C - 25-0365-PP Linwood Road Van Centre
Renfrewshire Council · 4 November 2025
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 4 November 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
PUBLIC Planning and Climate Change Policy Board: 4 November 2025 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0365/PP Application Type Planning Permission Proposal Change of use of land and proposed expansion of van and sales centre (Sui Generis), with associated shed for use as workshop, office and welfare facilities, siting of containers for use as storage (Class 6), installation of prefabricated units for business use (Class 4) and associated access, hardstanding, SuDS basin and landscaping Location 4 Linwood Road, Paisley, PA1 2TN Ward 8 – Johnstone South and Elderslie Community Council Elderslie Community Council Applicant Classic Land and Property Ltd 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/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage 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 planning history which relates to the application site. Proposal This application seeks planning permission to change the use of land to facilitate the proposed expansion of a van sales centre with the associated erection of a shed for use as a workshop, office and welfare facilities, siting of containers for use as storage, installation of prefabricated units for business use, and associated access, hardstanding, Suds basin and landscaping. The existing van sales centre is located on Linwood Road. It is located within a former filling station which has a footprint of approximately 1,400 square metres. This primarily comprises of hard standing used as a forecourt for the display of vehicles. It also includes a canopy and sales office. There is an access and an egress from Linwood Road. The proposed change of use relates to an area of land approximately 9,950 square metres in area which is directly to the rear (east) of the existing van store premises. The land currently comprises of native woodland as noted in the Native Woodland Survey of Scotland. The proposed development would involve the removal of the woodland, with provision made for 12.5 metres deep landscape buffer along the eastern boundary with Whites Bridge Avenue, the northern boundary with Fisher Drive and the western boundary with the rear of 6 and 8 Linwood Road. A 5-metre-deep buffer would be formed to the side of 6 Linwood Road. The buffers would be replanted with a mix of 93 medium trees (Birch, Hawthorn, Crab Apple and Hazel), 20 Alder Trees, 6 Lime trees, a native mixed hedge and an understorey mix of Hazel, Juniper, and Willow.
Page 2
PUBLIC An L shaped area of approximately. 2,100 square metres will be used for van storage. This area is located directly to the rear of the existing van centre and wraps around the rear of numbers 6 and 8 Linwood Road. The existing sales office will be repositioned within this area and adjacent to the side boundary with number 6 Linwood Road. The proposed workshop and valet shed will also be positioned within this area. This building has a footprint of approximately. 238 square metres. The workshop incorporates a dual pitched roof measuring 5.8 metres in height at the eaves and 8.1 metres in height at the ridge, with a canopy measuring 3.1 metres in height at the eaves forming the valet area. The 10 units for Class 4 business use are located in the southeast corner of the site. They are housed in 5 double prefabricated portacabins which measure 2.6 metres in height, with a footprint of approximately 47 square metres. The proposed Class 6 storage part of the development comprises of one hundred 20-foot containers and five 40 foot containers. 30 containers are located to the south of the van storage area, and immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the site. They are double stacked in one group of six and three groups of eight. The remainder of the containers are located in the eastern half of the site. They are single stacked in groups of between four and ten. These containers are also arranged around a SuDS basin which is approximately 567 square metres in area. Boundary treatment comprises of a palisade fence, with an acoustic barrier also proposed along the northern and eastern boundaries. Site Description The application site has a total area of approximately 11,350 square metres. It is located in a predominantly residential area, with residential properties bounding the site on Whites Bridge Avenue to the east, Fisher Drive to the North, and Linwood Road to the northwest. Elderslie substation bounds the site to the south. As noted above the application site includes the existing van sales centre and the land to the east which comprises of native woodland. 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. Pre-application advice was initially provided under reference 23/0519/PREAPP. Key considerations noted in the response related to amenity of neighbouring properties, loss of trees and biodiversity, flooding and drainage, accessibility and placemaking. An application for a similar development was then submitted to the Council under reference 24/0252/PP. This application was withdrawn to allow further consideration of a number of matters that had been raised during the assessment period. This included loss of the woodland, biodiversity, compatibility with neighbouring properties and drainage. A meeting was held in December 2024 during which a revised site layout was presented. It was noted that while the revisions (including deeper landscape buffers and a reduction in the number and height of the storage containers) went some way to addressing some of the previous matters, those relating to loss of woodland, biodiversity and drainage would still require to be addressed as part of a revised planning application.
Page 3
PUBLIC Negotiated Improvements Following submission, the following changes have been negotiated between officers and the applicant: No changes have been negotiated. Site History Application: 24/0252/PP Description: Change of use of vacant land to van storage and sales centre, with associated shed for use as workshop, office and welfare facilities, installation of containers for use as self storage (Class 6), installation of prefabricated modular units for business use (Class 4) and associated access, hardstanding and landscaping. Decision: Withdrawn. Consultations Glasgow Airport Safeguarding – No objection. Advisory note required with regard to the use of cranes. Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) – No objection subject to conditions relating to implementation of acoustic barrier and submission of lighting scheme. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) – No objections. Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) – No objections subject to conditions relating to access and parking provision. Scottish Power Networks (Transmission Sites) – No comments. Scottish Power Networks (Distribution Sites) – No objections. Scottish Water – No objections. Forestry and Land Scotland – Scottish Government Policy on Control of Woodland Removal applies, and there is a presumption against permanent removal of native woodland. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) – No objections. Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) (Council’s Independent Consultants) – IFL were asked by the Council to audit the following documents: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal by Wild Surveys dated 29th February 2024 – IFL advise that the report would have been strengthened by giving greater consideration to the loss of the wet woodland species. The timing of the botanical survey is also a limitation as mid-February would not be optimal and may lead to under representation of invasive plants and priority plant species that may be present. A biodiversity Action Plan would be beneficial to support this document. Botanical Survey by Kirsty Menzies dated 17th June 2025 – IFL advise that this is a valuable supporting document when considered alongside the PEA. The document demonstrates that the woodland supports a large, possibly regionally significant population of common wintergreen, is likely to support additional protected species, and overall the sites biodiversity value is likely higher than that indicated in the PEA. The likelihood of achieving genuine
Page 4
PUBLIC biodiversity net gain through compensation is low given the unique value of the wet woodland and its rare flora and fauna. Tree Survey Report including Tree Constraints Plans by Julian A Morris dated January 2025 – IFL advise that the report follows a logical structure and provides a clear picture of the site and its naturally regenerated relatively young woodland. Noted that there appears to be no reason why established areas of woodland cannot be retained within the landscape buffer. Further survey work is required to facilitate accurate tree protection. One category A tree exists on site and would merit further detailed survey to facilitate retention. Dougall Baillie Associates (DBA) (Councils Independent Drainage Consultants) – DBA were asked by the Council to audit the following documents: Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment by Terrenus Land and Water – Report No. 1141-235, Revision 1, Dated 3rd July 2023 – No comment on Flood Risk Assessment subject to the proposed drainage strategy demonstrating sufficient management of surface water to mitigate surface water flood risk. With regard to the drainage strategy, further detail is sought for both the proposed foul and surface water connections to determine if they are suitable. This includes detail on percolation testing, approval from Sottish Water to connect to combined sewer, proposed increase in site levels, permeable surfacing, and suds. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: Object - 135 Support - 1 Neutral – 1 The points raised in the letters of objection can be summarised as follows. 1 – Impact on protected species and loss of biodiversity, and surveys submitted by applicant were not undertaken at optimum time. 2 – Loss of woodland. 3 – Surface water drainage and increased flood risk to adjacent properties. 4 – Visual impact. 5 – Impact on residential amenity including noise, privacy, lighting. 6 – Traffic and parking and lack of infrastructure to support the development. 7 – Matters raised in the pre-application response have not been responded to. 8 – Proposed development would contradict the terms of the compulsory purchase order of the land by Renfrewshire Council. 9 – There are other brownfield sites where this development would be more suitable. 10 – There are already other self store developments and workshop capacity within the area, with no demand for further development of this nature. 11 – Air pollution. 12 – The development does not comply with relevant development plan and net zero policies. 13 – The development is not compatible with the predominantly residential area. 14 – Loss of property value. 15 – Possibility of hazardous materials being stored on site. 16 – Accessibility for pedestrians and difficulty crossing Linwood Road
Page 5
PUBLIC 17 – Spread of invasive non native species. 18 – Approval of this application could lead to further proposals for expansion in the future including stacking of the containers. 19 – Suitability of the neighbour notification undertaken. 20 – Proposal is of no benefit to local community. 21 – Security concerns. The points raised in the letter of support can be summarised as follows: 1 – The development will bring investment and employment to the area. The points raised in the letter neither objecting nor supporting the application can be summarised as follows: 1 – Query the clearance of the site and replacement planting within buffer zones when existing trees could be retained. 2 – A pedestrian crossing on Linwood Road should be provided. Policy Context As noted above the Council is a consultee in the consenting process and not the determining authority. To inform the Council’s consultation response an assessment against the Development Plan is required. 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 this submission. National Planning Framework 4 Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation Policy 3 – Biodiversity Policy 4 - Natural places Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees Policy 9 – Brownfield land, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Policy 13 - Sustainable transport Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place Policy 15 – Loal living and 20 minute neighbourhoods Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management 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 Full details relating to the policies of the LDP can be found online. New Development Supplementary Guidance Delivering the Places Strategy – Creating Places Delivering the Environment Strategy – Natural heritage, Trees, Forestry and Woodland Delivering the Infrastructure Strategy – Connecting Places, Flooding and Drainage
Page 6
PUBLIC Other relevant policies and guidance The Scottish Governments Policy on Control of Woodland Removal Renfrewshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2024 Submitted Reports and Assessments A summary is provided of the following reports and assessments which were submitted in support of the application: Tree Survey Report including Tree Constraints Plans (by Julian A Morris dated January 2025) – A total of 30 individual trees on the site were recorded however there are many more recorded in groups. Likely that the woodland has developed from landlocked abandoned agricultural land to current tree cover in around 45 years, with population comprising almost entirely of waterlogging tolerant pioneer species. However, does not include any of the plant communities characteristic of a wet woodland habitat, and is a poor fit for the recognised definition of wet woodland. Statutory constraints and other woodland constraints around the removal of woodland are noted. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (by Wild Surveys dated 29th February 2024) – The site contains suitable habitat for foraging and commuting bats, birds, amphibians and small mammals. However no further survey work is required to inform the planning application. Pre construction surveys would be required. Various mitigation measures are also proposed to minimise impact on protected species during the construction phase. A suite of biodiversity enhancement measures are also proposed. Civil and Structural Engineering Desk Study (by Goodson Associates dated January 2019) - Relates to a feasibility study for a residential development on the site. Comments are made with regard to land contamination, radon, ground conditions, coal mining, flood risk, ecology, archaeology, air quality and noise. Flood Risk Assessment (by Terrenus Land and Water, report number 1141-235 revision 1 dated 3rd July 2023) – Concludes that the site is not at risk of flooding from the sea, fluvial, failure in local drainage, or from groundwater. Localised ponding may occur. However the development should include an appropriate drainage strategy which will manage direct rainfall on the site as well as run off from the adjacent land. Significant on site attenuation is likely to be required prior to a feasible outfall connection being formed. Design Statement (Revision 250514) – The statement provides a background to the proposed development. The proposed expansion of the existing business would enable the forecourt to be less congested and enable a larger stock of vehicles to be traded from the site. The proposals would also create storage and business space for small businesses in the area to operate from consequently creating further employment. A site description and site history are provided alongside an analysis of the constraints and opportunities. A response is provided to representations submitted under the previous application and to the applicable development plan policies. It is noted that the site is of low ecological value, the trees are of poor value and the site is self-seeded scrubland. NPF4 requires to be read and applied as a whole, and there must be a debate over the best use of land within urban areas. Finally, the development concept is outlined, and this also includes a sustainability checklist, and commentary on matters relating to access and transport. Noise Impact Assessment (by Bureau Veritas, ref 22449837/rmg/R1 dated 7th June 2024) – A site visit has been undertaken to establish background sound levels. A noise model
Page 7
PUBLIC was prepared to predict the impact of the development with regard to daytime noise from the site, and as such represents a worst-case scenario. A 2m high acoustic barrier was also included in the model. It is concluded that the site would be suitable for the new development Scottish Ministers Direction 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 The application site is covered by Policy P1 within the Local Development Plan (LDP). Policy P1 states that there will be a general presumption in favour of a continuance of the built form. However new development proposals within these areas should make a positive contribution to the Place and be compatible and complementary to existing uses and character as set out by the New Development Supplementary Guidance and Renfrewshire’s Places Design Guidance. In this regard, Policy P1 goes on to state that all development proposals should also: 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, disturbance and statutory air quality objectives, and, Ensure that the infrastructure, connections and services required to support the development are in place including: footpath connections; provision for waste storage, recycling and collection; lighting; access to public transport; open space provision and access to local services and amenities. Regarding impact on the environment and biodiversity, the Council’s Independent Ecology Consultants Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) have reviewed both the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) submitted by the applicants and a botanical survey submitted by a representee. They have advised that together these documents provide an accurate picture of the ecological and biodiversity value of the site. IFL have advised the Council that the biodiversity value of the site is higher than that presented within the PEA, and the likelihood of achieving genuine biodiversity net gain through compensation is low given the unique value of the wet woodland and its rare flora and fauna. Policy 3 of NPF4 states that proposals for local development will include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity in accordance with national and local guidance. Measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development. The proposed development would require the site to be cleared of all existing vegetation. While the proposals included landscape buffers which would be planted with a native tree and shrub mix, the overall biodiversity value of the site would not be conserved or enhanced and in fact it is likely there would be a net reduction in biodiversity value in order to accommodate the development. On this basis, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy 3 of NPF4.
Page 8
PUBLIC The application site is predominately characterised by tree coverage, and appears on the Scottish Forestry Native Woodland Survey of Scotland as a wet woodland habitat type. The applicants tree survey advises that the current tree cover has likely developed over the last 45 years, with the population comprising almost entirely of waterlogging tolerant pioneer species. As noted above, the proposed development involves the clearance of the woodland from the site in order to accommodate the proposed development. Policy 6 of NPF4 states that development proposals involving woodland removal will only be supported where they will achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits in accordance with the Scottish Governments Policy on Control of Woodland Removal. The Scottish Government policy states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting Scotland’s woodland resources. Woodland removal should be allowed only where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits (these being social, economic or environmental benefits). In some cases, a proposal for compensatory planting may form part of this balance. The proposed development would facilitate the growth and expansion of an established business and would provide a facility with associated units for self-store and business use. While this may create jobs directly associated with the management and operation of the site and indirectly via third parties utilising the proposed business and storage units, the applicant has not provided any specific or tangible details on the anticipated associated employment or economic and social benefits in this regard that would support the development. However, notwithstanding this, ultimately it is not considered that a development of this nature would bring about the required significant additional public benefits with respect to social, economic or environmental considerations that would outweigh the retention of the woodland or the presumption in favour of retaining the woodland. The proposed development does not therefore outweigh the presumption in favour of protecting the woodland, and would not be supported by Policy 6 of NPF4. In addition to the above, the provisions of Policy 1 of NPF4 must also be considered which states that significant weight to the global climate and nature crisis. It is not considered that the loss of woodland and associated biodiversity value of the site would align with Policy 1 of NPF4 in this regard. In addition, Policy 4 of NPF4 also states that development proposals which by virtue of their type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy ENV2 of the LDP also states that development proposals will consider the potential impacts on natural heritage. All proposals should protect, and where possible enhance, biodiversity and trees. For the reasons outlined above, the proposed development is also considered to be contrary to Policy ENV2. With regard to the remaining considerations set out under Policy P1, it is noted that the policy requires development proposals to make a positive contribution to the place. This requirement is echoed by Policy 14 of NPF4 which states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. The impact of the development on neighbouring properties has been considered in respect of potential loss of amenity. Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) have not objected to the development. The Noise Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant has been accepted, and a condition requiring the installation of the 2m high acoustic barrier is recommended by Environmental Protection in their consultation response. A
Page 9
PUBLIC landscaped buffer is proposed which in time would screen the visual impact of the development. A condition requiring a lighting scheme to be submitted is also recommended by Environmental Protection. The Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) have also not objected to the development with regard to infrastructure provision although conditions are recommended with respect to the design of the access. Conditions could also be applied to address and consider frontage treatment including boundaries and proximity of the storage containers to the road. However, ultimately the matter to which most weight is attached is the unacceptable impact the development would have on natural heritage. It is not considered that the expansion of the van centre in the manner proposed and the consequential loss of the woodland and biodiversity resource would improve the quality of the area or have a positive impact on the place. For these reasons the development is also ultimately considered to be contrary to Policy P1 of the LDP and 14 of NPF4. Policy 26 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate business and industry uses and to enable alternative ways of working such as home working, live-work units and micro- businesses. Policy 26 states that development proposals for business, general industrial and storage and distribution uses outwith areas identified for those uses in the LDP will only be supported where: I. It is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP or identified in the employment land audit; and II. The nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area. Additionally, all development proposals for business and industry will take into account: I. Impact on surrounding residential amenity, sensitive uses and the natural and historic environment; II. The need for appropriate site restoration at the end of a period of commercial use. It is acknowledged that the site is not located in an area allocated in the LDP for business, general industrial and storage and distribution uses. However, in this instance the development constitutes the expansion of an existing business premises, and this provides site specific justification for the development in principle with regard to policy 26. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that matters relating to compatibility, residential amenity, sensitive uses and the natural environment must be considered. A detailed assessment has been undertaken above, and it is concluded that the development would have a significant detrimental impact on the natural environment. Again, this impact is not outweighed by any benefits associated with the proposed business use, and on this basis the development is not supported by policy 26. It is not considered that there are any material considerations in support of the development that would outweigh non-compliance with the policies noted above. While a desire to grow and expand the established business operation is recognised, on balance, justification has not been provided which demonstrates that the development would generate significant economic, social or environmental benefits with regard to matters such as job creation. While need and demand for a type of development or use are not always a determining factor in a planning assessment, it should be noted that a self-store development has been approved (planning reference: 22/0054/PP) and is now operational to the rear of the ALDI store on
Page 10
PUBLIC Fulbar Road approximately 350 metres to the southeast of the application site. There is also existing provision for business uses within the Phoenix Business Park to the northwest. In this regard, it is acknowledged there are already similar developments operating within the vicinity of the site in this regard, and in this respect this current proposal is not introducing a new type of use which would add to the vitality of the offering to the area or bring about any significant form of new bespoke social or economic benefit to the area. Turning to the remaining development plan policies as noted above, Policy 2 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to the current and future impacts of climate change. The Scottish Government Guidance Note on this policy states that a proportionate approach which supports innovation and good practice will be important. In this instance it is not considered that the proposed development given its nature and operation will give rise to significant emissions. On this basis, demonstration that emissions have been mitigated is not a fundamental component of the assessment. With regard to adaptation by siting or design, matters relating to the siting of the development have been considered at length above and it is concluded that the development does not comply with policies 1, 3, 4, 6 and 14 of NPF4 and P1 and ENV2 of the LDP. As the development is contrary to the development plan with regard to its sitting and location, there is no requirement thereafter to discuss detailed matters such as design adaptations. Policy 9 of NPF4 states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings will be supported. The applicants design statement provides a history of the site however does not demonstrate that the site has previously been developed. The statement advises that “The general conclusion can be reached that up until the 1980’s the site was bare and undeveloped but has subsequently been subdivided by a fence, surrounded by new development on all sides and possibly used formally or informally for purposes that did not require buildings but may have left some contamination and dumping of materials”. The Tree Survey advises that it is likely that the woodland has developed from landlocked abandoned agricultural land to current tree cover in around 45 years, with population comprising almost entirely of waterlogging tolerant pioneer species. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the site has previously been developed and should be considered as brownfield land, and on this basis the provisions of policy 9 do not apply. However, it should be noted that even if the site was previously developed, policy 9 states that the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. Matters relating to the biodiversity value of the site are of primary consideration in this case and have been discussed at length above. With regard to policies 13 of NPF4 and I1 of the LDP relating to sustainable transport and connecting places, it is noted that the Chief Executives Service (Roads Development) Service has not objected to the development subject to conditions relating to the design of the site access, and parking provision. It is considered that the application site can be accessed by a range of transport modes. Additional travel generation is not considered to be significant, and the Chief Executives Service (Roads Development) has not raised any concern with respect to accommodating additional travel on the existing transport network within significant detriment to its operation. The development would comply with policies 13 and I1 in this regard subject to agreement of revised plans for the site access and parking provision. Policy 15 of NPF4 states that development proposals will contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20-minute neighbourhoods. This includes local access to employment. In principle the development would align with policy 15 through the provision of additional
Page 11
PUBLIC employment opportunities and business space in a locally accessible location. However, this does not outweigh non-compliance with the policies related to natural heritage and place as noted above. Additionally, as noted above the employment opportunities generated by the development are not considered to be significant, and there are already similar developments within the vicinity of the site. With regard to policies 22 of NPF4 and I3 of the LDP relating to flood risk and drainage, it is noted that SEPA have not objected to the development on flood risk grounds. Additionally, the Councils Independent Consultants (DBA) have not made any comments on the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application. However, it is noted that DBA have made comments on the proposed surface water drainage strategy and that this has not yet been approved. The sustainable management of surface water is a key consideration given existing ponding on the site, proposed changes to site levels, proximity of residential properties and historical surface water flooding in the area. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that surface water can be managed sustainably to mitigate surface water flood risk to neighbouring properties. While this has not yet been comprehensively demonstrated, it is noted that a drainage strategy has been submitted and is under review however it has not been pursued to a conclusion given the fundamental issues noted above which render the principle of the development unacceptable. The development has been screened against The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, and it was determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required. 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. The points raised in the letters of objection can be summarised as follows: 1 – Impact on protected species and loss of biodiversity, and surveys submitted by applicant were not undertaken at optimum time. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 2 – Loss of woodland. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 3 – Surface water drainage and increased flood risk to adjacent properties. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 4 – Visual impact. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 5 – Impact on residential amenity including noise, privacy, lighting. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment.
Page 12
PUBLIC 6 – Traffic and parking and lack of infrastructure to support the development. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 7 – Matters raised in the pre-application response have not been responded to. All pre-application advice is informal and does not prejudice the eventual decision on any subsequent planning application. 8 – Proposed development would contradict the terms of the compulsory purchase order of the land by Renfrewshire Council. This is not material to the planning assessment. 9 – There are other brownfield sites where this development would be more suitable. The presence of alternative sites which may be more favourably located does not in itself render the proposed development unacceptable. Each development must be assessed on its own merits. 10 – There are already other self store developments and workshop capacity within the area, with no demand for further development of this nature. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 11 – Air pollution. The Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Environmental Protection) section have not raised any concerns with regard to air pollution. 12 – The development does not comply with relevant development plan and net zero policies. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 13 – The development is not compatible with the predominantly residential area. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 14 – Loss of property value. This is not material to the planning assessment. 15 – Possibility of hazardous materials being stored on site. This is not material to the planning assessment. 16 – Accessibility for pedestrians and difficulty crossing Linwood Road The Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) have not made comment on this matter and have not raised any objection on the grounds of pedestrian accessibility.
Page 13
PUBLIC 17 – Spread of invasive non native species. This would be a separate matter for the land owners to address. 18 – Approval of this application could lead to further proposals for expansion in the future including stacking of the containers. Any further applications for expansion would require to be assessed on their own merits and concerns over future potential expansion would not be a reason to refuse the development proposal as submitted through this application. 19 – Suitability of the neighbour notification undertaken. Neighbour Notification has been undertaken in accordance with the relevant regulations and statutory requirements. 20 – Proposal is of no benefit to local community. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. 21 – Security concerns. This would be a separate matter for the site operator to address. The points raised in the letter of support can be summarised as follows: 1 – The development will bring investment and employment to the area. This matter has been addressed in the foregoing planning assessment. The points raised in the letter neither objecting nor supporting the application can be summarised as follows. 1 – Query the clearance of the site and replacement planting within buffer zones when existing trees could be retained. The development has been assessed on the basis of the information submitted as part of the application. 2 – A pedestrian crossing on Linwood Road should be provided. The Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) have not made comment on this matter and have not raised any objection on the grounds of pedestrian accessibility. Planning Obligations The Council is required to provide a summary of the terms of any planning obligation and any associated legal agreement and/or mechanism required to secure it including those provisions under The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act in relation to the grant of permission for the proposed development: None required.
Page 14
PUBLIC Conclusion The proposed development will have a significant and detrimental impact on the natural heritage value of the application site, namely the existing established woodland and biodiversity identified. The development is contrary to policies 3, 4 and 6 of NPF4 and ENV2 of the LDP on this basis. Loss of the natural heritage value and replacement with the proposed development would also have detrimental impact on the place. The development is contrary to policies 14 of NPF4 and P1 of the LDP. Finally, it is not considered that the loss of woodland and associated biodiversity value of the site would align with Policy 1 of NPF4 in this regard which attaches significant weight to the nature and climate crisis. It is not considered that there are any material considerations such as overriding economic or social benefits in support of the development that would outweigh non-compliance with the policies noted above. Recommendation Refuse. Reason(s) for Recommendation The proposed development will result in the loss of woodland and biodiversity and have a consequential significant detrimental impact on the ecological value of the site and will not make a positive contribution to the place. There are no significant and clearly defined additional benefits associated with the development which would outweigh the adverse impact on woodland and biodiversity. The development is therefore contrary to policies 1, 3, 4, 6 and 14 of National Planning Framework 4, and policies P1 and ENV2 of the Local Development Plan. There are no material considerations in support of the development proposal that would outweigh non-compliance with these policies. Schedule of Plans Reviewed Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title 3673/L/101 Topographic Survey 3673/L/200 Site Plan as Existing 3673/P/206 Proposed Site Plan – 12.5m landscape buffer 3673/P/300 Proposed Workshop and valet Shed Floor Plan and Elevations 3673/P/500-A Storage Unit Elevations 3673/P/501 Portakabins Elevations 3673/P/900 Palisade Fencing Elevation 696.01.01 a Landscape Proposal 250514 Design Statement 3673/L/100 Location Plan P15936-GOO-XX-XX-SK-C- 0511 P01 Proposed levels Layout P15936-GOO-XX-XX-SK-C- 1001 P01 Proposed Surfacing Layout Tree Survey Report including Tree Constraints Plans (by Julian A Morris dated January 2025) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (by Wild Surveys dated 29th February 2024) Civil and Structural Engineering Desk Study (by Goodson Associates dated January 2019)
Page 15
PUBLIC Flood Risk Assessment (by Terrenus Land and Water, report number 1141-235 revision 1 dated 3rd July 2023) For further information please contact James Weir, Development Standards Team, Email: james.weir@renfrewshire.gov.uk.