Document Pack (Bookmarked) - Planning Committee 22 04 26
West Dunbartonshire Council · 22 April 2026
Back to Planning Committee — 22 April 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Agenda Planning Committee Date: Wednesday, 22 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Time: 10:00 ___________________________________________________________________ Venue: Council Chambers, Clydebank Town Hall, 5 Hall Street, Clydebank G81 1UB _________________________________________________________________ Contact: Nicola Moorcroft, Committee Officer Email: nicola.moorcroft@west-dunbarton.gov.uk committee.admin@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Dear Member Please attend a meeting of the Planning Committee as detailed above. The business is shown on the attached agenda. Yours faithfully PETER HESSETT Chief Executive Page 1
Page 2
Distribution:- Councillor Lawrence O’Neill (Chair) Councillor Gurpreet Singh Johal (Vice Chair) Councillor Kevin Crawford Councillor Ian Dickson Provost Karen Murray Conaghan Councillor Lauren Oxley Councillor Chris Pollock Councillor Hazel Sorrell All other Councillors for information Date of Issue: 9 April 2026 Page 2
Page 3
PLANNING COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 AGENDA 1 APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are invited to declare if they have an interest in any of the items of business on this agenda and the reasons for such declarations. 3 OPEN FORUM The Committee is asked to note that no open forum questions have been submitted by members of the public. 4 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 5 - 7 Submit for approval, as a correct record, the Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 March 2026. 5 PLANNING APPLICATION 9 - 25 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, in respect of the following Planning application:- DC25/095/FUL: Change of use of a Class 10 Community Centre to a Class 1A Convenience Store with associated works including extension to the existing building at 50 North Elgin Street, Clydebank by MLC Architectural Drawings. 6 SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON ACCELERATING HOME BUILDING IN SCOTLAND 27 - 46 Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, seeking approval of the proposed response to the consultation. 7/ Page 3
Page 4
7 SCOTTISH MINISTERS DECISION ON PLANNING 47 - 49 APPLICATION DC25/175/FUL Submit report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, providing an update of the position relating to the above planning application, which was referred to the Scottish Ministers following Committee determining it was minded to grant planning permission. ___________________________________________________________________ Page 4
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE At a Meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Civic Space, 16 Church Street, Dumbarton on Wednesday, 11 March 2026 at 10.00 a.m. Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillors Ian Dickson, Gurpreet Singh Johal and Lawrence O’Neill. Attending: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager; James McColl, Development Management Team Leader; Christopher Anderson, Section Head and Principal Solicitor; and Scott Kelly, Committee Officer. Apologies: Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillors Kevin Crawford, Fiona Hennebry, Lauren Oxley, Chris Pollock, Hazel Sorrell and Clare Steel. Councillor Lawrence O’Neill in the Chair DECLARATION OF INTEREST OPEN FORUM The Committee noted that no open forum questions had been submitted by members of the public. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of Meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 February 2026 were submitted and approved as a correct record. NOTE OF VISITATION A Note of Visitation carried out on 10 February 2026, a copy of which forms Appendix 1 hereto, was submitted and noted, subject to Councillor O’Neill’s name being added to the list of those who had been present at the site visit. ITEM 4 Page 5
Page 6
ONSHORE ELECTRICITY GENERATION – ELECTRICITY ACT THRESHOLD: CONSULTATION A report was submitted by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, seeking approval for the proposed response to the consultation. After discussion and having heard the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, and the Development Management Team Leader, in further explanation and in answer to Members’ questions, the Committee agreed that the response noted at Appendix 1 to the report be submitted as West Dunbartonshire Council’s response to the consultation. The meeting closed at 10.14 a.m. Page 6
Page 7
APPENDIX 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE NOTE OF VISITATION – 10 FEBRUARY 2026 Present: Provost Karen Murray Conaghan and Councillors Fiona Hennebry and Lawrence O’Neill. Attending: James McColl, Development Management Team Leader and Amy Melkevik, Lead Planning Officer. SITE VISIT A site visit was undertaken in connection with the undernoted planning application:- Holm Park, Glasgow Road, Clydebank G81 1YA DC25/175/FUL: Construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ball stop fencing by Clydebank Football Club. Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 22nd April 2026 DC25/095/FUL: Change of use of a Class 10 Community Centre to a Class 1A Convenience Store with associated works including extension to the existing building at 50 North Elgin Street, Clydebank by MLC Architectural Drawings 1. REASON FOR REPORT 1.1 The application is subject to a substantial body of objection. Under the terms of the approved Scheme of Delegation, it therefore requires to be determined by the Planning Committee. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in Section 9. 3. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS 3.1 This application relates to an existing, vacant, former community centre unit (Class 10) at 50 North Elgin Road, Clydebank. Following a review of local community facilities, the Council made the decision to permanently close the premises which comprised Clydebank East Community Centre on 29th March 2024. With the building being deemed to be surplus to operational requirements, the Council subsequently marketed it for sale. The site is located on the north-east corner of North Elgin Street and Fleming Avenue, and is set back from the pedestrian paths and roads of Fleming Avenue to the north and North Elgin Street to the west. The existing building is bounded by a car park to the rear of the building, and beyond, a terrace of residential properties and local retail and hot food takeaways in Fleming Avenue. A pharmacy building, currently occupied by Boots, is located immediately south of the site with further residential properties beyond. Vehicular access to the site is from Fleming Avenue to the north-east of the building with a car park to the rear. The wider area is residential in character. 3.2 The building located on the site is single storey, but with upper roof space including an existing plant room. It is an irregular T-shape design on level ground and set back from the road and footpath. Externally, the building is primarily finished in weathered white / grey roughcast with small, high-set rectangular windows and a simple, recessed blue entrance door sheltered by a small wooden overhang. The roofline is notably lined with security spike fencing. 3.3 Permission is sought for the change of use from a community centre (Class 10) to a convenience store (Class 1A) with associated works including an extension to the ground floor and an extension creating a mezzanine floor within the existing roof area. The proposed development will have a gross floor area (GFA) of approximately 435m², of which approximately 330m² would be retail space. The structure would form a retail store which is it indicated would sell a wide range of groceries including ITEM 5 Page 9
Page 10
food, alcohol and everyday household essentials, with the prospective occupier indicated to trade under the ‘Nisa’ brand. The submitted plans and drawings indicate that the ground floor will consist of the main public retail area, storage area and disabled toilets. The mezzanine floor will include a goods store, two offices, staff kitchen and staff toilet. 3.4 The structure as altered and extended would be two storey, but no higher than the existing upper plant area. Externally, the building would be typical of a local convenience store. This includes a glazed elevation and sliding door entrance for the public to the south facing elevation of the building. Further external alterations include the installation of ATM, the installation of a total of eight refrigeration and air handling units including the erection of an acoustic enclosure to reduce operational noise proposed to the rear west facing elevation adjacent the car park. It is proposed that the existing plant equipment which is located on the upper flat roof of the building is to be removed. 3.5 Servicing and parking for customers would be accessed from Fleming Avenue to the rear north east of the building, within the existing adjacent car park of the site which is also utilised by the adjacent Pharmacy. Nine car parking spaces are indicated to be provided within the application site boundary. Pedestrian access will be directly from the adjacent footpaths which will facilitate pedestrian movement to the main entrance door of the proposed store located on the northeast facing elevation. The southeastern most part of the site would also provide access to the loading bay and service vehicles will access via the car park. 3.6 Whilst the application indicates that there would be signage on the elevations, this will require to be assessed under a separate application for Advertisement Consent if required. 3.7 The application is accompanied by a range of supporting documentation including a supporting statement, a Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, Single Phase Air Conditioning Units Specification, Zenith Scroll Range Condensing Units, Noise & Mechanical Plant Enclosure Mitigation Strategy (25th January 2026), Clarification of Noise Assessment Result Sheet – Letter (10 February 2026) which address various technical issues. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service have no objection to the proposal in respect of roads and parking subject to conditions that public utility prints are reviewed prior to any excavation works being undertaken, no discharge of surface water onto the public road, mechanical road brush to be provided if requested by Local Authority and parking bays being clearly lined and appropriately signed to encourage customer use of the off-street parking facilities. 4.2 West Dunbartonshire Council Roads Service (Flooding) requested a Stage 1 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to be submitted during the application process. Following submission, this was reviewed with no objection to the proposal in respect of flooding matters. 4.3. West Dunbartonshire Council Environmental Health Service have no objection, subject to conditions on delivery hours, works on site, full details of ventilation system and any plant / equipment and how this will be suitably insulated or isolated to minimise noise. Page 10
Page 11
5. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Representations from 17 parties were received in connection with the proposal. 15 of these are in objection and 2 are in support. Further to this, one of the representations objecting to the proposal included two petitions with a total of 38 signatures objecting to the proposal. The full details are contained within the planning file and are available for public viewing. However, the points raised can be summarised as follows: In objection: Loss of Community Facility The existing building is a valued Community Education Centre that contributes to social inclusion, wellbeing and culture. No evidence has been presented to show the facility is redundant or that equivalent provision exists nearby. The loss of the Community Centre fails to support community infrastructure and sustainable neighbourhoods. The current Class 10 use as a community centre provides social and cultural value to residents. Over provision of retail uses The proposal will compete with existing established businesses, to the detriment of their viability. There is no need for a convenience store at this location. Several convenient shops in close proximity from the proposed development are situated less than 15 minute walk away . The proposal is contrary to the retail hierarchy and town-centre-first principles. The proposal does not demonstrate any unmet local need or provide a retail impact assessment to justify a further unit. Traffic, and Parking The proposal would result in a significant increase in traffic and parking beyond the previous use, adversely impacting upon local residents. Intensification of traffic and parking would introduce more danger to families, children and the elderly. The existing pharmacy already causes significant parking and traffic congestion North Elgin Street is the main entry route into Whitecrook, is narrow and may be impacted upon by additional traffic and parking. Additional congestion may impact upon emergency services. North Elgin Street and adjacent residential roads have limited on-street parking and narrow carriageways, creating potential hazards for pedestrians, including children and the elderly. The absence of a clear servicing and delivery plan means heavy goods vehicles could obstruct traffic or pavements. Access and servicing to the neighbouring unit may be impacted upon. Residential amenity The proposal will introduce continuous footfall, late-night noise and external lighting to the detriment of the amenity of the area. Opening and delivery hours would require to be controlled to avoid disturbance. Page 11
Page 12
Commercial waste activity would be incompatible with surrounding housing. Dust will occur. Design The proposed building extension would alter the character of the area. Proposed signage requires to be controlled. Other matters The proposal conflicts with the Development Plan. The premises may have an off sales licence and this would exacerbate alcohol misuse and alcohol related harm. The proposal could increase related health inequalities and risk reversing recent improvements. Anti-social behaviour and crime may occur. No community safety plan or safety mitigation is provided. Waste and litter may be generated by the proposal. The proposal may degrade the local environment and increase Council maintenance costs. Concerns relating to the integrity of the purchaser of the premises, ownership and the applicant’s businesses. It must be ensured that all future Council property disposals meet the highest standards of accountability, transparency, and compliance with relevant legislation Compliance monitoring by the Licensing Board will be required. Conditions prohibiting or controlling of off-sales of alcohol would be required. In support: General support and enthusiasm for the proposal. Easy access will be available from Fleming Avenue. The nine parking spaces will ensure its easy for people to park. There is currently nowhere local and within walking distance which sells fresh food. The proposal will provide for accessible local shopping for those without a car. A local shopping facility will benefit the elderly. There is nothing to suggest anti-social behaviours would occur. 5.2 The points and concerns raised will be considered in the appraisal below. 6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN National Planning Policy 4 6.1 Policy 1 relates to tackling the climate and nature crises and states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 2 also relates to the climate in the form of climate mitigation and adaptation, and states development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and development proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. The proposal is for the change of use and formation of extension and alterations to form a retail unit which is considered to be adaptive reuse, which will significantly reduce construction waste and the embodied carbon of new buildings by preserving its structure and therefore the proposal complies with Policies 1 and 2. Page 12
Page 13
6.2 Policy 3 states that proposals should contribute to the enhancement of intent is to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Subject to biodiversity enhancement being addressed by condition, the proposal would comply with Policy 3. 6.3 Policy 9 supports development proposals for the reuse of vacant and brownfield and the reuse of existing buildings will be supported, taking into account their suitability for conversion to other uses. Given the need to conserve embodied energy, demolition will be regarded as the least preferred option. Repurposing a vacant building is viewed as sustainable because it avoids the need for new construction and the proposal complies with Policy 9. 6.4 Policy 12 relates to waste and advises that development proposals will set out how much waste the proposal is expected to generate and how it will be managed. The site has significant space to accommodate bin store provisions and management of waste will be conditioned to ensure final details are submitted for approval and that the arrangements are constructed prior to the premisses coming into use. Subject to these matters being addressed by condition, the proposal would comply. 6.5 Policy 13 supports proposals where they provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks and are accessible by public transport. Public transport links including bus stops are within short walking distance of the site and a condition below can ensure that cycle racks will be provided for customers and staff. 6.6 Policy 14 requires proposals to be underpinned by the six qualities of successful places- healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable and adaptable. It also states that proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding areas will not be supported. The proposal is acceptable in this regard. 6.7 Policy 15 relates to local living and 20-minute neighbourhoods, with development proposals required to contribute to both, where relevant, through local access to a wide range of facilities and activities, including lifelong learning and recreation facilities. The provision of a local convenience store supports local living. 6.8 Policy 22 addresses flood risk and water management, stating that proposals will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), and seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. The application site is within an area at risk of flooding. However, no objections have been raised from WDC Roads Service Flooding and Drainage and the proposal the proposal is considered to fall within the exemptions set out within the Policy 22 a). 6.9 Policy 23 aims to safeguard people from environmental harm and promote and facilitate development that improves health and wellbeing. Development proposals that will have positive effects on health will be supported. Subject to a variety of matters being addressed by condition including matters relating to noise mitigation, the proposal raises no concerns with reference to this Policy. 6.10 Policy 28 supports retail proposals including proposals for new small scale neighbourhood retail development what contributes to local living, including where relevant 20 minute neighbourhoods and/or can be demonstrated to contribute to the health and wellbeing of the local community. The proposal seeks to provide a new Page 13
Page 14
shop premises of a small scale, which will provide a variation and enhancement of shop services of a scale appropriate to serve a local catchment area. 6.11 With appropriate planning conditions, the proposed development is supported by all relevant policies of National Planning Framework (NPF) 4 and is assessed fully in Section 7 below. West Dunbartonshire Adopted Local Plan 2010 6.12 The site is identified under Policy PS1 as a public provision area where the Council will seek to protect established public utility, social and community facilities as identified on the Proposals Map. Prior to closure of any community facility, the Council will need to demonstrate that the community facility is no longer needed. Once no longer needed, the Local Plan should provide for reuse of surplus community facilities. In considering any proposed change of use, the Council will have regard to the character and amenity of the surrounding area, other Local Plan policies and whether the loss of the facility would have a significant adverse impact on the community. The proposal is considered acceptable with reference to this policy and this is assessed further in Section 7 of the report. 6.13 Policy GD1 seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high quality of design and respects the character and amenity of the area in which it is located. 6.14 While focusing on major developments in town centres (Clydebank, Dumbarton, Alexandria), Policy RET3 acknowledges that small, local convenience shops provide essential, accessible services to residents. The proposal is a small-scale neighbourhood convenience store which will serve local, day-to day needs within the residential area without negatively impacting the vitality of designated town centres. 6.15 Policies F1, F2 and F3 relate to flooding and drainage and aim to ensure that new development is not at risk of flooding, does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and has suitable drainage infrastructure which includes SUDS measures. There is a general presumption against development within the flood plain. The up- to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. 6.16 Policy E1 relates to the Council’s Biodiversity duty and biodiversity enhancements will be addressed by condition. 6.17 Policy H4 safeguards residential amenity and Policy ENV8 relates to noise pollution. No concerns arise in this respect. 6.18 The application is assessed against the criteria of the above policies in Section 7 below and the proposed retail development is considered acceptable. 7. ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Proposed Plan 7.1 On 15 March 2023, the Planning Committee took a decision that the Council would not adopt Local Development Plan 2. The Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), incorporating the recommended modifications of the Examination Report received on 22 April 2020, which were accepted by the Planning Committee of 19 August 2020, remains the Council’s most up to date spatial strategy and is therefore afforded significant weight in the assessment and determination of planning applications, subject to compatibility with NPF4. The Scottish Ministers’ Direction Page 14
Page 15
relating to the adoption of LDP2, dated 18 December 2020, is also a material consideration. 7.2 The application site forms part of the existing residential area of Whitecrook, Clydebank as defined by the Proposals Map. Policy H4 presumes against the establishment of non-residential uses within, or in close proximity to, residential areas which potentially have detrimental effects on local amenity or which cause unacceptable disturbance to local residents. The proposal is not considered to have any detrimental effects on residential amenity, subject to conditions, and this is assessed further below. 7.3 Policy CP1 seeks to ensure that development is of a high quality, adaptable and designed to be suitable for a mix of occupants. It indicates that all new development will be expected to contribute towards creating successful places by having regard to the six qualities of a successful place (distinctive, adaptable, resource efficient, easy to get to/move around, safe and pleasant, and welcoming). The proposal is acceptable with reference to this Policy. 7.4 Policy SC1 supports proposals for retail development in the network of centres which accord with the strategy, role and functions of centres. While town centres are the preferred location for all retail proposal, small-scale neighbourhood units often fall under exemptions or lower-tier assessments, especially when reusing existing buildings. In this case the proposal is for a small-scale convenience store which will serve a local neighbourhood, repurposing existing infrastructure, and does not negatively impact town centre vitality. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the requirements of Policy SC1. 7.5 Policy ENV6 supports the protection of residents, property, and the environment by strictly managing development in areas at risk of flooding. It operates as a precautionary policy to ensure new development does not worsen existing flood risks or create new ones. The up-to-date development plan position in flooding is set out within Policy 22 of NPF4 which therefore has primacy in this instance. Policy ENV8 requires developments to address air quality, lighting and noise as part of the planning process. 7.6 A retail development would comply with all of these policies and is assessed fully below. Creating Places Planning Guidance and Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance 7.7 The Creating Places Guidance – November 2022 seeks to achieve high quality development with a design led approach based on a thorough appraisal of the site and an analysis of its context and sets out that this is expected for all development proposals. The Green Network and Green Infrastructure Guidance - November 2022 seeks to ensure that the proposal integrates landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the setting of the new development and open space created. This will include a focus on biodiversity enhancement. Following a full assessment, it is concluded that the proposal presents no conflict with the aims of the guidance. Principle of Development 7.8 Policy RET1 of the adopted Local Plan sets out the retail and town centre strategy and advises on a sequential approach to site selection for town centre uses including retail. Policy SC1 of proposed Local Development Plan 2 sets out a similar position. Policy 28 of NPF4 provides the most up-to-date policy position in respect of the town centre first approach for retail uses and Policy 28 supports proposals which accord Page 15
Page 16
with this approach. Policy 28 goes on to only support proposals for retail which do not accord with the town centre first principle in limited circumstances. Once such circumstance is for small scale neighbourhood retail development that contributes to local living and the health and wellbeing of the local community. Policy 28(c) sets out specific support for such developments. Further to this, Policy RET3 of the adopted Plan also acknowledges that small, local convenience shops provide essential, accessible services to residents. 7.9 The applicant has not set out a sequential approach to site selection for this development. The proposal represents a small-scale retail development within an existing residential area and it is clear that such a proposal will serve a local catchment. It is considered that an assessment of sites in any of the defined centres (town centres or local centres) within West Dunbartonshire is not required in this instance due to the nature and scale of the development which will provide for a very local catchment. Given this, together with the specific support within NPF4 for such local shopping facilities without taking a town centre first approach, it is therefore not considered an assessment of sequentially preferable sites is required. 7.10 Small scale neighbourhood retail development will also contribute to local living and the health and wellbeing of the local community which is supported by both national and local planning policy, most notably by Policy 15 of NPF4. 7.11 In terms of the adopted Local Plan, the site (together with the neighbouring shop unit) is identified under Policy PS1 within the Proposals Map as a public provision area where the Council will seek to protect established public utility, social and community facilities. Prior to closure of any community facility, the Policy requires that the Council needs to demonstrate that the community facility is no longer needed. Once no longer needed, the Policy goes on to state that the Local Plan should provide for reuse of surplus community facilities. In considering any proposed change of use, the Council will have regard to the character and amenity of the surrounding area, other Local Plan policies and whether the loss of the facility would have a significant adverse impact on the community. 7.12 A variety of concerns are raised in the objections regarding the loss of the Community Centre. The unit was formerly the Clydebank East Community Centre which was closed by the Council on 29th March 2024. The decision to close the Community Centre was part of a review of seven community facilities across West Dunbartonshire with options for each including Community Asset Transfer, making lease arrangements for the property, investigating alternative uses, or potentially marketing for sale. With no leases or asset transfers concluded by the time of closure, the building was declared as being surplus to operational requirements and placed on the open market by the Council. The building was marketed between May and October 2024. Following this marketing, a preferred offer was reported to the Infrastructure, Regeneration and Economic Development Committee on 6 November 2024. This offer stated that the prospective purchaser intended to convert and thereafter use the property as a retail unit. Following consideration, Members agreed the disposal of the former East Community Centre Clydebank to this purchaser. The paper notes that it is for the applicant to pursue the change of use and the offer is not subject to planning approval being granted. The Council has thus concluded that in this case the community facility was surplus to requirements and disposed of the former community asset. Further to this, there are a number of community facilities still in operation within the local vicinity including Centre81, a community centre situated a five-minute walk north of this site and run by Clydebank Housing Association. Clydebank Community sports hub is situated a 10-minute walk west of North Elgin Street and both premises provide a range of community facilities retaining Page 16
Page 17
wider community facility provision within the local area. The Local Plan does not specifically provide for the reuse of surplus community assets and in considering any potential change of use, Policy PS1 requires that any proposals are appropriate with reference to the character and amenity of the surrounding area, other Local Plan policies, and whether the loss of the facility would have a significant adverse impact on the community. 7.13 In this case the proposal seeks to provide a new small scale shop premises which will include additional retail floorspace to provide an enhancement of shopping facilities within the local community on a scale appropriate to serve the local catchment area and provide significant benefits to community wellbeing by strengthening the local economy, fostering social connections, reducing environmental impact, and enhancing the unique character of a neighbourhood. In particular, having a small convenience store operator located within this mixed use residential area of Clydebank is acceptable and would offer wider retail choice as well as bringing with it employment opportunities and economic benefits to the area. The proposal will also result in the reuse of a vacant building as supported by Policy 9 of NPF4. 7.14 The development can therefore be supported in principle with specific reference to Policy 28 of NPF4 and Policy PS1 of the adopted Local Plan. It therefore rests to consider whether there are any material planning considerations or site constraints which suggest that the retail development proposal for the site would not be acceptable and this assessment is set out below. Impact on Town Centres and Retail 7.15 The proposal for the site would allow the change of use of an existing vacant building with a small extension to form one retail unit creating a combined gross floor area of (GFA) of approximately 435m², of which approximately 330m² would be retail space. Therefore, the proposed development is considered a small-scale neighbourhood convenience store which primarily serve local people and cater to a local catchment. The likely practical catchment of the proposed retail unit is thus expected to be the Whitecrook area. In comparison, the town centre draws from a broader, town-wide area, often requiring car travel. Such shopping trips to both town centres but also major supermarkets will always take place because local shopping provision will never meet all requirements. Whilst no retail impact assessment has been submitted by the applicant, the scale of development together with the likely local catchment is not considered to have any impact upon the role or nature of Clydebank Town Centre within the network of retail centres, and the proposal would not have any significant impact upon any other town centre. Whilst concerns are raised in the objections regarding potential impact on similar local convenience stores, it is not the function of the planning system to inhibit competition between business. Economic benefit 7.16 Turning to wider economic benefit arising from the development, any development of this nature will result in employment creation and will contribute to the local economy. Whilst not specified, it is clear that in developing this site, the proposal will create a number of local retail jobs, as well as jobs related to the construction and conversion works. The development is also considered to have a positive benefit to the vitality of the area which could in turn thus benefit other local businesses. Site Layout, Design and Appearance 7.17 New development requires to be well designed, take cognisance of the setting into which it is introduced and provide high-quality, well-designed buildings, whilst recognising the impact on existing neighbouring properties. This site is situated Page 17
Page 18
within a prominent location on the corner of North Elgin Street and Fleming Avenue. The existing building is reflective of the architectural style of the time and its previous function as a community and education centre. The extended footprint of the building does not raise any concerns in terms of design or overdevelopment. The redeveloped building would have a contemporary appearance, in line with typical small, modern convenience store’s within a wider residential area. Moreover, the visual amenity of the vacant unit will be aesthetically improved with the reuse and redevelopment of the building, to the benefit of the appearance of the wider locality. Whilst a substantial level of plant is proposed, this is located to the rear and thus will not be visually prominent. 7.18 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would create a well-designed development that addresses the six qualities of successful places by having a distinctive identity and being well connected and sustainable. The proposed building would have a less bulky appearance and also a more attractive glazed frontage than the existing vacant unit. As such, it complies with Policy 14 of NPF4 together with Policy GD1 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy CP1 of proposed Local Development Plan, alongside the Creating Places Guidance (2022). Residential Amenity 7.19 The layout and scale of development proposed relative to the proximity of existing housing raises no concerns with respect to privacy, overshadowing or overbearing effects. In terms of noise and activity, whilst located adjacent to residential properties, it is noted that the surrounding application site already sees a degree of activity with existing retail units including hot food takeaway a short distance away on Fleming Avenue, together with the adjacent pharmacy immediately south of the existing building. The previous Community Centre use would also have brought a degree of noise and activity to the area, with no planning restrictions to prevent community events taking place well into the evening. It is accepted, however, that the nature of the activity associated with the unit will change with the retail shop proposal, with frequent trips and a high turnover of customers. The opening hours of the shop are indicated to be 7am to 10pm and the applicant notes no objection to opening hours being controlled by condition to ensure no unacceptable impact upon residential amenity. Deliveries associated with the use will also occur and these must be considered with reference to the residential properties on North Elgin Street, Fleming Avenue and Ian Smith Court. In their consultation response, Environmental Health recommend that in order to prevent conflict with existing residential development and disturbance to residents during the nighttime hours, a condition should be attached which prevents deliveries or collections occurring during the period from 8pm to 8am. Whilst noting the advice of Environmental Health, the premises comprises an existing unit which had no operational restrictions when in use as a Community Centre. Matching servicing hours with opening hours is considered to be a reasonable approach in balancing the operation of the premises with safeguarding residential amenity. This can be addressed by condition. 7.20 In terms of the proposed plant equipment, the proposed acoustic enclosure will include lockable access doors and a roof or canopy providing a minimum of 5dB attenuation. Internal sound-absorptive lining is proposed to control reverberant noise within the enclosure, providing a minimum of 3dB additional attenuation. Adequate ventilation via acoustically treated louvres to maintain plant performance without compromising noise control. Environmental Health raise no objections to the proposal, subject to the proposed mitigation measures being addressed by condition to ensure that no disturbance to residential properties occurs. Page 18
Page 19
7.21 All development projects will result in a degree of noise and disruption during the construction phase. The consultation response from the Council’s Environmental Health Service highlights the requirement for the construction of the development to be undertaken in a way that ensures that adjacent residential amenity is not adversely affected. This, including matters relating to construction hours and dust mitigation, can be secured through condition. 7.22 Whilst a number of submitted objections raise concerns regarding residential amenity impact, it is considered that the proposed change of use is considered acceptable from a residential amenity perspective, subject to conditions as indicated above. Traffic, transport, parking and road safety 7.23 The proposal will utilise the existing car park and access from Fleming Avenue for both parking and delivery access. Nine parking spaces are shown within the car park that forms part of the application site. Given the scale of the proposed development and the expected local catchment, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant traffic generation. The site is also easily accessible for those travelling on foot from the local area, directly adjoining the existing footpath. The site is also accessible by public transport being within a five-minute walk of frequent bus services across West Dunbartonshire and beyond to Glasgow and Helensburgh. It is therefore also concluded that the development is provided in an appropriate location within an established settlement accessible by means other than the private car. 7.24 Whilst traffic, parking and road safety concerns have been raised in the objections received, the Council’s Roads Service offers no objections in relation to traffic, parking and road safety matters. The Roads Service highlight the requirement to ensure the parking bays are clearly lined and signed to encourage use and this can be addressed by condition as can the requirement to ensure no surface water discharge to the public road. The requirement to review utility points and provide a mechanical road brush during construction can be addressed by advisory note. Ecology and Biodiversity 7.25 With respect to ecology and biodiversity, no concerns arise in respect of the proposals to extend and change of the use of this existing flat roofed building within a central urban area. However, all proposals for local developments (which includes most retail conversions under 1,000sqm) must include appropriate measures to conserve, restore, and enhance biodiversity. A condition will be implemented for the applicant to submit appropriate and proportionate biodiversity enhancements which are required for local developments to meet the requirement of NPF4 Policy 3c. Waste Provision 7.26 The proposal is expected to generate a level of waste commensurate to a facility of the scale proposed. The site has significant space to accommodate bin store provisions and management of waste will be conditioned to ensure final details are submitted for approval and that the arrangements are constructed prior to the premisses coming into use. Subject to these matters being addressed by condition, the proposal raises no concerns in this respect. Flooding and Drainage 7.27 With respect to flood risk, the site is identified as being at medium risk of river and surface water flooding on SEPA’s Flood Maps. Policy 22 of NPF4 sets out to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding. Development proposals at risk of flooding or in a flood risk area will only be supported in certain circumstances. These include the redevelopment of an existing Page 19
Page 20
building or site for an equal or less vulnerable use. The proposal comprises of the redevelopment of a previously used community centre (class 10) building in a built-up area to small convenience retail unit (class 1A) both of which fall into the east vulnerable category as set out by SEPA and the proposal therefore comprises the redevelopment of an existing building for an equally vulnerable use. 7.28 Whist the proposal does not necessitate a consultation to SEPA, the Council’s Roads Service were consulted on the application and requested further details to be submitted in the form of stage 1 flood risk assessment. The flood risk assessment identifies that the proposal presents a low risk of flooding from all identified sources including fluvial, pluvial, coastal, groundwater and sewer flooding and confirms that the site and ground levels lies above all mapped flood extents and local surface- water accumulation is confined to the adjacent road network. The flood risk assessment states that no flood pathways extend into the development boundary and indicates that mitigation measures, which will include the incorporation of suitable finished floor levels, positive drainage design and resilient construction materials will ensure that the proposed development will remain resilient to flooding under design conditions. The Roads Service are satisfied with the findings of the stage 1 flood risk assessment and raise no objections on grounds of flood risk. The proposal is considered acceptable in flood-risk terms and compliant with Policy 22 of NPF4. 7.29 In relation to drainage, the application indicates that surface water runoff would be managed through a combination of permeable surfacing and positive drainage connections, designed to Scottish Water standards to ensure adequate capacity and control of discharge rates. Final details of the drainage proposals can be addressed by condition. Subject to these matters being addressed by condition, the proposal would comply. Other Matters 7.30 Whist the site is located adjacent to a Tree Preservation Order designation which extends along the line of Fleming Avenue, no trees lie within the area next to the site which would be impacted upon by the development. It is noted that the application does not include information on the provision of low and/or zero carbon generating technologies, as required by Policy RE5. This matter can, however, be addressed through condition. Outstanding points within representations 7.31 In considering the points raised in the objections not already assessed above, any future proposals for signage will be considered via an application for advertisement consent where required. The licencing of off-sales of alcohol is addressed via separate legislation and the sale of alcohol and its impact on public health or anti- social behaviour is thus not a material planning consideration that can be considered as part of this planning application assessment. There is nothing to suggest that anti- social behaviour or crime would occur as a result of this proposal, or that community safety mitigation is required. There is also nothing to suggest that litter or excess waste would be generated by the proposal or that this would lead to increase costs to the Council. Littering is a matter to be addressed separately to the planning system. Matters relating to the sale process of the building, the Council’s approach to property disposal or concerns relating to the integrity of the purchaser of the premises or their business are not planning matters and can have no bearing on the assessment of a planning application. This planning application can only consider the merits of the proposed use against the Development Plan and relevant material considerations. Finally, matters relating to rights of access through the existing Page 20
Page 21
carpark within the application site are civil matters which would require to be addressed between the parties involved. 8. CONCLUSION 8.1 The application site is located within a residential area with where the proposed use is supported in principle. No concerns arise in respect of the alterations and extension of the building, allowing a vacant building to brought back into productive us, to the benefit of the appearance of the locality. The development would contribute to the mix of retail offerings at a local convenience shopping level, without any detrimental effects on local amenity, subject to conditions. Following consideration of the proposal and informed by the consultation responses from the Council’s Environmental Health Service and Roads Service, it is concluded that, subject to conditions addressing, the proposal is in accordance with policies set out in National Planning Framework 4 8.2 Overall, the proposal will bring a vacant unit within the residential area into use as a small scale retail store. The proposed use is also expected to operate primarily during the day and early evening, and this will contribute to the economy within the local area and also support local living. Whilst the objections received are acknowledged, there are no material planning considerations that suggest that planning permission should be refused. 9. CONDITIONS 1. That unless first otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the external materials of the extensions hereby approved, shall match the roughcast finish of the existing building. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 2. That unless first otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the opening hours of the premises shall be 7am to 10pm daily. All servicing shall undertaken during the opening hours of the premises. Reason: To minimise noise and disturbance to nearby residents at unsocial hours. 3. Prior to the occupation and use of the retail shop hereby approved, the nine vehicle parking spaces provided in the approved plan ‘MSSI201 Proposed Block plan of Site’ shall marked out on site and made available for use. The vehicle parking spaces shall thereafter be retained and capable of use by staff and customers at all times and shall not be removed or altered without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure appropriate parking provision for the use hereby approved. 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a facility for the storage of cycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The cycle storage facility shall be implemented as approved and be available for use prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the approved cycle storage shall be retained in perpetuity for this dedicated purpose. Page 21
Page 22
Reason: To ensure appropriate cycle parking provision for the use hereby approved in the interests of encouraging active travel modes. 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a biodiversity enhancement statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures set out in the approved statement shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. Reason: in the interests of providing biodiversity enhancement in accordance with Policy 3 of NPF4. 6. All recommendations set out within the Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment dated October 2025 shall be incorporated into the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of mitigating against flood risk . 7. Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of any works on site, full details of the incorporation of low and/or zero carbon technologies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the incorporation of low or zero carbon generating technologies into the development in order to minimise carbon emissions. 8. That all surface water shall be intercepted within the site both during construction and on completion of the development and full details of measures to ensure that surface water run-off is contained within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. The measures shall be implemented and maintained as approved. Reason: To prevent surface water run-off to the adjacent road network, in the interests of road and pedestrian safety. 9. Prior to the commencement of works on site, full details of any plant / equipment and how this will be suitably insulated or isolated to minimise noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Works shall then proceed as approved and within 8 weeks of the commencement of the use hereby permitted, a report by a third-party independent verifier shall be submitted to demonstrate that the noise projections are accurate or, in the event they are not, propose further mitigation measures together with a timescale for installation for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The system and all associated mitigation measures shall thereafter be retained and operated as approved at all times thereafter during the lifetime of the use to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, unless otherwise first agreed in writing. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise or vibration nuisance. Page 22
Page 23
10. Notwithstanding condition 9 above, tonal noise associated with the plant and equipment shall not give rise to a noise level within any dwelling or other noise sensitive building assessed with the windows open in excess of the equivalent to Noise Rating Curve 35, between 07:00 and 20:00 hours, and Noise Rating Curve 25 at all other times, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise. 11. During the development phase, all works and ancillary operations (including deliveries to site) which are audible at the site boundary, shall be carried out between the following hours unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority: Mondays to Fridays: 0800-1800 Saturday 0800-1300 Sundays and public holidays: No working Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive noise and disturbance at unsocial hours. 12. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence on site until such time as a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall identify likely sources of dust arising from the development or its construction and shall identify measures to prevent or limit the occurrence and impact of such dust. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented fully prior to any of the identified dust generating activities commencing on site and shall be maintained thereafter, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Authority. Reason: To minimise the occurrence of dust, in the interests of the amenity of the area. 13. Prior to the start of development on the site, an external lighting scheme shall be submitted for the consideration and written approval of the planning authority. The scheme shall take into account all of the lighting needs associated with the development during operational hours and shall be the minimum required to perform the relevant lighting task. It shall be specifically designed to minimise the risk of light spillage beyond the development site boundary. Reason: To ensure that the development does not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties by creating excessive illumination. 14. Details for the storage and the collection of waste arising from the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The agreed details shall be in place prior to the development being brought into use and thereafter be maintained and operated on site as approved at all times during the lifetime of the use. Reason: To safeguard public health and to protect the amenity of the surrounding area. Page 23
Page 24
Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 22nd April 2026 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning & Building Standards Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendix: Location Plan Background Papers: 1. Application forms and plans 2. Representations 3. Consultation responses 4. National Planning Framework 4 5. West Dunbartonshire Local Plan 2010 6. Proposed West Dunbartonshire Local Development Plan 2 2020, as amended 7. Creating Places Planning Guidance (2022) 8. Green Network and Green Infrastructure Planning Guidance Wards affected: Ward 6 (Clydebank Waterfront) Page 24
Page 25
West Dunbartonshire Council 16 Church Street Dumbarton G82 1QL Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. (C) Crown copyright and database right 2025. All rights reserved. West Dunbartonshire Council OS License Number AC0000818098 Date: 8 April 2026 DC25/095/FUL Change of use of a Class 10 Community Centre to a Class 1A Convenience Store with associated works including extension to the existing building Community Education Centre 50 North Elgin Street Clydebank G81 1BZ ITEM 5 - APPENDIX 1 Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by the Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 22nd April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: Scottish Government Consultation on Accelerating Home Building in Scotland 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek committee approval of the proposed response to the consultation. 2. Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that Planning Committee agrees the response noted at Appendix 1 to be submitted as West Dunbartonshire Council’s response to the consultation. 3. Background 3.1 The Scottish Government is consulting on proposed penalties and incentives to accelerate house building in Scotland. The full consultation documents can be found at https://www.gov.scot/publications/accelerating-home-building- scotland-consultation-penalties-incentives-speed-up-housing-delivery/ 3.2 The consultation is part of a wider response to the nationally declared housing emergency. A major driver for intervention is the significant number of homes that already have planning permission but have not been built. Recent Government estimates indicate approximately 164,000 consented units remain unbuilt, demonstrating that the key barrier to housing delivery is not securing planning permission, but progressing sites post-consent. Evidence shows delivery can stall due to market absorption rates, viability challenges, infrastructure deficits, land assembly issues, and developer commercial decisions. 3.3 Within a West Dunbartonshire context, the most up to date figures from the 2025 Housing Land Audit demonstrate that there were 1,993 units with planning consent that are under construction or not yet started, with 1,788 of them expected to be delivered before 2032. Taking this as an annualised figure over that 7 year period, an average of 255 units per year have been programmed from consents. This aligns with past trends, with an average of 263 units being completed annually over the last 5 years. Comparing this to the Minimum All Tenure Housing Land Requirement (MATHLR) for West Dunbartonshire in National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), the total MATHLR is 2,100 over a 10 year period annualised to 210. As the consented sites should deliver on average 255 units per year, it can be seen that consents ITEM 6 Page 27
Page 28
from the Planning Authority are not a barrier to delivery and adds weight to the national picture that the key barrier is not consent through the planning system, but delivery. 3.4 The Government considers accelerated delivery essential to support economic growth, meet housing need, and maintain confidence in the planning system. Ministers have emphasised that Scotland “urgently needs more homes” and that many sites with planning permission are not moving to construction despite the planning system having already done its part. The consultation therefore examines whether incentives, clearer expectations and if, where required, stronger interventions could unlock stalled sites and ensure faster delivery. 3.5 The consultation seeks views on four broad categories of reform aimed at improving build-out rates: Fiscal incentives or penalties to reduce delays on allocated or consented sites. Stronger monitoring and potential intervention powers where delivery is unreasonably slow. Streamlined planning processes for smaller sites to support SME housebuilders. Greater diversity of housing types and tenures on larger sites to increase market absorption. 4. Main Issues Summary of the proposed response 4.1 The Planning Authority is not convinced that fiscal penalties or reliefs would materially accelerate build-out and would be concerned by their introduction. Whilst we broadly agree that there may be a case for penalties or incentives in some circumstances, delivery is more commonly constrained by viability, infrastructure, market conditions, and developer programming rather than tax burdens. There is a concern that penalties may distort Local Development Plan delivery by making it less attractive to bring forward sites for development, or by inadvertently delaying the submission of applications. 4.2 The Planning Authority is not supportive of a tax on allocated sites. Similar to the reasons above, there is concern that this would be seen as a punitive measure and may result in reduced development interest, particularly in lower market areas, such as West Dunbartonshire. If introduced, it should only apply to sites with planning permission to prevent developers withdrawing from land promotion and apply to the developer, not a landowner. Uncertainty exists as to how “permission” would be defined, for example, should this apply to Planning Permission in Principle applications as well as Full Planning Permissions, and to what other consents outside of the planning system would it include, for example Building Standards? The tax should, if Page 28
Page 29
implemented, be localised with any income reinvested into infrastructure or planning and related services to support delivery. 4.3 The Planning Authority is broadly supportive of enhanced reporting mechanisms. It is considered that this is best achieved by tying the requirement to housing land audits, provided requirements are proportionate, given that this process already captures a significant amount of information relating to build out rates. The Planning Authority however would raise a concern that that revocation powers without compensation would improve delivery, noting such action could actually delay sites restarting under a new developer. Limited, highly specific circumstances could justify revocation where a stalled site prevents infrastructure capacity being utilised elsewhere. 4.4 The Planning Authority, whilst supportive of Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) builders, raises concern that introducing new streamlined processes solely for SME’s would be best to apply to all sites of a certain scale. It is our view that development impact is determined by context rather than developer size, and whilst we support, and already apply, a proportionate approach, this is applied on a case-by-case basis depending on the specifics of the case. Again, whilst we broadly support proportionality, the Planning Authority would raise concerns that such changes have to be handled carefully to avoid weakening placemaking or design quality. However, wider review of hierarchy thresholds could be considered, potentially introducing a “medium” category. 4.5 The Planning Authority supports the principle of diversified housing outputs but rather than a blanket national approach, it should be tailored to meet local Housing Need and Demand Assessments. Any legislative requirement for diversity should apply only to large strategic sites (e.g. 500–1,000 homes). Practical limitations in lower market areas must be considered to avoid undermining viability. 4.6 In terms of other measures, the consultation response highlights the need and opportunity to consider other matters that may assist with accelerating build out: Clearer and legally aligned validation requirements to reduce disputes and delays. Continued recognition of the role of infrastructure in enabling development and funding gaps. Consideration of enhanced status for LDP allocations to provide greater certainty. Increased Scottish Government resourcing for planning authorities to support the delivery focus of NPF4. Key summary of the response 4.7 Overall, West Dunbartonshire Council is supportive of measures that improve clarity, certainty and delivery focused planning. However, the Council raises concern over fiscal penalties or tax-based approaches and emphasises the Page 29
Page 30
need to avoid unintended consequences that could suppress development or market confidence. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 No direct financial implications arise from responding to the consultation. Should new measures be introduced, particularly localised taxes, future resource implications may require assessment. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There is no financial, reputational or legal risk associated with this report. The Council is not statutorily required to respond to this Scottish Government consultation but will be bound by the outcome of the consultation and any resulting measures introduced by the Scottish Government. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 Not required. 9. Consultation 9.1 This is a Scottish Government consultation seeking the views of all stakeholders. Officers from both Planning and Housing have reviewed the consultation documents and inputted into the response at Appendix 1. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The consultation is considered to be relevant to, and will help deliver, all of the Council’s strategic priorities: Our Communities – Resilient and Thriving Our Environment – A Greener Future Our Economy – Strong and Flourishing Our Council – Inclusive and Adaptable Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 22nd April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager, Michael.mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Page 30
Page 31
Appendices: Appendix 1 – Respondent Information Form Background Papers: https://www.gov.scot/publications/accelerating-home- building-scotland-consultation-penalties-incentives- speed-up-housing-delivery/ Wards Affected: All Page 31
Page 32
1 Official Respondent Information Form Accelerating home-building in Scotland A consultation on incentives and penalties to speed up housing delivery Please Note: this form must be completed and returned with your response. Please indicate how you wish your response to be handled and, in particular, whether you are content for your response to published. If you ask for your response not to be published, we will still take account of your views in our analysis but we will not publish your response, quote anything that you have said or list your name. We will regard your response as confidential, and we will treat it accordingly. To find out how we handle your personal data, please see our privacy policy at the bottom of the page. By submitting your response to Scottish Government you agree to our privacy policy. 1. What is your name? 2. What is your email address? Your email address will never be published. Your email address will be used if you give permission below to be contacted again in future about this consultation. 3. Are you responding as an individual or an organisation? Individual ☐ Organisation ☐ 4. What is your organisation? If responding on behalf of an organisation, please enter the organisation's name here. ITEM 6 - APPENDIX 1 Page 32
Page 33
2 Official 5. The Scottish Government would like your permission to publish your consultation response. Please indicate your publishing preference: Publish response with name ☐ Publish response only (without name) ☐ Do not publish response ☐ Information for organisations only: The option 'Publish response only (without name)' refers only to your name, not your organisation’s name. If this option is selected, the organisation name will still be published. If you choose the option 'Do not publish response', your organisation name may still be listed as having responded to the consultation in, for example, the analysis report. 6. Do you consent to Scottish Government contacting you again in relation to this consultation exercise? Yes ☐ No ☐ 7. I confirm that I have read the privacy policy and consent to the data I provide being used as set out in the policy. You can view the privacy policy here: Privacy - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) I consent ☐ Page 33
Page 34
3 Official Questionnaire Question 1 Could fiscal incentives offering relief to other charges help to accelerate build-out rates? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 1a Which charges / taxes / levies could the incentives be applied to? Please explain your answer. Question 1b Should relief be in the form of full exemptions or variable rates? ☐ Full exemptions ☐ Variable rates The Council is unsure that such an approach would be beneficial to the development industry to the extent that development would be accelerated. Development viability and programming is often complex and arises from various factors such as infrastructure availability, financial cash flow issues and general industry workforce/material capacity. Additionally, market issues arise as it is a commercial decision as to where, and how fast, sites are built out taking account of competitors activity. The Council would also express concern that such an approach would lead to land not coming forward within Local Development Plans or a stall in sites gaining planning permission. This would seem to go against an outcome of delivering more homes faster. Please see response to Q1. Page 34
Page 35
4 Official Please explain your answer Question 1c Could a tax impact differently on different types of land owners? Please explain your answer. Question 1d Please provide any evidence of how fiscal measures linked to other charges would impact development finance to influence built out rates. Question 2 Please see response to Q1. Please see response to Q1. Please see response to Q1. Page 35
Page 36
5 Official Should we introduce a tax on sites which have been allocated for residential development and/or have permission for homes, but are not being built out as expected, as set out in option 1? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 2a Should this apply to allocated sites, sites with permission, or both? ☐ Allocated sites ☒ Sites with permission ☐ Both Please explain your answer. Question 2b How should the tax be calculated? Whilst the Council is generally supportive of measures to increase build out rates to assist with the housing emergency, the Council is not convinced that a tax on sites that have been allocated, or have planning permission, would be beneficial overall. It is not clear in which circumstances a punitive tax would be appropriate as there are multiple reasons that a site may not progress, some which are in the control of the developer and some which are not. A concern arises that such sites would not come forward for the Local Development Plan or to gain consent. However, if such a tax is taken forward, the Council would strongly suggest that this should only apply to sites with planning permission. We would also caution that NPF4 requirements are frequently cited by developers as affecting feasibility, any new taxes may stall development rather than accelerate it. As Q2 above, whilst the Council is unconvinced that such an approach would ultimately be beneficial, should it be introduced we would suggest that this should only apply to sites with planning permission to ensure that the supply of land through Local Development Plans is not impacted. Care would need to be taken as to how permission would be defined, for example would this relate to Planning Permission in Principles as well as Full Planning Permission or only be applicable to Planning Permission in Principles at the Matters Specified in condition stage. Additionally, would other consents such as Building Warrants and technical consents from utility providers be included in this definition? Page 36
Page 37
6 Official Please explain your answer. Question 2c Who should be required to pay the tax? Please explain your answer. Question 2d Should the tax operate as a local or a national tax? ☒ Local tax ☐ National tax Please explain your answer. Question 2e How should any income be used? Please explain your answer. The Council considers that the tax should be payable by the developer of the site rather than the landowner, otherwise such an approach may disincentivise the release of land. Additionally, as legally any developer can apply for planning permission on land they do not own, subject to the statutory notification requirements, it would not be reasonable to enforce a tax on the landowner. The Council would support this tax being retained at the local level. Whilst further discussion would be required, there is potential that any monies raised by the tax is reinvested in Council workstreams to enable housing development, for example by being reinvested into housing supply workstreams such as empty homes programmes, the forward funding of infrastructure to unlock wider local capacity or by investment in planning and building standards services to bring development forward quicker. The Council does not have a set view on how the tax should be calculated but some suggestions in the consultation that would appear to be reasonable to explore such as a % tax of market value and having defined areas in which the tax should be applied. Page 37
Page 38
7 Official Question 2f Please provide any evidence of how a tax connected to sites allocated or permitted not being built out would influence build-out rates. Question 3 Should we bring forward powers for reporting on development progress and powers to intervene where it is considered to be unreasonably slow, as set out in option 2? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 3a Should this include creating a legal framework for reporting on development progress? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Please see answer to 2d. The Council does not have any such data available but the consultation response refers to work in England and Wales and would suggest that data from those legislative frameworks are reviewed for impact before any such process is introduced in Scotland. The Council would broadly support the inclusion of formal reporting of development progress. Page 38
Page 39
8 Official Question 3b Should there be a power for planning permission to be revoked, without compensation being payable, where reporting demonstrates that progress is unreasonably slow? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 3c Yes, the Scottish Government should however look to tie this in with annual housing land audits as development progress is already assessed through this mechanism with many authorities issuing Developer Intention Surveys. It would be more practical for authorities to collect this in one go annually rather than annually from the issuing of any individual consent. The onus to respond to this request should be on the relevant landowner/developer/agent. Pace of development is difficult to gauge as what is a fast build out rate in one market area would not be fast in another. The planning service when carrying out forecasting through the Housing Land Audit process makes use, amongst other data, of Homes for Scotland guidance which sets out reasonable build out rates split by urban/rural and by flat/houses. Whilst this guidance is useful it is not prescriptive and delivery rates can be affected by many different factors such as commercial decisions, availability of infrastructure and wider economic/supply issues. The Council suggests that it may be more reasonable to introduce shorter time periods for implementation of planning consents in specific circumstances, such as where a site has been approved on a non-allocated site. The Council is unsure that this mechanism would be effective. Planning legislation already allows for planning permission to be revoked but the Council would caution the use of such an approach except in very rare exceptional circumstances. Revoking planning permission for one developer may seem attractive, however, it is unclear how this would enable faster consent as it would mean that any other developer who wanted to purchase the site would then have to start completely from scratch through the planning process. Whereas currently a stalled site would have the benefit of an extant consent that, in theory, could be picked up by any future developer to continue build out. The Council do consider though that this approach could work in a very specific circumstance where a stalled consent could be revoked to allow an alternative site to progress. This would be beneficial in terms of forecasting infrastructure capacity as an extant consent could in theory come back online at any point so the capacity has to be “reserved”. We would recommend that the Scottish Government would need to carefully consider the circumstances where this could apply. Page 39
Page 40
9 Official How would the pace of development be set and agreed – for example how would reasonable-ness be measured? Please explain your answer. Question 3d Please provide any evidence of how reporting on development progress would influence build-out rates. Question 4 Should we bring forward legislation to amend the development hierarchy, to enable us to introduce more streamlined planning processes on planning applications for smaller sites, as outlined in option 3? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unsure It is unclear how mandatory reporting would directly lead to faster build out rates but it would be beneficial to have clear and consistent mandatory reporting in order for completion rates and future forecasting to more accurate in the future. Whilst many developers and Homes for Scotland engage with Planning Authorities through the Housing Land Audit, not all provide responses to Developer Intention Surveys and not all Planning Authorities ask for them. Page 40
Page 41
10 Official Please explain your answer. Question 4a How many categories should be defined by the development hierarchy, and what size of development should these cover? For example, four categories, that define major, medium, small and very small developments. Question 4b What are your views on, and do you have any evidence relevant to whether creating more categories in the development hierarchy might have an overall effect of speeding up or slowing down build-out of housing? Whilst the Council is supportive of SME developers and the contribution to not only the economy but also the response to the housing emergency, in planning terms, a developments impact is the developments impact, irrespective of the size of the developer. NPF4 is clear that development should be well designed and mitigate its negative impacts and whilst a proportionate approach should always be taken, and the Council is supportive of such an approach, we consider it more reasonable and practical to apply this on a site by site basis taking account of the particular challenges/opportunities of that site, rather than a blanket legislative approach. However, the Council would in general be supportive to streamlining requirements and processes where it still results in appropriate development. This could be perhaps better explored as a wider review of the development hierarchy as a whole and introduce a new “medium” thereshold that sites between a local and a major. The Council would also wish to resit any impact arising from any reduced requirements that would negatively impact on placemaking and quality of development. This may lead to longer term issues arising from poor placemaking. The Council has no relevant evidence to support either view. Removing requirements for SME’s on the face of it would appear to favour the view of speeding up delivery, however the Council would caution the Scottish Government that housing supply should not be reduced to a ‘numbers game’ and there is still a requirement to ensure that quality placemaking is achieved and that developments appropriately mitigate their negative impacts, be that on the environment or infrastructure. See response to Q4. Page 41
Page 42
11 Official Question 4c What are your views on whether we should review and rationalise policy requirements for smaller housing sites, or introduce a new rules based policy for smaller housing sites? Question 4d Do you think that further advice on planning application information requirements would support faster delivery of housing on smaller sites? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 4e Do you think there are any further options that creating more categories in the development hierarchy might open up, further to those outlined in option 3? ☐ Yes ☒ No ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Please see response to Q4. The Council is of the view that revisions to legislation to amend validation standards is required rather than just advice. Whilst advice could be helpful, Heads of Planning Scotland validation guidance is used by authorities and many authorities have prepared their own guidance, however there is a significant gap between what is legally required to validate an application and the actual requirements in order to assess against local and national Development Plan policies. This gap should be closed to provide clarity all stakeholders (developers, communities and Planning Authorities) as to what is required to make a competent planning decision. The Council considers that such an approach would reduce conflict during the processing of applications and would very likely lead to faster decision making as all parties would be clear up front about what information is required. Page 42
Page 43
12 Official Question 4f Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 5 Do you think that encouraging more diverse housing outputs across the pipeline of deliverable housing land would increase the pace of build-out? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Please see response to Q4. In general, SME housebuilders, and others, could benefit from streamlining and clarity on requirements. Page 43
Page 44
13 Official Question 5a Should we use legislation to require a diversity of housing types and tenures on sites above a certain threshold? ☒ Yes ☐ No ☐ Unsure Please explain your answer. Question 5b Do you think that this measure would have any particular benefits for SME housebuilders? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☒ Unsure Please explain your answer. Further to the response to Q5, should such an approach be taken forward it should only apply to larger strategic sites. An appropriate threshold may vary by Planning Authority area but 500 or 1,000 may be appropriate. The Council is supportive of the principle of this approach but we are concerned that there are practical limitations that may end up discouraging market investment, which would reduce development output. We also consider that whilst in one way a blanket approach would be clear and consistent, Scotland does have very diverse local housing markets. Should such an approach be introduced we would ask the Scottish Government to explore how this could be linked to existing local Housing Need and Demand Assessments, Local Housing Strategies and the Evidence Report underpinning Local Development Plans. The Council would raise a general point that as with all such studies and evidence that may change outwith Development Plan timescales, it would need to be made clear how planning policy or legislative requirements would adapt to this change and when. Page 44
Page 45
14 Official Question 5c Please provide any evidence of how increasing diversity would influence build-out rates. Please explain your answer. Question 6 The Council does not have any such evidence, but we would support diversity of housing to ensure that needs and demands as set out in Housing Need and Demand Assessments and Local Housing Strategies are met. On the face of it, providing for this need would suggest that sales rates, and therefore build rates, would be faster. One option the Council would suggest, is exploring how allocations in the Local Development Plan could be granted an alternative status, perhaps similar to Planning Permission in Principles, with applications then being focused on details of design, similar to Matters Specified in Condition applications. With Development Plans becoming more delivery focused, increased scrutiny of sites at the site assessment stage and Development Plans setting out more in the way of site requirements for development, it would seem appropriate that allocations are granted some enhanced status to provide more certainty to developers as to the acceptability of sites and the design and layout parameters. This could work alongside existing provisions for Masterplan Consent Areas. A frequent comment to the Council that affects viability is that parts of the area are deemed ‘not marketable’ by the industry, thus affecting speed of delivery of Local Development Plan allocations. It would be beneficial if Scottish Governement could work with developers to understand these low market areas and what further could be done to unlock development, particularly on brownfield sites. Planning Authorities are already under considerable pressure in both Development Management and Development Planning. Scottish Government should consider the impact of future changes to accelerate housebuilding and plannings role and recognise that further funding to planning authorities is required. Page 45
Page 46
15 Official Do you have any other suggestions for measures which could use levers available, or which could be put in place through the planning system, to deliver more homes at pace? Question 6a Please provide any evidence of how these potential measures would influence build- out rates. The Council does not have any evidence currently on this matter but consider that it could have a positive impact on build out rates by reducing procedural uncertainty without prejudging detailed consideration of the design and impact of the development. Page 46
Page 47
Official WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Planning Committee: 22nd April 2026 _____________________________________________________________ Subject: The construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ballstop fencing at Holm Park, Glasgow Road, Clydebank, G81 1YA by Clydebank Football Club 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to update the Committee of the position relating to the above planning application which was referred to the Scottish Ministers following Committee determining it was minded to grant planning permission. 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Committee note the decision. 3. Background 3.1 Planning application DC25/175/FUL considered the construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ballstop fencing to accommodate the proposed stand. The proposed stand measures approximately 4.1m in height at its highest point, 34.4m in length and 2.9m in width. The ballstop fence proposed is located to the rear of the stand and is proposed to be 5m and height and span 40m. The stand provides 150 seats which will increase the stadium capacity from 1260 to 1410. Proposed materials are noted as black plastisol coasted profile metal sheeting for the roof and walls for the stand and white powder coated metal for the pitch side fencing to match existing. 3.2 In considering the application, it was recognised proposal site is located within an area that is designated in both the adopted and proposed plans as an area of open space. The improvement of open space and sports facilities is supported in National Planning Framework 4 through Policy 15 relating to 20-minute neighbourhoods as well as policies R1 and R3 relating to the retention and enhancement of open space as well as policy GI1 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2. 3.3 The proposal is however also located within the inner consultation zone for the fuel storage site located at Rothesay Dock and the Health and Safety Executive have objected to the proposal. This is due to the proposal for the stand resulting in a material increase in members of the public being present outdoors in the inner consultation zone of the fuel storage site. The proposal therefore poses a potential safety risk for those using the proposed stand due to the proximity of a major accident hazard site. Accordingly, the proposal is not supported by Policy 23 g) of National Planning Framework 4 together with Policy DC5 of the West Dunbartonshire Local Plan. 3.4 In considering this application, Members noted the objection from the Health and Safety Executive and the support given by other policies in the Development Plan. Members concluded that taking into account that this is an existing site that can remain in operation irrespective of the outcome of this planning application and compliance otherwise with the Development Plan that permission should be ITEM 7 Page 47
Page 48
Official granted, contrary to officers recommendation, pending the required notification to Scottish Ministers. 4. Main Issues 4.1 Following consideration by Committee on 11th February 2026, the planning application was notified to the Scottish Ministers under the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2009. 4.2 After review, the Scottish Ministers confirmed on 20th March that it is not Ministers intention to intervene in this application by either issuing a direction restricting the granting of consent or by calling in the application for their own determination. 4.3 Consequently, the decision notice was issued by officers in line with the committee determination. 5. People Implications 5.1 There are no people implications associated with this report. 6. Financial and Procurement Implications 6.1 There are no financial or procurement issues associated with this report. 7. Risk Analysis 7.1 There are no risks associated with this report. 8. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 8.1 There are no equalities issues associated with this report. 9. Consultation 9.1 Consultation was undertaken during the consideration of the planning application. 10. Strategic Assessment 10.1 The Council’s decision on these planning applications is considered to have been consistent with the following strategic priorities: Our Economy – Strong and Flourishing; Our Environment – A Greener Future; and Our Communities – Resilient and Thriving. Page 48
Page 49
Official Michael Mulgrew Planning, Building Standards and Environmental Health Manager Date: 22nd April 2026 Person to Contact: Michael Mulgrew, Planning & Building Standards Manager Email: Michael.Mulgrew@west-dunbarton.gov.uk James McColl, Development Management Team Leader Email: James.McColl@west-dunbarton.gov.uk Appendices: None Background Papers: 1. Report to Planning Committee 11th February 2026 - Planning application - The construction of a spectator stand and relocation of ballstop fencing at Holm Park, Glasgow Road, Clydebank, G81 1YA by Clydebank Football Club. Wards Affected: Ward 6 (Clydebank Waterfront) Page 49