Planning Applications Index
North Lanarkshire Council · 13 October 2022
Back to Planning Committee — 13 October 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: 13-10-2022 Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved
Page 2
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 13th October 2022 Page No Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation 8-18 19/01460/FUL Mrs J Fionda Four detached dwellinghouses (including demolition of existing house) (revised layout) 110 Glen Road Wishawhill Wishaw ML2 7NP Refuse 19-27 21/01580/FUL North Lanarkshire Council Residential development (25 flats) with associated roads and drainage infrastructure Site At Gibb Street Chapelhall Grant 28-61 62-67 68-78 79-86 22/00770/S42 22/00780/FUL 22/00836/FUL 22/00868/FUL Greengairs East Wind Farm Limited ASE 7 LLP Guala Closures UK Wireless Infrastructure Group Construction of Wind Farm including Permanent Meteorological Mast, Site Entrance, Access Tracks, Crane Hardstandings, Control Building, Underground Cables and Temporary Construction Compound (Section 42 Application to Vary Condition 1 and Delete Condition 38 of Planning Permission 19/01292/S42 to extend the operational life to 40 years and allow 3 years for restoration) Site To North Of Easterton Airdrie Road Caldercruix Change of Use from Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) to Fitness Studio Class 11 (Assembly and Leisure) 10 Badenheath Place Westfield Cumbernauld G68 9HX Manufacturing Facility and Offices with associated Parking, Landscaping and Infrastructure Land North Of Craignethan Drive Gartcosh Installation of a new 40m high lattice telecoms tower with 12 x antennas and ancillary equipment and the relocation of 4 x 300mm diameter dishes, all contained within a new compound enclosed by way of a 2.5m high palisade fence Grant Grant Grant Grant
Page 3
Fir Park Stadium Motherwell ML1 2PR
Page 4
Application No: 19/01460/FUL Proposed Development: Four detached dwellinghouses (including demolition of existing house) Site Address: 110 Glen Road Wishawhill Wishaw ML2 7NP Date Registered: 7th January 2021 Applicant: Mrs J Fionda 110 Glen Road Wishaw ML2 7NP Agent: Graham Mckay GMDL Architecture 11 Orchard Street Carluke ML8 5AJ Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 19 Motherwell South East And Ravenscraig: Kenneth Duffy, Agnes Magowan, Nathan Wilson, David Robb Representations: 9 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Refuse Reasoned Justification: The application is contrary to policy EDQ 3 of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, because the proposed layout does not demonstrate a high standard of design and would not result in a high quality development. The layout of the houses in the rear part of the site would detract from the amenity of neighbouring houses and would fail to provide a satisfactory level of amenity for the future residents due to overlooking and overshadowing. In addition, the design of the new access as currently proposed would not be acceptable in terms of maintaining the safety and convenience of road users.
Page 5
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: 19/01460/FUL Name (of applicant): Mrs J Fionda Site Address: 110 Glen Road Wishawhill, Wishaw, ML2 7NP Development: Four detached dwellinghouses (including demolition of existing house)
Page 6
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:- 1. The proposed development would be contrary to policy EDQ 3 of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan because the proposed layout does not demonstrate a high standard of design, and would not result in a high quality development. The proposal would detract from the amenity of neighbouring houses and would fail to provide a satisfactory level of amenity for the future residents due to overlooking and overshadowing. In addition, the design of the new access would detract from the safety and convenience of road users. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: The Coal Authority response dated 30 April 2021 Scottish Water response dated 8 January 2021 Arboriculture response dated 2 March 2022 Greenspace response dated 19 March 2021 Protective Services (Environmental Health) response dated 26 January 2021 Traffic & Transportation response dated 19 January 2021 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Keith Bathgate at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 27th September 2022
Page 7
APPLICATION NO. 19/01460/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is a substantial garden of approximately 0.4ha, which currently contains a large 1960s bungalow and detached garage. The surrounding area is residential, and the site is surrounded by a mixture of one- and two-storey houses of varying ages and styles to the north, west and south, and by a public park (Belhaven Park) to the east. Although most of the surrounding houses are themselves detached properties, the application site has a much larger plot than any of them as it is a remnant of an earlier development pattern in the street (in which several old houses with large plots have been redeveloped and subdivided over the years). The garden contains a number of mature trees, notably two large sequoias in the centre of the site (a Giant Redwood and a California Redwood), and it is subject to a tree preservation order. The site is relatively flat but the prevailing landform falls to the west, meaning that the two bungalows to the west are at a lower level than the site. Existing access is by way of two relatively narrow gates (one currently disused) in the high stone wall which fronts Glen Road. The existing bungalow is positioned towards the rear of the site, and due to its distance from the road and the intervening trees, the building is not prominent when viewed from the street. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks permission to demolish the existing bungalow and to build four detached houses on the site. One house (“Plot 4”) would be located in the southernmost corner of the site, using the existing main gates for access. The other three plots would be positioned in the northern (rear) half of the site, and would share a new driveway and parking / turning areas accessed from the western end of the site frontage (replacing the existing unused secondary access gate). The new houses would all be large two-storey detached houses with five bedrooms, and would be finished in render with split stone detailing and grey concrete rooftiles. Most of the existing trees on the site would be retained, including the two large sequoias, although some lime trees on the site frontage would be removed to create the new access, and a small hawthorn would be removed to allow the house on Plot 4. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 In addition to the application form and plans, the application includes a SUDS drainage report, a tree survey report, and a coal risk report. 4. Site History 4.1 The present bungalow dates from the 1960s, when it replaced a Victorian villa on the plot. An application to redevelop the site as 22 flats in 1998 was withdrawn after it became clear that it was likely to be refused (application 98/00744/FUL). Other recent applications on the site have related to householder development and tree works within the garden of the existing bungalow. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The proposed development does not raise any strategic issues, and therefore does not require to be assessed against the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan. 5.2 Under the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 the site lies within the General Urban Area, where policies PP3 and AD3 seek to maintain and improve the level of amenity by encouraging development that is in keeping with the character of existing residential areas. New housing is acceptable in principle within the General Urban Area, subject to site-specific and design considerations.
Page 8
5.3 The site is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and the corresponding policy PROT A seeks to protect natural and sustainable places by safeguarding natural heritage assets. Planning permission will only be granted for proposals affecting locally-designated sites (such as TPOs) where it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact or that any impacts can be adequately mitigated against. Further guidance on trees is contained in supplementary planning guidance note SPG02 (Trees and Development). 5.4 Policy CI indicates that the Council will seek developer contributions to address any infrastructure or service improvements which become necessary as a result of the proposed development. Policy EDQ 1 requires that any proposed development be subject to a suitable site appraisal to ensure that it will integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harming neighbouring amenity. Policy EDQ 2 requires that planning applications be accompanied by suitable supporting information in respect of any specific constraints affecting the site, including ground instability arising from historic coal mining. Policy EDQ3 indicates that applications will only be approved where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. 6. Consultations 6.1 The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring an invasive site investigation and approval of any resultant mitigation works prior to commencement of development. 6.2 Protective Services (Environmental Health) have no objection subject to a condition requiring the reporting of any unanticipated contamination found during development work. 6.3 Transportation Services (Roads) were consulted on an earlier layout and noted concerns about junction spacing and visibility splays. The amended layout does not address these concerns, however the matter is discussed further below. 6.4 The Greenspace Service has no objection to the proposal but notes the apparent difficulty in carrying out this level of development without either affecting the existing trees or having major root protection zone constraints. Updated ecological surveys would be needed prior to commencement because of the time which has passed since the previous surveys were undertaken. 6.5 Scottish Water has no objection, and have confirmed that at the time of consultation there was sufficient spare capacity in the local water and sewerage networks. 7. Representations 7.1 Nine representations have been received from nearby residents, who object to the application for the reasons summarised below. Some of the representations do not object to the principle of redeveloping the site, but they object to the detail of the proposal. Some of the specific comments related to previous layout proposals for the proposed development. Out of character with the surrounding area as it fails to reflect the generosity of space between existing houses; The existing house and most neighbouring houses are bungalows, and any new development should also be single storey; Proposed large 2-storey houses close to edges of site would be out of scale; Four large 5-bed houses is overdevelopment – site is only large enough for three plots; Overlooking and loss of privacy due to large two-storey houses close to site boundaries; Position of first floor windows overlooking neighbouring properties; Overbearing effect of large buildings positioned close to neighbours’ gardens/windows; Overshadowing of neighbouring properties; Neighbouring houses are at lower ground levels which exacerbates overlooking / overshadowing problems;
Page 9
Layout is overly concerned with protecting trees and results in houses being positioned in locations which adversely affect neighbours; Adverse impact on trees on the site and on wildlife in nearby woodland; Proposal is contrary to Council’s policies on site appraisal and quality of development; Poor quality of drawings, with numerous inaccuracies and omissions; Question whether trees are shown in correct positions on plans; Alterations to the distinctive/characterful stone garden wall to form access will adversely affect character of area; Alterations to the front garden wall should be in natural stone matching existing material; Road safety concerns due to increased traffic on a narrow section of Glen Road with substandard pavements; Inadequate sight lines at junction onto Glen Road; Insufficient parking on site and no opportunity for on-street parking; Increased traffic noise; Noise and damage from construction traffic; Need to avoid damage to common walls during demolition; Unstable ground in area due to old mineworkings; Insufficient details of drainage; and Increased demand on utilities, including existing drainage which is said to be poor 8. Planning Assessment Development Plan Policies 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the policies of the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the proposal raises no strategic issues and does not conflict with any Clydeplan SDP policies, so the relevant policies are those of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 (“the LDP”). 8.2 The site is within the General Urban Area where policies PP 3 and AD 3 seek to maintain and approve amenity, including encouraging development which is in keeping with the character of residential areas. Policy PP 3 indicates that new housing within such areas is deemed to support the purpose of the plan, subject to the provisions of the EDQ policies. Policy AD 3 indicates that there is no requirement to justify new housing within the General Urban Area in terms of need. The application site is an existing house plot within a residential part of the town, it is much larger than any of the surrounding house plots, and the existing bungalow is neither a listed building nor within a conservation area. The demolition and the subdivision of the site into smaller house plots would therefore be consistent in principle with the General Urban Area policies, albeit that the detail of the proposal raises issues in terms of the EDQ policies (discussed below). The proposal is also consistent with policy CI as the small scale of development (i.e. a net increase of only 3 dwellings) does not give rise to a requirement for a developer contribution towards education, transport infrastructure or green infrastructure. 8.3 Policy PROT A (Category A3) applies to locally designated natural heritage assets, including trees which are subject to tree preservation orders. The policy indicates that permission will not be granted unless it is demonstrated that the development will not adversely affect the protected trees or unless adequate mitigation will be undertaken. In this case the proposal would retain the two most important trees on the site (the two large sequoias) and many of the other trees, and whilst some trees would be lost it is considered that these are less significant specimens and that their loss could be mitigated by suitable new landscaping. For example, the group of lime trees on the site frontage which would be removed to form the new access have been very heavily pollarded and therefore have a quite unnatural form. There would be a need for tree root protection to avoid damage to the retained trees during construction work, and it would also be necessary to update the ecological surveys due to their age, but subject to these requirements it is considered that the proposal would be consistent with policy PROT A.
Page 10
8.4 Policy EDQ 1 covers site appraisal, and in broad terms requires that planning applications be accompanied by sufficient supporting information to demonstrate that the applicant has adequately appraised the site and its surroundings and taken relevant matters into account in the design of the development. Matters to be taken into account include: Massing and height of buildings on the site and surrounding area; Orientation and topography of the site and surrounding area; Building lines, plot ratios, groupings of buildings and types of enclosure in the area; The nature and types of features to be safeguarded or enhanced on the site In this case, despite a very protracted application process, it is considered that these matters have not been adequately addressed by the proposed layout, a situation which stems in part from an inadequate site appraisal at the outset of the application. If the application had been determined when it was first submitted it would have been contrary to policy EDQ 1 due to lack of supporting information. However, these issues were explored during the course of the application, and whilst the various amendments to the layout have not been able to fully overcome the problems, this is no longer due to a lack of awareness of the issues, so it is not considered that there is a conflict with EDQ 1. 8.5 Policy EDQ 2 requires that specific constraints be addressed, including contaminated land and coal mining legacy risks. The supporting information provided is adequate, and subject to suitable conditions there would be no conflict with this policy. 8.6 Policy EDQ 3 requires a high standard of site planning and sustainable design, in order to achieve a high quality development in terms of various assessment criteria including: Establishing a clear vision for the site with design principles which lead to a distinct, successful place addressing siting, overall layout, density, form, scale, height, massing, proportion, detailing, colour and materials; Providing a safe, pleasant, inclusive, convenient and welcoming development addressing (amongst other things) safe and convenient access; Existing features of green network or historical environmental interest (e.g. traditional stone walls) protected under policy PROT A or identified under policy EDQ 1 will be safeguarded or enhanced. In this case it is not considered that a high standard of site planning and design has been demonstrated or that the resultant development would be of a high quality, and the shortcomings of the design are explained in detail below. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to policy EDQ 3. Design and Amenity 8.7 On paper, the site is large enough to be divided into four plots of similar size to those of the neighbouring houses. In practice, however, this is constrained by the need to take account of existing features of natural and built heritage value, and by the relationship to neighbouring houses. In particular, the site has a number of mature trees which contribute significantly to the appearance and character of this part of Wishawhill, the most significant of which are the two large and healthy sequoias. The roots of these trees will extend across much of the centre of the site, which severely limits the amount of the site which is capable of being developed without causing damage to these trees. As it is considered that retention of these two trees is of particular importance, options for siting of the proposed houses are limited, and the obvious approach is to locate one house in the southern corner of the site utilising the existing main access gate, with other new houses positioned towards the north of the plot (behind the sequoia trees). The southernmost house (“Plot 4”) is relatively straightforward as it would utilise the existing access gates, would have a similar relationship to the street to the existing houses on the north-east side of Glen Road, and would be well enough separated from the sole neighbouring house (108 Glen Road) to avoid causing any significant overlooking or overshadowing. In itself, the proposed house on Plot 4 is therefore considered to be acceptable.
Page 11
8.8 The existing driveway leading to the back of the site passes between the two sequoia trees, but it would be difficult to use this driveway as the access to the new houses because the necessary widening and additional traffic use would be likely to damage the tree roots, and retention of this route would also make it difficult to fit a house onto Plot 4. Consequently, it is proposed to take the access to Plots 1-3 along the western edge of the site, widening the existing disused section of driveway at this location and avoiding the root protection areas for the large trees. This is also a logical design approach, although it would necessitate alterations to the original stone wall fronting Glen Road and removal of a group of mature but heavily pollarded lime trees on this part of the frontage, and as discussed below the geometry of the access as currently proposed is unsatisfactory. 8.9 Whilst the aforementioned parts of the development are considered to be either acceptable or capable of being made acceptable with further amendments, the proposals for the rear of the site are considered to be unacceptable. Various amendments to the layout during the course have explored different ways of fitting three large detached houses and their associated gardens, parking and turning area into the rear half of the site, but none of these layouts has been considered satisfactory due to impacts upon neighbouring houses. Even with two of the houses (Plots 2 and 3) pushed towards the rear corners of the site (and thus relatively close to the boundary with neighbouring houses), there is little room for the fourth house (Plot 1) which can only be accommodated by squeezing it in between the access and either the side boundary (as previously proposed) or the trees (as currently proposed). The result is a cramped layout in which it is considered that the relationship of the three rear houses to each other and to neighbouring properties is unacceptable. 8.10 Specific problems with the current layout include: The Plot 1 house is positioned directly north of the two sequoia trees and only 14-18m from their trunks (i.e. just outwith the root protection area of the nearest tree). These trees are 23-28m high and would seriously overshadow the proposed house, making it very likely that future residents would seek to cut the trees down. Whilst the height of these trees would inevitably affect any new houses in the northern part of the site, the proximity of the proposed Plot 1 house would result in a particularly overbearing relationship; Window to window distances between Plots 1 and 2 are around 10m, whereas the Council’s normal minimum is 18m; The Plot 2 house is positioned approximately 6.1m from the rear boundary adjoining 122 Glen Road (whereas normal minimum rear garden depth is 10m) and just over 3m from the side boundary with 120 Glen Road (which itself is positioned very close to the boundary). Although the house type that has been chosen has only bathroom windows facing these boundaries at first floor level and there is no window to window conflict, the need to restrict window positions to two adjoining elevations to prevent overlooking when the front elevation itself fails to provide suitable window to window separation emphasises the cramped nature of the layout; The Plot 3 house is positioned 7.6m from the rear boundary bordering 122 Glen Road, and whilst previous layouts avoided having first floor habitable-room windows facing towards this boundary, the present layout has two bedroom windows facing the neighbouring house creating an overlooking conflict; The design of the access onto Glen Road is substandard in width and geometry. Whilst some of these are issues which might be addressed by further amendments, the fundamental difficulty of accommodating four houses on the site would remain. This application was first submitted almost three years ago and although officers have worked with the applicant in an effort to reach an acceptable design, the numerous amendments to the layout which have already been made have still not resulted in a satisfactory layout. Under the circumstances it is considered that seeking further amendments is unlikely to be productive, as more significant changes to reduce the number or size of houses would be needed and that would be better addressed as a fresh application. Technical Consultations 8.11 Matters raised by the Coal Authority can be addressed by conditions requiring a site investigation for historic coal mining features, whilst Protective Services also has no objection
Page 12
subject to a standard condition covering any contamination discovered during construction work. Greenspace and Arboricultural Services have provided comments on ecology and trees, and it is considered that although some of the protected trees would need to be removed and an updated ecological survey would be needed, the proposal is acceptable in these respects and the issues could all be addressed by conditions. 8.12 The Transportation Service commented on earlier layouts but not on the most recent amendment. Transportation’s preference would be for an adopted road to serve the houses at the rear of the site, however in practice that could not be achieved on the site without loss of all of the significant trees and the stone wall, and it is therefore considered that in principle a shared private driveway would be a reasonable means of access to Plots 1-3, provided that such driveway was constructed to an appropriate standard. Plot 4 would use the existing access, which does not comply with current standards but is nevertheless an existing arrangement which would not be made any worse by the proposal. 8.13 Whilst in principle a shared driveway along the western boundary of the site is acceptable, it is clear that the geometry of the access currently proposed is not satisfactory. In response to concerns about vehicles egressing at an oblique angle and with apparently limited westwards visibility due to an adjacent boundary wall, the applicant has amended the plans by simply narrowing the access in order to force vehicles to egress at a less oblique angle but even closer to the wall, and has not complied with requests to show the visibility splays. The resultant access is therefore now unduly narrow and awkwardly aligned in addition to the visibility concerns not having been resolved. Again, this is potentially something which would be capable of being resolved by amendment, but it is indicative of the lack of attention to detail which has been a problem with this application from the outset, and it reinforces the concerns that the design is not of an appropriate quality. Matters Raised in Representations 8.14 The issues raised by objectors are considered as follows: Out of character with the surrounding area as it fails to reflect the generosity of space between existing houses; The existing house and most neighbouring houses are bungalows, and any new development should also be single storey; Proposed large 2- storey houses close to edges of site would be out of scale; Four large 5-bed houses is overdevelopment – site is only large enough for three plots Response: The area contains a mix of different house types and plot sizes, and it is considered that two-storey houses would be acceptable in principle if the layout was satisfactory. As discussed above, whilst Plot 4 is considered to be acceptable, Plots 1-3 are squeezed into the back half of the site resulting in an unsatisfactory layout with houses positioned relatively close to boundaries and with various window to window conflicts. It is considered that four houses of the size proposed is likely to be an overdevelopment of the site given then constraints imposed by the trees. Overlooking and loss of privacy due to large two-storey houses close to site boundaries; Position of first floor windows overlooking neighbouring properties; Response: The applicant has sought to address overlooking by selecting house types with limited windows on rear and side elevations and orientating them accordingly. The handing of the house on Plot 3 has changed with the most recent amendment, and this has introduced some overlooking of 122 Glen Road. Other than that issue (which could be addressed by handing the house or repositioning windows) the only first floor windows facing neighbouring properties are bathrooms, and boundary screening should prevent overlooking from ground floor windows. However, as noted above, there would be a direct window to window conflict between Plots 1 and 2 within the development. Overbearing effect of large buildings positioned close to neighbours’ gardens / windows; Overshadowing of neighbouring properties; Neighbouring houses are at lower ground levels which exacerbates overlooking / overshadowing problems;
Page 13
Response: It is acknowledged that neighbours who have been used to a bungalow on this site would find two-storey houses much more noticeable, especially when some of them are close to the boundary and the ground level is higher than that of the neighbouring houses to the west. However, it is not considered that the relationship would actually be overbearing, or that any significant overshadowing would arise, especially in view of the shadow which is already cast by the very tall trees. Layout is overly concerned with protecting trees and results in houses being positioned in locations which adversely affect neighbours; Adverse impact on trees on the site and on wildlife in nearby woodland; Response: The trees on the site (in particular the two large sequoia) are of significant benefit to the appearance and character of the area, so it is appropriate that they be retained and the development designed around them. Limited felling of poorer quality trees is considered to be acceptable in order to facilitate development, subject to appropriate replacement planting, and it is not considered likely that the proposal would aversely affect ecology provided tree felling did not take place within bird nesting season and an updated ecological survey was carried out before work started. The need to retain the trees does not justify poor design or adverse impacts on neighbours, and it is recommended that the application be refused. Proposal is contrary to Council’s policies on site appraisal and quality of development; Poor quality of drawings, with numerous inaccuracies and omissions; Question whether trees are shown in correct positions on plans; Response: As discussed above there have been difficulties with the quality of some of the plans and documents during the course of the application. However, the current plans and information are sufficient to allow the application to be properly assessed. Alterations to the distinctive/characterful stone garden wall to form access will adversely affect character of area; Alterations to the front garden wall should be in natural stone matching existing material; Response: The wall contributes to the character of the area and should be retained to the extent practical, but there are a variety of boundary treatments in the vicinity and it is considered reasonable to form a wider access at the west end of the frontage and to provide appropriate visibility splays, which would necessitate changes to the position and height of the wall. It would be expected that recovered stone from the existing wall would be used in any rebuilt sections. Road safety concerns due to increased traffic on a narrow section of Glen Road with substandard pavements; Inadequate sight lines at junction onto Glen Road; Insufficient parking on site and no opportunity for on-street parking; Response: This is a lightly trafficked section of Glen Road which serves only eight houses beyond the application site, and the application would add only three additional houses. The increase in traffic is therefore not likely to be significant. It is agreed that the new junction should have suitable sight lines and the shortcomings of the current access proposal are discussed above. Each of the houses would have at least three parking spaces, with three dedicated visitor spaces, and this level of provision is considered to be adequate. Whilst the section of Glen Road in front of the site is narrow, other parts of the street are wide with ample space for on-street parking. Increased traffic noise; Noise and damage from construction traffic; Need to avoid damage to common walls during demolition; Response: The additional traffic generated by 3 additional houses would be relatively minor, and although the proposed new driveway passes close to the western boundary of the site it is not likely that the limited domestic traffic would give rise to significant disturbance. Some disturbance is inevitable during any construction project, but this is not
Page 14
grounds for preventing development. Damage to third party property would be a civil matter between the landowners concerned. Unstable ground in area due to old mineworkings; Insufficient details of drainage; Increased demand on utilities, including existing drainage which is said to be poor; Response: The application has been supported by a coal mining risk assessment and the Coal Authority has no objection subject to conditions. Scottish Water has no objection to the proposal and have confirmed the availability of spare foul sewage capacity. Surface drainage would be by way of SUDS which could be addressed by a condition, and given the size of the site this should not present any undue difficulty. 9. Conclusions 9.1 Whilst the principle of demolishing the existing bungalow and replacing it with several new houses is consistent with General Urban Area policies AD 3 and PP 3, the detailed proposals are contrary to policy EDQ 3 because they do not demonstrate a high standard of design and would not result in a high quality development. The proposed layout of the houses in the rear part of the site would detract from the amenity of neighbouring houses and would fail to provide a satisfactory level of amenity for the future residents due to overlooking and overshadowing. In addition, the design of the new access as currently proposed would not be acceptable in terms of maintaining the safety and convenience of road users.
Page 15
Application No: 21/01580/FUL Proposed Development: Residential development (25 flats) with associated roads and drainage infrastructure (amended layout) Site Address: Site At Gibb Street Chapelhall Date Registered: 21st June 2022 Applicant: North Lanarkshire Council Fleming House 1 Tryst Road Cumbernauld G67 1JW Agent: Coltart Earley Architecture 559 Sauchiehall Street Glasgow G3 7PQ Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 12 Airdrie South Michael Joseph Coyle, Paul Di Mascio, Sandy Watson, Michael McBride, Representations: 7 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: Whilst the proposal is contrary to local development plan policy PROT A, material considerations justify a departure from that policy in this instance. The proposal is consistent with all other relevant LDP policies and would provide high quality social housing without detracting from the amenity of the surrounding area.
Page 16
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: 21/01580/FUL Name (of applicant): North Lanarkshire Council Site Address: Site At Gibb Street Chapelhall Development: Residential development (25 flats) with associated roads and drainage infrastructure (amended layout)
Page 17
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- L(20)015; L(20)016; L(90)001B; L(90)100E; L(91)003; 11043-AT03A, AT04A, AT07A, AT08A and AT09; 21/11043/114C, 116B and 121B Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. Unless otherwise approved by the Planning Authority, all of the recommendations contained in Section 9 of the WSP Phase 2 Contaminated Land and Geotechnical Assessment (August 2021) shall be fully implemented as part of the development of the site. In particular: a) The additional testing for lead in the vicinity of trial pits TP07 and TP11 shall be undertaken and a report detailing the findings and any changes to the mitigation proposals arising therefrom shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development; b) In the event of asbestos in soil being identified on the site, a detailed quantitative risk assessment and any mitigation proposals arising therefrom shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority as soon as possible following discovery of the material; and c) Any imported soils shall be subject to chemical testing to confirm suitability for use on the site, in terms of human health, water and built environment criteria. Reason: In order to ensure that the condition of the ground on the site is suitable for residential development, in the interests of public health. 3. No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as a verification report (prepared by a suitably qualified independent specialist) confirming that all of the remediation measures detailed in condition 2 above have been fully implemented to the appropriate standard has been submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that the condition of the ground on the site is suitable for residential development, in the interests of public health. 4. No development shall commence until such time as a detailed Green Network Mitigation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such strategy shall include: a) landscaping proposals for the whole site including tree/shrub planting in line with the details shown on the approved layout plan; b) ecological/landscaping enhancements to the remaining areas of open space to increase their biodiversity value; and c) details of the timescale for implementation of these works and the arrangements for future maintenance thereof The approved Green Network Mitigation Strategy shall thereafter be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to secure improvements to the Green Network to mitigate the loss of part of the open space, and to ensure that the development is appropriately landscaped so as to be of suitable appearance. 5. No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as the junction onto Gibb Street has been completed to its finished standard as detailed on the approved plans, including visibility splays measuring 4.5m by 60m in both directions along Gibb Street which shall be free of obstructions greater than 1.05m in height. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Page 18
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: NLC Traffic & Transportation responses dated 8 July 2022 and 6 September 2022 NLC Environmental Health responses dated 16 December 2021 and 3 February 2022 NLC Greenspace response dated 8 February 2022 Archaeology Service response dated 29 June 2022 The Coal Authority response dated 17 December 2021 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Keith Bathgate at planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 21st September 2022
Page 19
APPLICATION NO. 21/01580/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site comprises an area of grass open space in the northern part of Chapelhall. It extends to approximately 1.54ha and is surrounded on three sides by the back gardens of two-storey houses and cottage flats, and by a play area to the north-west. A small local shop also backs onto the site close to the play area. A footpath runs through the middle of the side, connecting Aitkenhead Road with the play area and Queen’s Crescent, and there is a residents’ car park and a lane accessing back gardens along the western boundary. The site was once a railway cutting and despite some infilling this history is still reflected in its levels, with the path through the middle of the site being slightly lower than the land and houses to either side. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for 25 flats, comprising 11 one-bedroom and 14 two-bed properties all of which would be social housing units for rent. Three of the ground floor flats would be designed specifically to accommodate wheelchair users. Vehicular access would be from Gibb Street at the northern of the site (between the play area and the local shop). The development would be laid out as a private parking court resembling a cul-de-sac, with the road and parking running down the middle of the site and the flats arranged as 4 two-storey four-in- a-block buildings down the west side of the parking court and a three-storey block across the southern end of the site. The flats, gardens and parking would occupy around half of the footprint of the site, and the eastern part of the site would remain as open space, containing a realigned footpath and new landscaping. The existing parking and domestic access track on the western edge of the site would be retained, and a strip of landscaping would separate this area from the new flats. Parking would be provided for 45 cars (including 3 disabled spaces), whilst surface water drainage would be by way of SUDS. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 In addition to the application form and plans, the application documents include a drainage assessment, an ecological survey, a site investigation report and a planning statement. 4. Site History 4.1 The site has no recent planning history. It is assumed to have been landscaped as an open space area following closure of the railway in the 1960s. 5. Development Plan 5.1 The site is within the urban area, and its development for housing would not raise any strategic issues or conflict with any of the policies of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017. 5.2 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2022) designates the site as a Green Network Site within the General Urban Area. The corresponding policies are policies PROT A (Natural Environment and Green Network Assets), PP3 (General Urban Area - Purpose of Place) and AD3 (General Urban Area - Amount of Development). In addition, policies CI (Contributions to Infrastructure), EDQ1 (Site Appraisal), EDQ2 (Specific Features for Consideration) and EDQ3 (Quality of Development) are relevant to applications of this nature.
Page 20
6. Consultations 6.1 The Transportation Service has no objection to the proposal subject to the provision of the junction visibility splays, parking and turning areas, and the provision of a vehicle barrier adjacent to the play area. 6.2 Protective Services (Environmental Health) has no objection subject to conditions relating to further site investigation and verification of the mitigation works. 6.3 The Greenspace Service recommends that biodiversity enhancements be incorporated into the development and its landscaping. 6.4 The Coal Authority confirms that the site where the physical works would take place is within the Development Low Risk Area, and they therefore have no comment on the proposal. 6.5 The Archaeology Service indicates that the development of the site should not impact on nearby archaeological assets, and no conditions are necessary. 7. Representations Seven representations have been received from people who object to the proposal for reasons which can be summarised as follows: Support provision of social housing, but not at the expense of existing community open space; Loss of an open space which is well used by local residents for recreation, including children’s games, football, golf practice, sledging and dog walking; This is the only significant area of parkland/open space in the vicinity; Contrary to Green Network policy in the adopted LDP, the wording of which was strengthened by the Scottish Government following the LDP examination in recognition of the contribution such spaces make to community wellbeing; If the council wanted to develop this as a housing site it should have been put forward as part of the LDP process rather than being included in the Green Network; Allowing development of a Green Network site for housing would set an undesirable precedent and may enable other housebuilders to do likewise; Alleyway at back of existing houses may be lonely and dangerous; Site has previously been infilled and is subject to flooding in places so may not be suitable for housing; Will this result in the loss of the new play area? Complaints about housing allocation system which seems to prioritise people with anti- social behaviour issues instead of locals 8. Planning Assessment Development Plan Policy 8.1 The proposed development is not of a strategic scale and does not conflict with Clydeplan housing or green network policies. The proposal is therefore not a strategic matter and does not require further assessment against the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan. 8.2 In terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, the application site is within the General Urban Area. Policy PP3 seeks to maintain and improve amenity within urban areas by encouraging development which is in keeping with their residential character whilst also encouraging diversity in more mixed-use locations. The development of housing on a brownfield site within the urban area is in principle consistent with this policy, subject to its impact on amenity being considered acceptable, which is discussed below. Policy AD3 confirms that there are no quantity limits and no requirement for any assessment of housing land supply for sites within the General Urban Area. The principle of housing within the General Urban Area is therefore consistent with these policies.
Page 21
8.3 However, the site is also designated as a Green Network Site, where policy PROT A (A4 Urban Green Network) is applicable. This policy seeks to protect natural areas, outdoor sports facilities and other green open spaces which contribute to quality of life in local communities. Planning permission will only be granted for proposals affecting such sites if it can be demonstrated that there will be no adverse impact or that any environmental impacts can be mitigated against. In this case, the proposal involves the partial development of an area of existing open space, and although some environmental enhancements are intended as mitigation the proposal is contrary to policy PROT A. 8.4 Policy CI requires that new development proposals should provide or contribute towards any enhanced infrastructure or services which will be necessary as a result of the development, including education, transport, green infrastructure and play facilities. In this case, the application is by the Council itself so there is no requirement for a developer contribution towards education, and the proposal is not of a scale which would necessitate any off-site transport works. The site is also immediately adjacent to an existing play area and multi-use games pitch, so there is no requirement for further play facilities. However, green network enhancements would be needed to offset the loss of part of the existing open space, and this could be addressed by a condition. Subject to such a condition, the proposal is in accordance with this policy. 8.5 Policy EDQ1 indicates that all development is required to integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity, whilst policy EDQ3 indicates that development proposals will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and design are achieved. Applications are expected to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of an appropriate site appraisal and that the design would result in a high quality of development. The proposal if for housing of a scale and character comparable with the surrounding residential area, and whilst it would impact upon the Green Network it is not considered that the impact thereon would be unacceptable. The design and layout are considered to be appropriate, and overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with policies EDQ1 and EDQ3. 8.6 In terms of policy EDQ2, the only specific feature for consideration in this instance is the potential for contaminated land, due to the site having historically been part of a railway line and subject to infilling of ground. The site has been subject to a detailed site investigation and Protective Services are content with the proposed remediation scheme, so the proposal is consistent with this policy. Principle of Development 8.7 The main issue for consideration in this application is the principle of developing the site for housing, given that the site is an existing area of amenity open space which is designated as part of the Green Network. 8.8 The applicant’s supporting statement explains that although the site has been used as open space for many years it was always owned by the Housing Service as opposed to being a formal public park. Following a consultation process with ward councillors and the Tenant Federation during 2019 the site was identified as suitable for housing development as part of the Council’s housing programme. In May 2020 the Council’s Housing and Regeneration Committee approved the inclusion of this site within the new-build programme, which seeks to provide 5,000 new social rented homes by 2035 to meet identified needs. In September 2021, prior to submitting the planning application, the Council’s New Supply team undertook a public consultation exercise with the local community during September 2021. The outcome of that exercise was that 11 responses were received, of which 2 supported the development (due to provision of new houses and existing fly-tipping problems at the location, whilst 9 did not support it (because of loss of open space and privacy concerns). Nevertheless, the project was pursued because it was considered that adequate open space would remain in the vicinity and because of the importance of providing new social housing. The proposed new properties would include three specially designed accessible flats for disabled people, and all properties would be designed to modern energy-efficient specifications to minimise carbon emissions and heating costs. During the application process, the development was amended and scaled back from the original plan so that only around half of the site would now be developed and the
Page 22
remainder of the site would stay as open space, the quality of which would be enhanced by landscape / ecology improvements as mitigation against the reduction in the amount of open space. 8.9 The proposal is contrary to LDP policy PROT A because it will result in the reduction in size of an area of Urban Green Network. The policy does not prohibit development of such sites, but it does specify that permission for development adversely affecting the Urban Green Network will only be granted where the impacts can be adequately mitigated in environmental terms. In this case, the application site has very limited ecological / environmental value as it is primarily an area of maintained amenity grassland, with only small areas of semi-improved neutral grassland along its boundaries. The ecological study found no evidence of protected flora or fauna on the site. The site is close to the edge of the settlement, but it is separated from the woodland which borders the town by the play area, and it is unlikely that the site functions as a wildlife corridor as it is effectively a ‘green cul-de-sac’ which is largely surrounded by houses. It is therefore considered that the partial development of the site would have no significant impact upon the natural environment or upon the integrity of the wider Green Network. Conversely, the provision of Green Network enhancements within the undeveloped portion of the site would have potential to increase its potential as a wildlife habitat, resulting in a net increase in the ecological value of the site. 8.10 The other purpose of the Green Network policy is to protect open spaces within urban areas where these have amenity or recreational value for local residents. The site evidently has some value as such a space, and the main focus of the objections to the application is that it would result in the loss of this area. Most of the objections were received in response to the original proposal which would have involved development of the whole site, whereas the amended proposal would now retain the eastern half of the site as open space. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that the proposal would result in a reduction in the amount of open space at this location, and would reduce its potential for some recreational uses such as use as a kickabout area. There are however several nearby areas of open space in the northern part of Chapelhall, including the play area and multi-use games area immediately to the north west of the site, other (smaller) amenity grass areas at George Street and Melrose Avenue, and extensive publicly-owned woodland walking routes to the north of the town. On balance, given the availability of other open space areas in the vicinity, the loss of part of the existing open space is considered to be acceptable in view of the benefits of providing new social housing and the ecological mitigation measures. Design and Amenity 8.11 The proposed development would comprise primarily two-storey four-in-a-block flats which would be in keeping with the predominantly two-storey housing of the surrounding area. There would also be one three-storey block of nine flats, which would be higher than any building in the immediate vicinity but this height is not considered to be excessive in the context of the site. The layout would take the form of a cul-de-sac, with the new properties running down wester side and across its southern end only, facing towards the retained area of open space on the eastern half of the site. Footpath access through the site would be retained, with the path being realigned to run through the retained open space area. The new properties along the western side of the site would be well off the boundary, at a lower level than the existing houses on Gibb Street, and separated from these by the existing access lane and by new planting on the embankment side. At the southern end of the site the sole three-storey block would back onto houses at Aitkenhead Road which are at a lower level, but it would be well separated from these, with flat window to rear garden boundary distances of at least 28m and window to window distances exceeding 38m. It is considered that the proposed design and layout would provide an attractive residential environment in keeping with the character of the area, and that there would be no significant detriment to the amenity of neighbouring properties. Technical Considerations 8.12 The application has been accompanied by a site investigation report which concluded that there is a low risk of contamination issues affecting human health, and Protective Services agree with these findings and have no objection to the application. There are no known coal mining legacy risks or archaeological features on the site. The road layout involves a private parking court rather than an adopted road, but it would provide adequate junction visibility splays, car parking
Page 23
and turning facilities which would be sufficient to allow turning of a bin lorry. There are therefore no objections to the application from any technical consultees, subject to various conditions being applied. Representations 8.13 The majority of the representations object to the loss of part of the existing community open space / Green Network site, which has been addressed in paragraphs 8.7 - 8.10 above. However, as explained above it is acknowledged that a loss of open space will occur and that the proposal is contrary to LDP policy PROT A, but it is considered that there is sufficient alternative open space in the vicinity and that the benefits of additional social housing combined with green network enhancements on the balance of the site are sufficient to justify a departure from policy PROT A. 8.14 Other matters raised by objectors and the responses to these are as follows: Alleyway at back of existing houses may be lonely and dangerous; Response: This is an existing alleyway which needs to be retained to allow access to existing back gardens, albeit that not all existing householders use it. The alleyway is currently open to the grass open space, but would become more enclosed due to the new flats and planting. However, the new flats would also increase overlooking of the alleyway, and it is not considered likely to attract anti-social behaviour. Site has previously been infilled and is subject to flooding in places so may not be suitable for housing; Response: As a former railway cutting which had been infilled as a landscaped area the site undulates and may have been subject to localised flooding, but this would be addressed by the recontouring of the site and the installation of new surface drainage infrastructure as part of the development. Will this result in the loss of the new play area? Response: The play area is outwith the application site and will not be affected by it. Complaints about housing allocation system which seems to prioritise people with anti- social behaviour issues instead of locals Response: The housing allocation system is not a material planning consideration. 9. Conclusions 9.1 Whilst the proposal is contrary to local development plan policy PROT A due to the loss of an area of Urban Green Network, it is considered that in this particular case the availability of other open space in the vicinity, the benefits of providing new social housing and the potential ecological benefits arising from the mitigation works are sufficient to justify a departure from that policy. The proposal is consistent with all other local development plan policies and there are no objections from technical consultees, and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.
Page 24
Application No: 22/00770/S42 Proposed Development: Construction of Wind Farm including Permanent Meteorological Mast, Site Entrance, Access Tracks, Crane Hardstandings, Control Building, Underground Cables and Temporary Construction Compound (Section 42 Application to Vary Condition 1 and Delete Condition 38 of Planning Permission 19/01292/S42 to extend the operational life to 40 years and allow 3 years for restoration) Site Address: Site To North Of Easterton Airdrie Road Caldercruix Date Registered: 6th July 2022 Applicant: Greengairs East Wind Farm Limited Muirhall Farm Auchengray Carnwath ML11 8LL Agent: Andrew Marshall Muirhall Energy Ltd Muirhall Farm Auchengray Carnwath ML11 8LL Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 08 Airdrie North Alan Beveridge,Sophia Coyle,Henry Emerson Dunbar,Richard Alan Sullivan, Representations: 1 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed variation of Condition 1 and deletion of Condition 38 of planning permission 19/01292/S42 to allow for the extension to the operational life of the wind farm to 40 years and to allow up to 3 years for restoration of the site is considered to accord with the terms of the development plan. Referral to Scottish Government: If the Council is minded to grant approval against the advice of Glasgow Airport, it must notify Glasgow Airport, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Scottish Ministers as per Circular 2/2003: Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2003.
Page 25
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 22/00770/S42 Name (of applicant): Greengairs East Wind Farm Limited Site Address: Site To North Of Easterton Airdrie Road Caldercruix North Lanarkshire Development: Construction of Wind Farm including Permanent Meteorological Mast, Site Entrance, Access Tracks, Crane Hardstandings, Control Building, Underground Cables and Temporary Construction Compound (Section 42 Application to Vary Condition 1 and Delete Condition 38 of Planning Permission 19/01292/S42 to extend the operational life to 40 years and allow 3 years for restoration)
Page 26
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That the development hereby shall subsist for a period of 40 years from the date of final commissioning of the wind farm. Written confirmation of the final commissioning date shall be provided to the Planning Authority within 7 days of the final commissioning date. Within three years of the date of expiry of the planning permission, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, the wind turbines, ancillary equipment, access tracks and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a detailed restoration and after-care scheme to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority no later than 2 years prior to the expiry of the 40-year period. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended and to allow the Planning Authority to review the circumstances of the temporary permission, in the interests of the amenity of the area in the longer term, beyond the 40-year period covered by the permission. 2. That the operators shall at all times accord with the areas forming the subject of this consent in accordance with the approved plans and other supporting information, including the Environmental Impact Assessment and Supplementary Environmental Information submitted with application 12/00602/FUL and amended by the Supplementary Environmental Information submitted with application 19/01292/S42 and updated by the Supporting Statement submitted with application 22/00770/S42, except as amended by the terms of the approval hereby given and shall omit no part of the approved operations and shall not amend the development (including changes to the make, model or colour) without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: To clarify the drawings and information on which this approval of planning permission is founded in order that the Planning Authority can retain effective control. 3. That PRIOR to the erection of any wind turbines, details of the precise positioning of each wind turbine shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The wind turbines shall be positioned, unless otherwise agreed in writing, no more than 50 metres in any direction from the location of each wind turbine as shown on the approved plans. Reason: To allow flexibility in positioning turbines and to ensure that amenity and environmental assets are protected. 4. That the number of wind turbines approved shall not exceed 8, the blade tip shall not exceed 149.9m and the power output of the wind farm shall not exceed 38.4 MW. Reason: To define the permission.
Page 27
5. That no symbols, signs or logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines nor any other building or structures without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area. 6. That all turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity. 7. That, prior to the erection or installation of any ancillary equipment or buildings on site, the design, colour and finish of the equipment and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details. Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these matters in detail. 8. The rating level of noise emissions from the combined effects of the wind turbines (including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in context with the Guidance Notes (attached to this condition), shall not exceed the values for the relevant integer wind speed set out in, or derived from, the tables attached to these conditions at any dwelling which is lawfully existing or has planning permission at the date of this permission and: a) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, wind speed and wind direction, all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d). These data shall be retained for a period of not less than 24 months. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request. b) No electricity shall be exported until the wind farm operator has submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval a list of proposed independent consultants who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall be made only with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. c) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request from the Planning Authority following a complaint to it from an occupant of a dwelling alleging noise disturbance at that dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Planning Authority to assess the level of noise emissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The
Page 28
written request from the Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to and any identified atmospheric conditions, including wind direction, and include a statement as to whether, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component. d) The assessment of the rating level of noise emissions shall be undertaken in accordance with an assessment protocol that shall, prior to the commencement of any measurements, have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The protocol shall include the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken, whether noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component, and also the range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise emissions. The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of the Planning Authority under paragraph (c), and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. e) Where a dwelling to which a complaint is related is not listed in the tables (9.2 to 9.6) listed in Section 9 of the Environmental Statement AES Wind Generation May 2012 (of planning consent 12/00602/FUL), the wind farm operator shall submit to the Planning Authority for written approval proposed noise limits selected from those listed in the tables to be adopted at the complainant’s dwelling for compliance checking purposes. The proposed noise limits shall be those limits selected from the Tables specified for a listed dwelling which the independent consultant considers as being likely to experience the most similar background noise environment to that experienced at the complainant’s dwelling. The rating level of noise emissions resulting from the combined effects of the wind turbines when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes shall not exceed the noise limits approved in writing by the Planning Authority for the complainant’s dwelling. f) The wind farm operator shall provide to the Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority for compliance measurements to be made under paragraph (c), unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Planning Authority. The measurements shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions.
Page 29
g) Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise emissions from the wind farm is required pursuant to Guidance Note 4(c), the wind farm operator shall submit a copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (d) above unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the Planning Authority. Location Standardised wind speed at 10m height (ms-1) within the site averaged over 10- minute periods 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Greendykeside 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 37 37 Avalon 35 35 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 Meadowfield 30 30 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 Longriggend 34 34 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 Avonhead cottage 38 38 40 40 40 41 42 42 42 Annandale 30 30 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 Meikledrumgray 29 29 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 West arbuckle 36 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 Midtown Farm 38 38 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 Easterton Farm 40 40 41 41 41 42 42 42 42 Caldercruix 34 34 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 Mosside cottage 30 30 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 Table 1 – Between 07:00 and 23:00 – Noise limits expressed in dB LA90, 10-minute as a function of the standardised wind speed (ms-1) at 10 metre height as determined within the site averaged over 10 minute periods. Location Standardised wind speed at 10m height (ms-1) within the site averaged over 10-minute periods 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Page 30
Reason: In order to protect residential amenity. 9. No development shall take place until an acoustic report has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The acoustic report shall: i) Include final details of the wind turbines to be installed along with manufacturer warranties to show maximum sound power levels from the turbines across operational wind speeds up to 12m/s and confirm that the noise from the installed turbines shall be free from tonal characteristics or where tonal noise is present, the noise limits are met inclusive of any tonal penalty when assessed within Guidance Note 3; ii) Be conducted by a suitably competent and indep.endent consultant as approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the report being undertaken; iii) Comply with the provisions of ETSU-R-97: The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms; Greendykeside 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 37 37 Avalon 33 33 35 36 37 38 38 38 38 Meadowfield 30 30 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 Longriggend 34 34 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 Avonhead cottage 37 37 39 40 40 42 42 42 42 Annandale 30 30 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 Meikledrumgray 29 29 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 West arbuckle 36 36 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 Midtown Farm 37 37 38 40 40 40 40 40 40 Easterton Farm 40 40 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 Caldercruix 34 34 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 Mosside cottage 30 30 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 Table 2 – Between 23:00 and 07:00 – Noise limits expressed in dB LA90, 10-minute as a function of the standardised wind speed (ms-1) at 10 metre height as determined within the site averaged over 10-minute periods
Page 31
iv) Include an assessment of the turbine noise emissions at the locations as identified in Condition 8 above, and at any other location requested in writing by the Planning Authority; and v) Indicate how far below the limits in Condition 8, the noise emissions from the turbines will be, at each location, at each wind speed. Reason: To consider this aspect in detail in order to protect residential amenity. 10. Amplitude modulation is the variation of aerodynamic noise at the rate at which the blades pass a given fixed point of their rotation. the operator shall submit a scheme, to be approved by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of operation of the wind farm, for the assessment and regulation of amplitude modulation effects. The approved scheme shall apply the methodology published by Renewable UK on 16th December 2013, including any revisions applied following review by the Institute of Acoustics, or other suitable methodology endorsed as good practice by the Institute of Acoustics. This scheme shall be used by the developer to assess any complaint received by the Planning Authority which relates to Amplitude Modulation and shall be used to regulate any identified effects. Reason: In order to protect residential amenity. Guidance Notes for Noise Conditions These notes are to be read with and form part of the noise condition. They further explain the condition and specify the methods to be employed in the assessment of complaints about noise emissions from the wind turbine. The rating level at each integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind turbine noise level as determined from the best-fit curve described in Guidance Note 2 of these Guidance Notes and any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3. Reference to ETSU-R-97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Guidance Note 1 (a) Values of the LA90,10 minute noise statistic should be measured at the complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using the fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN 60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672-1 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 2014 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the
Page 32
measurements). Measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3. (b) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 metres above ground level, fitted with a two-layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements should be made in “free field” conditions. To achieve this, the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the building facade or any sound reflecting surface except the ground at the approved measurement location. In the event that the consent of the complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance measurements is withheld, the wind turbine operator shall submit for the written approval of the Planning Authority details of the proposed alternative representative measurement location prior to the commencement of measurements, and the measurements shall be undertaken at the approved alternative representative measurement location. (c) The LA90,10 minute measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10- minute arithmetic mean wind and operational data logged in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d), including the power generation data from the wind turbine control systems. (d) To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind turbine operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed in metres per second and wind direction in degrees from north at hub height for each turbine and arithmetic mean power generated by the turbine and any noise curtailment mode in use, all in successive 10-minute periods. All 10-minute arithmetic average mean wind speed data measured at hub height shall be ‘standardised’ to a reference height of 10 metres as described in ETSU-R-97 at page 120 using a reference roughness length of 0.05 metres. It is this standardised 10 metre height wind speed data, which is correlated with the noise measurements determined as valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2, such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Guidance Note 2. All 10-minute periods shall commence on the hour and in 10- minute increments thereafter. (e) Data provided to the Planning Authority in accordance with the noise condition shall be provided in comma separated values in electronic format. (f) A data logging rain gauge shall be installed in the course of the assessment of the levels of noise emissions. The gauge shall record over successive 10-minute periods synchronised with the periods of data recorded in accordance with Note 1(d).
Page 33
Guidance Note 2 (a) The noise measurements shall be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points as defined in Guidance Note 2(b) (b) Valid data points are those measured in the conditions specified in the agreed written protocol under paragraph (d) of the noise condition but excluding any periods of rainfall measured in the vicinity of the sound level meter. Rainfall shall be assessed by use of a rain gauge that shall log the occurrence of rainfall in each 10-minute period concurrent with the measurement periods set out in Guidance Note 1. (c) For those data points considered valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2(b), values of the LA90,10 minute noise measurements and corresponding values of the 10- minute standardised ten metre height wind speed, as derived from site measured wind speed source agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d), shall be plotted on an XY chart with noise level on the Y-axis and the standardised mean wind speed on the X-axis. Least squares, “best fit” curve of an order deemed appropriate by the independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order) should be fitted to the data points and define the wind farm noise level at each integer speed. Guidance Note 3 (a) Where, in accordance with the approved assessment protocol under paragraph (d) of the noise condition, noise emissions at the location or locations where compliance measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain a tonal component, a tonal penalty is to be calculated and applied using the following rating procedure. (b) For each 10 minute interval for which LA90, 10 minute data have been determined as valid in accordance with Guidance Note 2 a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise emissions during 2 minutes of each 10 minute period. The 2 minute periods should be spaced at 10 minute intervals provided that uninterrupted uncorrupted data are available (“the standard procedure”). Where uncorrupted data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2 minute period out of the affected overall 10 minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from the standard procedure, as described in Section 2.1 on pages 104-109 of ETSU-R-97, shall be reported. (c) For each of the 2 minute samples the tone level above or below audibility shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104 - 109 of ETSU-R-97.
Page 34
(d) The average tone level above audibility shall be calculated for each wind speed bin, each bin being 1 metre per second wide and centred on integer wind speeds. Samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be substituted. (e) The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below: Guidance Note 4 (a) If a tonal penalty is to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3 the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Guidance Note 2 and the penalty for tonal noise as derived in accordance with Guidance Note 3 at each integer wind speed within the range specified by the Planning Authority in its written protocol under paragraph (d) of the noise condition. (b) If no tonal penalty is to be applied then the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is equal to the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Guidance Note 2. (c) In the event that the rating level is above the limit(s) set out in the Tables attached to the noise condition, or the noise limits for a complainant’s dwelling approved in accordance with paragraph (e) of the noise condition, the independent consultant shall undertake a further assessment of the rating level to correct for background noise so that the rating level relates to wind turbine noise emission only.
Page 35
(d) The wind turbine operator shall ensure that all the wind turbines in the development are turned off for such period as the independent consultant or Planning Authority requires in order to undertake the further assessment. The further assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the following steps: (e) Repeat the steps in Guidance Note 2, with the wind turbine switched off, in order to determine the background noise (L3) at each integer wind speed within the range requested by the Planning Authority in its written request under paragraph (c) and the approved protocol under paragraph (d) of the noise condition. (f) The wind turbine noise (L1) at this speed shall then be calculated as follows where L2 is the measured level with the turbine operating but without the addition of any tonal penalty: (g) The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding arithmetically the tonal penalty (if any is applied in accordance with Note 3) to the derived wind farm noise L1 at that integer wind speed. (h) If the rating level after adjustment for background noise contribution and adjustment for tonal penalty (if required in accordance with Guidance Note 3 above) at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits approved by the Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling in accordance with paragraph (e) of the noise condition then no further action is necessary. If the rating level at any integer wind speed exceeds the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or the noise limits approved by the Planning Authority for a complainant’s dwelling then the development fails to comply with the conditions. 11. That prior to the commencement of development a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme setting out measures to be taken to prevent the impairment of the performance of the aerodrome navigation aids and the efficiency of air traffic control services at Glasgow Airport must be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, in consultation with Glasgow Airport Limited. Reason: In the interest of aviation safety 12. No wind turbine forming part of the development shall be erected other than in accordance with the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme. Reason: In the interest of aviation safety.
Page 36
13. The development must be constructed, commissioned and operated at all times fully in accordance with the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme Reason: In the interest of aviation safety. 14. No part of any turbine shall be erected until a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme agreed with the Operator has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in order to avoid the impact of the development on the Primary Radars of the Operator located at Lowther Hill, Cumbernauld, Glasgow and Kincardine and associated air traffic management operations. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety and in order to ensure suitable mitigation relating to the impact of the development on the performance of aerodrome navigation aids and/or the efficiency of air traffic control at Glasgow Airport and associated air traffic management operations of the NATS Prestwick Centre. 15. No part of any turbine shall be erected above ground until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved Scheme. Reason: In the interests of aviation safety and in order to ensure suitable mitigation relating to the impact of the development on the performance of aerodrome navigation aids and/or the efficiency of air traffic control at Glasgow Airport and associated air traffic management operations of the NATS Prestwick Centre. 16. That the turbines shall not be brought into operation until the applicant has demonstrated that they have agreed with the Ministry of Defence, NATS and CAA the following information: Construction start and end dates of the turbines; The position of the turbine towers in latitude and longitude; The height of the turbines in metres above ordnance datum and above ground level; and The proposed methodology for lighting the turbines Reason: In the interests of aviation safety. 17. That turbines 1, 4, 6 and 8 shall be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with the MOD. Written confirmation that the lighting has been installed to the satisfaction of the MOD shall be submitted within 2 months of the turbines being operational.
Page 37
Reason: In the interests of aviation safety. 18. That 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 details on position of water quality monitoring points (prior to construction taking place) following the establishment of a baseline on water quality. For the avoidance of doubt the program of hydrological monitoring shall be undertaken as set out in the letter from AES to SNH dated April 2015. Reason: To avoid any significant harm to the environment. 19. The approved Habitat Management Plan shall be implemented in full for the duration of the operational life of the wind farm, unless otherwise agreed by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the approved Habitat Management Plan shall incorporate the habitat enhancement measures referred to in paragraph 12.1.4 and outlined in appendix 12.C of the Environmental Statement (AMEC May 2012). Reason: To ensure that the measures outlined in the approved Habitat Management Plan are carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme. 20. Notwithstanding the terms of condition 19 above the approved Habitat Management Plan shall make provision for the formation of a Habitat Management Group (HMG) to monitor implementation of the plan. Should the Habitat Management Group amend the plan approved in terms of condition 19 above, the agreed plan as amended shall thereafter be implemented in full. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the approved Habitat Management Plan is carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme. 21. Notwithstanding the terms of conditions 19 and 20 above the approved Habitat Management Plan as may be amended by the Habitat Management Group shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for review every 12 months from initial approval until decommissioning and restoration of the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detailed 22. The Habitat Management Plan approved under the terms of conditions 18 and 19 above or as amended shall operate until the decommissioning and restoration of the site.
Page 38
Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the approved Habitat Management Plan is carried out in accordance with the agreed scheme 23. That the developer shall appoint an independent Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to monitor the agreed Habitat Management Plan Area (HMPA) for the duration of the operational life of the wind farm. Reason: To ensure that the required ecological mitigation works included in the Habitat Management Plan are implemented. 24. That the access junction upgrading works shall be implemented in full, and to the written satisfaction of the Planning Authority, prior to any construction works starting on site. Reason: In the interest of Road Safety. 25. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, details of mitigation for potential ice throw shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of public safety 26. Should shadow flicker problems be identified within three years of the date of final commissioning of the wind farm, details of measures to overcome shadow flicker problems at any affected receptor shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Planning Authority within two months of the first report of problems; thereafter the approved measures shall be brought into operation and shall continue throughout the operation of the wind turbine except as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order overcome potential nuisance to receptors through shadow flicker and to clarify the start and end date of the three-year limitation period during which any potential effects are to be identified. 27. That before any turbine is erected on site, a survey of television signal reception (the scope of which to be agreed in advance with the Planning Authority) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority. Reason: To establish a baseline against which to assess the impact of the wind turbine on television reception.
Page 39
28. That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, within one month of the approved wind turbines coming into operation a report covering the effect of the wind turbines on local television signal reception shall be submitted to the Planning Authority; thereafter any approved measures for overcoming television reception interference shall be brought into operation within two months of the reports submission to the Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the report shall include measures to ensure public engagement. Reason: In order to overcome any television reception interference caused by the wind turbine. 29. Restoration shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Detailed Restoration Scheme and Condition 37 of planning permission 19/01292/S42. Reason: To ensure that comprehensive and appropriate restoration of the site is secured. 30. That before development begins, a scheme of protection measures for the protection of the Avonhead Colliery during construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the protection of the scheduled monument. 31. The aftercare of the site shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Detailed Aftercare Scheme and Condition 40 of 19/0129/S42. Reason: To ensure that comprehensive and appropriate restoration of the site is secured. 32. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Peat Management Plan. For the avoidance of doubt this shall involve the following: Working practises for the removal and storage of peat on site. Reuse of peat on site. Removal of peat from the site. Quality of peat on site. Interaction of the Peat Management Plan and Habitat Management Plan. The timetables schedule of the management of the Peat Management Plan. An updated Peat Slide Hazard Risk Assessment (PSHRA) which must include full details of all mitigation necessary to avoid, or reduce to acceptable levels, the risk of peat slide.
Page 40
Confirmation that the appointed ECoW will ensure that the peat storage, reuse and restoration proposals are adhered to and will oversee the works and practices as outlined in the revised PMP (May 2020 Doc Number 1221808). Reason: To ensure that the peat habitat is not significantly affected by this development. 33. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement and Environmental Management Plan. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area, to ensure that necessary contingencies are in place, to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities, and to ensure the site is satisfactorily restored. 34. At least one month before development begins, a revised bond or other form of financial guarantee to secure the cost of performance of site restoration and aftercare obligations shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. No development may commence until the bond or other form of financial guarantee is approved by the Planning Authority and is in place to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The bond or other form of financial guarantee shall be maintained until the date of completion of all restoration and aftercare obligations. The value of the financial guarantee shall be determined by a suitably qualified independent professional valuer as being sufficient to meet the costs of all outstanding restoration and aftercare obligations. The value of the financial guarantee shall be reviewed by a suitably qualified independent professional valuer at least once every five years and adjusted to take account of any variation in the cost of compliance with the then outstanding restoration and aftercare obligations. Before each determination or periodic review of the value of the financial guarantee, the independent professional valuer shall be required to submit a written valuation report to the Planning Authority and the operator and invite submissions from the Planning Authority and the operator on the proposed value of the financial guarantee. The cost of engaging the independent professional valuer shall be borne by the operator. Reason: To ensure that there are sufficient funds to secure performance of restoration and aftercare obligations.
Page 41
Background Papers: Consultation Responses: (1) NLC Protective Services received 11th July 2022 (no objection) (2) NLC Traffic & Transportation 20th July 2022 (no objection) (3) Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 20th September 2022 (no objection) (4) Cumbernauld Airport Ltd received 7th July 2022? 20th September 2022 (objection) (5) Edinburgh Airport received 12th July 2022 (no objection) (6) Glasgow Airport received 22nd July 2022 (objection) (7) National Air Traffic Services (Safeguarding) received 11th July 2022 (no objection) (8) Ministry of Defence Estates received 22nd July 2022 (no objection) (9) Atkins Global received 7th July 2022 (no objection) (10) SP Energy Networks received 16th September 2022 (no objection) (11) Nature Scotland received 5th September 2022 (no objection) (12) Historic Environment Scotland received 19th July 2022 (no objection) (13) The Coal Authority received 29th July 2022 (no objection) (14) Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds – no response (15) Scottish Gas Network – no response (16) Falkirk Council – no response Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ann McGregor at 01236 632500 Report Date: 03 October 2022
Page 42
APPLICATION NO. 22/00770/S42 REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site extends to 200 hectares and is located on land north of Easterton, Airdrie Road and east of Greengairs Landfill site. The site benefits from planning permission for a wind farm consisting of 8 turbines each with a height of 149.9m (to blade tip) and with total maximum capacity of 36MW (Planning Reference 19/0129/S42 granted on the 24th September 2020). The consented wind farm is expected to provide sufficient electricity to power 32,835 homes per year and offset 55,099 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Construction works (as per planning permission 19/0129/S42) has already commenced. 1.2 The site is characterised by worked bog peatland with evidence of coal mining legacy and peat cutting. There are intermittent patches of small trees and lower lying scrub mainly following the remains of a railway solum along the dismantled rail track to the southwest of the site. The site is crossed by numerous linear drainage channels dissecting the area of peat working. The site contains a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (peatland habitat) which is contained in the northern part of the site covering only a small part of the designation. A Site of Special Scientific Interest (Longriggend Moss) is located to the east of the SINC. Historic remains of Avonhead colliery (scheduled monument) lie within the northern edge of the site. The site boundary is located to the south and west of Longriggend (west of Telegraph Road) and equidistant from Caldercruix, Plains and Greengairs. Land to the south is characterised by open agricultural fields and forest plantation with the settlement of Caldercruix lying beyond. The site is bounded to the north and west by open fields. It is irregular in shape and extends to approximately 200 hectares. Access to the site is from Telegraph Road, Longriggend which forms the eastern boundary of the site. The site is relatively flat or gently sloping in areas. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The planning application is submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and seeks only to vary condition 1 (operational life of the wind farm) and to remove condition 38 (restoration of wind farm) of planning permission 19/01292/S42. Condition 1 of the current consent provides that the wind farm shall subsist for a period of 25 years from the first date of generation of electricity and that within six months of the expiry of the consent, the wind farm infrastructure shall be removed and the land restored in accordance with a detailed restoration scheme to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval within two years of the expiry of the 25 year period. 2.2 The current application proposes amendments to the wording of Condition 1 to allow for an extension of the operational life of the proposed wind farm from 25 years (as detailed and
Page 43
approved in 19/01292/S42) to 40 years and to amend the period within which the ancillary equipment, access tracks and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and land restored from six months from the expiry date of the permission (as detailed and approved in 19/01292/S42) to three years from the day of expiry of the permission. The current application also proposes that Condition 38 of planning permission 19/01292/S42, which provides that the site is restored within one year of the date of cessation of the site operation, is deleted. The Applicants believe that this matter can be regulated by detailed restoration and after-care scheme provisions in the proposed reworded Condition 1. 2.3 Conditions 1 and 38 of the existing consent (19/01292/S42) are set out below. Condition 1: That the development hereby shall subsist for a period of 25 years from the first date of generation of electricity from the development to the grid. Written confirmation of the first date of electricity generation shall be provided to the Planning Authority within 7 days of the electricity first being generated. Within six months of the end of the planning permission, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, the wind turbines, ancillary equipment, access tracks and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a detailed restoration and after-care scheme to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority no later than 2 years prior to the expiry of the 25 year period. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 and to allow the Planning Authority to review the circumstances of the temporary permission, in the interests of the amenity of the area in the longer term, beyond the 25 year period covered by the permission. Condition 38: Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority and notwithstanding the terms of condition 37, the site shall be fully restored within one year from the date of cessation of the site operation. Reason: To ensure the timeous restoration of the site. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 A Supporting Statement has been submitted with the application to supplement both the original Environmental Impact Assessment (approved under planning permission 12/00602/FUL) and the most recent Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Technical Appendices dated
Page 44
October 2019 and approved under planning permission 19/01292/S42. 3.2 The Supporting Statement sets out a justification for the proposed variation of Condition 1 and deletion of Condition 38 of the existing planning permission and cites specific examples of current practice across Scotland where planning conditions have allowed for operational periods of up to 50 years and restoration periods of up to 3 years following decommissioning. The Supporting Statement also addresses matters concerning the potential likelihood of additional or new significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed extension to the operation of the wind farm, including effects on landscape, ecology, ornithology, traffic and transport, noise, geology, hydrology and hydrogeology, historic environment, shadow flicker, aviation and decommissioning. The Statement concludes that the proposal will not result in any change to the existing situation and that no significant effects will arise as a result of the proposed increase to the operational life of the consented wind farm. 4. Site History 4.1 Planning permission was originally approved for a wind farm consisting of eight turbines each with a height of 125m to blade tip and a capacity of 24MW (Planning Reference: 12/00606/FUL) in January 2019. In September 2020, the Applicant submitted an application under Section 42 of the Act to revise the turbine layout and to increase the turbine height to149.9m to blade tip with a resultant increase in capacity to 36MW (Planning Reference: 19/01292/S42). Suspensive Conditions 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 24, 30, and 32 of the existing consent (19/01292/S42) have been fully discharged and do not require to be duplicated should planning permission be granted. Those parts of Conditions 25, 37 and 40 that require to be satisfied before the development could commence have also been discharged. However, in each case, the conditions require to be reworded and to remain in force until the end of the compliance period and/or operational life of the wind farm to ensure ongoing regulation and/or mitigation. A Notice of Initiation of Development providing an anticipated date of 10 January 2021 for commencement of the works was submitted in January 2021. As noted above, the wind farm is currently in the initial phase of construction. 4.2 Also relevant to the site history are proposed and proximal wind farm developments. They include 2 existing turbines at Greendykeside wind farm (approved under Planning Reference 04/01624/FUL) each with a height of 99 metres to blade tip. The turbines are located approximately 850 metres north of the current application site. Planning permission was also approved for nine turbines each with a height of 125 metres to blade tip at Greengairs Landfill Site Meikle Drumgray Road Greengairs (approved under Planning Reference 19/00707/S42); a related application to extend the operational life of the consented wind farm from 25 to 30 years (Planning Reference: 22/00817/S42) is now under consideration.
Page 45
5. Development Plan 5.1 Schedule 14 of the Strategic Development Plan-Clydeplan (SDP) 2017 determines thresholds where development may reasonably be considered strategic. In this case the proposal being greater than 20 MW is considered of strategic significance. The schedule is intended to clarify the scale of development that is likely to have an impact on the SDP Vision and Spatial Development Strategy. However, strategic development proposals also require to be assessed against Diagram 10: Assessment of Development Proposals of the SDP. 5.2 The site is designated as Countryside in the North Lanarkshire Local (Adopted 6th July 2022) where Policy PP5 Purpose of Place applies. Policies PROM ID2 Utilities Improvements (Renewable Energy) and EDQ 3 Quality of Development are also relevant. 5.3 The provisions in Section 42 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 and procedures in Circular 3/2013 Development Management Procedures are vital to the consideration of the application. 5.4 The following policy statements and non-statutory guidance are also material to the determination of the current application: (1) National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3). (2) Draft National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). (3) Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014. (4) The Climate Change (Emissions Reductions Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. (5) SG Onshore Wind Policy Statement 2017 (6) North Lanarkshire Council’s Landscape Capacity Study for Wind Turbine Development (7) Supplementary Planning Guidance 12 ‘Assessing planning applications for wind turbine developments’ is also relevant. (8) CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines CAP 764 6. Consultations 6.1 A summary of responses from consultees is set out below: (1) NLC Protective Services has raised no objection to the proposed development provided that the noise conditions previously applied to planning permission19/01292/S42 continue to be applied to the current proposals if approved. (2) NLC Transportation has raised no objection to the proposed development provided that the transportation conditions previously applied to planning permission 19/01292/S42 continue to be applied to the current proposals if approved.
Page 46
(3) Scottish Environment Protection Agency has no objection to the proposed development subject to the continuation and application of conditions relative to the approved Habitat Management Plan and Peat Plan. (4) Cumbernauld Airport Ltd has objected to the proposed development on the basis that light aircraft may experience control difficulties as a result of the cumulative effect of turbines in the vicinity of the airport. It is recognised that aircraft wake vortices can be hazardous to other aircraft, and that wind turbines produce wakes of similar, but not identical, characteristics to aircraft. Currently, there is no known method of linking the two. Published research shows measurements at 16 rotor diameters downstream of the wind turbine indicating that turbulence effects are still noticeable. In respect of the current application 16 rotor diameters (or 16 X 118m) is equivalent to 1,888 metres and therefore less than 2KM. Cumbernauld Airport is approximately 8KM from the consented wind farm. There are currently no Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MOR)18 or aircraft accident reports related to wind turbines in the UK. Furthermore, the CAA is not aware of any formal flight trials to investigate wake effects behind operating wind turbines and with regard to wind turbines of larger RD than 30m, the CAA advice is that they are subject to further investigations and until the results of the investigations are available, discussions between aerodrome managers and wind farm developers are encouraged, taking note of existing CAA safeguarding guidance. (5) Edinburgh Airport has raised no objection to the proposed development. (6) Glasgow Airport has objected to the proposed development pending an updated mitigation agreement with the developer to ensure that mitigation is provided for the extended duration of the wind farm. During the consultation of the consented wind farm (19/01292/S42), Glasgow Airport withdrew its objection on the basis that a number of conditions would be attached to mitigate any effects on the performance of aerodrome navigation aids and the efficiency of air traffic control. It is anticipated that Glasgow Airport will withdraw its objection on the completion of the agreement between the parties, However, if the Council is minded to grant approval, against the advice of Glasgow Airport, it must notify Glasgow Airport, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Scottish Ministers as per Circular 2/2003: Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2003. It is also recommended that Conditions 16-21 of the 19/01292/S42 consent are continued (reproduced as Conditions 11-15 above). (7) NATS Safeguarding Services has raised no objection to the proposed development. (8) Ministry of Defence Estates has no objection to the proposed development subject to the conditional requirements for installing MOD accredited lighting onto the turbines (Condition 17 as recommended above) and providing MOD with information to ensure that the development is appropriately charted (Condition 16 as recommended above) are carried forward on to any new planning permission that may be issued. (9) Atkins Global has no objection to the proposed development.
Page 47
(10) SP Energy Networks has no objection to the proposed development. (11) Nature Scotland has no objection to the proposed development noting that whilst the development could affect natural heritage interests of national importance, effects can be mitigated through a Construction Environmental Management Plan CEMP, Habitat Management Plan and Peat Slide Hazard Risk Assessment. Nature Scotland has advised that an appropriate assessment is required to assess the impact of the proposed development on various sensitive locations and that the previous Appropriate Assessment remains valid. (12) Historic Environment Scotland has no objection to the proposed development subject to the continuation of a condition to that ensure protection of the scheduled monument Avonhead Colliery (SM9675) through temporary fencing throughout the duration of the construction works. (Condition 30 as recommended above) (13) Scottish Environment Protection Agency has no objection to the proposal. (14) The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposed development noting that Conditions 9 and 10 of 19/01292/S42 need not be duplicated on any reissued consent 7. Representations 1 letter of representation has been received from Bidwells on behalf of Albert Bartlett. The primary concerns raised relate to the potential cumulative impacts from shadow flicker and noise. The Applicant has requested that up-to-date shadow flicker assessments as well as updated cumulative noise impact assessments are submitted to the Planning Authority for approval to ensure that any adverse effects on land within Albert Bartlett’s ownership can be mitigated and measures enforced to protect the amenities of prospective occupiers of any proposed development on this land. An additional visual assessment from the west and from the location of the path to the Stanrigg Memorial as it adjoins the public highway, should be undertaken to ensure that any future development on Albert Bartlett’s land is not significantly impacted. Response: It is noted that the representation does not object or support the Application. The current Section 42 application seeks only to extend the period in which the wind farm is permitted to operate (from 25 to 40 years) and to allow a three year period for decommissioning. There are no proposed changes to the physical layout or specification of the wind farm which would alter shadow flicker, noise or visual impacts previously assessed under planning permission 19/01292/S42. It is noted that concerns raised relate to the age of existing environmental assessments. The original Environmental Impact Assessment submitted in 2012 and the updated supplemental EIA Report submitted in 2019 in support of the consented wind farm includes a detailed
Page 48
assessment of the environmental matters raised and remains valid. The wind farm is now in the early phase of construction and in view of the nature of the current proposal and with no evidence of significant changes that would warrant updated assessments, the Council has no basis to request updated assessments under the current S42 Application. Condition 2 of 19/01292/S42 (reproduced in Condition 2 above) will remain in force should permission be granted to ensure that the wind farm is constructed and operated in accordance with the existing EIA Report and associated mitigation measures. In relation to concerns regarding noise, it is recommended that if planning permission is approved, Conditions 12, 13 and 14 and guidance notes 1- 4 of Planning Permission 19/01292/S42 which seek to regulate noise levels and specify methods to be employed in the assessment of complaints about noise, remain in force. The conditions are reproduced in Conditions 8, 9 and 10 above. In relation to matters concerning shadow flicker, it is recommended that if planning permission is approved Condition 34 of planning permission 19/01292/S42 which seeks to overcome potential nuisance to receptors through mitigation of shadow flicker, remains in force. This condition is reproduced in Condition 26 above. The above matters are summarised in more detail in Section 3.4 of the Supporting Statement submitted alongside the current application. Whilst the current Section 42 Application would grant a new planning permission, the existing planning permission (19/01292/S42) has been initiated and construction of the wind farm has already commenced. If planning permission for the extension to the operational and restoration periods is not granted, the consented wind farm would still be constructed under the existing planning permission. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (‘the Act’) requires that the application is determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Section 42 (2) of the Act requires that in determining an application under this section, the Planning Authority must consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted. Where it is decided that permission should be granted subject to conditions differing from those to which the previous permission was granted, the Planning Authority may amend any of the original conditions attached previously which it considers necessary to regulate the development. 8.2 The existing consent is subject to a condition which imposes an operational period of twenty- five years commencing from the first date of generation of electricity from the development to the grid and an obligation on the part of the developer to confirm to the Planning Authority the date of electricity generation within 7 days of the electricity first being generated in order that
Page 49
the operational period is clearly defined. The condition also requires that turbines, ancillary equipment, access tracks and buildings are to be dismantled within 6 months of the expiry of the planning permission. Thereafter, the site is to be restored in accordance with a detailed restoration and after-care scheme to be approved by the Planning Authority no later than 2 years prior to the expiry of the 25-year period. These requirements are regulated by Condition 1 of the consent. A further condition (Condition 38) of the consent requires that the site is to be fully restored within one year from the date of cessation of the site operation. 8.3 The current application seeks only to modify Condition 1 (Operational Period of the Wind Farm) of the existing consent to allow for: a) an increase in the operational period of the wind farm from 25 years as approved to 40 years and; b) an extended period of restoration from 6 months as approved to three years from the date of expiry of the planning permission. Further variation to the wording of Condition 1 is proposed to allow for the operational period to subsist from the date of ‘final commissioning of the development’ rather than from ‘the first date of generation of electricity from the development to the grid’ as approved. The application also proposes deletion of Condition 38 (Period of Restoration) from the existing consent since restoration would be addressed in the proposed variation of Condition 1, if approved. 8.4 The existing consent (19/0129/S42) which was approved on the 24th September 2020 remains valid. The current application, submitted under Section 42 does not alter the validity of the existing consent nor does it alter the status of the development, which is now in the early phase of implementation. The principle of siting, layout, number and height of turbines and access to the wind farm has already been established through the existing consent. Whilst it was considered in the previous scheme that environmental impacts could be minimised through mitigation, the Committee must have regard to the possibility or likelihood of new or additional environmental effects as a consequence of allowing an extension to the operational life of the wind farm. Regard must also be had to the operational efficiency of the turbines for the duration of the extended permission to ensure that any turbines which become redundant during the extended operational period, if approved, will be decommissioned and removed from the site. 8.5 The key issues for consideration therefore relate to the following matters only: (1) Whether the proposal gives rise to any additional environmental effects. (2) The extent to which the proposal continues to comply with relevant development plan policy. (3) Material considerations. (4) Justification for the proposed extension to the operational and restoration periods
Page 50
Environmental Considerations 8.6 An Environmental Statement was submitted in support of the original approved application (12/00602/FUL). This was followed by an updated supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment Report submitted in support of the approved application (19/01292/S42), where it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to demonstrate that, subject to conditions and mitigation, the wind farm could be accommodated on the site without causing significant environmental effects. 8.7 In determining the current application for an extension to the operational life of the wind farm, the Committee must have regard to the any environmental effects that could result as a consequence of allowing the extension. 8.8 A Supporting Statement has been submitted with the application which provides an updated assessment of the key environmental considerations: (1) Landscape and Visual Impact:- The magnitude of change relative to landscape and visual effects is unaffected by the proposal. It is acknowledged however, that visual impacts experienced by receptors in the nearby communities of Longriggend and Caldercruix will endure for a further period of 15 years, although equally it is anticipated that the affected receptors will be accustomed to experiencing the wind farm within the landscape during its operational life. (2) Ecology:- The proposed extension to the operational period will not result in any additional or significant adverse impacts on habitat. Effects will continue to be mitigated through the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) as imposed by Condition 33 above; through annual reviews of the Habitat Management Plan in accordance with Condition 21 above and; through the approved Peat Slide Hazards Risk Assessment in accordance with Condition 32 above. Nature Scotland has raised no objection to the proposal subject to the continuation of the above conditions. (3) Ornithology:- As required under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (“Birds Directive”) and Council Directive 92/432/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“Habitats Directive”), the Council has undertaken an Appropriate Assessment (AA) and appraisal of impacts on the Forth Islands SPA and separately, an AA and appraisal of the impacts on the Outer Firth of Forth and St Andrews Bay Complex SPA. Both assessments concluded that all conservation objectives will be met and that there will be no adverse effects on the integrity of either SPA. Nature Scotland has raised no objection to the proposal.
Page 51
(4) Traffic and Transport:- NLC Roads has not objected to the proposal subject to conditions relating to upgrading works to the access junction. The proposal will have no new or additional effects on traffic or transport during the construction and operational phases. (5) Noise:- The original approved Environmental Statement and supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment Report submitted in support of the 2019 application, predicted operational noise levels at the residential receptors would be within recommended noise limits. NLC Protective Services has raised no objection to the proposed development provided that the noise conditions previously applied to planning permission19/01292/S42 will continue to be applied to the current proposals if approved. It is recommended that the relevant conditions remain in place to ensure that noise levels remain within recommended noise limits for the duration of the operational period. (6) Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology:- Condition 2, above, will continue to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are undertaken in accordance with the approved original Environmental Statement and supplemental Environmental Impact, including, inter alia, excavation works are completed during periods of dry weather to restrict pooling / surface run- off and to limit potential infiltration of dirty or contaminated surface water to the water table. NLC Protective Services has raised no objection to the proposal. Similarly, SEPA has raised no objection subject to the continuation of conditions relating to the approved Habitat Management Plan and Peat Plan. (7) Historic Environment:- The proposal does not give rise to additional impacts on the historic environment beyond those identified in the original Environmental Statement. Historic Environment Scotland has raised no objection to the proposed development subject to the continuation of a condition to that ensure protection of the scheduled monument Avonhead Colliery (SM9675), through temporary fencing throughout the duration of the construction works. Condition 30 is recommended accordingly. (8) The Scottish Government Onshore Wind Farms factsheet indicates that shadow flicker should not be an issue where a separation distance of 10 rotor diameters is retained between the turbine and the nearest dwelling. In this instance 10 rotor diameters equates to 1380 metres. The nearest property that may be affected by shadow flicker is Avonhead Cottage to the north which is approximately 745 metres from the turbines. The original Environmental Statement concluded that Avonhead Cottage may experience shadow flicker as a result of the proximity of the turbines to this receptor and a condition was attached accordingly to monitor the impacts of shadow flicker on the occupiers of Avonhead Cottage and to ensure that the developers of the wind farm would address any adverse effects on this property through mitigation should any complaints arise. If planning permission is granted for the extension to the operation and restoration periods, this condition would remain enforce for three years after the date of the
Page 52
erection of the turbines. Minor rewording of the condition is recommended to provide clarity in respect to the start date of the three-year limitation period in which the occupiers may make a claim if necessary. (9) Aviation:- In the interests of aviation safety and suitable mitigation relating to the impact of the development on the performance of aerodrome navigation aids and/or the efficiency of air traffic control, conditions are attached to ensure that amongst other matters, a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme is submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in consultation with NATS and relevant operators. Any Primary Radar Scheme will set out measures to be taken to prevent the impairment of the performance of the aerodrome navigation aids and/or efficiency of air traffic control services at Glasgow Airport, Cumbernauld Airport and the operations at Lowther Hill and Kincardine. Whilst Cumbernauld Airport has objected to the proposal, the objection relates to the potential cumulative effects on light aircraft from turbulence. This is a new matter which was not raised by Cumbernauld Airport during the previous consultation of the now consented wind farm. The proposed extended period of operation is unlikely to significantly change any potential effects that the airport operator has now identified. Glasgow Airport has also raised a holding objection until such time as the existing mitigation agreement in place with the airport and the developer has been amended to take account of the extended period. It is also noted that, whilst Glasgow Airport initially objected to the previous application (19/01292/S43), it subsequently withdrew its objection on the condition that a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme was submitted to the Planning Authority and was approved in consultation with the Airport. If the Council is minded to grant approval against the advice of Glasgow Airport, it must notify Glasgow Airport, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Scottish Ministers as per Circular 2/2003: Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2003. 8.9 The environmental effects of the consented wind farm already identified in the original Environmental Statement (2012) and supplemental Environmental Impact Assessment Report (2019) are not expected to change significantly either as a result of the time which has passed since planning permission was approved on 24th September 2020 and/or as a consequence of the current proposal to extend the operational and restoration periods. The effects identified in the approved reports remain relevant to the determination of this application. The Strategic Development Plan; Clydeplan 2017 (SDP) 8.10 The SDP provides a high-level spatial framework for on-shore wind across the City Region, highlighting in Diagram 6 of the SDP potential locations for wind farm development. The SDP however pre-dates the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 which increased Scotland’s emissions reduction targets from 80% by 2050 to 100% by 2045; for this reason Diagram 6 may therefore be regarded as being out-of date. Whilst, the
Page 53
consented wind farm site represents a departure from the SDP since it does not fall squarely within the areas highlighted in Diagram 6 for potential wind farm development, the previous consent confirmed that the approved wind farm was able to meet the broad objectives in Diagram 10: Box 2 of the SDP, and was therefore considered to be an acceptable departure from the SDP. This in part, was due to the significant contribution it makes towards sustainable development and carbon reduction. The degree to which the consented wind farm is now compliant with the relevant SDP criteria is even greater due to legislative changes imposed by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 and the requirement to meet net zero carbon reduction emission targets by 2045. The North Lanarkshire Council Local Development Plan (Adopted 6th July 2022) 8.11 Development Plan policy has changed since the consented wind farm was approved on 24th September 2020 and The North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 under which the current consent was approved is no longer in force. The Development Plan now consists of The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (LDP) Adopted 6th July 2022, which is supported by other statutory and non-statutory guidance, listed in the appendix of the Plan at pages 122 and 123. 8.12 The site is designated Countryside (formerly The Rural Investment Area) in the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan where Policies PP5 Purpose of Place and AD 5 Amount of Development, apply. PP5 is concerned with an assessment of appropriateness of new development in the Countryside and requires that proposals are supported by evidence of locational need amongst other matters. Policy AD5 is concerned with implications relating to the amount of development proposed. An assessment of locational need and amount of development was considered and justified in the previous approved application. The principle of siting the turbines, including the number and height of turbines and associated equipment, on the site has already been established and the wind farm is now in the early stage of construction. The current proposal raises no new matters that would change this position and/or conflict with the current Local Development Plan. The proposal can therefore be said to accord with Policies PP5 and AD5 of the Local Development Plan. 8.13 Onshore wind is addressed in Policy PROM ID2 Utilities Improvements of the LDP and is generally supported subject to assessment criteria set out in Scottish Planning Policy Spatial Framework requirements and associated constraints, including potential impacts on features listed in the Protecting Assets Policies (PROT A and PROT B and Categories A1, A2, A3, B1 and B2), including, World Heritage Sites, European sites, Historic Battlefield and peatlands. The consented wind farm is not located on, nor will it have any significant adverse effects on, land within Categories A1 to B2; those matters having been assessed and determined previously in 19/01292/S42.
Page 54
8.14 The site is, however, located within 2km of the urban area where visual impacts on communities is subject to special consideration in accordance with Policy PROM ID2. Whilst SPP recommends that Local Plans should consider a setback distance of 2km from the urban area when considering areas suitable for wind farm developments, there is no requirement to apply the 2km distance when determining individual applications. Accordingly, they should be assessed on their own merits. It is acknowledged that the proposed wind farm, which is within 2km of the nearby settlements of Longriggend and Caldercruix, may have a visual impact on those settlements. However, this matter has previously been considered in detail under approved application 19/01292/S42 and it was concluded that on balance, visual impacts on sensitive receptors in the nearby settlements would not be so significant and/or demonstrably adverse as to outweigh the substantial benefits of the wind farm, when assessed against the Local Development Plan and other material considerations as a whole or to warrant refusal of the application. The proposal does not therefore raise any conflict with Policy PROM ID2 of the Plan. 8.15 Policy EDQ 3 Quality of Development requires high standards of site planning and sustainable design in all new development. The current proposal does not involve any new matters that will impact the approved site layout or design. In response to criterion C of EDQ3, it is noted that by extending the operational life of the wind farm, the current proposal goes further to addressing issues of resource efficiency and to mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change. The proposal does not raise any conflict with Policy EDQ3. 8.16 The physical layout of the wind farm, including access, turbine positions and turbine heights remain unaltered since the time of the last report to Members in 2020 (19/01292/S42). Whilst the previous Local Plan, against which the consented wind farm was considered, is no longer in force, there has been no major shift in onshore wind policy that would lead to a different recommendation if the principle of siting and design was to be considered under the adopted Local Development Plan or the SDP. Similarly, the application raises no significant adverse environmental impacts or new material considerations that conflict with the adopted Local Development Plan. Material Considerations 8.17 Material to the current proposal is the fact that the application site has a valid consent (approved on 24th September 2020) for the development of a 36MW wind farm consisting of 8 turbines, each with a height of 149.9m to blade tip. The consented wind farm is in the early stages of construction and can lawfully operate for a period of 25 years. 8.18 NPF3, SPP, The Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) and the Scottish Government’s Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2017) support onshore wind and recognise the contribution it can make to
Page 55
renewable energy targets and to achieving a ‘low carbon place’. Draft NPF4 goes further in its support for onshore wind in its aim to achieve a ‘net zero nature positive Scotland’; when published it will replace NPF3 and SPP. The clear shift from a low carbon place to a net zero Scotland is further evidenced in changes to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 that were introduced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The 2019 Act increased Scotland’s emissions reduction targets from 80% by 2050 (Section 1 of the 2009 Act) to 100% by 2045 (Section A1 of the 2009 Act as amended by the 2019 Act). The contribution of renewable energy generation towards achieving the net zero target by 2045 is therefore a material consideration. 8.19 Whilst the Local Development Plan does not reference operational periods of wind farms, Policy 19 of Draft NPF4 recognises that extensions to the life of existing wind farms should be supported and both Policy 19 of draft NPF4 and paragraph 170 of SPP recognise the need for areas to be identified for wind farms to exist in perpetuity. Equally, the Scottish Government’s Onshore Wind Statement (2017) directly references the common practice of limiting the duration of consent for a wind farm to 25 years and argues that there is no statutory basis for doing so. It advocates a more flexible approach whereby the use of land identified as being suitable for wind farm development should not be time limited and instead should be suitable for such use in perpetuity. Justification for the Proposal 8.20 The Applicant has provided a justification for the proposed extension to the operational and restoration periods of the wind farm. This is summarised: (1) Advancements in wind turbine technology will ensure that turbines will be able to operate for longer periods than first envisaged. It is also expected that components may be replaced or upgraded without changing the scale or appearance of turbines to prolong their operational life. (2) The proposal will as a result have a significantly lesser impact than wholescale replacement of turbines as wholescale redesign may also include amendments to layout, associated infrastructure and with this, intrusive works. (3) The additional 15-year period sought under the proposal would generate up to an additional 1.8 million MWh of generation (122,400 MWh per annum) which would power the equivalent of up to 32,835 homes per annum over the extended period. (4) The additional 15-year period sought under the proposal would also result in additional CO2 savings of up to 826,485 tonnes (55,099 tonnes per year). (5) Whilst not material, the existing commitment of community benefit payments of £5,000 per installed MW would continue for the operational life of the development and over the extended 15-year period would equate to an additional £2.8million in community benefits
Page 56
(£192,000 per annum). 9. Matters to be Secured by a Legal Agreement 9.1 The existing consent is subject to an agreement under Section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (As Amended). This requires a financial bond to be lodged with the Council to cover the costs of decommissioning and site restoration. An existing bond has been agreed for consented wind farm (Planning Reference 12/00606/FUL and 19/01292/S42) is in place. Should the Committee grant approval for the application, the bond will be updated to reflect the proposed application and longer period of operation. 10. Conclusions 10.1 A valid consent has been issued under Planning Reference 19/0129/S42 for the development of a wind farm consisting of 8 turbines (149.9m in height to blade tip) on the site. Many of the suspensive conditions attached to the consent have been discharged and the wind farm is in the early phase of construction and can lawfully operate for a period of 25 years with a condition in place to ensure that the site is restored within 6 months of the expiry of the consent. 10.2 Temporary planning permission for wind farm developments across Scotland has historically been made in line with turbine warranty. However, Scottish Ministers recognise that ‘with continual advancement of technology and the production of more efficient wind turbines, it is generally expected that turbines will be capable of producing electricity over a long period’ (Kilgallioch Wind Farm Extension approved by the Scottish Ministers in December 2021). 10.3 Extending the operational period of the wind farm for a further 15 years would allow for a 40- year operation period. This is commensurate with the duration of operational periods for other wind farms across Scotland and it is now recognised nationally in Draft NPF4 and in SG Onshore Wind Statement etc that extensions of time to the life of a wind farm should be supported, alongside opportunities to allocate suitable land for wind farm development in perpetuity. 10.4 Whilst the Local Plan under which the existing wind farm was assessed is no longer in force, there have been no significant shifts in onshore wind policy nor have there been any other material changes in policy beyond those already assessed, that would place the current proposal in conflict with the adopted Local Development Plan. 10.5 Similarly, no significant adverse environmental effects have been identified as a consequence of the current proposal. The environmental effects of the consented wind farm have already been identified in the original Environmental Statement (2012) and supplemental
Page 57
Environmental Impact Assessment Report (2019); they are not expected to change significantly and therefore remain relevant to the determination of this application. 10.6 The extension of the operational life of the consented wind farm by 15 years would increase the wind farm’s contribution to renewable energy targets by up to an additional 1.8 million MWh of generation (122,400 MWh per annum) which would power the equivalent of up to 32,835 homes per annum over the extended period. The wind farm’s contribution to net zero carbon reduction targets would increase over the extended period by up to 826,485 tonnes (55,099 tonnes per year). 10.7 There is no reason to assume that turbines could not have a useful extended life after a manufacturer’s warranty expires. However, if the Committee is minded to grant permission for variation of Condition 1 and deletion of Condition 38 of the existing permission, it will be necessary to re-attach the original suspensive conditions that have not yet been discharged and/or that have in part been discharged but require to remain and be reworded to reflect the status of the wind farm. Conditions that are to remain in force for the duration of the consent will ensure mitigation continues to be secured, that the period of operation of the wind farm is clear and that decommissioning of the wind farm is secured at the end of the operational life. The Committee is also advised that any consent approved under Section 42 would effectively issue a new planning permission, which would benefit from its own 3-year commencement period from the date on which the new permission was granted. As noted above, the holding objection from Glasgow Airport means that the Council cannot issue planning permission at this stage without first of all referring the matter to the CAA, Glasgow Airport and the Scottish Ministers. The Scottish Ministers will then have the opportunity (if deemed necessary) to “call in” the application for their own consideration and decision. Given the background to this application (including the fact that works have already started on site as per a previous planning permission) it is considered highly likely that Glasgow Airport will withdraw their objection soon.
Page 58
Application No: 22/00780/FUL Proposed Development: Change of Use from Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) to Fitness Studio Class 11 (Assembly and Leisure) Site Address: 10 Badenheath Place Westfield Cumbernauld G68 9HX Date Registered: 10th August 2022 Applicant: ASE 7 LLP Sloane Square House 1 Holbein Street London SW1W 8NS Agent: Brian O'Hanlon 44 Douglas Street Motherwell ML1 3JG Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Ward: 02 Cumbernauld North Danish Ashraf, Tom Fisher, Alan Masterton, Gordon Currie Representations: No letters of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022). The proposed development is unlikely to significantly adversely affect the surrounding industrial and business area.
Page 59
Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Planning Application: 22/00780/FUL Name (of applicant): ASE 7 LLP Site Address: 10 Badenheath Place Westfield Cumbernauld G68 9HX Development: Change of Use from Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) to Fitness Studio Class 11 (Assembly and Leisure)
Page 60
Proposed Conditions:- 1 That this permission will lapse within 3 years of the date of this permission unless the permitted change of use is implemented Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 2 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. 3 That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the premises shall be used as a fitness studio and for no other purposes (including any other Use Classes in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997). Should this use cease than the unit shall revert back to use class 6 (Storage and Distribution). Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control and to ensure the building remains an ancillary facility to benefit the operation and viability of the adjacent industrial area. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: None required. Contact Information: Mr Joe Gannon at esplanning@northlan.gov.uk. Report Date: 13th September 2022
Page 61
APPLICATION NO. 22/00780/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site comprises of a vacant industrial unit located within a group of mixed sized industrial/leisure units at Badenheath Place, Westfield, Cumbernauld. This forms part of an established industrial area which in recent times has allowed the introduction of leisure uses (e.g. arts and crafts centre). The property is a single storey unit with a metal flat roof and cladding set in a cul-de-sac with buildings of a similar design and finish. The unit, formerly used for storage and distribution, has been vacant for several years. The application site is bounded by car parking south and west, industrial units to the east and similar units directly north. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from a Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) unit to a Class 11 (Assembly and Leisure) Fitness Studio, with no physical alterations proposed. A planning condition is attached ensuring the upon cessation of the approved use the unit reverts back to the originally intended industrial use. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 Supporting information has been provided by the applicant. The statement confirms that Revolution Spin, as determined through market research, would be complimentary to the other leisure services already present in the Westfield estate of Cumbernauld. Revolution Spin currently operates within both the City Centre and West End of Glasgow, with those running the business living within North Lanarkshire, providing a knowledge of the locality. Further to this, many of those who use Revolution Spin within the area of Glasgow, live in Cumbernauld/North Lanarkshire, meaning closer proximity to a Revolution Spin location will reduce unnecessary city centre congestion and traffic pollution. As expressed within the supporting statement, exercise has been shown to contribute towards improved mental and physical wellbeing, therefore emphasising the importance Revolution Spin would bring towards improving people’s wellness. The supporting statement further points out that the applicant has been searching for a suitable unit within the Cumbernauld area for a couple of years and have been unable to find a suitable location with appropriate floor space and parking. It is pointed out that the studio would complement the other leisure/non industrial facilities (e.g., soft play areas, pet daycare) present within the estate and new-build housing, such as providing parents with a fitness studio/leisure facility who make use of the Children’s Amusement Centre and/or Nursery, supporting the local economy (as further achieved by the creation of 10-20 jobs through the business). 3.2 Furthermore, the unit size and location of the unit is considered to be excellent, as well as the parking provision within the estate, supported by the surrounding road network being well planned and accessible (e.g., M73 and M80 motorway). 4. Site History 4.1 The site has been the subject of the following planning applications: 06/00556/FUL Provision of 13 Additional Parking Spaces (PER – Application Permitted) 17/00590/FUL Change of Use from Office to Storage/Distribution and Alterations to Building (PER – Application Permitted) 18/00210/CLP Use of Unit as a Trade Showroom for Bifold Doors, Windows and Kitchens and Erection of Signage (PER – Application Permitted)
Page 62
5. Development Plan 5.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Development Plan (2022) policies. 5.2 The application site is covered by Placemaking Policy (Business Centre) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2022). 6. Consultations 6.1 No consultations were required. 7. Representations 7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and press advert, no letters of objection have been received. 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 Development Plan: The site falls within an area covered by Placemaking Policy (Business Centre) which states that North Lanarkshire Council will encourage small, medium, and large sized enterprises to locate in Local Business Centres, safeguard their character from dilution by other, inappropriate uses and support upgrading of premises, amenities, access, parking, and green spaces. The proposal seeks to bring one of the smaller units in the cul-de-sac back into productive use having been vacant for several years. In physical terms the unit forms part of a much bigger industrial/business area. In assessment against the relevant policy, the proposed change of use from a business and industry unit to an assembly and leisure use, in this instance, is considered to be an appropriate departure that would not adversely impact on the wider industrial location. It is considered that the proposal will not detract from the industrial function of the application site or the surrounding area due to the number of industrial units still available. In this particular industrial estate, there is a predominance of large industrial units and the loss of one smaller unit to a non-industrial use is not considered to be a particular concern. The potential physical amenity impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties is also deemed to be acceptable due to the nature of the proposed and established uses. In this respect, the application is considered to be an acceptable departure from policy. 8.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan also requires proposed developments to be assessed against Policies EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal), EDQ 2 (Specific Features for Consideration) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development). Due to the scale and nature of the development, the proposal raises no issues with regards to Policies EDQ1 and EDQ2. Policy EDQ3 (Quality of Development) only permits development where high standards of site planning, sustainable design, and development are achieved. When assessed against the terms of policy EDQ3 it is considered that the re-use of the vacant industrial unit by the proposed business can be integrated successfully into the surrounding area without detriment to the amenity of the existing industrial and business area. Furthermore, sufficient infrastructure such as parking, access, and turning areas are in place to ensure that the proposed use can be carried out and will be compatible with the wider industrial uses in the area. 8.4 Other Material Considerations – Supplementary Planning Guidance: A material consideration is the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 15 Industrial & Business Development, of which Section C is relevant. With reference to change of use proposals in Industrial and Business areas, the SPG states that the Council will not support proposals which would be
Page 63
detrimental to the cumulative economic importance of small scale industrial and business sites or proposals which would have a negative impact on communities and the wider environment. When the leisure use proposal is assessed against this, it is considered that it will not result in a detrimental impact on the cumulative economic importance of industrial and business uses in the Westfield area of Cumbernauld or have a negative impact on the adjacent business uses. It must also be noted that the surrounding industrial/business area has a number of vacant units which would indicate that there is a surplus of units to that of demand in the area. It is not therefore considered that the use of the vacant unit for a fitness studio would be to the detriment of the existing industrial and business area and would not result in a shortfall of premises for industrial or business use within this locale. Therefore, the proposal is regarded as being in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Guidance. 8.5 Effect on Local Amenity: Due to the nature of the proposal it is not considered to detrimentally affect the character of this wider industrial area. Whilst the proposed use may well introduce further non-industrial traffic to the road network the existing range of traffic types is such that this does not represent a road safety issue. In addition, the proposal has access to a communal car parking area of approximately 100 spaces. It is also indicated that the unit would in the main be busiest in the evenings when activity levels in the surrounding industrial estate is generally quieter. 8.6 Applicant’s Supporting Information: In planning terms, the potential impact of the proposal on the industrial area is assessed in detail above and considered, on balance, to be acceptable. It is noted that in this industrial estate there is no shortage of similar industrial units and if unavailable in the town or local centres, finding appropriate accommodation can be challenging. It is considered that this has some weight in the assessment of this application, considering the special circumstances, and availability of industrial units elsewhere. 9. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, considering all the circumstances relevant to this application, the proposal is considered acceptable in this instance and will not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the industrial and business area which is considered to be acceptable departure from Placemaking Policy (Business Areas) of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. Taking account of the provisions of the development plan and other material considerations it is recommended that permission be granted.
Page 64
Application No: 22/00836/FUL Proposed Development: Manufacturing Facility and Offices with associated Parking, Landscaping and Infrastructure Site Address: Land North Of Craignethan Drive Gartcosh Date Registered: 12th July 2022 Applicant: Guala Closures UK Old Mill Park Estate Kirkintilloch G66 1ST Agent: Gordon Gibson Convery Prenty Shields Architects 231 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5QY Application Level: Major Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 06 Gartcosh, Glenboig and Moodiesburn Greg Lennon, Michael McPake, Joanne Katy Keltie Representations: No representations received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The development meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. The development can be accommodated without detriment to the Gartcosh Business Interchange and wider surrounding area.
Page 65
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: 22/00836/FUL Name (of applicant): Guala Closures UK Site Address: Land North Of Craignethan Drive Gartcosh Development: Manufacturing Facility and Offices with associated Parking, Landscaping and Infrastructure
Page 66
Proposed Conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- 2107 _P_001, 2107_P_002, 2107_P_003, 2107_P_100, 2107_P_110, 2107_P_200, 2107_P_210, 40167-IFL-XX-DR-10-001-P01, 40167-IFL-XX-DR-20-001-P01, 40167-IFL-XX-DR-50-001-P01, Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 3. That unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be as outlined on drawing ref 2107_P_200, and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area. 4. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation requires to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175: 2017 "The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites". The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, be carried out in accordance with the Environment Agency publication, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11, and be submitted in electronic format. Depending on the results of this investigation a detailed remediation strategy may be required. Reason: To ensure potential risks arising from previous land uses around the site have been fully assessed before the development starts. 5. That for the avoidance of doubt, any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 4 above, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy. Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination. 6. That within 3 months of the determination date, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled `Drainage Assessment: A Guide for Scotland' and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water. If the area of ground illustrated for the SUDS is inadequate for the purpose, a revised layout drawing for this part of the proposed development shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority.
Page 67
Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater. 7. 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. 8. That within 3 months of the determination date, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, 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. 9. That if works have not begun within a year of the approval date, updated protected species surveys are required to be undertaken and submitted for approval by the Planning Authority, in consultation with NLC Greenspace Services. Reason: To ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 10. That, where possible, the mitigation measures outlined in pages 26 and 27 of the Ecological Impact Assessment dated 15th July 2022 by ECOS Countryside Services LLP shall be implemented. For the avoidance of doubt the Great Crested Newt fencing on the site shall be retained with the exception of at vehicular and pedestrian access points where one-way newt grids will require to be installed. Reason: To ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. 11. The noise mitigation measures identified in pages 32 - 34 of the Environmental Noise Impact Assessment dated 16th August 2022 by Acoustics Energy Vibration shall be implemented within the development. Upon completion a verification certificate (signed by a suitably qualified Acoustic Professional) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming the approved mitigation measures have been provided and correctly installed. For the avoidance of doubt the mitigation measures are as follows: * roof mounted fan cowl and filter box positioning; * sound emission limits on new plant design; * louvre positioning; * A-weighted broadband sound pressure levels at 1m from any plant room louvres or flues should not exceed Lp 80 dBA. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the nearby residents. 12. That within 3 months of the determination date an air quality screening technical note, which includes sufficient justification for not requiring a full Air Quality Impact Assessment, shall be submitted to, and for the approval of the Planning Authority. In the event mitigation measures are required they must be agreed with the Planning Authority and undertaken before the development hereby permitted is brought into use.
Page 68
Reason: In the interests of air quality. 13. That BEFORE commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed, details of the lighting within the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland, as the Trunk Roads Authority. Reason: To ensure that there will be no distraction or dazzle to drivers on the trunk road and that the safety of the traffic on the trunk road will not be diminished. 14. There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. Reason: To ensure that the efficiency of the existing trunk road drainage network is not affected. 15. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of drawings 0167-IFX-XX-DR-C-60-001-PO1, 40167-IFX-XX-DR-C-60-002-PO1, 40167-IFX-XX- DR-C-60-003-PO1, 40167-IFX-XX-DR-C-70-001-PO1 sheet 1 of 2, 40167-IFX-XX-DR-C-70- 001-PO1 Sheet 2 of 2, 40167-IFX-XX-DR-C-70-001-PO1, shall be completed, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 16. That BEFORE completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of drawing 40167-IFl-XX-DR-C-60-001-PO1 shall be in operation. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 17. A visibility splay of 4.5m x 60m should be provided and maintained at points 1.05m above the level of the carriageway from the site access, and service access, to Craignethan Drive in both directions. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety. 18. A minimum spacing of 25m should be provided between existing accesses on Craignethan Drive and proposed access points leading into the site. The minimum spacing between the main site access and the roundabout should be 60m. Reason: In the interests of traffic safety. 19. Existing footways along the frontage of the development should be improved to provide a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway. The existing footway should therefore be widened where the existing width is less than this; there may be scope for widening to take place within the existing verge. Reason: In accordance with the Council's Active Travel Strategy. 20. Disabled Parking spaces require to be provided on the basis of 6% of the total number of spaces provided, equating to a total requirement of 20 spaces. These spaces should be provided in a convenient location as close as possible to the building entrance, without the need for pedestrians to cross parking space aisles. Reason: In order to provide adequate disabled parking provision. 21. Cycle parking should be provided on the basis of 1 space per 8 car parking spaces, equating to a total of 42 cycle parking spaces. Reason: In order to provide adequate cycle parking.
Page 69
22. That within 3 months of the determination date, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, 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 and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: NLC Greenspace received 12.08.22 &16.09.22 NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 12.08.22 NLC Traffic & Transportation received 07.09.22 Transport Scotland received 02.09.22 Archaeology Service received 08.08.22 Contact Information: Kirsten Devlin at Planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 28th September 2022
Page 70
APPLICATION NO. 22/00836/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is an undeveloped area of land approximately 1.60 hectares in area which is sited within Gartcosh Business Interchange. It is bounded by the M73 embankments on the north-western boundary, by Auldyards Road and Craignethan Drive on the north and south- eastern boundaries and undeveloped land, earmarked for future business development, on the south-western boundary. The Scottish crime campus sits further south and industrial units by Fusion Assets have been built to the northeast on Bothlin Road. 1.2 The Business Interchange site previously formed part of Gartcosh steelworks until the late 1980’s when the works were closed and thereafter demolished. The site, which is relatively flat, was fully remediated and prepared for development a number years ago. 1.3 Gartcosh Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) lies in close proximity to the site on the other side of Craignethan Drive. Gartcosh LNR is known to have a high population of Great Crested Newts. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 Permission is sought for a manufacturing facility and offices with associated parking and landscaping. The applicant is Guala Closures Group which is a world leading producer of closures (a wide range of bottle tops) for spirits, wine, water and olive oil. They seek to consolidate three existing plants in Scotland into one single facility at Gartcosh and intend to purchase the site from Scottish Enterprise. 2.2 The footprint of the development is approximately 21,000 square metres with the majority taken up by the manufacturing facility, which has a simple industrial design with regular window openings to provide natural light and silver cladding. The offices are situated on the north- eastern corner of the building and are characterised by large windows, contrasting cladding, parapet style roof and a protruding feature curtain wall glazed entrance. 2.3 There will be 2 vehicular access points into the site from Craignethan Drive. The southern access is exclusively for service vehicles with the northern most access for staff and visitors. Once within the site the staff access road is flanked either side by car parking areas with a vista towards the feature office entrance. A total of 332 car parking spaces are proposed with 20 disabled spaces located at both the main office entrance and the manufacturing staff entrance. 42 cycle parking spaces will be provided. 2.4 There is an area for potential future expansion within the northern portion of the site, which will be planted with wildflower seeding to assist local biodiversity. A Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) basin will be sited at the south of the site adjacent to the service access and will be planted with a wet meadow wildflower seeding mix. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The applicant has submitted a comprehensive body of information which has allowed detailed consideration in respect of the following supporting information: Design and Access Statement Drainage Assessment Ecological Impact Assessment EIA Screening Report Environmental Noise Impact Assessment Pre-application Consultation Report
Page 71
Site Investigation Transport Assessment Transport Statement Water Vole Status Summary 3.2 The Pre-Application Consultation report summarised the public consultation event which took place online between 27th April 2022 and 18th May 2022 providing details of the proposed development. No public comments were received/lodged as part of the consultation. 4. Site History 4.1 The planning history for the application site is as follows: 01/00001/OUT Gartcosh Industrial Park (Outline) 01/00885/FUL Culverting of 40m Length of Bothlin Burn. 02/00849/REM Landscape Infrastructure Including Earth Modelling, Woodland Planting and Gateway Feature. 05/00331/REM Construction of Access Road, Site Preparation Works and General Engineering Operations 07/01572/AMD Non-Compliance with Condition No. 16 of Planning Consent N/01/00001/OUT in Respect of the 27 Ha Single User Site 22/00421/PAN Proposed Industrial Development for Manufacturing Facility with Associated Parking, Landscaping and Infrastructure. 5. Development Plan 5.1 In terms of strategic planning policy, the application represents a strategic development in terms of Clydeplan 2017 (see schedule 14 - class 5 over 10 000m2). With regard to this site the relevant policy in the Clydeplan 2017 and schedule (Policy 5 & Schedule 3) identifies this site as being a Strategic Economic Investment Location with a key identified role of Business and Financial Services although it is recognised that the development sites available at Gartcosh have the potential to be suitable for a range of business users. Locations such as Gartcosh Business Interchange are the city region’s strategic response to delivering long-term sustainable economic growth. This proposal being for a new manufacturing facility supports the vision and spatial development strategy of the Strategic Development Plan so the proposal can then be assessed against local plan policy. 5.2 The Scottish Government confirmed on 5 July 2022 that the Scottish Ministers do not propose to issue a direction in respect of the adoption the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and that the Council can proceed to Adopt. Accordingly, the Plan has now been Adopted by the Council and became operative on 6 July 2022. Whilst it remains possible that there may be a legal challenge to adoption from objectors to the Plan, it is unlikely that any such challenge would relate to matters directly relevant to this application. The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 Identifies the site as being within a Business Centre and is part of a specifically identified development platform. Placemaking Policy PP2A (Strategic Business Centres) applies which specifically promotes the development of Class 4 Office, Class 5 General Industrial and Class 6 Storage and Distribution. Policy AD 2A relates to the amount of such development and in this case no assessment of the amount of development is required for the above uses. 5.3 Environmental and Design Policies EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) and EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) also apply and require high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved and seek to ensure all developments integrate successfully into the local area and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity.
Page 72
6. Consultations 6.1 The following consultation responses were received in connection with the proposal: NLC Pollution Control and Public Health have confirmed the need for an Air Quality Screening Technical Note as there are more than 300 car parking spaces. They confirm they are satisfied with the findings of the Noise Impact Assessment and acknowledge receipt of the Site Investigation which is under review. If the review is not completed before the application is reported to the Planning Committee standard Site Investigation and remediation conditions will require to be attached. Standard comments relating to noise, control of dust, health and safety measures, burning of waste materials and lighting are attached as advisory notes. NLC Greenspace Development confirm the newt wall erected around the site perimeter and translocation of the newts to the Local Nature Reserve (LNR) has kept the site free of Great Crested Newts. The Ecological Impact Assessment has been accepted and if no work has begun within a year of the determination date updated surveys are required. The findings of a requested water vole survey have been accepted and various biodiversity enhancements recommended by Greenspace have been taken on board by the applicant with the submission of landscaping plans. NLC Roads Operations has no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to visibility splays, minimum access spacing, swept path drawing, disabled parking, cycle parking and Electric Vehicle charging provision. Transport Scotland have no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to the approval of the lighting scheme for the development and ensuring that no drainage is connected to the trunk road network. Archaeology Service has no objection to the proposal after receiving information confirming previous land uses will have destroyed the potential for previously unknown archaeological remains. 7. Representations 7.1 No representations have been received. 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. Strategic Development Plan 8.2 In terms of strategic planning policy, the application represents a strategic development in terms of Clydeplan 2017 (see schedule 14 - class 5 over 10 000m2). With regard to this site the relevant policy in the Clydeplan 2017 and schedule (Policy 5 & Schedule 3) recognises that Gartcosh has significant development potential with three large scale development areas offering a range of options for business users. This proposal being for a new manufacturing facility and offices supports the vision and spatial development strategy of the Strategic Development Plan so the proposal can then be assessed against Local Development Plan policy. The proposed development complies wholly with this strategic policy. Local Development Plan 8.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022 identifies the site as being within a Business Centre and Placemaking Policy PP2A (Strategic Business Centres) applies. This specifically promotes the development of Class 4: Business, Class 5: General Industrial and
Page 73
Class 6: Storage and Distribution uses. Policy AD 2A relates to the amount of such development and in this case no assessment of the amount of development is required for the above uses. The proposed development complies wholly with this Placemaking policy. 8.4 Environmental and Design Policy EDQ 1 (Site Appraisal) applies to all development to ensure it integrates successfully into the local area and avoids harm to neighbouring amenity. It looks at the detailed environmental and design elements which for this proposal includes massing, height, finishing materials, accessibility and biodiversity on the site and surrounding area. The height and massing of the main part of the building is driven by the production process with the elevations having a simple form. The finishing materials are silver wall panels with dark grey windows and roof lights. The office building has contrasting cladding and larger windows, parapet style roof and a protruding feature curtain wall glazed entrance. Both industrial and office elements are harmonious with the other buildings in the Business Park and are considered to integrate successfully. Gartcosh Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) lies to the north and is known to have a high population of Great Crested Newts (GCN). The site has been kept GCN free through translocation of the newts to the LNR and erection of newt wall around the site perimeter. Furthermore, consultation with Greenspace has resulted in various biodiversity measures being introduced. The development is therefore considered to comply with Policy EDQ1. 8.5 Environmental and Design Policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development) also applies, and states development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning are achieved in terms of design etc. which is discussed in paragraph 8.4 above. It also requires to be attractive to pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities and integrate with public transport networks. The site is served by a shared footpath that links to Gartcosh and Glenboig. Gartcosh Train Station is situated at the southern end of the Business Park and the site has direct access to the M73. There are planning conditions attached to ensure appropriate provision of disabled parking spaces and cycle racks and the proposal includes electric vehicle charging points. Proposals must also mitigate any likely pollutants – which in this case is noise from the manufacturing facility and air quality due to the level of traffic associated with the proposal. An Air Quality Technical Screening Note is conditioned, and an Environmental Noise Impact Assessment has established the measures required (which are conditioned) to ensure the proposal has no detrimental impact on the nearest residents in Gartcosh. Given this the proposal complies with Policy EDQ3. Projected Socio-Economic Impact 8.6 Guala Closures are looking to consolidate their three existing plants into a single facility. The project will safeguard 425 jobs in the Scottish drinks supply chain as well as resulting in considerable capital expenditure investment. The current sites are at capacity with a predicated Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2022 of £30 million. It is calculated that over the period 2023 – 2027 successful delivery of the project could result in £43.6 million of Gross additional GVA in Scotland. The project with also result in substantial capital investment, not just from Guala Closures but also some of their key customers, further strengthening the Scottish drinks supply chain. Landscape, Visual Impact and Ecological Impact 8.7 Due to the location and nature of the scale and massing of the proposed building it is considered that the proposed development does not raise any landscape and visual impact issues. In addition to the commentary above on the wider landscape impact of the proposal, it is also necessary to consider the impact on ecology at and adjacent to the site. In terms of ecology Policy PROT A indicates that development that significantly affects a species protected by law will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that the protected species would not be compromised. SPG 20 (Biodiversity & Development) requires that applicable developments demonstrate any risk and means for mitigation of Protected Species. The newt fencing erected around the site perimeter and translocation of the newts to the LNR has kept the site free of Great Crested Newts. Ecological appraisals were undertaken to determine the existence of suitable habitat for, and evidence of bats, otter, water vole, badger, and great
Page 74
crested newts. No protected species were recorded, and Greenspace accepted the findings of the reports advising that these would require to be updated in the event that development had not commenced within one year of the survey date. Biodiversity enhancements recommended by Greenspace have been incorporated into the approved landscaping plans. Given the policy (which promotes the development of Class 4 Business, Class 5 General Industrial and Class 6 Storage) and as there are no ecological issues the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard. Flooding and Drainage 8.8 SPG 09 (Flooding & Drainage) requires that applicable developments demonstrate any risk and means for mitigation of flooding and detail the measures for treatment of surface water through the use of SUDS principles. A Drainage Assessment was undertaken which concluded that the proposed development can be operated satisfactorily in terms of surface drainage and is compliant with the requirements of national policy and guidance. On this basis it is considered that the development should raise no flooding concerns and conditions are recommended to confirm the drainage proposals are installed in accordance with the plans and SUDS principles and that Scottish Water’s requirements for connection are met. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with the terms of SPG 09 and appropriate planning conditions can be applied in this respect. Building Design, Site Layout, and Boundary Treatment 8.9 It is considered that the proposed buildings have been sensitively designed in terms of siting, massing and finishing materials and as such, it is considered that the proposal complies with policies EDQ 1 and 3. Effect on the Road Network 8.10 In advance of this application, and unrelated to it, NLC Roads Operations had commissioned Atkins Consultants to undertake a Transport Assessment to consider the cumulative impacts of the sites to be developed in the business park alongside the ongoing housing developments within the Community Growth Area (CGA). This report has concluded that no further mitigation measures are required in addition to that which have already been identified for the CGA. That said, specific assessments will be required for each development as they materialise and, in this case, a specific assessment was also made of the Guala development. This concludes the development can be accommodated on the existing road network. Transport Scotland agreed with these findings and raised no objections to the proposals in terms of their impact upon the M73. They requested conditions be attached relating to site lighting and ensuring no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. NLC Roads Operations have no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of planning conditions relating to visibility splays, minimum access spacing, swept path drawing, disabled parking, cycle parking and Electric Vehicle charging provision. It is considered that the development can be accommodated without detriment to the trunk and local road networks. 9. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal accords with the development plan and represents a significant investment within North Lanarkshire Council and will activate a large area of Gartcosh Business Interchange into productive use. In light of the site attributes, it is considered that the development will be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding area. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
Page 75
Application No: 22/00868/FUL Proposed Development: Installation of a new 40m high lattice telecoms tower with 12 x antennas and ancillary equipment and the relocation of 4 x 300mm diameter dishes, all contained within a new compound enclosed by way of a 2.5m high palisade fence Site Address: Fir Park Stadium Fir Park Street Motherwell ML1 2PR Date Registered: 23rd August 2022 Applicant: Wireless Infrastructure Group Wireless Information Group Braidhurst House 2 Finch Way Strathclyde Business Park Bellshill ML4 3PE Agent: Harlequin Group Rutland House 5 Allen Road Livingston EH54 6TQ Application Level: Local Application Contrary to Development Plan: No Ward: 19 Motherwell South East And Ravenscraig Kenneth Duffy, Agnes Magowan, Nathan Wilson, David Robb, Representations: 52 letter(s) of representation received. Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed development would have less impact on the locale than the 45m mast which was refused planning permission in 2021, and meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022.
Page 76
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: 22/00868/FUL Name (of applicant): Wireless Infrastructure Group Site Address: Fir Park Stadium Fir Park Street Motherwell ML1 2PR Development: Installation of a new 40m high lattice telecoms tower with 12 x antennas and ancillary equipment and the relocation of 4 x 300mm diameter dishes, all contained within a new compound enclosed by way of a 2.5m high palisade fence
Page 77
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, in the event that the telecommunications equipment, supporting structure or the apparatus within the site becomes redundant it must be removed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of becoming redundant. If the site ceases to be used for telecommunications transmissions, it must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within six months of cessation. Reason: To minimise the level of visual intrusion and to ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard. Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Memo from Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) dated 30th August 2022 Contact Information: Stewart MacCallum at Planningenquiry@northlan.gov.uk Report Date: 27th September 2022
Page 78
APPLICATION NO. 22/00868/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is located within the grounds of Motherwell FC`s Fir Park Stadium in Motherwell. In particular, the site is immediately to the west of the South stand which is immediately bordered by residential properties (Fir Park Street) to the west, and to the south by Firpark Secondary School. 2. Proposed Development 2.1 The application seeks permission to erect a 40 metre high lattice telecommunications mast which would include 12 antenna, 4 dishes and ancillary works including a 2.5 metre high palisade fence to enclose the compound. The mast would be 5 metres or so from the school boundary and around 40 metres from the closest part of the school building. It would also be around 7 metres from the nearest house boundary and around 36 metres from the nearest house. 2.2 The site (Fir Park Stadium) currently has the applicant`s existing telecommunications equipment on the opposite side of the south stand which is incorporated into the existing free- standing metal lattice floodlight structure. However due to having insufficient structural capacity to be suitably redeveloped, it would be the proposal to remove the equipment from this existing structure and build a new mast which does have that capability and also relocate some of the existing equipment on to this new mast. It is also noted that there is currently also separate telecommunications equipment located on some of the other floodlight structures as well. 2.3 The applicant has identified that there is a requirement to upgrade to 5G coverage to ensure that this is available for users in the locality. Whilst existing coverage can be maintained for telephone calls, text messages and internet access, the proposal is to allow the new technology for enhanced coverage and more efficient internet and streaming services. It should be noted that included within this proposal is an upgrade of the current 4G Emergency Service Network (ESN) which is the telecommunications system used by the emergency services, and an upgrade from the current system to provide improved communications coverage and usage of such technology. 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 The applicant submitted supporting information in respect of the following: Full suite of drawings ICNIRP Certification (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) has been submitted with the application which confirms that the mast will operate well within the required Government levels. Planning Statement and various other supporting statement regarding the benefits of 5g 4. Site History 4.1 Fir Park Stadium is an established site for telecommunications apparatus which currently utilises the existing free-standing lattice floodlight structures at the stadium. It has various previous permissions to install equipment and then subsequent upgrade works to these. 4.2 It should be noted that there has been a similar application (21/01132/FUL) refused by Members at October Planning Committee 2021 against officer`s recommendation. The reason for refusal was:
Page 79
That the mast would detract from the amenity of the immediate and wider area due to its height, location and appearance and due to significant local concerns regarding the possibility of health impacts, all of which mean that the proposal is deemed to be contrary to the adopted 2012 North Lanarkshire Local Plan, in particular: policy HCF 1 B1 (in that it would not maintain community well-being), policy RTC 3B (in that local amenity would be adversely affected), policy EDI 3 (in that visual and environmental impacts would not be acceptable) and policy DSP 4 (in that the development would not be successfully integrated into the wider area). The decision to refuse permission was not appealed to the Scottish Ministers and any opportunity to appeal that previous decision is now time lapsed. This proposal sees a revised application in which the height of the mast is 40 metres (a reduction of 5 metres from the 45m mast proposed before). The site of the proposed mast remains unchanged. 5. Development Plan 5.1 In the adopted 2022 North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022, the application site is designated under policy PP3 General Urban Policy(Purpose of Place) which states that “The Council seeks to maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development that is in keeping with their residential character and encouraging diversity in more mixed-use areas”. Policy AD3 General Urban Policy(Amount of Development) links to policy PP3 and states that applications for new development will be assessed for their implications related to the amount of development proposed. The need for an assessment depends on the combination of type (Use Class), scale and location of development. There is not a limit on communications, utilities or infrastructure development. 5.2 Policy PROM 1D2 (Utilities Development) states that the council “will support utilities developments in principle, subject to the assessment criteria..” This comprises of the council seeking evidence as to how the proposed equipment will deliver new or enhanced connectivity to an area, fits into the wider network and complies with ICNIRP Radiation Guidelines. This also advises that any assessment should also consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development in combination with existing equipment in the area. This states that the council will encourage telecommunications proposals that will share existing and new facilities, or use existing buildings or structures and are sited and designed to reduce visual and environmental impact. 5.3 Policy EDQ3 Development Quality states that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Planning applications will need to demonstrate that the proposed development takes account of the site appraisal carried out as a requirement of policies EDQ1 and, if appropriate, EDQ2, assets protected under Policy PROT, any evaluation of design options, and achieved a high quality development. 6. Consultations 6.1 NLC Protective Services have no objections to the proposal. 7. Representations 7.1 A total of 52 objections were received during the neighbour notification process and advertisement of this application, however only 41 would be recognised as representations. We received some anonymous and multiple representations for several individual property addresses. It would be noted that in regard to counting representations, the North Lanarkshire Council Scheme of Delegation confirms that that multiple representations from the same property would count as a single representation and anonymous representations are not counted. Objections were received from Councillors Agnes Magowan, Kenneth Duffy and Nathan Wilson.
Page 80
7.2 In summary, the objections to this application raised concerns in the following areas: The mast is out of character and context with the residential area causing a significant impact upon the outlook of residential properties. The mast is of a significant height and visually prominent being taller than any other nearby structure. The mast is not an essential use and has locational need to be in this location. Noise and disruption caused from the mast and equipment Potential radiation and health impacts to people Location of mast near to sensitive sites such as schools Potential impact of mast to low level aircraft Loss of privacy/overlooking works on mast. 7.3 Other issues were raised however they are not material planning considerations. They include devaluation of property, lease agreements between the applicant and Motherwell FC and blocking of existing views. 7.4 Health concerns in relation to people and pets were raised by many as a concern. As part of any application of this nature the applicant is required to provide an ‘ICNIRP’ Certificate (see para 3.1 above) and this has been done, This certificate confirms that the level of impact is within the required levels. As a result of the submission of this information, the health concerns are in effect not part of the assessment of the mast under planning legislation. 8. Planning Assessment 8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that a planning determination shall be such as to accord with the Development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not of strategic significance and as such, should be assessed in terms of the relevant local plan policies. 8.2 In terms of the primary zoning of the site, the focus of policies PP3 General Urban Policy (and policy AD3) is to maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development that is in keeping with their residential character and encouraging diversity in more mixed-use areas. The application site is positioned to the side of the South Stand and there is no impact to the existing main use of the site as a football stadium. The use is ancillary to the overall use of the facility which experiences high volumes of people attending matches and requires to maintain mobile coverage for the public and emergency services. As noted above, the stadium already accommodates telecoms infrastructure. Although the scale of the development is not generally in keeping with residential character, it is acknowledged that the mast would fit in with the actual character and appearance of the application site itself (i.e. a large football stadium with stands floodlights sanctions and other associated structures). It is considered therefore that the planning application is in accordance with this policy. 8.3 Policy PROM 1D2 (Utilities Improvements) states that the council supports utilities development in principle. The council seek the submission of evidence as to how the proposed equipment will deliver new or enhanced connectivity to an area, fits into the wider network and complies with ICNIRP Radiation Guidelines. In terms of sharing facilities, the initial option considered by the applicant was to utilise the existing floodlight structure and redevelop this to accommodate the new equipment. However, it was physically not possible to undertake these works on this structure and the most viable option was to create a new mast structure which would reach the required height to be able to provide adequate network coverage. Whilst it is a new mast, the site has been utilised for telecommunications albeit in a different location within the stadium on a floodlight structure. It is also considered that the new structure would be acceptable in terms of visual and environmental impact (see assessment of EDQ 3 below). It is therefore considered that the development would be in accordance with Policy PROM 1D2. 8.4 Policy EDQ 3 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 and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. When assessed against the terms of policy EDQ 3 (Quality of Development), it is considered that the proposal can be integrated
Page 81
successfully into the surrounding area without detriment to the amenity of the existing residential area and other mixed uses. Justification for this assessment is as follows: 8.5 It would be accepted that the mast is of a considerable height and because of this it will be visually prominent given its height of 40 metres, However, in this instance, context also has to be taken into account in regard to where the site is located and the existing structures that it is adjacent to. The existing South stand is 30 metres in height and is higher than most structures nearby and there are four existing lattice style free-standing floodlights reaching 35 metres in height which currently accommodate telecommunications equipment. The mast would see an increase of 5 metres from the that of the existing floodlights. Nevertheless, the mast is much narrower and thinner towards the last top 10 metres or so, thus reducing its overall impact. The position of the mast near to the stand adds a substantial element of screening and backdrop. In terms of visual impact, the greatest impact would be the view from those houses on Fir Park Street which back onto the site. However, the stands and the floodlights already make up a view and the introduction of a 40m high structure would be seen in that context. Moreover, whilst obviously a new structure, it is very similar in appearance to the existing floodlight structures. On balance therefore, in visual terms, the new structure is considered to be acceptable. 8.6 It is therefore assessed that any determination that approves the proposal would in accordance with the development plan. In accordance with Section 25, the proposal must therefore be granted planning permission unless material considerations suggest otherwise. Other material considerations, including those raised within the representations, are set out and assessed as follows: o There is no impact to roads as it is contained within the grounds of Fir Park Stadium and would not generate any additional traffic other than during the construction works. There are no discernible noise issues associated with masts and the concerns regarding health impacts are addressed above. o In terms of impact on aviation, contact was made with Glasgow Airport Safeguarding in the previous application and they confirmed that a 45m high mast and they advised that they do not require to be consulted on that planning application. It is noted that this application proposes a smaller mast than before. o In relation to overlooking/loss of privacy to nearby residential properties, it would not be considered to be an issue. There would be initial works to erect the structure, but thereafter it would only be routine maintenance or upgrading which would not be a regular occurrence. o Planning history is a material consideration. In this case the current proposal is very similar to the previous planning application (21/01132/FUL) with the main difference being a lowering in height from 45 metres to 40 metres. All other aspects are the same as the previous application. Both applications were the basis of significant local concern albeit the current application has received slightly fewer representations that the initial application. A mast of such a height is always going to be visually prominent however the reduction by 5 metres does make a meaningful change as its impact would be reduced and would bring it down to being only be 5 metres higher than the existing floodlights structures. The design of the mast is of a similar type design to the floodlights and would generally have the backdrop of these to blend into. The noted reasons for refusal related to the height and location of the mast and subsequent visual impact it would have upon the appearance of the area. However, it would be considered that there is a reduction to the impact with the decrease in the height of the structure. The other point referred to in the initial application refusal was regarding health impacts. The planning application, as required, has provided the required ICNIRP certificate and, like the previous proposal, is well within acceptable limits. Health cannot be considered as a reason to refuse an application provided this documentation has been provided. It would be noted that the applicant did not progress to take this previous decision to appeal after refusal. The other main change to occur since the previous application is the change from the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 to the North
Page 82
Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2022. It would be noted that there has been a change in the relevant policies used to consider the proposal. Under the plan, the site specific policy identified the site as a community facility, however in the new Local Development Plan it is identified under General Urban Policies PP3 and AD3 which does refer to telecommunications and a more specific assessment under Policy PROM 1D2. Largely most of the considerations of the former Policy ED1 3 (Utilities Development) of the former local plan are retained within Policy PROM 1D2 (Utilities Improvements). Overall it would be considered that this proposal has shown a meaningful reduction in its impact and sufficient justification that it would be appropriate to be located at this site and there is a locational requirement to be there. 9. Conclusions 9.1 This is a large structure which is in close proximity to houses and a school but the amenity impacts (most notably visual impacts) are mitigated by the fact that there are already large structures nearby. It is noted that there are already telecoms infrastructure at the stadium, albeit as part of the existing floodlight structures. The facility will bring benefits to the local community and to the emergency services. Whilst it is noted that the previous application (21/01132/FUL) had been refused, it is considered that there have been changes to the proposal which reduce its overall impact 9.2 Despite the many objections from the local community, a determination by the council to approve the development would accord with the development plan and, in terms of Section 25 of the Act, there are no material considerations to indicate that the decision should be different. It is therefore, recommended that planning permission be granted.