B - 25-0966-PP - Drive thru St James Avenue FINAL
Renfrewshire Council · 26 May 2026
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 26 May 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 26 May 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0966/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Erection of mixed commercial development comprising electric vehicle charging hub, Class 3 unit with drive-through, and associated access, servicing and landscaping Location Site on northern edge of highway, St James Avenue, Paisley Ward 4 - Paisley Northwest Community Council Paisley North Community Council Applicant Chargemaster Ltd. trading as BP Pulse Recommendation Refuse All plans, reports, documents and representations relating to this application can be viewed in full online at https://pl-bs.renfrewshire.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=T69VLNMWMOS00 This report fulfils the requirements of regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraphs 3(c) and 4 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. The report is presented to the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board in line with the Council's Scheme of Delegation. In this instance, the Chief Planning Officer has declined to exercise delegated powers in light of the previously withdrawn application (reference 25/0236/PP) being requested by elected members to be determined at the Board, rather than officers on the basis that there are concerns around pedestrian access, loss of amenity, increase in traffic, parking, road safety and non-compliance with NPF4 and Renfrewshire Local Development Plan. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a mixed commercial development comprising of electric vehicle charging hub, Class 3 restaurant unit with drive- through, and associated access, servicing and landscaping at a site to the north of St James Avenue, Paisley. The EV charging hub would comprise of 16 parking bays, 12 with EV charging facilities including 1 accessible EV charging bay. There would also be 4 waiting bays at the charging hub. The EV bays would be covered by a canopy which would have a shallow mono-pitched roof measuring approximately 4.2 metres at the highest point. The charging hub would be located in the southwestern part of the site adjacent to the site access. The proposed Class 3 restaurant would be located to the north-east of the charging hub and would have a gross floor area of approximately 310 square metres. The plans submitted with the application indicate that the operator would be McDonalds Restaurants Ltd. The restaurant would have a flat roof and would be approximately 5.6 metres high and would be clad in timber effect and dark grey cladding panels. The development would comprise of a total of 53 car parking spaces with provision for 12 cycle parking. Operational hours for both the restaurant and EV charging hub have not been finalised, however the applicant's agent states that it is likely to be 24 hours, 7 days per week. A 3-metre-high acoustic fence would also be erected along the eastern and southern edge of the drive thru loop and parking bays associated with the restaurant.
Page 2
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be at the southwest corner. To accommodate this, 2 trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order would be removed (T2858 and T2863). One of these trees is termed as category A and the other is termed as category C as defined by the applicant's tree survey. Five undesignated trees which are defined category B trees by the applicant's tree survey would also be removed to accommodate the development. A further nine trees protected by the TPO (seven of which are termed category A) would have root protection area infringement associated within the proposed internal carriageways and car parking spaces. In addition, approximately 1,490sqm of Tree Group 1 (TG1) to the west of the site would also be removed. Site Description The application site relates to an area of vacant land bound to the north by the A726 and St James Avenue to the south. The site has an area of approximately 0.92 hectares. The site is situated to the south of St James interchange, junction 29 of the M8 motorway. St James Avenue comprises of a well-established residential street where 2 storey dwellinghouses face directly onto the application site. The southern and western edge of the site has an established treeline of mature specimens which are protected by virtue of being located within a TPO (reference 93/1). The trees form a distinct arched line enveloping the site and together with the green space act as a buffer for these residential properties from the busy road network and motorway. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers The Scottish Government strongly encourages constructive pre-application discussions between prospective applicants and the planning authority. Pre-application discussions seek to identify key planning considerations at an early stage and help inform what supporting information is required to support a subsequent application. No pre-application discussions have taken place. Negotiated Improvements No changes have been negotiated. Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site. Application No: 25/0236/PP Description: Erection of mixed commercial development comprising electric vehicle charging hub, Class 3 restaurant unit with drive-through, and associated access, servicing and landscaping. Decision: Withdrawn Consultations Councils External Drainage Consultant (Fairhurst) - Advise that suitable conditions be imposed with regards to further detailed drainage design. Councils Environmental Protection - Object on the basis that the Noise Impact Assessment states that it is likely that there would be adverse noise impact on 31 St James Avenue.
Page 3
National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - No objections. Glasgow Airport Safeguarding - No objections subject to the imposition of conditions with regards to a Bird Hazard Management Plan. The Mining Remediation Authority (formerly the Coal Authority) - No objections. An informative should be included on the decision notice with regards to coal mining features. Chief Executive's Roads Development - Seek more information of internal layout, including pedestrian routes from EV charging to restaurant, traffic signal timings, upgrade of West March Road, provision of active travel routes and tracking. Following this response, additional plans were submitted to address these concerns, this information is still under review. However, given the concerns with the principle of the development (detailed further in the assessment section below), this has not been pursued. However, it is considered that these matters could be addressed with the imposition of an appropriate condition to ensure that this matter is appropriately assessed should it be minded to approve this application. Transport Scotland - No objections. Councils External Ecology Consultant (Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) - Advise that the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and Tree Survey are in compliance with BS 5837:2012 and in-line with best practice. However, the compensatory planting is not in alignment with the recommendations outlined in the AIA. The AIA states that ''To mitigate the loss of tree canopy and preserve and enhance the site's ecological and amenity value, a robust compensatory planting scheme should be implemented. This scheme should include a commitment to replant trees at a ratio of 3:1; for every tree removed, three new trees should be planted.' The tree survey plan identifies 28 trees (tree groups not included). Within the tree constraints plan, 7 trees are identified as incompatible with the design and earmarked for removal. It is noted that a significant portion of TG1 that is being removed is currently covered by a TPO and the losses from this area are not accounted for with compensatory works. In line with AIA requirements 21 trees should be planted as compensation for the 7 removed, however within the landscape plan only 7 specimen trees are listed. The specimen trees are also not native species, so not fully compliant with the AIA recommendations. The compensatory planting does not deliver the proposed requirements, hence not achieving net positive gain. On this basis, it is considered that the proposed compensatory planting would not be acceptable. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. 11 objections have been received. The issues raised can be summarised as follows: 1. Noise pollution. 2. Light pollution. 3. Removal of trees. 4. Decrease in property value. 5. Traffic movement/safety and parking concerns. 6. Cooking odours and littering. 7. Impact on wildlife.
Page 4
8. Negative impact on character of residential area. 9. Detailed landscaping plan required at this stage due to loss of trees. 10. Anti-social behaviour including littering. 11. Loss of green space. 12. Emissions from idling cars. 13. Impact on local shops. 14. Impact on mental health and general health. 15. Flooding. 16. Cumulative impact with other development in the vicinity. 17. Overlooking. Policy Context In making any determination under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance the Development Plan consists of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (2021) (LDP). The following provisions of the Development Plan are considered relevant to the determination of this application: National Planning Framework 4 Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 - Biodiversity Policy 4 - Natural places Policy 13 - Sustainable transport Policy 14 - Design, quality and place Policy 26 - Business and industry Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan Policy P1 - Renfrewshire's Places Policy ENV2 - Natural Heritage Policy I1 - Connecting Places Policy I3 - Flooding and Drainage Policy I7 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings Policy P6 - Open Space Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. Other relevant policies and guidance New Development Supplementary Guidance 2022 Delivering the Places Strategy: Open Space Delivering the Centres Strategy: Hot Food; Public Houses; Licensed Venues and Amusement Arcades. Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy: Connecting Places; Flooding and Drainage; and Provision for Waste Recycling in New Developments. Chief Planners letter of 8th February 2023. Renfrewshire Planning & Development Tree Policy - 2022 Tree Preservation Order Ref: 93/1 Submitted Reports and Assessments
Page 5
In assessing and reporting on a planning application the Council is required to provide details of any report or assessment submitted as set out in Regulation 16, Schedule 2, paragraph 4(c), (i) to (iv) of the Development Management Regulations. The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: Planning Statement - Describes the design, access and key planning issues including planning policy review. Surface Water Strategy Report - Contains details of site geology, proposed development, proposed surface water strategy, surface water discharge quality, storm water drainage components, maintenance requirements and responsibilities and timescale for implementation. Lighting Assessment - Provides an assessment on the lighting for the whole site and sub- area. Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) - Provides an assessment on noise impact and an assessment which includes mitigation measures. Transport Assessment - Contains details on existing road network, development characteristics, means of access, development related trips, accessibility analysis, traffic impact analysis. Economic Statement - Contains details on the approach to the site selection, construction impacts, operational impact, environmental impacts and community benefits. Tree Survey - Contains details of the tree assessment and findings, tree survey plan, preliminary management recommendations. Arboricultural Impact Assessment- Identifies arboricultural constraints, tree survey plans, compensation and mitigation and trees to be felled. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - Contains details of methodology for phase 1 habitat survey, protected species and limitations including results and recommendations. Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report - Contains details on the site investigation undertaken to identify any contamination or ground related risks that have the potential to impact the proposed development. Flood Risk Assessment - Concludes that the site setting and development proposals are considered to be at low risk of flooding from most sources. Coal Mining Risk Assessment - Contains details of Coal Mining Risk Assessment with a proposed mitigation strategy. Desktop Subsurface Utility Report - Provides details of existing utilities. Town Centres First Approach and Sequential Assessment - Provides a review of the proposal in terms of the Town Centres First Approach. Response to Renfrewshire Council's Roads Development comments - Provides a response to the consultation with the Council's Roads Development. Scottish Ministers Direction
Page 6
In determining a planning application, the Council is required to provide details of any Direction made by Scottish Ministers under Regulation 30 (Directions requiring consultation), Regulation 31 (Directions requiring information), Regulation 32 (Directions restricting the grant of planning permission) and Regulation 33 (Directions requiring consideration of condition) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, or under Regulation 50 (that development is EIA development) of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. None. Planning Assessment National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) provides the long-term national spatial strategy for planning in Scotland. It sets out the Scottish Government's current view on delivering sustainable, liveable, and productive places through the application of spatial principles. The application site is covered by policy P1 (Renfrewshire's Places) of the LDP which states that within these areas, there will be a general presumption in favour of a continuance of the built form. New development proposals within these areas should make a positive contribution to the place and be compatible and complimentary to existing uses and character. Policy P1 also states that all development proposals should avoid causing unacceptable impacts on the environment and/or biodiversity or a loss of amenity within the surrounding area and/or a significant adverse effect on neighbouring properties, in terms of use, scale, noise etc. Similarly, policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) also seeks to ensure that proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations. In addition the policy requires that development proposals be designed to improve the quality of an area and be consistent with the six qualities and placemaking policy framework set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance which set out a range of considerations that form the basis of good places design. Each consideration will be assessed in turn. Context and Character As detailed above, the application site is located to the south of a busy road network (A726) close to Junction 29 of the M8 (St James Interchange). St James Avenue immediately to the south of the site, comprises an established residential street where residential properties face directly onto the site. There is a strong, established tree line of mature trees (comprising of sycamore, birch, ash, lime and oak) which align the southern and western boundary of the site which are protected by blanket Tree Preservation Order Ref: 93/1. It is evident that the intention of the TPO is to specifically protect this treeline boundary that envelopes the site. The site has remained undeveloped in excess of 33 years and is considered to provide a high level of amenity to the adjacent residential properties by acting as a natural green buffer from the busy road network beyond and forms part of the established character of the area. It is considered that the trees and the green space they bound, play a significant role in terms of the visual amenity and offer a substantial and important separation from the road network for the adjacent residential properties at St James Avenue. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be at the southwest corner of the site. To accommodate this, 2 trees which are protected by the TPO would require to be removed. One of which is defined as category A and the other category C by the applicants supporting document. In addition to this, 5 unprotected category B trees would also be removed to accommodate the development. A further nine trees protected by the TPO (seven of which are termed category A) would have root protection area infringement associated within the proposed internal carriageways and car parking spaces.
Page 7
In addition, approximately 1,490sqm of Tree Group 1 (TG1) to the west of the site would also be removed. It is of note that in the Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment, Category A Trees are described as follows: Arboricultural Value - Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual. Essential components of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (i.e. dominant/principal trees in an avenue) Landscape Value - Trees, groups, or woodlands of particular visual importance as arboricultural and/or landscape features Cultural Value - Trees, groups, or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g., Veteran trees or wood-pasture) Section 159 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 places a duty on the Planning Authority to include appropriate provision for the preservation and planting of trees within their area. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) submitted with the application describes the site as being bordered by a formal arrangement of substantial, mature broadleaf trees running along St James Avenue and extending into the central area. Historic mapping suggests that these trees were likely planted as boundary markers for St James Park. It is considered that the manner of the formal planting of the protected trees which envelope the site along the southern and western edges is such, that it would not be possible to develop the site without a significant adverse impact to these trees and the visual contribution to visual amenity. The Planning Statement submitted with the application states that there would be additional planting resulting in a net gain of trees. However, the Council's External Ecology Consultant was consulted and advised that the compensatory planting is not in alignment with the recommendations outlined in the AIA. The AIA states that 'To mitigate the loss of tree canopy and preserve and enhance the site's ecological and amenity value, a robust compensatory planting scheme should be implemented. This scheme should include a commitment to replant trees at a ratio of 3:1; for every tree removed, three new trees should be planted.' The tree survey plan identifies 28 trees (tree groups not included) in and around the area of the proposed development. Within the tree constraints plan, 7 trees are identified as incompatible with the design and earmarked for removal. It is noted that a significant portion of Tree Group 1, (TG1) that is being removed are not accounted for within the compensatory works. In line with AIA requirements 21 trees should be planted as compensation for the 7 removed. However, within the landscape plan only 7 specimen trees are listed. The specimen trees are not native species, so not fully compliant with the AIA recommendations. The compensatory planting does not deliver the proposed requirements, hence not achieving net positive number of trees to be planted. The compensatory planting also does not take into account the loss of TG1 which covers an area of approximately 1,490sqm. Policy ENV 2 (Natural Heritage) states that development proposals will consider the potential impacts on natural heritage. Development proposals should minimise any adverse impacts on habitats, species, network connectivity or landscape character. Policy 3 (Biodiversity) states that proposals should be based on an understanding of the existing characteristics of the site and its local, regional and national ecological context prior to development, including the presence of any irreplaceable habitats. Policy 4 (Natural Places) also seeks to ensure that development proposals do not have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment whilst Policy 6 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees) seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees.
Page 8
It is noted that the trees identified for removal in the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment are described as "incompatible with the design" of the development. The proposed development would result in the loss of 2 protected trees. Including a number of unprotected trees and a tree group and as discussed above, the proposed compensatory planning would not be acceptable given the number of trees that would be removed to facilitate the development in this particular location. Furthermore, nine trees protected by the TPO (seven of which are termed category A) would have root protection area infringement associated within the proposed internal carriageways and car parking spaces. The AIA includes mitigation for working within root protection areas. To assess the likely impact on the potential impact on the trees with root protection area infringement, it is considered necessary that more detailed information would be required including a detailed construction proposal to identify exact levels where kerbing (haunches) and surfacing would be sitting and their relationship to the tree root zone. A comparable section of the existing site conditions would be necessary to fully understand that all impacts are being assessed. This information has not been provided. Notwithstanding this, there are concerns of potential detrimental impact on the trees during and post construction even when best practice methods are employed. In this regard, it is considered that planning and design must account for various constraints to ensure that developments are suitable and sensitive to the environment and the development should be formulated around the identified constraints. In this instance, it is considered that the proposal does not have sufficient regard to the suitability of the site, due to the ecological constraints and has not satisfactorily taken into account the impact of the loss and/or protection of the established, mature protected trees and has therefore failed to take account of the existing characteristics which includes the arboricultural, landscape and cultural value of the trees, all contrary to Policies ENV2, 3, 4 and 6. There are also concerns that existing protected trees which are identified to be retained may also be compromised as a direct result of the proximity of the footprint of the proposed development and the physical works that would be associated with its implementation. No details have been provided as part of the planning application which demonstrate how existing trees which are identified for retention, and which are in close proximity to key aspects of the development, will be safeguarded as part of the implementation and construction of the development. Given the above, it is not considered that the development adequately addresses its location in terms of context and character as set out within the Supplementary Guidance. Access and Connectivity Policy 13 (Sustainable Transport) and I1 (Connecting Places) seek to ensure that development proposals provide appropriate provision and accessibility including the ability to connect to active travel and public transport networks. Development proposals which give priority to sustainable transport modes of travel and have no significant impact on the safe efficient operation of the local or trunk road network will be supported. Transport Scotland were consulted and following the submission of a Transport Assessment have confirmed that there are no objections. The Transport Assessment provides details of public transport, and the site is considered to be easily accessible by foot for nearby housing and businesses. It is considered that the issues raised by the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development) could be overcome either through the submission of the additional/amended drawings and details and/or by appropriate conditions to comply with Policies 13 and I1. The applicant's agent has also submitted amended drawings in response
Page 9
to the consultation comments from the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development). However, given the more fundamental concerns and issues raised elsewhere in this report, the roads requirements have not been pursued in this case. Layout and Built Form The submitted Planning Statement states that the design of the development has been carefully considered to take account of the local context provided by the mixed residential and commercial nature of the surrounding buildings and urban area. Acoustic fencing is proposed together with landscape buffers and consideration has been given to the selection of materials. However, as discussed above, regardless of the design and layout of the proposed development, it is considered that in this location, given the nature of the development, together with the proximity to the principal facades of the adjacent residential properties, the proposed tree loss, the site would become far more open and the development would be visually prominent to the adjacent residential properties together with the loss of the area of open space and the impact on natural heritage, it is considered that the development would be incompatible and would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance and amenity of the surrounding area. Environment and Community In response to Policies 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and I3 (Flooding and Drainage), although still under review, the Council's Drainage Consultant was consulted and advises that suitable conditions could be imposed with regards to the submission of further detailed drainage design. The applicant's Planning Statement identifies that 'operational hours have not been finalised'. However, it is likely that the EV chargers and restaurant will operate on a 24 hour basis, 7 days per week. A Lighting Assessment was submitted which is currently under review by the Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure. Notwithstanding this, given the concerns and issues raised elsewhere in this report, the comments from the Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure in this regard would not change or have particular weight in considering the acceptability of this development in principle. However, it is considered that this matter could be addressed with the imposition of an appropriate condition to ensure that this matter is appropriately assessed should it be minded to approve this application. The NIA proposes mitigation including acoustic fencing. However, the Noise Impact Assessment submitted with the application states that 'the initial assessment of the quietest night-time period, where background sound levels are at their lowest, indicates that adverse impact is likely at 31 St James Avenue. The Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure object to the development even with all of the documented noise mitigation measures for this reason. Given the proximity of the principal façade of the residential properties and the works which require to be undertaken to the site to accommodate the development, there are significant concerns that the development would not be compatible and could lead to disturbance to the adjacent residential properties and would be at odds with the established character of the area contrary to Policy 14 and P1. Policy P6 (Open Space) also states that any development proposals which would result in the loss of an area of open space not identified on the Proposals Map will be assessed in relation to criteria set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. The Supplementary Guidance states that the amenity of the surrounding area should not be significantly affected by the loss of open space by the nature of the proposed development. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed loss of the open space would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity, and the proposed development would not be compatible with the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would not comply with Policy 6.
Page 10
Although a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted containing details of methodology for phase 1 habitat survey, protected species and limitations including results and recommendations, it is considered that given the proposed tree loss to accommodate the proposal, and inadequate compensatory planting proposed, the development would have a significant detrimental impact on natural heritage contrary to Policies 3, 4, 6 and ENV2. Buildings and Design The general layout of the site is dictated by the functional need of the EV chargers and restaurant. The simple form of the restaurant, and the proposed materials, consisting of timber effect and dark grey cladding panels, is not considered to be particularly ominous. However, in this location, given the proposed tree loss, the site would become far more open and the development would be visually prominent to the adjacent residential properties together with the loss of the area of open space and the impact on natural heritage, it is considered that the development would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the character, appearance and amenity of the surrounding area and would result in a development which has little regard to the suitability of the site. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 14 and P1. NPF4 provides a basis for the high-level management of drive through locational choices and sets out a planning policy approach whereby new drive-thru developments which do not meet certain locational criteria will not be supported. Policy 27 (City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres) (d) sets out that drive-thru developments will only be supported where they are specifically supported in the LDP. The Councils Adopted Local Development Plan does not have a policy on drive-thru development. Nevertheless, the Chief Planners letter of the 8th of February 2023 confirms that Policy 27 (d) was not a moratorium on such developments and that the intent of the policy was to ensure that this type of development is considered as an integral part of the wider development plan. The letter reiterates that in situations where the Adopted LDP does not have specific drive- thru sites allocated, decisions will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and regard should be given to wider policies within NPF4 and the statutory development plan. The Planning Authority has taken into consideration the Chief Planners letter when assessing this development in relation to Policy 27 of NPF4. Both Policy 27 and C2 (Development outwith Renfrewshire's Network of Centres) require significant footfall generating commercial uses to be consistent with the town centre first approach and will not be supported outwith the network of centres unless a town centre first assessment demonstrates that specific criteria has been met. It is noted that the Town Centres First Approach and Sequential Assessment submitted with the application assesses the suitability of available sites in Paisley Town Centre and Renfrew Town Centre (including edge of town centre). Abbotsinch Commercial Centre is also considered however, it is noted there are no available units located here. Despite Linwood Town Centre and the Phoenix Commercial Centre being closer to the application site compared to Renfrew, these locations are not considered. Notwithstanding this, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the proposal is unlikely to impact on the network of centres and the submitted sequential assessment is thorough in discounting the assessed sites, predominately due to the size of the available sites or the market areas not meeting the requirements of the proposal. With regards to Policies 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crisis) and I7 (Zero and Low Carbon Buildings), a Low and Zero Carbon report was submitted with the previously
Page 11
withdrawn application (25/0236PP) provided details on low and zero-carbon technologies and the carbon reduction achieved by the proposed building would be 37.88%, which exceeds the 15% target as detailed in the LDP. It is also accepted that the electric vehicle charging points are being provided for in accordance with this policy. Representations The majority of the matters raised in the letters of representation have been addressed in the foregoing assessment however a summary of the points raised is also set out below with a response below each highlighted in bold. 1. Noise pollution. The Council's Environmental Protection were consulted and object on the basis that even with all of the mitigation measures documented in the Noise Impact Assessment to control noise issues from the development, it still states that 'the initial assessment of the quietest night-time period, where background sound levels are at their lowest, indicates that adverse impact is likely at 31 St James Avenue.' As such it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact residential amenity through noise and disturbance. 2. Light pollution. Details of the lighting have been submitted and are still under review by the Council's Environmental Protection. Notwithstanding this, given the concerns and issues raised elsewhere in this report, the comments from the Council's Environmental Protection would not change or have particular weight in considering the acceptability of this development in principle. 3. Removal of trees. The issue of tree removal is addressed in detail within the assessment of the report. 4. Decrease in property value. This is not a material planning consideration which can be taken into account as part of the assessment of this application. 5. Traffic movement/safety and parking concerns. The Council's Roads Development have some concerns re-internal layout and pedestrian links etc. Amended plans were submitted to address these issues. However, as detailed above, given the concerns and issues raised elsewhere in this report, the comments from the Council's Roads Development would not change or have particular weight in considering the acceptability of this development in principle. Transport Scotland were also consulted and have no objections to the proposal. 6. Cooking odours and littering. The Council's Environmental Protection advised in the response to the previously withdrawn application that further information should be sought with regards to filtration systems. This could be addressed with the imposition of an appropriate planning condition if the application were being recommended for approval. The issue of littering is not a material planning condition and would be for the applicant to consider in terms of their management of the site and business.
Page 12
7. Impact on wildlife. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted containing details of methodology for phase 1 habitat survey, protected species and limitations including results and recommendations. The Councils External Ecology Consultant have not raised any objections in terms of direct impacts of the development on wildlife. 8. Negative impact on character of residential area. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area and would detrimentally impact on the adjacent residential properties. 9. Detailed landscaping plan required at this stage due to loss of trees. Concerns regarding tree loss, compensatory planting and impacts on retained trees have been addressed in detail within the report. 10. Anti-social behaviour including littering. This is not a material planning consideration and would be a matter for Police Scotland. 11. Loss of green space. The site has remained undeveloped in excess of 33 years and is considered to provide a high level of amenity to the adjacent residential properties by acting as a natural green buffer from the busy road network beyond and forms part of the established character of the area. It is considered that the site plays a vital role in separating the residential properties of St James Avenue from the high traffic road network and the proposed loss of the open space would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity. 12. Emissions from idling cars. The Council's Environmental Protection were consulted and offered no comments in this regard. 13. Impact on local shops. Given the nature of the development, which includes an EV charging hub and drive thru, it is accepted that there would be limited opportunities to accommodate this development within the network of centres. 14. Impact on mental health and general health. These matters would not be a material planning consideration in the assessment of the proposal. 15. Potential Flooding. The Council's External Drainage Consultant advises that further information with this regard could be sought with an appropriate condition. 16. Cumulative impact with other development in the vicinity.
Page 13
The principle of a planning application is determined on its own merits where all relevant factors are taken into consideration in the assessment of the proposal. For the reasons set out in this report, it is considered that the proposal in this location would have an unacceptable impact on the character, appearance and residential amenity of the surrounding area. 17. Overlooking. Due to the nature of the proposal and the separation distance from the residential properties, it is not considered that the development would result in overlooking. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation(s) and any associated legal agreement(s) and/or mechanism(s) required to secure them including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development. None. Conclusion In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not accord with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. There are no other material considerations. Planning permission should therefore be refused. Recommendation Refuse. Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. That the proposal is contrary to Policy P6 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and the associated New Development Supplementary Guidance in that the loss of open space would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity and the proposed development would not be complimentary or compatible with the surrounding area including neighbouring residential properties. 2. That the proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 4, and 6 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and ENV2 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan in that it would result in an unacceptable loss of trees including two trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order and together with lack of compensatory planting, would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity and natural heritage. 3. By reason of its location, siting and impact on protected trees including, failure to demonstrate that root systems will not be compromised, together with the lack of compensatory planting, the proposed development is contrary to Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Policy P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and the associated New Development Supplementary Guidance in that it would have a significant detrimental impact on the natural heritage, character, appearance and residential amenity of the surrounding area. 4. That the proposal is contrary to criterion c) of Policy 14 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity through noise and disturbance. Condition(s) 1. None required.
Page 14
Advisory Note(s) 1. None required. Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing 12451-775-2LP D Location Plan 12451-775-2BP D Existing Block Plan 14251-775-201 D Existing Site Plan 14251-775-202 D Existing Site Elevation 14251-775-203-1 Site Key Plan 14251-775-203 L General Layout Plan 14251-775-204 K Proposed Site Elevations 14251-775-205 C Proposed Building Elevations 14251-775-210 Canopy Details 1 14251-775-211 A Canopy Details 2 14251-775-206 A Sub Station Elevations 14251-775-209 A Meter Cabinet Elevations P15025-520-D Proposed Drainage Layout 14251-775-208 Network Cabinet Elevations 14251-775-212 E Vehicle Tracking 14251-775-207 LV Feeder Pillar Elevations 01 Landscaping Scheme Sheet 1 02 Landscaping Scheme Sheet 2 Supporting Documents Phase 1 Desk Study Report – 01 Jan 2025 Coal Mining Risk Assessment – 01 March 2025
Page 15
Desktop Subsurface Utility Report – 9 Oct 2023 Rev D LCZ Report - 30 Oct 2025 McDonald’s Operator Statement – 30 Oct 2025 Noise Impact Assessment – 30 Oct 2025 Odour Report 30 Oct 2025 Rev 2 Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report – March 2025 Planning Statement Scottish Water Utilities Town Centres First Assessment Tree Survey – Dec 2024 Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement Dec 2024 Rev C Drainage Report – Jan 2025 Rev D Flood Risk Assessment – Feb 2025 Transport Assessment Lighting Assessment EV Hub Lighting Assessment McDonald’s Lighting Assessment V2 Combined Preliminary Ecological Assessment – 28 Jan 2025 Phase 1 Desk Study Report - 1 March 2025 Phase 2 Ground Investigation Report – 3 March 2024 Cover Letter - 16 March 2026 For further information please contact Fiona Knighton, Development Standards Team, Email: fiona.knighton@renfrewshire.gov.uk