25-0706-PP - Arkleston Road FINAL
Renfrewshire Council · 17 March 2026
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 17 March 2026 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: 17 March 2026 Report by Chief Planning Officer Reference No 25/0706/PP Application Type Planning Permission (Local) Proposal Change of use to site self-storage containers (Class 6) and associated administration hut, external yard, access, parking, lighting, and landscaping Location Land at, Arkleston Road, Renfrew Ward 2 - Renfrew South and Gallowhill Community Council Renfrew Community Council Applicant Sterling Sinclair Removals Limited 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=T1WE7SMWKTE00 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, Councillors, Paterson, Hughes and Shaw have requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board due to concerns about the impact of the development. Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the change of the use of a currently vacant site for the siting of self-storage containers (class 6). The site extends to approximately 0.76 hectares and comprises naturally established vegetation, including a diverse mix of trees, shrubs, and grassland species. The development would provide 2,595sqm of storage space, comprising 173, 8ft x 20ft storage containers, with a separate 15sqm administration container, external yard area, lighting, and access from the existing road leading to the David Lloyd Health & Fitness Club and car park. The storage containers are proposed in a linear layout extending from the north to the south and separated by 4.5m circulation aisles. A small number of containers are located on the southern boundary of the site. Customers would enter the site in their vehicle and progress to their specific storage container through a one-way system, where they would lock/unlock their container through a personal coded locking system, prior to navigating the one-way system to the exit. The administrative hut would be located on the northern boundary of the site, to the east of the junction. Two parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the hut to accommodate staff parking. Site Description The site is bounded by the David Lloyd Health & Fitness Club and its associated car park to the northeast and St Columba's Church to northwest. The M8 motorway lies immediately south of the site, with vehicular access taken from Arkleston road, which also serves the adjacent David Lloyd Health Club. Pre-Application Consultation with Officers
Page 2
PUBLIC 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 discussions have taken place, focusing on potential impacts on the surrounding area. Negotiated Improvements Following submission, no changes were sought or 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. Consultations Environment, Housing & Infrastructure (Env. Protection) - No objection subject to the submission and approval of a survey to determine the impact of floodlighting prior to the development being brought into use. Chief Executive's (Roads Development) - Have submitted a holding objection highlighting concerns over road network capacity, junction configurations, relationship of proposed junction to vehicle charging points opposite, sightlines and road widenings. Further details have been requested to address the concerns raised. Dougall Baillie Associates (providing flooding/drainage advice) – Have submitted a holding objection requiring confirmation of the location and nature of the private surface water discharge location within the David Lloyd car park, demonstration that storage containers will not impede runoff from carriageway and information on how modelled storage volume will be achieved. Further details have been requested to address the concerns raised. West of Scotland Archaeology Service - No objection Transport Scotland - No objection. Ironside Farrar Ltd (IFL) (Councils Independent Consultants) - Confirm acceptability of Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Tree Survey. Representations The application has been publicised in line with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The following representations were received: Object - 16 Support - 0 Neutral - 0 The issues raised can be summarised as follows: ▪ Incompatible with character of the area and more appropriate locations are available. ▪ Impact on amenity and character of the surrounding area. ▪ Impact on bio-diversity, trees and green space which provides wildlife corridor. ▪ Traffic congestion and safety. ▪ Flooding and surface water drainage issues. ▪ Impact of high intensity flood lighting, noise, and disturbance.
Page 3
PUBLIC 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 6 - Forestry, woodland, and trees Policy 13 - Sustainable transport Policy 14 - Design, quality, and place Policy 22 - Flood risk and water management Policy 23 - Health and safety Policy 26 - Business and industry Full details relating to the policies of the NPF4 can be found online. Renfrewshire Local Development Plan Policy P6 - Open Space 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 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 - Creating Places Delivering the Places Strategy - Open Space Material Considerations Renfrewshire Planning and Development Tree Policy 2022 Submitted Reports and Assessments The following reports and assessments were submitted in support of the application: ▪ Tree Survey - Undertaken to assess the quality of the tree canopy within the site. The survey concludes that the overall condition of the majority of the trees on site is reasonably good with many specimens indicating a significant life expectancy. ▪ Traffic Statement - The report examines the key transportation issues and access opportunities associated with all modes of travel and documents the walking, cycling and public transport connections in the area. It concludes that the site will be accessible by sustainable modes of travel and integrate effectively with the existing transport network.
Page 4
PUBLIC ▪ Preliminary Ecological Appraisal - The appraisal has reviewed the proposed development in relation to pre-development biodiversity value, taking into account the base line habitat types, species supported and ecological connectivity within the site and to the surrounding area and recommends mitigation measures to minimise potential impact of the development. ▪ Drainage Impact Assessment - The report sets out the surface water drainage strategy for the new-build hardstanding. 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 principal considerations in the assessment of this application are the sites', the existing biodiversity and amenity value of the land, and the potential impacts of the proposal on amenity, the character of the area, the natural environment and local infrastructure. The use proposed falls within class 6 (storage and distribution) of the Use Classes, Scotland Order. Under NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry), proposals for business, industry, and storage and distribution uses on sites not allocated for such purposes in the Local Development Plan will only be supported where it is demonstrated that no suitable allocated alternatives exist, including those identified in the Employment Land Audit, and where the scale and nature of the proposal are compatible with the surrounding area. Compatibility must be assessed with regard to impacts on amenity, sensitive uses, and the natural and historic environment. In this respect, the application site is not allocated for business, industrial or storage and distribution uses within the Local Development Plan. Instead, it lies within an area, designated under LDP Policy P1 where neighbouring and adjacent uses include a leisure centre, church and a care home. Furthermore, the LDP identifies a supply of land within Renfrewshire's Economic Investment Locations specifically promoted for the development of Class 4 (Business), Class 5 (General Industry) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) uses. The applicant has not demonstrated that an allocated site would not be capable of accommodating the proposed development. In addition, and consistent with the requirements of Policy 26 of NPF4, Policy P1 seeks to ensure that development proposals are compatible with and complementary to existing uses and character, and that they make a positive contribution to placemaking, in accordance with the New Development Supplementary Guidance and the Renfrewshire places Design Guide. The proposed storage container facility is commercial and utilitarian in character and does not reflect the character and nature of the surrounding area. The development would not reinforce the function of the locality nor contribute positively to its sense of place. While it is recognised that the David Lloyd Health & Fitness Club is located to the northeast of the application site, the nature of their impacts differs. A sports centre is generally regarded as a community- focused use that serves local residents, designed to integrate with and provide easy access in residential environments, with activity levels and operating hours capable of being managed
Page 5
PUBLIC to reflect the wider residential environment. In contrast, the operational characteristics of storage container facilities including vehicle movements, periodic loading and unloading activity, and extended access hours have the potential to introduce activity levels and disturbance that are not typically associated with the existing environment. In addition, the utilitarian appearance and operational layout of rows of metal containers, security fencing and hardstanding can appear stark and industrial in form and character, contrasting noticeably within the setting resulting in negative visual impact and limited contributions to placemaking objectives. In this regard, Policy 14 of NPF4 seeks to ensure that development proposals are designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Given the context and for the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the development proposed would not enhance and would not be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 and 14 and to Policy P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and associated supplementary guidance. In terms of environmental considerations, NPF4 Policy 9 supports the reuse of vacant brownfield land, where the biodiversity value is appropriately assessed and considered. In this regard, the site is characterised by grassland, shrubbery, and established trees, and therefore possesses ecological and amenity value. The submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal identifies a large area of plantation woodland within the centre of the site, which provides a stepping stone to surrounding habitats and the dense nature of the planting offers opportunities for small mammals and birds. The tree survey for the site confirms that the tree canopy forms elements of a designed landscape and provides a screening function from the adjacent road network and M8. Notwithstanding some exposure and the presence of disease affecting certain ash trees, the majority of trees are assessed as being in reasonable to good condition, with a significant remaining life expectancy. The canopy also contributes positively to visual amenity and ecological enhancement within the urban area. It is therefore evident that the site makes a positive contribution to the environmental quality and amenity within the surrounding area. While the proposal incorporates a landscaping scheme, this is not considered sufficient to compensate for the loss of the sites existing ecological and amenity value, nor would it adequately replace the established visual screening and character contribution currently provided by the site. Policy P6 (Open Space) 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 the criteria set out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. The Supplementary Guidance states that all areas which includes amenity space, will be protected from development, unless a number of criteria can be satisfied including that the benefit of the proposed development to the public clearly outweighs the present open space value of the site; that there is no significant adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents and the amenity of the surrounding area will not be significantly affected by the loss of open space and by the nature of the proposed development. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposed loss of the open space and its development as a storage container facility would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity, character and appearance and would not be compatible with the surrounding area. As such it is considered that the proposal would not comply with Policy 6 of NPF4. Given that the benefit of the development to the public does not outweigh the impacts of the development on this area of open space as outlined above, that it would impact the amenity of surrounding area, the development proposed would not adhere to the requirements as set
Page 6
PUBLIC out in the New Development Supplementary Guidance. As such it is considered that the proposal would not comply with Policy P6. In addition, it is considered that development of the site does not comply with Policies 3 and 9 of NPF4 as well as Policy ENV2 of the LDP in that the site has ecological value in its current condition and that the development proposed is not acceptable at this location. 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. A transport Assessment was submitted in support of the application concluding that the proposal satisfies policy requirements in this regard. However, the Council's Chief Executive's Service Roads Development team were consulted on the application and have raised a variety of issues through a holding objection which notes concerns relating to the road network capacity, junction configurations, relationship of proposed junction to vehicle charging points opposite, sightlines and road widenings. Further details addressing the matters raised have been requested however no further information has been provided. In light of the concerns raised and lack of further details addressing the concerns in question it is not possible to conclude that the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy 13 of NPF4 and Policy I1 of the LDP. Notwithstanding this, given the more fundamental concerns and issues in relation to the principle of the development, the roads requirements are not being pursued in this case. The applicant's agent has been provided with a copy of the consultation response from the Council's Chief Executive's (Roads Development) and as such, the applicant is aware of these issues. Environment and Community NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and LDP Policy I3 (Flooding and Drainage) require development proposals to demonstrate the sustainable management of water providing suitable drainage infrastructure, including green infrastructure, and ensuring that there will be no unacceptable flood risk associated with the development. A Drainage Impact Assessment, submitted in support of the application has been reviewed by the Councils drainage consultants who have raised issues which require resolution. Further details addressing the concerns of the Council’s drainage consultants have not been received and in this regard it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development complies with Policy 22 of NPF4 and Policy I3 of the LDP. The Council's Environmental Protection service has been consulted on the proposal and offered no objection subject to the submission and approval of a survey to determine the impact of flood lighting prior to the development being brough into use. It is considered that the request from Environmental Protection could be secured via appropriate planning conditions. 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 and the response to each is set out below; ▪ Incompatible with character of the area and more appropriate locations are available.
Page 7
PUBLIC As discussed above Policy 26 states that proposals for business, industry, and storage and distribution uses on sites not allocated for such purposes in the Local Development Plan will only be supported where it is demonstrated that no suitable allocated alternatives exist, , and where the scale and nature of the proposal are compatible with the surrounding area. It is considered that there are alternative sites available to accommodate the proposed use within Renfrewshire's Investment locations and it has not been appropriately demonstrated that the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. ▪ Impact on amenity and character of the surrounding area. Given the character of the surrounding area and both the physical and operational characteristics of the proposal and after assessment against the requirements of the development plan it is considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. ▪ Impact on bio-diversity trees and green space which provides wildlife corridor. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Tree Survey and Landscaping Scheme have been submitted in support of the application which demonstrate that the site has ecological and landscape value. Given that this location is not designated for an industrial type of use within the LDP and that the use proposed is not compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding area, the landscaping scheme proposed is not considered sufficient to compensate for the loss of the sites existing ecological and amenity value. ▪ Traffic congestion and safety. The Council's Chief Executive's Service (Roads Development) were consulted on this proposal and have submitted a holding objection highlighting a number of issues relative to congestion and traffic safety which require to be satisfied. ▪ Flooding and surface water drainage issues. The Councils flooding and drainage consultants have raised issues regarding the appropriate drainage of the site and therefore the policy requirements of the LDP have not been achieved. ▪ Impact of high intensity floodlighting, noise, and disturbance. The Council's Environment, Housing & Infrastructure Service (Environmental Protection) were consulted and have no objection subject to the submission and approval of a survey to determine the impact of floodlighting prior to the development being brought into use. 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 which would indicate support for the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be refused.
Page 8
PUBLIC Recommendation Refuse Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 26 of National Planning Framework 4 in that the application site is not located within an area identified for business and industry uses within the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan, it has not been demonstrated that alternative allocated sites within are unacceptable and the nature and scale of the proposed development are not considered compatible with the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the Development Plan and is unacceptable in principle. 2. By reason of its location, siting and impact on the surrounding area, the proposed development is contrary to Policies 14 of National Planning Framework 4 and P1 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and the associated New Development Supplementary Guidance in that the proposed development would have a significant detrimental impact on the natural heritage, character, appearance and amenity of the surrounding area 3. That the proposal is contrary to Policies 3 and 9 of National Planning Framework 4 and ENV2 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan in that the application site currently exhibits ecological value in its current condition, that the development proposed is not acceptable in this location and would not adequately replace the established visual screening and character contribution currently provided by the site. 4. 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 detrimental impact on amenity and the proposed development would not be complimentary or compatible with the surrounding area. Drawing Number Revision Drawing/Document Title Stamped Drawing LOC-01 Location Plan PL-SP-03 Existing Site Plan PL-SP-03 B Proposed Site Plan PL-SP-03 As Proposed Site Plan 25093_001 Internal Layout Vehicle Swept Paths 754.01.01 Landscape Proposal 2507-06-700 A Hardstanding Layout
Page 9
PUBLIC For further information please contact Clare Murray, Development Standards Team, Email: clare.murray@renfrewshire.gov.uk