Norfh L an arkshire Council

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Planning Applications for consideration of the Planning and Environment Committee

Committee Date: 15 September 2004

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved

9 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 15 SEPTEMBER 2004

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

14 N/04/00382/FUL J G Henry Ltd Establishment of a Waste Grant Transfer Station and Associated Fencing and Lighting Units - 1-4 Woodhead Road Muirhead

23 N/04/00552/FUL Mrs Holland Construction of Pigeon Lofts, Grant Stables and Associated Accommodation - Site to the North of Burnbrae Farm Burnbrae Road, Chryston

32 N10410091OlFUL Mr P Connelly - Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 1 North Berwick Gardens Westerwood, Cumbernauld

37 N/04/01135/FUL Mrs lrene Greene Alterations and Part Change of Refuse Use from Business (Class 4) to Children's Nursery (Class 10) - Auchinbee, Auchinbee Farm Road Cumbernauld

45 N/04/01138/LBC Mrs lrene Greene Internal Alterations to Refuse (P) Accommodate Part Change of Use and Formation of Additional Parking within Curtilage - Auchinbee, Auchinbee Farm Road Cumbernauld

52 N/04/01161/FUL Mr And Mrs B Bradley Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 20 Laightoun Drive, Condorrat, Cum bernauld

57 N/04/0 12 13/F UL Caroline Mary Anne Siting of a Mobile Snack Van Grant Doyle (Renewal of Permission) - Quarry Car Park, Auchinstarry, Kilsyth .. 60 N/04/01229/REM Mr & Mrs Crozier Construction of a Dwellinghouse - Grant Land Adjacent to 128 Cumbernauld RoadlMoorpark Avenue, Muirhead

66 N/04/01275/FUL Mr & Mrs Kirson Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 65 Blantyre Gardens, Cum bernauld

71 N/04/01279/FUL J & W Paul Alterations to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 11K Fleming Road, Seafar, Cum bernauld

76 N/04/01309/FUL Alan Tang Extension of Opening Hours for Grant Hot Food Takeaway Restaurant - 6 Hume Road, Seafar, Cum bernauld

10 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 15 SEPTEMBER 2004

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

80 C/03/0064O/FUL Asda Stores Ltd Erection of 3,158sq.m. Extension Grant to Existing Store, Alterations to Car Park and Re-development of Existing Petrol Filling Station - Asda Stores Ltd Main Street Coatbridge

87 C/04/00206/FUL Neat Earth Ltd Refurbishment of Church Building Grant and Manse including the Erection of 7 new build units to form 32 Flatted Dwellings - Dundyvan Church, Oxford Street, Coatbridge

95 C/04/00614/LBC Neat Earth Ltd. Refurbishment of Former Church Grant (P) Building to form 21 Flats - Dundyvan Church, Oxford Street, Coatbridge

99 C/04/01162/FUL Mr & Mrs L. Stephen Change of Use From Open Space Grant to Private Garden Ground and - Erection of Fence( In Retrospect) - 5 Lauchope Street Chapelhall Airdrie

104 C/04/01235/FUL Mr M lnnes Side and rear extension to Grant dwellinghouse - 28 Park Road Bargeddie

108 C/04/01341/FUL Orange PCS Ltd Installation of a 20m Grant Telecommunication Column Supporting 3 Antennae and 1 Transmission Dish and Associated Equipment Cabinets Land west of West of Scotland Properties Cameron Street Coatbridge

111 C/04/0145O/FUL Mrs Yvonne Porteous Siting of Snack Bar - Car Park at Grant Koh-l Noor, 7 Saline St, Airdrie

114 S/03/01553/FUL M & D Leisure Ltd. Erection of Extension for the Refuse Purposes of Forming a Travel Agency - Strathclyde Country _- Park Hamilton Road Motherwell 119 S/03/01701/0UT Harry Camp Erection of Two Holiday Cottages Refuse (P) Stewartbank Wishaw

128 S/03/01842/FUL Mr James Thomson Erection of a One and a Half Refuse Storey Dwellinghouse - Land at 260 Ladywell Road Motherwell

133 S/04/0051O/FUL D Clarke 2 Storey Side Extension - Grant 24 Newlands Road Uddingston

136 S/04/00676/FUL lan Baird 3 Storey Residential Development Grant comprising 15 Flatted Dwellings - 216-220 Clydesdale Street Motherwell

11 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 15 SEPTEMBER 2004

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

143 S/04/00958/F UL Mr G Stewart Erection of Single Storey Refuse (P) Dwellinghouse - Land at West Croft Farm Wishaw

148 S/04/00956/FUL Taylor Homes Erection of 5 Detached Refuse (P) (Scotland) Ltd Dwellinghouses Phase 3B (Plots 49, 50, 60, 61, 62) - Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell

157 S/04/00962/FUL Taylor Homes Erection of 4 Detached Refuse (P) (Scotland) Ltd Dwellinghouses Phase 3C (Plots 56 - 59) - Glen Noble Cleland Motherwell

166 S/04/00964/FUL Taylor Homes Erection of 5 Detached Refuse (P) (Scotland) Ltd Dwellinghouses Phase 3A (Plots 51 - 55) - Glen Noble Cleland Mot herwelI

175 S/04/01047/FUL Transform Schools Erection of a Primary School Grant Nursery and Full Size Floodlit Multi-Purpose Synthetic Pitch for Dual Use with the Community - Land at Houldsworth Park Young Street Wishaw

191 S/04/0 1 164/F UL Vodafone UK - Erection of 15 Metre Grant Telecommunications Streetworks Monopole Cabinets and Associated Ancillary Equipment - Land at Junction Between Iona Street and Bellshill Road Motherwell

197 S/04/01217/FUL Chutneys Alterations to Frontage - Grant 205 High Street Newarthill Mot herwelI

200 S/04/01225/FUL Vodafone UK Erection of 10 Metre High Grant Telecommunications Monopole and Associated Equipment - Land at Junction of New Stevenston A723, Carfin Motherwell

206 S/04/01248/FUL Mr M Wasim Side & Rear Extension to Shop - Grant 8 Lynwood Road Newmains Wishaw

21 1 S/04/0 1280/0 UT Mrs S M Bryce Residential Development - Refuse __ Land at Morningside Road Wishaw

21 8 S/04/01291/FUL Mr & Mrs G McKay Construction of Garage - Grant 48 Hawthorn Drive Shotts

12 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 15 SEPTEMBER 2004

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

S/04/01300/FUL Gridcom UK Ltd (on Installation of an 19.5 Metre Grant Behalf Of Vodafone) Lattice Telecommunications Tower Containing 6no. Antennae, 2 No. Transmission Dishes, Ancillary Equipment and Compound - Transco Compound, Golf Course Road, Wishaw

S/04/01324/FUL Ceasars Turf & Sport Change of Use from Shop (Class Grant Betting Ltd 1) to Betting Shop (Class 2) - 432 Old Edinburgh Road _- Uddingston

N1041011381LBC If granted refer to Scottish Ministers (Listed Building) C/04/00614/LBC If granted refer to Scottish Ministers (Listed Building) S/04/01701/0UT If granted refer to Scottish Ministers S/04/00956/FUL If granted refer to Scottish Ministers S/04/00958/FUL If granted refer to Scottish Ministers S/04/00962/FUL If granted refer to Scottish Ministers S/04/00964/FUL If granted refer to Scottish Ministers

13 Application No: N1041003821FUL

Date Registered: 18th March 2004

Applicant: J G Henry Ltd 116 Strathmore Road Glasgow, G22 7DW

Agent John Daly 58 Gartmore Road Paisley, PAI 3NQ

Development: Establishment of a Waste Transfer Station and Associated Fencing and Lighting

Location: Units 1- 4 Woodhead Road, Garnkirk

Ward: 68: Moodiesburn West and Gartcosh Councillor Joseph Shaw

Grid Reference: 267588668565

File Reference: N/04/00382/FUL

Site History: N/96/0123/PL Establishment of Waste Transfer Recycling Centre and Distribution Depot Approved 18'h September 1996

Development Plan: The site is covered by a vacant industrial land policy and green belt policies in the Southern Area Local Plan 1983. In terms of the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000 the site is covered by a policy for established industrial areas.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S. E. P.A.(West) (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) Scottish Executive Trunk Roads (Comments)

Representations: 10 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: 24'h March 2004

Comments:

This application is for the establishment of a waste transfer station and associated fencing and lighting at units 1 - 4 Woodhead Industrial Estate, Woodhead Road, Garnkirk, near Muirhead. It is proposed that the operating hours would be 07.00hrs to 18.00hrs Monday to Friday and 07.00hrs to 15.30 hrs Saturday, closing on Sunday and public holidays. The proposal was advertised in the local press and 10 letters of objection have been received from local residents and Chryston Community Council. Details of the points of objection and the assessment of the application are contained in the accompanying background report. Despite the concerns of the objectors, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

The Committee should note that Councillor Gray has requested a site visit prior to the determination of the application.

14 15 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjacent units.

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, the accesses to the main site and the skip storage shall be 6 metres wide and have 10m radii.

Reason: To enable access to the sites without overrunning the footways / verges on either side of the road.

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, the existing service verge shall be converted to a footway to the specification of the Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

5. That access sightlines from the main site and the skip storage area shall be a minimum of 2.5m x 60m, inside which nothing higher than 900mm is built or allowed to grow.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

6. That any gates erected shall be set back a minimum of 15m from the edge of the public road, and turning facilities shall be provided within the sites.

Reason: To ensure vehicles do not obstruct the public road and can enter/exit the sites in forward gear.

7. That before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, the layout of the junction of Woodhead Road with the A80 Trunk Road shall be altered to prevent traffic from turning right from Woodhead Road on to the Trunk Road, in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

8. Notwithstanding the terms of condition 7 above, no part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the required road traffic order preventing traffic from turning right from Woodhead Road on to the A80 Trunk Road has been confirmed.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of traffic safety.

9. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a noise impact assessment shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Noise levels LAeq attributable to the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the existing background level by more than 10 dB(A) except in the circumstances where tonal elements of the noise contribute significantly to the total noise in which case the existing background level should not be exceeded by more than 5 dB(A).

16 Reason: In the interests of amenity of the nearby residents.

10. That with regard to the disposal of surface water, roofwater shall be kept separate from yard run-off areas. The surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the application sites should comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, and prior to any works commencing details of the proposed drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area, and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest SEPA guidance.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 18th March 2004

Memo from Transportation Section received 6th April 2004 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 25th March 2004 Memo from NLC Protective Services received 15th April 2004 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 22nd July 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 15th April 2004 Letter from the Trunk Roads Authority received 23rdMay 2004

Letter from Mr J Galloway,lRO Villa No. 2, Woodhead Road, Chryston, G69 9JE received 31st March 2004. Letter from Mr David Stark,50 Woodhead Road, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9HY received 31st March 2004. Letter from Ms A C Gibb,54 Woodhead Road, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9HY received 1st April 2004. Letter from Mr Joseph Kelly,52 Woodhead Road, Crowwood, Chryston, G69 9HY received 2nd April 2004. Letter from Mrs Glenys Penman,78 Bothlyn Road, Chryston, Glasgow, G69 9LJ received 5th April 2004. Letter from Chryston Community Council,l Neuk Avenue, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9EX received 6th April 2004. Letter from Mr Steven Cook,Woodhead Farm, B&B, Crowwood, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9HY received 6th April 2004. Letter from Catherine Noonan,l9 Woodhead Road, Crowwood, Chryston, G69 9BJ received 7th April 2004. Letter from Weston Transport,Unit 5, 50 Woohead Road, Chryston, G69 9HZ received 7th April 2004. Letter from Mr J Galloway,IRO Villa No. 2, Woodhead Road, Chryston, G69 9JE received 8th April 2004.

Letters from Daly Planning and Design received 18'h March 22ndMarch, 12'h April, 26'h April 2004. Letters from Steer Davies Gleeve received 4'h June and 17'' August 2004. E-mail from The Trunk Roads Authority received 27thAugust 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Kirsten Devlin at 01236 616463.

17 APPLICATION NO. N/04/00382/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1 .I This application is for the establishment of a waste transfer station with associated fencing and lighting at Units 1 to 4 Woodhead Road, Garnkirk. The application site is within Woodhead Industrial Estate and is located on the West Side of Woodhead Road. The application site consists of two areas of land; the main site contains the existing four units of various sizes which form part of a group of six units and the other is vacant land that sits north of the main part of the site.

1.2 The transfer station would process inactive/ inert waste i.e. sub-soil, brick, stone, concrete and timber etc. and would not be used to process specialist waste. The applicant has submitted an application for a waste management licence to SEPA, which would only allow them to handle inert waste. The site will not be open to the public and would only treat waste collected by the site operators in their own skips.

1.3 It is proposed that existing units 1 and 3 will be demolished. Unit 2 is currently a small office that would be retained for the same purposes by the operator. Unit 4 will be extensively altered to house the main reclamation machinery. Weld mesh boundary fencing and 6 metre high galvanised lampposts are proposed at 10 metre intervals. Within the site a drop-pit and weigh- bridge will be created.

I.4 The reclamation process would involve lorries bringing skips of waste to the site where they would be weighed. The skip contents would then be deposited in the drop/separation area where larger items would be removed and stored separately for later collection and resale. The remaining items will be put into the drop pit until it is full, when a JCB will transfer the waste to a processing machine in Unit 4. The machine will separate out the waste into small skips with the remaining recyclable material separated for resaleheuse. The non-recyclable material left will be stored until it is transferred to a licensed landfill site. It is anticipated that at least 80% of waste brought to the site will be recycled. A vehicular access and new surfacing would be created on the land to the north of the main site. This site would be used for storing empty skips from the main operations area. As with the main site, boundary fencing is proposed, but no lighting would be erected.

2. Plannina History

2.1 In June 1996 an application for the establishment of a waste transfer recycling centre and distribution depot (including skips, pallets, bulk minerals and furniture) was submitted. The application site is similar to that of the current application, the only differences being that unit 5 was included in the proposal and the area of land to the north of the main site was not included. Planning permission was granted on 18'h September 1996.

3. DeveloDment Plan

3.1 In terms of the Southern Area Local Plan 1993 the application site is covered by Policy E.PRO 2/3 which relates to green belt and existing developments within the green belt. The site is also covered by Policy IND 5, which relates the development of vacant industrial land.

3.2 In terms of the Northern Corridor Local Plan Finalised Draft 2000 the site is located within an area covered by Policy ECON2, which relates to there being a presumption in favour of General Industrial, Distribution, Storage or Class 4 Business Uses.

18 4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 My Geotechnical Team Leader indicated that the applicant would require to obtain a mining report from the Coal Authority and a Geological Report from the British Geological Survey as several shafts are noted within the area. This information was passed on to the agent.

4.2 My Protective Services Section has indicated that a noise impact assessment requires to be submitted and approved; as such a condition should be imposed.

4.3 Scottish Water has no objections to the proposed development, but advise that as there are no known sewers, drainage will require to be treated by septic tank or other suitable treatment system to the satisfaction of SEPA.

4.4 SEPA has no objection to the proposal, but encourages the applicant to use the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by ClRlA for collection and treatment of roof drainage. It is also highlighted that the proposed operation may require to be licensed in accordance with the Waste Management Licensing Regulation 1994.

4.5 The Trunk Roads Authority initially recommended refusal of the application as the proposal would result in increased interference with the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road (A80). However, after negotiation a solution has been agreed whereby all outbound vehicles at the junction of Woodhead Road with the A80 shall be prevented from turning right. This will involve the alteration of the junction to provide a splitter island, and the promotion of a permanent traffic order.

4.6 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal providing a number of conditions are complied with. Conditions relating to the upgrading of the existing site access, formation of footway, and provision of adequate access sightlines and other minor matters should be imposed.

4.7 10 Letters of representation from local residents and Chryston Community Council have been received, the main points of which are summarised as follows: -

+ The proposal would result in an increase in vehicle movements from the A80 along Woodhead Road. The road (which is narrow and cannot let two lorries pass each other in places) and pavement are in a poor condition and used heavily by pedestrians, therefore the increase in traffic on this low quality road would put pedestrians at risk, particularly school children, children using the nearby play area and horse riders from the riding school at Woodhead Farm.

Comment: My Transportation Section has not raised any safety issues. Furthermore it is anticipated that the operation would not result in a significant increase in vehicular movements. It is suggested there will be less traffic generated as the previous four units generated approximately 80 trips a day, while it is anticipated that the proposal would generate 60 journeys per day.

+ Woodhead Road shows wheel track rutting and pot holes in places, therefore additional traffic would add to existing problems and increase the risk of damage to private vehicles and associated risk to pedestrians.

Comment: As stated above, my Transportation Section has not highlighted any areas of concern and it is anticipated that the proposal will generate less vehicular movements than the previous occupiers of the units.

19 + As Woodhead Road is a dead end, all traffic must pass by the houses twice, which will be a nuisance to those living in the vicinity.

Comment: This is the case for the existing businesses in Woodhead Industrial Estate.

+ Numerous accidents have occurred on Woodhead Road when vehicles that are too wide try to pass each other on certain stretches of the road. Woodhead Road can barely support existing traffic levels and requires upgrading.

Comment: My Transportation Section has not raised any issues with respect to the state of Woodhead Road. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the proposal will generate less vehicular movements than the previous occupiers of the units.

+ Woodhead Road is well short of the 7.3 metres width required for access to industrial premises.

Comment: My Transportation Section has not raised any issues with respect to the width of Woodhead Road. In new industrial estates, it is accepted that a road width of 7.3 metres is required.

+ There is already major congestion at the junction of the A80 in the evening as vehicles exit across the dual carriageway. Any increase in traffic would exacerbate the problem.

Comment: As previously stated, it is anticipated that there will be less vehicular movements from the transfer station than the previous tenants of the units. The Trunk Roads Authority highlighted concerns with the existing junction at the A80 and to this end it is proposed that outbound vehicles will only be able to turn out to the left due to the provision of a splitter island. It is intended that a suitable condition will be imposed.

+ At present most of the operators work only Monday to Friday, with a few exceptions. As it is intended that that the waste transfer station will operate 7 days a week this would have a detrimental effect on amenity.

Comment: Initial correspondence from the applicant stated that the waste transfer station would operate 7 days a week. However, in line with their application for a waste management licence to SEPA it is now intended that the opening hours are 07:OOhrs to 18:OOhrs Monday to Friday and 07:OOhrs to 15.30 Saturday. It will be closed on Sunday and public holidays. It is felt that such hours are acceptable for any type of operation within a designated industrial estate.

+ Consideration has to be given to the safety of local residents and existing living conditions as the houses in the area existed before the industrial estate.

Comment: There is no evidence to suggest that residents’ safety will be compromised by the proposal. Furthermore, the waste transfer station is an acceptable use for an industrial estate.

+ It has been requested that an Environmental Impact Assessment be submitted for the proposal.

Comment: The proposal does not require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

+ Houses in the locality have septic tanks and the water pressure is low. There is also concern that groundwater may be contaminated.

20 Comment: There is no evidence to suggest the proposal will have a detrimental effect on water pressure in the area, or give rise to ground water contamination.

+ Concern has been expressed about possible damage to nearby houses as they are built on old mine workings and already suffer from movement when vehicles pass.

Comment: My Transportation Section has not raised any issues with respect to the stability of nearby houses, and as previously stated it is anticipated that the operation would generate less traffic than the previous tenants of the units.

+ If the proposal is approved, rats, vermin, disease and other unknown factors will affect local residents. Fallow deer and bird life will be affected by the operation and bird life in particular by an increase in the number of seagulls to the area. All the aforementioned would mean many residents will be forced to leave the area.

Comment: As the type of waste involved is inert material, it should have no affect on local wildlife.

+ There is a lack of details of the type of waste products. There is also concern that the waste will emit odours or be set on fire, both of which would cause pollution.

Comment: It is the case that when the application was submitted there was little information on the type of waste proposed. However, the applicant subsequently confirmed that it would be inert material.

+ Concern has been expressed about noise pollution from the use of a JCB and processing machines.

Comment: My Protective Services Section has requested that a noise impact assessment be submitted to ensure the operations shall not give rise to noise pollution. A condition to this effect will be imposed.

+ It is stated that the nearby Bed and Breakfast will be detrimentally affected by the proposal as no one will want to stay near to a waste transfer station. The value of the house, land and business will be affected by the proposal. Concern has also been expressed about site security and people entering the land adjacent to the application site.

Comment: Any impact on the B & B business, house and land prices are not material planning considerations. It is unlikely that the proposal would give rise to problems with security of adjacent land as boundary fencing is proposed around the perimeter of the main site and the land to the north.

+ Weston Transport is the current tenant of units 4 and 5 and has a lease for the ground to the front and rear of the units. The proposal would disrupt their business.

Comment: It requires to be borne in mind that unit 4 forms part of the application site. Should Weston Transport remain operating from unit 5 the proposal will not have an affect on their business as the waste transfer operations will not be carried out at the front or rear of unit 5.

+ The small area of land to the north of the main site is at present part of field and is used by a local lady who operates a pony trekking business. The site is zoned as green belt and not allocated for a waste management use in the local plan. Does the proposal constitute a change of use of the land? The industrial estate is large enough to accommodate the proposal and to encroach into surrounding fields must be contrary to the green belt zoning.

21 Comment: In terms of the Southern Area Local Plan 1983 the application sites are covered by Policy E.PR02/3. Policy E.PR02 states there should be an absolute prohibition of all new developments unless in the interests of agriculture, forestry or outdoor recreation. Policy E.PR03 states that where there is existing development within the green belt further development will be acceptable providing it is consistent in scale with the existing land use and development. Furthermore, Policy IND5 relates to vacant or underutilised land or premises for further industrial development.

In terms of the Northern Corridor Local Plan Finalised Draft 2000 the sites are covered by Policy ECON2 which states there is a presumption in favour of General Industrial, Distribution, Storage or Class 4 Business Uses.

Therefore, the land to the north of the main site is located within an industrial area.

+ In terms of Planning Advice Note 63: Waste Management Planning, part 27 there is insufficient detail regarding site management details, operating hours, traffic control and lighthoise pollution.

Comment: A sufficient level of detail has been provided to determine the proposal. With respect to noise pollution a condition requiring the submission of a noise impact assessment is to be attached.

+ In terms of PAN63, part 32 there is insufficient detail regarding the operation of the waste transfer station.

Comment: It is considered that there is sufficient information regarding the operations to determine this application.

+ In terms of PAN63, part 34 there is insufficient detail showing that standards of local amenity will be protected particularly in the evenings, weekends and throughout summer.

Comment: It is considered that the proposal is a compatible use in an existing industrial estate. There is no evidence to suggest that the current levels of amenity will be detrimentally affected by the proposal. As previously stated, a noise impact assessment requires to be submitted for the Council’s approval.

5. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issues are the concerns of the objectors, most of whom reside in the area.

5.2 In their determination of this application, the Committee should remember that consent for a similar proposal was granted in 1996 and could have been implemented any time up to September 2001, If the current application is refused, any changes in circumstances between 1996 and 2004 have to be taken into account. In my opinion there have been no material change in circumstances.

5.3 Having assessed the current application in terms of its likely impact on local residents and the environment, it is considered that the proposed waste transfer station is an acceptable activity within Woodhead Industrial Estate. Notwithstanding the genuine concerns of some local residents it is recommended that permission be granted.

22 Application No: N/04/00552/FUL

Date Registered: 13th April 2004

Applicant : Mrs Holland 10 Kinkell Gardens Kirkintilloch G66 2HJ

Agent David Jarvie 27 Aytoun Road Pollockshields Glasgow G41 5HW

Development: Construction of Pigeon Lofts, Stables and Associated Temporary Residential and Office Accommodation

Location: Site to the North of Burnbrae Farm, Burnbrae Road, Chryston

Ward: 69: Chryston and Auchinloch Councillor Charles Gray

Grid Reference: 267867671454

File Reference: N/04/00552/FUL

Site History: N/01/01640/0UT : Change of Use of Agriculture Buildings to form 3 Dwellings Granted 13th March 2002

Development Plan: Covered by Policy E.PRO 2 (Greenbelt) of the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan, 1983 and the Greenbelt Policies of NLC's Northern Corridor Local Plan, Finalised Draft, 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Finance (Comments) NLC Community Services (Comments) S.E.P.A.( W est) (No response) East Dunbartonshire Council (Comments) Scottish Water (No objection)

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application proposes the establishment of a pigeon stud with associated temporary residential and office accommodation. Whilst the main business will be pigeon related, the proposed development also proposes the erection of a stable block containing 5 stables. The applicant has purchased a field immediately to the north of the access road to Burnbrae Farm, Burnbrae Road, Chryston. The field is 2.47 hectares (6 acres) in area and was purchased from the owner of Burnbrae Farm. It is intended that the development is located in the south western part of this field adjacent to the crossroads. Access to the site will by way of the farm track which will be shared with Burnbrae Farm.

23 24 Following detailed discussions, the proposed development has been amended and scaled down. The applicant now proposes to construct 4 wooden pigeon lofts, a wooden stable block and a garagehtore building. Temporary residential and office accommodation (in the form of a caravan and a portacabin) will also be provided. It is the applicant's intention to replace the caravan and portacabin by a permanent building once it can be demonstrated that a viable business exists. The applicant currently has 160 pairs of birds (104 breeding pairs and 56 pairs of racing birds). The pigeons are currently kept at two different locations in Kirkintilloch. The value of the current stock is estimated at f96,000and as such 24 hour on site supervision is required. At this stage, a residential caravan is proposed and, in due course, the applicant hopes to be able to demonstrate that the business will justify a dwelling. Total sales so far this year (from January to June) are approximately f22,625,this level of sales being generated by pigeon breeding on a hobby basis. The business plan projects that the pigeon stud and the horse activity will in its first year generate an income of f65,000 rising to f 114,000in year two. NLC Finance advise that if the applicant can generate f22,625at present then a larger scale business is likely to be viable.

Three letters of objection have been received (including one from Chryston Community Council) and the points raised are detailed in the accompanying report. Despite these objections, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That prior to the occupation of the temporary residential accommodation hereby permitted, the Planning Authority shall be notified in writing of the date of entry. Thereafter, the temporary residential accommodation shall be occupied for a limited period of 3 years or until such time as planning permission has been secured for a replacement dwelling and any such dwelling has been constructed, whichever is the sooner, after which all structures, hard standing, access and fences associated with the temporary residential accommodation shall be removed.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control in line with the temporary nature of the accommodation.

3. That the Planning Authority will be notified in writing of the date upon which the pigeon stud commences operation. Thereafter, should the pigeon stud fail to support a full time employee, and therefore fail to justify a dwelling within three years of starting, all lofts, the stables, caravan and portacabin accommodation, hard standing, access and fences associated with it shall be removed and the land reinstated to an agricultural field to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control in line with the nature of the site.

4. That the occupation of the temporary residential accommodation hereby permitted shall be limited to a person employed full time in connection with the pigeon stud.

Reason: To accord with the approved Greenbelt policy.

25 5. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, and notwithstanding what is detailed on the approved plans, a scheme detailing access improvements and the junction layout shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority and the scheme shall include the following:

1) Access to this site shall only be via the existing farm access, which should be upgraded as follows:

a) The main access to the development should be located away from the junction (minimum 25m) to enable all servicing vehicles, etc. safe accesslegress. This single access point should permit full access and turning manouevres within the curtilage of the property. b) Between the junction and the access to the site, the access road will be upgraded to achieve a 6m wide carriageway, with 2 x 2m footways l verges, turning facilities, and minimum 1Om junction radii, c) In so far as they are under the control of the applicant, the junction sightlines onto Burnbrae Road should be improved to a minimum 4.5m x 75m, inside which nothing higher than Im is built or allowed to grow i.e. existing hedging l trees / etc. will require to be completely removed to achieve this splay, d) Junction sightlines from the development site onto the upgraded farm access shall be a minimum of 4.5m x 60m.

2) Additional hardstanding areas to be provided within the site curtilage for visitor parking, horse boxes and associated service / agricultural vehicles.

3) Gates if erected should be set back a minimum of 15m from the edge of footway l verge.

Reason: To ensure that access improvements are carried out in the interests of road safety

6. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the scheme approved under the terms of Condition 5 above shall be implemented and thereafter the visibility splays shall be maintained.

Reason: To ensure that access improvements are carried out in the interests of road safety

7. That, with the exception of the garagelstore, the buildings shall be constructed in the materials detailed on the approved plans and before the development hereby permitted starts samples of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and given that the site lies within the greenbelt.

8. That notwithstanding what is detailed on the approved plans, the walls of the garagelstore shall be finished in wet dash render and a slate or slate substitute tile, the details of which has first been approved in writing by the Planning Authority, shall be used on the roof. All other materials shall be as detailed on the plans and before the development hereby permitted starts, samples of the facing materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and given that the site lies within the Greenbelt.

26 9. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and given that the site lies within the Greenbelt.

10. That within one year of the occupation of the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of Condition 9 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following 2 years with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and given that the site lies within the Greenbelt.

11. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and given that the site lies within the Greenbelt.

12. That before the development hereby permitted is completed all the fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of Condition 11 above, shall be erected.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and given that the site lies within the Greenbelt.

13. That, unless as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, all car parking and hardstanding areas shall be surfaced in permeable materials.

Reason: In the interests of the environment and to ensure that the drainage regime of the area is not altered by the development.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th April 2004

Memo from Geotechnical Team received 21st April 2004 Memos from Director of Finance received 10th May and 20th July 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 17th May 2004

27 Letter from East Dunbartonshire Council received 6th May 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 26th April 2004

Letter from Mr John McGinn,Blairogal, Burnbrae Road, Glasgow, G69 9HR received 21st April 2004. Letter from Mr Robert Hosie,Burnbrae Farm, Chryston, G69 9HR received 22nd April 2004. Letter from Miss R Anderson,Hon. Secretary, Chryston Community Council, 1 Neuk Avenue, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9EX received 5th May 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Graeme Lee at 01236 616474.

28 APPLICATION NO. N1041005521FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This planning application proposes the establishment of a pigeon stud with associated residential and office accommodation. Following detailed negotiations with the applicant, the proposal has been amended and permission is only being sought for temporary residential and office accommodation. The original proposal was for a traditional ‘U shaped’ farm yard building within which it was proposed to accommodate a dwelling, stables, pigeon lofts, an office and garaging and stores.

1.2 Whilst the main business will be pigeon related, the proposed development also proposes the erection of a stable block containing 5 stables. The applicant has purchased a field immediately to the north of the access road to Burnbrae Farm, Burnbrae Road, Chryston. The field is 2.47 hectares (6 acres) in area and was purchased from the owner of Burnbrae Farm. It is intended that the development is located in the south western part of this field adjacent to the crossroads. Access to the site will by way of the farm track which will be shared with Burnbrae Farm.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is covered by Policy E.PRO 2 (Greenbelt) of the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan, 1983 and the Greenbelt Policies of NLC’s Northern Corridor Local Plan, Finalised Draft, 2000. The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Greenbelt policy.

3. Plannina History

3.1 Outline planning permission was granted in March 2002 for the conversion of agricultural buildings to form 3 dwellings at Burnbrae Farm. If this development were to proceed then the proposed dwellings would also share the farm access.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 East Dunbartonshire Council advise that they do not object to the proposed development and that the Council will continue to support the protection of the Greenbelt.

Comment: It is considered that the revised development proposal is consistent with Greenbelt policy.

4.2 Scottish Water does not object and advises that a septic tank will be required.

4.3 NLC Community Services advise that the site is of no conservation value and that the landscaping of the development will require careful consideration.

Comment: It is considered that planning conditions can ensure that this site is carefully landscaped.

4.4 NLC Finance advise that on the basis of the figures provided, there would appear to be a possibility that a viable business could be developed.

Comment: It is considered that enabling the business to proceed and become established before a dwelling is considered is a sensible way to proceed in this case.

29 4.5 NLC Geotechnical Team Leader advises that given the extent of new hard surfaces the drainage strategy for the site requires careful consideration.

Comment: It is considered that a planning condition can ensure that the hard surfaces are permeable to minimise the impact of the development on local drainage patterns.

4.6 NLC Transportation Team Leader advises that, given the fact that outline planning permission exists for the formation of 3 dwellings at the farm steading, the farm road requires to be brought up to adoptable standard; improvements are required to the public road; street lighting is required and improvements to the visibility splays should be implemented.

Comment: It is considered that the extent of the improvements required are not reasonable in this instance. The public road is rural in nature and the access track a typical farm track. To require a fully adoptable road will have an adverse impact on the character of the area. Nevertheless, it is accepted that improvements should be sought and these can be secured by the imposition of a planning condition.

4.7 Three letters of representation were received, including one from Chryston Community Council. The points raised and my comments are detailed below:

0 The scale of the proposed building development is inappropriate in a Greenbelt location 0 The proposed development does not accord with the Greenbelt policies of the local plan. The proposed development is not agricultural as defined by the Planning Acts. If planning permission were to be granted a precedent would be set.

Comment : The proposed development has been amended and, being of mainly wooden construction, the buildings are considered to be more in keeping with a Greenbelt location. The proposed development is not considered to be inconsistent with Greenbelt policy. The scale of the pigeon stud is such that an urban location would be inappropriate. The applicant is seeking to make a livelihood from pigeon breeding and, in a similar way to individuals seeking to establish a business centred on keeping horses, it is considered appropriate to allow the development to proceed, but to make sure that any residential element is temporary only. It is proposed to allow the applicant three years to establish the business and seek permission for a permanent residence. In this way, should the business fail, then the buildings will be removed.

0 Traffic and road safety are of concern

Comment: : It is anticipated that the proposed development will increase traffic however not to such an extent as would justify refusing planning permission. Improvements to the access road and junction will be secured through the imposition of a planning condition.

0 Lack of storage for hay or for waste disposal from the stables and lofts

Comment :The revised proposals include a garage store area.

0 Health and nuisance associated with the pigeons.

Comment: The applicant advises that the stock pigeons (currently numbering 104 pairs) are too valuable to be allowed to leave the lofts. The proposed development has also been amended and the lofts are to be located further away from the objector's property (Blairogal). The closest of the lofts is to be located over 80 metres away. Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development will create a nuisance so significant as to justify refusing planning permission.

30 0 Need for stable is questioned as there are stables further along road. Not sufficient ground for proposed number of stables. The Strathkelvin Railway Walkway is not a bridle path and to allow stables in such close proximity would be of concern

Comment : It should be noted that need is not an appropriate consideration in connection with this development. There would appear to be more than sufficient ground for use with the stables. Whilst the concerns of the Community Council are noted, the use of the walkway or other paths, roads and tracks in the area does not require planning permission.

0 The proposed development will increase traffic on the farm road. This is of concern to the owner of the farm who has outline planning permission for 3 dwellings using the same road.

Comment : It should be noted that the owner of the farm sold the field to the applicant. A planning condition will ensure that road improvements will be carried out to allow the development to proceed. If the outline planning permission for 3 dwellings is pursued then further improvements will be required to the access road, the junction and possibly the public road itself. It would not be reasonable to require the applicant to carry out all of the improvements which may be necessary to allow both developments to proceed, especially as the development permitted by the outline planning permission may never be implemented.

5. Plan n i nu Assess ment and Concl usions

5.1 It should be noted that the applicant has purchased a residential caravan that is currently being stored on the site along with a smaller caravan. The applicant has also constructed a temporary loft for his young racing birds. In anticipation of receiving planning permission, these temporary lofts are being used to house this year’s young birds which are being trained to return to the site at Burnbrae. The applicant has been advised that his actions are premature but, for the time being, as an application was under consideration no further action would be taken.

5.2 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Greenbelt policies contained in both the adopted and emerging local plans. Therefore, notwithstanding the objections received, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

31 Application No: N10410091OlFUL

Date Registered: 2nd June 2004

Applicant : Mr P Connelly 1 North Berwick Gardens Westerwood Cumbernauld G68 OJH

Agent James Mullen 25 Lanton Drive Cardonald G52 2EW

Development : Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 1 North Berwick Gardens Westerwood Cumbernauld G68 OJH

Ward: 57: Westerwood, Carrickstone and Dullatur Councillor Gordon Murray

Grid Reference: 275734.676125.

File Reference: N10410091OlFUL

Site History: None

The site lies within an area covered by Residential Policy HG5B, Development Plan: Public Services Policies PS2 and 6, and Transport Policy TRI of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks permission for the erection of a two-storey rear extension and timber decking at a detached dwellinghouse at 1 North Berwick Gardens, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld. Two letters of representation have been received from the neighbouring proprietors at 3 North Berwick Gardens and 50 Landsdowne Drive, the points of which have been outlined in the accompanying background report. Following assessment of the proposals against the development plan and all other material considerations, including the effects on the neighbouring properties, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

32 33 Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved compliments the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd June 2004 and amended plans received 16th July 2004 and 13th August 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 21st June 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 22nd June 2004

Letter from Mr I Young, 3 North Berwick Gardens, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld, G68 OJH received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mrs Donnelly, 50 Lansdowne Drive, Carrickstone Vale, Cumbernauld, G68 OJB received 18th June 2004. Letter from Mrs Donnelly, 50 Lansdowne Drive, Carrickstone Vale, Cumbernauld, G68 OJB received 22nd July 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss. Gebbie at 01236 616466.

34 APPLICATION N0. N/04/009 1O/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is a detached villa with an integral garage and is located amongst a residential estate, with houses to the side, front and rear.

1.2 This application seeks permission for a two-storey extension and timber decking at the rear of the house. The extension will project 3.8 metres from the rear building line to extend the kitchen and create an additional living room at ground floor level and to create a bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. The proposed extension will have a pitched roof and be finished with facing brick, white dash render and roof tiles to match those of the existing adjoining building. The timber decking will be 1.8 metres in height including handrails and will project 2 metres from the rear of the proposed extension.

1.3 The applicant has amended the proposal to relocate the first floor bedroom from above the kitchen on the ground floor, to above the proposed living room at the rear. The applicant originally proposed to include a window on the south elevation, facing south towards No. 3 North Berwick Gardens, however this was removed by amending the internal layout. A new window will be located at the study on the northern elevation and this will face on to the gable wall of the neighbouring property. Furthermore, the applicant has reduced the height of the timber decking including handrails from 2.4 metres to 1.8 metres.

2. Develop ment Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by Residential Policy HG5B, Public Services Policies PS2 and 6, and Transport Policy TRI of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Two letters of representation were received from neighbouring proprietors at 3 North Berwick Gardens and 50 Lansdowne Drive, in relation to this application. The grounds of the objections and my comments thereon are as follows:- . The proposed extension is too large and overbearing and will affect the amenity and privacy at the rear of 50 Lansdowne Drive.

Comment: The design and scale of the proposed extension is considered acceptable from a planning viewpoint. The applicant has amended the layout to relocate the first floor bedroom window, and since the privacy of No. 50 is already affected to some extent as the applicant‘s property is at a higher ground level, it is considered that the additional impact on No. 50 will not be significant enough to warrant refusal of consent. . The proposed side window will face directly on to the rear garden of the objector’s property at 3 North Berwick Gardens and this would subsequently affect the level of privacy enjoyed.

Comment: As previously noted, the applicant has amended the layout of the extension to remove this window therefore the level of privacy will not be affected.

35 . The objectors are concerned about the noise and disruption during and throughout the construction period.

Comment: It is conceded that, as with any development, there may be disruption during the construction of the extension, however, this would be temporary and should not be material in deciding the acceptability of the proposed extension.

1 The construction of the extension shall increase drainage problems at the rear of the objector's property at 50 Lansdowne Drive.

The objectors consider the proposed extension to be built purely for profit, with the intention to sell the property after construction is completed.

Comment: While appreciating the concerns of the objector, the above matters are not material planning considerations.

a The proposed extension will affect the sunlight and daylight levels of the objector's house and garden at 3 North Berwick Gardens.

Comment: Having carried out the Building Research Establishment sunlight and daylight tests, it is concluded that the sunlight and daylight levels at the rear of No. 3 will be well within the limits of acceptability following construction of the extension.

4. PIann in q Assessment and Co n c I us i o ns

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbouring properties.

4.2 Details of the objector's concerns have been outlined earlier in this report. The impact of the proposed rear extension on the amenity of No. 3 has been assessed and it is concluded that the effect would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of this application. If permission was refused, a single storey rear extension could be built under permitted development rights and would have similar impacts as this proposal.

4.3 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbouring proprietors of No. 3 North Berwick Gardens and No. 50 Lansdowne Drive, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

36 Application No: N/04/01135/FUL

Date Registered: 30th June 2004

Applicant: Mrs lrene Greene Per Harper MacLeod Solicitors The Ca'd'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G13PE

Agent Young & Gault Architects 28 Speirs Wharf Glasgow G4 9TG

Development: Alterations and Part Change of Use from (Class 4) Business to Children's Nursery (Class 10)

Location : Auchinbee, Auchinbee Farm Road, Cumbernauld

Ward: 56: Balloch W, Blackwood E and Craigmarloch Councillor Barry McCulloch

Grid Reference: 273626675758

File Reference: N/04/01135/FUL

Site History: N/Ol/Ol223/FUL Alterations and Change of Use from Class 4 (Business) and Class 9 (Houses) to Childrens Nursery (Class 10). Refused 15th February 2002

N/01/01224/LBC Internal & External Alterations in Relation to Change of Use to Childrens Nursery. Refused 15th February 2002

N/02/01447/FUL Alterations and Partial Change of Use from Class 4 (Business) and Class 9 (Houses) to Childrens Nursery (Class 10) Granted 7th February 2003

N1021014481LBC Internal and External Alterations in Relation to Part Change of Use to Childrens Nursery Granted 7th March 2003

N/04/01138/LBC Internal Alterations to Accommodate Part Change of Use and Formation of Additional Parking within Curtilage Subject of Report to this Committee

Development Plan: The property is covered by Policy HG5, relating to sites for new housing development in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan.

37 ND4D11351FU L Mrs lrene Greene Auchinbee Auohinbee Farm Road Curnbernauld A Alterations and Partchange of Use from 4) Business to C hildren's Nursery(C1ass 10) Representations

38 Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Education (Comments)

Representations: 49 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1st September 2004

Comments:

The applicant proposes to change the use of part of this property, to provide additional accommodation for the children's nursery which occupies the remainder of the premises. This would provide places for 52 additional children. This part of the property has not been in use for the past 3 years, but was formerly occupied by a Class 4 Business.

Planning permission and listed building consent refused in respect of the change of use of the entire property to a children's nursery, providing 113 places, in February 2002. Subsequent appeals against these decisions were dismissed by the Scottish Ministers in September 2002.

Subsequent applications for planning permission and listed building consent for a children's nursery providing 67 places, whilst retaining the balance of the property in Class 4 (Business) use, were approved in March 2003. The 67 place nursery has now been in operation for approximately a year.

The current proposal would result in a nursery slightly larger than that refused planning permission and dismissed on appeal just over two years ago, catering for 119 children in total. In the intervening time there have been no changes to the development plan and the surrounding area has remained constant. The applicant has failed to make a case for any additional or exceptional circumstances to be considered in determining this application. I would therefore recommend that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed increase in size of the children's nursery would lead to a loss of residential amenity through the intensification of a non-residential use in and adjacent to residential areas, contrary to Policy HG4 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

2. That the proposed increase in size of the children's nursery is contrary to Policy TRIO of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, in that the increase in traffic generated would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area.

3. That should planning permission be granted it could create an undesirable precedent, making it difficult for the Council to refuse other developments of a similar scale within residential areas.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 30th June 2004 Memo from NLC Planning and Environment Roads Service Manager received 5th August 2004 Memo from NLC Education (Early Years Section) received 22nd July 2004 Letter from Mr & Mrs R Wylie, 78 Glen Rosa Gardens, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld, G68 OES received 15th July 2004. Letter from Alison Balfour, 80 Glen Rosa Gardens, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld, G68 OES received 16th July 2004.

39 Letter from Ms C J Stevenson, 9 Glen Rosa Gardens, Cumbernauld, G68 received 21st July 2004. Letter from Gail Greene, 5 Brownsburn Road, Airdrie, ML6 9QG received 22nd July 2004. Letter from HWAYoung Kim, 52 Glen Fyne Road, Craigmarloch, received 22nd July 2004. Letter from D and L Johnston, 72 Meadow Walk, Victoria Park, Coatbridge, received 22nd July 2004. Letter from Mrs Patricia Abbott, 52 Drumbowie View, Cumbernauld, G68 9HF received 22nd July 2004. Letter from Mr And Mrs Dunlop, 14 Glen Luss Gardens, Craigmarloch received 23rd July 2004. Letter from Mrs K King, 14 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch received 23rd July 2004. Letter from Wendy Knox, 64 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch received 23rd July 2004. Letter from Maxine Woods, 29 Phoenix Road, Mossend , Bellshill received 26th July 2004. Letter from lan Dunlop, 29 Phoenix Road, Bellshill received 26th July 2004. Letter from Lynne Newberry, 16 Watt Avenue, Stepps received 26th July 2004. Letter from Mrs J Kane, 68 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld received 26th July 2004. Letter from James Smith, 22 Glen Lochay Gardens, G68 ODY received 28th July 2004. Letter from Tracey Watt, 3 Gainburn View, Condorrat, received 30th July 2004. Letter from M & A McKellar, 50 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch, received 2nd August 2004. Letter from Wendy Knox, 64 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch, received 2nd September 2004. Letter from Leigh Watson, 5 Letham Grange, Westerwood, received 2nd September 2004. Letter from L Keene, Drumcavel Lodge, Drumcavel Road, Gartcosh, received 2nd September 2004. Letter from Mrs Nicola Pender, 24 Glen Rosa Gardens, Craigmarloch, received 2nd September 2004. Letter from Occupier, 146 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch, received 2nd September 2004. Letter from Teresa Doggart, 18 Drove Hill, Balloch, Cumbernauld, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Mrs C Currie, 50 Ratho Drive, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from L & L Graham, 22 Glen Moriston Road, Craigmarloch, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Lynne Chapman, 6 Airth Way, Cumbernauld, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Mrs Roseann Hay, 152 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Mr Derek Jessamine, 3 Glen Fyne Road, Craigmarloch, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Maxine Woods, 29 Phoenix Road, Mossend, Bellshill, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Lesley Phillips,78 Glen Sannox Drive, Craigmarloch, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from G Shield, 46 Halidon Avenue, Greenfaulds, Cumbernauld, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Angela Montgomery,45 Ash Road, Abronhill, Cumbernauld, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from A Johnson, 25 Hamilton Road, Grangemouth, received 3rd September 2004. Letter from Miss E McTurk, 6 Longwall Terrace, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter fromMiss G More, 3H Meadowside Place, Airdrie received 6'h September 2004 Letter from J Grieve, 18 North Berwick Avenue, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from J Lugton, 42 Glen Moriston Road, Cimbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from M Dunlop, 14 Glen Luss Gardens, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from A Dorans, 13 Glen Orchy Drive, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from C Ward, 37 Ben Nevis Way, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from M Boyd, 21 Blantyre Gardens, Cimbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from F & D McGuigan, 102 Ratho Drive, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from C Cecchetti, 7 Glen Clove Drive, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from P Abbott, 52 Drumbowie View, Cumbernauld received 6'h September 2004 Letter from C P-Smith, 31 Antonine Road, Dullatur received 6'h September 2004 Letter from C & J Smith, 22 Glen Lochay Gdns, Cumbernauld received 7'h September 2004 Letter from Mrs & Mr Tatton, 42 Elm Drive, Cumbernauld received 7'h September 2004 Letter from L Wilson, 18 Gartshore Gdns, Cumbernauld received 7'h September 2004 Letter from J Fraser, 25 Leckethill View, Cumbernauld received 7'h September 2004

Appeal Decision Letter from Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit received 4th September 2002

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mary Stewart at 01236 616473,

40 APPLICATION NO. N1041011351FUL

REPORT

1. Descrbtion of Site and Proposal

1 .I The site comprises a U plan farm-steading which sits in approximately 0.6 hectares of ground. Originally, the central part of the steading was a two storey dwelling and single storey ranges of outbuildings were attached on either side, extending forwards of the dwelling to form a courtyard. Part of the property is currently in use as a children’s nursery with places for 67 children, whilst the remainder is vacant. The last use of the vacant part of the building was for Class 4 (Business).

1.2 The majority of the ground around the steading comprises open grassed areas to the front and the western side of the steading and courtyard. Outdoor play facilities for the nursery occupy the majority of the small rear garden area. There are a number of mature trees within the western boundary and immediately adjacent to the south western boundary there is an area of mature trees, all of which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

1.3 The property is a Category B Listed Building. The boundaries are largely defined by stob and wire fencing with hedge planting and low stone boundary walls. Close boarded timber fencing encloses the children’s play area to the rear and on the western edge of the site. Both pedestrian and vehicular access is from Glen Lednock Drive, a residential access road, which has traffic calming measures in the form of speed reduction humps. A secondary pedestrian access links to a footpath which links Glen Rosa Gardens to Glen Lednock Drive.

1.4 The applicant proposes to convert the vacant part of the property to nursery use, to accommodate 52 additional children aged between 3 and 5. This would bring the total number of children within the nursery at any one time to 119. The applicant also proposes to provide 12 additional car parking spaces within the grounds. As the nursery operates between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday to Saturday, the proposal was advertised as being potentially a ‘bad neighbour’ development. The proposal was also advertised as being potentially contrary to the development plan.

2. Plannina History

2.1 Development Approval and Listed Building Consent were granted in 1995 for the conversion of the vacant steading to a dwelling and a Class 4 Business use. The works did not proceed in accordance with the approved plans and further applications designed to gain permissions for the scheme as implemented were refused in 1996.

2.2 Enforcement Notices were issued in relation to the physical changes to the property and both the refusals and the Notices were upheld at a subsequent appeal. Negotiations with the owner to resolve the timing, specification and implementation of corrective measures resulted in the majority of the issues being resolved. The outstanding matter relates to a conservatory at the rear of the property which in terms of the Enforcement Notice must be removed before the 30th September 2020.

2.3 Planning and Listed Building Consent applications (N/01/01223/FUL and N/01/01224/LBC) in relation to the conversion of the whole property to a nursery for 113 children were refused in February 2002 for reasons relating to the effect of the development and the traffic it would generate on residential amenity and the impact of the parking area on the setting of the Listed Building. The subsequent appeals were dismissed in September 2002.

41 2.4 In determining the appeals, the Reporter considered that because of the scale of the development proposed and its location within a residential area, the development would give rise to a high volume of additional traffic in an otherwise quiet residential area. He also considered that the impact would be most noticeable early in the morning and that the greatest effect would be on properties immediately adjacent to the site, including properties protected by Policy HG4 of the Local Plan. He considered such a high intensity use incompatible with and clearly detrimental to the residential character of the area and attached considerable weight to the resultant conflict with Policy TRIO.

2.5 In March 2003 Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were granted in relation to the provision of a children’s nursery providing 67 places, whilst retaining the balance of the property in Class 4 (Business) use. At that time it was considered that the smaller scale of operation proposed would be much more readily absorbed within the surrounding residential area, without detriment to the amenity of residential properties. The 67 place nursery has now been in operation for approximately a year whilst the other part of the property has remained vacant.

3. Development Plan

3.1 The Property is within an area identified for new residential development under the terms of Policy HG5 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993. The development of this area has largely been completed in the time since the plan adoption.

3.2 Adjacent residential areas which were completed at the time the Local Plan was adopted are covered by Policy HG4. Policy HG4 states :

“There will be a presumption against the loss of houses to other uses, and development which could be detrimental to residential amenity. There will be, however, a presumption in favour of developments of an ancillary nature which enhance the provision of local community facilities and services. The introduction or extension of a non-residential activity will not be accepted if likely to lead to a loss of amenity.”

3.3 Also of relevance to the proposal is Policy TRIO of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, which states :

“There will be a general presumption against development which would substantially adversely affect the surrounding area by virtue of its car parking or traffic generation implications. Adequate provision of parking in all new development or change of use must be made by developers in conformity with Strathclyde Regional Council’s adopted standards.”

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 My Transportation Section commented on the need for a visibility splay of 2.5m. x 50 m.at the junction of the access and the public road and that this would require the relocation of the existing boundary wall. They considered that the relocation would also assist in the provision of a step off area for pedestrians. The number of parking spaces proposed was considered adequate.

4.2 NLC Education commented that, although the Council are in partnership with the nursery to provide a fixed number of places for 3 - 5 year olds the proposed increase in capacity of the nursery would not lead to a consequent increase in the number of places in this agreement. Further they considered that the layout proposed would not be acceptable in that children in one of the proposed playrooms would not have direct access to the proposed toilet provision and that there was no direct access to a safe and secure outdoor play space.

42 4.3 A total of 49 representations were received. Three of these were objections and six were letters of support from nursery employees. The remaining were standard tear off slips supporting the expansion of the nursery and completed by parents wishing to secure a nursery place. Two of the objections were from notified neighbours and the other was submitted as a result of publicity for the application. The concerns expressed can be summarised as follows:

a) The increased danger to pedestrians, particularly children, arising from the increase in traffic. b) The impact of the increased traffic on the amenity of the surrounding residential area. c) The increase in the existing use of Glen Rosa Gardens for access to the nursery. d) Impact of increased noise levels resulting from the higher level of activity generated by the development on the surrounding residential area. e) The increased nursery use of the play area in Glen Rosa Gardens, which is maintained by the residents. f) The additional impact on residential privacy of increased use of the nursery play facilities. g) The additional impact of the proposed changes on the Listed Building.

5. Planninu Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 Under Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 planning decisions require to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The main issue in respect of this proposal is the likely effect of the change of use on the amenity of the adjoining residential area and whether this is likely to cause a significant detrimental effect such that the proposal contravenes Policy HG4 and / or Policy TRIO of the adopted Local Plan. In addition, the submitted plans indicate that the proposed change of use will add sufficient capacity to provide places for 52 children, in addition to the 67 places offered by the existing nursery. This would bring the existing nursery operation to a scale in excess of that proposed under the terms of the refused planning application N/01/01223/FUL. As such, the resultant appeal decision is material to the consideration of the current proposal and considerable weight must be attached to that decision given the similarity of the proposals, the recent nature of the decision and the absence of other material changes in the intervening period.

5.3 In relation to the points raised in the letters of representation detailed at paragraph 4.3 above, I would comment as follows:-

The proposal would bring an increase in the amount of traffic on the local road network, particularly during the morning and evening peaks. The road is traffic calmed, however and adequate pedestrian facilities exist The proposal would result in an increase in the amount of traffic on the local road network. This is likely to be concentrated at morning, evening and mid day peaks, when significant numbers of additional vehicles would arrive and depart from the property. Glen Rosa is a public road but does not offer the most direct access to the nursery and this increase is therefore unlikely to be significant. The proposal would result in an increase in noise levels resulting from the increased number of trips generated by the use and by the increased number of children on the premises. Whilst the play area in Glen Rosa is maintained by the residents, it is a public open space, with no restrictions on its use. The times when the existing nursery play facilities can be utilised are controlled by a Planning Condition on the existing permission. Whilst the increase in the number of children will lead to the play area being more frequently utilised, the times when use is permitted would not be extended.

43 g) The impact of the proposed changes on the Listed Building form part of the assessment of the Listed Building Consent application.

5.4 In relation to N/Ol/Ol223/FUL the applicant indicated that a nursery of that size would serve a wide area. The submitted letters of support from parents seeking placements for their children substantiate this and suggest the proposal would also be likely to draw clients from a wide area. Given the location of the nursery within a residential area which is not close to a public transport hub, It is likely that significant proportion of the children would arrive at the property by car. In addition, a significant number of nursery places would be taken up on a part time basis leading to additional trip generation during the course of the operational day. Current operational guidelines would lead to a requirement for approximately 12 additional staff on the premises at any given time.

5.5 Whilst the resultant increase in traffic could be accommodated by the design capacity of the local roads, it would nevertheless constitute a significant increase in activity in the immediate area, some of which would take place outwith the hours which are normally considered as being acceptable in terms of activity within residential areas.

5 .6 In addition to the amount of traffic, the level of noise generated immediately adjacent to the property by these arrivals and departures is also significant. In relation to N1011012231FUL the applicant estimated that at peak times up to 18 children could be arriving within a fifteen minute time period. This level of arrivals and departures is likely to cause noise disturbance to those residents living closest to the site, and will particularly affect residents of Glen Rosa Gardens (some 20 metres from the parking area) and Glen Lyon Court sheltered housing (some 40 metres from the parking area).

5.7 The combination of these factors leads me to the conclusion that the proposal is contrary to Policy HG4 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan in that it would be detrimental to residential amenity. In terms of Policy TR10, it similarly demonstrates that the development would adversely affect the surrounding area by virtue of its traffic generation implications in terms of the impact of the additional traffic flows on local amenity, including public perception of pedestrian safety.

5.8 The proposal would also impact on the visual amenity of both the property and the surrounding area in terms of the need to provide a substantial amount of additional parking area to meet the demands generated by the additional nursery use.

5.9 Whilst accepting that the existing children’s nursery provides valued local child care, it is my opinion that the benefits (in terms of additional childcare provision) arising from the increase in the scale of the facility resulting from this proposal, would be outweighed by the adverse impact on the amenity of the adjacent residential areas, contrary to Policies in the adopted Local Plan. In addition the proposed increase runs counter to the findings of the recent appeal in relation to a facility similar to that which would result from the proposed development. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

44 Application No: N/04/01138/LBC

Date Registered: 30th June 2004

Applicant : Mrs lrene Greene Per Harper MacLeod Solicitors The Ca'd'oro 45 Gordon Street Glasgow G13PE

Agent Young & Gault Architects 28 Speirs Wharf Glasgow G4 9TG

Develop ment : Alterations to Accommodate Part Change of Use and Formation of Additional Parking within Curtilage

Location: Auchinbee, Auchinbee Farm Road, Cumbernauld

Ward: 56: Balloch W, Blackwood E and Craigmarloch Councillor Barry McCulloch

Grid Reference: 273626675758

File Reference: N/04/01138/LBC

Site History: N/01/01223/FUL Alterations and Change of Use from Class 4 (Business) and Class 9 (Houses) to Childrens Nursery (Class 10). Refused 15th February 2002

N/Ol/Ol224/LBC Internal & External Alterations in Relation to Change of Use to Childrens Nursery. Refused 15th February 2002

N/02/0 447/FUL Alterations and Partial Change of Use from Class 4 (Business) and Class 9 (Houses) to Childrens Nursery (Class 10) Granted 7th February 2003

N/02/0 448/LBC Internal and External Alterations in Relation to Part Change of Use to Childrens Nursery Granted 7th March 2003

N/04/01135/FUL Alterations and Part Change of Use from (Class 4) Business to Children's Nursery (Class 10) Subject of Report to this Committee

45 46 Development Plan: The property is covered by Policy EN2, relating to the preservation of the character of Listed Buildings, in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: The Scottish Civic Trust (No Objection) Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland (No Objection) Historic Scotland (Comments)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1st September 2004

Comments:

The applicant proposes to change the use of part of this Category B Listed Building, to provide additional accommodation for the children's nursery which occupies the remainder of the premises. This would provide places for 52 additional children. This part of the property has not been in use for the past 3 years but was formerly occupied by a Class 4 Business.

Planning permission and listed building consent were refused in respect of the change of use of the entire property to a children's nursery, providing 113 places, in February 2002. Subsequent appeals against these decisions were dismissed by the Scottish Ministers in September 2002.

Subsequent applications for planning permission and listed building consent for a children's nursery providing 67 places, whilst retaining the balance of the property in Class 4 (Business) use, were approved in March 2003. The 67 place nursery has now been in operation for approximately a year.

The current proposal involves internal alterations to accommodate the nursery use, the formation of a new emergency exit on the rear elevation and the creation of additional parking. When added to the existing nursery, which occupies the remainder of the property the development would be of similar scale to that refused Listed Building Consent under the terms of N/01/01224/LBC and subsequently dismissed on appeal. In the intervening time there have been no changes to the development plan and the surrounding area has remained constant. The applicant has failed to make a case for any additional or exceptional circumstances to be considered in determining this application. I would therefore recommend that listed building consent be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. That the proposed increase in size of the children's nursery would adversely affect the character, and setting of a Category B Listed Building through the introduction of an additional large parking area in a prominent position within the curtilage, contrary to Policy EN2 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan.

NOTE TO COMMITTEE

If granted this application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997

47 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 30th June 2004

Letter from The Scottish Civic Trust received 8th July 2004 Letter from Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland received 20th July 2004 Letter from Historic Scotland received 16th July 2004

Letter from Ms C J Stevenson, 9 Glen Rosa Gardens, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld, G68 received 21st July 2004.

Appeal Decision Letter from Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit received 4th September 2002

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mary Stewart at 01236 616473.

48 APPLICATION NO. N/04/01138/LBC

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The site comprises a U plan farm-steading which sits in approximately 0.6 hectares of ground. Originally, the central part of the steading was a two storey dwelling and single storey ranges of outbuildings were attached on either side, extending forwards of the dwelling to form a courtyard. The property is Listed, Category B.

1.2 The majority of the ground around the steading comprises open grassed areas to the front and the western side of the steading and courtyard. Outdoor play facilities for the nursery occupy the majority of the small rear garden area. There are a number of mature trees within the western boundary and immediately adjacent to the south western boundary there is an area of mature trees, all of which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The boundaries are defined by stob and wire fencing with hedge planting and low stone boundary walls. Both pedestrian and vehicular access is from Glen Lednock Drive, a residential access road, which has traffic calming measures in the form of speed reduction humps.

1.3 Part of the property is currently in use as a children’s nursery with places for 67 children, whilst the remainder is vacant. The last use of the vacant part of the building was for Class 4 (Business).

1.4 The applicant proposes to convert the vacant part of the property to nursery use, to accommodate 52 additional children aged between 3 and 5. This would bring the total number of children within the nursery at any one time to 119. In order to accommodate the use, the applicant proposes internal alterations to the layout of rooms and a minor external alteration in the form of the installation of a new fire exit door on the rear elevation The applicant also proposes to provide 12 additional car parking spaces within the grounds.

2. Plannina History

2.1 Development Approval and Listed Building Consent were granted in 1995 for the conversion of the vacant steading to a dwelling and a Class 4 Business use. The works did not proceed in accordance with the approved plans and further applications designed to gain permissions for the scheme as implemented were refused in 1996.

2.2 Enforcement Notices were issued in relation to the physical changes to the property and both the refusals and the Notices were upheld at a subsequent appeal. Negotiations with the owner to resolve the timing, specification and implementation of corrective measures resulted in the majority of the issues being resolved. The outstanding matter relates to a conservatory at the rear of the property which in terms of the Enforcement Notice must be removed before the 30th September 2020.

2.3 Planning and Listed Building Consent applications (N/01/01223/FUL and N/01/01224/LBC) in relation to the conversion of the whole property to a nursery for 113 children were refused in February 2002 for reasons relating to the effect of the development and the traffic it would generate on residential amenity and the impact of the parking area on the setting of the Listed Building. The subsequent appeals were dismissed in September 2002.

2.4 In determining the appeals, the Reporter considered that, despite the fact that the surrounding area had been developed since the building was Listed, the open aspect of the Listed Building had been preserved by the format of development and particularly the position of the open space. He considered that the open aspect of the frontage had been preserved and that this

49 had helped to retain the agricultural character of the steading. He considered that the introduction of the amount of parking required would be detrimental to that agricultural character and would adversely affect the setting of the Listed Building.

2.5 In March 2003 Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent were granted in relation to the provision of a children’s nursery providing 67 places, whilst retaining the balance of the property in Class 4 (Business) use. At that time it was considered that the smaller scale of operation, requiring a much smaller parking area would be much more readily absorbed within the, curtilage of the Listed Building. Whilst the parking area would still have an impact on the agricultural character of the building, the level of impact was considered to be acceptable.

3. Development Plan

3.1 The Property is within an area identified for new residential development under the terms of Policy HG5 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993. The development of this area has largely been completed in the time since the plan adoption.

3.2 Adjacent residential areas which were completed at the time the Local Plan was adopted are covered by Policy HG4. Policy HG4 states :

“There will be a presumption against the loss of houses to other uses, and development which could be detrimental to residential amenity. There will be, however, a presumption in favour of developments of an ancillary nature which enhance the provision of local community facilities and services. The introduction or extension of a non-residential activity will not be accepted if likely to lead to a loss of amenity.”

3.3 In relation to the status of the property as a Category B Listed Building, Policy EN2 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan is of relevance. Policy EN2 states :

“There will be a presumption against any development, including demolition, which could adversely affect the character, appearance and setting of a listed building.”

4. Consultations and RePresentations

4.1 The Architectural Heritage Society and The Scottish Civic Trust had no objections to the proposals.

4.2 Historic Scotland referred to Section 1.8.1 of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings which advises that loss of garden ground can seriously affect the setting of a Listed Building. They therefore advised that the impact of the proposed sizeable extension to the existing parking area should be given consideration.

4.3 One local resident expressed concern that the proposals would destroy the Listed Building.

5. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 Under Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 planning decisions require to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The main issue in respect of this proposal is the likely effect of the proposal on the character and setting of the Listed Building. In terms of the proposed physical alterations to the building itself, it would seem that attempts have been made to minimise disruption to the original fabric.

50 In terms of the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings the impact of the proposals on the character and setting of the Listed Building must also be considered.

5.3 The property was originally a farm steading, sitting in an area of open countryside, with mature trees forming a shelter belt to the north west. Whilst it has been surrounded by recent housing developments, the layout of the houses to the east respects the extensive open space to the front of the listed building. The property is set well back from the public road, and retains an extensive open area to the front and also to the side. This has largely preserved the open aspect of the frontage of the buildings and has helped to retain the agricultural character of the original steading.

5.4 The proposed increase in the size of the nursery produces a requirement for 12 additional parking spaces. This brings the number of parking spaces within the open space to the front of the building to 36, one more than previously refused under the terms of application N/02/01224/LBC and subsequently dismissed on appeal. Whilst it is clear the applicant has selected materials which are in keeping with the existing parking, no measures to minimise the additional impact of the proposed doubling of the size of the frontage parking area are included within the proposals.

5.5 The resultant parking area would be only 15 metres from the nearest public viewing point, compared with over 32 metre at present and would be clearly visible from Glen Lednock Drive. The adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Building would be considerable, particularly when the parking area is occupied. This would destroy the relationship of the Listed Building with its hard surfaced courtyard to the surrounding open landscape, removing important references as to the original purpose of the steading and its relationship to the land. The position of the property within the curtilage makes it difficult to locate the car-parking in such a way which would not be intrusive.

5.6 In consideration of all of the above, whilst the proposed development seeks to preserve the fabric of the Listed Building whilst bringing a vacant part of the property back into beneficial use, this benefit would be outweighed by the adverse impact on the character, appearance and setting of a category B listed building, contrary to policies in the adopted Local Plan. I therefore recommend that listed building consent be refused.

5.7 Any determination to grant listed building consent must be referred to the Scottish Ministers under the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.

51 Application No: N/04/01161/FUL

Date Registered: 2nd July 2004

Applicant : Mr And Mrs B Bradley 20 Laightoun Drive Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4EX

Develop ment : Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location : 20 Laightoun Drive, Condorrat, Curr.,ernauld G67 4EX

Ward: 62: Condorrat Central Councillor Gerard McElroy

Grid Reference: 273318.672768.

File Reference: N/04/01161/FUL

Site History: None

The site is covered by residential policy HG4 in the Cumbernauld Development Plan: Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant seeks permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension at 20 Laightoun Drive, Condorrat. One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 22 Laightoun Drive. Notwithstanding the objection, it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved compliments the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

52 53 3. That before the extension hereby permitted is completed, three off street car parking spaces shall be provided within the site, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

4. That a dropped kerb vehicular access with a maximum 5 metre width shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd July 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 23rd July 2004

Letter from Mrs Edith McKinnon, 22 Laightoun Drive, Condorrat, Cumbernauld, G67 4EX received 14th July 2004. Letter from Mr W A Marshall, 34 Drumpellier Avenue, Cumbernauld, G67 4NR received 23rdAugust 2004 (Providing information on behalf of the applicant).

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss. Gebbie at 01236 616466.

54 APPLICATION NO. N1041011611FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The application site is a semi-detached dwellinghouse within a cul-de-sac and is bounded by houses to the side and front with an area of open space to the rear.

The applicant is seeking planning permission to erect a two-storey side extension with a pitched roof and set back 3.7 metres from the front building line of the existing house. The proposed extension will provide a family room at ground floor level and a bedroom at first floor level. The materials to be used throughout will match those existing.

Development Plan

The site lies within an area covered by Policy HG4 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. This policy seeks to protect the established residential amenity of the area. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

Consultations and Representations

My Transportation Section has no objections, subject to conditions.

One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 22 Laightoun Drive. The grounds of the objection and my comments thereon are as follows:-

' The layout and existing building line of the cul-de-sac will be adversely affected by the proposed extension, therefore having a detrimental impact on the immediate and surrounding environment.

Comment: It is concluded that there will be no significant effect on the layout and building line of the cul-de-sac. The design and scale of the proposed extension is considered acceptable. The proposed extension will be set back 3.7 metres from the front of the existing property, therefore it is considered that this will not significantly impact on the existing building line of the cul-de-sac.

' The objectors are concerned about access to the rear of the applicant's property and the blocking of the existing detached garage. The objectors are concerned that the applicant may encroach on to their land for access to the rear of the property.

Comment: The applicant has indicated that they wish to use the detached garage for garden storage. There will be an access path located along the side of the proposed extension. This will allow sufficient access to the rear of the applicant's property therefore not encroaching on No. 22's land. . The proposed development would create significant traffic congestion within the cul-de-sac as a result of the removal of part of the existing driveway and as such, would affect traffic and pedestrian safety.

Comment: It is agreed that the proposed extension will reduce the length of the existing driveway. However the remaining driveway and ground at the front of the property is sufficient to accommodate the required three parking spaces for a 4 bedroom property. The residents may not utilise these parking spaces and park their vehicles on Laightoun Drive. This matter is not a material planning consideration in determining the acceptability of the application.

55 . The location and height of the proposed extension will affect the daylight and sunlight levels at the side and front of the objector’s property.

Comment: Having carried out the Building and Research establishment sunlight and daylight tests, it is concluded that sunlight and daylight levels at the front of No.22 are well within the limits of acceptability following construction of the extension. . The security of the objector’s house will be compromised by the proposed extension concealing the side entrance.

Comment: While the issue of security may be regarded as a material planning consideration, I do not consider that, in this case, this would be a justifiable reason for refusing consent.

4. PIann in u Assessment and Con cl us io ns

4.1 Planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbouring property.

4.2 On detailed assessment of the application, it is considered that the design, scale and materials of the proposed two-storey side extension are acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objection received from the neighbour at 22 Laightoun Drive, and discussed in Section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

56 Application No: N/04/01213/FUL

Date Registered: 12th July 2004

Applicant: Caroline Mary Anne Doyle 67 Etive Court Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4JA

Development: Siting of a Mobile Snack Van (Renewal of Permission)

Location: Quarry Car Park, Auchinstarry, Kilsyth

Ward: 64: Croy and Kilsyth South and Smithstone Councillor Francis Griffin

Grid Reference: 271923677048

File Reference: N/04/0 12 13/FUL

Site History: N/0100592/FUL: Temporary three year permission for the siting of a snack van granted in September 2001

The site is covered by Green Belt policies in the Kilsyth Local Plan Development Plan: 1999.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Com ments)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 21st July 2004

Comments:

The application is for the continued siting of a mobile snack van at the Quarry Car Park, Auchinstarry, Kilsyth. The site is located within the Green Belt in Kilsyth Local Plan 1999.

A previous temporary three-year planning permission was granted in 2001. The site has been sold on to the new applicant who is applying to have the snack van permission renewed. The snack van has existed at the site without any reported problem for the past 3 years. There have been no objections to the proposal following the newspaper advertisement and there are no objections to the continued siting of the snack van from my Transportation Section or from the Community Services Department. It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

57 58 2. That the snack van shall be of the style shown on the approved elevational photographs and shall have maximum dimensions of 5 metres x 2 metres unless alternative details are approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area by limiting the size of the snack bar.

3. That the snack van shall only face northwards or westwards.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety by encouraging use by car park users rather than road users.

4. That the opening hours of the snack van hereby approved shall be limited to the hours of 8.00 am to 8.00 pm Monday to Sunday.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the site and general area by prohibiting loading outwith normal park use times.

5. That the snack van shall be removed from the site outwith the hours of 7.00 am and 9.00 pm Monday to Sunday.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and general area by requiring the removal of the snack bar when not in use.

6. That the litter bin shall be placed outside the snack van for use by the customers.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and general area by encouraging the proper disposal of rubbish.

7. That there shall be no detached signage advertising the snack van.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the general area by prohibiting detached signage.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th July 2004

Memo from NLC Community Services received 22nd July 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Dean at 01236 616459.

59 Application No: N/04/01229/REM

Date Registered: 13th July 2004

Applicant : Mr 8, Mrs Crozier 128 Cumbernauld Road Muirhead Glasgow

Agent D Stewart Toy 29A High Street Lanark ML11 7LU

Development: Construction of a Dwellinghouse

Location: Land Adjacent to 128 Cumbernauld Road, Moorpark Avenue, Muirhead

Ward: 69: Chryston and Auchinloch Councillor Charles Gray

Grid Reference: 268340 669438

File Reference: N/04/01229/REM

Site History: N/02/01618/0UT : Construction of a Dwellinghouse granted 10th March 2004

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policies E.PRO6 (Areas unaffected by Specific Proposals) of the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan, 1983 and Shopping Policy SC1 of NLC's Northern Corridor Local Plan, Finalised Draft, 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas Transco (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections)

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This reserved matters application has been submitted to fulfil the requirements of the outline consent for a dwellinghouse granted in March 2004. Following negotiations with the applicant, the design, orientation and layout of the proposed house on the plot satisfy the conditions of the outline consent.

Three letters of objection have been received and the matters raised are detailed in the accompanying report. Despite the objections, it is recommended that reserved matters permission be granted.

60 61 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started not later than 10 March 2009.

Reason: To accord with the outline planning permission.

2. That before the development hereby permitted is occupied, the access and driveway shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:

a) Access sightlines of 2.5m by 20m shall be provided for the plot and thereafter maintained with nothing being placed, planted or allowed to grow above 900mm in height; b) The driveway shall be 5 metres wide and shall be fully paved across it's entire width for at least the first two metres; c) 3 in-curtilage parking spaces shall be provided and thereafter maintained. d) A turning facility shall be provided in order to ensure that all vehicles enter and leave the site in forward gear.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwelling

3. That before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied, a close boarded timber screen fence, a minimum of 18mm thick, and of the height prescribed by the Traffic Noise Assessment approved as part of outline planning permission N/02/01618/OUT, shall be erected along the boundaries marked blue on the approved plan.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the site by ensuring that noise levels fall within satisfactory limits.

4. That the development of the site shall comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Traffic Noise Assessment approved as part of outline planning permission N/02/01618/OUT.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of prospective users of the application site.

5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, and doors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the general area.

6. That before development starts, the following details shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority:

a) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; b) the provision of drainage works; c) the disposal of sewage; d) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; e) details of existing and proposed site levels

Reason: To ensure compliance with the terms of the outline planning permission.

62 7. That the dwelling shall be completed in accordance with the details approved under the terms of Condition 6 above.

Reason: To ensure that the terms of the outline planning permission are satisfied.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th July 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 29th July 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 2nd August 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 20th April 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 20th July 2004

Letter from Mr And Mrs Steel,"Benvue", 126 Cumbernauld Road, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9DY received 28th July 2004. Letter from Miss R Anderson,Chryston Community Council, 1 Neuk Avenue, Muirhead, G69 9EX received 2nd August 2004. Letter from Jess Gunter,4 Moorpark Avenue, Muirhead, G69 9DZ received 2nd August 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Graeme Lee at 01236 616474.

63 APPLICATION NO. N/04/01229/REM

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I The applicants are seeking approval of reserved matters in relation to outline planning permission N/02/01618/OUT. Details have been submitted of a one and a half storey house showing its orientation on the plot and the general layout of the plot.

1.2 The application site is bounded to the south by the A80 and to the west by Moorpark Avenue, which is a private road servicing 5 other houses. To the north is 126 Cumbernauld Road and to the east is the applicant's house. The houses in the area tend to date from the late 1800s and early 1900s and are stone built with dormer windows

2. Development Plan and Planninq Historv

2.1 The site is covered by Policies E.PRO6 (Areas unaffected by Specific Proposals) of the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan, 1983

2.2 The site is adjacent to the commercial heart of Muirhead and as such it is zoned as a commercial area within which local shopping facilities are to be protected and enhanced under the terms of shopping policies SC1 and 2 in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000. Also of relevance are residential policies HG3 and 4 which set out the criteria for new residential developments

2.3 The principle of a house on this site has been established by outline planning permission N/02/01618/OUT, which granted permission for a one and a half storey dwelling on the site.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section have concerns regarding the access to the site from Cumbernauld Road and would prefer the access to be taken from Stenhouse Avenue or the existing access to 128 Cumbernauld Road.

Comment: : Outline planning permission has already been granted for a house on this site with access being gained via Moorpark Avenue. At that time, I did not consider that one more house will significantly exacerbate the current situation to such an extent that permission should be refused. This advice was accepted by the Committee.

3.2 Scottish Water and Transco do not object to the proposed development.

3.3 Three letters of representation have been received, including a letter from Chryston Community Council. The points raised and my comments are detailed below:

The sewer system is inadequate for the current number of dwellings. A new dwelling will exacerbate the current situation

Comment: Scottish Water has not objected.

The access is unsuitable and substandard

Comment: Outline planning permission has already been granted for a house on this site using Moorpark Avenue as the access.

64 Window on gable end will cause loss of privacy for 4 Moorpark Avenue

Comment: The house has been repositioned on the plot and the gable windows will be orientated away from adjacent dwellings. The windows on the front elevation will be orientated towards Moorpark Avenue. However, the distances and the orientation of the existing houses and the proposed house is such that any loss of privacy is not so significant as would justify refusing planning permission. In any event, the principle of a house on this plot has already been established.

Not all of the details required by the outline planning permission have been submitted to the Council. As such the development does not comply with the conditions stipulated.

Comment: There is no requirement for the applicant to seek approval of all of the matters specified in the outline consent on one reserved matters application. In any event, in the proposed conditions I have reiterated the requirements of the outline planning permission.

4. Plann i nq Assess ment and Con clus ions

4.1 In terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the principle of a house on this plot has been established by outline planning permission N/02/01618/0UT and the proposed house satisfies the conditions of the outline permission in relation to design, orientation and general layout. Accordingly it is recommended that permission be granted.

65 Application No: N/04/01275/FUL

Date Registered: 20th July 2004

Applicant: Mr 8, Mrs Kirson 65 Blantyre Gardens Cumbernauld G68 9NJ

Deve Io p me nt : Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 65 Blantyre Gardens Cumbernauld G68 9NJ

Ward: 56: Balloch W, Blackwood E and Craigmarloch Councillor Barry McCu Iloch

Grid Reference: 272471.674481.

File Reference: N/04/01275/FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policy HG5C, shopping policy SH6 and public services policy PS2 in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is in respect of a two-storey rear extension at a detached dwellinghouse at 65 Blantyre Gardens, Blackwood, Cumbernauld. One letter of representation was received from a neighbouring proprietor, and the points raised have been detailed in the attached report. Following assessment of the proposals against the development plan and all other material consideration, including effects on the neighbouring properties, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

66 67 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved compliments the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the extension hereby approved is completed, an additional off-street parking space shall be provided within the curtilage of the application site, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th July 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 24th August 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 5th August 2004

Letter from T A & G Fitzpatrick, 63 Blantyre Gardens, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, G68 9NJ received 4th August 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss. Gebbie at 01236 616466.

68 APPLICATION NO. N1041012751FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is occupied by a detached dwellinghouse and is bounded by houses to the north, south, west with an area of open space to the east. The house is set amongst an estate of similar properties.

1.2 The applicant is seeking planning permission to erect a two-storey rear extension to extend the living room at ground floor level and to create two additional bedrooms at first floor level. The proposed extension will have a pitched roof and the materials to be used throughout will match those existing.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by Residential Policy HG5C, Shopping Policy SH6 and Public Services Policy PS2 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objection subject to a condition related to parking provision.

3.2 One letter of representation has been received from the neighbouring proprietor at 63 Blantyre Gardens in relation to this application. The representation has been made on the following grounds:-

1 The height and scale of the proposed extension will affect sunlight and daylight levels at the rear garden area and living room of the objector's property.

Comment: Having carried out the Building Research Establishment sunlight and daylight tests, it is concluded that the sunlight and daylight levels at the rear of No. 63 and daylight levels in the living room and rear garden area will be well within the limits of acceptability following the construction of the extension.

1 The construction of the extension will cause significant traffic congestion as result of vans parking on Blantyre Gardens. . The noise levels during construction will be disturbing for the immediate neighbours especially during evenings and weekends.

Comment: It is conceded that, as with any development, there may be disruption during the construction of the extension, however, this would be temporary and should not be material in deciding the acceptability of the proposed extension.

1 The objectors are concerned that there will be a loss of privacy as a result of two windows facing directly on to the rear garden area of No. 63.

Comment: There are two windows on the side elevation of the property which will face directly on to the rear garden area of No. 63. However one window is for a bathroom and has obscured glass and the other is an existing landing window. Given that the landing is not a habitable room, it is considered that these windows will not affect the level of privacy enjoyed in the rear

69 garden area of the neighbouring property, although it is conceded that there will be a perception of being overlooked.

4. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbouring property.

4.2 On detailed assessment of the application, it is considered that the design, scale and materials of the proposed extension are acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objection received from the neighbour at 63 Blantyre Gardens, and discussed in Section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

70 Application No: N/04/01279/FUL

Date Registered: 21 st July 2004

Applicant : J & W Paul 11K Fleming Road Seafar Cumbernauld G67 ILH

Agent R McGuire 39 Springfield Road Cumbernauld Village Cumbernauld G67 2RB

Developmen t : Alterations to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 11K Fleming Road, Seafar, Cumbernauld G67 ILH

Ward: 54: Seafar and The Village Councillor Neil McCallum

Grid Reference: 275854.674738.

File Reference: N/04/01279/FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks permission for alterations to a dwellinghouse at 11K Fleming Road, Seafar, Cumbernauld. Two letters of representation have been received from the neighbouring proprietors at 11J Fleming Road and 10D Lennox Road. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:.

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

71 72 2. That the materials to be used for the front porch shall match in colour and texture of those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved compliments the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21 st July 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 19th August 2004

Letter from Mrs Catherine Compton, 11J Fleming Road, Seafar, Cumbernauld received 27th July 2004. Letter from Mr M McCall, 10D Lennox Road, Seafar, Cumbernauld, G67 ILN received 4th August 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Heather Gebbie at 01236 616466.

73 APPLICATION NO. N1041012791FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The application site is an end-terraced dwellinghouse set within a block of four properties, with houses to the north, south and the Episcopal Church of the Holy Name to the east.

The applicant is seeking planning permission to alter the front of the house at 11K Fleming Road in order to create a front porch. The applicant proposes to remove the existing canopy to erect a front porch measuring 2.7 metres wide, 0.9 metres long and 2.5 metres high. The porch will have a pitched roof and finished with materials to match the adjoining house. In addition to the porch, the applicant wishes to erect a wall along the boundary at the front of the property. This garden wall will be 1.O metre in height and is therefore regarded as permitted development.

Development Plan

The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The proposal is in accordance with the local plan and raises no strategic issues.

Consultations and Representations

My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

Two letters of representation have been received from the neighbouring proprietors at 11J Fleming Road and 10D Lennox Road. The main points of the objections and my comments thereon are as follows:- . The proposed garden wall will increase drainage problems at 11J Fleming Road, as the wall will obstruct the existing drain and subsequently prevent the drainage flow.

Comment: The garden wall is 1.0 metre in height and therefore classed as permitted development, of which the Planning Authority has no control. The applicant has been made aware of this issue and has confirmed that the appropriate drainage measures will be used during construction of the wall. . The proposed front porch will affect the daylight and sunlight levels at the living room of 10D Lennox Road.

Comment: Having carried out the Building Research Establishment sunlight and daylight tests, it is concluded that the sunlight and daylight levels at the living room of 10D Lennox Road will be well within the limits of acceptability following construction of the porch.

The proposed front porch and wall will adversely impact on the view from the objector's property at 1OD Lennox Road.

Comment: It is agreed that there will be a certain level of impact on the view currently enjoyed, however there is no entitlement to a view under planning regulations.

74 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed front porch and new wall on the neighbouring properties in Fleming Road and Lennox Road.

4.2 On detailed assessment of the application, it is considered that the design, scale and materials of the proposed front porch are acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections received from the neighbours at 1lJ Fleming Road and 10D Lennox Road, and discussed in Section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

75 Application No: N/04/01309/FUL

Date Registered: 26th July 2004

Applicant: Alan Tang Clo A.T. Trading (Scotland) Ltd 5 Hume Road Seafar G67 1AP

Agent John Kirkhope RlBA ARIAS 3 Drove Hill Cum bernauld G68 9DL

Development: Extension of Opening Hours for Hot Food Takeaway Restaurant

Location : 6 Hume Road, Seafar, Cumbernauld

Ward: 54: Seafar and The Village Councillor Neil McCallum

Grid Reference: 2761 89 675180

File Reference: N/04/01309/FUL

Site History: N/01/00235/FUL : Change of Use of Bicycle Shop to Hot Food Shop Approved on Appeal 1Oth April 2002

N/03/01181/FUL : Alterations to Shop - Approved 13thOctober 2003

N/04/01308/ADV : Erection of Signs - Approved 31st August 2004

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None Required

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 4th August 2004

Comments:

This application is for the extension of the opening hours of the hot food take-away at 6 Hume Road, Seafar, Cumbernauld. Permission for the hot food take-away was granted on appeal in April 2002 and the business has recently begun trading. One of the conditions attached to the consent was that the opening hours should not exceed 11.OO am. to 11:00 pm. daily in order to protect the nearby occupants from noise and disturbance late in the evening. The applicant proposes to extend the opening hours to 11.OO am. to 11.30 pm. on Monday to Thursday and Sunday, and 11.OO am. to 12:OO midnight on Friday and Saturday. No objections have been received from the neighbour notification process or public advertisement. For the reasons outlined in the accompanying background report it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

76 77 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason : To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the hours of opening of the hot food takeaway shall be as follows :-

a). Monday to Thursday and Sunday : 11:00 am. to 11:30 pm. b). Friday and Saturday: 11:OO am. to 12:OO midnight.

Reason : In the interests of the amenity of local residents.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th July 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs.Devlin at 01236 616463.

78 APPLICATION NO. N/04/01309/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application is for an extension to the current opening hours of the hot food take-away at 6 Hume Road, Seafar. The use of the unit, which was previously a bicycle shop, was granted on appeal by the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit on lothApril 2002. A condition attached to the consent restricted the daily opening hours to 11:00 am. to 11:00 pm.

1.2 The hot food take-away business has recently begun trading and it is proposed that the opening hours be extended to 11:00 am. to 11:30 pm. on Monday to Thursday and Sunday, and 11:00 am to 12:OO midnight on Friday and Saturday.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local plan 1993.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 No consultations were required for the assessment of this application and no objections were received from the neighbour notification process or the newspaper advertisement.

4. PIann inq Assessment and Co ncl us i o ns

4.1 As outlined previously, the applicant wishes to extend the imposed opening hours by 30 minutes to 11:30 pm. on Monday to Thursday and Sunday, and by an hour to midnight on Friday and Saturday. The hours of operation to 11:OO pm. were imposed by the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit to protect the occupants of nearby housing from noise and disturbance late in the evening.

4.2 The takeaway unit, while located relatively close to existing residential properties, is situated next to McCashin's petrol filling station and shop which operates a 24 hour service. I am satisfied that an extra 30 minutes during the week and Sunday, and an extra hour on a Friday and Saturday will have a minimal impact on the amenity of the nearby residents. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. The applicant will require to obtain a Late Hours Catering Licence from the Council for any opening of the premises beyond 11:00 pm.

79 Application No: C/03/0064O/FUL

Date Registered: 8th May 2003

Applicant : Asda Stores Ltd Asda House Southbank, Great Wilson Street Leeds LSll 5AD

Agent GVA Grimley Sutherland House 149 St. Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5NW

Developmen t : Erection of 3,158sq.m. Extension to Existing Store, Alterations to Car Park and Re-development of Existing Petrol Filling Station

Location: Asda Stores Ltd Main Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 3BU

Ward: 34: Coatbridge Central Councillor Thomas Nolan

Grid Reference: 273313 665047.

File Reference: CIPLICTM0301DWB/EL

Site History: Planning application C/04/00829/FUL for Installation of External Lift granted on 18 August 2004

Development Plan: The site is covered by commercial and transportation policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal is also assessed against Strategic Policy 9 in the Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S. E. P.A.(W est) (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (Comments) Scottish Power (No Objection) NLC Community Services (Com ments)

Represen tat ions: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the erection of a 3,158sq.m. extension to the Asda Store in Coatbridge. The proposal will involve the extension of the building out over the existing car park on the north side of South Circular Road, adding non-food floorspace with additional staff and warehouse accommodation. The car parks on both sides of the South Circular Road and petrol filling station will be redesigned to provide 63 additional parking spaces. Following neighbour notification 3 letters of objection were received details of which are included in the attached report.

80 Planning Application No. C/03/0064O/FUL Erection of 3,158 sq.m. Extension to Existing Store, Alterations

Produced by to Car Park and Re-development of Existing Petrol Filling Station Planning and Etwaonmnt Headquarters rkshire Sute 501, Fleming House Asda Stores Ltd., Main Street, Coatbridge GUM1 21ryrlRoad CUMEERNAULD G67 IJW ii Mp3& hamlh WbaEe Survqmipflrgwlh 01236616210 Fax 01238616232 Representations Not to Scale &K&%E'PEu%$' hlsimNs Site* Area 3.41 HA Lhutbnudripm&ctim Ikhirg~Cravnwighi OS Licmce IA 09041~ ID msyladtopalurublm c~uviimoc&#w 81 Following consultation and the submission of a Planning Policy and Retail Statement and Transport Assessment no objections were received from consultees. I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that suggest that these policies should be set aside. I therefore recommend approval as set out below.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development d) details of the phasing of these works.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

4. That within one year of the occupation of the extension hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 3 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of visual amenity within this Town Centre location.

5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- a) the proposed footpaths shown on the approved plans; b) the proposed parking areas shown on the approved plans; c) the proposed external lighting provided for the parking areas shown on the approved plans; d) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas agreed under the terms of condition 3 above; and e) the proposed fenceslwalls to be erected along the boundaries shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

82 6. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 5 shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure appropriate maintenance of the footways, parking areas, external lighting and landscaped areas in the interest of road safety and amenity.

7. That prior to works starting on the extension hereby permitted the alterations to the access and parking areas on the south side of South Circular Road shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide additional car parking provision on the south side of South Circular Road and reduce the potential inconvenience to Town Centre patrons during construction works.

8. That before the extension to the store is completed or brought into use the alterations to the access and parking areas on the north side of South Circular Road shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

Background Papers: Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Application form and plans received 8'h May 2003,20 August 2003,28 November 2003 Planning Policy and Retail Statement received 11May 2004 Transport Assessment received 2 June 2004

Memo from Transportation Section received 23rdJune 2004 and Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 17'h June 2003 Letter from Scottish Water received gthJune 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 22"d May 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 28'h My2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 22" May 2003 Memo from NLC Community Services received 11th July 2003

Letter from Jones Lang LaSalle,l50 St Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5ND received 14'h May 2003. Letter from Whitelaw Baikie Figes,78 St Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5TX received 21" May 2003. Letter from BJK Dunn AMRICS),JJB Sports PLC, Martland Park, Challenge Way, Wigan, Lancashire, WN5 OLD received 14' June 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact David Baxter at 01236 812372.

83 APPLICATION NO. C/03/0064O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I This application is for the erection of a 3,158sq.m. extension to the Asda Store in Coatbridge. The existing store is 8,000 sq.m. gross with a sales area of 4,000sq.m. The proposal will involve the extension of the building out over the existing car park on the north side of South Circular Road, adding additional staff accommodation on an upper level and extending the exiting storage area into a void below the current one. The sales area will be extended by 2,694sq.m.

1.2 The enlarged store will continue to be served by the existing customer entrance onto the Mall on its western side which will be upgraded to include covered ‘Travelators’ between the store entrance and the lower level car park.

1.3 The car parks and petrol filling station will be redesigned to provide 63 additional parking spaces. The taxi rank will be relocated from the southern car park onto Centre Park Court to the south of the pedestrian bridge.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned ECON9 Secondary Core Areas and TRIO To Encourage Off Street Parking Provision in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal is also assessed against Strategic Policy 9 in the Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Scottish Power have no objection to the proposal.

3.2 Transco and Scottish Water have no objections subject to appropriate measures being taken to protect existing plant.

3.3 SEPA have no objections subject to comments related to the remediation and redevelopment of the Petrol Filling Station.

3.4 NLC Community Services have requested clarification on the proposed landscape proposal for the site. This is covered by a proposed condition.

3.5 The Transportation Section has indicated that the alterations to the car parks, realignment of the roundabout and service yard entrance will not significantly impact on traffic safety.

3.6 Following neighbour notification 3 letters of objection were submitted that raised the following points: a) The existing pedestrian entrance to the store may be relocated with a detrimental impact on the town centre. b) The enclosure of the access ramp and lifts within the store entrance could have a detrimental affect on trading along the Mall. c) The increase in the non-food retail floorspace will have a direct affect on the town centre and could seriously affect its viability and vitality.

84 4. PIann i nCI Assessment and Con c Iu s io ns

4.1 The assessment of this application will consider; a) the Development Plan; and b) the impact of the building and its operation on the site setting.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 4.2 The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 indicates in Strategic Policy 9 the criteria by which development proposals should be assessed. The impact on the vitality and viability of existing Town centres along with infrastructure and transport implications should be assessed.

4.3 The Planning Policy and Retail Statement submitted by the applicant indicates that the development will result in a 5% trade diversion from other retail units within Coatbridge and Airdrie Town centres. It is also demonstrated that at present 49% of the potential expenditure currently goes outwith these centres and that the proposed extension could draw in 2% of this. It is therefore considered that the town centre is capable of withstanding the minimal levels of trade diversion envisaged and that the proposal will result in an increased clawback of retail expenditure to the town centre. As such the vitality and viability of the town centre is not significantly affected.

4.4 Strategic Policy 9(b)(vi) requires the promotion of Sustainable Transport through a hierarchy of accessibility. The central location of the site within Coatbridge and easy accessibility to all the forms of access set out in the relevant schedule would indicate that the proposal is in accordance with this criteria.

Monklands District Local Plan 4.5 The site is zoned ECON9 Secondary Core Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. As such the development of the site for a retail development is supported subject to other policies in the plan.

4.6 Policy COMI Maintain Viable Town Centres indicates that the Council will: a) resist major commercial developments within or without the area which threaten the viability of the retail cores of Coatbridge and Airdrie b) encourage major commercial developments which will enhance and extend the retail cores of Coatbridge and Airdrie.

4.7 Policy COM2 Criteria for Evaluating all New Retail Proposals sets out the means by which new retail developments are to be assessed. The criteria are as follows; a) Whether the proposal will maintain and /or enhance the vitality and viability of existing retail centres in line with COMI; b) Whether the location of a proposal is within or adjoining an existing retail centre in line with COMI; c) Ability of the appropriate catchment population to support such a facility; d) Clear evidence of a lack of choice in respect of any particular form of retailing; e) Assessment of cumulative impact at any out of centre location on existing retail locations; f) Compatibility with surrounding land uses; g) Convenient accessibility of public transport facilities in line with sustainable objectives; h) Availability of alternative sites, within or adjacent to the town centres; and i) infrastructure implications. Following the submission of the Planning Policy and Retail Statement and the Transport Assessment the extension of the existing store is considered to be in accordance with the above criteria.

85 4.8 It is considered that by improving the existing car parks and providing an additional 63 parking spaces the proposal is in accordance with Policy TRIO Encourage Off Street Parking Provision.

4.9 The overall impact of the development on visual amenity has been addressed in discussion with the applicant and as a result amendments were made to the design and conditions are proposed in respect to submission and implementation of an appropriate landscape scheme. The design of the extension takes reference from the existing building while introducing cladding and glazing that will enhance the southern elevation towards South Circular Road.

4.10 The proposed extension will enable pedestrians to access the existing bus stops to the west of the site and the relocated Taxi lay-by while retaining links to the Mall that lead out to Main Street. The revised plans are considered acceptable in terms of vehicular access and servicing.

4.11 The letters of objection made reference to the access to the store and the impact on the town centre. I consider that the revisions will retain satisfactory access to the Mall and on towards Main Street from the car parking areas and should not therefore have a significant impact on pedestrian movements. As indicated above the supporting information demonstrates that the impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre will not be significantly affected.

4.12 In conclusion, I consider that the proposal to extend the existing Asda store within Coatbridge Town Centre is in accordance with the sequential approach set out in Strategic Policy 9 in the Structure Plan. With the proposed improvements to the access and parking it is also in accordance with the Local Plan policies and the proposal will sit well in its setting with little impact on the visual amenity or character of the area. I therefore recommend approval of the application.

86 Application No: C/04/00206/FUL

Date Registered: 18th February 2004

Applicant: Neat Earth Ltd Clo Sherlocks 27 Caledonian Road Wishaw ML2 8AD

Agent Seven Design Group 95 Morrison Street Glasgow G5 8LD

Development: Refurbishment of Church Building and Manse Including the Erection of 7 New Build Units To Form 32 Flatted Dwellings

Location: Dundyvan Parish Church Oxford Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 IBN

Ward: 36 Bargeddie And Langloan Councillor Andrew Burns

Grid Reference: 272845664592

File Reference: C/PL/CT032000/1J/EL

Site History: C/04/00614/LBC Refurbishment of former Church Building (Listed Building Consent) under consideration.

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy LR 4/1: Consider provision of Major New Facilities (Arts Centre) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Historic Scotland (No Objections) S.E.P.A.(West) (No objections) Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas Transco (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections) The Coal Authority (No objections) Strathclyde Police (No response)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Permission is being sought for the refurbishment of a former Church building and adjacent manse together with an element of new build to provide in total 32 flatted dwelling units on land at Dundyvan Church, Coatbridge.

87 Planning Application No. C/04/00206/FUL Refurbishment of Church Building and Manse including the

Preducedby Erection of 7 New Build Units to Form 32 Flatted Dwellings Rann no and Environmml (rK~rsa. H8ldquailer. Pw Ccunrll su 1s 501 F*rn "IHO"8. CUMBERNAULO2TiyslRsd Dundyvan Parish Church, Oxford Street, Coatbridge GUT0,256 11w e16210 Far OiZib 11-52 R.Cdw.2 fromln O,dn.rr.l"n.ymgpnp Wlh Not ,o Scale n.prm..ondm.Calirl..,".rM.,nly. Swlan m.iU ec,nnogyr*, OS LsmrstAOSP111 HA Lb.LlhOns.dr~Dd"Nm "hqr ClP. '911'*, 0.37 .m mq ..dlovm.TYlm /r c 1 I p,oo..d,q.

88 The site is located within the Dundyvan area of Coatbridge and currently contains a grade "B" Listed former Church building with adjacent a two storey former manse which together have both lain vacant for a number of years and are now in a state of disrepair. The site measures hectares and is bounded to the north by Oxford Street, to the south by Kirk Street, to the west by Henderson Street and to the east by residential properties.

The proposal seeks to refurbish the existing vacant church building to accommodate 21 flatted dwelling units together with the refurbishment of the manse to accommodate 4 flatted units and the erection of 7 new build flatted units around the manse. Externally only minimal alterations are proposed to the existing former church building and these will mainly comprise of new doorways/window openings on the main elevations and skylights incorporated in the re-slated roof area. The external stone fabric of the manse will be retained and improved where necessary while the new build will incorporate external render and dark grey roofing slates. All resident parking associated with the development will be wholly contained within the curtilage of the site with vehicular access taken off Oxford Street. This proposal is directly associated to a separate Listed Building Consent application (ref:C/04/00614/LBC) which has been submitted by the same applicant for the alterations to the grade "B" Listed building. A report on that application will be considered at this same Committee meeting.

The application site is located within an area of predominantly residential character and the proposed use i.e. residential is seen as sympathetic to that surrounding area. The proposed refurbishment of this "B" Listed vacant former church building has the full support of Historic Scotland and implementation of any approved works will safeguard the future of an important local feature which is rapidly deteriorating in condition due primarily to vandalism and lack of protection. The associated improvement works to the manse together with the complementary new build stand well against the church building proposals in terms of design and external treatment. No objections were received against the proposal as a result of the neighbour notification and public advertisement procedures. Taken as a whole the proposals are considered to be of an acceptable standard which will enhance and improve the appearance of the visually prominent former church building while significantly improving the environment around the site. Having regard to this I recommend that permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:.

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That a fully detailed schedule of the extent of stonework repairs necessary for the church building and details of the treatments proposed shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, before such work begins.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

89 4. That all gutters and downpipes on the church building shall be of cast iron or cast aluminium with a painted finish.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

5. That the replacement roofing material on the church building shall be natural slates only.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

6. That the surrounds of any new slappings, required to accommodate doors and windows on the church building, shall be finished in matching stone and the detailing of all new windows should match those currently existing on the church building.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

7. That all proposed rooflights on the church building shall be of traditional conservation style, a sample of which shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, before the start of any work.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

8. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site together with details of any repairs required to the wrought iron railings along the Oxford Street frontage of the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

9. That before the first of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

10. That a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 60 metres, measured from the heel of the footway, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access onto Oxford Street and before the development hereby permitted is completed, or brought into use, everything exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the footway level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the footway level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

90 11. That before the development starts, full details of the location and design of the drainage scheme to be installed shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval, and these shall include full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's principals of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest guidance on SUDS.

12. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) details of any phasing of these works.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

13. That within one year of the development hereby permitted being brought into use, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 12; above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the environmental amenity of the site

14. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas approved under the terms of condition 12 above.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

15. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 14 above shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the building and the area.

16. That before the last of the new build dwelling units hereby approved is occupied, Dundyvan Church and Manse shall be fully refurbished in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard the future of the buildings and in the interests of amenity of the surrounding residential area.

91 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 18th February 2004

Memo from Transportation Section received 21" May 2004 Letter from Historic Scotland received 16'h May 2004 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 20th April 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 1st March 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 25th February 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 1st March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 9th April 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

92 APPLICATION NO. C1041002061FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is located within the Dundyvan area of Coatbridge and currently contains a grade "B" Listed redundant Church building with adjacent a two storey former manse which have both lain vacant for a number of years and are now in a state of disrepair. The site measures 0.37 hectares, is generally untidy and is bounded to the north by Oxford Street, to the south by Kirk Street, to the west by Henderson Street and to the east by residential properties.

1.2 The proposal seeks to internally refurbish the existing vacant church building to accommodate 21 flatted dwelling units together with the refurbishment of the manse to accommodate 4 flatted units and the erection of 7 new build flatted units around the manse. Resident parking associated with the development, based on 100% provision (32 spaces), will be wholly contained within the curtilage of the site with a sole vehicular access point being taken off Oxford Street.

1.3 Externally only minimal alterations are proposed to the natural stone fabric of the existing former church building and these will mainly comprise of new doorwayslwindow openings where required and skylights incorporated in the retained roof area which will be re-slated around the new skylights. The 21 flatted units will be provided at five levels incorporating the roof area of the building with the bedroom accommodation of each unit set at the level above the main living quarters. Access to the various parts of the building will be by means of 6 doorways provided at ground floor level.

1.4 The external stone fabric of the manse will be retained and improved where necessary and the new build which will be attached to the manse will incorporate external render and dark grey roofing slates. The manse will accommodate 4 flatted units at three levels (incorporating the existing roof area) while the new build will be two storeys in height with the internal layout similar to the main church building (with bedrooms on upper levels).

2. Development Plan

2.1 In terms of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is covered by Policy LR 4/1: Provision of Major New Facilities - Arts Centre.

3. Consu Itat ions and Representations

3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures no representations were received against this proposal.

3.2 None of the statutory consultees notified of this application offered any objection although SEPA has recommended that a condition be included on any planning permission requiring the applicant to treat surface water from the site in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual (SUDS).

3.3 The Transportation Section has formally objected to the proposal on the grounds of insufficient courtyard parking provision, sub-standard visibility splays on Oxford Street, loss of road frontage public footway and lack of linkage between pedestrian linkages between parking courtyard and flats.

93 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In terms of Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 planning decisions require to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In terms of this current submission it is considered that the key issues are the development plan; and the other material considerations are the preservation of a Listed Building; Design and Layout; and Transportation matters.

4.2 Whereas the Local Plan identifies the application site as a potential location for a Local Arts Centre, neither that option nor any other development proposal has been taken forward at any time throughout the period of the plan with the result that the dilapidated condition of the former church building and manse would now make most forms of development financially unattractive. Taken that the site is within an area of a residential character (Policy HG9) and surrounded by predominantly residential properties then the proposal as submitted is seen as sympathetic to the area and therefore despite the Local Plan designation, is acceptable in land use terms.

4.3 Dundyvan Church is a Grade "B" Listed Building of distinguished red sandstone exterior with slim buttressed gable, etiolated windows and a tall pinnacled belfry tower culminating in a splendid crown that can be seen for miles. The building has lain vacant for a number of years with the result that the roof area is in danger of collapse and the interior has been entirely gutted with all architecturally important fixtures removed. The proposals have been the subject of protracted discussion involving the applicant, this department and Historic Scotland with the result that the submitted proposals have in the main met with the requirements of all interested parties. Historic Scotland in particular welcome this proposal as it will ensure the survival of the church building through a sensitive conversion to flatted accommodation. The retention of the external fabric of the Listed Building and manse is an important feature in any redevelopment proposal and the design and finish of the new build element will compliment the major refurbishment works within the site. As the proposal affects a Listed Building then should the Council be minded to grant the proposal then in accordance with legislation the associated Listed Building application, a report on which is also being considered at this Committee, would require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers (Historic Scotland) for consideration.

4.4 The concerns raised by the Transportation Section have been noted and the applicant has sought to amend the proposals to retain and enhance the section of public footway along Oxford Street, provide defined pedestrian linkages between the courtyard and the buildings and also introduce acceptable visibility standards at the site access on Oxford Street. Unfortunately site size constraints have reduced the land available within the site for car parking provision and while the applicant has met the minimum standard of 1 space per unit no provision has been made for visitor parking. Notwithstanding this however, the public roadways around the site can be utilised if necessary for any short term visitor parking.

4.5 Having regard to the foregoing I consider the proposal as submitted to be acceptable in both design and layout terms, and despite the parking shortfall within the site the benefits of the proposal through the retention of the listed building outweigh the parking shortfall. I therefore recommend that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.

94 Application No: C/04/00614/LBC

Date Registered: 21st April 2004

Applicant : Neat Earth Ltd Clo Sherlocks 27 Caledonian Road Wishaw ML2 8AD

Agent Seven Design Group 95 Morrison Street Glasgow G5 8LD

Development: Refurbishment of Former Church Building to Form 21 Fiats (Listed Building Consent)

Location: Dundyvan Parish Church Oxford Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 IBN

Ward: 36: Bargeddie And Langloan Councillor Andrew Burns

Grid Reference: 272845664592

File Reference: C/PL/CT032000/1J/EL

Site History: C/04/00206/FUL Refurbishment of Church Building and Manse including 7 new build units to form 32 Flatted Dwellings - under consideration

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy LR411:Consider Provision of New Facilities (Arts Centre) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991,

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Historic Scotland (No objections) Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland (Objections) The Scottish Civic Trust (Objections)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 28th April 2004

Comments:

Listed Building Consent is being sought for the internal refurbishment and external alterations to the former church building addressed as Dundyvan Church, Henderson Street, Coatbridge. This proposal is related to a larger redevelopment project including refurbishment of a former manse and new build by the same applicant, details of which are expanded upon and assessed under planning application no. C/04/00206/FUL. Dundyvan Church is a Grade "B" Listed Building of distinguished red sandstone exterior with slim buttressed gable, etiolated windows and a tall pinnacled belfry tower culminating in a splendid crown that can be seen for miles. The building has lain vacant for a number of years with the result that the roof area is in danger of collapse and the interior has been entirely gutted with all architecturally important fixtures removed.

95 Planning Application No. C/04/00614/LBC Refurbishment of Former Church Building to Form 21 Flats (Listed Building Consent) rbhire CouncU Dundyvan Parish Church, Oxford Street, Coatbridge a Not to Scale 0.37 HA

96 The proposal is to comprehensively refurbish the interior of the building to accommodate 21 flatted units on five levels with six defined entrance doorways created at ground floor level to access to various apartments within the building. Externally the red sandstone finish of the building will be retained and repointed where necessary and only minimal alterations are proposed to the natural stone fabric of the former church building to include new doorwayslwindow openings where required and skylights incorporated in the retained roof area which will be re-slated. Historic Scotland have been an active party during pre-application discussions with the applicant and they welcome this proposal.

While objections against the details of the proposal has been received from both the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and the Scottish Civic Trust, Historic Scotland have advised that while they accept the specific points raised by the AHSS they have decided to accept the proposals in order that the building may be saved as an important landmark. Added that experience has shown that a building lying open and derelict for any length of time will eventually become dangerous and may be lost altogether, Historic Scotland conclude that the proposed residential conversion, of which there are several examples in the immediate area, will inevitably necessitate the loss of the interior and the alteration of the exterior in some areas.

Having regard to all relevant matters, I am satisfied that the proposals are of a standard appropriate to this architecturally important Listed Building and its re-introduction to an acceptable productive use i.e. residential is welcomed. I therefore recommend that Listed Building Consent be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That a fully detailed schedule of the extent of stonework repairs necessary for the church building and details of the treatments proposed shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, before such work beg ins.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

4. That all gutters and downpipes on the church building shall be of cast iron or cast aluminium with a painted finish.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

5. That the replacement roofing material on the church building shall be natural slates only.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

97 6. That the surrounds of any new slappings, required to accommodate doors and windows on the church building, shall be finished in matching stone and the detailing of all new windows should match those currently existing on the church building.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

7. That all proposed rooflights on the church building shall be of traditional conservation style, a sample of which shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, before the start of any work.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to preserve the character of the Listed Building.

NOTE TO COMMITTEE

Committee should note that if they are minded to grant the proposal it requires to be referred to the Scottish Ministers (Historic Scotland) for consideration.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th April 2004

Letter from Historic Scotland received 17'h May 2004 Letter from Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland received lothMay 2004 Letter from The Scottish Civic Trust received 24thMay 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

98 Application No: C/04/01162/FUL

Date Registered: 1st July 2004

Applicant : Mr & Mrs L. Stephen 5 Lauchope Street Chapelhall Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 8SW

Development: Change of Use From Open Space to Private Garden Ground and Erection of Fence (In Retrospect)

Location: 5 Lauchope Street Chapelhall Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 8SW

Ward: 51: Chapelhall Councillor Thomas Curley

Grid Reference: 2781 38.663033.

File Reference: CIPLICHLI 95IDWBIEL

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: The site is covered by general urban area policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 4 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the change of use of open space to private garden ground and the erection of a fence (in retrospect) at 5 Lauchope Street, Chapelhall. The site is zoned ECON 8 General Urban Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Following neighbour notification 4 letters of objection were received details of which are enclosed in the attached report. The application site is part of Roberton Street, a private road that has been stopped up to vehicular traffic and is currently in a poor state of repair. The applicant has erected a fence that varies in height between 2.1 to 2.3m high to the south and east of the site. He is proposing to reduce it to 2.12m and complete the sites enclosure by erecting a Im high wall forward of the building line onto Lauchope Street. Thereafter the site will be set out as garden ground. Public access from Main Street to Lauchope Street will still be possible through a 2.5 to 3m wide lane to the south of the enclosed area. I consider that the change of use will improve an area that has lain semi-derelict for over 20 years and subject to the proposed conditions should not significantly affect pedestrian access or amenity. I therefore recommend approval as set out below.

99 Planning Application No. C/04/01162/FUL Change of Use From Open Space to Private Garden Ground Produced by and Erection of Fence (In Retrospect) Planning and Environmnl 5 Lauchope Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie G67 1JW A 01236616210 Fax 012S616232 * Representations Not to Scale OS Licence LA W041L Site Area 1.54 HA 100 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:.

1. That within 2 months of the date of this notice the street lighting column within the site shall be relocated at the applicant's expense to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the lane formed as a result of this development is appropriately lit in the interest of pedestrian safety.

2. That within 2 months of the date of this notice the fences that has been erected shall be reduced in height to 1.8m above ground level and stained in a colour to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to control the development in the interest of amenity.

3. That before work starts on erecting the wall hereby permitted, full details of all external materials to be used in the construction of the wall shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1st July 2004 and 12'h August 2004

Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Memo from Transportation Section received 31'' August 2004 Letter from Mr & Mrs Reynolds, 62 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SB received 9th July 2004. Letter from P McCormick, 35 Lauchope Street, Chapelhall , Airdrie, ML6 8SW received 13th July 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs S Reynolds, 64 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SB received 15th July 2004. Letter from Sarfraz Ahmed,C/o Wrights Solicitors, 70 Brandon Parade East, Motherwell, ML1 1LY received 14th July 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact David Baxter at 01236 812372.

101 APPLICATION NO. C1041011621FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .l This application is for the change of use of open space to private garden ground and the erection of a fence (in retrospect) at 5 Lauchope Street, Chapelhall. The applicant has erected a fence that varies in height between 2.1 to 2.3m high to the south and east of the site. He is proposing to reduce it to 2.12m and complete the sites enclosure by erecting a Im high wall forward of the building line onto Lauchope Street. Thereafter the site will be set out as garden ground.

1.2 The erection of the fence has formed a 2.5 to 3m wide lane that runs along the south of the site between the new fence and the shop at 31 and retains the pedestrian access between Lauchope Street and Main Street.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned ECON 8 General Urban Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has indicated no objections subject to the retention of the remaining pedestrian link between Lauchope Street and Main Street and the relocation of a lighting column that serves that pedestrian link.

3.2 Following neighbour notification 4 letters of objection were received that raised the following points: a) there may be a Right of Way that is affected by the development b) since the erection of the fence young people have been standing drinking in the remainder of Roberton Street and broken glass has caused a tyre puncture on an objector's car c) the narrowing of the lane might affect public safety through muggings or assaults d) since the fence has been erected traffic is now turning within the objector's yard e) the claimed ownership of the land is questioned f) the shop at 31 Lauchope Street has no vehicle access to the rear.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application site is part of Roberton Street, a private road that has been stopped up and lain un-maintained and semi-derelict. Until the land was fenced the whole former carriageway and footways provided pedestrian access through from Main Street to Lauchope Street. The erection of the fence has reduced this pedestrian access to 2.5 to 3m wide.

4.2 The site is within an area of mixed uses identified in the Local Plan. As such I consider that the proposed use is in accordance with the development plan.

4.3 The objection letters raise several points some of which are material considerations. I would like to address each in turn. Firstly, the former road is not an officially recognised Public Right of Way although it fulfils many of the criteria used to define one.

102 4.4 The issue of on-street drinking and the resultant litter and broken glass is acknowledged as a problem within North Lanarkshire. Any instances are a matter for the Police to investigate. That said the applicant has erected a 2.1-2.3m high fence. I consider that this is in excess of what would normally be erected around residential properties and consider that it should be reduced to 1.8m. This should reduce the feeling of enclosure for pedestrians on the remaining pedestrian route and enable some passive supervision of the area where the disturbance occurs.

4.5 The use of the yard for turning of vehicles should not be required and the proposed development will not significantly reduce the area available for turning.

4.6 The ownership of land is not a material consideration however the applicants have indicated on the application form that all the land that forms the application site is in their ownership.

4.7 It is my understanding that 31 Lauchope Street is currently serviced from Lauchope Street and as such the lack of vehicular access to the rear is not relevant to this application.

4.8 There is a lighting column within the application site that requires to be moved to ensure that the remaining lane continues to be adequately lit. This is operated and maintained by the Council and the applicant is required to contact the Lighting Section to arrange for its relocation. This will be at the applicant's expense.

4.9 Although the proposed development reduces the width of the public access from Main Street to Lauchope Street there will still be a 2.5 to 3m wide lane maintained. With the alterations to the height of the fence and the position of the lighting column proposed through condition I consider that the change of use will improve an area that has lain semi-derelict for over 20 years and not significantly affect pedestrian access or amenity. I therefore recommend approval as set out below.

103 Application No: C/04/01235/FUL

Date Registered: 28th July 2004

Applicant : Mr M lnnes 28 Park Road Baillieston Glasgow G69 7PR

Agent Paul M lnnes 58 Orchard Gardens Coatbridge ML5 3PL

Development: Side and Rear Extension To Dwellinghouse

Location: 28 Park Road Baillieston Glasgow G69 7PR

Ward: 36: Bargeddie And Langloan Councillor Andrew Burns

Grid Reference: 2701 05.664377

File Reference: C/PL/BAP210028/LW/EL

Site History:

Development Plan: The property is covered by residential policies in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application relates to a single storey side and rear extension to an end-terraced dwellinghouse at 28 Park Road, Bargeddie. One letter of representation was received from a neighbouring property, the points raised have been detailed in the attached report. Following assessment of the proposal against the development plan and all other material considerations, including effects on neighbouring properties, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

104 105 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Application form and plans received 8th July 2004

Letter from William McMillan, 26 Park Road, Bargeddie, Glasgow, G69 7PR received 21st July 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lesley Ward at 01236 812374,

106 APPLICATION NO. C1041012351FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The proposed development is a single storey side and rear extension to a terraced dwellinghouse at 28 Park Road, Bargeddie. The extension will ‘wrap around’ the property and will be approximately 3.5 metres wide and the front of existing house, approximately 10 metres long, approximately 5.3 metres wide at the rear of the house and a maximum of 4 metres in height. The materials are proposed to match the existing house

2. Develo pment Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential, covered by Policy HG9 (Existing Housing) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The development raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 One letter of representation has been received from a neighbour at 26 Park Road, situated to the south west of the application site. The main grounds of objection are as follows:

(i) Concerns over access to the applicant‘s sidelrear garden, and possible need to relocate the existing fence. (ii) Close proximity of properties once the development has been constructed (iii) Loss of privacy of neighbouring bedroom, and request for screening

4. PIann inQ Assessment and Co nc Ius io ns

4.1 The site is situated within a residential area. In assessing this application the local plan policy HG9 for existing residential areas is relevant. This seeks to protect such areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity of the established housing. In assessing the proposal in detail, the extension should be acceptable in terms of the design and scale, should integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse and should cause no adverse amenity effects in relation to privacy, parking and residual garden ground.

4.2 In relation to the grounds of objection, these are addressed as follows:

(i) The plans accompanying this proposal show a 1 metre gap between the corner of the proposed extension and the boundary fence. In terms of Council policy, which states that 900mm should be left between a side extension and a boundary, this is a sufficient distance to allow access to the rear of the property. (ii) The plans show that the distance between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property is approximately 2.5 metres. The existing properties lie at an angle and therefore there will be minimal overlooking between neighbouring rooms. (iii) There is an existing 1.8 metre high boundary fence that has been erected around the site recently by the applicant. This is sufficient to ensure that there will be no loss of privacy of surrounding neighbours.

4.3 In conclusion, the points of representation have been considered and no reason found to uphold the points raised or to request amendments to the proposals. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is in keeping with the surrounding residential area. The application raises no strategic issues and accords with the policies of the local plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the appropriate conditions.

107 Application No: C/04/01341/FUL

Date Registered: 28th July 2004

Applicant: Orange PCS Ltd 2 Masterton Way Tannochside Uddingston G71 5PT

Agent Pentland Ltd 40 Craiglockhart Avenue Edinburgh EH14 ILT

Development: Installation of a 20m Telecommunication Column Supporting 3 Antennae and 1 Transmission Dish and Associated Equipment Cabinets

Location: Land West of West of Scotland Properties Cameron Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire

Ward: 33: North Central And Glenboig Councillor Mary Clark

Grid Reference: 273823665734

File Reference: ClPLlCTCl441DW B/EL

Site History: Planning application C/02/01451/FUL for Use of Area of Open Space as Car Breakers Yard was refused on 8th May 2003 and permitted on appeal to the Scottish Ministers Planning application C/04/01431/AMD for Amendment to Planning Permission for Car Breakers Yard (Operation of Mobile Crusher) to Allow the Crusher to be Used for a Total of Six Working Days Over Every Four Week Period is still pending consideration. Planning application C/04/01443/FUL for Erection of Building for Decontamination of End-of-Life Vehicles is also still pending consideration Development Plan: The site is covered by industrial policies and policy TELI contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: The Radio Communications Agency (No Objection)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application relates to the erection of a 20m high monopole and associated equipment and cabinets in the grounds of Fallon Scrap Yard, Cameron Street, Coatbridge. The mast will provide improved mobile telephone coverage for Orange PCS LTD. The site is zoned ECON2 Existing General Industrial Area in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

108 Planning Application No. C/04/01341/FUL

'mduced by Installation of a 20m Telecommunications Column 'laming and Ewiranmnt leadquarters Supporting 3 Antennae and 1 Transmission Dish ute 501, Fleming House Tryst Rod and Associated Equipment Cabinets UMBERNAULD S7 1JW 1236 616210 Fax. 012% 616232 Land West of West of Scotland Properties, IS Llcmce LA 09041L Cameron Street. Coatbridae 109 The proposal is also assessed against policy TELlTelecommunications Development. The site is located in an industrial area over 140m away from the nearest residence. No objection has been received following neighbour notification. The proposal is supported with the relevant "ICNRP Declaration" of safety. The application site is in the centre of an established industrial area and the mast would be partially screened by the landform and other structures in the vicinity, There is another similar structure on the other side of the West of Scotland Properties building that cannot be shared due to the design. I do not consider that the introduction of a further similar structure will significantly impact on visual amenity. I therefore consider that the proposal is in line with the relevant local plan policy TELl and raises no strategic issues. Accordingly I recommend that planning permission is granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. In event that the equipment hereby approved becomes redundant it shall be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of the equipment becoming redundant.

Reason: To ensure restoration of the site to a satisfactory standard.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 28th July 2004 Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Memo from Transportation Section received Letter from Ofcom received 20th August 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact David Baxter at 01236 812372.

110 Application No: C/04/01450/FUL

Date Registered: 13th August 2004

Applicant: Mrs Yvonne Porteous 217 Muiryhall Street Coatbridge ML5 3NR

Deve Io pm e nt : Siting of Snack Bar

Location: Car Park At The Koh-l-Noor 7 Saline Street Airdrie Lanarkshire

Ward: 47: North Cairnhill And Coatdyke Councillor Peter Sullivan

Grid Reference: 274923664818

File Reference: C/PL/AISOI 3007/IJ/EL

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by policy ECON 2: Existing General Industrial Area in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 25th August 2004

Comments:

Permission is being sought for the siting of a mobile snack bar within the car park of the former Koh-l- Noor Restaurant, 7 Saline Street, Airdrie. The car park is hard surfaced although unused following the closure of the adjacent restaurant premises and the surrounding area is a mix of workshopsllight industrial uses while the large vacant building (formerly "Churchill's Discoteque") located immediately to the south of the car park is currently being laid out as a restaurant.

The proposal seeks to utilise a small area within the car park for the siting of a mobile snack bar between the hours of 7am and 3 pm on a daily basis. The facility will serve the surrounding predominantly light industrial area while any car borne traffic using the facility can be accommodated within the car park. The Transportation Section is satisfied that the proposal will not introduce any potential road safety issues into the area and the Pollution Control Section have offered no objection to the proposal subject to adequate safeguard being taken by the applicant to ensure that any generator is operated in a manner so as not to create a noise nuisance.

No objections have been received against this proposal as a result of the neighbour notification and public advertisement procedures and therefore subject to the inclusion of sufficient controls over the usage of the snack bar and a limit to period of consent, taken the temporary nature of the structure, then I consider the proposal acceptable and recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

111 4

112 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire on 15th September 2005.

Reason: In view of the temporary nature of the development and to allow time to assess any potential parking problems within or adjacent to the site.

2. That operations on the site, for which planning permission is hereby granted, shall take place only between the hours of 7am and 3pm daily.

Reason: To define the permission.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th August 2004

Memo from Transportation Section received 3rdSeptember 2004 Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 25th August 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

113 Application No: S/03/01553/FUL

Date Registered: 15th October 2003

Applicant: M & D Leisure Ltd. Scotlands Theme Park Strathclyde Park Motherwell

Agent A. MacFarlane R.I.B.A. 84 Buchanan Drive Cam buslang Glasgow G72 8BA

Development: Erection of Extension for the Purposes of Forming a Travel Agency

Location: Strathclyde Country Park Hamilton Road Motherwell Lanarkshire MLI 3ED

Ward: 1: Ladywell Councillor Michael Ross

Grid Reference: 273292656536

File Reference: SIPLIB1711001PW

Site History: None Relevant

Development Plan: Policies L2, L8 and ENV 6 in The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No Objections) British Gas Transco (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections) The Coal Authority (No Objections)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks consent for the erection of an extension to the main M and D's building for the purpose of providing a self contained Travel Agent's unit. This application seeks consent for the erection of an extension onto the front of the existing internal amusement centre to form a self-contained unit with separate front access and signage with a floor area of 55 square metres. The proposed unit is intended to provide accommodation for a self-contained Travel Agency to be operated by M and D's, which currently operates from within the main building. In terms of design, the proposed extension has a dual-pitched roof with external finishing materials to match those of the existing building and is therefore considered to be acceptable in design terms. However, the proposal has to be assessed in terms of the principle of the retail travel agents use and under he terms of Policy L 8 in the

114 PLANNING APPLICATION No. S / 03 / 01553 / FUL

ERECTION OF EXTENSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF FORMING A TRAVEL AGENCY

Rpddhomli. Orb- SUweyrnqpmwlh A pmin m ta Cmbdi-dncrMa1.Djs STRATHCLYDE COUNTRY PARK, Um d SuLOartmu ecrornCoplr,*r I c6 LicenceLA080411 HAMILTON ROAD, MOTHERWELL thWRn..drqOdlClm *rlrQscwn CWWrsh,

115 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). This policy relates to Leisure and Tourism in the park and seeks to enhance facilities consistent with the Park Development Strategy and related policies in the Local Plan. The strategy encourages outdoor recreation as do the relevant local plan policies. The applicant has failed to provide a justification for the proposed development in terms of the relevant local plan policies and the Park Development Strategy and as such, this application is recommended for refusal.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The applicant has failed to justify the proposed retail travel agents shop within Strathclyde Country Park in terms of policies L 8 (Strathclyde Country Park), L 2 (Leisure Development) and ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

2. If approved, the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for other similar proposals within the park which are contrary to policies L 8, L 2 and ENV 6 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), to the detriment of the existing character and amenity of the Country Park.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 15th October 2003 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Letters from M and D's 17'h February 2004 and 2gthof July 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 3rd November 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 23rd October 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 23rd October 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 27th October 2003

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams at 01698 302091.

116 APPLICATION NO. S/03/01553/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks consent for the erection of a self-contained shop unit to be built onto the front elevation of the existing M and D's internal amusements building within Strathclyde Park, Motherwell. The proposed unit is intended to provide accommodation for a Travel Agents shop to be operated by M and D's, which currently operates from an office within the main building.

1.2 In terms of design, the proposed extension is single-storey and has a dual-pitched roof with external finishing materials to match those of the existing building. It has separate front access and signage from the main amusement building with a public floor area of 33.5 square metres and 17 square metres of storage space.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned within the Greenbelt in the adopted Central Area Part Development Plan 1964 but is also shown as a colliery site. This reflects the site's previous use as part of Bothwellhaugh Colliery. It is zoned within the Greenbelt in the emerging Southern Area Local Plan finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), which is considered to be the relevant and overriding local plan when taking into account the age relevancy of the adopted local plan. The site is covered by policies L2, L 8 and ENV 6 in the emerging local plan. Policy L2 supports leisure development in order to promote economic regeneration. Policy L8 states that the Council will seek to further enhance facilities within Strathclyde Country Park provided that they are consistent with the Council approved Strathclyde Park Development Strategy. Policy ENV 6 identifies the site within the Greenbelt and presumes against any development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, fishery, the generation of power from renewable sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses.

2.2 Policy L 8 states that the application has to be assessed against the Strathclyde Country Park Development Strategy approved by the Council in 2000. The strategy seeks to encourage appropriate development within the park which accords with the Parks main function of providing community leisure and sporting activities which do not compromise the country environment of the park.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No objections have been received as a result of neighbour notification or consultation.

4. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The design of the proposed shop unit is considered to be acceptable. However, the main consideration in assessing this application and thus the main determining factor, is the proposed use and its compatibility with the relevant local plan policies.

4.2 The applicant states that the travel agency is for staff and existing customers, however, it is considered that he development of a self contained shop fronting onto the main road of the park with separate access and signage is likely to attract significant additional customers.

4.3 The proposed Travel Agents shop is a Class 1 retail use and the relevant local plan policies only allow for outdoor recreational uses or uses appropriate to a rural area. Policy L 8 is intended to

I17 protect the special character of Strathclyde Country Park and ensure that any development provides for suitable outdoor leisure and recreation facilities within the park. Previously, the applicant has been able to demonstrate that 'funfair rides' within the park can be justified in this policy context along with other elated uses. The applicant has been invited to provide written justification of the proposed use. However, it is considered that the applicant's letter of the 2gth of July 2004 fails to provide this justification in the policy context, as a travel agents shop does not directly relate to outdoor recreation within the country park. This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

118 Application No: S/03/01701/OUT

Date Registered: 11th November 2003

Applicant : Harry Camp Stewartban k Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 ORW

Agent A & A Neil Architects 72 Berkeley Street Glasgow G3 7DS

Development: Erection of Two Holiday Cottages

Location: Stewartbank Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 ORW

Ward: 15: Garrion Councillor John Pentland

Grid Reference: 279475652014

File Reference: SIPLIBI2I41IMR

Site History: Planning permission refused for the replacement of dwellinghouse, 14th February 1980, Ref. No. 14/80 - no agricultural justification.

Planning consent granted for alterations and extension to dwellinghouse, 19th April 1983, Ref. No. 141183

Development Plan: The site lies is an area zoned as Greenbelt and as an Area of Great Landscape Value within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: S. E.P.A.(W est) (Corn ments) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (Comments) Scottish Power (No Objections) The Coal Authority (Commen ts) Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Visit Scotland (Comments)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 26th November 2003

Comments:

This application seeks outline permission for the erection of 2 holiday cottages at Stewartbank,

119 120 Overtown, Wishaw. The area of the site is approximately 2.52 hectares. Although this application is in outline, indicative details of the proposals have been supplied and this information is contained in the attached report. One letter of representation has been received from notified neighbours the details of which along with the consultee responses are contained in my attached report. This application is contrary to several policies of the Southern Area local Plan and is unacceptable in terms of its impact on the AGLV of the Clyde Valley. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to policies 1 and 7 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and policies ENV6 (Greenbelt), ENV15 (Area of Great Landscape Value), HSGlO (Assessing Applications for Residential Development), HSGl2 (Housing in the Greenbelt), L5 (Tourism) and policy ENV15 (Area of Great Landscape Value), of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) in that it would adversely affect the character of the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value due to its visual impact upon the site and surrounding area.

2. The proposed development is contrary to policies ENVlO (Trees and Woodland Management) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) as it involves the significant loss of woodland area within the site.

3. The proposed development is contrary to policies HSGIO (Assessing Applications for Housing Development), HSG12 (Housing in the Greenbelt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) in that access arrangements are unsatisfactory in terms of width, visibility and geometry.

Note to Committee:

If granted, this application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997 as a development contrary to the development plan.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11 th November 2003

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 19th December 2003 Memo from NLC Local plans received 27th August 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 12th March 2004 Letters from Scottish Natural Heritage received 13th February 2004 and 7th May 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 3rd December 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 27th November 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 20th November 2003 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 18th December, 2003 Letter from Power Systems received 11th April 2003 Letter from Visit Scotland received 30th June 2004

Letter from Miss Janice Purcell & Mr Andrew Scott, Trotterbank Nurseries, Overtown, Wishaw, ML2 ORW received 24th January 2003.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) SDD Circular 24/1985 Development in the Countryside and Green Belts

121 SDD Circular 1211996 (Planning Agreements)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

122 APPLICATION NO. S/03/01701/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning consent for the erection of 2 holiday cottages at Stewartbank, within the Clyde Valley, south of Overtown. The site is located within the Greenbelt and in an Area of Great Landscape Value as designated in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

1.2 The application site is located on the sloping north side of the Clyde Valley. It comprises the curtilage of Stewartbank and includes the applicants house and garages situated towards the centre of the site and surrounding gardens, grassland and woodland. The site is surrounded by and contains mature woodland and orchard trees. Access is taken from the A71 via a private road which serves a number of other properties and then the private driveway which winds across and up this steep site.

1.3 Indicative plans have been submitted showing one of the proposed cottages located in the north west corner and the other in the south west corner of the site. The submitted plans also show control over an alternative access to the north via Laurelbank and Trotterbank Orchards although that access does not presently physically extend as far as the site. A business plan has been submitted in support of the application. This provides further details of the proposals. Each cottage would contain a lounge, dining area, 2 bedrooms, kitchen, and bathrooms and be capable of accommodating up to 5 persons. It is proposed that both holiday cottages be located in separate corners of the applicant‘s curtilage to provide independence and privacy. The accommodation and facilities would comply the standards necessary to achieve a 4 or 5 star accreditation granted by Visit Scotland and will be let to visitors, tourists and business travellers on a self catering short stay basis extending to several nights or weeks.

1.4 Previous applications at the site include the refusal in 1980 of the replacement of the dwellinghouse because there was no agricultural justification. Planning permission was then granted in 1983 for alterations and extension to the applicants existing dwellinghouse.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The proposed development raises strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow & Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Strategic Policy 1 ‘Strategic Development Locations and Strategic Policy 7 ‘Strategic Environmental Resources’. These policies seek to protect and enhance the greenbelt and areas of great landscape value.

2.2 The site is zoned as Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and is covered by policies ENVG (Green Belt) and ENV15 (Area of Great Landscape Value). Policy ENVG (Green Belt) indicates that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt within which there will be a presumption against development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, renewable energy, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. Policy ENV15 aims to protect and enhance the Clyde Valley Area of Great Landscape Value by resisting any proposal, which would have a significant adverse effect on the character and quality of the environment.

2.3 Policy HSG12 details criteria against which new housing proposals in the green belt should be assessed. In particular it details specific criteria to be taken into account including the visual prominence of the site and the provision made for vehicular access.

123 3. Consultations and Remesentations

Summaries of consultation responses are as follows: -

3.1 Coal Authority: Appropriate technical advice should be sought before works are undertaken on site.

3.2 Scottish Environment Protection Agency: No objections in principle subject to the foul drainage being connected to the public sewer. They request that surface water from the site be treated in accordance with the principles Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

3.3 Scottish Water: There are no known sewers to which a connection may be made from the proposed development. Drainage will require to be treated from a septic tank or other suitable treatment system to the satisfaction of SEPA.

3.4 Scottish Power: No objections.

3.5 NLC Community Services: The Landscape Section are concerned that if the planning application is granted it will set an unwelcome precedent encouraging the urbanisation of this essentially rural setting that is highly visible, inevitably leading to infilling and possible subsequent applications for further structures. Apart from the proposed houses themselves, the necessary construction of road and path accesses, parking and turning areas and possibly drying greens will further intrude into the site. The Councils ecologist recommends that the buildings be situated so as to limit the number of trees to be removed in order to maintain the biodiversity of the site.

3.6 Scottish Natural Heritage: Indicate that local plan policy ENV15 recognises the high quality landscape along the Clyde Valley. They point out that the site lies within an area where a key priority is the need for sensitive control of development. A study undertaken on their behalf of the Clyde Valley advises against development unless it is integrated into the surrounding landscape using existing landform and woodland cover. They indicate that the site has considerable landscape value and is sensitive to change. They support the Councils policies to protect this area and consider the development proposal to be contrary to these policies. Although in principle they support holiday cottages as a means of rural diversification this site is located in an extremely prominent position and could have adverse landscape and visual impact within and outwith the site. They consider that the adverse impacts on important natural heritage interests could not be reduced to a satisfactory level through conditions or modifications. It is recommended that the application be refused.

3.7 The Transportation Section: Recommend refusal of the amlication and comment; The granting of this application would increase the number of vehicular braking, turning and manoeuvring operations on this de-restricted length of A-class road, all to the detriment of road safety. The existing junction arrangement onto the A71 is not substantial enough to accommodate a vehicle wishing to enter the development while another vehicle waits to join the main road. In terms of alignment it is substandard horizontally and vertically and is only 3.3 metes wide along most of its length with no passing places. The access for its vast majority is unsurfaced and in poor condition. The above junction has existing substandard sightlines and, due to the embankment and hedge in both directions, has little scope for their improvement to the recommended 4.5 metres by 215 metres. The granting of this application may provoke future demands for improvements to the public road network. The existing access serves approximately 6 dwellings. According to current design standards, this scale of development should be served by a public road network. The

124 granting of this application will further exacerbate the present situation.

3.8 The Protective Services Section: No response to the proposal.

3.9 Transco: Appropriate technical advice should be sought before works are undertaken on site.

3.10 Visit Scotland: Have stated that it is not possible for them to comment on this individual proposal without some understanding of the objectives contained in the applicant's business plan and even then the comments would not directly relate to planning issues.

3.11 Director of Finance: Has commented that the business plan for the proposal is lacking in detail, particularly as there is no breakdown of income and the cost element appears to be low further information is required regarding details of estimates to back up the predicted cost element. He also comments on the possibility of such accommodation, which is difficult to acquire in the greenbelt being sold on in a few years time

3.12 One letter of objection has been received from notified neighbours. The points of objection may be summarised as follows: - (i) The proposal is contrary to Greenbelt policy. (ii) Access is inadequate in terms of visibility and width of the private road from the A71 and the condition of the A71 at this locus is unlit with a 60 mph speed limit. Increased traffic will result in additional braking and turning manoeuvres on a busy A class road. (iii) The proposed alternative access from the A71 is substandard and is upkept by Trotterbank Nurseries. Additional traffic would lead to increased costs. The access point from the dirt track to holiday cottage 1 is a 'field gate' and has not been used for entrance by any vehicle to the site in at least 39 years. This area is right in the centre of their bedding plant nursery. Their peak time is spring into summer when lot of vehicles are not delivering to and from the site and staff are working anti social hours, using tractors and forklifts. It is not in their opinion an ideal holiday location

4. P lann i nu Assess ment

4.1 It is considered that the determining issues in this case are as follows: - a) whether the development complies with the development plan and national planning policies and guidance. b) the acceptability of the impact of the development on the site and the surrounding area. c) The access and transportation implications of the proposal.

4.2 The application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of both the Structure Plan and Local Plans for the area. The aims of the Structure plan which are most relevant to the consideration of this application are the safeguarding and enhancement of the landscape character of the Greenbelt and Areas of Great landscape Value as advocated in strategic policies land 7. The site lies within the greenbelt and the proposal would constitute an encroachment of development into the countryside and significantly adversely affect the character of the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value at this location. It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not accord with the relevant provisions of the structure plan.

4.3 With regard to the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) it is considered that there are several policies, which the proposal is contrary to, namely, policies: -

ENV6 'Greenbelt' ENVl 0 'Trees and Woodland Management' ENVl5 'Area of Great Landscape Value HSGlO 'Assessing Applications for Residential Development'

125 HSG12 ‘Housing in the Greenbelt‘ L5 ‘Tourism’ TR13 ‘Assessing the Transport Implications of Development‘ Each one of these will now be discussed in turn along with any comments submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal.

4.4 The proposed development is contrary to Policies ENV6, ENV15, HSGIO, HSG12 and L5 because it is considered that it would adversely affect the character of the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value due to its visual impact on the site and surrounding area. Although the draft local plan supports tourism developments this is qualified by the requirement that they are acceptable in term of their impact on landscape and nature conservation interests. The location of the application site is not considered appropriate because the development of 2 holiday cottages and associated infrastructure at this prominent location in the Clyde Valley would be clearly visible over a wider area and would detract from the rural and natural heritage qualities of the area. It is considered that the impact on the green belt and Area of Great Landscape Value setting of this site is unacceptable because the development is considered to be visually intrusive and would adversely affect the woodland of nature conservation value. It is considered that the impact of this development cannot be lessened by the use of conditions or the modification of the proposals. This viewpoint is supported by Scottish Natural Heritage as discussed above in paragraph 3.6.

4.5 The proposed development is contrary to policies ENVIO (Trees and Woodland Management) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) because the application site contains mature woodland and orchard trees that will require to be removed if the development was to be built as proposed. The affected woodland is categorised as Ancient Woodland of Semi Natural Origin on SNH’s Inventory. The loss of such woodland is not considered to be acceptable.

4.6 The proposed development is contrary to policies HSGIO (Assessing Applications for Housing Development), HSG12 (Housing in the Greenbelt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) in that access arrangements are unsatisfactory in terms of width, visibility and geometry. Policies HSGIO, HSG12 and TR13 require suitable provision for access. It is considered that the development is likely to have an adverse impact on road traffic circulation and road safety and there are inadequate provisions for access in terms of width, visibility and geometry. This viewpoint is supported by the Transportation Section as discussed above in paragraph 3.7.

4.7 Relevant National Planning Policy Guidelines are Scottish Planning Policy 1 (The Planning System) Circular 2411985 Development in the Countryside and Greenbelt Circular 1211 996 (Planning Agreements) .

4.8 SPPl does not preclude Green Belt development but merely seeks to promote brownfield development and minimise development in the Green Belt. Circular 2411985 similarly seeks to promote brownfield development and discourages certain forms of Green Belt development. It is considered that the use of the Green Belt land for this proposal is not in keeping with the aims of national policy guidance due to its adverse impact upon the landscape of the site and the surrounding area which would have a detrimental effect on this greenbelt location.

4.9 Circular 2411 985 “Development in the Countryside and Green Belts”. This indicates that isolated development in the open countryside should be avoided except under certain circumstances. It also indicates that development plans should contain a presumption against developments which would have an adverse impact on the environment, landscape and nature conservation. This development would have such an adverse impact and therefore is not in keeping with the aims of this guidance.

126 4.1 0 Circular 12/1996 indicates that restricting occupancy, particularly of new houses in the countryside is a specific purpose for which planning agreements are commonly used. It is considered that a Section 75 would be required if the Council were minded to grant planning consent in order to prevent the development being sold and used as full time main stream housing. The applicant is not prepared to enter into such an Agreement as he considers it to be neither necessary nor appropriate to the proposal. The applicants have also not been willing to provide the additional information requested by the Director of Finance in support of their justification for this proposal as a tourism development. Given the above I consider that permission should not be granted unless accompanied by a Section 75 Agreement.

4.11 In terms of the consultation responses conditions could be imposed to deal with the matters raised by the Coal Authority, SEPA, Scottish Water and Transco. The concerns expressed by Community Services and the formal objection from SNH support any view that the proposed development is unacceptable in terms of landscape and visual impact and cannot be addressed by conditions. The Transportation Sections recommendation that the application be refused could potentially be addressed by conditions, however, the applicants do not control the appropriate land and the landscape impact of such works is also likely to be unacceptable.

4.12 In terms of the points of objection I would comment as follows:-

(i) The Greenbelt designation has been covered above. (ii) The access and transportation issues have been discussed in paragraph 3.2 above where the Transportation Section have supported refusal of this application with regard to access arrangements.

5. Conclusions

5.1 It is considered that the development is contrary to the development plan and national planning guidance and Area of Great Landscape Value in that the impact of the development on the site and surrounding area along with the access and transportations implications is not acceptable and would set a precedent for further urbanisation of the Clyde Valley.

5.2 Therefore, taking into account the Development Plan and other material considerations, including representations, I recommend that this application be refused.

127 Application No: S/03/01842/FUL

Date Registered: 15th December 2003

Applicant : Mr James Thomson 67 Ewart Crescent Hamilton

Development : Erection of a One and a Half Storey Dwellinghouse

Location: Land At 260 Ladywell Road Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 1: Ladywell Councillor Michael Ross

Grid Reference: 274422657097

File Reference: SlPLlBll31241PW

Site History: 219/88 (Outline) Erection of Dwellinghouse and garage approved 02.06.88. 431/92 (Detailed) Erection of Dwellinghouse approved 05.1 1.92

Development Plan: Policy HSG 8 Established Housing Area and Policy HSG 11 lnfill Housing Development in The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No Objections) British Gas Transco (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections) The Coal Authority (Comments) Strathclyde Fire Brigade (No Objections)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks consent for the erection of a one and a half storey detached dwelling on land to the rear of 260 Ladywell Road, Motherwell. The site has previously had the benefit of outline and detailed consent for a dwelling in 1988 and 1992 respectively. The site lies in a predominantly residential area with the exception of the adjacent bowling club to the east and is zoned for residential purposes in the relevant local plan. It is bounded by relatively open ground on three sides with a public footpath on the north and west boundaries. The site forms part of the rear and side garden ground for 260 Ladywell Road, a traditional detached one and a half storey dwelling. The application site has been increased to provide more private garden space and usable carparking and turning provision within the site.

A letter of objection has been received from a resident of 1 Lamlash Place, one of a block of ten three storey flats to the north of the site. This objection is not considered to be material to the consideration of the application for the reasons outlined in the accompanying report. The site is of an irregular wedge shape which means that it cannot accommodate the required minimum garden space standards to the

128 PLANNlNGAPPLlCATlONNo.S/03/01842/FUL

129 front and rear, As such, the proposal as amended is not considered to be acceptable in terms of Council Space Standards relating to front and rear garden depth and plot size, The proposal is therefore considered to be overdevelopment with implications for the residential amenity of any subsequent inhabitants and as such, is recommended for refusal for the following reasons.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal is contrary to Policy HSG 11 in the Southern Area Finalised Draft Local Plan (Modified 2001 and 2004 and 2004), which assesses infill housing development in terms of the size of the site, its effect on garden space and the overall impact of a proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, as it would result in inappropriate over-development with sub-standard private garden provision for the proposed dwelling.

2. If approved, this application could set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments to the detriment of residential amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 3rd December 2003 The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004and 2004) Letter from Scottish Water received 12th January 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 23rd December 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 23rd December 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 24th December 2003 Letter from Strathclyde Fire Brigade received 30th December 2003 Letter from John Cowan,l Lamlash Place, Motherwell, MLI 3NE received 12th December 2003.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams at 01698 302091,

130 APPLICATION NO. S/03/01842/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks consent for the erection of a one and a half storey detached dwelling on a site which currently forms part of the rear and side garden of 260 Ladywell Road, Motherwell, a traditional detached one and a half storey dwelling.

1.2 The applicant proposes to create a separate access to the site via a strip of ground to the east of the existing dwelling. The site lies within a predominantly residential area with the exception of the adjacent bowling club to the west. It is bounded to the east and the north by Public Open Space. The proposed dwelling is L-shaped with traditionally styled roof dormers.

1.3 The applicant originally proposed to erect the dwelling on a plot approximately 436 square metres, this has now been extended to approximately 587 square metres in order to accommodate changes to the proposed layout.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an Established Housing Area, Policy HSG 8 in The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy HSG 11 relating to infill housing development is also relevant in this case. Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas.

2.2 As the proposal is residential, the principle of the proposed development is not in question. However, the proposal, in terms of detailed design, has to be assessed against Policy HSG 8 and Policy HSG 11 in terms of its possible effect on residential amenity. Policy HSG 11 seeks to ensure that infill housing development is sensitively scaled, designed and located in order to protect existing levels of residential amenity. These policies should be referred to in combination with the Council's adopted space standards relating to garden ground for residential development, which requires a minimum of 6 metres front garden depth, 10 metres to the rear and 2 metres to the side.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No objections have been received as a result of the consultation process. However, one letter of representation has been received from the resident of 1 Lamlash Place, a flatted dwelling to the north of the application site. The objection is on the grounds that the proposed dwelling will overshadow the flatted dwelling reducing daylighting.

4. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In terms of the ground of objection, as there is at least 30 metres between the property in question and the proposed dwelling, it is considered that daylighting will not be significantly effected.

4.2 The proposal, in principle, is considered to be acceptable as the site lies in a predominantly residential established area. However, in terms of detailed design, the location, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling is considered to be unacceptable. Although the proposal as amended provides adequate parking and turning facilities and a 10 metre rear garden depth for

131 the existing dwelling at 260 Ladywell Road, the rear garden area for the proposed dwelling is sub-standard in terms of depth. This is due to the irregular wedge shape of the site in combination with its relatively small size.

4.3 It is recognised that the resultant garden for 260 Ladywell Road would comply with the councils space standards and also that the proposed dwelling will have a private garden area of 130 square metres. However, the rear garden depth ranges from 1.2 metres to 12 metres, giving an approximate average of 6 metres rear garden depth. The required minimum garden depth as specified in the Council adopted space standards is 10 metres. The average rear garden depth of 6 metres falls significantly short of this minimum requirement. It is also considered to be significant that the rear boundary of the land in question abutts a public footpath, additionally, the site slopes significantly at a steep gradient down to the footpath level which would render a proportion of the proposed garden area, for practical purposes, unusable.

4.4 Although detailed consent for a dwelling on the site was granted in 1992, it should be noted that the current minimum space standards were not in existence at that time. The proposal as amended, is considered to be unacceptable in terms of detailed design and specifically in relation to private garden provision and as such, is considered to be contrary to the aims of both Policies HSG 8 and 11 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

132 Application No: S10410051OlFUL

Date Registered: 7th April 2004

Ap pl icant : D Clarke 24 Newlands Road Uddingston Glasgow G71 5QP

Agent Jim McCracken 50 Glen Almond East Kilbride G72 2JU

Development: 2 Storey Side Extension

Location : 24 Newlands Road Uddingston Glasgow G71 5QP

Ward: 21 : Tannochside Councillor David Saunders

Grid Reference: 269950.661 930.

File Reference: SIPLIBl9183iAM

Site History: None relevant

Development Plan: The site lies within an established housing area on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Viewpark Housing Office (no objections)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for a two storey side extension to an end-terrace house. As submitted the application would have extended the full depth of the house and the full extent of the land to the side, right up to the side boundary. This would have prohibited footpath access to the rear of the adjacent house in the terrace. An objection was received from both the occupier of the adjacent house and from the Director of Housing and Property Services on the grounds of restraint of access, however, amended plans were submitted reducing the width of the extension thereby leaving a 750mm path round the side for access to the rear of the adjacent mid-terrace property. The Director of Housing and Property Services has now withdrawn his objection and although the neighbours have not withdrawn their representation in writing their letter did state that they had no objection to an extension as long as adequate access to the rear of the property was provided.

133 134 The proposal is not of strategic significance in development plan terms thus the Local Plan is the appropriate document in which to consider policies. The site lies within an established housing area on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), and fits with policy HSG8. The proposal, as amended, is considered acceptable in terms of scale and design, and has, in my opinion, satisfied the concerns of the objector and raises no other planning issues. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the materials complement those of the existing dwelling.

3. That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied 2 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 5th April 2004

Memo from Director of Housing and Property Services received 5th May 2004 e-mail from Viewpark Housing Office received 3rd August 2004

Letter from Fraser And Brenda Reid,22 Newlands Road, Uddingston, Glasgow, G71 5QP received 21st April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Alistair Maclean at 01698 302093.

135 Application No: S/04/00676/FUL

Date Registered: 23rd April 2004

Applicant : lan Baird 27 Cowan Wynd Tannochside Uddingston G71 6TP

Agent Bridges Associates 71 Houldsworth Street Glasgow G3 8ED

Development: 3 Storey Residential Development comprising 15 Flats

Location: 216-220 Clydesdale Street Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 5: New Stevenston And Carfin Councillor Helen McKenna

Grid Reference: 275954659695

File Reference: SlPLlBl 5l321JD

Site History:

Development Plan: Policy DCI - Mixed Use Area in the Northern Area Local Plan

Policy HSG8 - Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (com ments) Scottish Water (no objection) British Gas Transco (no objection) Scottish Power (no objection) British Telecom (no objection)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Planning consent is sought for a 3 storey residential development comprising 15 flats on land at 216-220 Clydesdale Street, New Stevenston. The application site currently comprises a 2 storey sandstone tenement block which presents an untidy and unmaintained aspect to Clydesdale Street which is one of the principal commuter routes in the area. It is considered that the re-development of the site will seek to revitalise and enhance the visual amenity of this prominent site and will afford the community of New Stevenston additional housing opportunities all to the benefit of the area.

1 letter of objection was received from an adjoining neighbour. Notwithstanding this objection, for the reasons contained in my accompanying report I hereby recommend that planning consent be granted.

136 137 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these details.

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these details.

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; and (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted;

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these details.

5. That within one year of the occupation of the last 2 flatted dwellings within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 4 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas hatched GREEN; on the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these details.

7. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 6 shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

138 8. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, the following access requirements shall be met in full:- (a) that vehicular access to the site shall be taken via a 5.5 metre wide (plus 1 metre transition either side) dropped kerb footway crossing leading to a 5.5 metre wide access road; (b) the existing vehicular access point at the west end of the site’s frontage should be reinstated to footway, with a full upstand carriageway kerbline; and (c) the first 5 metres (minimum) length of the driveway should be surfaced across its entire width.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access arrangements to the site.

9. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

10 That before the development hereby permitted starts, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the suitability of the site for residential development in the interests of prospective residents.

11. That before the development hereby permitted starts, the scheme proposed for drainage within the site shall be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and shall be designed to comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and that this system shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest SEPA guidance.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 23rd April 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 8th June 2004 Memo from NLC Protective Services received 25th May 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 18th May 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 26th May 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 13th May 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 14th May 2004 Letter from British Telecom received 18th May 2004 Letter from Mr James Ginn, 85 Clydesdale Street, New Stevenston, MLI 4JQ received 6th May 2004

Northern Area Local Plan Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Joanne Delaney at 01698 302137

139 APPLICATION NO. S/04/00676/FUL

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is land at 216-220 Clydesdale Street, New Stevenston. The site slopes gently from east to west and comprises a 2 storey sandstone tenement block which previously accommodated commercial outlets on the ground floor with flats on the upper floor. The tenement block directly abuts the footpath and is located in a visually prominent location on the bend of Clydesdale Street which is one of the main commuter routes in the area. The tenement block has previously been an attractive building, however it currently presents an untidy and unmaintained aspect to this principal route owing to having lain vacant for several years. Closed roller shutters and boarded upper floor windows persist on the building frontage all to the detriment of the amenity of the area. Several piecemeal extensions have been constructed on the rear elevation of the building in the past and have left a legacy of unusual and disjointed building lines. The rear yard area comprises unmaintained rough scrubland with semi-mature trees and bushes around the perimeter. There are currently 2 vehicular accesses to the site on its south-east and north-west boundary extremes.

1.2 The application site lies within a predominantly residential area albeit commercial uses prevail further east. The site is adjoined to the north and south by residential properties, to the east by Wrangholm Kirk and directly to the west by a 1.5 storey dwelling and beyond by New Stevenston Primary School.

1.3 The applicant seeks consent for a 3 storey residential development comprising 15 flatted dwellings, all accommodating two bedrooms. The building is L-shaped in plan form and has been sited on the western end of the site nearest the 1.5 storey dwelling due to the necessity to locate the vehicular access on the eastern extremity to maximise sightlines. The forward-most part of the flatted block has been sited in alignment with the rear boundary line of the 1.5 storey dwelling and the forward gable is located 18 metres from that of the dwelling in order to minimise their association and massing conflicts in streetscape terms. Dedicated off-street parking and complementary landscaping complete the scheme.

2. Develo ~rnen t PI an

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The adopted Northern Area Local Plan zones the site as a Mixed Use Area. It is considered that a mixture of residential and commercial uses are acceptable within these areas. On the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) the site is zoned as an Established Housing Area.

2.2 Policy HSGll 'Infill Housing Development' of the Finalised Draft provides a list of criteria against which new housing developments on gap sites should be assessed. Such criteria include the effect on the character and amenity of the area, provision of access and parking, as well as due consideration to the scale, design and layout of the development.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The utility bodies raised no objections to the development and confirmed that they can service the site.

3.2 NLC Protective Services Section requested that a site investigation report be submitted to confirm the existence of any contaminants and that a Note be placed on any consent advising

140 the acceptable working hours for construction periods.

3.3 NLC Community Services raised no objections to the proposal.

3.4 NLC Transportation Section objected to the proposal with respect to the access arrangements to the site and junction sightlines. The vehicular access will be located directly opposite a driveway serving 2 semi-detached properties and will give rise to vehicle conflicts at this location. In addition, junction sightlines of 4.5 metres x 120 metres, or an absolute minimum of 2.5 metres x 120 metres are required at this location. The sightline can be achieved to the east of the junction, but 4.5 metres x 60 metres can be achieved to the west of the junction. However, if permission was granted, they would advise that access to the development should be by a dropped kerb vehicular footway crossing rather than a junction; the existing access point at the west end of the site should be reinstated to a full-upstand carriageway kerbline; the first 5 metres of the driveway should be surfaced across its entire width; and the first 10 metres of the driveway should be made less tortuous and more useable.

3.5 One letter of objection was received from a neighbour located at no. 85 Clydesdale Street, opposite the site raising the following concerns:-

* Traffic circulation is problematic at present due to on-street parking by users of the church and church hall, neither of which have dedicated parking; The vehicular access point to the development is located on a dangerous bend where a fatality has occurred in the past; and The height of the proposed building at 3 storeys is out of keeping as the existing building is 2 storey. It would result in overshadowing of surrounding properties and would reduce their privacy.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. Both the adopted and emerging plans zone the site for residential development and I am therefore satisfied that the development is acceptable in principle. With regard to the finer detailing of the proposal, these are assessed against the criteria contained in Policy HSGI 1 of the emerging plan and each criteria is discussed in turn. Some of these are mirrored in the objection and so can be dealt with jointly.

4.2 The character and zoning of the area is predominantly residential and thus residential development will further complement the character of the area. The site is currently unmaintained and unattractive due to the persistence of closed roller shutters on the commercial outlets on the ground floor and boarded windows on the upper floor, thus new development will also improve the amenity of the area.

4.3 With regard to the scale and design of the flatted block, pre-application discussions were undertaken with the agent highlighting the necessity of the building to be located to the west nearest the 1.5 storey dwelling, due to sightline requirements which are maximised on the eastern end of the site. Careful siting and design would be required in order that a 3 storey development would not conflict with the adjacent dwelling. The finalised submission is considered acceptable as the siting of the flatted block, in recess from the dwelling and sited 18 metres apart, minimises the association of the two buildings and the ensuing massing conflicts in streetscape terms. Furthermore, due to the configuration of the land pattern at this location, the site is viewed at an oblique angle on both approaches along Clydesdale Street and thus the flatted block will be more commonly viewed in association with the 3 storey (equivalent) primary school to the west and the 3 storey (equivalent) Wrangholm Kirk to the east. I am therefore satisfied that the scale and design of the building is acceptable at this location. In addition mock sandstone will be incorporated on the building in sympathy with the existing tenement

141 building and adjacent school and kirk, enabling the union of traditional materials with contemporary design.

4.4 The siting and layout of the building has also been carefully planned in order that there are no adverse effects on adjoining neighbours in terms of loss of privacy and sunlight/daylight. Directly opposing windows with properties opposite Clydesdale Street and on Coronation Road are located a minimum of 29 metres apart, whilst windows facing the 1.5 storey dwelling are all at oblique angles and are located a minimum of 16 metres apart. The siting and orientation of the flatted block and the associated directional path of the sun, dictates that the 1.5 storey dwelling will be slightly overshadowed at midday and will continue into early afternoon, but should be unaffected by 3 pm. The properties opposite the site on Clydesdale Street and Coronation Road are located sufficiently far away that there should be no reduction in sunlightldaylight levels as currently enjoyed.

4.5 The dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated open space complies with the Council‘s Open Space policy. Conditions have been imposed requiring the submission of landscape details and proposals for their maintenance which should further enhance the visual amenity of the site. Finally, policy HSGll requires that consideration be accorded to the provision of vehicular access and parking. Taking the latter first, NLC’s Transportation Section raised no concerns over the level of dedicated car parking for the site as it meets the Council‘s requirements and has suitable turning provision to ensure vehicles leave the courtyard parking area in forward gear. There should therefore be no on-street parking as a result of the development which would impede traffic circulation along Clydesdale Street.

4.6 However, concerns have been raised by NLC’s Transportation Section and the objector over the access arrangements to the site. As noted above in paragraph 3.4, the junction sightlines to the west of the site are substandard, only achieving 4.5 metres by 60 metres. However, there is an existing access slightly further east which is even more sub-standard and thus the proposed new access constitutes an improvement. In addition, lesser sightlines exist nearby to the west of the site between the 1.5 storey dwelling and New Stevenston Primary School which generates more traffic. Thus, whilst it would have been beneficial to provide the correct junction sightlines, the location of the proposed access will achieve the maximum sightline possible due to the configuration of the land pattern, and will generate less traffic than that adjacent to the school. It is also considered that the location of the access should not give rise to significant traffic circulation conflicts because it is opposite a driveway which only serves 2 semi-detached houses. Conditions have been imposed addressing the issues raised by the Transportation Section if permission were granted, which related to the access arrangements, configuration and surfacing of the site. In addition, amended plans have been submitted which convey a less tortuouslmore useable driveway.

4.7 Having taken all matters into account, I consider that the development will enhance the visual amenity of this prominent site located off a busy commuter route and will provide additional housing opportunities for the New Stevenston community all to the benefit of the area. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted.

142 Application No: S1041009581F UL

Date Registered: 1st July 2004

Applicant: Mr G Stewart Land At West Croft Farm By Bonkle Wishaw Lanarkshire

Development: Erection of Single Storey Dwellinghouse

Location: Land At West Croft Farm, By Bonkle, Wishaw, Lanarkshire

Ward: 17: Stane Councillor Frank Gormill

Grid Reference: 284156 657014

File Reference: SIPLIB1314 1/MR

Site History: Planning consent granted for erection of dwellinghouse, 3rd June 1992, 48/92 (Not implemented.)

Planning consent granted for extension to existing dwellinghouse, 9th Jan 1995, 537194.

Planning permission refused for the erection of a single storey dwellinghouse, 16th December 2003, SI03101 1341FUL.

Development Plan: The site lies within an area zoned for Green Belt within the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and as 'Countryside Around Towns' in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: S.E.P.A.(W est) (No Response) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (No Objection) Scottish Power (No Objection) Director Of Finance (Comments)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 9th July 2004

Comments:

This application seeks planning consent for the erection of a single storey dwellinghouse at 1 West Croft, Allanton Holdings, Bonkle, Wishaw. The site comprises open countryside land and is presently used for arable purposes. Both national and development plan policies contain a presumption against new residential development in the countryside around towns, unless a need for it is demonstrated to support the use of land for a recognised rural use such as agriculture. In this case the submitted business plan does not demonstrate such a need for additional accommodation at the site. Having taken all concerns into account I recommend, for reasons detailed in the attached report, that the application should be refused.

143 I PLANNING APPLICATION No. S / 04 / 00958 / FUL

144 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed dwellinghouse would be contrary to Policy ENV 8 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), Green Belt Policy of the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and to national planning policy contained in SPP3 Planning for Housing and Circular 24/1985 in that it constitutes an additional dwelling in the countryside for which there is no justification.

2. That the proposed dwelling would have a detrimental visual impact on the landscape and environment due to its prominent setting, contrary to policies ENV 1 and ENV 5 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and to PAN 36 on the Siting and Design of New Housing in the Countryside.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1st June 2004

Outline Business Plan dated 12th May 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 21st July 2004 Memo from NLC Protective Services received 22nd July 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 20th July 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 13th Jul y2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 15th July 2004 Memo from Director of Finance received 1 1th August 2004

Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1904 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) SPP3 Planning for Housing, February 2003 Circular 24/1985 Development in the Countryside and Greenbelts

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

145 APPLICATION N0. S/04/00958/FU L

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning permission for the erection of a 4 bedroomed single storey dwellinghouse at 1 West Croft, Allanton Holdings, Wishaw. The application site lies north of the existing house within an area of open countryside and is accessed via a private road, which lies to the south east of the A71 near Bonkle.

1.2 The application site is presently used for arable purposes. The majority of the land in the vicinity of the site is used for agricultural purposes and the area is characterised by a number of small holdings.

1.3 The applicant states in the submitted business plan that the proposal is to erect a private dwellingloffice at the site in connection with the proposed establishment of a turf growing business.

2. Plannina History

2.1 Planning consent was granted on 3rd June 1992, (Ref No. 48192) for the erection of a dwellinghouse at this site. From the supporting information submitted with that application it was concluded that there was an agricultural justification for additional accommodation for a permanent labour presence in relation to breeding stock. This consent, however, was not implemented.

2.2 Planning permission was refused on 16'h December, 2003, (Ref No. S/03/01134/FUL) for the erection of a single storey dwellinghouse because the proposal was contrary to policy as there was insufficient agricultural justification for a further house at the site.

3. Developmen t Plan

3.1 The site is zoned as Green Belt within the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964. This policy contains a general presumption against new residential development unless directly related to agriculture or a similar rural activity.

3.2 In the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), the site is zoned as Countryside Around Towns. Policies ENV8 and HSG12 together seek to protect the countryside and not to permit new houses unless there is a proven operational need related to an appropriate rural use. Paragraph 2.51 of the accompanying plan text states that any development will need to demonstrate its specific need for a detached location in the countryside.

3.3 Also relevant are policies ENVI and ENV5 of the Southern Area Local Plan. ENVI supports sustainable development and seeks to protect the environment from damaging effects. Policy ENV5 on assessment of environmental impacts, states that the landscape and visual impact of a proposal is important and those unacceptable impacts should be avoided.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 The Transportation Section comment that the existing private road leading to West Croft Farm is less than 5.5 metres wide therefore is substandard in width and the construction of a dwelling house and further business would increase vehicular traffic on this single track road. To remove

146 this objection, passing places along the road from the junction with Church Street would be required however it appears from the information submitted with the application that the land required for the construction of passing places is outwith the control of the applicant. It is also commented that a visibility splay of 2.5 x 90 metres is required however this cannot be achieved to the right due to obstructions outwith the applicant‘s control.

4.2 Scottish Water (West) have indicated that there is an existing connection to both the public water supply and sewers in the vicinity however the applicant should make a separate application to developer services for permission. The drainage requirements will require to be to the satisfaction of SEPA.

4.3 Scottish Power, Transco and Protective Services have no objections to the proposed development and to date a response from S.E.P.A West has not been received.

4.4 No third party representations have been received.

5. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 The main policy issue in the assessment of this application is that the site lies within an area designated as Green Belt in the old development plan and as Countryside Around Towns in the Finalised Draft Local Plan. Policy ENV 8 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) applies and contains a presumption against new dwellings unless there is a proven need relating to a bona fide rural use such as agriculture or forestry. This policy reflects national policy contained in Circular 24/1985 Development in the Countryside and Green Belts and in SPP3 ‘Planning for Housing’, both of which state that isolated development should be discouraged in the open countryside, unless particular circumstances are identified in development plans or there are special needs, e.g. with employment requiring residence in a particular location.

5.2 The applicant has submitted an outline business plan in support of this application. This details his proposal to incorporate a turf growing business in addition to his agricultural and landscape contractors business at the farm. The business plan has been assessed by the Director of Finance. He advises that this business plan only differs from the previous business plan submitted with the application refused in 2003 because there is an increased concern for animal welfare which can be addressed by living on the farm. There is no need for domestic accommodation to look after growing turf. The revised plan has not made a more convincing case for planning permission.

5.3 The business plan indicates that there is a labour requirement on the farm of only 0.54 units. It is therefore considered that this business plan does not provide a convincing agricultural justification for planning permission hence there is no economic case for a new house at the site. In view of this I recommend that permission be refused.

147 Application No: S/04/00956/FUL

Date Registered: 3rd June 2004

Applicant : Taylor Homes (Scotland) Ltd Unit 3, Woodhall Road Cambusnethan Wishaw, ML2 8PY

Development : Erection of 5 Detached Dwellinghouses

Location: Phase 3B (Plots 49, 50, 60, 61, 62) Glen Noble Cleland M ot herwel I Lanarkshire

Ward: 19: Cleland Councillor James Martin

Grid Reference: 279541 657690

File Reference: SIPLIB/4/26/MR

Site History: Deletion of application site from a previously submitted application for residential development of adjoining Glen Noble site.

Planning permission refused for outline residential development on 2gth April 1999, ref.no. S/99/00252/0UT. Subsequent appeal dismissed on 1'' February 2000, reference P/PPN320/61.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) (Policy ENV 6).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S. E.P.A. (W est) (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections) British Telecom (Comments)

Representations: 21 Representation Letters and 1 petition with 76 signatures

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 16th June 2004

Co mme nts :

The applicants seek detailed permission for the erection of 5 detached two storey dwellings on land to the South West of Cleland. The application site is immediately adjacent to Wishaw Low Road and the residential development at Glen Noble, formerly Knowenoble Farm. The applicants are the developers of the adjacent Glen Noble site and the proposed development would effectively constitute an extension to it. The applicants have also submitted two other applications for adjacent sites, reports on which are also included on the Agenda. As the site is zoned as Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and it is considered that no justification can be provided for departure from this, it is recommended that planning permission be refused. 21 letters of objection have been received, while one letter and petition with 76 signatures supported the proposal. Full details of these, the consultation responses and my consideration of the proposals are contained in the

148 149 attached report. Committee should note that referral to the secretary of State will be necessary if permission is granted.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Strategic Policy 10 (A) (ii) of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 in that there is no shortfall in the housing land supply for this market area and no justification for the release of this land from the greenbelt.

2. That the proposal would constitute residential development within the Green Belt and as such is contrary to the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and to Policy ENV6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and the guidance contained within Circular 2411 985.

3. That the proposal would be contrary to Policy HSGI 'Housing Strategy' of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) in that it constitutes new residential development on a greenfield site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th May 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 21st June 2004. Memo from NLC Protective Services received 25th June 2004. Memo from NLC Community Services received 23rd July 2004. Letter from S.E.P.A. (West) received 12th August 2004. Letter from Scottish Water received 30th June 2004. Letter from Scottish Power received 18th June 2004. Letter from Transco received 21st June 2004. Letter from British Telecom received 24th June 2004.

Letter from Mr & Dr Mark Higgins, 4 Glen Noble, Cleland, ML1 5FB received 2nd July 2004. Letter from Geraldine Shearer, 2 Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5FB received 7th July 2004. Letter from Catherine & Peter Crilley, 14 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 8th July 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 28 Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5FB received 20th July 2004. Letter from Mr And Mrs Bowman, Watersaugh, Wishaw Low Road, Cleland, MLI 5QU received 28th July 2004. Letter from Kevin Smith, 28 Glen Noble, Cleland received 30th July 2004. Letter from Mark Sobczak, 10 Glen Noble, Cleland, ML1 5FB received 4th June 2004. Letter from Catherine Crilley, 14 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 10th June 2004. Letter from Mrs S Kane, 8 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Watt, 8 Goreshall Street, Cleland, ML1 5PZ received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Findlay, 11 Goreshall Street, Cleland, MLI 5PZ received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Walsh, 2 Park Street, Cleland, received 14th June 2004. Letter from Tracey Boyle, 76 Omoa Road, Cleland, MLI 5RE received 14th June 2004. Letter from Frankie King, 80 Omoa Road, Cleland, MLI 5RE received 14th June 2004. Letter from Catherine Miller, 4 Lithgow Drive, Cleland, MLI 5RB received 14th June 2004. Letter from Delia Sloan, Carrey Gardens, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Elizabeth King, Dixon Square, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Rita McAloon, Chapel Street, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Smith, Bigger Road, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mrs C Shevlin, Biggar Road, Cleland received 4th June 2004. Letter from Steven Hughes, 6 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 28th June 2004.

150 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Circular 2411985 Development in the Countryside and Green Belts NPPG 3 Planning for Housing (November 1996) SPPl The Planning System (November 2002)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

151 APPLICATION NO. S/04/00956/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The applicants seek detailed permission for the erection of 5 detached two storey dwellings (four with integral double garages) on land to the South West of Cleland Village. Access would be taken from a new road off Glen Noble. The site extends to approximately 0.61 hectares, is roughly square in shape and consists of undeveloped ground formerly associated with agricultural (grazing) use.

1.2 The applicants are the developers of the adjacent Glen Noble site and the proposed development would effectively constitute an extension to it. It should be noted that there are two other applications under consideration, namely Phase 3A (S/04/00964/FUL) for 5 detached dwellinghouses and Phase 3C (S/04/00962/FUL) for 4 detached dwellinghouses.

1.3 The initial application for the plotted residential development of the adjacent Knowenoble Farm included part of the application site nearest to the development access road. 10 Dwellinghouse plots were indicated. However, prior to the application being determined the applicant was advised to delete these 10 plots as they were in the green belt section of the site. The applicant agreed to do this and permission for the development of 27 dwellinghouses on the adjacent site was granted. The consent was later amended to allow 29 dwellinghouses to be built with a marginal extension into part of the green belt (not covered by the area of this application) to allow the provision of adequate garden ground which now forms the existing houses at Glen Noble. The present application site partly includes the area previously covered by the 10 dwellinghouse plots referred to above. The site was in the past disturbed by the tipping of soils and the location of plant associated with the Glen Noble development however these were removed once the matter had been drawn to the applicant's attention. This part of the site is now reverting to a more natural state.

1.4 Planning permission was refused for outline residential development on 29th April 1999, on greenbelt grounds. The subsequent appeal was dismissed on 1st February 2000 because there was no justification for further encroachment into the Green Belt.

1.5 The applicants have submitted a letter in support of their application noting they have made a submission in respect if the North Lanarkshire Local Plan Consultation Exercise on the grounds that the site is no longer Greenbelt and should be rezoned as Brownfield (Potential Housing). They consider that the site is derelict and attracts regular fly tipping which is an eyesore and will potentially continue regardless of how often it is cleared until the site is developed. They also indicated that there is a demand for such housing that exceeds current supply.

2. Development Plan

2.1 It is considered that the application raises issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Structure Plan for the area. The site zoned as Greenbelt and the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (GCVJSP) Development Strategy places the protection and enhancement of natural and built heritage and environmental resources as a perquisite. Development must be assessed against the criteria set out in Strategic Policy 9 and any development failing to meet these criteria requires to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10. Among these of most note, are the assessment of the development against its contribution to promoting urban regeneration; avoiding isolated and sporadic development in the Green Belt and the wider countryside; and the assessment of the proposal against the effective housing land supply for the market area and the establishment of a clear shortfall.

152 2.2 The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004.) Policy ENV6 is the relevant policy and indicates that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt. Within such areas there is a presumption against developments unless associated with an appropriate rural use.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 In terms of consultation responses no objections have been received.

3.2 My Transportation team leader has no objections subject to the conditions that connections from Plot 50 onto the existing road should be with a 5 metre wide dropped kerb crossing, all driveways should be offset a minimum of 1 metre from the road humps, and the maximum driveway gradient is 10%. It is also commented that the Council has not yet formally adopted the existing road network within the estate and as a consequence, an amendment is needed to the existing construction consent for the provision of the footway and visitor parking bays shown on the submitted plans. Furthermore a construction consent will also be required for the construction of the new proposed road associated with this planning application and planning application S/04/00962/FUL.

3.3 Scottish Water has indicated that there is a public water supply and an existing sewerage system. The drainage arrangements will require to be to the satisfaction of SEPA.

3.4 SEPA have no objection to the proposal on the understanding that the foul drainage is connected to the public sewer in accordance with a SUDS system.

3.5 NLC Protective Services have commented that construction noise and hours of operation should comply with appropriate legislation.

3.6 NLC Community Services require the applicant to submit a landscape plan before they can comment in detail on this application.

3.7 Scottish Power and Transco have no objections to the proposal.

3.8 British Telecom comment that there are no anticipated problems on providing network services to a development on this site however the applicant should contact them ideally 3 months before work commences.

3.9 20 letters of representation have been received against the proposal. 1 letter of representation was received and a petition with 76 signatures in support of the development. Following receipt of the letters of representation, acknowledgement letters were sent back asking for written confirmation of whether their representation was specific or to all three related applications. 5 of these original representation letters clarified that their representation was to all three applications, 1 letter could not reach the relevant person because they had not provided a house number, 1 letter was returned because the name was not at the address given, 1 letter was returned with a covering letter clarifying that no objection had been made and that the relevant person supported the applications. 11 letters were not acknowledged. In the assessment of the application it was considered that all letters of representation related to all three planning applications for the avoidance of doubt. The points of objection may be summarised as follows:

1. The development is proposed on land designated as Green Belt in the Local Plan. 2. Increased volume in traffic resulting in congestion and car parking problems and adverse impact on the safety of children and family.

153 3. Increased noise, dust and air pollution. 4. Adverse impact on safety of children/residents as a result of open building sites, dangerous equipment left unguarded, hazardous materials in conjunction with alleged history of disregard for safety precautions with vehicles/dumper trucks. Disruption to the residents of Glen Noble from construction work and additional traffic. 5. Loss of privacy and residential amenity. 6. Loss of outlook and magnificent views. 7. Loss of beauty enjoyed by locals and surrounding villagers on a daily basis and for schools and colleges who use the area. 8. Assured that ground would be left undeveloped by Taylor Homes when purchasing neighbouring property. 9. Loss of natural light, sunlight and overshadowing. 10. Impact on drainage and local flooding. 11. Impact on natural environment (local flora and fauna) and wildlife/habitat (deer, rabbits, badgers, brown hares, kestrels, pole cats and others.) 12. Over development, over provision of houses in area up to 2006 with 4 developments in and around Cleland, taking place at various stages of development resulting in a lack of amenities such as schools and play areas and question over whether the support and infrastructure of Cleland can continue to cope with sustained development. 13. Loss of identity and character of old mining village as a result of over development when there is sufficient area for development within Cleland and surrounding area. 14. Application is the first phase of a larger plan to build even more houses on the site and talylor homes are building at the expense of safety, environment and well being of existing neighbours. 15. Building work adjacent in Glen OrchylRavenshall has been continuing for the last four years and roads and pavements are incomplete therefore do not wish to live next to a building site for 4 years.

3.10 The petition submitted in support of the proposal stated “Please sign below if you do not have any objections to the development of land highlighted on the attached plan or would like the opportunity to purchase a self-build plot or finished property”. Of the 76 signatures, 13 lived in the Glen Noble estate, 18 lived elsewhere in Cleland, and the remainder had addresses in other locations, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Hawick. The corresponding letter of support considers the application site to be an eyesore and quite dangerous and would like to see housing instead of it being used as a dumping ground/waste ground which is a danger to children .

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Act requires the determination of any planning application to be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the Strathclyde Structure Plan 2000, the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan (adopted plan) and in view of the age of the adopted plan, the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

4.2 Development Plan policies on green belt land are set out firstly in the recently approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. Strategic Policy 1 of the Structure Plan requires the continued safeguarding of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt, and impose a presumption against the spread of build up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside. It goes on to state that Local Plans shall define the detailed boundaries and policies to protect the Green Belt. Strategic Policy 9 indicates that preference should be given to brownfield rather than greenfield land and housing developments of over 10 units are considered to be a departure from the Structure Plan. Although this particular application relates to 5 houses, it is considered that the overall development as a result all 3 applications (as discussed in paragraph 1.2) does exceed the threshold terms of the cumulative

154 impact therefore the Structure Plan requires the development to be assessed against the criteria listed in Strategic Policies, 9 and 10 of particular relevance are 9 (A) ii, 9 6 (ii) (a) and (b) and 10 A (ii). Strategic Policies 9 (A) (ii) and 10 A (ii) require housing proposals to be assessed against the supply and demand for housing in the relevant market area, Policy 9 (B) (i) and (ii), gives preference to brownfield sites and seems to safeguard greenbelt land. Any departure from Strategic Policy 9 requires to also have regard to specific locational need, the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposals and detailed considerations such as infrastructure implications. In the case of this application and the other two submitted by the same applicant there is no shortfall in the housing land supply for this market area. There are other brownfield sites available and in terms of the other criteria there is no justification for the release of this land from the greenbelt.

4.3 The Housing Strategy of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004) is expressed In Policy HSGI, which seeks to direct new residential development to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations. Policy ENV6 'Green Belt' of the Draft Local Plan states that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt, and indicates that there will be a presumption against development other than that required for agriculture or other appropriate rural uses. The proposals are clearly contrary to both policies.

4.4 It should be noted that in the previous refused appeal P/PPA/320/61 in respect of site the reporter commented that despite the removal of turf and topsoil the site comprises disused farmland and falls to be considered as a greenfield site. It was found that there was no justification to further encroachment into the green belt in accordance with Circular No. 25/1985 which emphasises the need for development in designated green belts to be strictly controlled.

4.5 The issues raised by consultees could largely be dealt with by the imposition of conditions if permission was to be granted. However, the roads concerns would require an altered site layout to be produced.

4.6 In response to the points of objection listed in paragraph 3.9 above I would comment as follows:-

1. The issue of the Green Belt designation is discussed in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4 above. 2. While there were some points of detail relating to roads issues, it is considered that potential disruption from such additional traffic would not be a sufficient reason for refusing planning permission. 3. Protective Services have raised no issues with regard to dust and air pollution as a result of the proposal and comment that construction work should be limited to particular hours with regard to noise impact. 4. The impact and associated dangers of building sites, construction works and traffic is not a planning issue, this matter may be controlled by environmental health legislation. There is no objection from my Transportation Team Leader to the additional traffic associated with the development. 5. I share the concerns of adjacent residents about the potential adverse impact of the development on their amenity. 6-8 With regard to points 6, 7 and 8 it is considered that these are outwith the terms of the planning legislation. Furthermore nobody has a right to the view of their house being protected. 9. Given that the distance of the proposed houses in relation to the existing ones is over 25 metres and given the topography of the land, it is not considered that any loss of sunlight/daylight would be significant enough to merit refusal of this application. 10. With regard to the impact of development on both drainage and flooding it should be noted that both Scottish Water and SEPA have no objections to the proposal. 11. The impact of the development on the natural environment has been discussed above in relation to the consultation responses from Community Services who would require

155 the applicant to submit a landscape plan which would form a planning condition if the application was granted consent. 12. Whilst it is acknowledged that there does not appear to be any specific locational need for housing development on this site, it is considered that there are not any infrastructure provisions which, by themselves, justify refusal of this application. 13. It is considered that the loss of village identity is unlikely to result from a development of this scale. 14-15 Points 14 and 15 are not valid planning considerations.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The proposals are contrary to the policies contained in the Development Plan and national planning guidelines and advice on green belt developments. The appeal decision in 2000 supports this conclusion. There have been no significant changes in circumstances on other material considerations which would justify a departure from established policy and I recommend that permission be refused.

5.2 The reporters findings for the appeal P/PPA/320/61 (as discussed above in paragraph 1.4 above) concluded that there were no considerations sufficient in themselves to justify a further encroachment into the greenbelt. The statement of support supplied by the applicants does not provide any such material considerations that would outweigh the development plan position. The site has not contained development and was once a farm. Although the appearance of the site has been affected in the past, the site has reverted back to a more natural state and will continue to naturally regenerate as it has done in the past. It is considered that there are other means of improving the visual appearance of those parts of an application site, other than building houses on it.

5.3 It should be noted that matters raised by the consultees could be resolved by the submission of further plans or dealt with by conditions. The applicants have not been requested to submit such further details at this stage. As the proposals are not in keeping with policy it is considered unreasonable to put the applicant to the additional expense of unnecessary work should permission be refused. Should the Committee be minded to grant permission then appropriate conditions would be required.

5.4 If the committee should be minded to grant this application it will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers as significant departure from the development plan.

156 Application No: S/04/00962/FUL

Date Registered: 3rd June 2004

Applicant: Taylor Homes (Scotland) Ltd Unit 3 Woodhall Road Cambusnethan Wishaw

Development: Erection of 4 Detached Dwellinghouses

Location: Phase 3C (Plots 56 - 59) Glen Noble Cleland Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 19 Councillor James Martin

Grid Reference: 279619 657704

File Reference: SIPL/4/26/MR

Site History: Deletion of application site from a previously submitted application for residential development of adjoining Glen Noble site.

Planning permission refused for outline residential development on 29th April 1999, ref.no. S/99/00252/OUT. Subsequent appeal dismissed on 1st February 2000, reference PIPPN320161.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) (Policy ENV 6).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: S. E. P.A. (W est) (Comments) Scottish Water (Com ments) British Gas Transco (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections) British Telecom (Comments)

Representations: 21 Representation Letters and 1 petition with 76 signatures.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 16th June 2004

Comments:

The applicants seek detailed permission for the erection of 4 detached two storey dwellings land to the South West of Cleland. The application site is immediately adjacent to Wishaw Low Road and the residential development at Glen Noble, formerly Knowenoble Farm. The applicants are the developers of the adjacent Glen Noble site and the proposed development would effectively constitute an extension to it. The applicants have also submitted two other applications for adjacent sites, reports on which are also included on the agenda. As the site is zoned as Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and it is considered that no justification can be provided for departure from this, it is recommended that planning permission be refused. 21 letters of objection have been received, while one letter and a petition with 76 signatures supported the proposal. Full

157 158 details of these, the consultation responses and my consideration of the proposals are contained in the attached report. Committee should note that referral to the secretary of State will be necessary if permission is granted.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Strategic Policy 10 (A) (ii) of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 in that there is no shortfall in the housing land supply for this market area and no justification for the release of this land from the greenbelt.

2. That the proposal would constitute residential development within the Green Belt and as such is contrary to the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and to Policy ENV6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and the guidance contained within Circular 2411 985.

3. That the proposal would be contrary to Policy HSGI 'Housing Strategy' of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) in that it constitutes new residential development on a greenfield site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th May 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 21st June 2004. Memo from NLC Protective Services received 25th June 2004. Memo from NLC Community Services received 23rd July 2004. Letter from S.E.P.A. (West) received 12th August 2004. Letter from Scottish Water received 30th June 2004. Letter from Scottish Power received 18th June 2004. Letter from Transco received 21st June 2004. Letter from British Telecom received 24th June 2004.

Letter from Mr & Dr Mark Higgins, 4 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 2nd July 2004. Letter from Geraldine Shearer, 2 Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5FB received 7th July 2004. Letter from Catherine & Peter Crilley, 14 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 8th July 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 28 Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5FB received 20th July 2004. Letter from Mr And Mrs Bowman, Watersaugh, Wishaw Low Road, Cleland, MLI 5QU received 28th July 2004. Letter from Kevin Smith, 28 Glen Noble, Cleland received 30th July 2004. Letter from Mark Sobczak, 10 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 4th June 2004. Letter from Catherine Crilley, 14 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 10th June 2004. Letter from Mrs S Kane, 8 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Watt, 8 Goreshall Street, Cleland, MLI 5PZ received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Findlay, 11 Goreshall Street, Cleland, MLI 5PZ received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Walsh, 2 Park Street, Cleland, received 14th June 2004. Letter from Tracey Boyle, 76 Omoa Road, Cleland, MLI 5RE received 14th June 2004. Letter from Frankie King, 80 Omoa Road, Cleland, MLI 5RE received 14th June 2004. Letter from Catherine Miller, 4 Lithgow Drive, Cleland, MLI 5RB received 14th June 2004. Letter from Delia Sloan, Carrey Gardens, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Elizabeth King, Dixon Square, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Rita McAloon, Chapel Street, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Smith, Bigger Road, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mrs C Shevlin, Biggar Road, Cleland received 4th June 2004. Letter from Steven Hughes, 6 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 28th June 2004.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

159 Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Circular 2411 985 Development in the Countryside and Green Belts NPPG 3 Planning for Housing (November 1996) SPPl The Planning System (November 2002)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

160 APPLICATION NO. S1041009621FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The applicants seek detailed permission for the erection of 4 detached two storey dwellings (three with integral double garages) on land to the South West of Cleland Village. The application site lies immediately adjacent to Wishaw Low Road, with access to be taken from a new road off Glen Noble. The site extends to approximately 0.38 hectares and consists of undeveloped ground formerly associated with agricultural (grazing) use. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and the proposed houses would be located to the south of the proposed application site for 5 houses that is under consideration.

1.2 The applicants are the developers of the adjacent Glen Noble site and the proposed development would effectively constitute an extension to it. It should be noted that there are two other applications under consideration, namely Phase 3A (S/04/00964/FUL) for 5 detached dwellinghouses and Phase 38 (S/04/00956/FUL) for 5 detached dwellinghouses.

1.3 The initial application for the plotted residential development of the adjacent Knowenoble Farm included part of the application site nearest to the development access road. 10 Dwellinghouse plots were indicated. However, prior to the application being determined the applicant was advised to delete these 10 plots as they were in the green belt section of the site. The applicant agreed to do this and permission for the development of 27 dwellinghouses on the adjacent site was granted. The consent was later amended to allow 29 dwellinghouses to be built with a marginal extension into part of the green belt (not covered by the area of this application) to allow the provision of adequate garden ground which now forms the existing houses at Glen Noble. The present application site partly includes the area previously covered by the 10 dwellinghouse plots referred to above. The site was in the past disturbed by the tipping of soils and the location of plant associated with the Glen Noble development however these were removed once the matter had been drawn to the applicant’s attention. This part of the site is now reverting to a more natural state.

1.4 Planning permission was refused for outline residential development on 29th April 1999, on greenbelt grounds. The subsequent appeal was dismissed on 1st February 2000 because there was no justification for further encroachment into the Green Belt.

1.5 The applicants have submitted a letter in support of their application noting they have made a submission in respect if the North Lanarkshire Local Plan Consultation Exercise on the grounds that the site is no longer Greenbelt and should be rezoned as Brownfield (Potential Housing). They consider that the site is derelict and attracts regular fly tipping which is an eyesore and will potentially continue regardless of how often it is cleared until the site is developed. They also indicated that there is a demand for such housing that exceeds current supply.

2. Development Plan

2.1 It is considered that the application raises issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Structure Plan for the area. The site zoned as Greenbelt and the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (GCVJSP) Development Strategy places the protection and enhancement of natural and built heritage and environmental resources as a perquisite. Development must be assessed against the criteria set out in Strategic Policy 9 and any development failing to meet these criteria requires to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10. Among these of most note, are the assessment of the development against its contribution to promoting urban regeneration; avoiding isolated and sporadic development in the Green Belt and the wider countryside; and the assessment of the proposal against the effective housing land supply for

161 the market area and the establishment of a clear shortfall.

2.2 The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004.) Policy ENV6 is the relevant policy and indicates that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt. Within such areas there is a presumption against developments unless associated with an appropriate rural use.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 In terms of consultation responses no objections have been received.

3.2 My Transportation team leader has no objections subject to the conditions that connections to the proposed road should have a 5 metre wide dropped kerb crossing and in view of this the driveway serving Plot 57 should be widened and to remove the bend in the driveway the dwelling should be handed, a 2 metre driveway should be provided on Wishaw Low Road along the rear of Plot 57 and the maximum driveway gradient should be 10%. Furthermore a construction consent will also be required for the construction of the new proposed road associated with this planning application and planning application S/04/00956/FUL.

3.3 Scottish Water has indicated that there is a public water supply and an existing sewerage system. The drainage arrangements will require to be to the satisfaction of SEPA.

3.4 SEPA have no objection to the proposal on the understanding that the foul drainage is connected to the public sewer in accordance with a SUDS system.

3.5 NLC Protective Services have commented that construction noise and hours of operation should comply with appropriate legislation.

3.6 NLC Community Services require the applicant to submit a landscape plan before they can comment in detail on this application.

3.7 Scottish Power and Transco have no objections to the proposal.

3.8 British Telecom comment that there are no anticipated problems on providing network services to a development on this site however the applicant should contact them ideally 3 months before work commences.

3.9 20 letters of representation have been received against the proposal. 1 letter of representation was received and a petition with 76 signatures in support of the development. Following receipt of the letters of representation, acknowledgement letters were sent back asking for written confirmation of whether their representation was specific or to all three related applications. 5 of these original representation letters clarified that their representation was to all three applications, 1 letter could not reach the relevant person because they had not provided a house number, 1 letter was returned because the name was not at the address given, 1 letter was returned with a covering letter clarifying that no objection had been made and that the relevant person supported the applications. 11 letters were not acknowledged. In the assessment of the application it was considered that all letters of representation related to all three planning applications for the avoidance of doubt. The points of objection may be summarised as follows:

1, The development is proposed on land designated as Green Belt in the Local Plan. 2. Increased volume in traffic resulting in congestion and car parking problems and adverse impact on the safety of children and family.

162 3. Increased noise, dust and air pollution. 4. Adverse impact on safety of childrenlresidents as a result of open building sites, dangerous equipment left unguarded, hazardous materials in conjunction with alleged history of disregard for safety precautions with vehiclesldumper trucks. Disruption to the residents of Glen Noble from construction work and additional traffic. 5. Loss of privacy and residential amenity. 6. Loss of outlook and magnificent views. 7. Loss of beauty enjoyed by locals and surrounding villagers on a daily basis and for schools and colleges who use the area. 8. Assured that ground would be left undeveloped by Taylor Homes when purchasing neighbouring property. 9. Loss of natural light, sunlight and overshadowing. 10. Impact on drainage and local flooding. 11. Impact on natural environment (local flora and fauna) and wildlifelhabitat (deer, rabbits, badgers, brown hares, kestrels, pole cats and others.) 12. Over development, over provision of houses in area up to 2006 with 4 developments in and around Cleland, taking place at various stages of development resulting in a lack of amenities such as schools and play areas and question over whether the support and infrastructure of Cleland can continue to cope with sustained development. 13. Loss of identity and character of old mining village as a result of over development when there is sufficient area for development within Cleland and surrounding area. 14. Application is the first phase of a larger plan to build even more houses on the site and talylor homes are building at the expense of safety, environment and well being of existing neighbours. 15. Building work adjacent in Glen Orchy/Ravenshall has been continuing for the last four years and roads and pavements are incomplete therefore do not wish to live next to a building site for 4 years.

3.10 The petition submitted in support of the proposal stated “Please sign below if you do not have any objections to the development of land highlighted on the attached plan or would like the opportunity to purchase a self-build plot or finished property”. Of the 76 signatures, 13 lived in the Glen Noble estate, 18 lived elsewhere in Cleland, and the remainder had addresses in other locations, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Hawick. The corresponding letter of support considers the application site to be an eyesore and quite dangerous and would like to see housing instead of it being used as a dumping groundlwaste ground which is a danger to children.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Act requires the determination of any planning application to be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the Strathclyde Structure Plan 2000, the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan (adopted plan) and in view of the age of the adopted plan, the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

4.2 Development Plan policies on green belt land are set out firstly in the recently approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. Strategic Policy 1 of the Structure Plan requires the continued safeguarding of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt, and impose a presumption against the spread of build up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside. It goes on to state that Local Plans shall define the detailed boundaries and policies to protect the Green Belt. Strategic Policy 9 indicates that preference should be given to brownfield rather than greenfield land and housing developments of over 10 units are considered to be a departure from the Structure Plan. Although this particular application relates to 5 houses, it is considered that the overall development as a result all 3 applications (as discussed in paragraph 1.2) does exceed the threshold terms of the cumulative

163 impact therefore the Structure Plan requires the development to be assessed against the criteria listed in Strategic Policies, 9 and 10 of particular relevance are 9 (A) ii, 9 B (ii) (a) and (b) and 10 A (ii). Strategic Policies 9 (A) (ii) and 10 A (ii) require housing proposals to be assessed against the supply and demand for housing in the relevant market area, Policy 9 (B) (i) and (ii), gives preference to brownfield sites and seems to safeguard greenbelt land. Any departure from Strategic Policy 9 requires to also have regard to specific locational need, the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposals and detailed considerations such as infrastructure implications. In the case of this application and the other two submitted by the same applicant there is no shortfall in the housing land supply for this market area. There are other brownfield sites available and in terms of the other criteria there is no justification for the release of this land from the greenbelt.

4.3 The Housing Strategy of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004) is expressed In Policy HSGI, which seeks to direct new residential development to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations. Policy ENV6 ‘Green Belt’ of the Draft Local Plan states that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt, and indicates that there will be a presumption against development other than that required for agriculture or other appropriate rural uses. The proposals are clearly contrary to both policies.

4.4 It should be noted that in the previous refused appeal P/PPA/320/61 in respect of site the reporter commented that despite the removal of turf and topsoil the site comprises disused farmland and falls to be considered as a greenfield site. It was found that there was no justification to further encroachment into the green belt in accordance with Circular No. 25/1985 which emphasises the need for development in designated green belts to be strictly controlled.

4.5 The issues raised by consultees could largely be dealt with by the imposition of conditions if permission was to be granted. However, the roads concerns would require an altered site layout to be produced.

4.6 In response to the points of objection listed in paragraph 3.9 above I would comment as follows:-

1. The issue of the Green Belt designation is discussed in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4 above. 2. While there were some points of detail relating to roads issues, it is considered that potential disruption from such additional traffic would not be a sufficient reason for refusing planning permission. 3. Protective Services have raised no issues with regard to dust and air pollution as a result of the proposal and comment that construction work should be limited to particular hours with regard to noise impact. 4. The impact and associated dangers of building sites, construction works and traffic is not a planning issue, this matter may be controlled by environmental health legislation. There is no objection from my Transportation Team Leader to the additional traffic associated with the development. 5. I share the concerns of adjacent residents about the potential adverse impact of the development on their amenity. 6-8. With regard to points 6, 7 and 8 it is considered that these are outwith the terms of the planning legislation. Furthermore nobody has a right to the view of their house being protected. 9. Given that the distance of the proposed houses in relation to the existing ones is over 25 metres and given the topography of the land, it is not considered that any loss of sunlight/daylight would be significant enough to merit refusal of this application. 10. With regard to the impact of development on both drainage and flooding it should be noted that both Scottish Water and SEPA have no objections to the proposal. 11. The impact of the development on the natural environment has been discussed above in relation to the consultation responses from Community Services who would require

164 the applicant to submit a landscape plan which would form a planning condition if the application was granted consent. 12. Whilst it is acknowledged that there does not appear to be any specific locational need for housing development on this site, it is considered that there are not any infrastructure provisions which, by themselves, justify refusal of this application. 13. It is considered that the loss of village identity is unlikely to result from a development of this scale. 14-15 Points 14 and 15 are not valid planning considerations.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The proposals are contrary to the policies contained in the Development Plan and national planning guidelines and advice on green belt developments. The appeal decision in 2000 supports this conclusion. There have been no significant changes in circumstances on other material considerations which would justify a departure from established policy and I recommend that permission be refused.

5.2 The reporters findings for the appeal P/PPA/320/61 (as discussed above in paragraph 1.4 above) concluded that there were no considerations sufficient in themselves to justify a further encroachment into the greenbelt. The statement of support supplied by the applicants does not provide any such material considerations that would outweigh the development plan position. The site has not contained development and was once a farm. Although the appearance of the site has been affected in the past, the site has reverted back to a more natural state and will continue to naturally regenerate as it has done in the past. It is considered that there are other means of improving the visual appearance of those parts of an application site, other than building houses on it.

5.3 It should be noted that matters raised by the consultees could be resolved by the submission of further plans or dealt with by conditions. The applicants have not been requested to submit such further details at this stage. As the proposals are not in keeping with policy it is considered unreasonable to put the applicant to the additional expense of unnecessary work should permission be refused. Should the Committee be minded to grant permission then appropriate conditions would be required.

5.4 If the committee should be minded to grant this application it will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers as significant departure from the development plan.

165 Application No: S/04/00964/FUL

Date Registered: 3rd June 2004

Applicant : Taylor Homes (Scotland) Ltd Unit 3 Woodhall Road Cambusnethan Wishaw ML2 8PY

Develop ment : Erection of 5 Detached Dwellinghouses

Location: Phase 3A (Plots 51-55) Glen Noble, Cleland

Ward: 19 Councillor James Martin

Grid Reference: 279619657704

File Reference: S/PL/4/26/MR

Site History: Deletion of application site from a previously submitted application for residential development of adjoining Glen Noble site.

Planning permission refused for outline residential development on 29th April 1999, ref.no. S/99/00252/0UT. Subsequent appeal dismissed on 1st February 2000, reference P/PPA/320/61.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) (Policy ENV 6).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: S.E.P.A.(W est) (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections) British Telecom (Comments)

Representations: 21 Representation Letters and 1 petition with 76 signatures.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 16th June 2004

Comments: The applicants seek detailed permission for the erection of 5 detached two storey dwellings with integral double garages on land to the South West of Cleland. The application site is immediately adjacent to Wishaw Low Road and the residential development at Glen Noble, formerly Knowenoble Farm. The applicants are the developers of the adjacent Glen Noble site and the proposed development would effectively constitute an extension to it. The applicants have also submitted two other applications for adjacent sites, reports on which are also included on the Agenda. As the site is zoned as Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and it is considered that no justification can be provided for departure from this, it is recommended that planning permission be refused. 21 letters of objection have been received, while one letter and a

166 I67 petition with 76 signatures supported the proposal. Full details of these, the consultation responses and my consideration of the proposals are contained in the attached report. Committee should note that referral to the Scottish Ministers will be necessary if permission is granted.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal would be contrary to the aims of Strategic Policy 10 (A) (ii) of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 in that there is no shortfall in the housing land supply for this market area and no justification for the release of this land from the greenbelt.

2. That the proposal would constitute residential development within the Green Belt and as such is contrary to the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and to Policy ENV6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and the guidance contained within Circular 2411 985.

3. That the proposal would be contrary to Policy HSGI 'Housing Strategy' of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) in that it constitutes new residential development on a greenfield site.

Note To Committee

1. If granted, this application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th May 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 21st June 2004. Memo from NLC Protective Services received 25th June 2004. Memo from NLC Community Services received 23rd July 2004. Letter from S.E.P.A. (West) received 12th August 2004. Letter from Scottish Water received 30th June 2004. Letter from Scottish Power received 18th June 2004. Letter from Transco received 21st June 2004. Letter from British Telecom received 24th June 2004.

Letter from Mr & Dr Mark Higgins, 4 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 2nd July 2004. Letter from Geraldine Shearer, 2 Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5FB received 7th July 2004. Letter from Catherine & Peter Crilley, 14 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 8th July 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 28 Glen Noble, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5FB received 20th July 2004. Letter from Mr And Mrs Bowman, Watersaugh, Wishaw Low Road, Cleland, MLI 5QU received 28th July 2004. Letter from Kevin Smith, 28 Glen Noble, Cleland received 30th July 2004. Letter from Mark Sobczak, 10 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 4th June 2004. Letter from Catherine Crilley, 14 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 10th June 2004. Letter from Mrs S Kane, 8 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Watt, 8 Goreshall Street, Cleland, MLI 5PZ received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Findlay, 11 Goreshall Street, Cleland, MLI 5PZ received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Walsh, 2 Park Street, Cleland, received 14th June 2004. Letter from Tracey Boyle, 76 Omoa Road, Cleland, ML1 5RE received 14th June 2004. Letter from Frankie King, 80 Omoa Road, Cleland, MLI 5RE received 14th June 2004. Letter from Catherine Miller, 4 Lithgow Drive, Cleland, ML1 5RB received 14th June 2004.

168 Letter from Delia Sloan, Carrey Gardens, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Elizabeth King, Dixon Square, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Rita McAloon, Chapel Street, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Smith, Bigger Road, Cleland received 14th June 2004. Letter from Mrs C Shevlin, Biggar Road, Cleland received 4th June 2004. Letter from Steven Hughes, 6 Glen Noble, Cleland, MLI 5FB received 28th June 2004.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Circular 2411985 Development in the Countryside and Green Belts NPPG 3 Planning for Housing (November 1996) SPPl The Planning System (November 2002)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102

169 APPLICATION NO. S/04/00964/FUL

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and Proposal

1.I The applicants seek detailed permission for the erection of 5 detached two storey dwellings with integral double garages on land to the South West of Cleland Village. The application site lies immediately adjacent to Wishaw Low Road from which one house would be accessed, the others taking access off Glen Noble. The site extends to approximately 0.38 hectares, consists of undeveloped ground formerly associated with agricultural (grazing) use and is roughly rectangular in shape.

1.2 The applicants are the developers of the adjacent Glen Noble site and the proposed development would effectively constitute an extension to it. It should be noted that there are two other applications under consideration, Phase 3B (S/04/00956/FUL) for 5 detached dwellinghouses and Phase 3C (S/04/00962/FUL) for 4 detached dwellinghouses.

1.3 The initial application for the plotted residential development of the adjacent Knowenoble Farm included part of the application site nearest to the development access road. 10 Dwellinghouse plots were indicated. However, prior to the application being determined the applicant was advised to delete these 10 plots as they were in the green belt section of the site. The applicant agreed to do this and permission for the development of 27 dwellinghouses on the adjacent site was granted. The consent was later amended to allow 29 dwellinghouses to be built with a marginal extension into part of the green belt (not covered by the area of this application) to allow the provision of adequate garden ground which now forms the existing houses at Glen Noble. The present application site partly includes the area previously covered by the 10 dwellinghouse plots referred to above. The site was in the past disturbed by the tipping of soils and the location of plant associated with the Glen Noble development however these were removed once the matter had been drawn to the applicant’s attention. This part of the site is now reverting to a more natural state.

1.4 Planning permission was refused for outline residential development on 29th April 1999, on greenbelt grounds. The subsequent appeal was dismissed on 1st February 2000 because there was no justification for further encroachment into the Green Belt.

1.5 The applicants have submitted a letter in support of their application noting they have made a submission in respect if the North Lanarkshire Local Plan Consultation Exercise on the grounds that the site is no longer Greenbelt and should be rezoned as Brownfield (Potential Housing). They consider that the site is derelict and attracts regular fly tipping which is an eyesore and will potentially continue regardless of how often it is cleared until the site is developed. They also indicated that there is a demand for such housing that exceeds current supply.

2. Development Plan

2.1 It is considered that the application raises issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Structure Plan for the area. The site zoned as Greenbelt and the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (GCVJSP) Development Strategy places the protection and enhancement of natural and built heritage and environmental resources as a perquisite. Development must be assessed against the criteria set out in Strategic Policy 9 and any development failing to meet these criteria requires to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10. Among these of most note, are the assessment of the development against its contribution to promoting urban regeneration; avoiding isolated and sporadic development in the Green Belt and the wider countryside; and the assessment of the proposal against the effective housing land supply for the market area and the establishment of a clear shortfall.

170 2.2 The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004.) Policy ENV6 is the relevant policy and indicates that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt. Within such areas there is a presumption against developments unless associated with an appropriate rural use.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 In terms of consultation responses no objections have been received.

3.2 My Transportation team leader has no objections subject to the conditions that connections to the existing road should be with 5 metre wide dropped kerb crossings, all driveways should be offset a minimum of 1 metre from the road humps, a 2 metre wide footway should be provided on Wishaw Low Road along the frontage of Plot 55 and the maximum driveway gradient should be 10%. It is also commented that the Council has not yet formally adopted the existing road network within the estate and as a consequence, an amendment is needed to the existing construction consent for the provision of the footway and visitor parking bays shown on the submitted plans.

3.3 Scottish Water has indicated that there is a public water supply and an existing sewerage system. The drainage arrangements will require to be to the satisfaction of SEPA.

3.4 SEPA have no objection to the proposal on the understanding that the foul drainage is connected to the public sewer in accordance with a SUDS system.

3.5 NLC Protective Services have commented that construction noise and hours of operation should comply with appropriate legislation.

3.6 NLC Community Services require the applicant to submit a landscape plan before they can comment in detail on this application.

3.7 Scottish Power and Transco have no objections to the proposal.

3.8 British Telecom comment that there are no anticipated problems on providing network services to a development on this site however the applicant should contact them ideally 3 months before work com mences.

3.9 20 letters of representation have been received against the proposal. 1 letter of representation was received and a petition with 76 signatures in support of the development. Following receipt of the letters of representation, acknowledgement letters were sent back asking for written confirmation of whether their representation was specific or to all three related applications. 5 of these original representation letters clarified that their representation was to all three applications, 1 letter could not reach the relevant person because they had not provided a house number, 1 letter was returned because the name was not at the address given, 1 letter was returned with a covering letter clarifying that no objection had been made and that the relevant person supported the applications. 11 letters were not acknowledged. In the assessment of the application it was considered that all letters of representation related to all three planning applications for the avoidance of doubt. The points of objection may be summarised as follows:

1. The development is proposed on land designated as Green Belt in the Local Plan. 2. Increased volume in traffic resulting in congestion and car parking problems and adverse impact on the safety of children and family.

171 3. Increased noise, dust and air pollution. 4. Adverse impact on safety of childrenlresidents as a result of open building sites, dangerous equipment left unguarded, hazardous materials in conjunction with alleged history of disregard for safety precautions with vehicles/dumper trucks. Disruption to the residents of Glen Noble from construction work and additional traffic. 5. Loss of privacy and residential amenity. 6. Loss of outlook and magnificent views. 7. Loss of beauty enjoyed by locals and surrounding villagers on a daily basis and for schools and colleges who use the area. 8. Assured that ground would be left undeveloped by Taylor Homes when purchasing neighbouring property. 9. Loss of natural light, sunlight and overshadowing. 10. Impact on drainage and local flooding. 11. Impact on natural environment (local flora and fauna) and wildlife/habitat (deer, rabbits, badgers, brown hares, kestrels, pole cats and others.) 12. Over development, over provision of houses in area up to 2006 with 4 developments in and around Cleland, taking place at various stages of development resulting in a lack of amenities such as schools and play areas and question over whether the support and infrastructure of Cleland can continue to cope with sustained development. 13. Loss of identity and character of old mining village as a result of over development when there is sufficient area for development within Cleland and surrounding area. 14. Application is the first phase of a larger plan to build even more houses on the site and talylor homes are building at the expense of safety, environment and well being of existing neighbours. 15. Building work adjacent in Glen Orchy/Ravenshall has been continuing for the last four years and roads and pavements are incomplete therefore do not wish to live next to a building site for 4 years.

3.10 The petition submitted in support of the proposal stated “Please sign below if you do not have any objections to the development of land highlighted on the attached plan or would like the opportunity to purchase a self-build plot or finished property”. Of the 76 signatures, 13 lived in the Glen Noble estate, 18 lived elsewhere in Cleland, and the remainder had addresses in other locations, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Hawick. The corresponding letter of support considers the application site to be an eyesore and quite dangerous and would like to see housing instead of it being used as a dumping ground/waste ground which is a danger to ch iId ren .

4. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Act requires the determination of any planning application to be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the development plan comprises the Strathclyde Structure Plan 2000, the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan (adopted plan) and in view of the age of the adopted plan, the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

4.2 Development Plan policies on green belt land are set out firstly in the recently approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. Strategic Policy 1 of the Structure Plan requires the continued safeguarding of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt, and impose a presumption against the spread of build up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside. It goes on to state that Local Plans shall define the detailed boundaries and policies to protect the Green Belt. Strategic Policy 9 indicates that preference should be given to brownfield rather than greenfield land and housing developments of over 10 units are considered to be a departure from the Structure Plan. Although this particular application relates to 5 houses, it is considered that the overall development as a result all 3 applications (as discussed in paragraph 1.2) does exceed the threshold terms of the cumulative

I72 impact therefore the Structure Plan requires the development to be assessed against the criteria listed in Strategic Policies, 9 and 10 of particular relevance are 9 (A) ii, 9 B (ii) (a) and (b) and 10 A (ii). Strategic Policies 9 (A) (ii) and 10 A (ii) require housing proposals to be assessed against the supply and demand for housing in the relevant market area, Policy 9 (B) (i) and (ii), gives preference to brownfield sites and seems to safeguard greenbelt land. Any departure from Strategic Policy 9 requires to also have regard to specific locational need, the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposals and detailed considerations such as infrastructure implications. In the case of this application and the other two submitted by the same applicant there is no shortfall in the housing land supply for this market area. There are other brownfield sites available and in terms of the other criteria there is no justification for the release of this land from the greenbelt.

4.3 The Housing Strategy of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004) is expressed In Policy HSGI, which seeks to direct new residential development to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations. Policy ENV6 ‘Green Belt’ of the Draft Local Plan states that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt, and indicates that there will be a presumption against development other than that required for agriculture or other appropriate rural uses. The proposals are clearly contrary to both policies.

4.4 It should be noted that in the previous refused appeal P/PPA/320/61 in respect of site the reporter commented that despite the removal of turf and topsoil the site comprises disused farmland and falls to be considered as a greenfield site. It was found that there was no justification to further encroachment into the green belt in accordance with Circular No. 2511 985 which emphasises the need for development in designated green belts to be strictly controlled.

4.5 The issues raised by consultees could largely be dealt with by the imposition of conditions if permission was to be granted. However, the roads concerns would require an altered site layout to be produced.

4.6 In response to the points of objection listed in paragraph 3.9 above I would comment as follows:-

1. The issue of the Green Belt designation is discussed in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4 above. 2. While there were some points of detail relating to roads issues, it is considered that potential disruption from such additional traffic would not be a sufficient reason for refusing planning permission. 3. Protective Services have raised no issues with regard to dust and air pollution as a result of the proposal and comment that construction work should be limited to particular hours with regard to noise impact. 4. The impact and associated dangers of building sites, construction works and traffic is not a planning issue, this matter may be controlled by environmental health legislation. There is no objection from my Transportation Team Leader to the additional traffic associated with the development. 5. I share the concerns of adjacent residents about the potential adverse impact of the development on their amenity. 6-8. With regard to points 6, 7 and 8 it is considered that these are outwith the terms of the planning legislation. Furthermore nobody has a right to the view of their house being protected. 9. Given that the distance of the proposed houses in relation to the existing ones is over 25 metres and given the topography of the land, it is not considered that any loss of sunlightldaylight would be significant enough to merit refusal of this application. 10. With regard to the impact of development on both drainage and flooding it should be noted that both Scottish Water and SEPA have no objections to the proposal. 11. The impact of the development on the natural environment has been discussed above in relation to the consultation responses from Community Services who would require

I73 the applicant to submit a landscape plan which would form a planning condition if the application was granted consent. 12. Whilst it is acknowledged that there does not appear to be any specific locational need for housing development on this site, it is considered that there are not any infrastructure provisions which, by themselves, justify refusal of this application. 13. It is considered that the loss of village identity is unlikely to result from a development of this scale. 14-15. Points 14 and 15 are not valid planning considerations.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The proposals are contrary to the policies contained in the Development Plan and national planning guidelines and advice on green belt developments. The appeal decision in 2000 supports this conclusion. There have been no significant changes in circumstances on other material considerations which would justify a departure from established policy and I recommend that permission be refused.

5.2 The reporters findings for the appeal P/PPN320/61 (as discussed above in paragraph 1.4 above) concluded that there were no considerations sufficient in themselves to justify a further encroachment into the greenbelt. The statement of support supplied by the applicants does not provide any such material considerations that would outweigh the development plan position. The site has not contained development and was once a farm. Although the appearance of the site has been affected in the past, the site has reverted back to a more natural state and will continue to naturally regenerate as it has done in the past. It is considered that there are other means of improving the visual appearance of those parts of an application site, other than building houses on it.

5.3 It should be noted that matters raised by the consultees could be resolved by the submission of further plans or dealt with by conditions. The applicants have not been requested to submit such further details at this stage. As the proposals are not in keeping with policy it is considered unreasonable to put the applicant to the additional expense of unnecessary work should permission be refused. Should the Committee be minded to grant permission then appropriate conditions would be required.

5.4 If the committee should be minded to grant this application it will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers as significant departure from the development plan.

I74 Application No: S/04/01047/FUL

Date Registered: 17th June 2004

Applicant : Transform Schools Office 4 Chryston Business Centre Cloverhill Place Chryston Glasgow G69 9DQ

Agent Andy Steel Aedas Architects Floor 9 1 Cadogan Square Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 7HF

Development: Erection of Joint Campus Primary Schools, Nursery and Full Size Floodlit Multi-Purpose Synthetic Pitch for Dual Use with the Community

Location : Land At Houldsworth Park Young Street Wishaw Lanarkshire

Ward: 8: Stewarton Councillor John Moran

Grid Reference: 280152 655236

File Reference: SlPLlBllOl4

Site History: Park donated to the former Town Council by the Houldsworth family.

In 1977 Strathclyde Regional Council approached the District Council seeking authority to construct a school at the site.

In 1984 the Council agreed to the erection of a school in the park subject to the title restriction being lifted.

Permission granted 14 March 1985 (Application Number 102/85) for the erection of primary school on the western end of the park.

Permission granted 14 November 1990 for artificial pitch, play area and pavilion (NID/3/90)

Outline planning permission granted 8th October 2003 for primary school, nursery and full sized multi purpose synthetic pitch for dual use with the community (S/03/0442/OUT)

I75 PLANNiNG APPLICATION No S I04 I01047 / REM

ERECTION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL, NURSERY, AND FULL SIZE FLOODLIT MULTI-PURPOSESYNTHETIC PITCH FOR DUAL USE WITH THE COMMUNITY N L:%rkrhire RannRducdby ne and Erv ronmnl A W Ccancll

I76 Development Plan: Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan: Public Open Space

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004): Policy L1 Established Leisure Facilities.

Contrary to Development Plan: In part

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Com ment s) NLC Education (No objections) NLC Education (Early Years Section) (No objections) S.E.P.A.(West) (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (Comments) Scottish Power (Comments) SportScotland (Comments) Strathclyde Police (No objections) Cambusnethan Community Council (No response)

Representations: 45 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: 25th June 2004

Comments:

This application seeks detailed permission for a new joint campus primary school on the site of Houldsworth Park, Wishaw. The site is 3.01 ha in area. The proposed pitch would be located in virtually the same position as the existing one at the site. The schools and nursery are to be located at the southeastern part of the site, further details of the proposals are contained in the attached report. Forty-five letters of representation have been received. No objections have been made by any of the consultees. There are concerns regarding the lack of adequate drop off facilities for the schools and nursery. The plans have been significantly revised to maximise these facilities however they are still below the level estimated to be required. If permission is granted members should be aware that it is likely to result in "school-gate" issues at this location. This is considered in further detail in the attached report. Despite these concerns, however, taking all other factors into consideration, it is recommended that permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started not later than 8th October 2008.

Reason: To accord with the outline planning permission.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

I77 Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.

Reason: In order to ensure that the site is suitable for the development hereby permitted.

5. That notwithstanding the requirement of conditions (3) and (6) any proposed security fencing shall be located between the development and the peripheral landscaping rather than along the site boundary. However along the northern boundary of the site screen fencing of at least 2 metres in height shall be erected, alternatively, subject to agreement with the adjacent properties, the existing wall may be increased in height by the erection of a timber screen on top.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenity of adjacent residents.

6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted and including the following: i) the provision of additional landscaping of the area between the site access and the properties on Kirk Road and the boundaries of the site with Nos 2- 26 Loch Park ii) the provision of an entrance feature to the site at the entrance to Loch Park to define the two and to deter access by non- residential traffic to Loch Park iii) the provision of informal public open space, particularly in association with the footpath links within the site and the peripheral landscaping. (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, in particular those along the boundaries of the site adjacent to the existing housing, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

7. That within one year of the occupation of the schools hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition (6) above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and adjacent residents.

8. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped or felled and no shrubs or hedges, shall be removed from the application site, without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.

178 Reason: In the interests of the conservation value of the site and the visual amenity of the site and the adjacent residents.

9. That before the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance with British Standard BS 5837 shall be erected along the drip line of the trees, and shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to afford adequate protection to those trees that are to be retained.

10. That before the development starts, full details of the location and design of the drainage scheme to be installed shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval, and these shall include full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency's principals of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest guidance on SUDS.

11. That before the development starts, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water, have been fully met in respect of providing the necessary site drainage infrastructure to serve the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory site drainage arrangements.

12. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a Flood Risk Assessment Report, (prepared by a chartered civil engineer or equivalent) shall be submitted to and approved in writing the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the report should demonstrate that the development proposals will not increase flood risk; will not result in the proposed buildings and access routes to those buildings becoming susceptible to flooding; and will not adversely impact on the sensitivity of the overall drainage system to flooding for a range of storm events including a 1 in 75 year and 1 in 200 year storm event.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to fully consider this aspect of the development.

13. That before the development hereby permitted is commenced full details of the provision of children's play facilities within the site or full details of the provision of the replacement play facilities in the local area, both to the same standard as those existing at the site, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority before any work starts on site and these facilities shall be provided before the existing facilities are removed.

Reason: To ensure the retention of satisfactory play facilities in the local area.

14. That the football pitch shall be for community use as well as schools use and the pitch and associated floodlighting shall not be used after IOpm; or such other times as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the local recreation and residential amenity.

I79 15. That as indicated on the plans hereby approved the existing footpath links to Kirk Road, Young Street and Loch Park shall be retained as part of the development for unrestricted public access.

Reason: In order to safeguard the pedestrian access and informal recreational use of the site.

16. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans no approval is given for the proposed "outdoor classrooms" and, before any work starts on the formation of these features full details of their siting and of the works included in the formation of these features, including removal of vegetation, construction of any fences and any drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and to assess their acceptability.

17. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use all of the pedestrian access, footways, parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities

18. That before any part of the development hereby permitted is brought into use a scheme of directional signage, which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of the work, shall be installed and thereafter retained on site.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

19. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved drawing no. B19/PL/(90)S/001 Rev F the proposal shall be amended to remove the pinch point at the northwest corner of the pitch.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.

20. That before the development is brought into use a scheme of off site road works, as identified in the T.A. and as agreed in writing by the Roads Authority before the start of the works, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and for the avoidance of doubt these shall include the provision of pedestrian guard rails at Stewarton Street, Graham Street, Caledonian Road, Campbell Street and Hawthorn Drive, enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities on Kirk Road and a mini roundabout at the Kirk Road/ Loch Park junction.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.

21. That service vehicles shall not be permitted to enter or leave the site during schools and nursery start and finishing times and before the development is brought into use details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority of the proposed servicing times and the means by which these shall be controlled.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

180 22. That before the development hereby approved is commenced a school travel plan and the timetable for implementation thereof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning Authority and the approved travel plan shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason: In order to minimise congestion and on street parking in the vicinity of the site in the interests of public safety.

23. The before the development hereby permitted starts details of a scheme to include provision for nesting swifts within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in the interests of nature conservation and the enhancement of local biodiversity.

24. That before the development hereby permitted is brought in to use, the scheme approved under the terms of Condition (23) shall be in place.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and the enhancement of local biodiversity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 14th June 2004

Memos from NLC Transportation Section received 29th June and gthAugust 2004 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 7th July 2004 Memo from Countryside and Landscape Manager received 9th July 2004 Memo from Director of Education received 2nd July 2004 Memo from Early Years Section received 5'h August 2004 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 5th August 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 22nd July 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 24th June 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 28th June 2004 Letter from SportScotland received 5th July 2004 Letter from Strathclyde Police received 5th June 2004 Memo from Department Of Planning & Environment received 21st July 2004

Letter from Angela Japp, 18 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 21st June and 20th July 2004. Letter from Mrs Marion Nolan, 20 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 23rd June 2004. Letter from Peter S Bell, 11 Campbell Street, Wishaw, ML2 8HT received 23rd June 2004. Letter from Sandra McCall, Woodstock Cottage, 185 Kirk Road, Wishaw, ML2 7BZ received 24th June 2004. Letter from William O'neill, 224 Kirk Road, Wishaw, ML2 7BZ received 24th June 2004. Letter from Gordon B Currie, 296 Kirk Road, Wishaw, ML2 7BZ received 24th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Bolton, 3 Nimmo Place, Park Grove, Wishaw, ML2 7BE received 24th June 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 27 Carousel Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7ER received 24th June 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 32 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Hoey, 5 Stewarts Lane, Park Grove, Wishaw, ML2 7EL received 24th June 2004. Letter from Paul & Helena Thomas, 3 Stewarts Lane, Wishaw, ML2 7EL received 24th June 2004. Letter from Derek Jenkins, 12 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from George & Elizabeth Thomson, 3 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from Marie Buchanan, 9 Carousel Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 9LU received 24th June 2004.

181 Letter from D McAdam, 26 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from John & Anne McAdam, 8 Carousel Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7ER received 24th June 2004. Letter from James & Rosemary Paterson, 2 Carousel Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7ER received 24th June 2004. Letter from T Cutler, 2 Nimmo Place, Wishaw, ML2 7EE received 24th June 2004. Letter from D Kelly, 16 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from Alexander McFarlane, 9 Loch Park, Parkgrove, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from Edmund O'Connor, 14 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 24th June 2004. Letter from K Marriott & S Kane, 7 Carousel Crescent, Parkgrove, Wishaw received 24th June 2004. Letter from M McDonald, 278a Kirk Road, Wishaw, ML2 received 24th June 2004. Letter from Mr John Johnston, Nimmo Place, Wishaw, ML2 7EE received 25th June 2004. Letter from Mr S Wands, 14 Nimmo Place, Wishaw received 21st June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs Neary, 17 Loch Park, Park Grove, Wishaw, Strathclyde, ML2 7EB received 21st June 2004. Letter from George Rattay, 5 Loch Park, Wishaw received 21st June 2004. Letter from Mrs L Webster, 10 Lochpark Road, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 21st June 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 24 Loch Park, Park Grove, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 21st June 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 6 Stewarts Lane, Parkgrove, ML2 7EL received 21st June 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs E Japp, 18 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 21st June 2004. Letter from Mr & J McParland, 22 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 21st June 2004. Letter from Thomas Bryson, 8 Loch Park, Park Grove, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 25th June 2004. Letter from John McFarlane & Brenda McFarlane, Park Grove, 1 Carousel Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7ER received 25th June 2004. Letter from Ronald & Anne Morton, 1 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 25th June 2004. Letter from Joyce McKenna & Peter McKenna, 4 Stewarts Lane, Wishaw received 30th June 2004. Letter from Paul Dorman, 13 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 5th July 2004. Letter from Mr George Rattray, 5 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 7th July 2004. Letter from Mr D McGregor, 4 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 7th July 2004. Letter from Sandra McColl, Woodstock Cottage, 185 Kirk Road, Wishaw, ML2 782 received 9th July 2004. Letter from Mr Paul Dorman, 13 Loch Park, Wishaw, ML2 7EB received 14th July 2004. Letter from Mr Peter S Bell, 11 Campbell Street, Wishaw, ML2 8HT received 12th July 2004. Letter from Warren Consultants, Ma.ins House, Duncolm Place, Milngavie, Glasgow received 3rd August 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lorna McCallum at 01698 302090.

182 APPLICATION NO. S/04/01047/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application is for the erection of joint campus primary schools, a nursery and a full size floodlit multi-purpose synthetic pitch. The proposed development will be for dual use with the community. The new schools will be a replacement for the existing St lgnatius and Wishaw Academy primary schools.

1.2 The development is proposed on a 3.01 hectare site. The site presently includes a floodlit synthetic full size/7-a-Side football pitch with changing pavilion; a children’s play area; an area of grassed informal open space; a vacant former NLC Construction Services building and yard; and areas of semi mature landscaping. There are various footpath links through the side linking Loch Park, Kirk Road and Young Street. The site is surrounded by housing to the north, east and south. To the west of the site lies the Safeway supermarket and car park.

1.3 All accommodation will be in one building located in the south and western parts of the site. The building consists broadly of a “T” shape with teaching areas on either side of a central area which includes gym, dining, office and reception areas. The nursery is located on the western side of this central part of the building. Most of the building includes only one floor of accommodation but a second floor of teaching accommodation is provided on the eastern wing of the schools. The building varies in height from 5 metres rising up to a maximum of approximately 11.5 metres over the central area and is 11 metres at the two-storey teaching wing. It is proposed that the building will be finished in a mixture of facing brick and render with a metal roof. There will be a main entrance to the building, three separate pupil entrances and a nursery entrance. The principal access to the site would be from Kirk Road at the junction of Loch Park where a new mini roundabout is to be formed. This access will be for parental drop off and service vehicles. Access to the staff car park and for disabled parking would be taken from Campbell StreeWoung Street. The existing vegetation around the periphery of the site is to be retained and additional landscaping is proposed at the entrance to the site and along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site adjacent to existing housing.

2. Developmen t Plan

2.1 The proposed development raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

2.2 On the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan the application site is shown as being designated Public Open Space.

2.3 On the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) the site is covered by Policy L1 (Established Leisure Facilities). This policy seeks to protect and enhance existing leisure facilities by: - (i) implementing a programme of upgrading and refurbishment of Council facilities, (ii) supporting private sector and community initiatives, (iii) undertaking schemes for dual use of Council facilities, and (iv) resisting the loss of leisure facilities where a shortfall in provision that locality will result.

2.4 Outline planning permission for the erection of a primary school, nursery and a 7-aside floodlit, multipurpose, synthetic pitch was granted in October 2003 and establishes the principle of these uses on the site.

183 3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 Summaries of consultation responses are as follows: -

Strathclyde Police: No objections. Scottish Environment Protection Agency: No objections in principle subject to the foul drainage being connected to the public sewer. However they seek written consent that the additional flow will not cause or contribute to the premature operation of consented storm overflows. They request that surface water from the site be treated in accordance with the principles Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). Sport Scotland: The project will provide significant benefits for school and community use. There are no objections subject to the retention or replacement of the pitch that currently exists within the site. Scottish Water: Object to the proposal. Whilst there is existing sewerage and water apparatus to which the development can connect, the applicant will require to bear the cost of any increase in capacity to this infrastructure in order to accommodate the development. Transco: No objections but indicate that they have plant in the vicinity of the site and gas pipelines owned privately by other Public Gas Transporters may be present in the area. Scottish Power: No objections but indicate that they have apparatus withinladjacent to the site which may require diversion or alteration. NLC Community Services: The number of entry points into the site may cause confusion, some form of clear visual identification, in the form of feature planting and signage, is recommended. There are concerns at the proximity of part of the building to the woodland at the periphery of the site, during construction robust protection will be required. The outdoor classrooms will need to be carefully positioned to ensure the viability of surrounding vegetation. It is recommended that provision be made within the new building for nesting swifts as the area to the south of the building is an identified swift location. NLC Education: No objections to the application. NLC Education Early Years Section: No objections. The Transportation Section: The staff and visitor car park is adequate in terms of numbers, however, as the access is via Young Street, which is unsuitable due to its substandard corner radii and lack of turning facilities it is recommended that the section of Young Street leading to the car park be removed from the list of public roads and incorporated into the schools. The Transportation Assessment predicts that 220 cars will require drop off facilities in relation to school pupils. The facilities can cater for 48 vehicles, leaving a shortfall of 172 spaces. The revised plans improve the situation but do not address the overall numbers that will remain without suitable parking facilities. It is noted that servicing is proposed via the parental drop off area. These activities should not conflict with each other due to differences in timing. Servicing should be restricted, however, to times when children will not be in the area beyond the drop off turning point to be traversed by vehicles. The TA recommends enhanced pedestrian crossing facilities on Kirk Road and the introduction of pedestrian guardrail at appropriate locations on Stewarton Street, Graham Street, Caledonian Road, Campbell Street and Hawthorn Drive. Conditions are recommended to cover other matters of detail. In conclusion, the changes made to the plans have resulted in an improvement over what was previously proposed, particularly in respect of the drop off layout. In terms of overall capacity, however, the drop off remains inadequate. This will lead to large numbers of vehicles parking on surrounding roads. Parents’ vehicles will also, due to this inadequacy, probably be parked at Safeway. It is a possibility, however, that even Loch Park and Safeway together may fail to have sufficient capacity for all vehicle trips to schools. This proposal will result in significant congestion on the surrounding public roads to the potential detriment of road safety The Protective Services Section: Has no objections but indicates that a site investigation report will be required to confirm that the site is free from contamination. It is indicated that the construction works should be limited to certain hours. The Geotechnical Services Section: This is a development on a greenfield site. The

184 development proposals will result in a significant increase in the impermeable area. The drainage philosophy indicates that several SUDS measures are proposed to address surface water drainage management. In addition the entire surface water drainage system should be checked to determine the consequences of a more extreme storm event. Sensitivity testing of the designed drainagelSUDS system should be undertaken for a range of storm events, which should include an assessment of flood risk. This should include consideration of the flow route for 75 and 200 year return period rainfall events demonstrating no detriment to land or property as a result of overland flow. The possibility of playground and parking areas becoming unusable in wet weather should be investigated and if necessary the drainage design revised.

3.2 A total of 45 letters of objection have been received from local residents. Mostly those raised by individuals raise similar concerns and there are summarised as follows: -

Houldsworth Park was a gift to the Council for use as public recreation and for the use of all the population of Wishaw. The proposals do not benefit the wider population who will not use the site.

The proposed development will increase traffic within Loch Park as a result of people collecting and dropping off pupils, residents will also be forced to cross the new “T” junction at the site access. This will lead to increased pollution, noise and fumes and will increase the risk to residents and their children. It is noted that the estate roads are currently in poor condition.

The proposals will have an adverse impact upon the wider road network in this part of Wishaw.

Young Street/Campbell Street is suitable as the main site access as the catchment area of the proposed schools is predominantly to the west of those streets.

The Campbell Street area already suffers from congestion, the existing roads are inadequate to deal with present traffic and parking problems exist at present.

The existing roads at Loch Park are in poor condition and will be worsened as a result of the development.

The proposed parking and drop off are well short of what is required to serve the various uses within the site some of which may be in use at the same time.

There are already congestion problems at the Kirk Road/Loch Park junction, which will be worsened by the development.

There is already inadequate parking within Loch Park with many cars parked on the street. There is no capacity for more.

The site is too small to accommodate the access and parking required to serve the development.

The site access from Loch Park is not suitable for buses. It is pointed out that the bus used for the Councillors Site Visit at the Outline stage blocked the road for 10 minutes.

The proposed roundabout at the Kirk Road/ Loch Park junction will adversely affect access to adjacent properties. The residents of the adjacent properties has pointed out that it will make access to their property even more difficult than at present adding to their stress and anxiety and prevent them from being able to continue to park on the road outside their house.

185 Access to the site from Loch Park will result in the loss of communal communally owned land and parking bays, which will detract from the existing site entrance.

Flooding occurs during periods of heavy rain at the Loch ParklKirk Road junction which causes access problems. Flooding of the houses has taken place and will still do so even with a SUDS scheme.

The proximity of the bus turning area to residences on Kirk Road will result in disturbance as a result of noise and dust. The proposed additional landscaping is not a sufficient filter, higher and deeper landscaping is required.

The development will increase general noise levels in the area to the detriment of night shift workers.

The use of the communal landscaping at Loch Park to form the entrance to the site would involve the loss of visitor parking spaces and would reduce the attractiveness of the entrance to the estate.

The development of Houldsworth Park would remove the only area of informal open space in central Wishaw. It will involve the loss of the only formal safe play area in the locality. It will also involve the loss of existing plant life and shrubbery.

Disturbance from construction would adversely affect the adjacent residents and natural environment and existing wildlife that reside in the park. Construction vehicles should be confined to the Young Street access.

The development will worsen the existing problems of loitering, anti social behaviour, vandalism and damage to surrounding properties.

As the proposed building is multi-storey it will overshadow adjacent south facing gardens.

Lack of information has been provided regarding the community use proposed at the site.

The proposed play area is close to the nearby housing and will result in disturbance and attract anti-social behaviour.

3.3 A letter has been received by Consultants acting on behalf of the residents of the Loch Park estate. This letter presents an examination of the proposals in terms of the requirements of the Outline permission and raises several concerns. These can be summarised as follows: -

None of the requirements of the Transportation conditions have been met. In particular there is no dedicated service area, parking for the community facilities or bus turning facilities. “Doubling Up” of the use of area for more than one type of parking, drop off or turning would lead to problems within the Loch Park estate and is not acceptable.

The revised plans submitted have less parking provision; lack of parking will lead to parking within the residential area.

The proposed entrance feature to deter traffic from entering the residential area is not shown on the plans.

The consent granted in 1985 for a school at the site was subject to the condition that the site access was to be taken from Young Street. If the proposed pedestrian and staff/disable vehicular access from Young Street is accepted then it means that the Transportation Section will be accepting that the Young StreetKampbell Street junction is suitable for a significant volume of traffic. If it is not considered acceptable then there is

186 scope to install a mini-roundabout by acquiring land from only 2 properties as opposed to the acquisition required from the 64 owners at Loch Park. They request that the proposals be redesigned so that the main access is from Young Street as per 1985 permission.

If the Council serves a CPO the residents are likely to appeal this and seek a Public Inquiry.

The visitor lay-by at the site entrance from Loch Park should be retained in its entirety.

There are concerns about the visual impact of the scheme and they question the indication on the plans the proposed enhancement of the planing to the rear of the properties at Loch Park.

They request the condition limiting the use of the pitch should be altered from 10.00pm to 9.00pm as per the proposed pitch at Chapelhall.

They request that this application should be deferred until the matters relating to the opposition of the Catholic Church are resolved. They also request that a hearing be permitted in order that they can address the Committee.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions.

4.1 The principle of the acceptability of the proposed uses at this location has already been established by the approval of the outline application by the Council in consultation with the Scottish Ministers. The assessment of this application must consider whether the proposal complies with the terms of the outline consent and whether the proposed layout is acceptable in terms of the impact upon the site and the surrounding area, particularly the residents of that area.

4.2 Most aspects of the development comply with the outline consent. The only significant exception is in relation to the provision of parental drop off facilities at the site. As conditions of the outline permission the developers are required to: retain the existing peripheral landscaping and footpath links into and out of the site; to ensure that the children’s play area is either retained or relocated to an appropriate area nearby; to provide additional planting along the site boundaries and to form an entrance feature at the site access from Loch Park. Should the area set aside for the proposed play area be unable to be accommodate facilities of the same size and type existing within the site, compensatory facilities will be provided by the Council nearby. The proposed development retains the peripheral landscaping and additional planting is proposed at the boundaries with the housing on Kirk Road and at Loch Park. The existing footpaths into and out of the site are to be retained and unrestricted public access to parts of the site will remain. The proposals include the formation of a walled feature incorporating signage and landscaping at the site entrance, further details are to be submitted as part of the detailed site landscaping scheme. The issues relating to parental drop off facilities are detailed at paragraph 4.5 below.

4.3 In terms of the consultation responses if permission is granted conditions can be imposed to deal with the matters raised by the Police, SEPA, SportScotland, Scottish Water, Community Services, Transportation and Protective Services. In relation to the issues regarding capacity raised by Scottish Water it should be noted that a suspensive condition is required to address this matter before any permission granted is implemented.

4.4 The proposals have been amended several times in attempt to improve the parking and drop off facilities within the site. The most recently submitted plans include an additional 13 dedicated nursery spaces and a further 2 disabled spaces adjacent to the north west of the building

187 adjacent to the Safeway car park. Despite this improvement a significant shortfall still exists in the level of provision, approximately 172 spaces. There is no opportunity to increase the provision any further without significantly reducing the size of the pitch within the site. The applicants were asked to consider that option. However, due to the issues relating to Houldsworth Park being gifted to the public, they feel that it is important not to reduce the pitch to less than exists at present and have asked that the application be determined on the basis of the present proposals. If the proposals are approved on the basis of the current layout it has to be accepted that significant ” school gate” issues are likely to arise in the immediately surrounding area. In order to mitigate this to a degree a commitment has been given by the Transportation Section and Education department to the preparation and implementation of a school travel plan at an early date, a condition is proposed requiring this.

4.5 In relation to the points of objection at paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 above I would comment as follows: -

The following points of concern raised in the individual letters of objection had already been considered at the outline planning stage Nos 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 13, and 15 -1 8.

The Transportation Section support the concerns regarding the unsuitability of the Campbell Street area, however, the terms of the previous Committee approval allowed for secondary access from Young Street/Campbell Street.

It is conceded that the level of drop off facilities is well below the level required to accommodate expected vehicle numbers.

I support the view that the site is too small to accommodate all of the elements of the layout and to meet the terms of the outline permission.

The use of the access from Kirk RoadlLoch Park by buses is considered to be acceptable by the Transportation Section.

In relation to point 5 above, the proposed roundabout has been designed so that the existing accesses to adjacent properties will not be removed and access will still be achievable. It is not possible, however, to preserve the ability of the residents at 185 Kirk Road to park on the street outside their home in addition to being able to park within their property.

The loss of visitor parking spaces at the area of communal landscaping was also considered at the outline stage, however, I would point out that the layout proposed involves the loss of only one of the three spaces.

If permission is approved a condition is recommended that the issue of flooding requires to be addressed prior to the consent being implemented. Any SUDS scheme will require the approval of the Geotechnical Team, Scottish Water and SEPA.

Buses, service vehicles and cars will share the turning circle within the site. The location of this turning area is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on adjacent residences. A condition is proposed requiring additional landscaping and screen fencing in order to minimise any potential impacts upon these properties as a result of this development. A condition is also proposed to limit the servicing times to outwith school starting and finishing times.

Disturbance due to construction has already been considered at the outline stage and although details of access for construction vehicles have yet to be approved the Transportation Section have not raised any concern at their use of the Loch Park/ Kirk Road access.

188 The ancillary use of the building for community purposes was included as part of the outline permission. The precise uses are an operational matter and do not form part of the consideration of the layout of the site.

As a result of the concern about the proximity of the relocated play area to the objectors at Campbell Street has been considered. The proposed location within the site is not ideal, as it is not in the best position in terms of supervision. However it is the only location that is possible unless the parking within the site is reduced. I consider that it is better to retain the play facilities at this location than to relocate them to an alternative site at some distance from Houldsworth Park.

As indicated at paragraph 1.3 above, the existing peripheral landscaping will be retained and additional planting is proposed adjacent to the rear of the houses on Kirk Road and at 2 to 26 Loch Park. This accords with the terms of the outline consent. In terms of point 12 above, there should be almost no net loss of trees and shrubs. The concerns raised at point 9 above can be taken into account in the preparation of a detailed landscaping scheme in terms of the type and size of planting proposed. It should be noted, however, that due to the confined nature of the site there is little scope to increase the width of this landscaping area.

The proposed building is two storey over only one section and the location of this part of the building and presence of intervening trees will mean that it will not impact on adjacent houses.

In response to the points listed at paragraph 3.3 above I would comment as follows:-

In terms of the requirements of the conditions of the outline consent relating to transportation issues only the parental drop offlparking issue is considered to be outstanding and is discussed at paragraph 4.4 above. A designated service area is proposed, the consent does not require this to be segregated.

The revised plans clearly have increased the level of parking from that originally proposed.

The entrance feature is discussed at paragraph 4.2 above.

The 1985 permission for a school on part of this site was approved prior to the construction of the housing and access at Loch Park or the Safeway store. The consideration of that application was based on an assessment of the roads infrastructure at that time. The access to the current site was fully considered at the outline stage where it was determined that Loch Park should serve as the principal access. There is no justification to request that the terms of the outline consent be revised to alter location of the main access.

The need for a CPO was known at the outline stage. The potential for residents to object is not a material consideration.

The impact upon the visitor lay by on Loch Park was considered at the outline stage where the loss of all of this parking was accepted. The revised plans have retained two of the three spaces, this is welcomed.

The proposals meet the terms of the outline consent in terms of requirements relating to visual impact and landscaping and I am satisfied with the layout and design of the development. The landscaping proposed to the rear of 2 to 26 Loch Park is required as condition of that consent in order to provide additional screening for residents. A detailed landscaping scheme would be required as a condition of this consent if approved.

189 (8) The outline consent allows the use of the pitch until 10:OOpm. This is due to the fact that there is an existing pitch at the site, which can be used until that time.

(9) The issues relating to the concerns of the church are not matters which I am able to take into account as material considerations.

5. Conclusions

5.1 It is clear that a new joint campus facility to replace the ageing St lgnatius and Wishaw Academy primary schools will be of considerable educational benefit to residents. The new community facilities will be valued assets and they will enhance the local recreational activity.

5.2 As indicated above the principle of the acceptability of the proposed uses at this location has already been established by the approval of the outline application. The proposed development is acceptable in terms of the location and design of the proposed building and its impact upon the site and the surrounding residents. The site access, servicing and staff/disabled parking are acceptable. With the exception of the parental drop off provision the proposal complies with the terms of the outline consent. I consider that the present site layout is the best that can possibly be achieved whilst retaining all other competing elements of the proposals. It is not ideal that a new facility is unable to accommodate all of the drop off facilities. In order to provide 100% of the predicted requirements the development would not be able to proceed at this site. It has to be recognised that a concession requires to be made in this respect if approval is given. Members should be aware that the lack of drop off and parking is likely to have a significant impact on the surrounding area. Despite my concerns regarding drop off facilities, taking account of all other factors, I recommend that planning permission be granted.

190 Application No:

Date Registered: 2nd July 2004

Applicant : Vodafone UK Vodafo ne The Connection Newbury Berkshire RG14 2FN

Agent LCC UK F.A.O. Gordon Hotchkiss Suite 3E Willow House Kestrel View Strathclyde Business Park Bellshill MLI 7PD

Development: Erection of 15 Metre Telecommunications Streetworks Monopole, Cabinets and Associated Ancillary Equipment

Location: Land At Junction Between Iona Street And Bellshill Road M otherwel I Lanarkshire

Ward: 3: Forgewood Provost Patrick Connelly JP

Grid Reference: 27451 2 658383

File Reference: SlPLlBll 311 GIMAT

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policy HSG8 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy CS6 Assessing Applications for Telecommunications Development is also relevant.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Countryside And Landscape Manager (No response) Director Of Education (Comments) Director Of Housing (No response) Housing And Property Services (No response) The Radio Communications Agency (No objection) Councillor Patrick Connelly (Objection) Forgewood Community Council (No response)

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

191 PLANNING APPLICATION No S / 04 I01164 / FUL

ERECTION OF FIFTEEN METRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS STREETWORKS MONOPOLE, CABINETS AND ASSOCIATED R0S"mc by ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT Ram wand Ewinnmnt ms*uanBm Smes01 Flsm ngtbucis ZTr7BRmad LAND AT BELLSHILL ROAD / IONA STREET JUNCTION, CVIBWNAUW MOTHERWELL 01216816210067 ,w Far 01Z6B1PJ2 rn Prm Yrn dm Cmlldlrd t., ha,lh, 8..awmu OC,W"uly,Z, 06 Ls"c.UOB341L Represantabons UIYhl..dl4DUNn *iq-c.an "'*, * m mqi-l,9l"..eYlrn mrhilp0C.m Ip

192 Comments:

Planning consent is sought for the erection of a 15 metre tall telecommunications monopole and associated equipment cabins on the public footpath on the reservation adjacent to Bellshill Road and its junction with Iona Street, Motherwell.

Two letters of objection and one petition with 153 signatures have been received, details of which are contained within the attached report. Notwithstanding these objections, it is considered that the proposed monopole is acceptable in design terms and is in accordance with Local Plan policies, therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. In the event that the equipment hereby approved becomes redundant it shall be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of the equipment becoming redundant.

Reason: To ensure the restoration of the site to a satisfactory standard.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd July 2004

Memo from Director of Education received 12'h July 2004 Letter from The Radio Communications Agency received 20thJuly 2004 Letter from Provost Patrick Connelly JP received 16'h July 2004

Letter from E Reidy,l99 Bellshill Road, Motherwell, MLI 3SX received 12th July 2004. Letter from Ron Dufour, Education Officer, Education Department, Municipal Buildings, Kildonan Street, Coatbridge received 13th July 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mark Thomson at 01698 302136.

193 APPLICATION NO. S1041011641FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is the public footpath on the reservation between Bellshill Road and the access road to the flats that face onto it. This reservation runs along the east side of Bellshill Road as it heads north out of Motherwell. It is characterised by its grass verge with an avenue of mature trees measuring approximately 6m tall.

1.2 To the east of the application site are rows of flats 3 storeys high. These are located approximately 25m away from the proposed telecommunications equipment. To the west and across Bellshill Road are rows of four in the block cottage flats.

1.3 As part of Project IVOR (Improving Vodafone on Railways) the applicant requires a site within the vicinity of the nearby railway line in order to improve the mobile phone coverage available to train passengers using the main railway line from the south to Glasgow Central. The applicant proposes to erect a 15m high monopole with associated equipment cabins measuring a total of 2.6m long by 0.9m wide by 1.86m high.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is covered by residential policy HSG8 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Of more relevance in assessing this application is Policy CS6 Telecommunications Development.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 Two Letters of representation have been received; one from Provost Connelly and one from North Lanarkshire Council’s Education Department. One petition with 153 signatures has been received. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

The equipment is located within close proximity of two housing estates and a nearby school; 0 The design of the proposed equipment and its impact on residential amenity; The potential negative health impacts of the equipment and its effect on the natural environment; 0 There are many other suitable alternative locations for this proposal; The location of telecommunications equipment within the vicinity of Braidhurst High School may deter parents from sending their children there.

3.2 The Transportation Manager offers no objection to the proposal, but recommends that it be moved outwith the visibility splay of the junction of Iona Street with Bellshill Road. The applicant agreed to this and amended plans have been received.

3.3 The Office of Communications, the advisory body for the telecommunications industry, has offered no observations on the proposal.

4. PIan ni n Q Assessment and Con c Iu s io ns

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. The main considerations in assessing this application are (a) whether or not it accords with local plan policy and (b) whether or not the objections received are material planning considerations.

194 4.2 Policy CS6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) adopts a precautionary approach to telecommunications equipment where it will be located in residential areas or within the vicinity of public buildings such as schools or hospitals. The policy outlines the following criteria which should be taken into account when considering applications for telecommunications equipment:

0 The proximity of the equipment to housing or public buildings; 0 The design and visual impact of the apparatus; 0 The extent to which more suitable alternative sites exist; 0 The scope for sharing existing facilities, buildings and other suitable structures.

4.3 The mast is located on a main distributor road, but with established residential areas nearby.

4.4 The design of the proposed equipment is similar to the existing street furniture that appears in this area and in other areas of Motherwell. The monopole itself will be approximately 5 metres taller than the adjacent lampposts and will be of a similar colour and profile. The equipment cabins will be similar to those found in the area that are used by other statutory undertakers. It is conceded that whilst the monopole will be the tallest structure in the vicinity, its impact will softened by the mature landscaping that is adjacent to it.

4.5 The applicant has submitted information regarding other sites in the vicinity which were considered. A site at Brogan fuels, Nethan Street was considered but ruled out because the owner did not want to lease their land. An alternative site at Nethan Street was also considered but discounted because it did not provide adequate coverage and a larger more substantial mast would have been required.

4.6 The applicant has also explored the potential of sharing an existing mast that is located at Braidhurst Industrial Estate. The site has been ruled out this site was found to be too close to existing telecommunications equipment at Motherwell station. This would result in interference which would ultimately in a reduction of the coverage areas.

4.7 With respect to the points raised by the objectors outlined above, I would comments as follows:

0 It is conceded that the monopole is located within one of the most densely developed parts of Motherwell. This is due mainly to the lack of suitable alternative locations. The nearest dwellings are the flats at 464-474 Bellshill Road and the properties at 175-177 Bellshill Road. The monopole is located approximately 25 metres away from these buildings and the nearest school would be over 300 metres away. There is a nursery at Fife Drive but this is located several hundred metres away. However, the applicant has investigated a number of alternative locations in the area all of which proved be unsuitable for their needs. 0 The proposed monopole is similar in design, colour and height to the existing lampposts in the vicinity. Given this and the fact that the reservation is lined by an avenue of trees, which will soften the impact of the monopole, it is my opinion that the structure will not be detrimental to residential amenity. 0 There is no evidence to suggest that the telecommunications equipment will damage the natural environment. With respect to matters relating to the potential health impacts of telecommunications equipment, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the UK government to decide what measures are required to protect public health. To demonstrate to the Council that the known health effect have been properly addressed, the applicant has submitted a statement that the monopole will meet the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields.

0 In accordance with Policy CS6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), the applicant has satisfied that they have explored a number of other sites

195 and provided justification for the elimination. These sites have been detailed in paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 above. 0 Whether or not the location of telecommunications equipment in the vicinity of schools may deter parents from sending their children to that school is not a material planning consideration.

4.8 It is my opinion that design and location of the proposed monopole is acceptable and that the proposal accords with local plan policy. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the objector, it is my recommendation that planning permission be granted.

196 Application No: S/04/01217/FUL

Date Registered: 21st July 2004

Applicant: C h ut neys 205 High Street Newarthill Motherwell MLI 5HR

Agent Mr lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell MLI 3JL

Development : Alterations to Frontage

Location : 205 High Street Newarthill Motherwell Lanarkshire MLI 5HR

Ward: 29: Newarthill Councillor John Lafferty JP

Grid Reference: 278667659682

File Reference:

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: The site lies within an area covered policy RTL6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 2gthJuly 2004

Comments:

This planning application seeks planning permission for the replacement of a window with a new entrance door at a public house in High Street, Newarthill. The application was advertised as a 'Bad Neighbour' development as it related to licensed premises. The proposal is not strategic in nature and is in accord with the appropriate Local Plan policies. No letters of representation have been received in connection with the proposal therefore, taking into account all material considerations it is recommended that consent be granted subject to conditions.

I97 198 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th July 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lorna Ramsey at 01698 302136.

199 Application No: S/04/01225/FUL

Date Registered: 9th July 2004

Applicant: Vodafone (UK) Ltd CIO Agent

Agent Mono Consultants Ltd F.A.O. - Ginny Hall 48 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5TS

Developmen t : Erection of I0 Metre High Telecommunications Monopole and Associated E q u i pmen t

Location: Land At Junction Of New Stevenston A723, Carfin Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 5: New Stevenston And Carfin Councillor Helen McKenna

Grid Reference: 276878658735

File Reference: S/PL/B/5/39/MAT

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: This site is covered by Policy ENV3 "Vacant and Derelict Land" in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy CS6 "Assessing Applications for Telecommunications Development" is also relevant.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Councillor Helen McKenna (No response) OFCOM (Scotland) (No objection)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 23rd July 2004

Comments:

Planning consent is sought for the erection of a telecommunications monopole and associated equipment cabin on the public footpath on land adjacent to a bus lay by at the New Stevenston Junction, A723, Catfin, Motherwell. The monopole would be 10 metres tall with three slimline antennas on top bringing the total height to 11.35 metres.

1 letter of objection has been received from the neighbouring property, details of which are contained within the attached report. Notwithstanding this objection, it is considered that the proposed monopole is acceptable in design terms and in accordance with Local Plan policies, therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

200 PLANNING APPLICATION No S / 04 / 01225 / FUL

ERECTION OF A TEN METRE HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS North MONOPOLE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT Lanarkshire mncll LAND AT NEW STEVENSTON ROAD / A723 JUNCTION, CARFIN, MOTHERWELL A Pri'mr*llarnf* orblrr. S"**mqPmvlh V.p"'mdv.canv*l. dh M*"1 SUI 0-v wcm L1c wn ccm *I Representation U"SYio".Sd rpnd"ira *m-c,wnow,*, * Idme ~dt,Pms~"Bac.cv miiadrp

201 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. In the event that the equipment hereby approved becomes redundant it shall be removed and the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of the equipment becoming redundant.

Reason: To ensure the restoration of the site to a satisfactory standard.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 9th July 2004

Letter from OFCOM (Scotland) received 30th July 2004

Letter from Mary Heffernan,l79 New Stevenston Road, Carfin, Motherwell, ML1 4EH received 4th August 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mark Thomson at 01698 302136.

202 APPLICATION NO. S1041012251FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I The application site is the public footpath adjacent to a bus lay by at the New Stevenston Junction, A723, Carfin, Motherwell. The road forms part of the Holytown/Carfin link road which was constructed in the 1980s in order to create a more direct route to the A8 and alleviate traffic problems in Newarthill. The new road bisects the existing New Stevenston Road isolating three properties on the north west side of the application site from a row of cottage style flats on the south east side.

1.2 To the north is a roundabout and immediately beyond that is the recently completed LlDL food store. Directly behind and to the East of the application site is an area of vacant and derelict land which is partially overgrown with some semi-mature scrub. This area is separated from the application site by a 1.8m high chainlink fence. There is an outline planning application for a mixed-use development comprising residential, outdoor recreation and commercial uses on this site (reference S/03/00793/OUT). The application has been agreed by the Committee but is awaiting the conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement determined and as it is an outline application the plans are not detailed. The plans indicate that the area adjacent to the application site would be used for commercial rather than residential activities.

1.3 The applicant proposes to erect a telecommunications monopole measuring 10 m tall with three slimline antennas bringing the total height to 11.35m. Beside the monopole would be an associated equipment cabin measuring 1.48m long by 0.35m wide by 1.5m tall on the footpath adjacent to the bus stop.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is covered by Environmental Policy ENV3 Vacant and Derelict Land in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Of more relevance in assessing this application is Policy CS6 Telecommunications Development.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Manager offers no objection to the application.

3.2 The Office of Communications, the advisory body for the telecommunications industry, has offered no observations on the proposal.

3.3 One letter of objection has been received from the residents of 179 New Stevenston Road. The main points of objection are:

179 New Stevenston Road directly overlooks the application site and the installation would have an impact on the view, aspect and residential amenity currently enjoyed by the residents; Such structures are ugly, obtrusive and are in no way compatible with the surrounding village setting that the residents currently enjoy; This technology will have a negative impact on the natural environment and there is evidence to suggest that it can have a negative impact on health.

203 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main considerations in assessing this application are (a) whether or not it accords with local plan policy and (b) whether or not the objections received are material planning considerations.

4.2 Policy CS6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) adopts a precautionary approach to telecommunications equipment where it will be located in residential areas or within the vicinity of public buildings such as schools or hospitals. The policy outlines the following criteria which should be taken into account when considering applications for telecommunications equipment:

the proximity of the equipment to housing or public buildings; the design and visual impact of the apparatus; the extent to which more suitable alternative sites exist; the scope for sharing existing facilities, buildings and other suitable structures.

4.3 The mast is located within an area that in recent years has experienced considerable development. However, within the immediate vicinity of the application site there are only 7 dwellings with the nearest being approximately 30 metres away at 179 New Stevenston Road. This dwelling is separated from the apparatus by a boundary wall and a mixture of mature and semi mature trees and shrubs that grow within the garden ground. Given the amount of residential development in the area, this site represents the best available option in that there are very few residential properties in close proximity to it.

4.4 The apparatus is located adjacent to a bus lay by, which features a bus stop, steel pedestrian barrier and lamppost. The lamppost is approximately 10 metres tall and so the monopole will not be dissimilar in terms of height and design from the existing street furniture in the vicinity. Given this, it is my opinion that the design of the proposed telecommunications equipment is acceptable and its introduction is unlikely to lead to a significant deterioration of residential amenity.

4.5 The applicant has submitted information regarding four other sites in the vicinity which were considered. These sites were ruled out as they brought the equipment within closer proximity to more dwellings.

4.6 The applicant has also explored the potential of sharing an existing mast that is located at James Hoy and Son Itd, 1 East Avenue, Carfin Industrial Estate. This site has been discounted because of its proximity to a greater number of residential properties. Furthermore, the mast would have to be substantially upgraded in order to facilitate site sharing. Any increases to the size of this mast would make it more visually intrusive.

4.7 With respect to the points raised by the objector outlined above, I would comment as follows:

The telecommunications equipment would be located next to a bus stop, lamppost and pedestrian handrail. In terms of its height and design it would blend in with the existing street furniture. The village setting to which the applicant refers has been eroded for a number of years by successive development. Recently a new LlDL store has been constructed and the Council has agreed to grant permission for a planning application for the vacant and derelict land to the rear of the application site, subject to a Planning Agreement. Given that the local plan policy for this site is advocating its re-use, it seems likely that at some point in the future it will be redeveloped. As the equipment is similar in height and design to existing street

204 furniture in my opinion that is will be an unobtrusive feature that will not be detrimental to existing residential amenity. 0 There is no evidence to suggest that the telecommunications equipment will damage the natural environment. With respect to matters relating to the potential health impacts of telecommunication equipment, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to decide what measures are required to protect public health. Local authorities have been instructed not to have regard to concerns about the possible health effects of these structures. To demonstrate to the Council that the known health effects have been properly addressed, the applicant has submitted a statement that the monopole will meet the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields.

4.8 It is my opinion that the design and location of the proposed monopole is acceptable and that the proposal accords with local plan policy. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the objector, it is my recommendation that planning permission be granted.

205 Application No: S/04/01248/FUL

Date Registered: 9th July 2004

Applicant : Mr M Wasim 8 Lynwood Road Bonkle Newmains

Agent Alcad Services 90 Brownlee Road Law Carluke

Development: Side & Upper Floor Extension to Shop

Location: 8 Lynwood Road, Newmains, Wishaw, Lanarkshire, ML2 9AB

Ward: 16: Newmains Councillor David McKendrick

Grid Reference: 283070656510

File Reference: S/PL/B/3/49/MR/LR

Site History: Planning consent granted for an extension to retail premises on 12th September 1983, Ref. No. 389183.

Development Plan: The site lies within an area zoned Residential within the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and as an Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks consent for a side and upper floor extension to the shop at 8 Lynwood Road, Newmains. The extension has a floor area of approximately 54 square metres and an overall height of approximately 5.7 metres. The existing rear section of the shop will be increased in height to match part of the side extension. This will create an upper floor storage area. One letter of representation has been received from a neighbouring resident, details of which are in my attached report.

Having taken all concerns into account, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact on neighbouring properties and accords with the development plan. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

206 207 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external wall and roof shall match in colour and texture to those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding residential building.

3. That notwithstanding the requirements of condition (2) above, before development commences full details and, or samples of the external materials to be used should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 9th July 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 28th July 2004 Memo from NLC Protective Services received 9th August 2004

Letter from Mrs I McLeod, 2 Braedale Crescent, Newmains, ML2 9AD received 28th July andl8th August 2004.

Shotts Local Plan Southern Area Local Plan (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

208 APPLICATION NO. S1041012481FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I The applicant seeks planning permission for alterations to the shop at 8 Lynwood Road, Newmains. The proposal consists of a side extension with a floor area of approximately 54 square metres and height of approximately 5.7 metres. The existing rear section of the shop will be increased in height to match part of the side extension. This will create an upper floor storage area and will not alter the distance from the existing shop to the residential property to the rear. The existing shop lies immediately adjacent to another shop, which presently operates as a hairdressers and is located within the residential area of Crindledyke, fronting onto Lynwood Road.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies in an area zoned as Residential within the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan and as an Established Housing Area in Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy HSG 8 is the relevant policy and states that facilities such as local shops are compatible within established housing areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal and comment that they are satisfied that the existing lay-by parking provision on Lynwood Road is suitable.

3.2 The Protective Services Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.3 One letter of representation was received from the neighbouring property at 2 Braedale Crescent, Newmains. The objection relates to antisocial behaviour of youths behind the shop at all times of the day and night. The objector has requested that a fence be erected in order to block their view of these anti-social activities.

4. PIann i na Assessment and Concl us io ns

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues. The site is covered by Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Area) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) which seeks to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. The proposed development is in accordance with the Development Plan therefore there are no objections to the principle of this development in land-use terms. The use of the shop is already established and in accordance with Policy HSG8 which identifies facilities such as local shops being compatible with established housing areas and required to serve the needs of residents. It is considered that the proposal to extend the shop will not adversely affect the residential amenity of the surrounding area.

4.2 The objection relates to existing problems of anti social behaviour. The proposed development will not bring the shop closer to the objector’s property and it will not impact upon the amenity of that resident. The antisocial behaviour is a matter for the police and cannot be viewed to be a material consideration in this case. The request for a fence cannot be justified and would not form a reasonable or appropriate basis for a planning condition.

209 4.3 In conclusion despite the objection I consider the development to be acceptable. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

210 Application No: S10410128010UT

Date Registered: 16th July 2004

Applicant : Mrs S M Bryce 2 Bonkle Gardens Newmains ML2 9AN

Agent Seamus Lalor Associates Ltd F.A.O. Seamus Lalor 10 Deaconsbank Gardens Glasgow G46 7UP

Developmen t : Residential Development

Location : Land At Morningside Road Wishaw Lanarkshire

Ward: 16: Newmains Councillor David McKendrick

Grid Reference: 282929655487

File Reference: SIPLIBFMI8OIML Site History: 267/80 - Erection of 10 No. Dwellinghouses - Refused 2"d September 1981. 731831 - Erection of Dwellinghouses and Garages - granted May 1973

Development Plan: Zoned as Industrial in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964 Zoned L3 Protected Open Space within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Comments) NLC Housing And Property Services (No Objection) S.E.P.A.(West) (No Objection) Scottish Water (Objection) British Gas Transco (No Objection) Scottish Power (No Objection) British Telecom (No Objection)

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: 4'h August 2004

Comments: The applicant seeks outline planning permission for a residential development at Morningside Road, Morningside, Wishaw. The application site has an area of approximately 0.5 hectares and has previously been used as an equipped play area. The proposal is contrary to Policy L3 Protected Open

21 1 PLANNINGAPPLICATION No S/04/01280/OUT

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

LAND AT MORNINGSIDE ROAD, WISHAW Dilllrd bmtn**E. JYWhmqm *eh A sua*,w PrmlYlDI d Dw c cam wnaariDnr lbh, klaj, Representabon Site Area = 0 46 ha Ih.YIII""dr.Dbl* m*q-crw*n nnrm, * .m m.llldloDo.c"lm s Q",, .Otd m

212 Space within the emerging Southern Area Local Plan. Three letters of objection have been received in connection with this proposal. Full consideration of the points of objection and other items, including policy matters, are outlined in the accompanying report. Having regard to the amenity of the area and the requirements of the Local Plan I consider that the proposal is unacceptable. It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:.

1. That the proposed development is contrary to Policy L 3 Protected Open Space in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), as there is a presumption against development, which could adversely affect such spaces.

2. That should planning permission be granted for this development a precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other similar applications.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th July 2004.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 28'h July 2004. Memo from NLC Community Services received 25'h August 2004. Memo from NLC Protective Services received 22ndJuly 2004. Memo from NLC Housing and Property Services received 27'h August 2004. Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 24th August 2004. Letter from Scottish Water received 3rd August 2004. Letter from British Gas Transco received 26th July 2004. Letter from Scottish Power received 28th July 2004. Letter from British Telecom received 2nd August 2004.

Letter from David M Black,3 School Road, Morningside, Newmains, ML2 9QW received 28th July 2004. Letter from Barbara Baillie,-/ School Road, Morningside, Newmains, ML2 9QW received 28th July 2004. Letter from Mrs Jean Watson,5 School Road, Morningside, Wishaw received 3rd August 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Marlaine Lavery at 01698 302102.

213 APPLICATION NO. S10410128010UT

REPORT

1. DescriPtion of Site and Proposal

1 .I The application site is centrally located within Morningside Village and covers an area of approximately 0.5 hectares. It is bounded by Morningside Road to the west and residential properties to the north and south. It is part of a larger area of open space which includes a football pitch, which is owned and maintained by the Council. The site has previously been used as an equipped play area, until June of this year when the equipment was removed.

1.2 Permission is being sought for a residential development in outline, no indicative plans have been submitted. A letter of support has been submitted along with the application. This points out the following :-

a) The applicant is at present unable to challenge the zoning in the Southern Area Local Plan finalised draft as the period for making such representations has expired. b) The Council had been in negotiations for almost a decade to purchase this land for open space purpose but no longer wish to proceed. The site is no longer required for open space purposes. c) The play equipment had been installed without the applicants consent. d) The draft Local Plan designation is no longer relevant and this document is not a statutory one. e) The site is a gap site and other infill residential developments have been permitted including a site at 1581160 Morningside Road. f) The proposal is supported by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan, PAN, NPPG and SPP Policy advice and Guidance. g) The development does not deter from the adequate provision of public open space currently existing in the village.

2. Site History

2.1 Permission was refused for the Erection of 10 No. Dwellinghouses on 2"dSeptember 1981. The reasons for refusal being that the mineral stability of the site was such that the proposed development could not be safely carried out and that the applicant failed to submit acceptable proposals which would improve the mineral stability of the site to a safe standard.

A previous planning application for the Erection of Dwellinghouses and Garages was granted permission subject to conditions on 1.5~'~May 1973.

2.2 The site has until very recently been used for the siting by the Council of play equipment. Despite, negotiations the Council have not been able to formally acquire this land and the equipment was removed at the request of the landowner.

2.3 Detailed permission has been granted for the construction of 54 dwellinghouses and a nursing home to the west of the council's playing fields (Application Ref. S/02/01490/REM). Outline permission has been granted on lathJune 2003 for the erection of 200 houses on land to the south of the Council playing field (Ref. S/01/00862/0UT).

214 3. Development Plan

3.1 The proposed development raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

3.2 The site is zoned Existing and Proposed Areas for Industrial Development within the Central Industrial Part Development Plan 1964.

3.3 The site is covered by Policy L3 Protected Open Space in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). This policy seeks to protect from development formal and informal public, and private open spaces shown on the Proposals Map by resisting proposals which would adversely affect such spaces.

4. Consu Itat io ns and Represen tat io ns

4.1 The Transportation Section have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the site access and parking provision.

4.2 The Protective Services Section have no objections to the proposals but recommend that a site investigation report be undertaken in order to ensure that the site is free from contamination.

4.3 NLC Community Services are concerned that development on this site will reduce the present area of open space that currently functions as the village greenlpark. The play equipment which was recently removed could be accommodated within the remaining park area. However if the development were to be approved this would reduce the amount of open space available for play and reduce the surveillance and safety of children and reduce access to the play area.

4.4 NLC Housing and Property Services have no objection.

4.5 No objections were received from the utility bodies with the exception of Scottish Water. They objected to the proposal on the grounds of providing infrastructure to allow the development to drain into the public sewerage system. This is due to the cost of providing such infrastructure being outwith Scottish Water’s “reasonable cost” obligations. However, they confirm that they would withdraw their objection if the applicant bore the cost of the increase in capacity of the existing infrastructure and/or promoted a scheme which did not compromise the quality and quantity of discharge in terms which were satisfactory to them. The applicant has confirmed that she will meet the required costs.

4.6 Three letters of objection have been received from residents in School Road, which bounds the site to the north. The points of objection, and my comments thereon, are as follows:-

1. The land is unsafe due to extensive mine workings and any building work will require significant preparation to make the site suitable;

2. Morningside Road, adjacent to the site, has collapsed twice in recent years and there will be significant health and safety risks to members of the community should the development be implemented;

3. The recent developments in this area have increased the traffic along School Road forcing the residents at Nos. 3 and 5 School Road to access their properties from the private access to the rear of their houses. This access is not suitable for additional use and If the development leads to parking on the private access then access by owners will be affected.

4. Heavy plant will be required during preliminary ground work and again during construction and this will impede access to the rear of the properties at Nos. 3 and 5 School Road;

215 5. The proposed development will cause overshadowing to the property at 7 School Road.

5. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the Local Plan policies. The primary issues to be considered here are the appropriateness and compliance with the relevant development plan and the affect the proposal will have on the surrounding area.

5.2 As stated above the site is zoned Industrial within Central Industrial Part Development Plan 1964, however given the age of this plan the southern area Local Plan finalised draft is a more recent statement of Planning Policy for the area. The policy relating to the site is the Open Space Policy within the emerging Southern Area Local Plan, which seeks to resist development on such sites.

5.3 The site is part of a larger area of open space, and its central location within the village makes it a logical choice for a play area. The housing needs of the area have been met within the emerging Local Plan and there is a residential development for 54 houses under construction within the village at present (S/02/01490/REM). The applicants for this residential site have provided a bond of f42,000, f40,000 of which is for the upgrading of local play provision, with the application site in mind. Outline consent has also been granted for 200 houses to the south east of the site. While there may be some scope for the relocation of the play area within either of the larger sites, the construction of dwellings on the application site would enclose the area and this would have implications for access to site and the supervision and safety of children at Play. 5.4 With regard the concerns raised by the objectors it is acknowledged that if the site were to be developed there would be some temporary disruption. However, mitigation measures could be implemented on the site and controlled through planning conditions to address the problems of past contamination and damage to the road, thus rendering a residential development on this site acceptable in terms of health and safety.

5.5 In terms of the increase in traffic and access to the rear of the properties in School Road, the application is only in outline however, it would appear that any development would be accessed from Morningside Road and should not affect the traffic using School Road. The access to the rear of the properties on School Road is a legal matter and is not material in deciding this application. With regard to the overshadowing of the property at No.7 School Road, as stated above the application is in outline and no indicative layout plan has been provided. Any problems of arising regarding overshadowing would be dealt with if a detailed application were to be submitted.

5.6 In terms of the information submitted in support of this application I would comment as follows :- a) The applicant had the opportunity to challenge the draft Southern Area Local Plan during the consultation period, but did not do so. b) The Council have not withdrawn from acquisition negotiations. The Council offered to lease this site from the applicant, including liability for the play equipment, until this application and any subsequent appeal were determined but the applicant declined. c) It is conceded that the equipment was originally installed without consent but the Council have sought over the years to rectify this via acquisition of the land. d) No other sites designated as protected open space have been approved for residential development in Morningside Village. This site is not zoned for infill housing. e) It is not accepted that there is support in policy terms for this proposal without further details of the guidance and advice referred to by the applicant I do not propose to comment in further detail at this stage.

216 f) The development of the site would remove a valuable area of open space available for all of the village. It would also leave the remaining playing field enclosed by existing and approved developments to the detriment of its value as an area of open space and the safety of children using the area.

6. Conclusion

It is my conclusion that this planning application cannot be justified in terms of the development plan and the applicant has provided no reasoned justification to support an exceptional departure. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

217 Application No: S/04/01291/FUL

Date Registered: 21st July 2004

Applicant: Mr & Mrs G McKay 48 Hawthorn Drive Shotts ML7 5NB

Agent W H Dickie 77 Hamilton Road Motherwell MLI 3DG

Development: Construction of Garage

Location: 48 Hawthorn Drive, Shotts, Lanarkshire, ML7 5NB

Ward: 17: Stane Councillor Frank Gormill JP

Grid Reference: 289153.659771

File Reference: S/PL/B/17/52/MR/LR

Site History: Single storey side and rear extension to dwellinghouse, granted 26th September 1995 (Ref No. 95/0064/FUL) Rear extension, granted 28th January (Ref No. S/01/01525/FUL)

Development Plan: The site lies within an area zoned for residential purposes within the Shotts Local Plan and as Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None Required

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks consent for the construction of a garage at 48 Hawthorn Drive, Shotts. The proposal consists of a single garage with a floor area of approximately 24 square metres and height of 2.5 metres. The letters of representation have been received from the owners and the occupants of the neighbouring property and are detailed in my attached report. Having taken all concerns into account, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of its effect on neighbouring properties and the application raises no strategic issues I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

218 PLANNING APPLICATION No. S / 04 I01291 / FUL

Rodused by rkshire Rannlngand Ewironmenl CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGE Ccuncll HBadqLBneii 9rile 501 Fieming House 2 Tryst Rosd 48 HAWTHORN DRIVE, SHOTTS CUM B WNAU W Rlpdd homlh OhmSuwqmqpw wlh 01235057 1m 516210 Fsx 012% 61832 A prnf~lmd m CmtrdlrdhsrMidji -law are ecrarn Ccw,,ghl Representation Site Area = 0.02 ha. Lhulb"8.d r.pmblr6m #mlw- Crw" W'iCf * r'd mlylrd,opD.~iylm m_CwI po-,w

219 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwellinghouse.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding residential area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21st July 2004.

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 11th August 2004.

Letter from Mary Steel, 46 Hawthorn Drive, Torbothie, Shotts, ML7 5NB received 29th July 2004. Letter from Wishaw And District Housing Association, 55 Kirk Road, Wishaw, ML2 7BL received 28th July 2004.

Shotts Local Plan Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

220 APPLICATION NO. S/04/01291/FUL

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

1.I The applicant seeks permission for the erection of a single flat roofed garage to be constructed onto the side of the semi-detached house at 48 Hawthorn Drive, Shotts. The proposed garage has a floor area of approximately 24 square metres and height of approximately 2.5 metres. Access to the site is from an existing driveway from Hawthorn Drive.

1.2 The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, east and west and to the south is an area of open grassland.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site lies in an area zoned as Residential within the Shotts Local Plan and as an Established Housing Area in Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

3. Consultations and ReDresentations

3.1 The Transportation Section has no objections to the proposed garage subject to the condition that the first 2 metres of the driveway should be finished in a hard surface.

3.2 Two letters of representation were received, one from the occupants of the neighbouring property at 46 Hawthorn Drive, Shotts and one from Wishaw and District Housing Association, who own that property. The points of objection may be summarised as follows:

(i) There is concern over the impact of the development on the existing retaining wall at the boundary between 48 and 46 Hawthorn Drive, the potential damage that the proposed garage would cause and future maintenance issues. (ii) Concern over where the proposed gutter will drain to. (iii) Concern regarding the proximity of the development to the neighbouring house. It is considered that it will result in loss of daylight by overshadowing of the garden, house and the access passageway to the rear garden of 46 Hawthorn Drive. It is also pointed out that it will reduce access from the front to the back of the house, loss of visibility of the street and overall loss of amenity.

4. Plan ni nQ Assessment and Co n c Ius ion s

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues. The site is covered by Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Area) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) which seeks to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. The proposed development is in accordance with the Development Plan therefore there are no objections to the principle of this development in land-use terms.

4.2 In response to the points of objection listed in paragraph 3.2 above I would comment as follows:-

(i) With regard to the existing retaining wall and its potential damage as a result of the development the applicant has confirmed on the submitted plans that the proposed garage will be located within the curtilage of their own dwellinghouse. Any damage to a

22 1 wall or anything outwith their ownership is a legal issue and outwith the terms of the planning legislation. It should be noted that matters, including construction of the foundations, drainage and gutters would be dealt with through the Building Control Section if the development requires a Building Warrant. (ii) The proximity of the garage to the adjacent house may result in some overshadowing. The proposed garage is single storey and only 2.5 metres high, therefore it is considered that the level of overshadowing is not to the degree that would merit refusal of this application. Furthermore it is not considered that overshadowing of an access path would prevent it from being used. (iii) The loss of visibility of the street from 46 Hawthorn Drive does not constitute a material consideration in the assessment of this application. (iv) The development will not reduce the width of the existing access to the neighbours property. In practice the neighbours may have previously made use of the ground or air space within the application site to take certain items to the rear of this house. The development may limit access but only to what is legally available.

4..3 In assessing this proposal it is considered that given the size, design and location of the proposal, the erection of a garage is acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenity of the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding residential properties. Furthermore it should also be noted that if the applicant’s dwellinghouse had no previous extensions then this proposal would be classed as permitted development and would therefore not require the benefit of planning permission. In conclusion I have considered the points of representation but find no reason to uphold the points raised or request amendments to the proposals. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

222 Application No: S104/013OO/FUL

Date Registered: 22nd July 2004

Applicant: Gridcom UK Ltd (on Behalf Of Vodafone) The Exchange 1330 Arlington Business Park Theale Berkshire RG7 4SA

Agent Gridcom UK Ltd Unit 17 Enterprise House Southbank Business Park Kirkintillock East Dunbartonshire G66 1XQ

Development : Installation of an 19.5 Metre Lattice Telecommunications Tower Containing 6 No. Antennae, 2 No. Transmission Dishes, Ancillary Equipment and Compound

Location: Transco Compound, Golf Course Road, Wishaw Lanarkshire

Ward: 6: Craigneuk Councillor Thomas Lunny JP

Grid Reference: 278926656225

File Reference: SIP LIBF1419lF M

Site History: No relevant site history (existing equipment erected under the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order)

Development Plan: The site lies within an area zoned as Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Southern Area Local Plan Policies ENV6 and CS6 apply.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: OFCOM (Scotland) (No Objections)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a 19.5 metre high lattice telecommunication tower containing 6 No. antennae, 2 No. transmission dishes and ancillary equipment with ground level compound at the Transco Compound on land at Golf Course Road within Wishaw Golf Course. The applicant Vodafone UK Ltd has submitted the necessary ICNIRP declaration confirming that the proposal is within accepted public health standards.

223 INSTALLATION OF 19 5 METRE LATTICE TELECOMMUNICATIONSTOWER, COMAlNlNG SIX ANTENNAE, TWO TRANSMISSION DISHES, ANCILLARY EQUIPMEM, AND COMPOUND AT GROUND LEVEL

TRANSCO COMPOUND, GOLFCOURSE ROAD,WlSHAW r.Waua "Ornth am,..." 6"**m4Pg ran A h Prn ",rn d h Crn.d*d nr*Clm, 81k.v- OSranuDI'*L Vlllb""d,~rn*rm i*rg-C,ancW,i*, Sila Awn Ifl flf b d mll"dl..OY"lm - *I -

224 The site lies at the Transco Compound on Golf Course Road and benefits from the screening and backdrop provided by the adjacent trees. It is proposed to remove the existing 15 metre high mast upon completion of the proposed mast and the existing access arrangements would be utilised to the site.

No letters of objection have been received in relation to the application. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of visual impact and the applicant has provided the required ICNIRP declaration relating to public health. It is considered that the proposal follows government planning guidance on radio telecommunications and that it meets the rigorous assessment criteria set out in the Councils Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Policy CS6. This application is therefore considered to be acceptable and as such, is recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. That the telecommunications mast, equipment cabin and ancillary equipment hereby approved, shall be finished in DARK OLIVE GREEN (BSI2 627).

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

3. That in the event that the equipment becomes redundant it must be removed and within one month the site reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.

4. That within one month of the development hereby permitted being completed or brought into use, whichever is the earliest, the existing 15 metre telecommunication mast shall be removed from the site and the land shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the removal of the existing mast and to ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 22nd July 2004

Letter from OFCOM (Scotland) received 30th July 2004

National Planning Policy Guidance 19 Radio Telecommunications, July 2000 Planning Advice Note PAN3 Radio Telecommunications, July 2001 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Fraser Miller at 01698 302087

225 Application No: S/04/01324/FUL

Date Registered: 22nd July 2004

Applicant: Ceasars Turf & Sport Betting Ltd 58 Main Street Baillieston Glasgow G69 6AD

Development : Change of Use from Shop (Class 1) to Betting Shop (Class 2)

Location: 432 Old Edinburgh Road Uddingston Glasgow

Ward: 22: Fallside Councillor Robert Burrows

Grid Reference: 270325661489

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan: Zoned as Residential Area in the Uddingston-Tannochside Town Map.

Zoned as an Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 12th August 2004

Comments:

Planning consent is sought for the change of use from a shop to a betting office at 432 Old Edinburgh Road, Uddingston. The application site comprises the middle ground floor unit of a row of six, within a 2 storey red sandstone tenement building. The unit, along with 3 others, was previously occupied by furniture retailer "Italian Affair", but are now vacant. Of the remaining 2 units, one is occupied by a Chinese restaurant whilst the other is vacant. The upper floor of the building is also vacant but is shortly to be let as residential flatted accommodation. Off-street parking provision for the unit is located within the communal yard to the rear of the building.

The application site is bounded to the north and south by residential properties, to the east by the "Tannochside Miners Club" and to the west by the "Olde Club. The site is zoned Residential on the adopted Uddingston - Tannochside Town Map and zoned as an Established Housing Area on the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004). Policies RTL7, 8 and 11 (Class 2 Office Development and Bad Neighbour Development) of the emerging local plan state that developments of this type should preferably be located within Town Centre Areas, or Secondary, Village or Neighbourhood Areas. However, proposals will be considered acceptable outwith these areas where they serve a particular local need and are compatible with adjoining land uses.

226 227 The established character of the tenement building is commercial and thus it is considered that the continuation of commercial usage in the form of a betting shop will not be detrimental to adjoining land uses. It is further considered that the formation of a betting shop will complement and widen the commercial provision at this location. Finally, the development will seek to bring a unit back into productive use and partly re-vitalise the building, which now presents an unattractive aspect to the principal commuter route of Old Edinburgh Road due to the high vacancy rate.

No objections were received following the press advertisement and neighbour notification procedures. NLC Transportation also raised no objections to the proposal. I therefore consider the development acceptable and hereby recommend that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the permission hereby granted relates to a change of use only and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no alterations shall be made to the external appearance of the building.

Reason: To define the permission.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 22nd July 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 17th August 2004

Uddingston - Tannochside Town Map Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Joanne Delaney at 01698 302137

228