AGENDA ITEM No.

North Lanarkshire Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee

Committee Date: 15 June 2016

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

15th June 2016

Page Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation No

8−16 15/02161/AMD Viridor Proposed Variation of Grant Condition 1 of Planning Permission Ref. 10/01036/FUL to Allow Unrestricted Operating Hours of the Glass Recycling Facility and Unrestricted Numbers of Vehicle Movements Serving the Facility Mossband Farm High Street Newarthill Motherwell

17−28 1 5102582/FUL Springfield Erection of 100 Homes Grant Properties (No50 Dwellings, No8 Cottage Flats, No42 2 & 3 Bedroom Flats), Open Space, Landscaping and Associated Infrastructure Works Former Bus Depot Tinkers Lane Motherwell ML1 3BJ

29−38 1 6/00233/MSC LS Broadwood Ltd Application for Approval of Refuse Matters Specified in Condition 1 of 14/01 883/AMD Construction of 7 No. Terraced Retail Units (Total Floor Space 8,145 sq.mNon−Food),Food and Drive Through Coffee Shop, Public House/Restaurant and Petrol Filling Station). Site North Of Westfield Road Westfield Cum bernauld G68 9AD 39−50 1 6/00337/PPP North & South Erection of dwellinghouses Refuse Lanarkshire with associated access, Development infrastructure, landscaping and associated works (In Principle) Site North Of Strathclyde Country Parkat Killmallie House And East Of Hamilton Road (A725), Orbiston, Belishill. Site To East Of BelIshill Road Orbiston Bellshill

51−57 1 6/00356/AMD Wm Morrison Amendment to planning Refuse Supermarkets Plc permission 97/00525/FUL to allow deliveries to supermarket between 0500 and 2300 Wm Morrisons Gartlea Road Garlea Airdrie MI−6 9JL 58−65 1 6/00540/FUL Mr D & Miss N Erection of 10 Flats with Grant (P) Townsley Amenity Areas & Associated Car Parking 162 − 164 Morningside Road Morningside Newmains Wishaw MI−2 9QN

66− 81 1 5/02632/FUL Bellway Homes Erection of 92 No. Grant (P) Dwellinghouses, Access Roads, SUDS and Landscaping Former Strathclyde Hospital Site Airbies Road Motherwell.

(P)

16/00540/FUL: If minded to grant, planning permission should not be issued until legal agreement is concluded in relation to education contributions

15/02632/FUL: If minded to grant, planning permission not to be issued until legal agreement is concluded in relation to off−site play provision Application No: Proposed Development:

15/02161/AMD Section 42 Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission Ref. 10/01036/FUL to Allow Unrestricted Operating Hours of the Glass Recycling Facility and Associated Vehicle Movements Serving the Facility and Amended External Plant Operation Hours

Site Address:

• Mossband Farm High Street Newarth ill Motherwell

Date Registered:

24th November 2015

Applicant: Agent: Viridor Angus Design Associates Ltd Pioneer House The Building Design Centre Europoint Office Park 125 Muir Street Eurocentral Hamilton ML1 4UF MI−3 6BJ

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No

Ward: Representations: 017 Motherwell North No letters of representation received. Councillors Shahid Farooq, Helen McKenna, Peter Nolan & Pat O'Rourke

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed variation to the previously agreed operation hours of the MRF facility and the associated vehicle movements is considered acceptable and in accordance with the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. It is considered that the proposals will not adversely impact upon the amenity and character of the surrounding area significantly.

ProposedConditions:−That,

except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented strictly in accordance with the information and plans submitted within the Environmental Statement dated July 2008 and as amended in the addendum dated October 2008 for Planning Permission Ref. 08/01113/MIN (insofar as all development within the site boundary subject of this application as shown on drawing number AL(0)005) except as may be amended by the terms of the approval hereby given, and shall omit no part of the operations provided for therein. Any amendments to the methods or operational activities must have the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To clarify the information and drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

2. That all external plant operations (other than vehicle deliveries) associated with the Materials Recycling facility operations shall be restricted to 07.00 and 20.00 Monday to Sunday inclusive and there shall be no such working at any other times.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjacent residents.

3. That with the exception of works of an emergency nature or essential maintenance, servicing and testing of plant and equipment, no external plant operations shall take place outwith the hours stated in condition 3 above, without prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

4. That before this permission hereby granted is implemented, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site at all times for adequate parking and turning facilities for all vehicles associated with the MRF facility, to ensure that all vehicles entering or leaving the site can do so in a forward gear. Visitor and staff parking areas shall be finished in a tarmacadam finish.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and to ensure satisfactory traffic circulation within the site.

5. That all vehicles leaving the site carrying any waste materials or any other deleterious material shall be fully covered by haps or sheets to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise dust emissions and to prevent material falling onto the public roads in the interests of amenity and road safety.

6. That before this planning permission is implemented, the main site access shall be paved or finished in a sealed surface material for its full length between the wheel wash and the public road. Furthermore, provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site at all times for adequate parking and turning facilities for all vehicles associated with the development, to ensure that all vehicles entering or leaving the site can do so in a forward gear.

Reason: In the interests of public and road safety and to prevent mud and deleterious material being carried onto the highway.

That prior to the removal of, or importation of any materials to the site, the high pressure wheel wash facility installed on site above shall be operational. The high pressure wheel wash facility shall be maintained throughout the duration of the operations to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and in the event of any deposit of mud or any other material on the public road, the deposits shall be cleared as soon as possible to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The wheel wash equipment shall be desludged as required to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and this desludging shall only take place outwith external plant operations working hours as specified in condition 2 above.

Reason: To prevent mud or deleterious materials being carried onto the public roads in the interests of road safety.

That only audible vehicle movement alarms with a sound power level (Lw) of 94dB(A) or lower shall be used on any vehicle moving within the site between 19:00 hours and 07:00 hours. The noise characteristics of the audible alarm sound shall be such that there shall be no tonal noise from the alarm audible at the nearest residential property, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to monitor the site and to safeguard the amenity of adjacent residents.

9. That environmental noise monitoring equipment shall be provided for continuous site use and shall be situated in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Authority, and that a permanent record of all environmental noise monitoring shall be kept on the site and be available for inspection by the said Authority at all reasonable times.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to monitor the site and to safeguard the amenity of adjacent residents.

10. That procedures for the investigation by the operator of any breaches of noise levels as set out in condition 8 above, and where identified, any operations giving rise to noise levels exceeding specified limits shall be suspended until such time as appropriate remedial action is implemented. A logbook shall be kept on site, and be available for inspection at any reasonable time by an officer of the Planning Authority, detailing the exceedence, the subsequent investigation and any remedial action implemented.

Reason: In order to allow for the proper control of noise from the site in the interests of amenity.

11. That before this planning permission is implemented, a noise action plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority and this shall include procedures in instances where relevant noise conditions are not complied with because of an emergency, and in such instances the operator shall, as soon as possible, and in any event not later than 14 days after the breach, provide the Planning Authority in writing, details of the nature of the emergency and reasons why the noise condition was not adhered to.

Reason: To allow for the proper control of noise at the site in the interests of amenity.

12. Notwithstanding the terms of Condition 8 above, all vehicles and mobile plant on site shall be provided with suitable and effective silencers where appropriate, ,or provided with full acoustic screening, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise noise generation from plant/vehicle movement in the interest of amenity.

13. Notwithstanding the terms of Condition 8 above, all vehicles and plant used within the site shall be fitted with reverse warning equipment which adjusts their noise level automatically to 5dB(A) below the ambient noise level.

Reason: To ensure that no noise nuisance emanates from the site in the interests of amenity.

14. That prior to the commencement of development on site a dust action plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

15. That the operations on site shall comply with the terms of the 'dust action plan' approved in terms of condition 14 above.

Reason: To minimise dust generation from the site in the interests of amenity of local residents.

16. That notwithstanding the generality of condition 14 above, the dust action plan shall accord with the following:

(i) details of dust suppression equipment, including water spray equipment to be available on site at all times and used as required to prevent dust emissions from the site and from all plant and equipment. All areas likely to give rise to airborne dust shall be watered at regular intervals to prevent any dust emission adversely affecting adjoining land or residents.

(ii) a programme for the monitoring and sampling of dust generated by the operation of the site, including measurement locations, frequency of monitoring and methodology. The results of this monitoring shall be submitted to the Planning Authority on request.

(iii) Any adverse increase in dust levels affecting land or residents in the vicinity of the site due to site operations shall cause the operations responsible to be suspended until such time as appropriate remedial measures have been implemented. A log book shall be held on site and be available for inspection at any reasonable time, by an officer of the Planning Authority, detailing any such adverse increases in dust levels, the subsequent investigations and any remedial action implemented.

Reason: To minimise dust generation from the site in the interests of amenity.

17. That all storage areas shall be so constructed and maintained as to minimise dust emission and any mud or slurry deposits onto any adjoining property or highway.

Reason: To minimise dust emission from the site.

18. That refuelling points shall be designated for mobile machinery and shall be located within bunded hardstanding areas. Plant maintenance shall also be undertaken in a designated area and shall adopt similar contamination prevention measures.

Reason: To ensure adequate precautions are taken to prevent pollution of natural watercourses.

19. That all lighting shall be located to minimise its impact beyond the site boundaries as shown on approved drawing AL(0)005 to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

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

20. That notwithstanding the terms of condition 19 above, all floodlights should be directed away from any burns and water bodies within the site and their immediate vicinity to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise potential disturbance for otters.

21. That, with regard to any buildings and plant that may be required in addition to those indicated in the Environmental Impact Assessment and on the approved plans, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority, together with the requisite detailed plans, and no such buildings and plant shall be erected or installed until the permission of the Authority has been granted.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

22. The maximum amount of waste material accepted at the site shall not exceed 350,000 tonnes per annum of commercial and industrial waste. A written record shall be kept by the site operator of the amounts of waste accepted and it shall be made available to the Planning Authority and SEPA within 7 days of a written request from either party.

Reason: To ensure impacts arising from the operations of the materials recycling facility do not cause unacceptable disturbance to local communities.

23. That only non−hazardous commercial and industrial wastes shall be accepted for processing at the site. No other categories of waste shall be retained on site, processed or used for infilling and any waste received at the site that does not comply shall be removed in accordance with the protocol for the handling of non−conforming loads detailed in the EIA and approved within the PPC permit by SEPA.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory operation of the site. 24. Measures shall be employed to ensure that any litter arising from the operations does not leave the site. Such measures shall include ensuring that the fast acting screen shutters of the MRF are maintained in good operational order at all times and that the site is regularly inspected and provision is made for any litter present outside the MRF building and within the site to be collected and returned to the MRF building.

Reason: To minimise nuisance caused by windblown litter.

25. Measures shall be employed to ensure that operations associated with the development hereby permitted do not give rise to any malodours. Such measures may include but not necessarily be limited to the following:

i) The removal of any malodorous material from the site;

ii) The application of masking agents to neutralise any malodours.

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

26. In the event that the use of the site for the importation of waste should cease for a period in excess of three months then, within one month of a written request from the Planning Authority, the site shall be cleared of all stored waste and recycled materials.

Reason: To provide for the beneficial use and appearance of the land after the use hereby permitted has ceased.

27. If for any reason it becomes necessary or expedient during the operations hereby approved to amend or abandon, to a material extent, any of the provisions contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment (as amended) the applicant shall submit an amended application and statement of intent to the Planning Authority but shall adhere to and comply with the EIA (as amended) and permission hereby granted until such a time as the amended application is approved.

Reason: In order that the Planning Authority can maintain effective control over operations at the site.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Transportation received 11tFebruary 2016. NLC Protective Services received 24th December 2015, 1st April 2016, 27 1h April 2016 and 11th May 2016.

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Heather Philp at 01236 632500

Report Date:

25th May 2016 APPLICATION NO. 15/02161/AMD

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site comprises of a waste management facility operated by Viridor within the northern part of the former Mossband Farm opencast site, Motherwell Road, Newhouse. The site is located approximately 700m east of Newarthill, south of the B7066 Motherwell Road. The site comprises of an active Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), office management building, weighbridge hardstanding areas, storage areas, small SUDS pond and an access road. The site also incorporates peripheral screen bunding along the B7066 Motherwell Road and the A73 Carlisle Road with 1.8 metre high palisade fencing. The site is bounded by the A73 to the east, Newhouse Nursery general industrial building and associated dwellinghouse to the north, Motherwell Road to the west and the remainder of the former Mossband opencast site to the south which is segregated from the application site by 1.8 metre high palisade fence.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission Ref. 10/01036/FUL to allow unrestricted operating hours of the glass recycling facility and the associated vehicle movements serving the facility. The applicant also seeks permission for amended external plant operation working hours. In terms of the relevant planning permission Ref. 10I01036IFUL, Condition 1 currently limits the operating hours of the glass recycling facility to 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Friday inclusive (excluding national public holidays) and 07.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays and the vehicle movement and external plant operations are restricted to 07.00 and 19.00 Monday to Sunday inclusive (excluding national public holidays).

2.2 The applicant seeks permission for unrestricted operating hours for the MRF facility and the associated vehicles movements in order to support the recycling operations. The applicant has confirmed that they are seeking permission to extend external plant operations from 07.00 until 20.00 Monday to Sunday inclusive. In terms of overall proposed extended operation hours and resultant increased vehicle movements from increased activity, the applicant has stated that they anticipate an increase of 25% number of vehicle movements weekly (increasing from the existing number of movements of approximately 285 per week to 356 per week). No other alterations to the consented MRF building are proposed.

3. Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement and Noise Impact Assessment in support of the application. The applicant claims that they are the leading glass recycler in Scotland and the Mossband facility recycles over 50% of all glass that they recycle in Scotland. The applicant state that they seek extended operating hours and vehicle movements in order to improve the operation capacity of the recycling facility.

4. Site History

4.1 The Mossband Farm site has an extensive planning history of underground and opencast mineral workings dating back to June 1952. Since this time, the site operated as an opencast coalworkings and fireclay site from the early 1990's until its closure in 2005. In terms of the proposals subject of this application, relevant recent site history dates from August 2007 relating to the site changing ownership (Benhar Developments Ltd) and the operations were closed pending the submission and determination of application 08/0113/MIN for extraction of coal, rock & fireclay, importation of non hazardous commercial & industrial waste (for recycling) & infilling of void and erection of associated recycling facility, plant & offices which was approved 2' July 2009 with operations commencing on site from that period. The operator then submitted the following applications relating to their development proposals:

• 08/01395/FUL Erection of Perimeter Fence approved 21st October 2008. • 09/00317/FUL Erection of Office Block approved 21st May 2009. 15th • 09/0141 8/ADV for 3 No. Internally Illuminated Signage approved January 2010 • 10/01036/FUL Proposed Variation to Condition 7 to Extend Operating Hours of MRF BuiIdin and Associated Storage Areas to 07:00 to 19:00 on Saturdays and Sundays approved 17 November 2010 • 11/00180/FUL Construction of a Retaining Wall Adjacent to a Recycling Facility approved 21st April 2011. • 12/00785/AMD Amendment to Planning Consent 08/01113/MIN for Waste Disposal Operations to Include Importation of Non−Hazardous Household Waste for Recycling and Disposal of Non−Recyclable or Non−Recoverable Materials in the Existing Void, Alterations to the Phasing of the Works and Changes to the Final Restoration Contour Levels. The Committee were minded to grant this application on 27 September 2012 subject to the conclusion of a Section 75 Legal Agreement. The Legal Agreement was not concluded and the application was subsequently withdrawn in April 2015.

4.6 The Committee should note the Mossband Waste Management Facility ceased operations at the end of 2012 following actions by SEPA and Police Scotland. Prior to its closure, a significant volume of unauthorised imported material was brought onto the wider Mossband site (land to the south of the MRF and mineral extraction areas). These unauthorised works are being considered separately in terms of the existing planning permissions and the planning obligation, and are therefore not relevant in the assessment of this application.

4.7 In 2014, planning application ref. 14/00011/AMD was submitted by Scott Recycling Investments seeking permission for the Removal of Area of Land from Planning Obligation related to Planning Permission Ref's. 08/01113/MIN & 10/01036/FUL). This application sought permission to remove the (land subject of this application) from the planning obligation covering the site, thereby removing the requirement for any landowner or operator that acquires this area to comply with the planning obligation. The applicant advised at that time that they intended to operate a glass recycling facility from the MRF building. Planning permission was granted on 23rd April 2014 and the applicant Viridor took occupation of the MRF building in October 2014 with glass recycling operations commencing thereafter.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The consented MRF site is zoned as NBE 3A (Assessing Development in the Green Belt) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

5.2 The site is also identified under Policy EDI 1 Al (Existing Waste Management Facilities) in the Local Plan.

5.3 Development Strategy Policies (DSP) 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also relevant to the proposal.

6. Consultations

6.1 NLC Transportation has no objections to the proposals.

6.2 NLC Protective Services has commented that the proposals are acceptable subject to conditions related to controlling noise levels generated at the facility.

7. Representations

7.1 No letters of representation received following the neighbour notification procedure and press advertisement.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with 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. This planning application was submitted under the terms of Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, which allows for the determination of applications to develop land without compliance with conditions previously attached to existing planning consents. 8.2 Section 42 of the Act sets out that on receiving such an application, the planning authority need only consider the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission was granted. If it is decided that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions differing from those subject to which the previous permission was granted, or that it should be granted unconditionally, planning permission should be granted.

8.3 Conversely, should it be decided that planning permission be granted with the same conditions to which the previous permission was granted, then the application to vary the condition should be refused.

Development Plan

8.4 It is considered that the proposal raises no issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2012. As such, it can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. In the North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP) the site is zoned as NBE 3A (Assessing Development in the Green Belt) with other relevant local plan policies including Policy ED[ 1 Al (Existing Waste Management Facilities) and Development Strategy Policies DSP1−4 which include DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development).

8.5 Policy NBE 3A seeks to protect the character of and to promote development in the Green Belt through restricting development to acceptable types and sets criteria for assessing the impact of developments. In this case, the proposals relate to an existing consented MRF facility within the Green Belt and in view of this, it is considered that the proposals accord with this local plan policy.

8.6 The application site is zoned under Policy EDI 1 Al (Existing Waste Management Facilities). This policy seeks to maintain the industrial and business character of such areas including existing waste management facilities. It is considered that the proposed amendment to the previously agreed operational working hours and number of vehicle movements as set out at paragraph 2.2 above would accord in principle with the terms of Policy EDI Al and the associated SPG criteria.

8.7 The proposed change to the previously agreed operational working hours and number of vehicle movements of the consented MRF is considered to be acceptable under the terms of Development Strategy Policies DSP 1, 2, 3 and 4 in that the proposed variations would not raise any issues in terms of Green belt uses (DSP 1 Amount); the alterations would related to an existing consented MRF building currently in operation (DSP 2 Location) with no significant unacceptable impacts on existing infrastructure (DSP 3 Impact). The planning application details have included sufficient information to allow potential noise impact issues to be considered and any outstanding matters could be suitably addressed to the satisfaction of NLC Protective Services though planning conditions in this regard. As such, it is considered the proposed amendment to the previously agreed operational working hours and operation hours for the associated vehicle movements would also accord with DSP 4 (Quality). It is therefore concluded that the proposals accords with Policies DSP 1−4.

Consultations

8.8 With regard to the response from NLC Protective Services and in view of the nature of the proposals subject of this application, is recommended that a planning condition is imposed to ensure appropriate noise mitigation measures are undertaken during specified hours. As noted above in paragraph 6.1, NLC Transportations has no objections to the proposals.

Conclusions

9.1 In conclusion, the proposed Section 42 variation to the hours of operation for the MRF facility and associated vehicle movements is considered acceptable and complies with the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. It is considered that the proposals can be accommodated within the site without any significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area subject to appropriate noise conditions. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the amended conditions set out above. Application No: Proposed Development:

15/02582/FUL Erection of 100 Homes (No50 Dwellings, No8 Cottage Flats, No42 2 & 3 Bedroom Flats), Open Space, Landscaping and Associated Infrastructure Works Site Address:

Former Bus Depot Tinkers Lane Motherwell MI−1 3BJ

Date Registered:

15th December 2015

Applicant: Agent: Springfield Properties PLC N/A Springfield House 3 Central Park Avenue Larbert FK5 4RX Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application No

Ward: Representations: 016 Motherwell West 8 letters of representation received. Paul Kelly, Michael Ross, Annette Valentine,

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed residential development is considered to be in accordance in principle with the relevant policies contained in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and associated Supplementary Planning Guidance and could be accommodated without detriment to the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

ProposedConditions:−That

the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details shown on the following drawings, or such other details that require to be confirmed via conditions, and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority:

M005_LP_001, M005−BALERNO_901, MOOS−BEAU LY_90 1, M005_AP3_200, M005_AP4−200, MOOS_CU PAR−3S_901, M005—CU PAR−3T−901, M005_Ardmore_901, M005_Auldearn_901, MOOS Lauder 901, M005_Roslin_901, M005—DL−04, H R−ENG−OO1 −B, HG−ENG−003, HR−Eng−004−A, HR−Eng−009, HR−Eng−01 0, HR−Eng−01 1, HR−Eng−01 3, HR−Eng−014, HR−Eng−01 5, HR−Eng−01 6, M005_(DL)_O1 Rev L, M005_(DL)_02 Rev B, M005_DL_006 and TP 282/SKI001 B.

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

That before the development hereby permitted commences, the design, location and finishing materials for the fences, gates and walls shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These proposals shall incorporate the erection of an acoustic fence on the south boundary the details of which are to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior development. Thereafter all fences, gates and walls shall be erected in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate boundary treatments in the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

3. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 2 above and before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the design and material finishes of a site entrance feature shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter shall be constructed in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition prior to the occupation of the first dwelling house.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and the general area.

4. That the remediation works identified by the revised Remediation Strategy carried out by Johnson Poole & Bloomer Consultants dated March 2016 shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority before the development is brought into use and a certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that all remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future users of the site.

5. That the development shall accord with the flood risk measures contained within the Flood Risk Assessment by Kaya Consultants dated 15th December 2015 unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority. Prior to the first dwellinghouse hereby approved becoming occupied, written confirmation by a Chartered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority that the works have been completed in accordance with the recommendations contained in the above report.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development and surrounding land is not at risk from flooding.

6. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water can be fully met to demonstrate that the development will not have an impact on their assets, and that suitable infrastructure can be put in place to support the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory sewerage and surface water drainage arrangements.

7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority; full details of the proposed drainage layout details and of the full surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority and these shall be certified by a chartered civil engineer as complying with the most recent SEPA SUDS guidance.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater, in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

8. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 7 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

9. That unless as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the Tree Protection Plan identified in the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints report dated 9th December 2015 shall be implemented in full as part of the development.

Reason: To ensure a high quality visual amenity and appropriate biodiversity benefits and to protect the retained trees within the site.

10. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, and notwithstanding the already submitted Tree Protection Plan as required as per condition 9 a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:

(a) details of all earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a tree survey detailing the existing trees on site indicating which are to be retained; (c) details of trees protection measures across the site for any trees to be retained; (d) a scheme of tree and shrub planting within the site and SUDS basin area, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall be developed taking account of local species and biodiversity interests and planting around the SUDS treatment areas shall be included that will benefit wildlife; (e) additional tree proposals including both new planting and proposals for the retention and maintenance of existing trees shall be incorporated adjoining the northern & southern boundaries and southwest & southeast corners of the site (including outwith the application site boundary but within the land ownership boundary), and along the southern Airbles Road frontage this shall take account of future road widening proposals; (f) a timetable for all landscaping works.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail, to ensure high quality visual amenity and appropriate biodiversity benefits, in mitigation for boundary trees already felled, and to protect the amenity of future residents.

11. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 10 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas planted to wildflower or grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, 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 amenity.

12. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a detailed scheme for the provision of an equipped play area within the application site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and this shall include:− (a) details of the type and location of play equipment, seating and litter bins to be situated within the play area; (b) details of the surface treatment of the play area, including the location and type of safety surface to be installed; (c) details of the fences to be erected around the play area, (d) details of a DDA compliant access; (e) details of the phasing of these works.

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

13. That before occupation of the 5th last dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted, all works required for the provision of the equipped play area and, included in the scheme approved under the terms of condition 12, shall be completed.

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

14. That no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the roads and footway adjacent to it have been constructed to base course standard and the street and footpath shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the construction phase.

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

15. That before the last of the dwellings hereby permitted is occupied, all streets, footpaths, footways and manoeuvring areas shall be completed to sealed final wearing course.

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

16. That prior to commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Construction Method Statement shall cover:

(a) Details of the proposed phasing of all works; (b) Dust management plan during the construction period:

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area, to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities.

17. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area, to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities.

18. That, if as a result of the RCC approval process, the site layout requires to be altered in respect of the horizontal geometry of the roads, footway and footpath locations and design, on−street lay−by car parking and traffic calming, then a revised Drawing shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure consistency in the council's approval processes in its role as Planning and Highways Authority.

19. That prior to commencement of development, full details of the acoustic fence to be erected adjacent Airbles Road shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. This shall include details of design, height and materials, and a timetable for the erection of the fence. For the avoidance of doubt the acoustic fencing shall be erected prior to any dwellings at plots 14 − 30 being occupied. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of future residents. 20. That before residential properties adjoining Hamilton Road and Airbles Road are brought into use, written confirmation from a suitably qualified person with Membership of the Institute of Acoustics shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, to confirm that noise mitigation relating to venting and the acoustic fence has been provided as detailed in paragraphs 4.12, 4.14 and 4.15 of the Noise Impact Assessment, Hamilton Road, Motherwell, R−6603B−Ml−RGM carried out by RMP dated 9"' December 2015.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future residents of the development.

21. That prior to any works hereby approved commencing on site, a further survey shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any breeding birds, badgers, and said survey shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the study, should any remediation measures be required for the relocation of any identified species, this shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of natural habitats and protected species.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Property Service not received NLC Learning and Leisure received on the 11"' January 2016 Scottish Gas Network received on the 21' January 2016 NLC Greenspace received on the 26111 April 2016 NLC Play Services received on the 9" February 2016 Scottish Power received on the 24"' December 2015 NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received on the 8th January 2016 NLC Traffic & Transportation received on the Scottish Water not received Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 19" January 2016 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Flooding) 28"' April 2016 Ladywell Community Council received on the 31' December 2015

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Suzanne Cusick at 01236 632500

Report Date:

3 June 2016 APPLICATION NO: 151025821FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is a vacant cleared Brownfield site within a predominantly residential area on the edge of Motherwell. The site is the former First Bus depot and forms a triangular area between Hamilton Road (north), Airbles Road (south) and Tinkers Lane (east) which is one of the main approaches to Motherwell; Strathclyde Park 100 metres north west of the site. The site consists of natural vegetation, woodland on the south east and west boundaries and gradually falls in a south westerly direction.

1.2 The site is bound by a range of house types including traditional semi detached dwellings on Hamilton Road, on the corner of Tinkers lane and Hamilton Road are two storey traditional tenement style flats whilst further south on Tinkers Lane more contemporary four storey flats have been erected. A large area of landscaped open space on Airbles Road provides a buffer between the site and modern semi detached and detached houses.

1.3 The site is currently bound by metal rail fencing approximately 1.8 metres high on the south and east boundaries and 2 metre high timber board fencing on the north boundary at Hamilton Road. The site is within close proximity of the three bus stops, shop units and a petrol station on Hamilton Road.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of 100 dwellings comprising of fifty detached, semi detached and terraced houses, eight cottage flats and 3 and 4 storey blocks of 42 flats with associated open space, landscaping, SUDS, car parking, a children play area and infrastructure works. Access to the site would be via the formation of a 'T' junction at the existing dropped kerb access on Tinkers Lane which would have footways on both sides. The existing two access points on Hamilton Road would be removed and replaced with three new pedestrian access paths, one to adoptable standards, would be formed on the north boundary providing pedestrian permeability to the transport links on Hamilton Road. All of the internal site road works would be provided to adoptable standards. Private off−street and visitor parking would be provided to meet the Council's standards.

2.2 The proposed layout design incorporates an internal loop road serving all dwelling houses with a centrally located equipped play area and pedestrian footpath connections through the site. The applicant proposes to use various road surface materials, street alignment and building positioning to accord with Designing Streets principles. The equipped play area would be centrally located within the site which would be overlooked by surrounding dwellinghouses.

2.3 Landscaping would be provided within the development site and a Tree Management Plan will be put in place for the existing and new trees within the site. The application site is within the applicant's control, but outside the development boundary, along the Airbles Road frontage, will be required for planned future road widening here, but landscaping and planting within this area is included in this application and recommended conditions.

2.4 Each dwellinghouse would be provided with front and rear gardens and off street parking facilities. The cottage flats and blocks of flats would have dedicated parking areas and shared open amenity space. Visitor car parking would be distributed throughout the site. The proposed finishing materials comprise mix of white and grey render, grey triple glazed windows with grey concrete tiles to double pitched roofs. An area in the lowest, western corner of the site would be utilised for a surface water drainage scheme to meet SUDS requirements

3. Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 The applicants have provided an amended site layout plan and elevation/ floorplan details of all proposed dwelling types along with the following information in support of their application: • Levels and Drainage Layouts • Tree Survey • Open Space and Landscape Proposals • Design and Access Statement • Pre−Application Consultation with the Community Report • Noise Impact Assessment • Transport Statement and Assessment • Street Engineer Report • Flood Risk Assessment • Site Investigation Report • Remediation Strategy • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey

3.2 The Pre−Application Consultation report summarises public events held on the 20th October 2015 and includes an overview of responses made

4. Site History

4.1 The application site has been subject to the following planning applications.

• Application 02/01 386/OUT for the Erection of Non−food Retail Warehouse with Offices, External Garden Centre and Builders Yard, Customer Car Parking and Access Improvements withdrawn on the 1st January 2003 • Application 06/02024/FUL for the Erection of 300 Flatted Dwellings and Associated Road Works withdrawn on the 22nd December 2009 • Application 11/01231/FUL for the Erection of a Supermarket (Class 1)(8,948m2), Petrol Filling Station, Car Parking, Access, Landscaping and Associated Works refused and appeal dismissed on the 14th September 2012 • Application 14/00059/FUL for the Proposed Residential Housing Development Comprising 66, 2 Storey 3−4 Bed Dwellings, Associated Road Networks, Landscaping and SUDS granted permission on the 215t May 2015. • Application for the 14/00668/FUL Erection of 2.4m High Hoarding Style Screening Fencing granted permission on the 22' May 2014 • Application 1 5/02362/FUL Enabling Works (Importation of Granular Fill) granted planning permission on the 6 January 2016 • Application 16/00902/FUL Erection of Marketing Sales Unit with Associated Landscaping and Car Parking is currently under assessment

5. Development Plan

5.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the policies North Lanarkshire Local Plan

• Housing and Community Facilities (HCF Al) • Development Strategy Policies (DSP) 2,3 and 4;

5.2 Material considerations would include the assessment criteria set out under Supplementary Planning Guidance, including the following SPG's: 01 Landscaping, 09 Flooding and Drainage, 15 Good Design Toolkit and 20 Biodiversity.

6. Consultations

6.1 Scottish Power has advised an underground cable and operational substation is within the vicinity of the site. Scottish Power confirms no objection and if required reserve the right to protect/deviate their equipment at the applicant expense no objection to the proposal. This has been conditioned. 6.2 NLC Play Services confirm no objection provided play space of 3500 square metres with 1000square metres of equipped play space to the Councils standards is provided with the development. A condition has been imposed ensuring prior development details of the proposed play space, DDA play equipment, location, fencing & gates and surfaces is submitted for the Council written approval.

6.3 Following a review of the information received NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) requested the submission of an Air Quality Impact report, Noise Impact report for the substation on Tinkers Lane and a revised Remediation Strategy. Details of the proposed acoustic fence to be erected on Airbles Road were also received. NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) confirm they have no objection to the proposed development. Conditions have been imposed relating to remediation works, acoustic mitigation measures and air quality measures.

6.4 NLC Learning and Leisure confirm the service will manage capacity issues in Dalziel High School by restricting the number of placing requests and in this instance will not require developer contribution. However if the development is not complete within five years NLC Learning and Leisure reserves the right to re−visit the issues of Developers Contributions at that time.

6.5 SEPA confirm no objection provided an Air Quality Impact report was submitted and was to the Councils satisfaction. As mentioned above NLC Protective Service and have reviewed the AQI received and confirm no objection. SEPA further advised the development should adhere to all regulatory requirements contained within the Flood Risk report received with the application. A condition has been imposed to ensure all preventative measures contained within the Flood Risk report are implemented in full.

6.6 Scottish Gas Networks advise a low/medium/intermediate gas main is near the site and that no mechanical excavations are to take place within 0.5 metres above or within of a low/medium pressure system or above or within 3 metres of an intermediate pressure system. A condition imposed ensures these requirements are fulfilled.

6.7 NLC Greenspace confirm no objection provided a badger walkover if carried out immediately prior to construction works and the proposed Tree Management Plan identified with the Tree Survey report is implemented. Both have been imposed as conditions within the application. Informative notes have been included relating to nesting birds, bat and lighting and SUDS.

6.8 NIC Traffic and Transportation's review of the Transport Assessment (TA) and the Street Engineering Review (SER) received with the application resulted in most notably a reduction in the number of proposed dwellings (from 101 to 100), an amendment to the layout of internal road and surfaces, the introduction of cottage style flats and a road marked turning facility at the Hamilton Road/Tinkers Lane junction. Accordingly NLC Traffic and Transportation confirm no objection.

7. Representations

7.1 There were eight letters of representation received, five from neighbours adjacent the site objecting and three in support from residents local to the area. The following summarises the points of concern:

1. Concerns of traffic impact on Hamilton Road/Tinkers Lane junction, access from Leyland Drive and Airbles Road by proposed development and the proposed residential development in nearby site of former Strathclyde Hospital. 2. Proposed blocks of flats (plots 5 −13 and 92 − 100) adjacent Tinkers Lane would overlook and overshadow neighbouring properties 3. Query if site has been properly remediated of oil/grease from previous use as bus depot 4. Query why previous application for 66 dwellings was not implemented 5. Available land in Motherwell needed for green space instead of houses. Concern that the Motherwell area is becoming large housing development with a draining impact on local amenities. 6. Concern that the proposed development and proposed development at nearby site of the Strathclyde Hospital would increase pollution and impact on air quality levels. 7.2 The comments in support advise the proposed development is welcomed, good use of wasted space and highly desirable place to live. Query how noise levels of traffic are addressed, pedestrian access through site to Hamilton Road curtailed, if NLC will adopt the open amenity spaces and the proposed traffic improvements on Tinkers Lane.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with 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. This proposal raises no issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) and can therefore be assessed in terms of relevant North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP) policies.

8.2 The site is located within an area zoned as HCF1A (Residential) which seeks to protect the residential amenity in primarily residential areas through encouraging development of an ancillary nature that may be acceptable subject to impact on residential amenity and provision for servicing and parking.

8.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires proposed developments to be assessed against DSP policies; DSP 1(Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). In this instance, due to the scale and nature of the development, the proposal will be assessed against DSP 2, 3 and 4.

8.4 The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application is the compatibility of the proposal with current local plan policy, impact of the development on the site and surrounding residential area in terms of layout, design and on the residential amenity of the neighbouring development with regard to loss of light, overlooking, road safety and traffic issues.

8.5 The application site is within a residential area therefore the proposed residential development would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. It is considered that the application complies in principle with the local plan policy HCF1A. However all proposed development must remain sympathetic to the existing pattern of development and assessment of the design and layout of the proposed scheme is required.

8.6 In terms of DSP2 (Location of Development) new development may be granted if consistent with the locational criteria including the reuse of Brownfield land. The principle of housing on this site has been established by virtue of the previous planning permission granting the development of 66 dwellings. Furthermore the proposed development would utilise a long term vacant Brownfield site and the existing infrastructure/services, the application is therefore considered to comply with the objectives of policy DSP2.

8.7 Policy DSP3 (Impact of Development) assesses the demand of new development on existing neighbouring community amenities and infrastructure and where new or extended amenities/infrastructure is required the cost to be met by means of developer contributions. As mentioned above in paragraph 6.4 NLC Learning and Leisure confirm that whilst the nearby Dalziel High School has reached capacity in this instance no developer contributions are required. The proposed equipped play area, drainage and roads infrastructure will be secured by condition. There has been no other need for infrastructure upgrades identified. The proposal therefore complies with the objectives of policy DSP3.

8.8 DSP 4 (Quality of Development) states that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. DSP 4 also requires all development to successfully integrate into the local area without causing any undue harm by relating well to existing surroundings and amenity through noise or disturbance. The general design guidance within DSP4 on new developments is augmented by the Council's 'Developers Guide to Open Space'. Combined this guidance considers housing density/mix, open space, detailed design, impact on amenity (privacy, overshadowing etc) roads, access and parking. 8.9 The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment and Street Engineer Review in support of the application. The content of the Design and Access statement is considered adequate and details within the layout have since evolved through the consultation process. The Transport Assessment and Street Engineering Review have also resulted in some minor amendments to the internal access roads and siting of the proposed car parking which are now considered acceptable.

8.10 There are 100 new properties being proposed providing a good range of house sizes and adequate garden space/amenity area satisfying the minimum guideline requirement. The properties are all well proportioned internally offering a reasonable standard of residential amenity and parking provision. In interterms−visibilityof amenity the layout of the properties has been carefully considered and ensures limited between the properties. Where properties are in close proximity to each other the location of the windows has been considered and variations in the house types ensure overlooking does not occur. With regards to proposed blocks of flats (plots 5 −13 and 92 − 100) the nearest properties are the existing flats opposite on Tinkers Lane approximately 30 metres southwest and 38 metres northwest which is considered a sufficient distance to avoid any overshadowing and overlooking issues. The application site is bound by two arterial routes, Hamilton Road and Airbies Road, and to ensure the residents of proposed properties facing onto these roads are not unduly affected by the noise dwellings on facing onto Hamilton Road will be fitted with noise attenuation measures to the windows and an acoustic barrier fence on the will be erected on the boundary at Airbies Road. This will be ensured by condition. It is acknowledged the site has a prominent elevated location visible to many people and visitors arriving to Motherwell and Strathclyde Park. However the existing large expanse of mature trees and the trees proposed bordering the site screens much of the development from street view and where visible the proposed dwellings satisfactorily reflect the house types already in the immediate area while the blocks of flats respond positively to the existing flats opposite on Tinkers Lane. Plots facing onto Hamilton Road would be set back 6 metres from the boundary and broadly in keeping with the established linear context of the existing dwellings opposite thereby alleviating any negative impact on the streetscene. The result is a well designed development in keeping with the existing dwelling types and not a visual intrusion. Although no details have been received confirming the boundary treatment; a condition requesting further detail on this matter is recommended. Negotiations on the scheme have resulted in a reduction of the number of dwellings and changes in the type of dwellings to better reflect the aims of the Designing Streets policy. No existing rights of way are affected and the proposed pedestrian routes provide good access to public transport on Hamilton Road. As mentioned above NLC Traffic and Transportation confirmed the 800 metres walking distance between the site and the nearest train station is considered the minimum suitable walking distance and a more detailed assessment should be undertaken. A further review confirms the site is no more 900 metres from the train station which in this instance would be considered reasonable given the sites close proximity to three bus stops on Hamilton Road. The proposed development is considered a sustainable development in terms of its proximity to public transport nodes and Motherwell town centre and the improved pedestrian paths providing good access to leisure facilities within Strathclyde Park. There would be no impact on the biodiversity or wildlife interests with a Sustainable Urban Drainage system (SUDs) designed to promote wildlife interests. The proposals therefore accord with the terms of DSP4.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

8.11 A condition imposed ensures landscaping and open space details will be submitted prior development while the implementation of the Tree Protection Plan would maintain and protect all existing and proposed trees within the site. The application therefore complies with the requirement of SPG 01A. The proposed development site is not located within a defined area susceptible to flooding and includes a SUDS scheme which would serve as a surface water flood attenuation and filtration system. As such the proposals accord with the terms of SPG 09 (Flooding and Drainage). The Design and Access Statement submitted with the planning application took into consideration the local character and identity of the local area in terms of scale, height, massing and materials. The street layout design of the residential layout respects Designing Streets principles. The proposed development is acceptable under the terms of SPG 15 (Good Design Toolkit). The guidance set out in SPG 20 Biodiversity has been followed by the applicant who has submitted the required ecological reports. 8.12 In light of the above assessment it considered that the development accords with local plan policies HCF1, DSP2, DSP3, DSP4 and SPGs 01A, 09, 15 and 20.

Other Material Considerations

8.13 Consultation Responses: All relevant matters raised in consultations can be satisfactory addressed through conditions.

Representations:

8.14 The points of concern raised in five letters of representation are addressed below:

1. NLC Traffic and Transportation have accepted the findings of the submitted Transport Assessment and Street Engineering Review including that the proposed turning layout to serve this development will have no unacceptable impact on the road network. 2. As mentioned above there would be no overshadowing or over looking issues due to the sufficient distance between the proposed flats east in the development and the existing flats on Tinkers Lane. 3. NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) have accepted the findings of the revised remediation strategy measures 4. The developer's decision not to impellent development of the previous application (14/00059/FUL erection of 66 dwellings) is not a material planning consideration. 5. The proposed site is zoned for residential development and is considered to be good use of a long term vacant Brownfield site. 6. NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) have accepted the findings of the Air Quality Impact report

8.15 The comments received in support of the application are noted

9. Conclusions

9.1 It is considered that the dwellings and flats are of good design and comply with the terms of the policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the development does not result in the loss of amenity, affect the character of the surrounding area or harm road and pedestrian safety. The development could be comfortably accommodated within the site and there would be no negative amenity issues in terms of loss of sunlight or privacy of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposed scale, design and use of materials have remained sympathetic to the existing dwellings surrounding the site and as a result .the proposal would contribute positively to the existing dwellings and the streetscape. The application site has a very prominent location within the Motherwell area and has become somewhat neglected. The proposed development would therefore utilise and improve this long term vacant site. The application has been satisfactorily progressed to the position where outstanding and final detail can be confirmed via conditions. The proposed development meets the criteria set out in the residential policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. There are no material considerations that would merit refusal of this application. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. Application No: Proposed Development:

1 6/00233/MSC Application for Approval of Matters Specified in Condition 1 of 14/0 1 883/AMD Construction of 7 No. Terraced Retail Units (Total Floor Space 8,145 sq.m Food and Non−Food), Drive Through Coffee Shop, Public House/Restaurant and Petrol Filling Station). Site Address:

Site North Of Westfield Road Westfield Cumbernauld G68 9AD

Date Registered:

16th February 2016

Applicant: Agent: LS Broadwood Ltd GVA 8 Elmbank Gardens Quayside House Glasgow 127 Fountainbridge G2 4NQ Edinburgh EH3 9QG

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 002 Cumbernauld North 3 letters of representation received. Balwant Singh Chadha, Alan Masterton, Barry McCulloch, Alan O'Brien,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

The revised proposal for a 7 unit retail park is considered to be a departure from the development approved in principle in terms of PPP ref 13/00862/PPP and PPP 14/01883/AMD as amended. A development of this nature and scale has not been subject to the statutory Pre−Application Consultation process requirements and has not been the basis of necessary consultation, assessment and agreement by the council. It is therefore considered that this incongruent detailed proposal (as submitted in MSC format) fails to meet the terms of the statutory Pre−Application Consultation process and does not benefit from the Planning Permission in Principle ref. 13/00862/PPP (as amended). Recommendation:

Refuse for the reason that the submitted Matters Specified by Condition proposes a retail development that would consist of block of 7 separate non−food retail units which is distinctly different and at variance with the Planning Permission in Principle which proposed a large single user supermarket. It is considered that the proposed development is a material departure from the scope or ambit of PPP ref. 131008621PPP or PPP 14/01883/AMD and accordingly does not benefit from either Planning Permission in Principle. Therefore the Council is unable to approve Matters Specified by Condition.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

The Coal Authority received 191h February. 2016 NLC Greenspace received 22 ndMarch 2016 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 2 March 2016. Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 22 February 2016. Scottish Natural Heritage received 2 March 2016

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Cohn Marshall at 01236 632500

Report Date:

6th June 2016 APPLICATION NO. 16/00233/MSC

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is located around 4.8km to the west of Cumbernauld Town Centre, 1.6km to the south west of Craigmarloch Neighbourhood Centre and 0.9km to the north of Condorrat village. The M80 motorway is situated 0.9km to the south of the site.

1.2 The site comprises an area of vacant land that extends to some 4.83 hectares and consists of a raised landform situated to the south−east of Broadwood Stadium, Westfield, Cumbernauld.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The council initially granted planning permission in principle 13/000862/PPP for a retail development that would comprise a large scale single user (Morrison's) Foodstore (5453m2 GFA), Petrol Filling Station and 2 smaller retail units that could be occupied by a range of ancillary retail/commercial use classes. Extant conditions 1, 15 and 11 (covering detailed off site road works and development maintenance schedule respectively) were subsequently agreed to be varied under section 42 via application 14/0 1 883/AMD.

2.2 This application seeks the council's approval of the matters of detail specified in condition 1 of Planning Permission in Principle 14/01883/AMD (as amended)

Condition 1 of PPP 14/01883/AMD states:

That before the development hereby permitted starts, a further planning application shall be submitted toconditions:the Planning−(a) Authority in respect of the following matters specified in

the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed foodstore, petrol filling station, commercial buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site parking provisions (d) the details of the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (e) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (f) details of existing and proposed site levels; (g) details of the phasing of the development; (h) details of the schedule of improvement works to the surrounding roads network as agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (I) details of a scheme of ecological protection measures

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

2.3 The current applicant has now submitted details of a Retail Park development that would comprise a block of 7 separate retail units (8,145 sq.m GFA of Food and Non−Food Uses), Drive−Through Coffee Shop, Public House/Restaurant and Petrol Filling Station). It should be noted that the detailed MSC application does not include a large single user supermarket (as approved) and therefore does not align with either Planning Permission in Principle 13/0008621PPP or the Amended Planning Permission In Principle 14/00883/PPP.

2.4 This notwithstanding, the vehicular access to the site would be taken from an existing roundabout located on Westfield Road to a proposed customer car parking area (573 spaces). The retail units would be constructed to the western edge of the development site and provided with a rear service yard with turning facilities for HGV delivery vehicles. The petrol filling station, pub and coffee shop would be constructed on the southern and eastern edge of the main car park area.

2.4 The Retail Park development would be constructed in two phases with the first development phase consisting of the construction of the block of 7 terraced retail units, self serve petrol filling station (12m x 5.3m canopy) and part of the customer car parking area. The configuration and size of each proposed retail unit is as follows:

Unit 110,000 sq ft Unit 2 15,000 sq ft + Garden Centre 5,000 sq ft to rear elevation Unit 3 10,000 sq ft Unit 10,000 sqft Unit 5 10,000 sq ft Unit 11,000 sqft Unit 7 16,675 sq ft.

2.5 Phase 2 of the retail park development would consist of the construction of a Pub/Restaurant (28m x 30m) and Drive Thru' Coffee Shop (4500 sq ft) and associated car parking facilities.

2.6 The retail park development would also be provided with 2 surface water attenuation ponds to meet SUDS requirements and periphery landscaped areas would be enhanced.

3. Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement, Transportation Statement, Noise Survey, Ecological Survey and Landscape 5 year Maintenance Scheme in support of the current MSC submission.

4. Site History

4.1 The following site history indicates that during the statutory requirements of the development management process, the draft and outline proposals were initially introduced to the council as a mainstream supermarket development.

• 121008211PAN Proposed Supermarket and Potential Other/Mixed Use Development. The council received an initial Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) from agents acting on behalf of ODL − a wholly subsidiary of Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc) in July 2012. This advised that the proposals would include a supermarket and petrol filling station that would be operated by Morrisons and a residual area for other development. The PAN details for the pre−application consultation with the public (including local members and 5 local community councils) were considered acceptable and this was confirmed in writing by NLC on 231d August 2012.

Thus the initial introduction of the proposed development was formally introduced to the local community and local members as a supermarket development by Morrisons Superstores PLC.

• 12101 137/EIASCR Proposed Foodstore, PFS and Other/ Mixed Use Development (Request for EIA Screening Opinion). There was a statutory requirement for the applicant to seek an EIA Screening Opinion for the proposed supermarket development and whilst NLC confirmed in by letter issued November 2012 that a formal EIA was not required, it was suggested that a supporting Environmental Appraisal would be sufficient in term of covering likely impacts from additional traffic, impacts on any protected species, impacts from noise and dust and potential flooding of the site from the proposed supermarket development.

• 131008621PPP Proposed Foodstore (5453m2 GFA) (Class 1), Petrol Station, Car Parking and additional Mixed Use Options including: Retail (Class 1); Financial, Professional or Other Services Non(Class−Residential2); Restaurant (Class 3); Hotel (Class 7); Assembly & Leisure Uses (Class 11); Institution (Class 10); and/or Sui Generis Uses (eg Hot Food Takeaway / Drive Thru), Landscaping, Access and Associated Works.( Planning Permission in Principle).

The initial PPP application for the proposed supermarket development was validated by NLC in May 2013. This PPP application was supported by a Pre−Application Consultation (PAC) Report. This PAC report refers entirely to a proposed Foodstore by Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc and included copies of the publicity leaflets, posters and public exhibition boards festooned with corporate images of Morrisons Superstores. The press adverts also set out in the public realm that a supermarket was being proposed at Westerwood.

1 3/00862/PPP Representations: It is clear that the public's perception of the development was that a Morrison's Supermarket and Petrol Filling Station was being proposed at Westfield and it is noted that this was supported by the majority of interested parties. There were 86 letters of support and 3 objections.

Whilst the proposed supermarket development was considered contrary to the terms of the development plan due to impacts on neighbourhood and local centres, the council's reasoned consideration set out that "Notwithstanding the out of centre location of the site, it is considered that the proposed supermarket would be of benefit to an area of increasing population which is currently poorly served by major retail facilities, and that it could be developed without detriment to the Network of Centres given the scale of the town of Cumbernauld and the expanding population therein"

• 131020241EIASCR Request for EIA Screening Opinion: Proposed Foodstore (5453m2 GFA) (Class 1), Petrol Station, Car Parking and additional Mixed Use Options including: Retail (Class 1); Financial, Professional or Other Services (Class 2); Restaurant (Class 3); Hotel (Class 7); Assembly & Leisure Uses (Class 11); Non−Residential Institution (Class 10); and/or Sui Generis Uses (eg Hot Food Takeaway / Drive Thru), Landscaping, Access and Associated Works. ( Planning Permission in Principle).

A further EPA Screening Opinion was sought from NLC due to a pending section 42 application that the developer required to amend the terms of 13/00862/PPP for the single user supermarket development. As noted above this update was a statutory requirement to the EPA process and NLC again confirmed EPA was not required to cover the s42 amendments to the original PPP for the Morrisons Foodstore.

• 14/01883/A MD Section 42 Variation to Conditions I and 15 (Off−Site Road Works) and Condition 11 (Development Maintenance Schedule) of Planning Permission 131008621PPP (Proposed Foodstore, Petrol Station, Car Parking and additional Mixed Use Options)

Subsequently the above noted amendment application was validated in September 2014 and the council approved the s42 variation in December 2014. The section 42 variation application did not require the developer to undertake any further PAC with the local community. This application received 1 letter of continued support for the anticipated Morrison's supermarket development.

5. Development Plan

5.1 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012: Due to the overall scale of the proposed retail park development in terms of the indicative gross floor space and site area it is considered that the application would be considered to be of strategic significance as it would exceed the respective thresholds set out in the SDP schedule of Strategic Scales of Development approved in 2013. Therefore the proposals require again to be assessed against diagrams 3 and 4 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Strategic Development Plan 2012.

5.2 North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012: The site is zoned HCF 1 Bi Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities in the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. Policies DSP 1, 2, 3 and 4 and policies RTC1, and 3 would also be relevant in assessing this proposed retail park development.

Consultations

6.1 There were no objections from NLC Roads, NLC Greenspace, NLC Protective Services, SEPA or SNH subject to conditions that mitigate impacts on traffic, biodiversity and protect sensitive receptors from noise, dust and flooding.

Representations

7.1 There were 3 letters of representation received on behalf of the respective owners of Cumbernauld Town Centre, Antonine Centre and Westway Retail Park. The material terms of objection are set out as follows.

• The Town Centre is not in the healthy position that is suggested by the applicant for a number of reasons, but due primarily to the commercial pressures from competing retail developments similar to this type and scale. The proposed retail park development has the potential to have an adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of Cumbernauld Town Centre • The approach taken by the applicant in submitting an MSC application for a Retail Park development on the basis of a planning permission in principle for a Foodstore is flawed and the legality of this is questionable. • The retail park development has not been subject to any sequential assessment as required by SPP. • There are a number of sequentially preferable locations that could accommodate the proposals in a similar format to that now proposed. The Town Centre can accommodate the proposed retail park development either through new build or through the re−organisation of existing units • The proposals are contrary to the Development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy in that the sequential assessment has not been carried out and for the fact that there are sequentially preferable locations that could accommodate the proposals. • No retail impact assessment has been carried out in relation to a comparison goods proposal. The MSC application relies on a retail impact assessment associated with a Foodstore. • The MSC application details indicate that this is a radically different proposal to that submitted and approved by the council at the PPP stage in 2014. There are concerns that the principle of what is before the council now and its potential to impact upon CTC has not been previously considered by the council. The new scheme is to all intents and purposes, a non−food retail scheme which will have a vastly different impact upon shopping habits in the area than the previous supermarket proposal. • The supporting retail statement which accompanied the PPP application spent little or no time considering the implications of the non−food element of the scheme. • The council's Reasoned Justification for approving the original PPP states that the proposed supermarket would be of benefit to the local area and could be developed without detriment to the Network of Centres. The current scheme does not include any proposed supermarket and the scheme currently proposed would have a detrimental impact on the network of centres, and by offering rental incentives and easy access parking will take both trade and retailers away from CTC and further competition from new out of town development will be severely detrimental to CTC. • The new scheme should a have been screened under Regulation 28 of the EIA Regulations. Whilst a EIA Screening Opinion was sought by the former applicants in 2012, (prior to the 13/00862/PPP application) it is considered that the new scheme could generate additional environmental impacts not previously considered such as increased traffic generation, variable socio−economic impacts and changes to the built environment could be affected if, as is likely town centre traders were to move location to a new out of centre development. As such the council is legally obliged to adopt a Screening Opinion under Regulation 28(2) of the EIA Regulations. The objector refers to case law to demonstrate this requirement. It is also stated that as a bare minimum the council should seek a Transport Assessment and Retail Impact Assessment from the developer before it could reach a view on whether the new retail park proposals are EIA Development. • Conflicts with existing planning permissions in place. • Conflicts with Minute of Special Meeting of Full Council which gives clear prominence to the instruction that "the supermarket be developed first, in advance of any other element of the overall development." This direction gives clear prominence to the supermarket (and its very distinct type of retail floor space and operator) as the main element of the proposals. • The decision of Full Council to grant planning permission in principle was taken explicitly on account of a major supermarket being proposed and Morrisons was the specifically named operator of a 5,453 sg m Foodstore. • Condition 1(a) of the both PPP 13/00862/PPP and PPP 14/01883/AMD states that further details of "the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed Foodstore, petrol filling station, commercial buildings and other structures would be required. This further clarifies the main element of the extant PPPs with petrol filling stations typically accompanying large format food stores. The largest retail unit now proposed (unit x 1,549 sq.m could not accommodate a major single user supermarket of the nature previously considered acceptable to the council and as such the current proposals cannot be brought forward in its current form and are procedurally flawed in this respect. • There new retail park scheme has not complied with the Sequential Approach otherwise it would have been highlighted that this new retail park format could easily be accommodated within the Westway Retail Park which has approval for a further 17,957 sq m of retail development floor space that has yet to be constructed. • The current application for the retail park format of development has not been subject to appropriate quantitative assessment and justification for such major levels of comparison goods floor space. No impact assessment appears to have been undertaken to justify any stand alone comparison goods retail floorspace. • Westway Retail Park will suffer significant adverse impact and detriment to its ongoing vitality and viability if the retail floor space as proposed is approved. It is clear that the current proposals simply replicate what is already approved and available within sequentially preferable locations (ie Westway Retail Park) • There is an ongoing perception in the retail market is that the supermarket PPP consent at Westfield could be reworked to deliver an alternative retail development has for some time undermined attempts to attract active retailers would could assist with the revitalisation of Westway Retail Park. As such it is imperative that a strong signal is sent out the planning policy is being followed, to provide more certainty in the local market where development should be directed, that is at appropriate locations within the defined network of centres as this would improve efforts to regenerate Westway Retail Park and CTC.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The council has previously granted Planning Permission in Principle for a large single user supermarket development at this site. The Council's decision to grant permission in principle 131008621PPP, (subsequently amended under s42 by PPP 14/01883/AMD) was taken following consideration of supporting information which focussed on the likely impacts of a large single user supermarket development at Westfield. On the basis of the supporting information (this included a Retail Impact Assessment) for application 13/00862/PPP, the council considered that a large single user supermarket would be of benefit to an area of increasing population which is currently poorly. served by major retail facilities and that such a supermarket could be accommodated without detriment to the Network of Centres given the scale of the town of Cumbernauld and the expanding population therein. The council also took into account representations from the local community (including residents and businesses) which offered support for the provision of a large single user supermarket such as Morrison's at this site. The developer's initial Pre−Application Consultation with the local community (which informed the required PAC Report submitted with application for PPP ref. 1 3/008621PPP) also focussed on the provision of a large single user supermarket by Morrisons.

8.2 The existing Planning Permission in Principle 13/008621PPP (as amended) is for a large single user supermarketnon−retail and 2 smaller ancillary detached units (that may be utilised for either retail or for uses). The current detailed submission of Matters Specified by Condition includes a site layout plan of a retail park development comprising of a large block of 7 separate retail units which could be occupied by a range of food and non−food retailers which could potentially have further impacts on the vitality, viability and environment of the RTC 1 Centre Network over and above those retail impacts previously considered acceptable to the council under the 13/00862/PPP and 14/01883/AMD applications.

8.3 As the applicant has submitted an MSC type application, (rather than a fresh application in either PPP or FUL format), the council has not been in a position to request a full or even a supplementary Retail Assessment to enable the potential additional impacts from this larger and different type of retail development to be assessed against Policy RTC3 (Assessing Retail and Commercial Leisure Development), Instead, and under the current regulations covering MSC applications, the principle of the development cannot be revisited and therefore cannot be re−assessed under the terms of Policy RTC 3. As such the council could only then assess the basic building form and design details of the proposed retail park development under the terms of Policy DSP 4 (Quality of Development).

8.4 It is clear that the current proposals seek detailed planning permission for a retail park development that would be dominated by non−food retail uses operating from a block of 7 separate retail units. This is a significant change to the previous understanding by all parties including the council, its consultees and local community that a single user Morrisons supermarket would be constructed and operated by Wm Morrison Supermarket plc. It is considered that there is a significant miss−match between the type of development was presented/assessed and granted as an acceptable development at the PPP stage and what is now proposed at the MSC stage. Because of this mis−match the only reasonable decision would be to refuse permission. Moreover the nature and extent of the impacts from this new scheme are likely to be different from those in the approved scheme but the MSC stage is not the correct time to assess these. The applicant has chosen to provide support information on transport, updated ecology, noise and landscape details to mitigate environmental impacts from the amended scheme but has not included any update to the previous retail impact assessment previously nonconsidered−statutory) by the council at the PPP stage. The applicants have undertaken their own (ie a consultation with local residents (Appendix 5 of the Planning Statement includes feedback from a total of 38 returned questionnaires) who continue to support the proposed changes but whilst this reduced level of interest and support can be noted, no weight can be given until such statutory requirements are properly presented at a fresh PPP stage and not at any detailed MSC stage.

8.5 Whilst the council has been unable to re−assess the retail impacts at the MSC stage, it is noted that objections were raised by the respective agents acting on behalf of the owners of Cumbernauld Town Centre, Antonine Centre and Westway Retail Park. These objections highlighted the potential for this development to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality, viability of the existing network of centres. In this respect, and as previously noted, the council has been unable to assess and additional retail such impacts.at this MSC stage. It is not agreed that the applicant would have needed to seek any further EIA Screening Opinion from the council as the potential environmental impacts from a retail development on this site area were previously considered under 13/02024/EIASCR '(refer paragraph 4.1 above).

8.6 This revised proposal for a block of 7 units and 2 ancillary commercial uses (pub/restaurant and drive through coffees shop retail is considered to be a departure from the development previously approved in principle in terms of PPPs ref 13/00862/PPP and 14/01883/AMD (as amended). Any application for approval of matters specified in condition must be within the ambit or scope of the planning permission in principle and must not depart from this in any material way. Clearly the details provided by the new applicant set out a retail development that is materially different to that previously considered and given the increased scale and number of the retail outlets could have a significant impact on the vitality and viability of Cumbernauld Town Centre, Westway Retail Park and Neighbourhood and Local Centres which support a variety of businesses.

8.7 PreA −retailApplicationpark development of this nature and scale has not been subject to the statutory Consultation process requirements and has not been the basis of necessary consultation, assessment and agreement processes.. It is therefore considered that this incongruent detailed proposal (as submitted in MSC format) fails to meet the terms of the statutory Pre−Application Consultation process and is beyond the scope of the Planning Permission in Principle ref. 13/00862/PPP (as amended) and should therefore be refused permission.

9. Conclusions

9.1 Following consideration of the above it is clear that the retail park development now proposed does not benefit from either Planning Permission in Principle and it is therefore recommended permission be refused. Application No: Proposed Development:

1 6/00337/PPP Erection of up to 150 residential dwellings with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping and miscellaneous works (In Principle)

Site Address:

Site at Killmallie House, Hamilton Road (A725), Orbiston, Bellshill

Date Registered:

18th February 2016

Applicant: Agent: North & South Lanarkshire Development Keppie Planning Investment Trust Ltd. 160 West Regent Street Glasgow G2 4RL

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 014 Bellshili No letters of representation received. Harry Curran, Marina Lyle, Harry McGuigan

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development is considered to constitute inappropriate, incompatible and unjustified development in the Green Belt. The vehicular access to the site is inadequate to accommodate the volume of development proposed, and the proposed residential use is incompatible with the established leisure and recreational uses to the south at Strathclyde Country Park. The proposal is also premature in its submission prejudicing the emerging local development plan by undermining the plan making process in predetermining decisions taken on the emerging plan and should therefore be refused permission 0

V__'

Reproduced by permission of the I Planning Application: 161003371PPP I I Ordnance Survey behalf of on Name (of applicant): North & South I N North HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights Lanarkshire Development 4 Lanarkhire reserved. Ordnance Survey Site Address: Site North Of Strathclyde Council Licence number 100023396. I Country Park at KilImallie House and East Of Hamilton Road (A725), Orbiston, Bellshill.

Development: Erection of dwellinghouses with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping and associated works (In Princiole Recommendation:Reasons:−1. Refuse for the Following

The application is contrary to the Sustainable Location Assessment−of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012, policies DSP1, DSP2, DSP4 and NBE3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and Scottish Planning Policy, as the development is considered to be an inappropriate and unjustified form of development in the Green Belt, specifically resulting in an unacceptable erosion of the Green Belt, and Green Belt function at this location.

2. The proposed pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is sub standard in that there is no direct connection between the site and the public road, the existing road access is of inadequate width to accommodate the proposed volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed access would be usable during flood events. The development site also represents an unsustainable location with an over reliance on the private car and as such is contrary to policy DSP4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and the Scottish Planning Policy.

3. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the application site is free from flood risk and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy DSP4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

4. That the proposed residential use is incompatible with the established leisure and recreational uses within Strathclyde Country Park and in that and as such is contrary to policy DSP4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

5. That the proposed residential development is considered premature, as approval of this application would prejudice the emerging Local Development Plan by undermining the plan making process, predetermining decisions on the location of new residential developments central to the emerging Local Development Plan.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation, received 31st of May 2016 Protective Services (including Pollution Control), received 10th of March and 24th of May 2016 Environmental Services, Strathclyde Country Park Manager, received 24th of May 2016 Environmental Services, Greenspace Team received 6th of April 2016 Learning and Leisure Services, received 25 of May 2016 Transport Scotland, received 14th of March and 7th of April 2016 Strathclyde Passenger Transport, received 29th of April 2016 Scottish Gas Network, received 9 of January 2016 Scottish Water, received 301hof March 2016 Network Rail, received 3 I of March 2016 SEPA West, received 26th of February 2016 Planning and Transportation committee report of 27th January 2016, Local Development Plan: Mains Issues Report Sites Update Planning and Transportation committee report of 25th of February 2016, Development of 14 Houses, KilImallie House Hamilton Road (A725), Orbiston, BelIshill DPEA Planning appeal decision − 26 May 2016 Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Craig McIntyre at 01236 632500

Report Date: 3 June 2016 APPLICATION NO: 161003371PPP

REPORT

Site Description

1.1 The application site extends to 15.2 hectares (37.5 acres) and mainly comprises open, sloping grassland and some scrub woodland. It is located to the north and west of Strathclyde Country Park and east of the A725 Bellshill By−Pass, and is also bounded by a railway line to the north. One existing house, with stables, lies within the site. The vehicular access to the site is currently from a junction onto the A725; however, this is to be closed as part of the M74/Raith Interchange Improvement Works.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The application which is in principle proposes a new residential development of up to 150 dwellings accessed via a single track road (with passing places) from within Strathclyde Country Park which is being constructed by Transport Scotland following the closure of the existing direct access onto the A725. As well as the existing house within the site, this new road.provides access to 3 other houses at Douglas Park Cottages.

Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant provided the following technical reports and studies in support of their proposal:−•

Transport Assessment • Noise Impact Assessment • Air Quality Impact Assessment • Landscape Assessment • Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey • Pre Application Consultation Report • Planning Statement • Stage 1 Flood Risk & Drainage Assessment

3.2 The applicant proposes residential development of up to 150 dwellings on the site at this time as they are of the view that the land no longer contributes to the Green Belt setting of BelIshill, that there is a shortfall in the local housing land supply within the area, and that the site is effective and capable of being, developed to meet a perceived demand for housing at this location.

4. Site History

4.1 Significant planning history includes the following applications received at the site location:

Planning application 5/01/00180/OUT for mixed use development comprising commercial, office and residential uses (In Outline) on a 15.2 Ha (37.5 acres) site. The application was refused in December 2001 on the grounds of being contrary to national and local Green Belt policy, local housing, commercial, retail and town centre policies.

Planning application S/03/01336/OUT for mixed use development comprising Leisure and Residential land uses (In Outline) on a 15.2 Ha (37.5 acres) site. The application was refused in June 2004 on the grounds of being contrary to national and local Green Belt policy, local housing and retail policies and insufficient information regarding the impact on the trunk road network. The proposed development was submitted to the North Lanarkshire Development Plan, Call for Sites process (see ref 0001/14). The site was assessed and did not meet the assessment criteria for inclusion in the draft plan, as reported to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the report of 27th January 2016, Local Development Plan: Mains Issues Report Sites Update.

Planning application 15/02504/PPP for residential development comprising 14 residential plots (In Outline) on a 1.95 hectares (4.81 acres) site. The application was refused in February 2016 on the grounds of being contrary to national and local Green Belt policy, transportation and local housing policies. This application was subject of an appeal to the DPEA (ref PPA−320−2099). The appeal was dismissed by the Reporter on the 26 th of May 2016 and the refusal of the application was upheld.

Development Plan

5.1 This application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of both the Strategic Development Plan and Local Plan.

5.2 The site falls under Green Belt in the Spatial Development Strategy of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012.

5.3 The site is designated as NBE 3A Green Belt in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012.

6. Consultations

6.1 NLC Traffic & Transportation have noted concerns on the grounds of the unacceptable design capacity of the vehicular access to the site, poor pedestrian connectivity to Bellshill and that the road connects into the private (non adopted) road network within Strathclyde Country Park. They conclude that the development would not encourage sustainable forms of transport and as such it is contrary to the Regional Transport Strategy.

6.2 NLC Protective Services (including Pollution Control). Comments are given in respect to the need for various technical reports and surveys to be submitted with regard to contaminated land, noise and air quality prior to the determination of the application.

6.3 NLC Strathclyde Country Park Manager, raise concerns regarding the developments negative impact on the operation and management of Strathclyde Country Park which would impact on the nature and number of events which could take place within the park, resulting in a detrimental cultural and financial impact on the Council.

6.4 NLC Greenspace Development Team raise concerns about the proximity of the development to a known badger set and bat roosts, the requirement for buffers to protect adjacent woodland, the retention and protection of linear environmental features, provision of wildlife friendly SUDS design and the removal of Japanese knotweed.

6.5 NLC Learning and Leisure Services, raise no objection. Comments relate to the impact of the development on local school capacities, concluding that there will be no detrimental impact and as such no need for a financial contribution towards schools provision at this time, however, if the development does not commence within 5 years then they would wish to review their position with regard to financial contributions.

6.6 Transport Scotland raise no objection. Clarification is provided regarding the closure of the existing vehicular access route onto the A725 and the route and design of the replacement vehicular access from within Strathclyde Country Park. Transport Scotland confirm that no pedestrian access is allowed on to the A725. 6.7 Strathclyde Passenger Transport object to the development on the grounds that it is poorly located with regard to public transport services, deficient in pedestrian links to Bellshill and the wider area and overly reliant on private car movements, as such it is contrary to the Regional Transport Strategy and the SPP.

6.8 Scottish Water, raise no objection. Comments relate to the presence of water apparatus and pipelines in the vicinity of the development site and the stand−off distance measures required to protect this apparatus and any adjacent residents.

6.9 SEPA West, raise no objection. Comments relate to the need for the development to adhere to standing advice and comply with current legislation. SEPA would normally be expected to comment on flood risk issues but have not done so given that further information on this matter is outstanding (see paragraph 8.17 below).

6.10 Scottish Gas Network, raise no objection. Comments relate to the presence of a High Pressure Gas Transmission Pipeline : E44: Uddingston to Jerviston, in the vicinity of the development site and the stand−off distance measures required to protect this pipeline and any adjacent residents.

6.11 Network Rail, raise no objection. Comments relate to the need for conditions to protect the operational railway during and post construction in terms of vehicular access for maintenance, impact of drainage, safety fencingto stop trespass, proximity of planting re problems with leaf fall etc.

7. Representations

7.1 Following neighbour notification and a notice in the local press, no letters of representation were received.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with 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.

8.2 Development Plan: The Development Plan consists of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012 and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The application is of strategic significance due to the zoning of the site in the adopted local plan and indicative number of dwelling houses proposed.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012

8.3 The site forms part of the Green Belt under the Spatial Development Strategy of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012 (SDP).

8.4 The Spatial Development Strategy notes that the Green Belt is central to the sustainable planning of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city region and provides support to the positive action−orientated Green network programme (a pro−active approach to wider environmental improvement throughout the plan area). In terms of the Spatial Vision of the SDP, it highlights that the Green Belt is an important strategic tool with a significant role to play in achieving key environmental objectives by directing planned growth to the most appropriate locations, and creating and safeguarding identity through place−setting and protecting the separation between communities. The SDP goes onto consider that the review of Green Belt boundaries should be a priority of Local Development Plans so as to ensure those key environmental objectives are achieved.

8.5 Strategic Support Measure 10 'Housing development and local flexibility' notes that local authorities should continue to audit their housing land supplies in light of prevailing market conditions with a view to maintaining an appropriate five years effective housing land supply guided by a defined sustainable location assessment, taking into account the vision of both SDP and local development plan.

8.6 The SDP also considers known demand and need, established in the Development Plan. It is the position that North Lanarkshire Local Plan identified the formal allocation of sites through due process and that any remaining shortfall should be addressed through subsequent reviews of the Development Plan (which offers a well considered planned approach), private sector houses on small sites or further windfall development (which this site is not considered to constitute), or through the assessment of applications for other sites which can be demonstrated as being acceptable in planning terms delivering within the development plan review cycle. In the case of the latter option, no evidence has been presented to indicate the effectiveness of the site, and it is not considered acceptable in planning terms for primary Green Belt reasons, and the arguments discussed below (9.3) are not considered to offer significant justification for a departure. It is therefore considered that the application is contrary to the Strategic Development Plan.

8.7 Turning to the Sustainable Location assessment of the development within the SDP (as contained within Diagram 4) it is considered that this development proposal is not in line with the spatial development strategy and does not support its spatial role or function. As noted in section 9.3 below, the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that there is known demand for the proposed housing. Accordingly in terms of Diagram 4 of the SDP, it is concluded that the site is not sustainable and there is no known demand/need for the site and therefore there is no scope to suggest that this may be an acceptable departure from the Spatial Development Strategy.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP)

8.8 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan zones the site as NBE3A Green Belt' and not part of any planned land supply.

8.9 Policy DSP1 'Amount of Development' is relevant, with specific reference to criterion B Potential additions to Planned Land Supplies due to the Green Belt status of the site. Additions to housing land supplies greater than certain thresholds outside identified sites require to be justified by demand assessments. Housing land supply as raised by the applicant in their supporting statement is discussed under 'prematurity' below. Notwithstanding the matter of land supply, development of the application site is not considered to be appropriate for other more important Green Belt reasons, notably effect on character of the Green Belt and the setting of Strathclyde Country Park. It is also considered that there are more appropriate ways of considering housing land supply, that is, through the cycle of the local development plan process. Not least as the applicant has not demonstrated specific demand for residential development within the site, there has been no substantive justification to demonstrate why this form of development cannot be provided on another appropriately zoned site within the urban area of BelIshill.

8.10 Policy DSP2 'Location of Development' further considers the strategic approach to development locations. Located in the Green Belt and not forming part of the strategic housing land supply (as set out in policy HCF2 'Promoting Housing Development and Community Facilities'), reference to criterion B: a Potential addition to planned land supplies' is relevant. This states that new development may be granted in the Green Belt, where they are consistent with locational criteria (maintaining clearly defined urban and rural boundaries) and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Green Belt development.

8.11 In this respect policy NBE3 'Assessing Development in the Green Belt' is also relevant. This defines acceptable forms of development in the Green Belt, including proposals necessary for agriculture, forestry, horticulture, telecommunications, renewable or appropriate outdoor recreation. Housing development, as proposed here, is inconsistent with policy NBE3. The associated SPG outlines the key purposes of the Green Belt as set out in Scottish Planning policy (SPP) as including directing growth to the most appropriate locations, and to protect and enhance the landscape setting and identity of towns. The applicant has stated that the effectiveness of the site as a Green Belt site no longer passes the tests as set out in National Planning Policy and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan, but offers no technical evidence to support this statement. As noted, this proposal is considered to result in the expansion of BelIshill towards Strathclyde Country Park, resulting in a significant effect on the character of the area and loss of an area of open farmland which contributes to the wider Green Belt function. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to policy NBE 3 assessing development in the Green Belt as well as DSP 1 and 2.

8.12 Policy DSP3 'Impact of Development' assesses proposals in terms of their impact on the economic, social and environmental infrastructure of the Community. In broad terms, it is accepted that in technical terms, the development could be developed with acceptable impacts, subject to consideration of a detailed application.

8.13 Policy DSP4 Quality of Development' states that development will only be permitted where high design standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Developments are also required to integrate successfully into the local area avoiding harm to neighbouring amenity and adverse impact on adjacent properties. The provision of roads, access and parking also requires to be assessed.

8.14 In terms of visual impact, the applicant has not provided any statements or supporting technical information to suggest how the proposed housing will be located/sited within the exposed site which is visible from a wide area. Other than a general statement that the 150 houses will be a mix of detached and semi detached properties the applicant has not provided any information as to the scale, form and massing of the proposed houses or how they will sit within the landscape. In the absence of any draft housing layout, the impact of known constraints on the development; the A725 and the Rail Line, cannot be measured or understood which may have an impact on the developable area and potential capacity of the site. I would contend that development of the site will inevitably erode the rural appearance and rural connectivity of this open and exposed site; especially given the need for a 3.7m high continuous close boarded acoustic fence on the north western boundary of the site to mitigate noise from the A725 (see 8.15 below). This will result in a marked visual change to the character of the Green Belt the setting of Strathclyde Country Park and the southern gateway to BelIshill. The detrimental impact on the visual prominence of the site would justify preventing development, as it would actively contribute to a loss of open farmland and reduce the separation between local settlements, and in this respect it is considered that landscape character in a broader sense would be significantly altered.

8.15 Given the proximity to the A725 and the trunk road network Protective Services requested Air Quality Impact Assessment and Noise Impact Assessment reports so they can determine the impact on the development and any mitigation measures which would need to be provided by the developer. Protective Services are satisfied with the findings of the Air Quality Assessment report. The findings of the Noise Impact Assessment indicate that mitigation measures are required to control the traffic noise from the A725 and the west coast main line. The main mitigation is the requirement to provide an acoustic fence along the north western edge of the site, at a minimum height of 3.7m, the effect of this acoustic fence is to enclose the development in a vertical wall, closing it off from the, open landscape and creating a marked change in the character and setting of the site. The need for the fence will make the development look very urban and completely change the character of the area.

8.16 The applicant proposes that the vehicular access to the site be from the new access road which is being provided by Transport Scotland as part of the M74/Raith Interchange upgrade. Transport Scotland intend to stop off the existing junction which provides direct vehicular access onto the A725 and replace it with a new single track road with passing places which connects into the internal road network within Strathclyde Country Park. Transport Scotland have confirmed that the replacement road has been designed to accommodate the traffic flows generated by the 4 properties which use the existing junction onto the A725, it has not been designed to accommodate the traffic flows generated by the proposed 150 additional residential properties. The principle of up to 150 residential properties being accessed from a single track road (with passing places) is unacceptable to Traffic and Transportation who have stated that the road would have to be constructed to an adoptable standard (5.5m wide carriageway, 2.Om footway to one side, turning circle, sightlines etc.). In addition the traffic flows generated by the proposed development would also have a detrimental impact on the road network within Strathclyde Country Park which is not part of the adopted roads network and is not maintained by the Roads Authority. The applicant hasalso failed to demonstrate their ability to control the land between the application site and the adopted road network, which is some way remote from the site. The road network between the application site and the adopted road network is a private road owned and maintained by NLC, any requirement to upgrade this private road network to adoptable standards would have to be via agreement with NLC and any costs borne by the developer.

8.17 In terms of flood risk, a small part of the southern edge of the site is identified by SEPA as being at risk of flooding. Also, the area south of the site (in and around where the site access is located) is within an area identified by SEPA as having high/medium risk of flooding. The applicant has submitted a stage 1 flood risk report. The report states that there may have been flooding events on the site in recent years and that this should be investigated further. The report does not address the possibility of the access road being unusable due to flood events. The applicant originally stated that further flood information would be submitted to accompany the planning application. However, this information was not forthcoming and the applicant has now asked that the application be determined on the basis of information currently available.

8.18 Drawing together consideration of the North Lanarkshire Local plan, it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to policies DSP1, DSP2, DSP4 and NBE3, for reasons relating to housing land supply and demand, inadequate vehicular access with over reliance upon the private car, potential flood risk and unacceptable impact on the open character of the Green Belt. Accordingly, given this conclusion and the assessment of the SDP in earlier paragraphs, it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan and must therefore be refused planning permission unless material considerations suggest otherwise.

9. Material Considerations

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)

9.1 SPP provides general principles by which Scottish planning policy and other land use matters should be assessed. The purposes of Green Belts include directing growth to the most appropriate locations and to protect and enhance the quality, character, landscape setting and identity of towns. It notes that Green Belt designation should provide clarity and certainty on where development will and will not take place. The Council has expressly defined Green Belt boundaries within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and has very clear related policies on acceptable Green Belt proposals. The nature and extent of the development proposed here is contrary to those policies and therefore, the SPP.

9.2 SPP indicates that 'where a proposal would not normally be consistent with Green Belt policy, it may still be considered appropriate either as a national priority or to meet an established need if no other suitable site is available'. No component of the proposed development could be justified as an overriding national policy in terms of established need and an effective short term housing land supply has been identified by the development plan process, subject to periodic review (currently in progress), as such, this is not considered to be an appropriate site, with more appropriate ways of addressing this matter as identified through the North Lanarkshire Local Plan examination process.

Prematurity

9.3 In response to the applicant's comments on Housing Land supply, the planning service would maintain that this is a strategic matter to be addressed appropriately through the Development Plan process, rather than incrementally through planning applications considered contrary to the development plan, not least as the dissolution of programmed housing land supply does not require an instantaneous approach. Housing land Supply conditions will always vary in time and even where there is an interim identification of short fall, this could be towards the end of a plan period with no immediate matter to be resolved. Ultimately, shortfall in housing supply is a matter for the Development Plan to address and it is noted that a submission has been made by the applicant to that effect. The council is currently considering many such submissions and requires to deal with these consistently on all matters, including land supply. It should also be noted that the latest agreed Housing Land Audit is 2014. Over the effective period, 2,982 houses are programmed in the Motherwell Housing Sub Market area. The Private Annual Housing Requirement set out in the Main Issues Report of the current plan cycle is 369, giving rise to a figure of 2,583, representing a surplus of 399 units. This contradicts the applicant's claim of a housing land supply shortage.

9.4 As part of the emerging Local Development Plan process, the council has asked developers to suggest suitable development sites and this is commonly known as "Call for Sites". As part of this process, the applicant has submitted this site for consideration in comparison to a number of alternative sites and assessed against agreed criteria. The submission to the Call for Sites" enables the site to be considered consistently and strategically in terms of the development plan process and the wider area. Committee considered a report on the Call for sites in February 2016 and this site was not included in the list of sites to be incorporated into the forthcoming Local Development Plan as it did not score favourably against the assessment criteria.

9.5 It is acknowledged that national policy accepts that in some circumstances coalescence may create a more sustainable settlement pattern. However, it was also highlighted that Green Belt designation can otherwise be used to retain the existing character around settlements, and the conclusion to retain the site within Green Belt is firmly consistent with SPP. On balance any decision to support development on this site which would impact on the Green Belt and the setting of Strathclyde Country Park should essentially be a strategic one, to be addressed either in an overall review of the Green Belt, or in a Local Development Plan.

9.6 Planning history is a material consideration. As noted above, part of the site has been refused permission at appeal on 27 May 2016 for 14 houses (planning ref 15/02504/PPP). In particular, the reporter agreed with the council's case that the development was contrary to the development plan and that there were no material considerations to suggest why permission should be granted. In particular, the reporter concluded that the development would harm the function of the Green Belt at this location, that the development would have inadequate access and that an approval would be premature in light of housing supply within the area. These matters all apply to the consideration of this application and the reporter's decision weighs further in favour of refusing the planning application under consideration. 10. Assessment of Consultation Responses and Representations

Consultation Responses

10.1 In respect to matters raised through consultation responses not already addressed in this report, the following comments are given:

10.2 NLC Traffic & Transportation noted that the design capacity of the proposed vehicular access was unacceptable and that it would have to be constructed to an adoptable standard. The site is poorly connected to the pedestrian network and access to facilities within Belishill is limited. They also noted that the new road links into the local road network within Strathclyde Country Park which is not part of the adopted road network and as such not maintained by the Roads Authority.

10.3 Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive concluded that the proposed development is incompatible with the Regional Transport Policy and the SPP which states that planning permission should not be granted for significant travel generating uses at locations which would increase reliance on the car and where direct links to local facilities via walking and cycling networks are not available or cannot be made available, access to local facilities via public transport networks would involve walking more than 400m; or the transport assessment does not identify satisfactory ways of meeting sustainable transport measures. The transport assessment confirms that the nearest bus stop is 1.5 km away from the site, that the pedestrian route to public services at Bellshili is via the sub standard recreational footpath network through the adjacent Country park (> 1Km to the north) and that the sites location makes the provision of a bus service unviable. The Reporter in the recent appeal for a smaller development on the site concluded that in terms of accessibility the site is clearly unsustainable.

10.4 The manager of Strathclyde Country Park (SCP) has raised significant concerns about the impact of the development on the operation and management of the park. The use of the SCP private road network to access the development site may result in increased operational costs for the maintenance of the private road network. The proposed development may also lead to requests from residents for the Council to upgrade the road and path network within the park to adoptable standards, both of which present a significant cost to the Council, however, the Park Manager has no Capital Budget to maintain/upgrade the road and path network. The use of the SCP private road network to access the development site may result in difficulties in managing major events within SCP as it would be difficult to control vehicular access to the park (e.g. for the annual Fireworks display) if you can't close the road as the park requires to be closed off to all vehicular traffic during major events. The site adjacent to the Caravan site is also used for equestrian events and music events, any increase in traffic around this site would cause problems for future bookings leading to a loss of Park revenue. The development of residential properties in such close proximity to SCP may impact on the number and type of events that can be held within the park, as residents could complain about noise from events and environmental legislation is such that they have to favour the resident over the event. Land immediately to the south of the application site has been used by a flying club for many years, the DoE advise an exclusion buffer zone of 500m from the point of launch to the nearest house for model aircraft and that is why they use an area so secluded from housing. The access road to the development cuts through an area which the Caravan and Camping Club have the intention to develop in the future as an expansion of the camping facilities. In conclusion the development would have a negative impact on the operation and management of Strathclyde Country Park which could impact on the nature and number of events within the park, resulting in a detrimental cultural and financial impact to the Council.

10.5 Protective Services have raised a number of concerns relating to the presence of contaminated land, noise pollution from the A725 and rail line and air quality issues from the A725. To date the applicant has provided technical reports to allow the Air Quality and Noise Impact issues to be assessed and for mitigation measures to be identified. Protective services are satisfied with the reports and the proposed mitigation measures, albeit the requirement for a 3.7m high acoustic fence along the north western edge of the development will have a significant impact on the open aspect of the Green Belt and the setting of the southern approach to Belishill. The submission of technical reports relating to contaminated land is still required but could be dealt with through planning conditions attached to any permission should Committee approve the application.

10.6 In terms of the other consultation responses received, it is considered that the outstanding matters which have not been covered earlier in this report could be suitably addressed by way of planning conditions attached to any permission should Committee approve the application.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Drawing all these factors together, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan as it constitutes inappropriate and unjustified development in the Green Belt, specifically by virtue of the detrimental impact on the setting and operations of Strathclyde Country Park, resulting in a material character change to the setting of BélIshill. Despite the applicant arguing that there are material considerations in favour of the nature of the development proposed, the case made is not supported in planning terms by the policy of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan; both in respect to housing land supply in general, and specifically in regard to the site in question. The application is also premature in that it seeks to pre−empt the due process of the Local Development Plan.

11.2 In conclusion, there are major planning policy issues (SPP, SDP and Local Plan) that this proposal fails to satisfy, and the applicants have failed to provide a satisfactory justification for their development in the Green Belt. This position has been supported by the DPEA Reporter; who dismissed the recent appeal relating to 14 houses on the site, who concluded that the principle of residential development on the site was unsustainable and did not comply with the Development Plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused. Application No: Proposed Development:

1 6/00356/AMD Variation of planning permission 97/00525/FUL to allow deliveries to supermarket between 0500 and 2300 Site Address:

Wm Morrisons Gartlea Road Gartlea Airdrie MI−6 9JL

Date Registered:

24th February 2016

Applicant: Agent: Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc Peacock And Smith Suite 9C Leeds West Yorkshire LS3 lAB

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application No

Ward: Representations: 008 Airdrie Central 5 letters of representation received. James Logue, David Stocks, Peter Sullivan,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed application fails to demonstrate that the proposed variation to the delivery times for the supermarket adequately safeguards the amenity of nearby residential properties from noise disturbance. The development does not comply with the policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the use of the servicing area at night and early morning would have an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents in terms of noise pollution and disturbance.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:

The proposal does not comply with policies RTC 3B and DSP 4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the use of the servicing area late at night and at early morning would be detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding residential area by virtue of the adverse impacts associated with the servicing arrangements of the supermarket in terms of increased noise and disturbance.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Traffic & Transportation received on the 23rd March 2016 NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received on the 9th March 2016

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Suzanne Cusick at 01236 632500

Report Date:

27th May 2016 APPLICATION NO 16/00356/AMD

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site contains an established supermarket, service delivery area, ancillary car parking and petrol station closely abutted on the northern side by a sheltered housing complex (Gartlea Gardens) and to the east by residential properties. The Airdrie rail line separates residential properties south of the site on Broomfield Street and the application site. Gartlea roundabout is to the west and Airdrie Sheriff Court is immediately northwest. The service delivery area is located at the east part of the site.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Planning permission was granted to Safeway Plc for the use of the service area of the supermarket between the hours of 0700 − 2200 in April 1998 (97/00525/FUL). Since then the ownership and operation of the store has transferred to Morrison's. The proposal under consideration is a further application to amend the terms of the planning permission 97/00525/FUL to allow deliveries to the service area between the hours of 0500 − 2300 seven days a week. The applicant has indicated that they would make two deliveries at 5am and 5.45am Wednesday to Saturday and one delivery at 5am Sunday to Tuesday. There would be one delivery every evening at 1030pm.

3. Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 A supporting statement was received outlining the proposed development. The statement provided information on the project, location of the application site, the relevant planning policy, planning history of the site and the purpose of the proposed development. The report set out the applicant's stance on the planning policy issues relating to the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and the economic benefit of the proposed development. The applicant advises that the store could open 24/7 as there no restriction on the opening hours, the nearest dwellings are on Adams Avenue and as the store is within a defined town centre residents living close to town centre uses occasionally expect an element of noise disturbance. With regards to the economic benefit the reports states the proposal would result in an efficient delivery process, reducing journey times/fuel consumption and in terms of a social dimension the store would be an accessible local service to the community providing goods when the store opens. The report concludes that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity and is considered sustainable from of development. A statement was also supplied outlining the Quiet Deliveries Scheme designed to minimise disturbance to neighbours which the supermarket has introduced elsewhere in Scotland. This comprises a range of measures including making access roads free from obstruction for delivery vehicles, reminding drivers to avoid unnecessary engine revving/manoeuvring, engines are switched off, radios are not too loud, reversing alarms and refrigeration units are switched off, latches/bolts on delivery gates are properly maintained, signage is erected to ensure personnel avoid noise, pallet trucks and dock levellers are used correctly and that the store maintains good communication with neighbouring residents to ensure issues are addressed

4. Site History

4.1 Application 93/338 granted on 31st January 1994 for the erection of a supermarket, petrol station and formation of car parks and service yard (condition 12 restricted hours of delivery to between 0800 and 1800)

4.2 Application 95/05093/FUL granted. on 15th February 1996 for the use of service area of superstore between hours 0700& 1800

4.3 Application 97/05525/FUL granted on the 8th April 1998 for the use of service area of superstore between hours of 0700−2200 (amendment to planning consent 95093)

4.4 Application 07/00722/FUL refused on the 21st December 2007 for the Non−Compliance with Condition (4) of Permission 97/525 (To Extend Use of Service Area for 24 Hours Access) 5. Development Plan

5.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

5.2 The site is located within an area zoned as RTC1A (Town Centres) which recognises that a healthy attractive town centre benefits from a variety of uses but that retail is the main function and important that proposed development within such areas are ancillary to the retail use within Town Centre locations.

6. Consultations

6.1 NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) advised that the Noise Impact Assessment received did not contain the sufficient information to measure the impact of the proposed development on the dwellings at Adams Avenue and the sheltered housing complex on Gartlea Gardens. As a result Protective Service (Pollution Control) advises the proposed development is likely to have a significant adverse impact on these residential properties and as no noise mitigation measures within the report are proposed confirm their objection to the application.

6.2 NLC Traffic and Transportation have no objection to the application.

7. Representations

7.1 Following the neighbour notification and press advertisement process there were five letters of representation received. The objections can be summarised as followed:

• The location of the development is adjacent a residential area and would not be in keeping with the Community Plans vision for the area. The application is a Bad Neighbour Development and contrary to policies DSP 1 − 4.

• The proposal will interrupt night sleeps due to light and noise pollution impacting on long term health of neighbouring residents.

• The NLC Noise Abatement officer is currently investigating noise issues of another property adjacent the site.

• Morrison's are unable to meet the existing noise standards and have recently breached the existing delivery arrangement on several occasions. Deliveries to the store are very noisy with no acoustic fencing in place. The noise concerns that have been raised with the store manager have been dismissed and there have been no efforts by applicant to discuss noise concerns with neighbours prior submission of the application.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with 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. The proposal raises no strategic issues and as such requires to be assessed against Local Plan Policies. In this instance the North Lanarkshire Local Plan is relevant.

8.2 As mentioned above the site is located within an area zoned as RTC1A (Town Centres) which seeks to protect and promote the town centres as vibrant attractive areas with a continuing focus on retail as the main function.

8.3 The proposed extended delivery hours are considered Bad Neighbour Development' and must also be assessed against the criteria of policy RTC 3B (Bad Neighbour Development). RTC 3B only allows developments that would not have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding properties and takes account of the cumulative impact of such developments. 8.4 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires that all proposed developments are assessed against DSP policies; DSP 1(Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). In this instance, due to the scale and nature of the development, the proposal will be assessed against DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Under policy DSP4 development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Proposals will need to demonstrate that the proposed development suitably integrates into the wider area in terms of scale and design, road network and would not result in an unacceptable impact on the quality of the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

8.5 Therefore the key issues in the assessment of this application is whether the extended service delivery hours would be compliant with the criteria of the above local plan policies in terms of its operation within a town centre as well as the use and impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of noise pollution and disturbance.

8.6 The application site is a large retail store within Airdrie Town Centre and the proposed development may be considered an ancillary' economic benefit to the function of the store. In principle the proposed extended delivery hours would accord with the criteria of policy RTC1A.

8.7 As mentioned above policies RTC 3B and DSP4 provides that proposals should not conflict with nearby land uses and should be compatible with the amenity and wellbeing of the area. The site is zoned as Town Centre however it also borders an established residential area with dwellings 5 metres east and a sheltered housing complex 13 metres to the north of the delivery area. As noted above in paragraph 2.1 the proposed additional deliveries to the store would be very early in the morning and late in the evening. The noise from the delivery process would include opening and closing gates of the site, engines of the vehicles, opening and closing of lorry doors, unloading goods and their movement across the yard. It is therefore likely that the noise levels of the delivery process would bring unacceptable conflict with resident's amenity especially if residents with bedrooms facing the service yard sleep with their windows open. Although the application does not propose any physical works the proposed early morning and night time activities to the site represent an intensification of the use of the site which could severely impact on the amenity of these neighbouring properties through noise pollution and disturbance.

8.8 As noted above in paragraph 6.1 NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) has examined the NIA report confirming the studies failed to fully measure the impact of the deliveries on the neighbouring dwellings and that numerical findings did not irrefutably confirm the noise impact would be of an acceptable level. Protective Service conclude the proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings and as no noise or light mitigation measures were proposed object to the application. Following discussions the applicant confirmed the required information would not be submitted and they wished the application to be assessed as submitted. However they did suggest that planning permission could be granted for a trial period of 12 months in conjunction with the 'Quiet Delivery System' process the principles of which are outlined in paragraph 3.1.

8.9 The delivery aspect is clearly important to the applicant given the previous applications to extend the delivery hours and the applicant's willingness to seek temporary planning permission. The applicant also highlights that other supermarkets close to residential properties have addressed noise issues by means of a temporary planning permission and the proposed 'Quiet Delivery System'. However they did not stipulate which stores or if any of the stores were in North Lanarkshire. It is recognised that trading trends have evolved with many retailers opening earlier in the morning and later in the evening often requiring out of hour's deliveries to ensure the store is sufficiently stocked prior the store opening hours. However although the proposed delivery hours may assist the function of the stores operation the delivery arrangements of other supermarkets is not relevant to the assessment of this application. Each planning application is assessed on its own merit based on the relevant local plan policies, the planning history of the site and the impact on the immediate surrounding area.

8.10 With regards to the Quiet Delivery System, the various methods proposed relies on both the delivery drivers' compliance with each of the systems noise measures and if not the neighbouring residents suffering noise disturbance entering into dialogue with the store manager to resolve the matter or routinely informing NLC Protective Service of such noise issues for the duration of the temporary permission. A range of actions that the planning authority would be unable to measure or control by condition is required that ensure the Quiet Delivery System protects the wellbeing of the neighbouring residents from noise disturbance.

8.11 It is noted that all residents that would be most affected by the proposed development have all raised concerns that the proposed extended delivery hours would severely impact on their level of wellbeing in terms of noise nuisance. The Council sought to protect the amenity of these properties in 1995 by imposing planning conditions controlling the hours of delivery. In 1997 after two years of experience of the stores operation the Council agreed to extend the hours of deliveries to the store to between 7am and 10pm. However the subsequent 2007 application to further extend the delivery hours was refused as the applicant again failed to provide the required information demonstrate how the potential noise impact on the neighbouring dwellings could be mitigated. The Council will maintain their position until the applicant provides the information that demonstrates the extended delivery hours would not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings.

8.12 It is also acknowledged that there are no planning restrictions on the stores opening hours which could in principle operate 24 hours seven days a week. However customer access to the store is via the Gartlea roundabout west of the site and does not impact on the dwellings to the east of the site and the sheltered housing complex to the north. The stores opening hours are not relevant to the assessment of this application.

8.13 While the development has the potential to accord with local plan policy RTC1A and some noise from town centre activities are to be expected the applicant has failed to demonstrate the potential noise from the proposed development would not adversely impair the amenity of the residents sheltered housing complex and dwellings directly opposite the service delivery area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to planning policies RTC3B and DSP4 and granting the application temporary or otherwise would be detrimental to the wellbeing of those most affected by the development.

Representations

8.14 A summary in response to the comments received following neighbour notification and press advertisement process is as follows:

• The detailed assessment of the application against all relevant local plan policies is covered in part 8 of the report.

• The noise issues of the neighbouring site being investigated by NLC Protective Service is not relevant to this assessment of this application

NLC Protective Service (Pollution Control) advises no complaints have been received regarding noise from deliveries to Morrison's supermarket.

9. Conclusions

9.1 The principle of the proposed extended delivery hours located in a town centre area may be considered to comply with policy RTC1A. However the proposals impact on the amenity on the neighbouring residents in terms of noise pollution cannot be justified and is considered unacceptable and contrary to policies RTC313 and DSP4. It is recommended that planning permission is refused. Application No: Proposed Development:

1 6/00540/FUL Erection of 10 Flats with Amenity Areas & Associated Car Parking

Site Address:

162 − 164 Morningside Road Morni ngside Newmains MI−2 9QN

Date Registered:

9th March 2016

Applicant: Agent:

Mr D & Miss N Townsley Mr William Browning 71 Chapel Road W.S.Browning Morni ngside 11 Wellbuttslea Drive Newmains Kirkfieldbank MI−2 9QT ML11 9BF

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan:

Committee No

Ward: Representations:

019 Murdostoun 3 letters of representation received. Alan Clinch, Robert McKendrick, Nicky Shevlin, John Taggart,

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The impact of the proposed flats is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as they could be accommodated within the site without detriment to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area and the application is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Note to Committee:

If the Council are minded to grant planning permission, a Section 75 Legal Agreement is required in respect of developer contributions to facilitate improvements to local schools. )

\,

N

N\\ V1557\

S

v

Mmingside Key Paik\:v'

S N 1\

Le

NIN

OP

Planning Application : 16/00540/FUL Reproduced by permission or the Ordnance Survey on Applicant: Mr 0 & Miss N. Townsley +narkshire behalf of HMSO. © Crown cound Copyright and database right Site Address : 162 − 164 Morningside Road, Morningside, 2009. All rights reserved. Newmains, ML2 9QN Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Development: Erection of 10 Fiats with Amenity Areas and Associated Car Parking ProposedConditions:−That,

except for the requirements of conditions below or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the plans stamped approved as part of this permission.

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

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, including any modifications as may be required.

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

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, including any modifications as may be required.

For the avoidance of doubt, no fence or wall shall be erected between the dwelling and the road along the southern and eastern boundary.

4. That BEFORE the first of the flatted dwellings hereby permitted is occupied, the fences or walls approved under condition 3 above shall be erected to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate boundary treatment.

5. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, andinclude:approved−(a) in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall

details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, 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) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.

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

6. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

7. 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,of:−(a) and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection the proposed footpaths detailed on the approved plans; (b) the proposed parking areas detailed on the approved plans; (c) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas detailed on the approved plans; (d) the proposed fences to be erected along the boundaries detailed on the approved plans.

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

That before the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 7 shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity. 9. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a comprehensive site investigation report incorporating mineral stability issues shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice, such as BS 10175: The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required as part of the above report.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination.

10. That for the avoidance of doubt, any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 9 above, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination.

11. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority and shall be certified by a chartered civil engineer as complying with the most recent SEPA SUDS guidance.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater.

12. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 11 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant SEPA SUDS guidance.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution.

13. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, 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 satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

14. That before the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority; 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.

15. That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the location and design of the bin store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and prior to the occupation of the first flat the bin store as approved under the terms of this condition shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory waste disposal.

16. That notwithstanding the terms of condition 1 above, BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a revised site plan showing a 6.0 metre wide dropped kerb access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the first flat. Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

Note to Committee

Should the committee be minded to grant the proposal, the decision notice will not be issued until a Section 75 Agreement is signed between the Council and applicant for the payment of £1265 per flatted dwelling by the resulting developer towards upgrading facilities of schools within the catchment area.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

Memo from Protective Services received 14th April 2016 Letters from The Coal Authority received 7th & 19th April 2016 Letter from Scottish Gas Network received 5 April 2016 Letter from Scottish Power 12 April 2016 Email from Transportation received 241h May 2016

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01236 632500

Report Date:

6th June 2016 APPLICATION NO. 16/00540/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is 0.2ha of open space in a predominantly residential area fronting onto Morningside Road and previously containing two dwellinghouses. It is rectangular shaped and surrounded by housing to the front across Morningside Road and on either side with an area of open space to the rear. The levels drop downwards gently from north west to south east.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Permission is sought for two blocks containing a total of 10 flatted dwellings. The development would be two storey in height and each flat would contain two bedrooms with communal open space and parking. The position of the block to the rear of the site was amended during the process to ensure that the development met minimum window to window distances.

3. Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 No supporting information was submitted

4. Site History

4.1 There is no relevant site history.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The site is zoned as HCF 2 Al (Sites for (Short−term) Housing Development) and HCF 1A (Residential Areas) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012.

6. Consultations

6.1 The following consultees raised no objections:

• Protective Services subject to a site investigation. • Scottish Gas Networks. • Scottish Power. • The Coal Authority.

6.2 Transportation raised no objections subject to a dropped kerb access and made recommendations relating to pedestrian access and visibility.

6.3 Education have highlighted capacity problems at Morningside and St Brigid's Primary School and have requested a developer contribution ofl2,650 which equates to £1265 per unit.

7. Representations

7.1 Three letters of representation were received following the neighbour notification and press advertisement. The points raised can be summarised as follows:

i. No neighbour notification was received by one of the closest dwellinghouses and it is alleged that the applicant does not own all of the land within the site. ii. Neighbours would be affected in terms of overshadowing, overlooking and smells arising from the location of the bin store. iii. The area is described as semi rural and the site has been retained as open green space in the past as it provides environmental, ecological and recreational benefits to the local area and the development would result in flooding of neighbouring properties and an adverse impact on health and wellbeing. iv. Initial groundworks on the site have resulted in dust and noise pollution to neighbouring properties and the construction process will lead to additional disturbance. V. The development will devalue neighbouring properties. vi. The local road network is already congested and this part of Morningside Road is already dangerous, and, with site being in such close proximity to a school drop off area, the additional traffic as a result of the development will increase congestion affecting road safety in the wider area. vii. The land to the rear of the site is described as being an eyesore, and, whilst some locals appreciate that the site needs to be used for something, they would be opposed to this proposal if the condition of the adjacent site is not improved.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal raises no strategic issues and as such requires to be assessed against Local Plan Policies. In this instance the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 is relevant. The site is zoned as HCF 2 Al (Sites for (Short−term) Housing Development) and HCF 1A (Residential Areas). Policies DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development) are also relevant.

8.2 The proposal complies in principle with policies HCF 2 Al and HCF lA provided that it can be accommodated without detriment to residential amenity and subject to meeting the criteria of DSP 3 and DSP 4. DSP 3 considers the wider impact of developments on community facilities and infrastructure and if any contribution is required. Policy DSP 4 seeks to achieve a high quality of development by ensuring proposals integrate well in terms of design, scale and avoiding any adverse loss of amenity or increased disturbance whilst also considering any Transportation issues.

8.3 In terms of DSP 3, capacity issues have been identified at Morningside Primary School and St Brigid's Primary School and a developer contribution of £1265 per flatted dwelling is required towards upgrading facilities which will be formalised under a section 75 agreement, should committee be minded to grant the application.

8.4 With respect to DSP 4 a streetscene elevation shows that the two storey height, massing and design could be successfully incorporated into the local area without detriment. The proposal meets minimum open space and parking guidelines and has been amended to achieve minimum window to window distances. In addition, the height and position of the proposed blocks, along with their orientation to surrounding properties is such that it is not considered that the development would result in any adverse overshadowing. In terms of any Transportation issues the proposal meets parking guidelines and is acceptable subject to a condition that a dropped kerb access be incorporated. The development is of a scale that is not considered to have a significant impact on the road network. As such it is considered that the proposal can be accommodated at this location without detriment and therefore accords with HCF 2 Al, HCF 1A and DSP 4.

Representations

8.5 In response to the points raised i would comment as follows:

In terms of the neighbour notification, a notice was sent out to the relevant neighbour and with respect to any the dispute regarding ownership, this would be a legal matter and not a material planning consideration. With regards to the impact on overshadowing, as detailed above in paragraph 8.3 the proposal has been amended to achieve minimum window to window distances and is not therefore considered to result in a loss of privacy. In addition the proposal is not considered to significantly overshadow neighbouring properties. In relation to the bin store, it is not considered that the location of this would raise any adverse issues however a standard condition is proposed requiring further details of this to be submitted for approval. III The site is identified as a housing development opportunity and is not considered to have any special features that would preclude this development, and, in terms of drainage, the standard condition for this type of development is recommended. iv Any disruption to neighbouring properties from groundworks and construction would be temporary and is not a material planning consideration. V. The impact on property prices in the area is not amaterial planning consideration. vi. In terms of Transportation issues, as detailed above in paragraph 8.3, the proposal is not considered to generate significant volumes of traffic or have a adverse impact on congestion and road safety at this location. vii. The condition of the adjacent site and potential impact this may have on the desirability of this location for housing is not a material consideration.

9. Conclusions

9.1 In conclusion the proposal can be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding residential area and therefore accords with the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. Taking the above into consideration and notwithstanding the points raised by the neighbouring properties it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions and a section 75 Agreement. Application No Proposed Development:

1 5/02632/FUL Erection of 92 No. Dwellinghouses, Access Roads, SUDS and Landscaping

Site Address:

Former Strathclyde Hospital Site Airbles Road Motherwell

Date Registered:

11th January 2016

Applicant: Agent: Bellway Homes N/A Bothwell House Hamilton Business Park Caird Street Hamilton MO OQA

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 016 Motherwell West 41 letters of representation received Councillor Paul Kelly, Michael Ross & (33 in objection and 8 in support) Annette Valentine

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development is an acceptable departure from the relevant policies contained in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The proposed dwellinghouses can be accommodated without detriment to the character and amenity of the surrounding area and the proposed development will improve the visual amenity of this location.

Note to Committee:

If the Council are minded to grant planning permission, aSection 69 Legal Agreement is required in respect of off−site play provision at Duchess of Hamilton Park, Motherwell.

ProposedConditions:−That

the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls, roofs, windows, doors and downpipes shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

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

3. That before the development hereby permitted commences, the design, location and finishing materials for the fences, gates and walls shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter all fences, gates and walls shall be erected in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of appropriate boundary treatments in the interests of the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

4. Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 3 above and prior to development hereby permitted commencing on site, details of the proposed boundary treatments along Airbles Road, along site boundary with Duchess of Hamilton Park and on Crawford Street shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, unless agreed otherwise. The proposed boundary treatment design and materials shall seek to retain existing metal railings where possible and where new treatments are proposed, they shall be well considered to respect the Hamilton Road Conservation Area. Thereafter the boundary treatments at these specified locations shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition prior to the first dwellinghouse becoming occupied within the site.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity of the surrounding area.

5. That before any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175: 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required and a phasing plan for any identified remediation works shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any works taking place on site.

Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

6. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 5, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in accordance to be agreed in writing by the Planning. A certificate (signed by a Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior the first dwellinghouse hereby permitted becoming occupied confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

7. That prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in terms of the relevant CIRIA Manual and other advice published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater, and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site respectively.

That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 7 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse hereby approved confirming that the SUDS have been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard any adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents within the site.

That before the development hereby permitted starts, a phasing plan for all proposed earthworks within the site shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter as part of the initial groundworks phase of development and prior to the commencement of the construction of residential properties on site, a further flood risk assessment shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning authority, in consultation with SEPA, that the proposed culvert diversion (as illustrated by Drawing No. 15191−SK−19) demonstrates that it would have a neutral or better effect on flood risk in line with Scottish Planning Policy and complies with the principles of sustainable flood risk management.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development and surrounding land is not at risk from flooding.

10. That prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water can be fully met to demonstrate that the development will not have an impact on their assets, and that suitable infrastructure can be put in place to support the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory drainage arrangements.

11. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, andinclude:approved−(a) in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall

Details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, 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; in particular this should include a scheme for tree and shrub planting surrounding the play area and SUDS detention basin. (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. For the avoidance of doubt all trees shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations in BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction; (d) A detailed schedule for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site and completed before the first dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied.

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

12. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 11 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved schedule, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the last dwellinghouse becoming occupied, 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 amenity. 13. 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 continuingof:−(a) care, maintenance and protection the footpath to be constructed at the south western and north eastern boundaries; (b) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas; (c) the proposed SUDS area; (d) any communal fences and walls;

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity.

14. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 13 shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity.

15. Notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 11 and 26, a method statement shall be submitted to approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site in relation to the phasing of all earthworks in proximity to all trees to be retained as shown on drawing number SHSK/01 Rev Q. Thereafter all works specified to retained trees within the site as detailed in the tree survey by Caledon Tree Consultants dated January 2015 shall be undertaken by a qualified tree surgeon to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Throughout the duration of the construction works detailed in the method statement approved under the terms of this condition, a qualified Arboricultural Advisor shall be present to ensure that all trees shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations in BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction.

Reason: To ensure the on−going protection of the protected trees within the site.

16. That before the occupation of the dwellinghouses at Plots 1, 15, 22, 88, 89, 90 and 92, the acoustic mitigation measures identified Charlie Fleming Associates noise impact assessment dated 12th September 2015 and as shown on drawing numbers SH/SKI01 Rev 0 and TF AA(9) 002 shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and shall thereafter remain in situ at all times.

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the residential properties from external noise sources.

17. That no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the road and footpath adjacent to it have been constructed to basecourse standard and the road and footpath shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the construction phase.

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

18. That before the last of the dwellings hereby permitted is occupied, all roads, footpaths, footways and manoeuvring areas shall be completed to sealed final wearing course.

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

19. That before each of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all of the associated parking and turning areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained and surfaced in a material which the Planning. Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out. These areas shall thereafter be retained as such to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

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

20. That before any dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted is occupied, the following road improvement works shall be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority:

• the roundabout at the southern site access with its junction with Airbles Road shall be upgraded and constructed to a 28m lCD (Inscribed Circle Diameter) roundabout unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority, designed to the specifications of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. • a 2 metre wide footway shall be constructed along the section of Airbles Road between the site access roundabout and connecting to the existing footway network at Alexander Gibson Way.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory access/egress into the site and In the interests of road safety.

21. That a visibility splay of 4.5m x 60m shall be achieved and maintained to the right and left of the site access at Crawford Street. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, everything exceeding 2 metres in height above the road channel shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 2 metres in height above the road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interest of vehicular and traffic safety.

22. That before the development hereby permitted commences, details of site entrance features at the Crawford Street and Airbles Road site accesses as proposed in the Design and Access Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and thereafter shall be constructed in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse within the site.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the site and the general area.

23. That before the development hereby permitted commences, full details of the footpath at the north eastern boundary of the site connecting to Duchess of Hamilton Park as shown on drawing number shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall include surface materials and boundary treatments along the footpath link, Thereafter the footpath shall be constructed prior to the occupation of all dwellinghouses along the eastern boundary of the site.

Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian access to the site.

24. That should 12 months or more elapse between the timing of the initial ecological survey dated hereby approved, and development commencing, a further survey shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, the said survey shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the study, should any remediation measures be required for the relocation of any protected species, this shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of natural habitats and protected species.

25. That before the development hereby permitted commences, the applicant shall undertake pre−start bat and badger surveys of the application site to confirm if any bats and badgers are present and thereafter details of the findings of the surveys, including any mitigation measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, any mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of natural habitats and protected species.

26. That prior to commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Construction Method Statement shall cover:

• Details of the proposed phasing of all works; • Details of all on−site construction including means of access to the site and; • A dust management plan during the construction period:

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area to ensure that necessary contingencies are in place, to minimise Pollution risks arising from construction activities. Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Transportation received 29th February 2016, 271h April 2016, 24th May 2016 and SP Energy Networks received 12th April 2016 SEPA received 18th February 2016 and 27th May 2016 NLC Greenspace received 22 nd February 2016 NLC Protective Services received 11th February 2016, 27 th April 2016 and 24 1hMay 2016 Culture NL Play Services received 23rd March 2016. NLC Landscape Services received 5 1h February 2016 NLC Forestry Officer received 22d April 2015 and 31d May 2016 NLC Geotechnical Section received 201h January 2016 NLC Learning & Leisure received 8th February 2016 and 6th June 2016

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Heather Philp at 01236 632500

Report Date:

7th June 2016 APPLICATION NO. 15/026321FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site measures approximately 5 hectares and comprises of the former Strathclyde Hospital site, Airbles Road, Motherwell which has since been demolished. The site comprises of vacant land with large groups of mature trees protected by two Tree Preservation Orders throughout the centre of the site and along the northern, southern and eastern boundaries. The site is bounded by two storey residential dwellings to the north, east and west and two office buildings to the south, with only one of the office buildings currently occupied. The north east corner of the site also bounds Duchess of Hamilton Park. The housing to the north of the site is located within the adjacent Hamilton Road Conservation Area with Crawford Street to the north forming the boundary of the Conservation Area. There are currently two vehicular accesses to the site Airbles Road to the south from an existing mini−roundabout and from Crawford Street to the north. There is also a pedestrian connection in the south west corner of the site for pedestrian connections to Airbles Road. There is still evidence of the former hospital use with existing gate piers, entrance feature walls and railings located at the northern and southern entrances to the site. In terms of site levels, the site slopes gradually downwards from the north east part of the site to the south west.

Proposed Development

2.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for 92 dwellinghouses with associated roads, drainage infrastructure and landscaping. The applicant proposes to construct a mix of terraced, semi−detached and detached dwellings which would all be two storeys in height. The applicant proposes to use a palette of materials including reconstituted stone, render and concrete roof tiles and each dwelling will have a pitched roof. Access to the site would be taken from two upgraded access points on Crawford Street and Airbles Road respectively. The applicant proposes two footpath connections at the north eastern and south western parts of the site to ensure pedestrian routes remain accessible for members of the public, while also creating a linkage to the adjacent of Duchess of Hamilton Park. The applicant also proposes to construct a SUDS detention basin in the south western part of the site.

Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has submitted the following information in support of their application:

• Design and Access Statement • Pre−Application Consultation with the Community Report • Noise Impact Assessment • Transport Statement • Tree Survey • Flood Risk Assessment • Archaeology Survey

3.2 The Pre−Application Consultation report summarised the public event which was held on 12th August 2015 at Dalziel High School and publicised the event in the Motherwell Times.

4. Site History

4.1 15/020461PRD: Prior Notification for Demolition of Buildings issued 7th December 2015.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The site is zoned as Policy HCF1 Bi (Protecting Residential Areas and Community Facilities) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

5.2 Development Strategy Policies (DSP) 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also relevant to the proposal. 5.3 Policy NBE1a Protecting the Natural and Built Environment applies by virtue of Tree Preservation Orders within the site.

6. Consultations

6.1 SEPA originally objected to the application on flood risk grounds, however following the submission of additional information they have removed their objection subject to the imposition of a planning condition relating to investigatory work for the buried watercourse within the site.

6.2 NLC Transportation have no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to improvements works relating to both accesses at the northern and southern accesses to the site included an improved junction at Crawford Street and upgraded roundabout at Airbies Road. They also offered comments in relation to parking provision, street design and surface materials.

6.3 NLC Protective Services commented that they are satisfied with the findings of the submitted noise impact assessment subject to conditions relating to acoustic mitigation at affected plots. They also noted 'that a site investigation report would require to be submitted and approved prior to works commencing on site and that they are satisfied with the findings of the air quality impact assessment.

6.4 NLC Greenspace commented that they are satisfied with the submitted ecology report subject to conditions for further surveys if required.

6.5 NLC Landscape and NLC Forestry Officer are satisfied with the overall conclusions of the submitted tree survey including trees identified for removal and retention, the proposed works to the trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders and recommend that an Arboricultural advisor is present when earthworks are to be undertaken near to any trees to be retained.

6.6 Culture NL Play Services commented that a financial contribution towards off−site pay provision at the nearby Duchess of Hamilton Park in lieu of play provision with the proposed development. They advised that the financial contribution of £500 per house would be required which in total for this development would be £46,000.

6.7 NLC Learning & Leisure have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity within the local schools to accommodate additional pupils from this development. They have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional pupil provision within both local primary and secondary schools. With specific regard to the school roll of Dalziel High School, it has 954 pupils on its roll with 550 pupils located within the school catchment. Based on these figures, 42% of the school roll are placing requests. Learning & Leisure have noted given the high volume of placing requests to the local schools, it is anticipated that the placing requests would be reduced to ensure that local pupils in the catchment areas are given school places accordingly.

6.8 SP Energy Networks have no objections to the proposed and noted that there is an operational substation and underground cables within the vicinity of the site.

7. Representations

7.1 A total of 41 letters of representation were received in relation to this planning application following the neighbour notification procedure and press advertisement. A total of 33 letters were in objection to the proposal, including Dalziel High School and Ladywell Community Council. 8 letters have been received been received in support of the proposal.

7.2 Broadly the letters of representation can be summarised as relating to the following matters:

Objection:

Siting, Design and Layout of Proposed Development

a) The adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan identifies the site under Policy HCF1B as a community facility and it should be retained for community uses and not housing uses such as allotments or other such uses. b) The proposal is contrary to the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that there is no requirement for additional housing in terms of the Motherwell Sub Market Housing area in that the local plan has allocated suitable housing sites to accommodate the required housing for this particular area, and any such housing proposals should be directed to these locations rather than sites allocated for community facilities. The application should therefore be refused. c) The proposed site levels and positioning of the housing would adversely affect the privacy enjoyed at the housing at Malcolm Street. d) The proposed housing does not safeguard and enhance the character and appearance of the Hamilton Road Conservation Area with too many houses within an overdeveloped layout. Furthermore there, is inadequate information on boundary treatment to make an adequate assessment. e) The development would result in damage to nearby properties during the construction phase and should trees be removed from the site, subsidence may occur. f) The proposed layout should include more areas of green space into the development. g) The perimeter of the proposed housing should have a high fence of up 10 feet high to give privacy to neighbouring houses. h) The significant removal of protected trees and construction of housing would adversely affect the amenity, sunlight and daylight levels and privacy enjoyed at housing to the east of the site along Alexander Gibson Way.

Transportation Impacts

The proposed housing would result in additional traffic generation which would adversely affect the surrounding road network, the setting of Hamilton Road Conservation Area and together with the nearby Springfield Homes proposals on Tinkers Lane, the overall traffic numbers cannot be accommodated at this part of Motherwell. j) The proposals would adversely affect vehicular and pedestrian safety near to Dalziel High School on Crawford Street in terms of school pupils walking to school and being dropped off by parents. k) The proposed site layout linking Airbles Road to Crawford Street would result in a rat run' with vehicles using this as a through route to avoid traffic queues on Airbles Road. The developer did not show this proposal as part of the pre−application consultation with the community before the application was submitted. The proposed traffic from the development would cause more queues on Airbles Road and this would affect Emergency Services and they should be consulted on this application.

Other Impacts on the Local Area m) The site is currently used for anti−social behaviour activities and should housing be constructed at this site, such behaviour may move into local areas. n) The proposed development may result in flooding at properties in the local area. 0) The proposed development would result in excessive noise levels and detrimental air quality impacts adversely affecting the housing in Crawford Street and Alexander Gibson Way. The development would add to existing noise and air pollution within the Hamilton Road! Airbles Road area particularly with the increased tree removal and nearby Tinkers Lane housing proposals, recent Motherwell town centre works and Ravenscraig developments in the future. p) There is a large amount of wildlife within the site including bats which would be adversely affected by these proposals. q) There is not sufficient capacity within the local schools to accommodate additional pupils. r) The application site has many contaminants from the previous hospital use. s) There is not sufficient capacity in the local health services for residents of this development. t) The land was donated by the Duke and Duchess of Hamilton for the health and wellbeing of Motherwell residents and therefore information is sought on who owns the land and when did the land transfer to the Scottish Secretary of State occur.

Support

i. The proposed housing is welcomed in an area which is close to local transport links, school and amenities and it would be a benefit to local shops and communities. ii. The proposed housing would be a sympathetic development to the surrounding area providing a good choice of homes in Motherwell and addresses a lack of availability in the area and choice for first time buyers. iii. The proposed development would bring an area of vacant brownfield land into use including the upgrading of underground services to the benefit of the local area. iv. The proposed housing layout has been well thought out, would retain more trees than other housing sites and would enhance the appearance of this area of Crawford Street by removing litter and improving the poor condition of the existing railings. V. The traffic on Crawford Street relates to Dalziel High School and there are no queues of traffic outwith school hours. The traffic issues are matters for the high school to address and should not prevent the housing site being developed, similar to the traffic management approach at Knowetop Primary School and Our Lady's High School next to the Bellway and Cala Housing site at Dalzell Drive. vi. The site does not hold much wildlife value contrary to the objector's views and any wildlife would likely be found at Duchess of Hamilton Park or Strathclyde Country Park.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with 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. It is considered that the proposal raises no issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2012. As such, it can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The site is zoned under Policy HCF1 Bi (Protecting Residential Areas and Community Facilities) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP) with other relevant local plan policies including Development Strategy Policies DSP1−4 which include DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). Policy NBE1a Protecting the Natural and Built Environment applies by virtue of Tree Preservation Orders within the site.

8.2 The site is zoned under Policy HCF1 BI (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) seeks to maintain community well−being by protecting existing community facilities shown within the Plan area. In this case, the application site was formerly occupied by Strathclyde Hospital which has since been demolished. The site has largely remained vacant since the hospital closure the last building being demolished in December 2015 with the protected trees retained within the site. In terms of the surrounding area, the site is bounded by residential properties to the north, west and east and it should be noted that the residential area to the east of the site was previously part of the overall hospital grounds. While the proposal would result in the loss of community facilities site, the hospital is no longer at this location and therefore the protection afforded to this site in relation to protecting community well−being must be in turn be considered. In terms of this area of Motherwell, it is consideredwell−being. that the use of this site for residential purposes would not adversely affect community Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed residential development would integrate into this predominantly residential area without any significant adverse impacts with the adjacent housing and Hamilton Road Conservation Area and this is discussed in detail in paragraph 8.5 below. Taking the above into account, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policy HCF1 B.

8.3 The proposed development also requires to be assessed against Development Strategy Policies DSP1−4 which include DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). Given the previous site history and the scale and nature of the development, Policies DSP 1−3 would not be of relevance to this application. Given the scale of the development and the condition of the site is classed as an urban brownfield location, it is considered that the proposals do not exceed the threshold under the criteria contained in DSP1 for additions to the housing land supply. As such, the amount of development is therefore considered to be acceptable. In terms of Policy DSP2, the site is considered an urban brownfield site that would be brought into use through the residential development. As such, it is consistent with the NLLP's locational criteria. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies DSP1 and 2.

8.4 Policy DSP3 (Impact of Development) considers the impact of the proposed development in terms of its requirements for additional community facilities or infrastructure which is necessary to meet future demands on existing provisions. This policy requires developers to meet or contribute to the cost of providing or improving community facilities or infrastructure as a result of the additional demands arising from the proposals on its own or in conjunction with existing developments. In this instance, as noted previously, has NLC Learning & Leisure has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional pupil provision within local primary and secondary schools. Given the high volume of placing requests to the local schools, it is anticipated that the placing requests would be reduced to ensure that local pupils in the catchment areas are given school places accordingly. It is therefore considered that the proposed development accords with Policy DSP3.

8.5 Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes, and provides a range of assessment criteria which are addressed in turn below:

a. Design Principles Including Provision for the Development and Links to Nearby Green Networks

The applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement, site layout, detailed site levels and cross sections, housety5e elevations and associated Street Engineering Review in order to demonstrate the design principles of the proposed residential development. Together with appropriate and carefully considered building placement and shared and in−curtilage parking, the applicant has achieved a design which meets the principles of Designing Streets. Through landscaping and brick piers, building positioning, use of various road surface materials and shared surface areas linking from streets within the development, distinct spaces are proposed. In order to overcome the physical constraints within the site including protected trees and site levels, the applicant has designed the layout to utilise the areas of mature trees to both screen the site at the site boundaries but also create focal design features in the central parts of the site. In terms of the proposed design of the housing, it is considered that proposed design, scale and layout of each housetype proposed are acceptable with particular regard to no significant adverse impacts on adjacent housing and Hamilton Road Conservation Area, with a planning condition recommended to ensure the submission of the external facing materials prior to any works commencing on site. Overall it is considered that the proposed site layout design is acceptable in that it safely ensures vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the site. Given the physical constraints of the site including topography, protected mature trees and and existing utilities, the applicant has not provided any play facilities within the site. Culture NL Play Services recommend that a financial sum is provided to ensure the upgrade of play facilities at the adjacent Duchess of Hamilton Park and the proposed site layout includes a footpath connection to this Park to ensure suitable pedestrian access.

b. Safe, Inclusive, Convenient and Welcoming Development

In considering these criteria, the proposed access, parking and the impact of the proposal on the road network must be assessed. In terms of vehicular access to the site, the applicant proposes to use two existing accesses at the north and south of the site. The applicant has designed the layout to include loop arrangements to connect streets and there are also two pedestrian connections to Airbles Road to the south west and to Duchess of Hamilton Park in the north east corner of the site. The latter pedestrian connection would also residents within the site to safely access the upgraded play facilities within Duchess of Hamilton Park. NLC Transportation is satisfied that the proposed residential development can be accommodated without any significant adverse networks on the surrounding road network in terms of increased traffic generation. They also note that they are satisfied with the access proposals including any upgrading works on the public road network to be addressed through suitable planning conditions.

c. Energy Resources and Sustainable Development

The proposed residential development comprises of dwellings which would be built to the required energy efficiently standards. It is considered that the proposed development will reuse a vacant site and is therefore considered to be sustainable development.

d. Air Quality, Noise and Pollution Impacts

Following consultation with NLC Protective Services, no concerns have been raised in regard to air quality and ground conditions with a planning condition recommended for the submission of a site investigation report. Protective Services are content with the findings of the submitted noise impact assessment relating to the proposed housing however they have requested that the proposed acoustic boundary treatments are erected prior to the occupation of the identified affected plots. It is considered that this matter could be suitably addressed by way of a planning condition. e. Water Body Status

There is a buried watercourse within the northern part of the site which is aligned in an east to west direction. SEPA were consulted as result of the potential impacts on flood risk and the applicant submitted a flood risk assessment in support of their application. SEPA originally objected to the application on flood risk grounds, however following the submission of further supporting information, they have removed the objection and recommend that a planning condition is attached to any permission to ensure the submission of further details in respect of this watercourse prior to works commencing on site.

f. Impact on Local Amenity

The application site is located adjacent to neighbouring residential properties which lie to the west and south. There are existing mature trees within the site some of which are being retained in terms of their landscape value but also screen the site from neighbouring properties particularly in the north east corner of the site. In terms of policy relevant to Tree Preservation Orders, in considering the development as a whole and the trees to be retained, this is not considered to raise reason for refusal. The housing to the east and west would be suitably screened by fencing and a detailed scheme of boundary treatments for the site would be secured through an appropriate planning condition. In terms of the boundary treatments to the north and commercial properties to the south, the existing mature trees would sufficiently screen the housing from neighbouring properties. The applicant has submitted details cross sections and proposed site levels and following detailed assessment of the site layout, it is considered that there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings by virtue of overlooking, sunlight/daylight levels and privacy. In terms of the impact proposed construction works, a planning condition is recommended in respect of a construction management plan prior any works commencing on site. it is considered that the construction activity and any disturbance to residents would be of a temporary nature and not a reason to warrant refusal of permission in this case.

Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy DSP4

Other Material Considerations:

8.6 The national planning policy document 'Designing Streets' is a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. This policy document aims to create successful places through street design. As detailed in paragraph 8.5 above, the proposed site layout has been designed in accordance with the principles contained in this policy document through the use of shared spaces, careful building positioning and use of landscaping and brick piers to slow traffic speeds within the site layout. it is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with this national planning policy.

Consultations:

8.7 In terms of the other consultation responses received, it is considered that the outstanding matters raised by consultees could be suitably addressed by way of a planning conditions attached to any permission. In terms of the response from SP Energy Networks, an advisory note to the applicant is recommended in respect of impacts on their apparatus nearby. With regard to the consultation response from Play Services, it is considered appropriate for the financial contribution for the upgrade of off−site play equipment to be secured through a Section 69 Legal Agreement should planning permission be granted.

Representations:

8.8 In response to the grounds of representation, the respective responses should be noted:

Objection Comments:

a & b) As detailed in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 above, the proposed development is considered an acceptable departure from Policy HCF I B in that the proposed development would bring a vacant community site which no longer used or operates for this purpose. Given that the site is located within a predominantly residential area, it is considered that the proposed residential development would be an acceptable departure from this local plan policy. In terms of housing capacity, it is accepted that there are alternative allocated housing sites within the Motherwell area to meet the identified housing need for this area within the North Lanarkshire Local fllan. However in this case and to reiterate the above, this brownfield site has remained vacant for some time and given the adjoining residential uses, it is considered that additional housing would not adversely affect the surrounding area. The application is also considered to comply with Policies DSPI and DSP 2 as detailed in paragraph 8.4 above. c & d) Following detailed assessment of the site layout and accompanying plans, it is considered that the proposed site layout is of a high quality design in accordance with the principles of Designing Streets as set out in paragraphs 8.5 and 8.6 above. In terms of the proposed site levels in relation to adjacent properties, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts in terms of privacy enjoyed at these dwellings. In respect to trees and the contribution these make to local character, it is noted that for this, and other reasons, alterations to the application were negotiated which resulted in fewer houses, more trees being retained, a more acceptable aspect to Crawford Street and an enhanced layout overall. In respect to appropriate boundary treatments, condition 4 is specifically proposed to ensure a high quality of boundary treatment is incorporated. e) With regard to any impacts on nearby properties. during construction activities relating to the proposed development, construction is considered of atemporary nature and therefore not a reason to warrant refusal of permission. In respect of any damage, this would be a legal matter between the developer and the respective parties subject of any damge and therefore not a material consideration in this application. f) The proposed layout takes account of the existing trees within the site by including two central areas of green space with trees included. It is considered that the applicant has provided suitable amenity open space within the proposals which have successfully integrated the protected trees to be retained. Furthermore, the applicant proposes a pedestrian connection to Duchess of Hamilton Park to allow local residents to connect to this community leisure facility. Again, it is also highlighted that amendments were sought and achieved improving the layout and increasing tree retention. g) The applicant has stated that they intend to construct suitable fencing around the perimeter of the site which is considered acceptable, the details of which would be addressed by way of a planning condition to assess the height, type and design of the proposed boundary treatments. h) The proposed site layout shows that a number of protected trees along the eastern boundary of the site would be removed which align the boundary with the housing on Alexander Gibson Way. The applicant has carefully designed the housing and site levels to minimise any adverse amenity impacts on the housing. At the north east corner of the site, a Iare group of mature trees are being retained to ensure that privacy and amenity levels are maintained where there is the greatest difference in levels of 1.5 metres between the proposed houses and houses at Alexander Gibson Way. i, j & k) As detailed at paragraph 8.5 NLC Transportation content with the submitted transport , are assessment (TA) in that it has demonstrated that there would be no adverse impacts on the surrounding road network subject to improved access arrangements at the junctions serving the site at Airbles Road and Crawford Street which are recommended in a suitable planning condition.

I) Emergency Services are not consulted as part of th b planning application assessment as overall traffic management is the responsibility of NLC Transportation.i As noted earlier in this report, NLC Transportation is satisfied that the proposals will not result in adverse impact on the local road network.

m) The control of anti−social behaviour is not a matter that is controlled under planning legislation and is therefore not material to the assessment of this application. n) As detailed in paragraphs 6.1 and 8.5 above, SEPA were consulted on this application in terms of flood risk grounds and while they originally objected to the application, they have since removed this objection on overall flood risk grounds with a planning condition recommended that the applicant provide further details in respect of further details relating to the buried watercourse in the northern part of the site.

0) As detailed in paragraph 8.5, NLC Protective Services have reviewed the submitted air quality and noise impact assessments and are satisfied with the findings in that there would be significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area. A planning condition is recommended in respect of noise mitigation measures for specific plots within the site in terms of road noise mitigation from Airbles Road.

p) In terms of the impacts on local wildlife, the applicant submitted an ecology report which has been reviewed by NLC Greenspace. They are content with the findings and there are no significant ecological impacts on any wildlife arising from the proposed development.

q) As detailed in paragraphs 6.7 and 8.4 above, NLC Learning & Leisure has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity within the local schools to accommodate any additional pupils from the proposed residential development. They have also noted given the high volume of placing requests to the local schools, it is anticipated that the placing requests would be reduced to ensure that local pupils in the catchment areas are given school places accordingly.

r) With regard to contamination from any previous land uses, NLC protective Services have been consulted and they recommend that a comprehensive site investigation report and remediation strategy is submitted to the Planning Authority, it is recommended that this matter is addressed by way of a planning condition and this report and strategy would require be submitting and approved by the Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site.

s) Local health service provision is a matter for the NHS to oversee and make appropriate provisions for local residents and therefore not a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

t) The submitted planning application form and associated land ownership certificate signed by the a' applicant confirms that NHS Lanarkshire own the land nd they have been notified of this application accordingly using the appropriate forms. The details of ownership of all land are held by Registers Scotland and not the Council. In terms of any previous land ownership changes or disputes on ownership, this is a legal matter and not a reason to warrant refusal of this application.

Support Comments:

i−v. The points in support are noted in related to application and will be given due weight together with all other material considerations in the assessment of the application.

vi. In terms of wildlife within the site, NLC Greenspace have reviewed the submitted ecology survey and are content with the findings subject to conditions relating to further surveys relating to when construction commences.

Conclusions

9.1 In conclusion, following detailed assessment of the abplication and notwithstanding the objections development received, it is considered that the proposed residential is an acceptable departure from the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the proposals will result in the redevelopment of a vacant site within this prominent site in Motherwell. It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions and the appropriate Section 69 Legal Agreement to secure the off−site play provision financial contribution.