Bridgehousehill Road, Kilmarnock

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 21 APRIL 2017

16/0279/PPP: PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROADS, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE BY HOPE HOMES (SCOTLAND) LTD AT BRIDGEHOUSEHILL ROAD, KILMARNOCK

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development Economy and Skills

Click for Application Details: http://eplanning.east- ayrshire.gov.uk/online/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ZZZZTPGFX C830

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET

PURPOSE OF REPORT

1. The purpose of this report is to present for determination an application for planning permission in principle which is to be considered by the Planning Committee under the scheme of delegation as it is subject to more than 10 objections, notwithstanding it also is a major development, in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which would also require to be determined by Planning Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

2. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed on the attached sheet, subject to the agreement of a legal agreement under section 75 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

3. Should the Committee agree that the application be refused on principle contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development the application will require to be referred to the Council because that would represent a significant departure from the local development plan.

Michael Keane Head of Planning and Economic Development

Note: This document combines key sections of the associated report for quick reference and should not in itself be considered as having been the basis for recommendation preparation or decision making by the Planning Authority

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE: 21 APRIL 2017

Report by Head of Planning and Economic Development Economy and Skills

PURPOSE OF REPORT

APPLICATION DETAILS

2. Site Description: The site is within the settlement boundary of Kilmarnock and is bounded to the east and south-east by the A77 road, to the west, north and north-east by the estates of Shortlees and Bellfield. The site is split by Bridgehousehill Road, and Bridgehousehill Court is adjacent to, but not included in, the site. The site measures 2.2 hectares, and is currently an open field, with mixed hedging to the A77 boundary, the site rising from the A77 to the houses within the Bellfield/Shortlees neighbourhood.

3. The area to the west, north and north-east is residential in nature, local authority built post-war housing of Shortlees and Bellfield, both of which now have more modern houses peppered throughout. The A77 bypass to the south forms a man-made edge to the settlement of Kilmarnock, with rural area beyond, accessed via Treeswoodhead Road, in the direction of Craigie and Clayslaps. The site is within the East Ayrshire Lowlands landscape type, which have a variable landform which although generally undulating, can be more complex and rolling in some areas.

4. Proposed Development: The proposal is for planning permission in principle for housing. The application is supported by various technical information, including:

 Phase 1 Geotechnical Report;  Transport Assessment;  Noise Impact assessment inc. road traffic noise information;  Drainage Statement;  Design and Access Masterplan;  Ecological Appraisal; and  Landscape and Visual Appraisal.

CONSULTATIONS AND ISSUES RAISED

5. East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service (EHS) initially noted their objection to the application, on the basis that the noise assessment was submitted in support of a planning application in 2008. The assessment did not take account of the issue of Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011, Planning and Noise the Technical Advice Note (TAN 2011), Assessment of Noise and the revision of BS8233:2014 which details the method of assessment of Road Traffic Noise and external and internal ambient noise levels for dwellings.

6. On submission of further information, EHS note it should be stated that for the development to be recommended for approval it has to be accepted that certain properties will be effectively unable to open some of their bedroom windows at night due to excessive noise levels from traffic on the nearby A77. The proposed development site is currently dominated by road traffic noise from the A77 and without some form of mitigation a large part of the development site (up to 22-26 metres) would be totally unsuitable for housing due to road traffic noise.

7. The Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) recommends the construction of an acoustic fence to reduce traffic noise levels such that housing development might reasonably be considered. Given the importance of such a barrier, it would be appropriate to condition any approval for this development to require construction of the acoustic barrier prior to the occupation of any housing.

8. Buildings, in themselves, physically act as noise barriers and houses can be used to provide additional noise protection of garden areas given appropriate site layout. The NIA concludes that noise levels in gardens can be kept within nationally accepted guidelines given proper site layout. Any approval for this development should therefore be conditional upon a final design layout such that noise levels in garden areas should be demonstrably below 55 dB LAeq(16hr) daytime, the maximum noise level generally accepted as suitable for external areas to dwellings.

9. Although the final site layout is currently unknown, the NIA clearly indicates that traffic noise levels at the facades of the most exposed housing would be such that the partial opening of bedroom windows at night would expose residents to unacceptable levels of noise. Although actual noise levels within bedrooms at night with partially open windows on these facades have not been given in the NIA, Environmental Health officers estimate that levels of approximately 39 dB LAeq(16hr) would be likely. It is generally accepted that a level of 30 dB LAeq(16hr) or below is desirable at night in bedrooms (as a rough guide, a noise level difference of 10 dB might generally be perceived as a doubling or halving of noise level). Where windows cannot be realistically opened at night due to excessive noise, adequate ventilation should be provided by other means and the NIA suggests the use of trickle vents. It is considered here that trickle vents are not sufficient for this purpose.

10. It is recommended that any approval for this development should be conditional upon an internal noise level of 30 dB LAeq(16hr) or below being demonstrably achievable in bedrooms at night. Where this condition cannot be met with partially opened windows, alternative forms of ventilation should be provided. It is suggested that this should be something better than just trickle vents in windows and written approval of ventilation scheme for such properties should submitted to and approved by the planning authority prior to development commencing.

This matter can be controlled via a suitable planning condition, should Members decide to grant consent, which will ensure that any finalised design layout is provided with suitable mitigation to minimise the noise impact from the A77.

11. East Ayrshire Council Environmental Health Service (Contaminated Land) advise that with regard to the Earth Environmental & Geotechnical Desk Study report (July 2016), which was undertaken for the above site, there has been no soil contamination issues identified which would pose a significant risk to key receptors in the development proposal, and that no further investigations are required in this regard.

12. East Ayrshire Council Education & Social Services noted the development is in the catchment area for Shortlees Primary School and Early Childhood Centre and Grange Academy. From an educational perspective, there are no objections to this development.

13. East Ayrshire Council Outdoor Services have no objection to the proposed development. However, it is important the developer takes recognisance of the landscape features within and surrounding the site and designs the layout incorporating the mature hedges and trees.

Noted, as this application is in principle only, such matters would be able to be covered by condition, should Members decide to grant consent.

14. Ayrshire Roads Alliance (Transport Assessments) noted that for new residential developments: a 6 metre carriageway will be required for bus routes, with 2 x 2.0 metre wide footways and a 2.0 metre wide bio swale (for road surface water treatment). Where the swale is not required, the footway can be pulled back in adjacent to the carriageway. All other internal housing roads will have a 5.5 metre wide carriageway, with 2 x 2.0 metre wide footways and a 2.0 metre wide bio swale. Again where the swale is not required, the footway can be pulled back in adjacent to the carriageway. Generally a cross-fall carriageway is provided with the bio swale to one side of the road, constructed in front of one of the 2.0 metre wide footways. Where a camber is to be used the swale may be required on both sides of the carriageway; this is dependent on drainage calculations and finished road levels. Also, residents and visitor parking must be provided in line with the Roads Development Guide 1996.

15. East Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) (Traffic and Transport) provided advice on detailed issues on a number of matters: - a) The main access to the development would be via a new four-arm traditional roundabout on Treeswoodhead Road. Additional bus stop facilities would be necessary on Treeswoodhead Road in the vicinity of the proposed roundabout to accommodate trips both to and from the development. b) Currently, the section of Treeswoodhead Road fronting the proposed development is covered by national speed limit. The existing 30 mph to the north of this location on Treeswoodhead Road will require to be extended to incorporate the proposed access roundabout and the extent of the development frontage on Treeswoodhead Road. This will be entirely at the client’s expense. c) A standard 2 metre footway will be required along the full extent of the Treeswoodhead Road frontage and on both sides where practicable. this will also require to be lit. d) The eastern section of the site will require footpath connections directly to Grampian Road which will require to be agreed with ARA. e) The western section of the site will require footpath connections onto Bridgehousehill Road. These will also require to be agreed with ARA. f) Currently there are in excess of 2,500 residential properties within the Shortlees/Bellfield area of Kilmarnock. This area is served in the main by 3 or 4 access roads, none of which in isolation could be considered ideal as a traffic distributer. However, in addition to these traffic distributors serving this area, there are approximately another 5 or 6 routes of varying quality and traffic capacity capability that could provide reasonable secondary access to the proposed Bridgehousehill residential development in Shortlees. g) In view of the above, the dispersal of the development traffic over all possible routes, neither considered reasonable in isolation would, however, offer an acceptable situation in practice. This site is within the LDP and this multi access scenario to access the Shortlees /Bellfield area has been considered acceptable in the past. h) The new footway to be provided along the Treeswoodhead Road frontage of the residential site along with the direct footway access that will be provided to Grampian Road and Bridgehousehill Road should ensure the site is sustainable and accessible for all pedestrians. i) There are no designated cycle routes in the immediate vicinity, the nearest being located to the north on Queen’s Drive or the core path network to the west. The assumption that cyclists could use the surrounding road network would be considered acceptable. Additionally the footway links to be provided to Grampian Road and Bridgehousehill Road will give the cyclist improved access to the wider network. j) The majority of the site is currently within a 400m walking distance of bus stops for the main services. Notwithstanding this, new stops to the north of the proposed access roundabout will be provided for pedestrians entering and leaving the proposed development. Kilmarnock Railway Station is not within walking distance to the proposed site, however the current bus service operating on Treeswoodhead Road provides access to the railway station. This would therefore be considered acceptable.

Should Members decide to grant the application, this advice can help inform any subsequent planning application for approval of matters specified in condition.

16. East Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Roads Alliance (ARA) (Traffic and Transport)

Bellfield Interchange

(i) Traffic surveys were carried out on Thursday 3rd November 2015, and growth factored in accordingly thereafter. Junction analysis was also undertaken. The analysis indicates that all existing junctions exceeding the 5% threshold value would continue to operate within or in the case of Hurlford Road/Queens Drive, about maximum desirable capacity levels for the anticipated year of opening of 2020 with the proposed 200 unit residential development of Bridgehousehill Road, Shortlees fully operational. The analysis also indicates that the proposed access roundabout to the development would operate satisfactorily in the proposed year of opening with the development fully operational.

(ii) Notwithstanding the above, during the recent examination of the Council’s LDP, Transport Scotland objected to the LDP, citing that any additional vehicle trips on Bellfield interchange may, in actual fact, be problematic. A hearing was called by the Reporter however although it was accepted that the current Bellfield Interchange can cope in capacity terms, a possible road safety concern was identified on the A77 southbound off slip. East Ayrshire Council agreed to address this concern within the LDP text and give a commitment to providing a queue loop and active safety signage in the short term, as an initial first step to allow further development to be progressed in the vicinity of the Bellfield Interchange, while further studies are carried out to (A) address these existing road safety concerns in the midterm and (B) to improve capacity and allow for future economic growth long term.

(iii) In view of the above, and to allow the Bridgehousehill Development to proceed, the developer would require to provide at their expense, a queue loop management system for the southbound off ramp with active signage, which would advise of stationary queues that may be likely to affect the main A77 carriageway when they reached a certain predetermined point on the slip road.

(iv) This is likely to be in the region of £25,000 and should be provided as part of Section 75 Agreement. If the implementation of this system proves to be cheaper than original estimates, then all excess funds provided for this implementation will be returned to the applicant.

Noted, as this application is in principle only, such matters would be able to be covered by advisory note to ensure any subsequent detailed application is informed accordingly, should Members decide to grant consent. Also, should Members decide to grant consent the issue of payment in respect of the queue loop management system, can be part of the Legal Agreement attached to any permission.

17. East Ayrshire Council Ayrshire Roads Alliance (Flooding) advised the provided drainage statement is sufficient for the current state of the application, however the full Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) flood route etc. will be required as part of a full application. The DIA (narrative) will be required to establish how the surface waters during the 1:200 year + 20%CC rainfall event; including the detailed flood route thought the site to the attenuation/SUDS such that there are no properties (on site or off) put at risk of flooding along its route. Including any flows currently discharging onto the site, from existing areas.

Noted, this matter can be included as a condition on any planning consent, with detail added as an advisory note to ensure any subsequent application is informed accordingly, should Members decide to grant the application.

18. The Coal Authority (CA) initially objected to the application; however a Coal Mining Risk Assessment was later submitted. The CA recommends that the Planning Authority impose a Planning Condition, should planning permission be granted, requiring the site investigation works noted in the Coal Mining Risk Assessment, prior to commencement of development - and therefore note that they withdraw their objection on the basis.

Given the above advice, a condition should therefore be included that requires (prior to the commencement of development):  The submission of a scheme of intrusive site investigations for approval;  The undertaking of that scheme of intrusive site investigations;  The submission of a report of findings arising from the intrusive site investigations;  The submission of a scheme of remedial works for approval; and  Implementation of those remedial works.

Members are advised that any grant of consent must include these condition(s); otherwise the application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers under Circular 3: 2009 - ‘Notification of Planning Applications’.

19. Scottish Water did not respond to the consultation at the time of writing this report.

20. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) did not respond to the consultation.

21. SEPA - Flooding Section have no objection to this planning application, and included advice for the applicant in terms of managing flood risk; foul drainage; and surface water drainage, which will help inform any subsequent application.

22. Transport Scotland advised that:-

(i) Details of the lighting within the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland, as the Trunk Roads Authority.

(ii) Prior to commencement of development, details of the frontage landscaping treatment along the trunk road boundary shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland TRBO.

(iii) Prior to the occupation of any of the consented development, a barrier/ boundary feature of a type approved by the planning authority in consultation with Transport Scotland (TS-TRBO) shall be provided and maintained along the proposed boundary of the site with the A77 trunk road.

(iv)There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system.

Noted these matters can be included in any subsequent application, should Members decide to grant consent, and added as advisory notes on any potential grant of consent.

23. West Of Scotland Archaeology Service noted the proposed development falls within an area of some archaeological sensitivity based on the presence of sites and finds of post-medieval, medieval and prehistoric date in the surrounding landscape. The application involves a large greenfield area which has not previously been developed. In the interests of the sustainable development of such sites, it is important that all environmental issues are considered at an early stage, including any implications for archaeological remains which may be present.

Noted, a negative suspensive condition for a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation can be attached, should Members decide to grant consent.

24. Scottish Natural Heritage noted they do not intend to offer formal comment on this proposal as it does not meet their criteria for consultation.

25. NHS Ayrshire And Arran wish to raise concerns over the scale of this development, on behalf of the Health Board and the East Ayrshire Health & Social Care Partnership, and the effect a development of this size would have on Primary Care services within the Kilmarnock area. Additionally, there are further applications for Maxholm Road, Riccarton on the other side of Bellfield and Shortlees which would further exacerbate the pressure on healthcare. Over the past four years there have been increases in the NHS GP lists within the town.

26. To add houses over 23ha would have a serious impact on NHS services. While NHS Ayrshire And Arran have no wish to object to the development in principle, NHS Ayrshire & Arran would seek a contribution from the developer of this site to provide additional healthcare facilities to support the additional needs a development of this scale would bring.

The comments above are noted, however, Members are advised the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan has no provision for such contributions to be levied, and any such contribution would be a private matter between the applicant and the NHS.

27. Kilmarnock And District Access Panel did not respond to the consultation at the time of writing this report.

28. Bellfield Community Council did not respond to the consultation at the time of writing this report.

REPRESENTATIONS

29. 17 letters of objection have been received following neighbour notification and public advertisement of these proposals, plus a petition of 101 names. One letter of support was received. The points are summarised below:

30. Principle of the Development

I would like to object to the planning of houses on which I thought was a green belt area.

Overall, many of the objectors noted that they felt aggrieved at the loss of the fields between their houses at the A77, which is noted and understood, especially these houses having enjoyed an open aspect to the south for some 50+ years in some cases. Nonetheless, the application site has never been designated as a green belt. The site was allocated in the East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 for housing and until 2016, no application had been submitted, therefore the Council advised that it would advocate its removal from the new LDP as the site was not effective in plan terms. Hope Homes Scotland as landowner, objected to the removal of the site and submitted representation promoting development of the site, the site being well-located in terms of the settlement boundary, services and public transport linkages, would lead to regeneration and address issues such as tenure balance and social inclusion. At the examination into the LDP in late 2016, the Council argued that the site was marketed recently with no success and was not considered to be particularly marketable, this being one of the tests for effective housing land. Also, the Council advised that the Bellfield/Shortlees area is underprovided in respect of access points to Ayr Road and Hurlford Road, and on-street parking also restricts the suitability of access to the site – and, additionally, the Council argued that the site would be difficult to drain. Nonetheless, the Reporter concluded that the issues of access to and from the local highway network, ground stability, drainage and noise assessment remain to be resolved, but did not seem insurmountable and the Council’s reasons for excluding the site from the Proposed Plan of lack of progress and marketability did not appear to be sound. Ultimately, the Reporter found that the site is capable of becoming effective within the LDP period and should be included as a housing opportunity within the Plan with an indicative capacity of 200 houses.

31. Visual Impact, Density, Privacy and Overlooking

The plans do not show what style of development will go ahead, i.e. what might or should encourage vibrancy, community spirit, play areas etc. Kilmarnock is lacking in opportunities for the young and old and if this land has to be developed, it would much rather be for something which would benefit the town.

32. I do not want a path running to the front of my house.

There are no plans at the moment under this application for paths, open space, houses or any detailed elements, given that th applicant seeks planning permission in principle. Should Members grant consent for this application, a more detailed site masterplan and design and access masterplan should be prepared that creates a distinct place in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Designing Streets policy and the green infrastructure/open space standards as set out in Schedule 8 of the LDP.

33. I would have to place an objection to this development due to the fact that it is proposed to take up all of the green space area around the properties. Bellfield does not have many green spaces as it is.

34. The development will have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of noise, disturbance, overlooking and loss of privacy. The density of the proposal will be unacceptably high.

As noted above, there are no plans at the moment under this application for any detailed elements, including parkland or open space that may be provided. It cannot be assumed that all the land will be developed by housing, as any detailed plan will have to conform to the standards for recreational and amenity open space for any residential development.

Whilst the density of the site can only be assessed with any subsequent application, this being an application in principle, for comparison, as similar sized site within the adjacent Shortlees and Bellfield estates were analysed for density, which gave a density of 22.5 units to the hectare as built, including greenspaces. Whilst the application site, at 22 hectares, does not propose any indication of the unit numbers, the LDP allocation of 200 units over the entire site would appear to be a reasonable figure, noting that some of the properties in the local area are 4-in a block.

35. Loss of View

I bought my home partly because of the view across the fields to the countryside and this would be lost if the development went ahead. I do appreciate the need for progress; however I would prefer not to lose the view that I currently have.

Whilst a number of objectors have raised this issue, it is noted that there is no right to a view as such under the Scottish planning system, and this concerns therefore is not a material planning consideration.

36. Need for the development

There are numerous new build developments already in Kilmarnock with developers struggling to sell; the market for this type of housing is already saturated in our town. There is no need for this housing.

‘Need’ for a development is not grounds for a planning objection and this concerns therefore is not a material planning consideration.

37. Ecology

These fields have birds, butterflies and insects and serves the barn owls at night. We also have hedgehogs; herons, buzzards and many birds use the area.

The application is supported by an Ecological Appraisal including a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, which notes the survey area to be dominated by improved grassland, which was considered to be of low nature conservation value. Defunct or sparse hedges separate the fields and are dominated by hawthorn, with a more diverse and species rich understorey and ground cover. No evidence of specially protected mammals or nesting birds was found during the survey and the site was considered to provide limited opportunities for these species.

38. Traffic and Transport

I worry about the road being damaged with excessive construction traffic using it over a lengthy period of time to construct this development.

There would undoubtedly be some disruption to neighbouring properties if the development was approved overall, however, this would not be until consent was granted for any detailed plans, should Members approve this application. There would be some localised impacts on the surrounding road network; however this would be of a temporary nature. Notwithstanding this, as the current application is in principle only, there would be no direct disruption as a direct consequence of this proposal being approved at this stage. Any damage to roads would be a matter for the ARA to take forward.

39. The streets within Bellfield are already very busy and congested without further adding to it.

The ARA have been consulted and have no objections to the application, based on the supporting Transport Assessment and analysis submitted. A number of issues however would still require to be added to any potential consent, to ensure there is no detriment to the surrounding roads network.

40. If the development is to go ahead, the surrounding road and footway network needs to be looked at - it is pot holed and there are uneven surfaces. Also there are many parked cars along Grampian Road as there is insufficient space for all to be ‘housed’ off the road. This also occurs in Lammermuir Road, Treeswoodhead Road, and Wyvis Gardens. Buses in particular have difficulties negotiating these areas.

The existing traffic management in the surrounding area is not a consideration for this application; however, any additional demands the site will place on the surrounding network are addressed in the response from ARA, and would be covered by the imposition of suitable planning conditions.

41. Proximity to a very busy and noisy trunk road is an important issue.

The application has, in support, a Noise Impact Assessment, which also has a section on road traffic noise. Road traffic noise is a sensation that many people can attune to over time, however, notwithstanding this, noise itself is experienced in subjective terms, and some people are more affected by it than others. The Council’s Environmental Health Services noted no objections on the basis that any approval for this development should be conditional upon meeting an internal noise level of 30 dB LAeq(16hr) in bedrooms at night. Where this condition cannot be met with partially opened windows, alternative forms of ventilation should be provided. It is suggested that this should be something better than just trickle vents in windows and written approval of ventilation scheme for such properties should submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

42. Noise

The road noise from the M77 would surely turn off prospective buyers leaving some houses closer to the road unsold.

This comment is conjecture. If for example, landscaping is adequately controlled at any subsequent detailed application stage, in the form of an acoustic barrier, there should be no houses that experience unacceptable Noise levels from road traffic (or other) noise. This, however, would not be fully explored until such times as any subsequent application for detailed is submitted. Environmental Heath has also been consulted on this application and their comments are already noted in this report.

43. Services

We were told no one could build on this field as the drains (sewerage) were at capacity.

Whilst Scottish Water have not responded to their consultation, it is noted that the adequacy of the site for sewerage would be an issue explored, and ultimately controlled, through any subsequent detailed planning application via conditions attached to any planning permission in principle.

44. The fields to the south of the existing houses being low lying, flood regularly.

The Council’s Flood Officer has noted that a full Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) flood route etc. will be required as part of any detailed application, and has no objections.

45. Being lower-lying ground, in the mornings this area is often shrouded in mist, this would not be conducive to health or to traffic safety.

Building materials have very different physical properties to soils and plants. Concrete and bitumen warm up rapidly in the day time (in contrast to farmland, for example), with more heat absorbed and conducted through the material. This heat is then slowly released during the night, adding warmth to the urban atmosphere. In contrast, farmland retains higher levels of moisture and takes longer to heat up, which results in mist forming. By virtue of actually building on the land, due to the absorption of heat from the buildings and road surfaces, the surrounding land/air will hold less moisture as the built area will be warmer. Any mist currently experienced over the land should dissipate as the area is urbanised.

46. Devaluation of existing properties

Building houses in front of ours would de-value our properties.

This is not a material ground for a planning objection and this concerns therefore is not a material planning consideration.

47. Miscellaneous

This development will mean a lot of money to the developer but that is not everything, the well-being and happiness of the existing residents of this area should be taken account of.

The profitability (or not) of a scheme is not a material ground for a planning objection, however any approved application at this stage, would still be subject to conditions to ensure that any subsequent detailed application is designed to take account of privacy levels, overlooking etc., as well as links between areas and connectivity, and adhere to good design principles overall.

48. The additional houses will put more strain on the NHS in this area.

NHS Ayrshire and Arran have been consulted and do have concerns which are noted. However, this site has now been allocated for housing in the LDP, and it would be more productive for the major service providers to engage with the local plan process prior to the draft plan being produced to ensure that sites are planned strategically where these will not impact on the infrastructure services, notwithstanding in this case, the site was no originally included in the LDP.

49. The additional houses will put more strain on the education services in this area.

The Council’s Education Services have been consulted and do not offer any objection to the proposals.

50. Mine workings are in this area.

The Coal Authority have noted that, should a condition be imposed that covers a scheme of intrusive site investigations for approval and implementation of those remedial works etc, they will not object to the proposal.

51. A 3-D plan of the proposal would have been most helpful. This should have been stipulated by the Council as necessary.

The application is in principle only, and therefore no such plans are required or appropriate at this stage. Notwithstanding this, there is no legal requirement for 3-D plans, however helpful, to be supplied with any planning application.

52. There is a section of the application site which is within my ownership.

The ownership of land is not a planning matter; however it does appear that the site boundary is outwith the objector’s land ownership.

53. I would like to know exactly what input we actually have in the final decision for this development.

As this application is in principle, it is only the principle of residential development that is being assessed; however, as the site has been allocated for housing, the principle already accords with the LDP. If approved, any subsequent application for detailed consent will still be subject to neighbour notification, advertisement, etc. and will be open to public comment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT PLAN

54. Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan comprises of four separate plans. These are the Opencast Coal Subject Plan 2003, the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan 2007, the East Ayrshire Local Plan 2010 and the East Ayrshire Local Development Plan (EALDP) which was adopted by the Council on 3 April 2017. The topics contained in the Structure and Local Plans are superseded by the EALDP with the exception of policies relating to minerals. On this basis, the policies relevant to general development are contained solely within the EALDP and it is these policies which are considered in detail below.

55. Overarching Policy OP1:

All development proposals will require to meet the following criteria in so far as they are relevant, or otherwise demonstrate how their contribution to sustainable development in the context of the subsequent relevant policies in the LDP and Scottish Planning Policy would outweigh any lack of consistency with the relevant criteria:

(i) Comply with the provisions and principles of the LDP vision and spatial strategy, all relevant LDP policies and associated supplementary guidance and non-statutory guidance;

This point cannot be assessed fully, with this application being in principle only. Should Members grant consent, any subsequent application would require to be assessed against this policy.

(ii) Be fully compatible with surrounding established uses and have no unacceptable impacts on the environmental quality of the area;

As above, whilst there are no detailed plans to assess, in principle this proposed is for a residential use, which should not impact significantly on the adjacent uses, these also being residential in nature.

(iii) Ensure that the size, scale, layout, and design enhances the character and amenity of the area and creates a clear sense of place;

As noted above, there are no detailed plans to assess this element, which would be assessed in any subsequent application.

(iv) Where possible, reuse vacant previously developed land in preference to greenfield land;

The site is greenfield in nature; however, it is allocated for housing and there is no such large scale brownfield land in the vicinity.

(v) Be of the highest quality design by meeting with the provisions of SPP, the Scottish Government’s policy statement Designing Streets, the Council’s Design Guidance and any masterplan/design brief prepared for the site;

As noted above, there are no detailed plans to assess this element, which would be assessed in any subsequent application.

(vi) Prepare Masterplans/Design Statements in line with Planning Advice Notes 83 and 68 respectively where requested by the Council and/or where this is set out as a requirement in Volume 2 of the LDP;

A Masterplan has been submitted with the application, noting key considerations of topography and landscape; a community that is connected to the existing built environment; and noise and design considerations. Should Members approve this application, a more detailed site masterplan which creates a distinct place, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Designing Streets policy statement and the green infrastructure/open space standards as set out in Schedule 8 of the East Ayrshire LDP.

(vii) Be compatible with, and where possible implement, projects shown on the LDP placemaking maps;

As the site was not anticipated as being within the LDP, it does not fall within the LDP placemaking maps;

(viii) Ensure that there is no unacceptable loss of safeguarded areas of open space/green infrastructure and prime quality agricultural land;

The area is locally important good quality agricultural land and there is no loss of safeguarded areas of open space/green infrastructure.

(ix) Protect and enhance natural and built heritage designations and link to and integrate with green infrastructure where possible;

As noted above, there are no detailed plans to assess this element, which would be assessed in any subsequent application. For a development of 200 housing units, when any detailed application is being assessed, this would equate to a total open space provision of requirement of 11, 600 sq. m, of which 7,600 sq. m must be for recreational open space & playing fields and 4,000 sq. m of amenity and natural open space, notwithstanding the private open space standards would also require to be met for individual house units.

(x) Ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on the landscape character or tourism offer of the area;

As noted above, this would also be assessed in any subsequent application, noting that there is sufficient land available to be able to site the built elements no ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on the landscape character.

(xi) Meet with the requirements of all relevant service providers and the Ayrshire Roads Alliance; and

Subject to appropriate planning conditions, there are no outstanding issues in terms of the relevant service providers and the ARA, noting that one of the consultees, NHS Ayrshire And Arran did not wish to object but did wish to raise concerns over the scale of this development, on behalf of the Health Board and the East Ayrshire Health & Social Care Partnership. As noted earlier in the report, whilst NHS Ayrshire & Arran wished to seek a contribution from the developer of this site to provide additional healthcare facilities to support the additional needs a development of this scale would bring, Members are advised the LDP has no provision for such contributions to be levied.

Also, this site has latterly been allocated for housing in the LDP (notwithstanding it was not anticipated this site would be included in the LDP), therefore it is respectfully noted that engaging early with every LDP process to ensure that sites are planned strategically where these will not impact on the infrastructure services, should be a priority for the major service providers.

(xii) Be accessible to all.

The application is also accompanied by a Design and Access Statement noting the strategic design has included accessibility issues, which will be assessed again at any detailed stage, should Members decide to grant consent.

56. Overarching Policy OP2 – Implementation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Environmental Report states that in bringing forward their proposals, developers will require to implement the relevant enhancement and mitigation measures contained within the Environmental Report relating to the appropriate site assessments for residential, business and industrial, retail and other LDP site allocations. Proposals failing to do this will not be supported by the Council.

In terms of Policy OP2 the proposed development has been assessed against the Environmental Report of the Proposed Local Development Plan for site 321H. In terms of the mitigation measures contained with the Environmental Report which Policy OP2 requires the applicant to address, it is considered that the applicant has incorporated all of these mitigation measures as far as can be reasonably expected. These include mitigation for noise from the adjacent A77 and consideration of the landscape impacts for this gateway development and measures to ensure screening from the A77. The proposal is consistent with Policy OP2 at this stage.

57. Policy RES1: New Housing Development

(i) Housing Development Opportunity Sites identified for housing purposes on the LDP maps at the stated indicative capacities. All new residential developments must contribute positively to the principles of good placemaking as set out in overarching policy OP1, the placemaking sections of the LDP and the Councils Design Guidance. Residential developments will require to meet with Public and Private Open Space Standards set out in schedule 8 of the LDP.

The application site lies within the allocated site of 321H. This site was not anticipated to be carried forward into the LDP, as noted previously in this report, as the Council advocated and planned for it to be removed. Nonetheless, it was successfully argued at the Examination into the LDP, that the site should be included, which the Reporters accepted.

58. Policy RES 3: Affordable Housing

The Council will require the provision of affordable housing:-

(i) on those sites specifically identified and reserved for such purposes on the LDP maps;

The site an identified site for housing but not for affordable housing as such.

(ii) on all sites of 30 or more houses proposed in the Kilmarnock & Loudoun sub housing market area. Within such developments, 25% of houses will require to be affordable in nature;

This would equate to 50 affordable units that would require to be reflected in any subsequent application should Members grant consent. An agreement to provide this can be included in any legal agreement that is attached to a potential; consent should Members decide to grant consent.

59. Policy RES 11: Residential Amenity

The Council will, at all times, seek to protect, preserve and enhance the residential character and amenity of existing residential areas. In this regard, there will be a general presumption against:

(i) 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 proposed use is residential in nature and should not give rise to any significant issues in terms of the adjacent residential amenity.

(ii) the development for other uses, of locally important areas of recreational or amenity open space which contribute significantly to the character and appearance of the residential area concerned, or which offer opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation;

There are no such locally important areas of recreational or amenity open space within the site, notwithstanding there is benefit from the undeveloped site to the existing houses in terms of an open aspect, buffer to the A77 and any intrinsic wildlife using the site.

(iii) the removal of play equipment from areas of recreational open space;

N/A

(iv) the closure or disruption of existing footpaths which provide important links between housing areas and areas of public open space, local shops and other community facilities, transportation nodes etc.;

N/A

With regard to the establishment of new residential areas, new housing developments will not be permitted in locations where existing, established adjacent uses are likely to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of future residents.

As noted above, the proposed use is residential in nature and should not give rise to any significant issues in terms of the adjacent residential amenity.

60. Policy T1: Transportation requirements for new developments

The Council will require developers to ensure that their proposals meet with all the requisite standard of the ARA and align with the regional and Local Transport Strategies. Developments which do not meet these standards will not be considered acceptable and will not receive Council Support.

ARA have confirmed that the internal road layout generally complies with their guidelines and standards at this stage, subject to the imposition of certain planning conditions.

61. Policy INF 4: Green Infrastructure

The Council will require development to take a design led approach to delivering green infrastructure. Opportunities for green infrastructure delivery should be incorporated as an integral part of the design of developments to enhance and link to existing open spaces/green infrastructure and create new green infrastructure assets as appropriate. The Council will require new development to meet with the public and private open space standards set out in Schedule 8 and the provisions of the Council’s Design Guidance. The provision of open space/green infrastructure should be a core component of any Masterplan.

The Council has produced Supplementary Guidance to the LDP. It sets out key design principles that the Council expects developers to incorporate into their developments including green infrastructure/open space requirements. Should Members decide to grant consent, any subsequent application will require to be assessed against this.

62. Policy INF 5: Developer Contributions

Where a development of 4 or more houses, retail or commercial leisure development either on its own, or in association with existing developments, will place additional demands on facilities, infrastructure or services that would necessitate new facilities or exacerbate deficiencies in existing provision, the Council will require the developer to meet or contribute to the cost of providing or improving such infrastructure, facilities or services. This could include off-site environmental or other enhancements where issues cannot be addressed within the development site. Contributions will relate to the development concerned, including in nature, scale and kind. Where these cannot be secured by planning conditions or other appropriate means, the council will expect developers to complete a Section 75 obligation or other legal agreement. Contributions sought under this policy will be waived or reduced only in exceptional circumstances – for example, where a developer demonstrates that an enabling development or a development would have exceptional development costs, overriding economic, social or other benefits, and where there is no adverse impact on essential services or infrastructure.

The applicant would require to enter into a legal agreement to ensure developer contributions are secured against any subsequent application, dependant on the number of house units, at a rate of £258 per unit. On 23/02/17, Council agreed the current rate of developer contribution would continue whilst the new Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is under consideration by the Scottish Government.

63. ENV6: Nature Conservation

The importance of nature conservation and biodiversity will be fully recognised in the assessment of development proposals. This will be achieved by ensuring that:

(i) Any development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site which is not directly connected with or necessary to its conservation management must be subject to a “Habitats Regulations Appraisal”. Such development will only be approved if the appraisal shows that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the site;

N/A

(ii) Any development affecting a SSSI will only be permitted where it will not adversely affect the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been designated or where any significant adverse effects on the qualities for which it is designated are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance.

N/A

(iii) Any development that may adversely impact on areas of local importance for nature conservation, including provisional wildlife sites, local geodiversity sites and local nature reserves, will be expected to demonstrate how any impact can be avoided or mitigated.

N/A

(iv) If there is evidence that protected species may be affected by a development, steps must be taken to establish their presence. The planning and design of any development which has the potential to impact on a protected species will require to take into account the level of protection afforded by legislation and any impacts must be fully considered prior to the submission of any planning application.

The applicant has submitted an acceptable Phase 1 Ecological Survey.

(v) Any new development must protect, and where appropriate incorporate and/or extend, existing habitat networks, helping to further develop the Central Scotland Green Network in Ayrshire.

As noted above, this would also be assessed in any subsequent application, if Members chose to grant planning permission in principle.

64. ENV12: Water, air and light and noise pollution (in particular noise)

All new development must take full account of any Noise Action Plan and Noise Management Areas that are in operation in the area and ensure that significant adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties and uses are avoided. A noise impact assessment may be required in this regard and noise mitigation measures may be required through planning conditions and/or Section 75 Obligations.

A Noise Impact Assessment, including data on road traffic noise, has been submitted and assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health Service, who, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, do not indicate any objections to the proposal.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

65. The principal material considerations are the representations, consultation responses, Scottish Planning Policy, applicant’s supporting information and the planning history of the site. The Council’s Development Plan is in part more than 5 years old due to the continued status of the Coal Subject Plan, Structure and Local Plans in respect of coal and minerals. Part 33 of SPP advises that where a development plan is more than 5 years old the presumption is a significant material consideration and decision makers should also take into account any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against wider SPP policies. However, the Local Development Plan is less than five years old and it contains policies relevant to general development that are not out of date. The presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development is therefore considered to be a material consideration rather than a significant material consideration..

66. Planning History

 15/0012/PREAPP Erection of residential development with associated access road, open space, landscaping and other required infrastructure. Agreed, 30/04/15.

 16/0008/EIASCR Screening request for the erection of residential development with associated access roads, open space, landscaping and other required infrastructure. Not EIA, 13/05/16.

 16/0011/PREAPP Residential development, open space, landscaping, roads, parking and drainage. Agreed, 30/06/16.

67. Consultation Responses

The consultation responses have not raised any issues which would indicate that the application should be refused, subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any potential consent.

68. Applicant’s Supporting Information

The supporting information submitted by the applicant has been outlined in Section 2 of this report and is a material consideration in the determination of this application. There is an accompanying range of material also submitted in support of the application, such as a Phase 1 Geotechnical Report; Transport Assessment; Noise Impact assessment inc. road traffic noise information; Drainage Statement; Design and Access Masterplan; Ecological Appraisal; and Landscape and Visual Appraisal. These documents all informed the application, and the level of supporting information illustrates the commitment to developing a qualitative development on site, and assists greatly in assessing the proposal at 'in principle' stage.

69. Representations

One letter of support was received. There is, however a larger body of objection to the application, raising issues material to the application, of suitability of the site in terms of noise, traffic generation and conformity with the Local Plan. Other issues raised but less material to this application, and which would be dealt with under a detailed planning application, are: visual impacts; privacy; detailed noise issues and detailed drainage matters. On the whole, of those objections raised which are material to this application, many issues which whilst pertinent, can be covered by planning conditions; however Members should note, the question of the principle of residential use on this site is superseded by the inclusion of the site into the LDP. On balance, therefore, the material issues raised under representations are not sufficient to suggest refusal of the application.

70. Designing Streets/Designing Places

These Scottish Government policies are based on the premise that good street design and good places should derive from an intelligent response to location, rather than the rigid application of standards. Previously, street layouts were based on hierarchy of vehicular movement, but ‘Designing Streets’ takes into account site specific requirements and through this, a higher sense of ‘place’ can be fostered, resulting in streets based less on how vehicles move through them, and more of a community function, especially in residential areas. Designing Places looks at how design can help with the social, economic and environmental goals of Scotland, focussing on key qualities such as identity; safe and pleasant spaces; and ease of movement. The Council has adopted Designing Streets as its main residential design guide until such time as new guidance is in place, however, it is noted that not all of the guidance and design in these documents are able to be maintained by the Council if roads and footways etc. are to be adopted. . One of the principles of Designing Streets, is that the Roads Construction Consent (RCC) be considered in parallel with planning applications. This has been supplemented by the Chief Planner’s letter of January 2016, on ‘Aligning Planning and RCCs, which also advocates that both planning and RCC processes should be considered in tandem.

71. Scottish Planning Policy

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) notes that local plan policies should cover a range of issues, including those for the provision of new housing, within a spatial strategy which reflects the development pressures, environmental assets, and economic needs of the area, reflecting the overarching aim of supporting diversification and growth of the rural economy (para 79). It is considered in this case that the development accords with the broad provisions of SPP, being supported in principle by the LDP policies. In particular, SPP advocates:

 giving due weight to net economic benefit;  supporting good design and the six qualities of successful places;  making efficient use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities;  supporting delivery of accessible housing, business, retailing and leisure development;  supporting delivery of infrastructure, for example transport, education, energy, digital and water;  supporting climate change mitigation and adaptation including taking account of flood risk;  improving health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation;  having regard to the principles for sustainable land use set out in the Land Use Strategy;  protecting, enhancing and promoting access to cultural heritage, including the historic environment;  protecting, enhancing and promoting access to natural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment;  reducing waste, facilitating its management and promoting resource recovery; and  avoiding over-development, protecting the amenity of new and existing development and considering the implications of development for water, air and soil quality.

72. It is considered the proposal at this stage broadly accords with the provisions of SPP.

FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

73. There are legal implications for the Council in the determination of this application. The developer would be required to enter into a legal agreement with the Council to ensure that developer contributions amounting to £258 per unit, are paid in terms of the policy INF5 for any subsequent application, albeit legally linked to the planning permission in principle. Also, the developer would require to provide at their expense, a contribution to the queue loop management system for the southbound off ramp with active signage, likely to be in the region of £25,000 and which should also be provided as part of legal agreement. If the implementation of this system proves to be cheaper than original estimates, then all excess funds provided for this implementation will be returned to the applicant. Also, should for some reason, the development not proceed, all developer contribution monies would be refunded to the developer. Lastly, the issue of securing affordable units on site should also be covered by legal agreement.

74. If Members decide to grant consent, there is however no requirement to refer this application to the Scottish Government under Circular 3:2009 - ‘Notification of Planning Applications’, on the basis that the matters raised by the Coal Authority are covered by suitable conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

75. As indicated in section 5 of the report, the application is considered to be in accordance with the development plan at principle stage. Therefore, given the terms of Section 25 and Section 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the application should be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As is indicated at Section 6 of the report, there are material considerations relevant to this application. The consultation responses do not indicate any areas of concern, subject to planning conditions being imposed, however, there are a number of objections against the application. Overall, it is considered, on balance, that the objections do not carry sufficient weight to suggest refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION

76. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed on the attached sheet, subject to the agreement of a legal agreement under section 75 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended.

CONTRARY DECISION NOTE

Should the Committee agree that the application be refused on principle contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Economic Development the application will require to be referred to the Council because that would represent a significant departure from the local development plan.

REASON FOR THE DECISION

The application accords with the development plan and the material considerations do not carry sufficient weight to suggest refusal of the application.

11 April 2017

FV/MK

Michael Keane Head of Planning and Economic Development

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

1. Application Form and Plans. 2. Statutory Notices and Certificates. 3. Consultation responses. 4. Representations received. 5. Local Development Plan 2017. 6. Supporting statement and associated reports:-  Phase 1 Geotechnical Report;  Transport Assessment;  Noise Impact assessment inc. road traffic noise information;  Drainage Statement;  Design and access Masterplan;  Ecological Appraisal; and  Landscape and Visual Appraisal. 7. Designing Streets/Designing Places. 8. Scottish Planning Policy 2014

Anyone wishing to inspect the above background papers should contact Marion Fergusson, Senior Planner on 01563 576769.

Implementation Officer: David McDowall, Operations Manager: Building Standards and Development Management TP24 East Ayrshire Council

TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997

Application No: 16/0279/PPP

Location Proposed Housing Development Bridgehousehill Road Shortlees Kilmarnock

Nature of Proposal: Planning permission in principle for the erection of residential development with associated access roads, open space, landscaping and other required infrastructure

Name and Address of Applicant: Hope Homes (Scotland) Ltd Watson Terrace Drongan Ayrshire Scotland KA6 7AB

Name and Address of Agent McInally Associates Ltd 16 Robertson Street Glasgow Scotland G2 8DS

Officer’s Ref: Marion Fergusson 01563 576769

The above Planning Permission in Principle application should be Approved with Conditions.

Before any development commences on the site, the further approval of the Planning Authority shall be obtained in respect of the undermentioned matters hereby reserved:

(a) The layout of the site; (b) The size, height, design and external appearance of the proposed dwellinghouse(s); (c) The means of drainage and sewerage disposal, including provision for flood and surface water; (d) Details of the access arrangements; (e) The provision for open space; (f) The provision for car parking; (g) The boundary walls/fences to be erected; (h) The landscaping of the site; (i) Existing and proposed site levels/floor levels.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of s.59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006.

2 The details submitted under Condition 1(a) and 1 (e) above shall comply in all respects with the Council's approved policy on the provision of public and private open space as contained in the Local Development Plan 2017 and/or any supplementary planning guidance.

Reason: To ensure that the sufficient private open space is provided within the development, in the interests of visual amenity and residential amenity.

3 The details to be submitted under Condition 1(a); (e) and (h) above shall comply in all respects with BS 5837 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction.

Reason: To ensure that the protected trees within the site, are maintained and protected in the interests of both visual amenity and residential amenity.

4 The details submitted under Condition 1(c) above shall include sustainable urban drainage proposals consistent with the designs acceptable to Ayrshire Roads Alliance, Scottish Water and SEPA.

Reason: In order to ensure a standard of drainage commensurate with the scale of development proposed.

5 The details submitted under Condition 1(f) above shall comply in all respects with the Council's approved parking standards per the Roads Development Guide 1996.

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with the approved parking requirement.

6 The details submitted under Condition 1(a) above shall demonstrate a final design layout of the residential properties such that noise levels in all garden areas should be demonstrably below 55 dB LAeq(16hr)

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011, Planning and Noise the Technical Advice Note (TAN 2011), Assessment of Noise and the revision of BS8233:2014.

7 The details submitted under Condition 1(a) above shall demonstrate internal noise levels of 30 dB LAeq (16hr) or below as achievable in bedrooms at night.

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011, Planning and Noise the Technical Advice Note (TAN 2011), Assessment of Noise and the revision of BS8233:2014.

8 No development shall take place within the development site as outlined in red on the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure the preservation of archaeological remains.

9 Further to condition 8 above, the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.

REASON: To ensure the preservation of archaeological remains.

10 Prior to the commencement of any development on site, a scheme of intrusive site investigations shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority; including:-

[a] the undertaking of that scheme; [b] the submission of a report of findings arising from the above intrusive investigations; and [c] the submission of a scheme of remedial works for approval.

REASON: To ensure the site is made safe in terms of former mine workings.

11 Further to condition 10 above, the developer shall ensure that those approved remedial works are fully implemented on site prior to any development commencing on site.

REASON To ensure the site is made safe in terms of former mine workings.

Advisory Notes

1. The developer shall take cognisance of the landscape features within and surrounding the site and designs the layout incorporating the mature hedges and trees, with any subsequent detailed planning application.

2. The developer is advised that details of the lighting within the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland, as the Trunk Roads Authority, with any subsequent detailed planning application.

3. The developer is advised that prior to commencement of development, details of the frontage landscaping treatment along the trunk road boundary shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland TRBO, with any subsequent detailed planning application.

4. The developer is advised that prior to the occupation of any of the consented development, a barrier / boundary feature of a type approved by the planning authority in consultation with Transport Scotland (TS- TRBO) shall be provided and maintained along the proposed boundary of the site with the A77 trunk road, with any subsequent detailed planning application.

5. The developer is advised that there shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system.

6. The developer is advised that a full Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) flood route etc. will be required as part of a detailed application. The DIA (narrative) will be required to establish how the surface waters during the 1:200 year + 20%CC rainfall event; including the detailed flood route thought the site to the attenuation/SUDS such that there are no properties (on site or off) put at risk of flooding along its route. Including any flows currently discharging onto the site, from existing areas.

7. The developer is advised that Ayrshire Roads Alliance (Transport Assessments) notes that for new residential developments: a 6 metre carriageway will be required for bus routes, with 2 x 2.0 metre wide footways and a 2.0 metre wide bio swale (for road surface water treatment). Where the swale is not required, the footway can be pulled back in adjacent to the carriageway. All other internal housing roads will have a 5.5 metre wide carriageway, with 2 x 2.0 metre wide footways and a 2.0 metre wide bio swale. Again where the swale is not required, the footway can be pulled back in adjacent to the carriageway. Generally a cross-fall carriageway is provided with the bio swale to one side of the road, constructed in front of one of the 2.0 metre wide footways. Where a camber is to be used the swale may be required on both sides of the carriageway; this is dependent on drainage calculations and finished road levels.

8. The developer is advised that Ayrshire Roads Alliance notes that for this site, any subsequent application should be informed by the following: -

• the main access to the development would be via a new four-arm traditional roundabout on Treeswoodhead Road. Additional bus stop facilities would be necessary on Treeswoodhead Road in the vicinity of the proposed roundabout to accommodate trips both to and from the development.

• currently, the section of Treeswoodhead Road fronting the proposed development is covered by national speed limit. the existing 30 mph to the north of this location on Treeswoodhead Road will require to be extended to incorporate the proposed access roundabout and the extent of the development frontage on Treeswoodhead Road. This will be entirely at the client’s expense.

• a standard 2 metre footway will be required along the full extent of the Treeswoodhead Road frontage and on both sides where practicable. this will also require to be lit.

• the eastern section of the site will require footpath connections directly to Grampian Road which will require to be agreed with ARA.

• the western section of the site will require footpath connections onto Bridgehousehill Road. These will also require to be agreed with ARA.

• currently there is in excess of 2,500 residential properties within the Shortlees/Bellfield area of Kilmarnock. This area is served in the main by 3 or 4 access roads, none of which in isolation could be considered ideal as a traffic distributer. However, in addition to these traffic distributors serving this area, there are approximately another 5 or 6 routes of varying quality and traffic capacity capability that could provide reasonable secondary access to the proposed Bridgehousehill residential development in Shortlees.

• in view of the above, the dispersal of the development traffic over all possible routes, neither considered reasonable in isolation would, however, offer an acceptable situation in practice. This site is within the LDP and this multi access scenario to access the Shortlees /Bellfield area has been considered acceptable in the past.

• the new footway to be provided along the Treeswoodhead Road frontage of the residential site along with the direct footway access that will be provided to Grampian Road and Bridgehousehill Road should ensure the site is sustainable and accessible for all pedestrians.

• there are no designated cycle routes in the immediate vicinity, the nearest being located to the north on Queen’s Drive or the core path network to the west. The assumption that cyclists could use the surrounding road network would be considered acceptable. Additionally the footway links to be provided to Grampian Road and Bridgehousehill Road will give the cyclist improved access to the wider network.

• the majority of the site is currently within a 400m walking distance of bus stops for the main services. Notwithstanding this, new stops to the north of the proposed access roundabout will be provided for pedestrians entering and leaving the proposed development. Kilmarnock Railway Station is not within walking distance to the proposed site, however the current bus service operating on Treeswoodhead Road provides access to the railway station. This would therefore be considered acceptable. .