only a small section of the two sites’ boundaries are contiguous with one another and they are separately accessed. In a hypothetical future scenario whereby westward expansion of the (as yet unbuilt) mixed-use development was judged acceptable, it is by no means clear that the application site would be needed (except perhaps as an area of strategic landscaping), and if it was to be developed as part of a planned expansion of the mixed-use area the new development would be expected to have proper road access and mains drainage (which the current proposal lacks). Additionally, the application proposal bears no relation to the neighbouring mixed-use permission because it seeks Class 4 (business/light industrial) and Class 5 (storage/distribution) uses which are not amongst the uses approved on the
Page 15
neighbouring site, and the specific occupant identified is a stand-alone business. The proposed East Airdrie Link Road supports the rationale for the neighbouring mixed-use roadside service permission, but beyond that it does not provide any justification for development within the Green Belt land between Chapelhall and the M8. The recent LDP Report of Examination confirmed that there is a generous supply of land for business and industry and that there was no requirement to allocate additional sites for such use beyond those already allocated by the emerging LDP. There is therefore no supply and demand justification for the proposed development. It is therefore not considered that any of these material considerations provide any significant support for the proposed development. 8.18 The Council has previously refused other applications for unjustified industrial development within the Green Belt, and these decisions have been supported by the Scottish Government. Examples include the refusal of business/industrial development at the former Royal George Washery, Newmains (appeal PPA-320-2096) and at Edinburgh Road, Newhouse (PPA-320- 2127) where in both cases appeals against the refusals were dismissed and the Scottish Government Reporters concurred with the Council’s view that such development would undermine the prospect of attracting industrial investment at more suitable locations without delivering any significant economic benefit, as well as having an unacceptable impact upon the Green Belt. 8.19 In relation to other matters raised by consultees, there are no objections to the application from the Council’s own Transportation Service subject to the junction of Biggar Road onto Lancaster being to an appropriate standard (which it already is). They have commented that any expansion of the proposed industrial estate beyond the two units proposed would necessitate upgrading of Biggar Road to an adoptable standard, including provision of an adoptable turning head at the end of the road (which is not part of the proposal). Therefore, whilst the proposed access is acceptable for the development as currently proposed, there is limited scope to intensify use of the access without it becoming substandard, which undermines the applicant’s claim that the development of the site would form part of a logical expansion of the neighbouring mixed-use permission. Additionally, the site does not benefit from convenient pedestrian access as the private section of Biggar Road has no footpaths of lighting, and whilst the plans show a possible meandering footpath connection through neighbouring land towards the Bellside Road/Lancaster Avenue roundabout, this passes through land which has no planning permission for any development, and the development of which would also be contrary to development plan policy for the reasons discussed above. The footpath link shown is therefore merely an aspiration, which could only be realised if other development plan departures were to be allowed at some future date. 8.20 The application has been accompanied by a drainage strategy report which proposes that the site would not be connected to the public sewerage network due to the distance from the site to a public sewer (the closest sewers are currently on Lancaster Avenue, although any development on the adjacent mixed-use development site will be expected to incorporate sewers). Instead, the building would have its own private foul sewage treatment plant discharging to a soakaway, and surface water would also discharge to the soakaway. The treatment plant and soakaways would be located in the centre of the site to the north of the new access road, with the soakaway being under one of the yard areas. The drainage strategy concludes that the site is not at risk of flooding and that soil conditions are suitable for the proposed drainage arrangements, although that report is lacking in detail and does not state whether it was prepared by a suitably qualified hydrological engineer. In principle, such arrangements may be acceptable in their own right, although again the use of a private foul sewage system at a location so close to the edge of the urban area further demonstrates the unplanned and isolated nature of the proposal. 8.21 As noted in para. 7.2 there are now three representations, of which two objecting to the application and one supports it. The supporting representation is from the neighbouring landowner/developer who indicates a willingness to co-operate in providing a footpath access to the site, although as noted above this would seem to require the development of land for which there is currently no planning permission and very little policy support for the development of. The issues raised in the objections are addressed as follows:
Page 16
• Should not be allowed on a Green Belt site, contrary to development plan policies, and other more suitable sites are available for this type of development. Response: These points have been discussed above, and it is recommended that the application be refused for these reasons. • Access over a private road which the applicant does not own or have a legal right to use. Response: The applicant believes that they have an unrestricted right of access over the private road. Any dispute on this issue would be a private legal matter between the parties involved. • Detract from residential amenity of neighbouring property. Response: The neighbouring dwelling is currently isolated from other development, so any development of the application site would alter that and understandably may not be welcomed by existing residents, however the impact on residential amenity is not likely to be unacceptable. There would be adequate separation between buildings, and noise from the development is likely to be insignificant relative to the existing traffic noise at this location. • Additional commercial traffic on Lancaster Avenue Response: The level of traffic from the proposed development is not likely to have significant impacts on the local road network, and the junction of Biggar Road onto Lancaster Avenue is adequate. • Negative impact on wildlife Response: As discussed above, additional information about ecological matters would be needed to demonstrate the impact on habitats before the application could be approved. 9. Conclusions 9.1 In principle, investment in commercial property is of course to be welcomed if such development has potential to provide new jobs and increased economic opportunities. However, it does not follow that any commercial development is necessarily acceptable on any site. Allowing the unnecessary development of less suitable sites risks undermining the development of strategic employment areas and the regeneration of existing industrial estates without resulting in any net increase in employment. In general, North Lanarkshire has an ample supply of industrial land, including large industrial estates close to the application site, whereas the application site is an isolated fragment of greenfield land which occupies a prominent location within the Green Belt and its development in the manner proposed is contrary to all of the relevant policies of the adopted and emerging development plans. No need for the development has been demonstrated either in terms of industrial land supply or specifical locational need, and the potential economic benefits of the proposal are considered to be very limited, and the proposal would undermine the integrity of this part of the Green Belt and represent an unsatisfactory form of development in terms of its impact on the appearance and character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies EDI1 B3, NBE3 A, DSP2 and DSP4 of the adopted local plan, and to policies PROM LOC 2, PP4, AD3, EDQ1 and EDQ2 of the emerging local plan, as well as being contrary to Scottish Planning Policy guidance on the purpose of the Green Belt and industrial land allocations. Overall the proposal is considered to be unacceptable both in principle and in detail, and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused. 9.2 Whilst the applicant has requested a hearing, the circumstances do not satisfy the criteria for a hearing set out in the Council’s adopted Protocol for Planning Application Hearings. The protocol makes clear that applications which are recommended for refusal will not be subject to hearings.
Page 17
Application No: 22/00057/FUL Proposed Development: Erection of 2 metre high fence around part of dwellinghouse curtilage Site Address: 27 Crathie Drive Glenmavis Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 0NR Date Registered: 29th April 2022 Applicant: Mr Craig Cameron 27 Crathie Drive Glenmavis Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 0NR Agent: N/A Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 08 Airdrie North Alan Beveridge, Sophia Coyle, Henry Emerson Dunbar, Richard Alan Sullivan, Representations: 9 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Reasoned Justification: As altered, the proposal development meets the criteria set out in the residential policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact upon the property and the surrounding residential area.
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: 22/00057/FUL Name (of applicant): Mr Craig Cameron Site Address: 27 Crathie Drive Glenmavis Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 0NR Development: Erection of 2 metre high fence around part of dwellinghouse curtilage
Page 19
Proposed Condition:- 1. That BEFORE any works start on site, further details shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval, and these shall show: • The fence alongside Balmoral Avenue to be positioned 2 metres back from the adjoining footway • Details of the appearance and material and colour of the proposed fencing. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with these approved details. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Traffic & Transportation Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Stewart MacCallum at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 20th June 2022
Page 20
APPLICATION NO. 22/00057/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is a semi-detached property set within an established residential area at 27 Crathie Drive, Airdrie. The site is bordered on all sides by neighbouring residential properties, except to the south which is an area of landscaping before it buffers a golf course. The property is located on a corner plot and has a dual frontage onto both Crathie Drive and Balmoral Avenue. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 2 metre high boundary fencing along a portion of the side/rear garden facing onto Balmoral Avenue. The proposal also includes 1 metre high fencing along the majority of the side garden area however this would be noted as permitted development. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The applicant has confirmed that the proposed new fencing would largely be 1 metre in height, however due to the position of the side/rear garden some of the fencing would be 2 metres in height to enclose an area of side/rear garden for privacy. As originally submitted, the 2m fencing would have abutted directly onto the footway on Balmoral Avenue. However, at the request of the Planning Service, the applicant has since agreed that they would be prepared to accept the side/rear garden fence being set back from the kerb of Balmoral Avenue by 2 metres by virtue of a planning condition imposed by any planning consent. 4. Site History None. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The site is covered by policies HCF 1 A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) and DSP4 Quality of Development. 10. Consultations 6.1 Roads Services advised that they had no objections or comments in regard to the proposal. 11. Representations 7.1 Following standard neighbour notification procedures, 9 letter(s) of representation were received. It is noted that all 9 of these letters were to object to the proposal. It should be noted that these objections all relate to the proposal as originally submitted, ie with a 2m fence abutting the footway and not to the subsequent alteration which allows for the fencing to be set back by 2m. The objections raised can be summarised as follows: • Impact upon sightlines/road safety • Overshadowing of kitchen window and plants • The visual appearance of the fence in regard to height and appearance, being out of character with the streetscape • The devaluation of property.
Page 21
12. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues and can be assessed against the local plan. 8.2 The application site is an area designated by HCF 1A in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan (2012), which seeks to protect the residential character and amenity of housing areas. Policy HCF 1A requires such proposals to be assessed against the criteria of DSP 4 that ensures high standards on site planning and sustainable design are achieved. The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires developments be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development. Given the scale and nature of the development DSP 1, DSP 2 and DSP 3 are not relevant in this instance. 8.3 Concerns were expressed by the Planning Service and objectors that the character and appearance of the area would be unduly harmed by the positioning of a 2m fence next to the footway. The applicant has agreed to set the fence 2m back and this addresses the concerns of the Planning Service. On this basis, the proposed fencing is considered satisfactory in size, location, and design terms, and will not harm the residential amenity of the site or the general area. The potential impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties is acceptable in terms of sunlight/daylight and privacy. Adequate garden ground would remain should the proposal be developed. The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the existing parking provision. 8.4 The matters raised in the letters of representation are addressed in turn below. Design As noted in the assessment above, on the basis of the revised proposal the application has been considered against the design policies in the local plan, and it is considered that the proposal will have no significant detrimental impact on both the setting of the area and its amenity value. The fencing, is considered acceptable, given its size and location with this particular plot. Amenity Again, on the basis of the revised fence location, it is not considered that the development of the site for the proposed fencing at this location would have a significant detrimental effect on amenities and the surrounding dwellings to warrant the refusal of the application. As such, it is considered that the development can be accommodated without detriment to the adjacent dwellings in terms of privacy, sunlight/daylight and overlooking. Road Safety It is noted that several comments received mention the proposal’s detrimental impact to road safety, traffic visibility and sightlines. In this instance it is noted from Road Services consultation response that there are no issues raised in regard to this. As such this is not considered to raise any such concerns. Fence Positioning The site whilst having a principal elevation onto Crathie Drive, also has a frontage onto Balmoral Avenue due to the way the property is positioned at the junction of both streets. Despite this fence projecting into what would normally be seen as `front` garden areas on Balmoral Avenue, this is actually the side/rear garden of the property. It is not utilsing 2 metre high fencing for the whole side garden onto Balmoral Avenue, and given it is only a small portion of this garden area as determined on visiting the site, the fencing will not have an overbearing impact despite being higher than the general fence heights on the immediate neighbours. It is also noted that
Page 22
there is similar type height fencing along side garden boundaries of properties on Crathie Drive. The applicant has confirmed that they would be agreeable to set back the portion of 2 metre high fencing on Balmoral Avenue by 2 metres from the kerb thus minimising its overall impact. Therefore, the proposed positioning of the fencing does not warrant refusal of planning permission. 13. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, considering all the circumstances relevant to this application, the proposed 2 metre high boundary fencing is considered acceptable. The proposed fencing can be accommodated within the site without adversely affecting the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or residential character of the surrounding area, therefore, complies with policies HCF 1A (Residential Amenity) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. Taking account of the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.
Page 23
Application No: 22/00156/S42 Proposed Development: Residential Development and Associated Infrastructure (in principle) (Section 42 application to vary condition 31 of planning permission 17/01248/PPP, to adjust the timing and sequencing of the construction of the proposed access roundabouts) Site Address: Land East Of Main Street Newmains North Lanarkshire Date Registered: 7th March 2022 Applicant: Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd c/o North Planning & Development 300 Tay House, Bath Street Glasgow G2 4JR Agent: Graeme Laing North Planning and Development Ltd Tay House, 2nd Floor 300 Bath Street Glasgow G2 4JR Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 20 Murdostoun Robert John McKendrick, Cameron McManus, Louise Roarty, Nicky Shevlin, Representations: 0 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed change to condition 31 can be accommodated without detriment to the character and the amenity of the surrounding area due to it being integral to a residential proposal which has permission in principle under application 17/01248/PPP.
Page 24
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: 22/00156/S42 Name (of applicant): Advance Construction (Scotland) Ltd Site Address: Land East Of Main Street Newmains Development: Residential Development and Associated Infrastructure (in principle) (Section 42 application to vary condition 31 of planning permission 17/01248/PPP, to adjust the timing and sequencing of the construction of the proposed access roundabouts)
Page 25
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That before development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following matters:- (a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the layout of the site, all roads, footways, cycle paths and parking areas (for the avoidance of doubt such a layout shall consider the principles of ‘Designing Streets’.); (c) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site (which shall include a significant landscaped buffer along the eastern and western boundaries) and (d) the provision of public open space; (e) provision of equipped play areas; (f) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (c), (d) and (e) above; (g) the phasing of the development; (h) the provision of drainage works; (i) the disposal of sewage; (j) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (k) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; and (l) details of existing and proposed site levels. (m) details of the provision of a bus stops on Main Street, as well as the relocation of existing bus stops as a result of the development. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. 2. For the avoidance of doubt, the indicative master plan which accompanies the planning application is not approved and should not be taken as part of the planning permission. Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 3. 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. Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents. 4. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 3, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Before the development is brought into use, 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. 5. That before any works of any description start on the application site, an intrusive site investigation shall be undertaken to establish the exact situation regarding the coal mining legacy on site. For avoidance of doubt this shall include the submission of a scheme of intrusive site investigations for mine entry and shallow coal mine workings, including a plan showing the exact location of the mine entry and any consequential amendments to the layout which may be required. The findings of this site investigation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in the form of a detailed report for written approval in consultation with the Coal Authority. Any remediation works deemed necessary to implement this development shall be outlined in this report. Reason: To ensure that matters relating to coal mining risk are adequately addressed.
Page 26
6. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 5, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Coal Authority. A certificate (signed by a Chartered Engineer experienced in mining works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the remediation works have been implemented in accordance with the relevant Coal Authority Guidance. Reason: To ensure that matters relating to coal mining risk are adequately addressed. 7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority; full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority and shall be certified by a chartered civil engineer as complying with the most recent SEPA SUDS guidance. Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater, in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site. 8. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 7 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans. Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site. 9. That before any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by CIRIA in March 2000. Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection. 10. That before the development hereby permitted starts, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water have been 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 that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage and water supply systems to allow the residential development to proceed. 11. That before any development starts on site, a survey carried out by an appropriately qualified ecologist, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall identify any implications for species protected by statute, and where required, include all necessary mitigation measures. Once approved, any mitigation measures shall be adhered as approved under the terms of this condition. Reason: To ensure that ecology and habitat surveys are up to date and in compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended); the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended; the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended); and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 12. That three months prior to any works commencing on site a Construction Method Statement (CMS) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The Construction Method Statement shall cover:
Page 27
• Detailed and scaled map to include the anticipated phasing of the development, including watercourse standoff (no construction zone), site storage compound and equipment store and any ancillary buildings. • Details of all on-site construction, including drainage (incorporate SUDS where appropriate), pollution prevention, as well as the timetables for such work. • Details of construction practices in terms of minimisation of the use of raw materials and the reuse or recycling of waste materials; • Details of surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water runoff from internal access roads; • Details of welfare facilities • Details of vehicle wash down areas; • A dust management plan during the construction period; • Details of the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil; The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Reason: To ensure that necessary contingencies are in place and to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities and in the interests of road safety. 13. That three months prior to any works commencing on site a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. In the interest of clarity the CEMP should adequately characterise the risks that the construction works pose to the water environment or the key environmental receptors and incorporate detailed pollution prevention and mitigation measures for all construction elements potentially capable of giving rise to pollution during all phases of construction and reinstatement after construction in line with SEPA guidance. Reason: To ensure suitable pollution prevention measures are in place prior to construction to protect the water environment. 14. That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, any future layout within the site shall be supported by a Noise Impact Assessment, carried out by an appropriately qualified person, which includes the detail of specific noise mitigation measures to be incorporated into the proposed development in relation to: i.The noise barrier to be provided to the north of the site in the location as detailed in figure 4.3 addendum to Report Airshed AS 0617 Newmains rev 02 . ii.The layout and orientation of dwellings within the site, roof and windows specifications, the use of topography, and provision of attenuation barriers in mitigating road traffic noise sources affecting the development site. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future residents of the development and to ensure that the above criteria are met within the development in relation to road traffic and industrial noise. 15. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1 the site layout shall be designed to comply with National Policy ‘Designing Streets’ and national policy. Reason: In the interests of design. 16. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, any subsequent detailed application must observe the open space and play provision standards set out in the Council's Developers Guide to Noise criteria Time frame Parameter Garden amenity areas Day time (07:00 to 23:00) 50dB LAeq (T) outdoors Living rooms Day time (07:00 to 23:00) 35dB LAeq (T) indoors Bedrooms Night time (23:00 to 07:00) 30dB LAeq (T) Indoors
Page 28
Open Space. The exception being front and side garden ground which should be justified by way of inclusion in the design statement. Reason: To ensure that adequate public open space, play provision and private garden areas are provided to serve the development. 17. That in addition to the details submitted under the terms of Condition 1, approval of matters specified in Condition 1 above shall include a design statement for the entire site in accordance with PAN 68 and for the avoidance of doubt this shall provide details of the proposed site layout, scale and mix of housing, design details, materials and height of dwellings and landscaping and open space provision. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 18. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, the landscaping proposals for the site shall include a planting strip at least 15 metres wide to the east and south boundaries of the site and at least 10 metres wide to the western boundary with the A73/A71 and further details submitted for these proposals shall include cross section drawings. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity, visual amenity and to create a satisfactory buffer with the adjoining Green Belt land, the Auchter Water and the main A73/A71 road. 19.That notwithstanding the requirement of Condition 1, the landscaping proposals shall include the integration of the least one continuous landscaped strip across the site in an east-west direction. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and maintaining a wildlife corridor link between important habitats adjacent to the site. 20.That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, a high quality, visually attractive frontage to the development shall be proposed for the western site boundary with the A71/A73; this shall include the landscaped strip required by Condition 18 and shall specifically not propose standard 1.8 metre high rear boundary fencing to dwellinghouses. Reason: In the interests of securing a high quality visual appearance to the development site, as seen from a prominent approach road to Newmains. 21. That as part of the details submitted with the application required under the terms of Condition 1 above, full details of any engineering works proposed to the Auchter Water river bank must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, following consultation with SEPA and Greenspace. Furthermore, the Auchter Water shall be protected at all times during the course of development from any material to enter it from the application site and details of protective fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any works commences upon the site. Reason: To ensure the adequate protection of this important watercourse and its habitat. 22. At least three months prior to the commencement of any works, a full site specific Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority (in consultation with SEPA) and thereafter all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan. For the avoidance of doubt this shall consider concrete and tree removal in particular. Reason: To avoid any significant harm to the environment. 23. That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 above, an updated Ecological Survey, carried out by an appropriately qualified Ecologist, shall be undertaken to determine the presence of statutorily protected species and submitted with all applications for the approval of Matters Specified in Condition for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed terms of this survey and any appropriate mitigation provided. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
Page 29
24.That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 and 23 above, an updated Great Crested Newt Survey, carried out by an appropriately qualified Ecologist, shall be undertaken to determine the presence of this species and submitted with all applications for the approval of Matters Specified in Condition for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed terms of this Survey and any appropriate mitigation provided. For the avoidance of doubt this survey shall be adhere to the Great Crested Newt Survey Methodology. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 25. That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 and 23 above, an updated Water vole Survey, carried out by an appropriately qualified Ecologist, shall be undertaken to determine the presence of this species and submitted with all applications for the approval of Matters Specified in Condition for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed terms of this Survey and any appropriate mitigation provided. For the avoidance of doubt this survey shall be adhere to the water vole Survey Methodology. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 26. That the developer shall appoint an independent Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to monitor over a period to be agreed through conditions 24 and 25 to ensure the required ecological mitigation works identified by the updated ecological surveys are implemented. For the avoidance of doubt the role of the Ecological Clerk of Works shall be defined within the agreed terms of the survey and shall be confirmed in advance of works commencing on site with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of ensuring nature conservation mitigation measures for the site and surrounding area to accord with the provisions of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 27. That before the development hereby permitted commences, details of mitigation measures for the protection, removal or relocation of all SP Energy Networks apparatus within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter the measures shall be undertaken prior to the development being brought into use. Reason: To protect all Scottish Power Energy Networks apparatus and in the interests of health and safety. 28. That prior to the occupation of the first dwelling within the site, new bus stops, the position of which has first been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, shall be provided on Main Street. Reason: To provide improved public transport facilities and encourage the use of non-car modes of transport by future residents of the development. 29. That prior to the occupation of the first dwelling house within the site, the developer shall provide a new puffin crossing across the A73 in the vicinity of School Road, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing before any work commences on site. Reason: In the interests of providing good pedestrian access facilities to serve the development, which will encourage non-car modes of transport to local facilities. 30. That prior to the occupation of the 10th dwellinghouse within the development site, a scheme of traffic calming proposals for School Road, which has first been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, shall be implemented at the developer’s expense. Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety. 31. That accept as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the planning authority, the following roadworks shall be completed within the specified timeframe:
Page 30
a) that before the first dwellinghouse within the application site is occupied, one of the proposed roundabouts shall be operational and completed to a specification which shall be agreed in writing by the Roads Authority; b) the second roundabout shall be operational and completed to a specification which shall be agreed in writing by the Roads Authority before the 201st dwellinghouse is occupied within the site, also to a specification which shall be agreed in writing by the Roads Authority; c) that unless otherwise agreed by the planning authority, before the first dwellinghouse within the application site is occupied, a 2.0 metre minimum width footway shall be constructed along part of the frontage of the site (south of the southern Access) and prior to the occupation of the 201st dwellinghouse within the site being occupied, the 2.0 metre minimum width footway shall continue to the junction of the A73 with School Road. d) That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1 above a scheme of phasing for all off site works including proposed improvements to the A73/A71/Manse Road junction layout shall be submitted in detail. Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety. 32. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no public roads or footways shall be stopped up or otherwise diverted until the necessary orders have been obtained and an agreed alternative route/arrangement is open and available for use. Reason: To allow for the necessary statutory procedures to be carried out. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) Scottish Environment Protection Agency The Coal Authority Strathclyde Partnership For Transport Scottish Power Environmental Planning Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lisa Smith at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 20th June 2022
Page 31
APPLICATION NO. 22/00156/S42 REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The entire development site is 15 ha in area, irregular in shape and is the site of the former Costain Concrete Works. The site is bounded to the west by the (A73) Main Street, Newmains with woodland and a petrol station beyond. To the north there is an operational industrial/commercial area which is significantly elevated above the boundary of the proposed residential site. The curtilage of two dwellings bounds the site to the north- west. In the north-eastern corner is a disused railway viaduct and former sewage works. The eastern boundary is formed by areas of woodland beyond Auchter Water characterised by its previous industrial legacy and interspersed natural vegetative regeneration and open space landscape and a modern residential extension to Morningside. Following some clearance and demolition works, the site it is now largely soil with any areas of hard standing with mounds of soil/spoil at the western side of the site. 2. Proposed Development 2.2 Planning permission is in place for a large housing development on this site which would be accessed via 2 new roundabouts on the A73. Condition 31 of that permission (ref 17/01248/PPP) requires the north roundabout to be in place before the first house is occupied and the second roundabout to be in place before the 201st house is occupied. The developer wishes to alter this wording to ensure that they can (as now intended) development in the south of the site first. All other aspects of condition 31 are unchanged and this change does not affect any other condition of 17/01248/PPP. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 Due to ground conditions of the site the applicant wishes to develop from south to north hence submitting this application to alter the existing specified roundabout sequencing. 4. Site History 4.1 04/02238/OUT Erection of 300 Houses and Associated Access, Parking and Landscaping (In Outline) 08/01066/OUT Construction of Residential Development, Local Shop and Community Building with related Open Space, Landscaping and Roads - approved 23rd September 2010. 17/01248/PPP Residential Development and Associated Infrastructure (in principle) - approved 21.07.2020. 21/00335/FUL Enabling Works Including Site Clearance, Formation of Accesses, Drainage Works, Mine Shaft Remedial Works and Earthworks (Including Importation of Material) Associated with Planning Consent 17/01248/PPP (Residential Development and Associated Infrastructure) – approved 20.09.2021. 22/00168/MSC 277 Dwellinghouses and associated infrastructure (application for approval of reserved matters specified in conditions of planning permission (in principle) 17/01248/PPP for residential development and associated infrastructure) – still being assessed. 22/00316/FUL Formation of Embankment (Part of Sustainable Urban Drainage System), Erection of Fencing with Associated Landscaping in connection with Planning Application 22/00168/MSC – still being assessed.
Page 32
22/00462/AMD Modification of existing Section 75 Planning Obligation relating to permission 17/01248/PPP (Reduction of education contribution for residential development) – currently under assessment. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The aspect of this application is not considered to be of strategic importance and therefore, the Strategic development Plan (Clydeplan) is not considered relevant. The site is covered by Policy HCF2 A1 (Sites for Short Term Housing Development) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Polices DSP 1-4 (which cover amount, location, impact and quality of a development) are also relevant. 5.2 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan is now intended for adoption and is the emerging Local Development Plan for the council. Within this plan the site is designated as a Housing Development Site (Policy PROM LOC3) within the General Urban Area (Policy PP 3 Purpose of Place). Polices EDQ 1 Site Appraisal, EDQ 2 Specific Features for Consideration and EDQ 3 Quality of Development are also relevant. 6. Consultations 6.1 A summary of the comments received following the formal consultation process is as follows: NLC Pollution Control have no objection based on the planning condition for site investigations from 17/01248/PPP is duplicated in any re-issued consent. Scottish Power have no objection but have highlighted that they have an HV underground cable in the vicinity of the proposals. The Coal Authority has no objection on the basis that planning condition 5 of 17/01248/PPP is duplicated in any re-issued consent. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport had no comment to make. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have no objection. 7. Representations No letters of representation have been received. 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. North Lanarkshire Local Plan 8.2 The site is zoned for short term housing development as an addition to the Housing Land Supply under Policy HCF2 A1. As this application is linked to permitted applications 17/01248/PPP and 21/00335/FUL for the principle of and enabling works for a residential development, and is limited to the sequencing of roundabouts it is not considered to change any aspect of the previous assessment made. In addition, since these permissions were given there has been no significant changes that would merit a revisit of assessments previously undertaken. As such the proposed change to condition 31 is considered to comply with this local plan policy. 8.3 In terms of the Development Strategy Policies (DSP 1 – 4) which cover amount, location, impact and quality of a development respectively, the same principle as detailed in point 8.1 applies and the proposed change to condition 31 is considered to comply with these local plan policies. It is understood that the wording of condition 31 was originally intended to align with a previous phasing plan but the intention of the developer is currently to commence at the south of
Page 33
the site, and the proposed alteration to the wording of the condition would raise no issues of road safety and is considered acceptable. North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Intended for Adoption 8.4 The North Lanarkshire Local Development is the emerging Local Development Plan for the council with the site designated as a Housing Development Site (Policy PROM LOC3) within the General Urban Area (Policy PP 3 Purpose of Place). Polices AD 3 Amount of Development, EDQ 1 Site Appraisal, EDQ 2 Specific Features for Consideration and EDQ 3 Quality of Development are also relevant. As these policies largely reflect the policies of the existing adopted plan and the same principle as detailed in point 8.1 is considered to apply, the proposed change to condition 31 is considered to comply with these local development plan policies. 8.5 Consultations – There are no aspects of the consultations that raise concerns about the change proposed. It should be noted that all planning conditions for 17/01248/PPP will be restated to ensure issues raised previously by consultees, including those who have not responded to this application, will be addressed. 9. Conclusion 9.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed change to condition 31 relating to the sequencing of roundabouts required in connection with 17/01248/PPP for a residential development in principle and permitted under 21/00335/FUL, as part of enabling works, is acceptable in terms of the policies set out in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted for the change proposed subject to a restatement of the changed condition together with all remaining conditions of 17/01248/PPP.
Page 34
Application No: 22/00175/PPP Proposed Development: Two dwellinghouses (in principle) Site Address: Site At Main Street Chapelhall North Lanarkshire Date Registered: 21st February 2022 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Tony & Khalda Stevenson 189 Honeywell Crescent Chapelhall Airdrie UK ML6 8XH Agent: Edwin Bonar CD Architects The Old School Business Centre 40 Rochsolloch Road Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 9BG Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 12 Airdrie South Michael Joseph Coyle, Paul Di Mascio, Sandy Watson, Michael McBride, Representations: 6 letters of representation received. Recommendation: Reasoned Justification: The proposed development meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact upon the site and can be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding residential area.
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: 22/00175/PPP Name (of applicant): Mr & Mrs Tony & Khalda Stevenson Site Address: Site At Main Street Chapelhall North Lanarkshire Development: Two dwellinghouses (in principle)
Page 36
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That before the development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following matters specified in conditions:- (a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways and parking areas; (d) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site. (e) the provision of drainage works; (f) Details of existing and proposed site levels together with any retaining structures. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 2. That the application required under condition 1 above shall be accompanied by a certificate from a suitably qualified certifying that the details and positioning of all buildings proposed are fully compliant with the safety and clearance requirements of the statutory undertaker, Scottish Power, in relation to all adjacent electricity apparatus. Reason: In the interest of amenity and health and safety 3. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1 above, the matters specified by conditions applications to be submitted shall comply with the following requirements:- (a) A maximum of 2 dwellings. (b) No dwelling shall exceed two storeys in height; (c) That each dwelling shall have its own in-curtilage parking area and shall be provided at the rate of 1-2 bedrooms = 2 spaces, 3-4 bedrooms = 3 spaces, 5+ bedrooms = 4 spaces. (d) The first 2.0m of the driveways shall be paved and drainage facilities to be provided to prevent surface water discharging onto the public road and footway if the driveway falls towards the public road; (e) A turning facility should be provided within the curtilage to allow vehicles to enter and exit in forward gear (f) A 2m wide footway to be provided over the frontage of the site and connecting to the east footway of Main Street or any other width agreed in advance with the Planning Authority. (g) Access to each plot to be via a 3.0m wide dropped kerb vehicular access to NLC specification (h) That unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority the design and layout of the proposed development shall comply with the council’s approved Supplementary Planning Guidelines and the councils ‘Developer’s Guide to Open Space’ in terms of the minimum space standards and space around the dwellings and the avoidance of overlooking of neighbouring properties. In particular the nature and position of rear windows shall be designed to avoid any loss of privacy for the houses/gardens to the rear of the site; (i) That unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority a visibility splay of 2.5m x 90 in both directions along Main Street to be provided. Fences, gates, private paths, vegetation etc should be located out with the visibility splays, or be constructed, placed or planted greater than 1.00m above the adjacent road channel level of these visibility splays. (j) That unless agreed in writing by the Planning Authority the existing turning head should be maintained or a new turning head to be provided (k) The landscape details should allow for the retention of the mature hawthorn that currently runs adjacent to Main Street and its enhancement with native species Reason: To define the permission and to ensure that the development is appropriate for the site and for the general area.
Page 37
4. Notwithstanding Condition 1 above, if works have not commenced by January 2023 then an updated Preliminary Ecological Appraisal is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in the interest of nature conservation.. 5. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice, 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 model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required as part of the above report. Reason To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity of future residents. 6. That any remediation works identified by the Site investigation Report required in terms of Condition 6 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of the houses hereby approved. Before any of the dwellinghouses are occupied a certificate (signed by a suitably qualified 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 the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity of future residents. 7. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of the visual Amenity of the area. 8. That BEFORE the dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied , any fence or walls approved under the terms of Condition 5 above shall be erected. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 9. 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 would 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. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Traffic & Transportation received 14 March 2022 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 16th May 2022 The Coal Authority received 07 March 2022 Scottish Power Environmental Planning received 15th March, 09 and 16 May 2022 NLC Greenspace received 14 March 2022
Page 38
Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mary Anne Watson at Planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 20th June 2022
Page 39
APPLICATION NO. 22/00175/PPP REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site comprises of an area of vacant land with an area of 2,840sqm. The area was previously woodland, however the trees and land were cleared before the planning application was received. The area of ground adjacent to the proposed site is owned by the applicant and has existing large pylon on it. To the east lies existing 2 storey dwellings. Two bungalows are located to the south west. Open space, garages and two storey dwellings to the west. Further north is a mixture of bungalows and two storey dwellings. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning permission in principle is sought for 2 dwellinghouses. The application has provided an indicative layout plan with vehicular access taken from Main Street with a separate driveway for each dwelling. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 No supporting information was submitted as part of the application. 4. Site History 4.1 None 5. Development Plan 5.1 The application is zoned as HCF1A (Residential Amenity) where policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) is of relevance. 6. Consultations 6.1 Protective Services have no objection to the proposal subject to a Site Investigation report being submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Also, comments are given for issues such as noise, construction hours, lighting and dust emission which are to be added as informatives. 6.2 Roads Development Services have no objection to the proposal subject to comments regarding visibility splays, parking requirements and boundary treatments being met. 6.1 Coal Authority have no objection to the proposal. They consider that the content and conclusion of the submitted Mining Risk Assessment Report are sufficient for the purposes of the planning system in demonstrating that the application site is safe and stable of the proposed development. 6.2 Greenspace were extremely disappointed that the area was felled of trees before planning permission had been sought and before any protected species were undertaken. Greenspace have stated that if works have not commenced within 1year of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (which was done in January 2022 and after tree felling took place) this will need to be updated. They request that the mature hawthorn hedgerow that runs adjacent to Main Street is kept and enhanced with native hedgerow species. Compensatory panting with native trees and plants must also be carried out to help mitigate for the loss of woodland and scrub that has been removed. These comments would be added as a condition. It should be noted that the removal of tree cover before planning permission is sought is not to be encouraged, there was no breach of planning regulations associated with the site clearance works.
Page 40
6.3 Scottish Power request confirmation that the development is outwith 15m of the outermost conductor at this location. Detailed plans would be required showing the structures, dimensions and distances from the outer conductor to the closest section of the building to confirm it is not within the safety distances. Nothing should be built in the area under the line and no trees etc to be planted, however if it is within 15m from the outer conductor area small structures like garages may be permitted upon consultation with Scottish Power to ensure its done within safety clearances and has no effect on the network operationally or from a maintenance point of view in future. They stated that developers have a responsibility to ensure that all clearances contained within HSE guidance are adhered to during construction work which will be added as an advisory note. 7. Representations Following the standard neighbour notification procedure and press advert 6 representations were received.. The matters raised can be summarised as follows: • Existing surface drainage is limited and will lead to increased surface water • Various concerns regarding the impact that the proposed two dwellinghouses would have on vehicles parking on the street. • No pavement is provided on the site. Entry to the cul-de-sac is a bus stop as the bus turns from Main Street to Honeywell Crescent there is no pavement here for passengers. • Hammerhead, that the plans show to be removed, should be retained for safe turning of vehicles ,within the cul-de-sac. • Vast woodland has been destroyed by the applicant over time which has affected the wildlife. • Will have to endure heavy ongoing noise pollution of the duration of building works. • Currently groups of people gather in the site brining trouble to the area. • Development will affect the desirability of existing homes and adversely affect future resale of properties. • Large pylons now seen due to the woodland being removed. • Does not want the pathway that runs parallel to Dalbeatie Breas rear gardens to be compromised. • overshadowing houses and gardens. • Lack of details regarding position of windows and doors. Proximity to dwellings is unclear. • Would like clarification on working hours and days and the program length if approved. • Plans do not consider the amount of pedestrian activity in the area. • Concerns regarding width of the road and the room and safety of pedestrians. • Clarification is access from Balcary Place throughout the project could be required? 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that a planning application should be assessed against the relevant development plan polices unless material consideration indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not of strategic significant and as such, should be assessed in terms of the relevant local plan policies. 8.2 The site is zoned as HCF1A , an existing residential area in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and therefore the principle of residential development is acceptable and in accordance with the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
Page 41
8.1 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires all proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DPS3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). Due to the HFC1A zoning and the limited scale and nature of development it is considered that the proposals raises no issues with regards to policies DSP1-3. 8.2 Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) states that development will only be permitted when an appraisal has been carried out on the existing character and features of the site and its settings, including landscaping, biodiversity, heritage or amenity value and where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Developments are required to integrate successfully into the local and wider area in terms of the suitability of the site and its setting avoiding any adverse impact on residential amenity and taking account of any transportation issues. 8.3 As this application is for permission in principle full details have not been submitted, however, the applicant has provided an indicative layout plan. It is considered that a proposed residential development, containing two dwellinghouses, could integrate satisfactorily with the surrounding land uses. It is considered that there is sufficient scope within the site to accommodate the two dwellinghouses without adversely impacting upon privacy or sunlight/daylight of neighbouring properties by meeting the minimum distance between existing properties, albeit detailed plans, house types, boundary treatment and parking layout would have to be given further consideration at matters specified in conditions stage. 8.4 In terms of the consultation responses it is considered that the consultees comments and recommendations can be covered by conditions and dealt with in the Matters Specified in Conditions applications. 8.5 The matters raised in the representation letters are address as follows: • Existing surface drainage is limited and will lead to increased surface water Comment: This will be dealt with in the Matters Specified in Conditions application. However, the development is not considered to cause an increase in surface water. • Various concerns regarding the impact that the proposed two dwellinghouses would have on vehicles parking on the street. Comment: The proposed dwellinghouses would have incurtilage parking. It is not considered that having 2 more dwellinghouses would have a significant impact on street parking. • No pavement is provided on the site. Entry to the cul-de-sac is a bus stop as the bus turns from Main Street to Honeywell Crescent there is no pavement here for passengers. Comment: A condition is attached that a footway is to be provided over the frontage of the site and connecting to the east footway of Main Street. • Hammerhead, that the plans show to be removed, should be retained for safe turning of vehicles ,within the cul-de-sac. Comment: A condition is proposed which will require the turning area to be retained or relocated. • Vast woodland has been destroyed by the applicant over time which has affected the wildlife. Comment: As noted above, the woodland has been removed and did not require planning permission. • Will have to endure heavy ongoing noise pollution of the duration of building works. Comment: As with any development there will be an element of disturbance. These matters are regulated outwith the planning regime. • Currently groups of people gather in the site brining trouble to the area.
Page 42
Comment:. Having houses on the site would likely prevent this. • Development will affect the desirability of existing homes and adversely affect future resale of properties. Comment: This is not a material planning consideration. • Large pylons now seen due to the woodland being removed. Comment: As noted above the removal of the tree cover was carried out before planning permission was sought. The pylons are morevisible but these are very large structures and the difference would be considered minimal and within acceptable limits. • Does not want the pathway that runs parallel to Dalbeatie Breas rear gardens to be compromised. Comment: It is noted that part of the site may have been used by dog walkers etc but there is no known publica right of way across the site. • Overshadowing houses and gardens. Comment: It is considered that the development can be designed in a way that will not cause any overshadowing. This will be considered in more detail in the matters specified in condition application. • Lack of details regarding position of windows and doors. Proximity to dwellings is unclear. Comment: The application is planning in principle so detailed such as location of dwellings, layout, parking etc will be considered in more detail in the matters specified in condition application. • Would like clarification on working hours and days and the program length if approved. Comment: The Planning Department cannot give a time scale on how long the works would take. If approved the permission would be valid for 3 years and this is the same for the application for matters specified in condition application which would be valid for 3 years aswell. • Plans do not consider the amount of pedestrian activity in the area. Concerns regarding width of the road and the room and safety of pedestrians. Comment: A planning condition will require a footway along the site frontage. • Clarification if access from Balcary Place throughout the project could be required? Comment: Access to the development is via Main Street. Any other means of access during construction works would be for the developer and local land owners to agree. Material Consideration 8.6 In the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan – Modified Proposed Plan the site is zoned similar to the policies contained in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and is therefore considered to comply with the policies in the proposed North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. 9. Conclusions To conclude, taking account of the development plan and all material considerations the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and can be accommodated at this location without detriment to the wider residential area. It is therefore recommended that permission in principle be granted, subject to conditions.
Page 43
Application No: 22/00261/FUL Proposed Development: Change of Use to Film Studio (Class 5) Site Address: Units and Land at Buchanan Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps G33 6HZ Date Registered: 27th April 2022 Applicant: Buchanan Tower Ltd Suite 16 Buchanan Tower Stepps G33 6H2 Agent: Andrew Woodrow Centrum Business Centre 38 Queen Street Glasgow G1 3DX Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 05 Stepps, Chryston and Muirhead John McLaren , Josh Cairns & Claire Louise Williams Representations: 1 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The development is considered to be an acceptable departure from Policy HCF 2 A1 Sites for (Short-term) Housing Development in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 given the existing and proposed use and its integration into the local area including reduced impact on residential amenity and as such complies with Policy DSP 4 (Quality of Development).
Page 44
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: 22/00261/FUL Name (of applicant): Buchanan Tower Ltd Site Address: Units and Land at Buchanan Business Park Cumbernauld Road Stepps Development: Change of Use to Film Studio (Class 5)
Page 45
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the permission hereby granted shall relate solely to a Film Studio use included within Class 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. For the avoidance of doubt, no other Class 5 uses shall be carried out from any part of the application site. Reason: To define the permission and in the interests of neighbouring amenity. 3. That, on cessation of the Film Studio use within any of the units and/or surrounding land, the use of the units and/or land will revert back to Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) use. Reason: To define the permission. 4. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, any equipment, vehicles or storage containers associated with the film studio use shall not be stored to a height exceeding 5.5 metres on any external areas on the site. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control, in order to protect neighbouring amenity. 5. Further details shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Planning Authority before these external areas are utilised for external filming or other film related activity (including details of hours and days of the week) and the areas shall not be used until written approval is obtained. Following approval for external filming or other film related the external areas shall be utilised in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control, in order to protect neighbouring amenity Background Papers: Consultation Responses: None Contact Information: Kirsten Devlin at Planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 20th June 2022
Page 46
APPLICATION NO. 22/00261/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site forms part of Buchanan Business Park in Stepps. It consists of warehouses on the western portion of the Business Park and significant areas of outdoor land to the south used for car parking and storage. 1.2 The warehouses are currently vacant with their last use related to that of the remainder of the site which is a storage and distribution use that falls under Class 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The proposal is to change the use of the warehouses and associated land within the application site from Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) to a Film Studio, which falls within Class 5 (General Industrial) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. 2.2 The initial proposal was to change all of the site to Class 5 (General Industrial) uses which, if approved, could result in industrial processes being carried out in close proximity to residential properties (directly west). These industrial uses could be detrimental to neighbouring amenity in terms of giving off noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. The Planning Authority raised concerns about the matter with the applicant who agreed to amend the application to a film studio alone – and for no other Class 5 use. 2.3 Application ref: 22/00262/FUL to change units and associated land within the eastern portion of Buchanan Business Park to a film studio was granted on 14th June 2022. This application was dealt with under delegated powers as the proposal was in accordance with Policy EDI1 A1 (industrial policies) contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012, which seeks to support the continuing industrial and business character of existing industrial areas. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 No supporting information has been received or was requested. 4. Site History 4.1 The site has been the subject of the following planning applications: • 01/01516/OUT Erection of Residential Development, Business Units, Industrial Units, Retail Unit and Leisure Unit plus Refurbishment of Existing Buildings and Formation of Additional Access (Outline) • 01/01595/FUL Construction of (a) New Road Access, (b) Roundabout at Existing Access and (c) Internal Roads and Parking Area • 02/01194/REM External Alterations to Building • 03/00955/FUL Construction of 53 Dwellinghouses • 04/01496/FUL Construction of a Gatehouse • 05/00105/AMD Construction of a Gatehouse (Amendment to Consent N/04/01496/FUL) • 07/01512/FUL Construction of a Car Park • 11/00637/PPP Mixed Use Development Comprising Class 4 Business Use, Housing, Community Facilities and a Retail Unit with Ancillary Petrol Filling Station and Associated Works (In Principle) • 12/01347/ADV Erection of Advertising Signage • 16/00952/ADV Installation of 3 Illuminated Fascia Signs • 16/01347/AMD Renewal of Planning Permission in Principle 11/00637/PPP for Mixed Use Development Comprising Class 4 Business Use, Housing, Community Facilities and a Retail Unit with Ancillary Petrol Filling Station and Associated Works
Page 47
• 17/00495/AMD Modification to Wording of Legal Agreement relating to Planning Permission • 16/01347/AMD (Mixed Use Development Comprising Class 4 Business Use, Housing, Community Facilities and a Retail Unit with Ancillary Petrol Filling Station and Associated Works (In Principle) • 20/00974/ADV Illuminated Fascia Sign • 22/00262/FUL Change of Use to Film Studio (Class 5) 5. Development Plan 5.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies. The site is covered by Policy HCF 2 A1 Sites for (Short-term) Housing Development in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. This policy aims to satisfy housing demand in the period up to 2011. 5.2 Policy DSP4 Quality of Development also applies and ensures development integrates successfully into the local area and avoids harm. 6. Consultations 6.1 No consultations were required. 7. Representations 7.1 1 letter of representation was received following the neighbour notification and advertisement process. The points raised and comments thereon are as follows: Point of Objection: The proposal is contrary to the housing site zoning contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and as such should be refused planning permission. Comment: The proposal is contrary to the housing designation in the local plan, which reflects lapsed planning permissions for residential development on the site. Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application site forms a significant part of the business park which has a long-established Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) Use. The use as a film studio (considered a Class 5 use as filming is an industrial process) is considered to have significantly less implications for surrounding amenity than the current usage of the site. The filming will be carried out from within the units and as such they will require sound proofing to keep external noise sources out, which in turn ensures there is reduced noise nuisance for neighbouring properties. Point of Objection: The current Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) Use causes noise, disturbance and light pollution issues for the neighbouring residents. Approving Class 5 (General Industrial) use could allow disruptive industries to operate from the site to the detriment of residential amenity in terms of giving off noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. Comment: The above concerns regarding unrestricted general industrial usage (Class 5) over the whole of the site were shared by the Planning Authority given the close proximity of residential properties at Scapa Way, Speyburn Place and Inchgower Road. These concerns were raised at an early stage in the application process which resulted in the proposal being amended to a film studio alone. A planning condition also ensures that no other Class 5 uses can be carried out from the site without planning permission. Point of Objection: No explanation has been given as to why a film studio requires a Class 5 use. Comment: Under Planning legislation an industrial process includes the making of a film, video or sound recording, therefore a film studio falls within Class 5 (General Industrial) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
Page 48
Point of Objection: The planning application should be targeted to the areas required and should not cover the whole of the site. Comment: The Planning Authority sees no issue with the film studio use covering the whole site. It is accepted that the studio will be smaller in scale initially with more warehouses and portions of outdoor space being utilised over time if the business is successful. Point of Objection: The Council seems to wish any development to take place on the site without consideration for the local residents. They also omitted information about what Use Class 5 entails. Comment: The Planning Authority’s role is to determine whether the proposals it receives are acceptable. The development description is considered sufficiently clear and precise. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 8.2 Development Plan: North Lanarkshire Local Plan: The site is covered by Policy HCF 2 A1 Sites for (Short-term) Housing Development in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. This policy aims to satisfy housing demand in the period up to 2011. The proposal is therefore contrary to the housing site local plan policy although it can be considered an acceptable departure given its integration into the local area and reduced impact on the amenity of the adjacent residents (which is discussed in more detail below). 8.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Due to the scale and nature of the development the proposal raises no issues with regards to Policies DSP 1, DSP2, and DSP3. Policy DSP 4 (Quality of Development) sets out that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. This policy sets out criteria and requirements in this respect which include: character and setting, integration into the local area, impact on traffic circulation and local roads network and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. When assessed against the terms of policy DSP4 (Quality of Development), it is considered that the proposal will integrate well into the surrounding locale as a film studio and will likely be significantly less intrusive than the current storage and distribution use. The warehouses inside which the filming will take place will require soundproofing to keep external noise sources out, in turn, ensuring significantly less noise and disturbance than the current use. The existing road network and significant areas of outdoor space for parking, manoeuvring and storage within the site also ensures there will be no significant impact on the traffic circulation and the local road network. 8.4 North Lanarkshire Council Local Development Plan Modified Proposed Plan: Changes have been made to the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Modified Proposed Plan following publication of the Report of Examination on 24 May 2021 by the Scottish Government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). Following approval by the Planning Committee in November 2021, the Plan as amended has been submitted to the Scottish Ministers for approval to adopt. Scottish Ministers have advised that they have extended the period to assess the Plan. Once Adopted, the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 will be superseded. This is a material consideration. 8.5 The application site is a Proposed Housing Development Site under Policy PROM LOC3 which reflects the designation in the current Local Plan. Policy EDQ3 (Development Quality) reflects the requirements of existing policy DSP 4.
Page 49
9. Conclusions 9.1 The proposal is considered an acceptable departure to Policy HCF 2 A1 Short-term Housing Development of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and complies with DSP4 – Quality of Development. As such, and notwithstanding the representation received, for the reasons given above it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.