Planning Committee

Home , Auchenheath, Bothwell, Carluke, Carnwath, Carstairs Junction, Elsrickle

Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA

Monday, 02 September 2019

Dear Councillor

Planning Committee

The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:-

Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2019 Time: 10:00 Venue: Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA

The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf.

Members are reminded to bring their fully charged tablets to the meeting

Yours sincerely

Lindsay Freeland Chief Executive

Members Isobel Dorman (Chair), Mark Horsham (Depute Chair), John Ross (ex officio), Alex Allison, John Bradley, Walter Brogan, Archie Buchanan, Jackie Burns, Stephanie Callaghan, Margaret Cowie, Maureen Devlin, Mary Donnelly, Fiona Dryburgh, Ann Le Blond, Martin Lennon, Richard Lockhart, Kenny McCreary, Davie McLachlan, Lynne Nailon, Carol Nugent, Graham Scott, David Shearer, Collette Stevenson, Bert Thomson, Jim Wardhaugh

Substitutes John Anderson, Janine Calikes, Gerry Convery, Margaret Cooper, Peter Craig, Allan Falconer, Lynsey Hamilton, Catherine McClymont, Colin McGavigan, Mark McGeever, Richard Nelson, Jared Wark, Josh Wilson

1 BUSINESS

1 Declaration of Interests

2 Minutes of Previous Meeting 5 - 12 Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 13 August 2019 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached)

Item(s) for Decision

3 Application P/18/1298 for Erection of Detached Kennel, Cattery and Office 13 - 26 Building with Access, Parking, Entrance Wall and Associated Works (Retrospective) at Brae Farm, A726 from Chapelton to Strathaven, Chapelton, Strathaven Report dated 30 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

4 Application P/18/1308 for Erection of a Timber Tool Shed and Child's Play 27 - 36 House Within Curtilage of House (Retrospective) at Brae Farm, A726 from Strathaven to Chapelton, Chapelton, Strathaven Report dated 22 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

5 Application P/18/1515 - Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 1, 2, 5, 37 - 64 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of Planning Permission in Principle HM/16/0174 in Relation to Site Layout, House Design, Road Layout and Pedestrian Links, Drainage, Phasing etc at Site of Former Stonehouse Hospital, Strathaven Road, Stonehouse Report dated 30 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

6 Application P/18/1409 - Section 42 Application to Vary Conditions 75, 79 65 - 88 and 83 of Planning Consent EK/06/0311 for Erection of 11 Wind Turbines and Associated Infrastructure Including Sub-station, Access Tracks, Construction Compound and Borrow Pit at Bankend Rig Wind Farm, Waterhead Peelhill and Linbank Highway, Strathaven Report dated 22 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

7 Application P/19/0567 for Erection of 66 Houses and Associated 89 - 110 Infrastructure and Landscaping at Site of Former Roadmeetings Hospital, Goremire Road, Carluke. Report dated 29 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

8 Application P/19/0267 for Erection of Extension to Side and Rear of 111 - 124 Existing Class 2 Office Premises at 18 Glasgow Road, Uddingston Report dated 20 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

9 Application P/18/1424 - Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions in 125 - 150 Relation to Planning Application CL/15/0395 for the Erection of 46 Houses, Associated Roads, Infrastructure, Amenity Areas and Landscaping at The Pleasance. Byretown Road, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark Report dated 29 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

2 10 Application CL/17/0325 for a Residential Development Including the 151 - 164 Formation of a New Vehicle Access (Planning Permission in Principle) at Goremire Road/Old Lanark Road, Carluke Report dated 20 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

11 Application P/19/0166 for Change of Use from House to Residential Care 165 - 174 Home for Children at 295 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark Report dated 22 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

12 Application P/18/1545 for Demolition of House and Erection of 11 Flats 175 - 190 with Associated Parking and Landscaping at 41 Carlisle Road, Hamilton Report dated 21 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

13 Update on Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 191 - 196 Report dated 29 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

14 BT Payphone Removal Consultation 197 - 220 Report dated 29 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

15 South Lanarkshire Council Tree Preservation Order SL53 (2019) - 221 - 226 Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen Report dated 22 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

16 Tree Preservation Order - Beechwood Avenue, Rutherglen 227 - 230 Report dated 22 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources). (Copy attached)

Urgent Business

17 Urgent Business Any other items of business which the Chair decides are urgent.

For further information, please contact:- Clerk Name: Pauline MacRae Clerk Telephone: 01698 454108 Clerk Email: [email protected]

PLANNING COMMITTEE 2

Minutes of meeting held in Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton on 13 August 2019

Chair: Councillor Isobel Dorman

Councillors Present: Councillor Alex Allison, Councillor John Anderson (substitute for Councillor Horsham), Councillor John Bradley, Councillor Stephanie Callaghan, Councillor Gerry Convery (substitute for Councillor Brogan), Councillor Margaret Cowie, Councillor Peter Craig (substitute for Councillor Nugent), Councillor Mary Donnelly, Councillor Martin Lennon, Councillor Richard Lockhart, Councillor Catherine McClymont (substitute for Councillor Devlin), Councillor Colin McGavigan (substitute for Councillor Le Blond), Councillor Davie McLachlan, Councillor Lynne Nailon, Councillor Graham Scott, Councillor David Shearer, Councillor Collette Stevenson, Councillor Bert Thomson, Councillor Jim Wardhaugh, Councillor Jared Wark (substitute for Councillor McCreary)

Councillors' Apologies: Councillor Walter Brogan, Councillor Archie Buchanan, Councillor Jackie Burns, Councillor Maureen Devlin, Councillor Alistair Fulton, Councillor Mark Horsham (Depute), Councillor Ann Le Blond, Councillor Kenny McCreary, Councillor Carol Nugent, Councillor John Ross (ex officio)

Attending: Community and Enterprise Resources S Clark, Team Leader, Planning and Building Standards Services (Hamilton); B Darroch, Area Manager, Planning and Building Standards Services (Hamilton); L Dickson, Team Leader, Planning and Building Standards Services (Clydesdale); P Elliott, Head of Planning and Economic Development; F Jack, Team Leader, Development Management Team, Roads and Transportation Services; T Meikle, Area Manager, Planning and Building Standards Services (Cambuslang/Rutherglen and East Kilbride) Finance and Corporate Resources J Davitt, Public Relations Team Leader; P MacRae, Administration Officer; K McLeod, Administration Assistant; K Moore, Legal Services Adviser

Chair’s Opening Remarks The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, welcomed Bernard Darroch, Area Manager, Planning and Building Standards Services (Hamilton) to his first meeting of the Planning Committee.

1 Declaration of Interests No interests were declared.

2 Minutes of Previous Meeting The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11 June 2019 were submitted for approval as a correct record.

The Committee decided: that the minutes be approved as a correct record.

3 Application P/19/0824 for Erection of 5 Classroom Extension with Ancillary Accommodation, Additional External Works to Perimeter Fence, MUGA Pitch, Car Park and Landscaping at St Charles’ Primary School, Harvester Avenue, Cambuslang A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0824 by South Lanarkshire Council for the erection of a 5 classroom extension with ancillary accommodation, additional external works to perimeter fence, MUGA pitch, car park and landscaping at St Charles’ Primary School, Harvester Avenue, Cambuslang.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0824 by South Lanarkshire Council for the erection of a 5 classroom extension with ancillary accommodation, additional external works to perimeter fence, MUGA pitch, car park and landscaping at St Charles’ Primary School, Harvester Avenue, Cambuslang be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

[Reference: Minutes of 1 December 2009 (Paragraph 7)]

4 Application P/19/0135 for Creation of Fenced Allotment Site Comprising 12 Raised Beds and up to 70 Allotment Plots in Total, Including Associated Hardstanding, SUDS Pond, Landscaping and Composting Areas at Lammermoor Recreation Area, Kenilworth, East Kilbride A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0135 by South Lanarkshire Council for the creation of a fenced allotment site comprising 12 raised beds and up to 70 allotment plots in total, including associated hardstanding, SUDS pond, landscaping and composting areas at Lammermoor Recreation Area, Kenilworth, East Kilbride.

The Committee heard Councillor Miller, a local member, on her objection to the proposal.

The Area Manager, Planning and Building Standards Services (Cambuslang/Rutherglen and East Kilbride) referred to a number of late objections received in respect of the proposal and advised that they raised no new issues.

The Area Manager spoke in explanation of the report and officers responded to members’ questions on various aspects of the proposal.

After a full discussion, Councillor Scott, seconded by Councillor Craig, moved that consideration of the application be continued to a future meeting of the Committee to allow a study to be undertaken on the feasibility of taking access to the site from Kenilworth. Councillor Wardhaugh, seconded by Councillor Callaghan, moved as an amendment that the application be refused. On a vote being taken by a show of hands, 7 members voted for the amendment and 13 for the motion which was declared carried.

The Committee decided: that consideration of planning application P/19/0135 by South Lanarkshire Council for the creation of a fenced allotment site comprising 12 raised beds and up to 70 allotment plots in total, including associated hardstanding, SUDS pond, landscaping and composting areas at Lammermoor Recreation Area, Kenilworth, East Kilbride be continued to a future meeting of the Committee to allow a study to be undertaken on the feasibility of taking access to the site from Kenilworth.

[Reference: Minutes of 11 June 2019 (Paragraph 5)]

In terms of Standing Order No 13, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11.30am for a 10 minute period. The meeting recommenced at 11.40am without the attendance of Councillors Bradley and McLachlan

5 Application P/19/0405 for Erection of 34 Semi-detached Houses, Formation of New Access Road and Associated Infrastructure at Mill Road, Thankerton, Biggar A report dated 19 July 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0405 by BHC Limited for the erection of 34 semi- detached houses, formation of a new access road and associated infrastructure at Mill Road, Thankerton, Biggar.

At its meeting on 7 July 2015, the Committee had approved a procedure for processing planning applications which required completion of a Planning Obligation. If approved, the application would be subject to a Section 75 Planning Obligation and/or other agreement and the approved procedure would apply.

The Committee decided:

(1) that planning application P/19/0405 by BHC Limited for the erection of 34 semi-detached houses, formation of a new access road and associated infrastructure at Mill Road, Thankerton, Biggar be granted subject to:-

 the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report  prior conclusion of a Section 75 Planning Obligation and/or other appropriate agreement between the Council, the applicant and the site owner(s) to ensure that appropriate financial contributions were made at appropriate times during the development towards the provision of:-  affordable housing  educational facilities  an upgrade of community facilities  the applicants meeting the Council’s legal costs associated with the Section 75 Obligation and/or other legal agreements

(2) that it be noted that, in accordance with the agreed procedure, should there be no significant progress by the applicant towards the conclusion of the Planning Obligation within 6 months of the date of the meeting at which the application was considered, the proposed development could be refused on the basis that, without the planning control or developer contribution which would be secured by the Planning Obligation, the proposed development would be unacceptable; and

(3) that it be noted that, if the Planning Obligation had not been concluded within the 6 month period but was progressing satisfactorily, the applicant would be offered the opportunity to enter into a Processing Agreement, if this was not already in place, which would set an alternative agreed timescale for the conclusion of the Planning Obligation.

[Reference: Minutes of 7 July 2015 (Paragraph 15)]

6 Application P/18/1837 for Erection of 70 Residential Units Comprising Detached, Semi-detached and Terraced Houses and a 3 Storey Flatted Block with Associated Roads and Landscaping at Land 100 Metres Northeast of Cambuslang Karting, Dale Avenue, Cambuslang A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/18/1837 by Dawn Homes Limited for the erection of 70 residential units comprising detached, semi-detached and terraced houses and a 3 storey flatted block with associated roads and landscaping at land 100 metres northeast of Cambuslang Karting, Dale Avenue, Cambuslang.

A request for a hearing had been received, however, the application did not meet the criteria for a hearing.

The Committee decided:

(1) that planning application P/18/1837 by Dawn Homes Limited for the erection of 70 residential units comprising detached, semi-detached and terraced houses and a 3 storey flatted block with associated roads and landscaping at land 100 metres northeast of Cambuslang Karting, Dale Avenue, Cambuslang be granted subject to:-

 the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report  prior conclusion of a Section 75 Planning Obligation and/or other appropriate agreement between the applicant and the Council in respect of financial contributions for the phasing, improvement and upgrading of educational and community facilities  the applicants meeting the Council’s legal costs associated with the Section 75 Obligation and/or other legal agreements

(3) that it be noted that if the Planning Obligation had not been concluded within the 6 month period but was progressing satisfactorily, the applicant would be offered the opportunity to enter into a Processing Agreement, if this was not already in place, which would set an alternative agreed timescale for the conclusion of the Planning Obligation.

[Reference: Minutes of 16 April 2013 (Paragraph 9) and 7 July 2015 (Paragraph 15)]

7 Application P/19/0676 for Erection of 2 Storey Rear Extension with Integral Single Storey Element at 146 Neilsland Road, Hamilton A report dated 23 July 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0676 by A Reid and J Hay for the erection of a 2 storey rear extension with an integral single storey element at 146 Neilsland Road, Hamilton.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0676 by A Reid and J Hay for the erection of a 2 storey rear extension with an integral single storey element at 146 Neilsland Road, Hamilton be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

8 Application EK/17/0291 for Erection of a Retail Warehouse, Including Class 1 Bulky Goods Units, Class 1 and Class 3 Pod Units and 2 Freestanding Class 3 Restaurants with Drive Through Facilities, Associated Access, Servicing, Landscaping and Car Parking at Land at Redwood Crescent, Peel Park, East Kilbride A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application EK/17/0291 by SC East Kilbride Limited for the erection of a retail warehouse, including Class 1 bulky goods units, Class 1 and Class 3 pod units and 2 freestanding Class 3 restaurants with drive through facilities, associated access, servicing, landscaping and car parking at land at Redwood Crescent, Peel Park, East Kilbride.

The Committee decided: that planning application EK/17/0291 by SC East Kilbride Limited for the erection of a retail warehouse, including Class 1 bulky goods units, Class 1 and Class 3 pod units and 2 freestanding Class 3 restaurants with drive through facilities, associated access, servicing, landscaping and car parking at land at Redwood Crescent, Peel Park, East Kilbride be granted subject to:-

 the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report  advertisement of the intention to divert a Core Path, at the expense of the applicant

[Reference: Minutes of 24 June 2014 (Paragraph 3)]

Councillor Shearer left the meeting following consideration of this item of business

9 Application P/19/0514 for Erection of a Single Storey House with Associated Parking and Landscaping at Land 41 Metres West Southwest of Righead United Reformed Church, Mungo Park, East Kilbride A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0514 by J Robertson for the erection of a single storey house with associated parking and landscaping at land 41 metres west southwest of Righead United Reformed Church, Mungo Park, East Kilbride.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0514 by J Robertson for the erection of a single storey house with associated parking and landscaping at land 41 metres west southwest of Righead United Reformed Church, Mungo Park, East Kilbride be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

10 Application P/19/0723 for Erection of 3 Detached Houses, Associated Groundworks and Formation of Associated Vehicular Access at Gilfoot Nursery, Waygateshaw Road, Carluke A report dated 16 July 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0723 by Woodside Developments Limited for the erection of 3 detached houses, associated groundworks and formation of associated vehicular access at Gilfoot Nursery, Waygateshaw Road, Carluke.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0723 by Woodside Developments Limited for the erection of 3 detached houses, associated groundworks and formation of associated vehicular access at Gilfoot Nursery, Waygateshaw Road, Carluke be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

[Reference: Minutes of Clydesdale Area Committee of 13 February 2018 (Paragraph 4)]

11 Application P/19/0304 for Erection of a Multi-level Golf Leisure Facility (Class 11) and 2 Drive Through Restaurants Together with Associated Netting System Enclosure, Varying in Height up to a Maximum Height of 52 Metres, Infrastructure, Access and Landscaping at Duchess Place and Cunningham Road Redevelopment, Cambuslang Road, Rutherglen A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0304 by Ashfield Land (Glasgow) Limited for the erection of a multi-level golf leisure facility (Class 11) and 2 drive through restaurants together with associated netting system enclosure, varying in height up to a maximum height of 52 metres, infrastructure, access and landscaping at Duchess Place and Cunningham Road Redevelopment, Cambuslang Road, Rutherglen.

The Committee decided:

(1) that planning application P/19/0304 by Ashfield Land (Glasgow) Limited for the erection of a multi-level golf leisure facility (Class 11) and 2 drive through restaurants together with associated netting system enclosure, varying in height up to a maximum height of 52 metres, infrastructure, access and landscaping at Duchess Place and Cunningham Road Redevelopment, Cambuslang Road, Rutherglen be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report;

(2) that a Stopping Up Order be promoted Under Section 207 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 on a section of public road and contiguous footway at Duchess Place and Cunningham Road, Rutherglen and that the applicant be responsible for the payment of legal fees and any reasonable costs incurred by the Council associated with the Order;

(3) that, if no objections to the above Order were received, approval be given for any action necessary to achieve confirmation of the Order; and

(4) that approval be given to refer the Order to the Scottish Ministers in the event that objections were received.

[Reference: Minutes of 9 February 2016 (Paragraph 8)]

Councillors Allison and Wardhaugh left the meeting following consideration of this item of business

12 Application P/19/0299 for Demolition of Existing Houses and Redevelopment Consisting of the Erection of a 311 Unit Mixed Tenure Residential Development with Associated Access Roads, Car Parking and Landscaping at East Whitlawburn Redevelopment Area, Western Road, Cambuslang A report dated 1 August 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0299 by CCG (Scotland) Limited for the demolition of existing houses and redevelopment consisting of the erection of a 311 unit mixed tenure residential development with associated access roads, car parking and landscaping at East Whitlawburn Redevelopment Area, Western Road, Cambuslang.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0299 by CCG (Scotland) Limited for the demolition of existing houses and redevelopment consisting of the erection of a 311 unit mixed tenure residential development with associated access roads, car parking and landscaping at East Whitlawburn Redevelopment Area, Western Road, Cambuslang be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

13 Application P/19/0738 for Erection of Temporary Sales Cabin with Associated Parking at Peel Road, Thorntonhall, East Kilbride A report dated 23 July 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0738 by Westpoint Homes Limited for the erection of a temporary sales cabin with associated parking at Peel Road, Thorntonhall, East Kilbride.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0738 by Westpoint Homes Limited for the erection of a temporary sales cabin with associated parking at Peel Road, Thorntonhall, East Kilbride be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

[Reference: Minutes of 13 March 2018 (Paragraph 3)]

Councillor Callaghan left the meeting during consideration of this item of business

14 Application P/19/0542 for Erection of 2 Detached Houses with Garages and Associated Access at Laigh Brownmuir House, Bents and Station Highway, Glassford, Strathaven A report dated 23 July 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources) was submitted on planning application P/19/0542 by Brackenridge Homes Limited for the erection of 2 detached houses with garages and associated access at Laigh Brownmuir House, Bents and Station Highway, Glassford, Strathaven.

The Committee decided: that planning application P/19/0542 by Brackenridge Homes Limited for the erection of 2 detached houses with garages and associated access at Laigh Brownmuir House, Bents and Station Highway, Glassford, Strathaven be granted subject to the conditions specified in the Executive Director’s report.

[Reference: Minutes of 12 May 2015 (Paragraph 8)]

15 Urgent Business There were no items of urgent business.

12 Agenda Item

Report 3

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/18/1298 Planning proposal: Erection of detached kennel, cattery and office building with access, parking, entrance wall and associated works (retrospective)

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Detailed planning application • Applicant: Mr Adam Simpson And Mr Scott Bennett Location: • Brae Farm A726 From Strathaven To Chapelton Chapelton Strathaven ML10 6RR [1purpose]

2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Grant detailed planning permission (subject to conditions) based on conditions attached [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application. (2) This application is one that would usually be determined under delegated powers. However, due to requests from two elected members, the application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: William Findlater ♦ Council Area/Ward: 05 Avondale And Stonehouse ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) Policy 3 - Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 4 - Development Management and Placemaking Policy 15 - Natural and Historic Environment

Development Management, Placemaking and

13 Design Supplementary Guidance (2015)

Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance (2015) Policy NHE3 - Listed Buildings

Green Belt and Rural Area Supplementary Guidance (2015) Policy GBRA1 - Economy/Business Related Developments

Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2018) Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking Policy 14 - Natural and Historic Environment Policy DM1 – New Development Design Policy GBRA1 – Rural Design and Development Policy GBRA2 – Business Proposals within Green Belt and Rural Area Policy NHE3 Listed Buildings

♦ Representation(s):

► 4 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 1 Comment Letter

♦ Consultation(s):

Roads Development Management Team

Environmental Services

Planning Application Report 1 Application Site

1.1 The application relates to Brae Farm, a steading located between Strathaven and Chapelton. The property is a Category C listed building. In addition to the main farmhouse, the original farm buildings within the property have been subdivided and converted to form two additional residential properties. The application site, in this instance, relates to land associated with the main farmhouse, including the access to the property from the Strathaven to Chapelton road. The application site measures approximately 0.12 hectares in size.

1.2 The application site is bounded to the north and south by land associated with Brae Farm, to the west by a detached building which is the subject to a separate planning application and to the east by the Strathaven to Chapelton road. The application site is relatively flat throughout, although it is noted that it slopes gently upwards from the location of the building that has been constructed to the main road, from where access to the site is taken.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The application relates to the erection of a single storey detached building for use as a commercial cattery and kennels with associated works. The application is retrospective as the building has already been constructed and commercial operations are being carried out on site. The building, which measures approximately 368 square metres in size, is flat roofed and comprises 12 dog pens, 12 cat pens as well as office, care and medical facilities.

3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Status

3.1.1 With regard to the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015), the site is located within the Green Belt as designated by Policy 3. Policy 4 – Development Management and Placemaking and its associated supplementary guidance are also of relevance to the proposed development. In addition, as the property is a Category C listed building, Policy 15 – Natural and Historic Environment and its associated supplementary guidance are of relevance in this instance.

15 3.2 Planning Background 3.2.1 Planning permission was granted for the conversion of agricultural buildings associated with the main dwellinghouse on site to form two additional dwellinghouses in 2004 (Planning Ref: EK/04/0219). These conversions have been undertaken and the properties are now occupied. In addition to the kennel and cattery building which is the subject of this application other unconsented works at Brae Farm are currently being considered under three separate planning applications. A building comprising ancillary residential accommodation is being assessed under Planning Ref: P/18/0868, domestic stable buildings and the formation of a new access road are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/0849 and a tool shed and children’s play house are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/1308.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services (Development Management Team) – offered no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to access, signage and road safety issues. Response: Noted. The requested conditions would be attached to any consent issued.

4.2 Environmental Services – following the submission of a Noise Assessment in respect of the development, Environmental Services offered no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions requiring the recommendations of the Noise Assessment to be implemented on site to their satisfaction. Response: Noted. The requested conditions would be attached to any consent issued.

4.2 Strathaven and Glassford Community Council – Advised of their objection to the development due to the impact on the Green Belt and the adjacent listed building, the retrospective nature of the application, the impact on neighbouring residents, the potential for an undesirable precedent to be set, the overdevelopment of the steading as a result of these and other works and the potential adverse impact on road safety arising from the development. Response: The points raised are noted. However, as set out in Section 6 below, the view is taken that the development is compliant with all relevant policy as set out in the adopted and proposed local development plans. It is, therefore, considered appropriate for planning permission to be granted retrospectively in this instance.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Statutory neighbour notification procedures were undertaken and the application was advertised in the East Kilbride News for neighbour notification purposes, due to the scale and nature of the development, due to the location of the development within the curtilage of a listed building and as development contrary to the development plan. In response, four letters of objection (including one from Dr Lisa Cameron MP) and one letter of comment were received in respect of the proposals, the points of which are summarised below:

a) The development does not comply with the provisions of Policy 3 of the adopted local development plan as there is no locational need for

16 the development, it does not involve the conversion or redevelopment of redundant buildings or land, it does not create any significant environmental improvement, it is unsuitably located and it is not sympathetic to the existing buildings on site. Response: Policy 3 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) states that the Green Belt functions for appropriate uses in the countryside. The policy also advises that, where uses that are not appropriate to the countryside are proposed, considerations such as locational need, the redevelopment of redundant land and the development and expansion of existing building groups will be taken into consideration.

In this instance, while operations such as commercial dog and cat breeding are not necessarily a traditional countryside use, such operations are considered to be potentially acceptable in countryside areas subject to considerations such as siting and amenity. In this case, it is noted that the development has been undertaken within a building group at Brae Farm rather than in an isolated location in the countryside removed from any existing buildings. Additionally, it is noted that the building is located within the grounds of the property where the operator resides and that, given the nature of operations, there is a need for the development to be sited in a location where 24 hour care to animals can be provided. Therefore, in this instance, the view is taken that the principle of the development is considered to be compliant with Policy 3 of the plan given that the development relates to an existing building group and there is a specific locational requirement for the development to be established at this property. b) The development does not comply with the provisions of Policy 4 of the adopted local development plan as it has a significant adverse impact on the setting of the listed building on site, adversely affects local environmental and landscape character, is not appropriately sited or designed, adversely affects surrounding amenity and restricts access to the neighbouring property. Response: While it is noted that the building restricts the view of the main dwellinghouse at Brae Farm from the main Strathaven to Chapelton Road, it is also noted that the building is nonetheless located a significant distance from the farmhouse. Additionally, it is considered that the building is relatively small in terms of its height and is sited at a low level within the property. As such, the view is taken that it does not significantly adversely affect the setting of the main dwellinghouse, particularly when viewed from within the site itself, and does not have a significant landscape or environmental impact. Any concerns relating to access to the neighbouring property are a civil matter that would require to be resolved separately between the affected landowners outside of the planning process. c) The development does not comply with the provisions of Policy 15 of the adopted local development plan as the erection of this industrial scale building has a significant adverse impact on the setting of the main dwellinghouse which is a Category C listed building and on the amenity of the surrounding area. Response: As set out in b) above, it is considered that the building is located a significant distance from the main house, is relatively small in

17 terms of its height and is sited at a low level within the property. In addition, it is noted that no works have been or are proposed to be carried out to the listed building itself. As such, the view is taken that the development does not significantly adversely affect surrounding amenity or the setting of the listed building on site, particularly when viewed from within the site itself. d) The retrospective nature of the application and the approach taken shows a clear disregard for the local authority and the planning system despite an experienced architect being engaged who would have been fully aware of all planning permission requirements. The approval of the buildings following their construction would reward the applicant and set a precedent for other developments in the Green Belt. Response: While it is noted that the development has been undertaken in this instance in advance of planning permission being sought or obtained, in accordance with the Council’s Planning Enforcement Charter, the Planning Service is required to assess the submission on its own merits, irrespective of the retrospective nature of the application. In this instance, the application has been assessed and the view is taken that it is compliant with all local development plan provisions. It is, therefore, considered appropriate for planning permission to be granted retrospectively for the works. As every planning application requires to be assessed on its own merits, the granting of planning permission in this case should not be taken as a precedent for any future developments within Green Belt areas. e) The access road to the development is co-owned by a neighbouring property who have not given their consent for the works to be carried out. These works have included the removal of trees, hedges and grassed areas. In addition, the building site appears to overhang co- owned land. Response: Issues relating to access rights and land ownership are civil matters that require to be resolved separately between the affected landowners outside of the planning process. As such, they are not a relevant planning consideration in this instance. In terms of the retrospective nature of the application, as set out above, the Planning Service is required to consider each application on its merits irrespective of whether the works have already been carried out. In this instance, the development has been assessed and the view is taken that it is compliant with the provisions of the local development plan. It is, therefore, considered appropriate for planning permission to be granted retrospectively for the works. f) The development has an adverse impact on the adjacent property at Burn View, particularly with regard to issues such as residential amenity, restriction of use of the shared access to the properties, traffic generation, road safety and parking provision. Response: With regard to the issues of road safety, access, traffic generation and parking provision, the Council’s Roads and Transportation Services have advised that, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to access and signage improvements, they are satisfied that the development would not create any road safety or other transportation issues. With regard to amenity considerations it is noted that the building is

18 located a significant distance from the two nearest neighbouring properties at Burn View and Bridge View, which are converted byres originally forming part of the main steading at Brae Farm. However, nonetheless, given the nature of the operations on site, it was considered appropriate to require the undertaking of a Noise Assessment in respect of the development. A Noise Assessment and a further supporting statement have been submitted in respect of the property and the Council’s Environmental Services have advised that, subject to the implementation of the associated recommendations on site which would be attached as conditions to any planning consent issued, the development would not have any unacceptable impact on adjacent properties in terms of noise generation. As such, the view is taken that there will be no significant adverse impact on the properties at Burn View or Bridge View as a result of the development.

g) There are serious public concerns that the premises operates as a puppy farm. Response: The building comprises 12 dog pens, 12 cat pens and associated office, care and medical facilities. There are no known animal welfare issues associated with the site, however, any such issues would not be valid planning considerations and would require to be dealt with through other, appropriate processes. The Council’s Environmental Services have not offered any objections to the development, subject to conditions that would be attached to any consent issued.

h) It should be ensured that the development has no adverse impact on protected species that may be in existence within the site. Response: In this instance, the application is retrospective in nature as the works in question have already been undertaken on site. It is not considered that the ongoing operation of the facility would have an adverse impact on any protected species.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The application relates to the erection of a single storey detached building for use as a commercial cattery and kennels with associated works. The application is retrospective as the building has already been constructed and commercial operations are being carried out on site. The building, which measures approximately 368 square metres in size, is flat roofed and comprises 12 dog pens, 12 cat pens as well as office, care and medical facilities. In addition to this application, other unconsented works at Brae Farm are currently being considered under three separate planning applications. A building comprising ancillary residential accommodation is being assessed under Planning Ref: P/18/0868, domestic stable buildings and the formation of a new access road are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/0849 and a tool shed and children’s play house are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/1308.

6.2 The determining issues in the assessment of this application are its compliance with local development plan policy as well as its impact on surrounding amenity.

19 Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan framework against which the proposal requires to be assessed comprises the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) and its associated supplementary guidance. The Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 is also a material consideration in this instance.

6.4 In this instance it is noted that, while operations such as commercial dog and cat breeding would not necessarily be considered a traditional countryside use, such operations are considered to be potentially acceptable in countryside areas subject to considerations such as siting and amenity. In this case, it is noted that the development has been undertaken within a building group at Brae Farm rather than in an isolated location in the countryside. Additionally, it is noted that the building is located within the grounds of the property where the operator resides and that, given the nature of operations, there is a need for the development to be sited in a location where 24 hour care to animals can be provided. As such, the view is taken that the principle of the development at this location is considered to be compliant with Policy 3 of the plan given that the development relates to an existing building group and there is a specific locational requirement in terms of animal welfare for the development to be established at the property.

6.5 Policy GBRA1 – Economy/Business Related Developments of the Green Belt and Rural Area Supplementary Guidance document associated with the adopted plan states that the Council will seek to support the rural economy by promoting rural diversification and facilitating job creation through developments of an appropriate type and scale. In this regard, it is noted that it can be difficult to source appropriate locations and premises for animal related developments within settlements and that these uses can sometimes be more suitably catered for in countryside locations. In this regard, new build development can be supported in terms of Policy GBRA1 provided that it is integrated with an existing building group rather than developed in an isolated location. In this instance, it is noted that the development has been located within an existing building group at Brae Farm. The view is taken that this is a suitable location for this particular business operation in principle and the development is, therefore, considered to be compliant with the principles of Policy GBRA1.

6.6 With regard to the specific design and layout of the proposed development, Policy 4 – Development Management and Placemaking requires all proposals to take account of and be integrated with the local context and built form. The policy states that development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on amenity or the local environment in planning terms. These requirements are

20 further supported by the associated supplementary guidance relating to development management, placemaking and design.

6.7 In this instance, it is noted that the building has been constructed directly adjacent to a converted farm steading which contains three residential properties, including the property in which the operator resides. Given the nature of the proposed use, it was requested that a Noise Assessment be carried out to consider whether the business operations would have any significant adverse amenity impact on neighbouring properties in terms of noise issues. Following the submission of the assessment, the Council’s Environmental Services have advised that, subject to conditions that would be attached to any consent issued, a significant adverse impact would not occur in this instance.

6.8 In terms of context and built form, it is noted that the building has been erected to the front of the main dwellinghouse at Brae Farm, when viewed from the public road. However, although the building is sizeable in terms of floor area, it is noted that it is relatively small in terms of its height and also that it is sited at a low level within the property. Additionally, it is noted that the building is significantly removed from the main dwellinghouse, located approximately 28 metres away at its nearest point. As such, the view is taken that the building does not significantly adversely affect the setting of the main dwellinghouse, particularly when viewed from within the site itself, and does not have a significant landscape or environmental impact. In addition, the Council’s Roads and Transportation Services have advised that, subject to conditions that would be attached to any consent issued, there would be no issues in terms of access or road safety associated with the development. As such, subject to the requested conditions, it is considered that the proposal would have no significant adverse amenity impact and would comply with Policy 4 of the adopted local development plan as well as all relevant policy and guidance as set out in associated supplementary guidance.

6.9 Policy 15 – Natural and Historic Environment and its associated supplementary guidance seeks to protect designated natural and historic features of interest from inappropriate development. In this instance, it is noted that the main steading at Brae Farm is designated as a Category C listed building. Policy NHE3 of the Council’s Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance seeks to retain the character and appearance of listed buildings and seeks to restrict inappropriate alterations to such buildings. In this instance, it is noted that no alterations to the listed building itself are proposed to be carried out. Furthermore, as noted in Section 6.8 above, the building to which the application relates is of a small scale in terms of height and is significantly removed from the main dwellinghouse. As such, it is not considered that there would be any significant adverse impact on the listed building resulting from the development and the development is considered to be compliant with Policy 15 and its associated supplementary guidance, with particular regard to Policy NHE3.

6.10 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The submission has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the submission

21 generally accords with Policies 4, 5, 14, DM1, GBRA1, GBRA2 and NHE3 in the proposed plan.

6.11 In addition to the standard neighbour notification procedure carried out by the Council, the application was also advertised in the local press. Four letters of objection and one letter of comment have been received in relation to the proposed development. The points raised are addressed in detail in Section 5 above. It is not considered appropriate for the application to be refused planning consent based on the points of objection raised. The application was advertised in the local press as Development Contrary to the Development Plan as it relates to the development of a non-traditional countryside use in a Green Belt location. However, following a detailed assessment of the development as set out above, the view is taken that the development is fully compliant with the provisions of the local development plan.

6.12 In conclusion, it is considered that the development is appropriate to the site in question in terms of design and layout, would not significantly adversely affect surrounding amenity, the adjacent listed building or the surrounding countryside and is fully compliant with the provisions of the relevant policies of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated supplementary guidance as well as the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. I would, therefore, recommend that planning permission is granted for the proposed development subject to the attached conditions.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The development has no significant adverse impact on amenity and complies with the relevant policies of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance (Policies 3, 4, 15, NHE3 and GBRA1) and the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Policies 4, 5, 14, GBRA1, GBRA2, NHE3 and DM1). There are no additional material considerations which would justify refusing to grant consent.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 30 August 2019

Previous references  EK/04/0219  P/18/0849  P/18/0868  P/18/1308

22 ► Consultations

Roads Development Management Team 07.01.2019 Environmental Services 15.11.2018

► Representations Dated:

Tom McInally, Received Via Email 20.11.2018

Councillor Margaret Cooper, Ward 5 - Avondale And 16.11.2018 Stonehouse, Members Services, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton

Joe Allan, 94 Franklin Place, Westwood, East Kilbride, G75 01.11.2018 8LS

Councillor Graeme Campbell, Council Offices, Beckford 12.11.2018 Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA

Dr Lisa Cameron MP, Received Via Email 29.08.2019

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Declan King, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455049 Email: [email protected]

23 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/18/1298

Conditions and reasons

01. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (or any such order revoking or re- enacting that order), the building hereby approved shall be restricted to use as a kennel and cattery building with ancillary office accommodation only and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the Council retains control over future developments on the site.

02. That, within two months of the date of this consent, a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 215 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and everything exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.9 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

03. That, within two months of the date of this consent, appropriate signage shall be erected on the access gates to the site to advise that the southern access is for private use only and that public access to the property shall be taken from the existing access to the north, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. The signage shall thereafter be maintained on site to the Council's satisfaction.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

04. That, within two months of the date of this consent, the first four metres of the access road, measured from the edge of the carriageway, shall be surfaced, trapped and sealed to prevent any deleterious material or water from leaving the driveway and entering the public road, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

05. That the details and recommendations of the Noise Assessment and associated Noise Management Plan submitted in respect of the development hereby approved shall be adhered to at all times on site to the satisfaction of the Council.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

06. That, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority,

a) The day time noise level between 08:00hrs and 20:00hrs shall not exceed 35dB LAeq, 5min when measured internally at properties.

24 b) The night time noise level between 20:00hrs and 08:00hrs shall not exceed 25dB LAeq, 5min when measured internally at properties. c) The night time noise level between 23:00hrs and 07:00hrs shall not exceed 45dB LAmax when measured internally at properties.

The above parameters are based on the following documents- - Precedent from Moray Council v Andrew Deshwar Debedin, 2012 - Local agreement on daytime and night time periods derived from BS 4142:2014 - Community Noise Guidelines - Proposed Limits from the Neo Environmental Noise Impact Assessment- Brae Farm 18/10/2018

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

07. That, within two months of the date of this consent and unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority, the surfaces of the kennel runs (NNW facing) shall have an absorptive material applied in order to minimise sound pressure reflections. This material shall thereafter be maintained to prevent deterioration over time. The surface shall facilitate cleaning. All of the above shall be undertaken to the specification of and satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

26 Agenda Item

Report 4

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/18/1308 Planning proposal: Erection of a timber tool shed and child's play house within curtilage of dwelling (retrospective)

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Detailed planning application • Applicant: Mr Scott Bennett And Mr Adam Simpson Location: • Brae Farm A726 From Strathaven To Chapelton Chapelton Strathaven ML10 6RR

Development Management, Placemaking and Design Supplementary Guidance (2015) Policy DM2 - House Extensions and Alterations

Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance (2015) Policy NHE3 - Listed Buildings

Green Belt and Rural Area Supplementary Guidance (2015)

Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2018) Policy 4 - Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 5 - Development Management and Placemaking Policy 14 - Natural and Historic Environment Policy DM2 - House Extensions and Alterations Policy GBRA1 – Rural Design and Development Policy NHE3 Listed Buildings

♦ Representation(s):

► 2 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 1 Comment Letter

♦ Consultation(s):

Strathaven and Glassford Community Council

Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application relates to Brae Farm, a steading located between Strathaven and Chapelton. The property is a Category C listed building. In addition to the main farmhouse, the original farm buildings within the property have been subdivided and converted to form two additional residential properties. The application site in this instance relates to ground associated with the main farmhouse, including the access to the property from the Strathaven to Chapelton road. The application site measures approximately 0.07 hectares in size.

1.2 The application site is bounded to the south by ground associated with Brae Farm, to the north and west by ground associated with the adjacent property at Bridge View and to the east by land belonging to Brae Farm and the Strathaven to Chapelton road. The application site is relatively flat throughout, although it is noted that it slopes gently upwards from the location of the buildings that have been constructed to the main road, from where access to the site is taken.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The application relates to the erection of two single storey detached buildings for use as a domestic tool shed and a children’s play house. The application is retrospective in nature as the buildings have already been constructed. The two buildings are located directly adjacent to the main house at Brae Farm. The tool shed has a floor area of 16 square metres and the play house has a floor area of seven square metres. As Brae Farm is a Category C listed building both of the buildings require planning consent.

3 Background

29 3.2 Planning Background 3.2.1 Planning permission was granted for the conversion of agricultural buildings associated with the main dwellinghouse on site to form two additional dwellinghouses in 2004 (Planning Ref: EK/04/0219). These conversions have been undertaken and the properties are now occupied. In addition to the tool shed and play house which are the subject of this application, other unconsented works at Brae Farm are currently being considered under three separate planning applications. A building comprising ancillary residential accommodation is being assessed under Planning Ref: P/18/0868, domestic stable buildings and the formation of a new access road are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/0849 and a kennel and cattery building with associated works are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/1298.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Strathaven and Glassford Community Council – Advised of their objection to the development due to the impact on the Green Belt and the adjacent listed building, the retrospective nature of the application, the potential for an undesirable precedent to be set, the overdevelopment of the steading as a result of these and other works and the potential adverse impact on road safety arising from the development. Response: The points raised are noted. However, as set out in Section 6 below, the view is taken that the development is compliant with all relevant policy as set out in the adopted and proposed local development plans. It is, therefore, considered appropriate for planning permission to be granted in this instance.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Statutory neighbour notification was carried out in respect of the application and the application was also advertised in the local press due to the location of the development within the curtilage of a listed building. Two letters of objection and one letter of comment were received, the contents of which are summarised below.

a) The buildings are inappropriate and do not conform with their surroundings, particularly given that the property is a listed building. Response: Although the main dwellinghouse is designated as a Category C listed building, it is noted that the buildings under consideration in this instance are relatively small in terms of scale, measuring 16 square metres and seven square metres in floor space, and are not considered to adversely affect the character or appearance of the listed building or its surroundings. In addition, it is noted that no works are proposed to be carried out to the dwellinghouse itself. As such, the view is taken that the works do not adversely affect the listed building and, given their small size, do not have any significant adverse impact on their surroundings.

b) The application should be refused consent as the development has been carried out within the Green Belt. Response: In this instance, the development undertaken has been carried out within the curtilage of a residential dwellinghouse for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the property. While Green Belt policy seeks to resist inappropriate and isolated development, the undertaking of

30 householder developments is considered acceptable in principle. As such, the view is taken that the works undertaken do not conflict with the principles of the Council’s Green Belt policy in this instance.

c) No justification has been provided for the buildings which have been constructed without obtaining planning permission. Response: The applicants have advised that the buildings have been erected for domestic purposes ancillary to the main use of the property as a residential dwellinghouse. A condition would be attached to any consent issued restricting the building to such uses only. While it is noted that the development has been undertaken, in this instance, in advance of planning permission being sought or obtained, in accordance with the Council’s Planning Enforcement Charter, the Planning Service is required to assess the submission on its own merits, irrespective of the retrospective nature of the application. In this instance, the application has been assessed and the view is taken that it is compliant with the provisions of the local development plan. It is, therefore, considered appropriate for planning permission to be granted retrospectively for the works.

d) The buildings have been erected too close to the adjacent residential property to the west of the site and adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring property. Response: While it is noted that the buildings have been constructed in close proximity to the boundary with the adjacent property at Bridge View, it is not considered that the buildings have any significant adverse impact on the adjacent property, particularly given their small size and ancillary domestic use. As such, it is not considered that the amenity of the adjacent property is unacceptably affected by the buildings.

e) It should be ensured that the development has no adverse impact on protected species that may be in existence within the site. Response: In this instance, the application is retrospective in nature as the works in question have already been undertaken on site. It is not considered that the ongoing use of the buildings would have any adverse impact on any protected species.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The application relates to the erection of two single storey detached buildings for use as a domestic tool shed and a children’s play house. The application is retrospective in nature as the buildings have already been constructed. The two buildings are located directly adjacent to the main house at Brae Farm. The tool shed has a floor area of 16 square metres and the play house has a floor area of seven square metres. As Brae Farm is a Category C listed building, both of the buildings require planning consent. In addition to this application, other unconsented works at Brae Farm are currently being considered under three separate planning applications. A building comprising ancillary residential accommodation is being assessed under Planning Ref: P/18/0868, domestic stable buildings and the formation of a new access road are being considered

31 under Planning Ref: P/18/0849 and a kennel and cattery building with associated works are being considered under Planning Ref: P/18/1298.

6.2 The determining issues in the assessment of this application are its compliance with local development plan policy as well as its impact on surrounding amenity. Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan framework against which the proposal requires to be assessed comprises the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) and its associated supplementary guidance. The Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 is also a material consideration in this instance.

6.3 In terms of the adopted local development plan, it is noted that the site is located in an area which is designated as Green Belt under Policy 3 and its associated supplementary guidance. The Green Belt functions primarily for agriculture, forestry, recreation and other appropriate uses. Other uses can also be considered appropriate, but only in specific circumstances such as where there is a locational need, where the proposal relates to the rehabilitation of redundant land or buildings or where the proposal relates to the extension of an existing property or development within an existing building group. With regard to the specific design and layout of the proposed development, Policy 4 – Development Management and Placemaking requires all proposals to take account of and be integrated with the local context and built form. The policy states that development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on amenity or the local environment in planning terms. These requirements are further supported by the associated supplementary guidance relating to development management, placemaking and design.

6.4 In this case, it is noted that the developments undertaken relate to the erection of two small buildings to the side of the main dwellinghouse at Brae Farm. It is noted that the two buildings are intended for domestic use and that no commercial activities are proposed to be undertaken from these buildings. The view is taken that the erection of these two ancillary domestic buildings does not have any adverse impact on the function of the Green Belt and the development does not have any significant adverse impact on surrounding amenity in planning terms. A condition has been attached to the consent issued confirming the restriction of use of these buildings to domestic purposes only, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Service. Subject to this condition, the development is considered to be compliant with Policies 3 and 4 of the adopted local development plan and associated supplementary guidance.

6.5 Policy 15 – Natural and historic environment and its associated supplementary guidance seeks to protect designated natural and historic features of interest from inappropriate development. In this instance, it is noted that the main steading at Brae Farm is designated as a Category C listed building. Policy NHE3 of the Council’s Natural and Historic Environment supplementary guidance seeks to retain the character and appearance of listed buildings and seeks to restrict inappropriate alterations to such buildings. It is noted, however, that the developments to which this application relates do not adversely affect the historical designation of the property. In addition, no works have been or are proposed to be carried out to the listed building itself. As such, the development is

32 considered to be compliant with Policy 15 and its associated supplementary guidance, with particular regard to Policy NHE3.

6.6 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The submission has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the submission generally accords with Policies 4, 5, 14, GBRA1, DM2 and NHE3 in the proposed plan.

6.7 In conclusion, it is considered that the development is appropriate to the site in question in terms of siting and scale, would not significantly adversely affect surrounding amenity, the adjacent listed building or the surrounding countryside and is fully compliant with the provisions of the relevant policies of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated supplementary guidance as well as the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. I would, therefore, recommend that planning permission is granted for the proposed development subject to the attached conditions.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The development has no significant adverse impact on amenity and complies with the relevant policies of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and Supplementary Guidance (Policies 3, 4, 5, NHE3 and DM2) and the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Policies 4, 5, 14, GBRA1, NHE3 and DM2). There are no additional material considerations which would justify refusing to grant consent.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 22 August 2019

Previous references  EK/04/0219  P/18/0849  P/18/0868  P/18/1298

33 ► Representations Dated:

Joe Allan, 94 Franklin Place, Westwood , East Kilbride, G75 06.11.2018 8LS

Councillor Margaret Cooper, Council Offices, Beckford Street, 16.11.2018 Hamilton, ML3 0AA

Councillor Graeme Campbell, Council Offices, Beckford 13.11.2018 Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Declan King, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455049 Email: [email protected]

34 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/18/1308

Conditions and reasons

01. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (or any such order revoking or re- enacting that order), the buildings hereby approved shall be restricted to use for domestic purposes ancillary to the main dwellinghouse on site at Brae Farm only and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the Council retains control over future developments on the site.

36 Agenda Item

Report 5

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/18/1515 Planning proposal: Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of planning permission in principle HM/16/0174 in relation to site layout, house design, road layout and pedestrian links, drainage, phasing etc.

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Approval of matters specified in conditions. • Applicant: Persimmon Homes Location • Site Of Former Stonehouse Hospital Strathaven Road Stonehouse [1purpose] 2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Grant matters specified in conditions (Based on the Conditions Attached) [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: N/A ♦ Council Area/Ward: 05 Avondale And Stonehouse ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) Policy 1 - Spatial strategy Policy 2 - Climate change Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making Policy 5 - Community Infrastructure Assessment Policy 12 - Housing Land Policy 14 - Green Network and Greenspace Policy 15 - Natural and Historic Environment Policy 16 - Travel and Transport

37 Policy 17 - Water Environment and Flooding

Development Management, Place Making and Design Supplementary Guidance (2013)

Supplementary Guidance: Natural and Historic Environment (2015) Policy NHE13 – Tree preservation orders

Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) (2018)

Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy Policy 2 – Climate Change Policy 5 - Development Management and Place Making Policy 7 - Community Infrastructure Assessment Policy 11 - Housing Policy 13 - Green Network and Greenspace Policy 14 – Natural and Historic Environment Policy 15 - Travel and Transport Policy 16 - Water Environment and Flooding Policy DM1 - New Development Design Policy SDCC2 - Flood Risk Policy SDCC3 - Sustainable Drainage Systems Policy SDCC4 - Sustainable Transport Policy DM15 - Water Supply Policy NHE18 - Walking, cycling and riding routes Policy NHE20 – Biodiversity

♦ Representation(s):

► 16 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 1 Comment Letter

♦ Consultation(s):

Countryside and Greenspace

Arboricultural Services

Roads Development Management Team

Environmental Services

Roads Flood Risk Management

Scottish Water

Education Resources School Modernisation Team

38 Stonehouse Community Council

Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application relates to the former Stonehouse Hospital site which is located on the northern side of Strathaven Road at the western side of Stonehouse village. The application site extends to approximately 6.1 hectares in area and is generally flat with undulating areas towards the north western boundary. The site is vacant as the original hospital was demolished with a new hospital facility constructed to the north-east of the site. The land is surplus to the requirements of the Lanarkshire Primary NHS Trust following the consolidation of existing facilities into the new hospital.

1.2 The site is bounded to the north by a disused former railway line which is currently used for walking to the surrounding countryside and to other areas of the village, to the south by Strathaven Road and adjacent two storey dwellinghouses, to the east by the replacement hospital building and associated car parking and to the west by two storey dwellinghouses. A large proportion of the site is covered by scattered willow scrub with a combination of semi-improved grassland and tall ruderal. Small areas of woodland, amenity grassland and areas of hardstanding associated with the former hospital are also present within the site. There are extensive tree belts located along the site’s frontage onto Strathaven Road and within the car park areas that served the former hospital, all of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The hospital was served by separate access and egress points onto Strathaven Road.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The applicant seeks the approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of planning permission in principle HM/16/0174 in relation to the proposed site layout, house design, road layout, pedestrian links, drainage, site phasing etc. Specifically, the application involves the erection of 161 dwellings within the site which would be a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses all of which would be two storeys in height. The dwellings would be a mix of sixteen two or three bedroom house types that would be finished with concrete roof tiles, render and brick walls, with UPVC windows and doors. The dwellings would have traditional pitched or hipped roofs with solar panels included and would have car parking located within the driveways of the plots or within a parking court located close to the associated dwelling.

2.2 The submitted layout shows the provision of several areas of amenity open space scattered throughout the site with a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) located within the south-western part of the site. A considerable number of the existing trees within the site would be retained as part of the development. Vehicular access to the site would be taken via a signalised T-junction off Strathaven Road.

2.3 A Tree Survey, Ground Investigation Report and Habitat Survey were submitted with the application as supporting documents.

40 3 Background

3.1 Local Planning Policy 3.1.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is designated as a proposed housing site in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The site is also covered by the Green Network. The relevant policies in terms of the assessment of the application are Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy, Policy 2 – Climate Change, Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making, Policy 5 - Community Infrastructure Assessment, Policy 12 - Housing Land, Policy 14 - Green Network and Greenspace, Policy 15 - Natural and Historic Environment, Policy 16 - Travel and Transport and Policy 17 - Water Environment and Flooding of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and the supplementary guidance of the Proposed Development Management, Place Making and Design Supplementary Guidance relating to ‘Design’. The content of the above policies and guidance and how they relate to the proposal is assessed in detail in Section 6 of this report.

3.1.2 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. The new plan builds on the policies and proposals contained in the currently adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. For the purposes of determining planning applications, the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 is now a material consideration. In this instance, Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy, Policy 2 – Climate Change, Policy 5 - Development Management and Place Making Policy, Policy 7 - Community Infrastructure Assessment, Policy 11 - Housing, Policy 13 - Green Network and Greenspace, Policy 14 – Natural and Historic Environment, Policy 15 - Travel and Transport and Policy 16 - Water Environment and Flooding are relevant. Volume 2 of the Proposed Plan contains further policy guidance that will be used when assessing planning applications. In this instance, Policies DM1 - New Development Design, SDCC2 - Flood Risk, SDCC3 - Sustainable Drainage Systems, SDCC4 - Sustainable Transport, DM15 - Water Supply, NHE14 – Tree Preservation Orders, NHE18 - Walking, cycling and riding routes, and NHE20 – Biodiversity are relevant.

3.2 National Planning Guidance/Advice 3.2.1 In terms of residential development, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) requires Councils to maintain a five year supply of effective housing land. Planning Authorities are also required to promote the efficient use of land by directing development towards sites within existing settlements, where possible, in order to make effective use of existing infrastructure and service capacity.

3.3 Planning History 3.3.1 A number of planning applications have been submitted to the Council in recent years to extend the time period for the submission of the matters specified in conditions relative to the outline planning permission granted for residential development on the site under HM/04/0369. In this regard, outline planning permission was granted to Lanarkshire Primary Care NHS Trust for residential development on the site in March 2007 (HM/04/0369). This consent incorporated a Section 75 Legal Agreement which was concluded between the applicant and the Council to ensure the provision of a financial contribution in lieu of play/recreation facilities being provided within the site.

3.3.2 Detailed Planning permission was granted to David Wilson Homes for the formation of a roundabout, pavement and associated services on Strathaven Road in May 2007 (HM/06/0704).

3.3.3 A detailed planning application submitted by David Wilson Homes was approved by the Planning Committee on 23 February 2008 for the erection of 155 dwellinghouses and associated works within the site subject to the submission of a landscaping bond. However, the application was withdrawn on 10 October 2012. David Wilson Homes was subject to purchase by Barratt Homes in April 2007 and Barratt Homes West Scotland Ltd confirmed that they had no interest in pursuing the application (HM/07/0283).

3.3.4 Detailed planning permission was granted to NHS Lanarkshire on 26 March 2010 for the variation of conditions 1 and 6 of outline planning permission HM/04/0369 to extend the time period for the submission of matters specified in condition (HM/09/0406).

3.3.5 Detailed planning permission was granted to NHS Lanarkshire on 30 April 2013 for the variation of Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission HM/09/0406 to extend the date of expiry of the consent (HM/13/0118).

3.3.6 Detailed planning permission was granted to NHS Lanarkshire on 3 June 2016 for the Variation of Conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission HM/13/0118 to extend the date of expiry of the consent (HM/16/0174).

3.3.7 A detailed planning permission was submitted to the Council by Persimmon Homes on 25 October 2018 for the removal of Conditions 3 and 4 (relating to roundabout access and tree constraints) of planning permission HM/16/0174. This application is pending a decision (P/18/1516).

3.3.8 A detailed planning permission was submitted to the Council by NHS Lanarkshire on 3 June 2019 for the variation of Condition 4 of planning consent HM/16/0174 relating to tree protection. This application is pending a decision (P/18/1516).

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Arboricultural Services – conditions should be attached to any consent granted requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme, covering both hard and soft landscaping within the site, tree protection measures and tree protection monitoring for the Council’s further approval. Response: Noted. Any consent granted would incorporate appropriately worded conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme which incorporates a replacement planting scheme and tree protection measures for the Council’s approval.

4.2 Environmental Services – have no objection to the application and are satisfied with the proposals in the submitted Site Investigation. Remediation of the site should be carried out in accordance with the remediation plan as detailed in the Contaminated Land report SG536-14/MKB/FM by Johnson Poole & Bloomer Limited prior to the proposed development being brought into use. Any

42 amendments to the approved remediation plan should not be implemented unless approved in writing by the Council. Response: Noted. Any consent granted would be conditioned to this effect.

4.3 Roads Development Management Team – have no objections to the application subject to conditions requiring the provision of appropriate levels of car parking, kerb line radii, visibility splays, footpath provision onto Strathaven Road, relocation of the existing bus shelter and the submission of a traffic management plan. Response: Noted. Appropriately worded conditions would be attached to any consent granted to address the above matters.

4.4 Roads and Transportation Services (Flood Risk Management) – have no objections to the application subject to the submission of a Flood Risk/Drainage Assessment and the Council’s Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) design criteria being satisfied through the completion of a self-certification document. Response: - Noted. Appropriately worded conditions would be attached to any consent granted to address the above matters.

4.5 Scottish Water – have no objections to the application and have advised that there is currently sufficient capacity at the Stonehouse Waste Water Treatment Works. Response: Noted. Any consent granted would include a condition to ensure that no dwellings are occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme constructed in accordance with Scottish Water standards.

4.6 Countryside and Greenspace – the landscaping proposals prepared by DWA landscape Architects are generally acceptable. In relation to access, the addition of a constructed foot/cycle path is recommended across the area of greenspace between the A71 Stonehouse Road (in the vicinity of the electrical substation across the road from the Violet Crescent junction) and the site service road adjacent to plot Nos. 179 and 185. A second public path would also be desirable around the perimeter of the SUDS area to link the A71 to the area of the development adjacent to plot No. 110 Both of these links would provide better connectivity for non-motorised access to the development. Response: Noted. An amended layout was submitted with additional footpath links proposed to an appropriate level. The proposed layout is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

4.7 Stonehouse Community Council – Stonehouse Community Council raised the following observations and comments on the application:

(a) The submission is not in line with the previous application and therefore should not be approved. The number of development units has increased to 196 from the initial development proposal of 155 and this is a substantial increase. Response: Following amendments to the site layout, the number of units proposed has been reduced to 161. Whilst the number of residential units proposed is marginally greater than the 155 that were previously approved by the Planning Committee in 2008 under application HM/07/0283, it is considered that the proposed layout for the development is acceptable and

43 that it meets the main standards set out in the Council’s Residential Design Guide.

(b) The proposed “T” section flatted development will not be visually pleasing as it fronts the A71. It is four stories high and should be considered for the rear of the development. Response: An amended site layout was submitted by the applicant showing the flatted block removed from the proposed development.

(c) The new proposal also alters the ground levels to the rear of the development and by doing this will infringe on the properties within the existing Spinningdale development. Response: Whilst the existing ground levels within the rear part of the site currently slope downwards and would have to be raised to accommodate the development, it is considered that the raised levels would be acceptable and that the proposed dwellings would be located an acceptable distance from existing properties to ensure that there would be no significant adverse impact on those properties in terms of overlooking or overshadowing as a result of the development.

(d) The means of access to the site is still under question and has not been agreed. The site of the previous roundabout was not agreed and had to be finalised with the previous developer and authority. The original considerations for the creation of a roundabout as an entrance to this site was that it would traffic calm the Strathaven Road section of the A71 and when position was determined could assist vehicles exiting from Violet Crescent and Newfield road as well as turning into the existing hospital. Original reason for inserting this condition was given as public safety, and nothing has changed to remove this nor has any argument been put forward. No Traffic Impact Assessment has been carried out to show flows and effect of current proposal. No detail of proposed signalised system has been submitted or assessed. The proposal to signalise the entrance to the development is strongly objected to by the Community Council as the previous application and proposal for the roundabout would have (in the words of the previous planning director) act as a traffic calming measure on the A71, and the reason for condition 3 remaining was that it is in the interest of public safety. Response: The outline planning consent granted for residential development on the site required the incorporation of a roundabout on Strathaven Road. The applicant has since, submitted a Transport Statement which demonstrates that a signalised junction would operate efficiently at this location. The proposed signalised junction is supported by Roads and Transportation Services as it also has the benefits of reducing vehicle speeds and creating good pedestrian crossing facilities. The assessment of the signalised junction included a review of the other improvements along Strathaven Road since 2007. The improvements along Strathaven Road include the construction of a roundabout on the approach to Stonehouse (from Strathaven) which contributes to the reduction in speed of vehicles.

44 (e) The design and layout of all the boundary treatments and walls have not been finalised. The boundary of the development along the frontage of the A71 should be in keeping with existing sand stone wall and should be extended the full length of the development to create a visually attractive development and should not be post and wire or wooden 1800 high wooden slatted fencing. Response: The details submitted relating to boundary fences for individual properties are generally considered to be acceptable. However, a condition would be attached to any consent granted requiring the submission of full details of the design and location of all boundary treatments, fences and walls to be erected on the site for the Council’s approval.

(f) The landscaping proposals for the site including details of the existing trees and other planting to be retained together with the proposals for new planting etc. have not been agreed. This is intrinsically linked to the access of the property and roundabout. Response: The Council’s landscape architect has assessed the submitted landscaping scheme and considers the submitted details to be acceptable.

(g) The means of drainage and sewage disposal have not been agreed. Response: Scottish Water have advised that they have no objections to the application and that there is currently sufficient capacity to serve the development at the Stonehouse Waste Water Treatment Works. Any consent granted would include conditions to ensure that no dwellings are occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme constructed in accordance with Scottish Water standards and that the Council’s Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) design criteria is satisfied through the completion of the standard self-certification document.

(h) The phasing of the development in respect of all aspects of the development has not been agreed. Response: Phasing details have been submitted by the applicant which are considered to be acceptable.

(i) The original proposal which would result in the relocation of the bus stop is irrelevant as currently there are two further bus stops to the east and west of the bus stop that would be removed, and either of these two could be moved a few metres in either direction of the stop that would have been removed. Response: In relation to bus stops, the existing bus stop, including the shelter and pole, would require to be relocated onto the 2 metre wide section of footway. The works would be undertaken by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) and all costs would be met by the applicant.

(j) Condition 8 in the original application HM/16/0174 put the onus and cost of any removal and relocation of the bus stop on the developer and it would appear that the developer is cutting costs in attempting to remove this condition. The covering letter from Persimmon intimates that the previous proposal would result in the removal of two bus stops and this is not true.

45 Response: As discussed, the existing bus stop, including the shelter and pole, would require to be relocated onto the 2 metre wide section of footway. The works would be undertaken by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) and all costs would be met by the applicant.

(k) Current road design intimates that it is good practice to insert bus stops at 200-300 metre spacing, however, bus operators are currently lobbying to have these distances increased as the carbon footprint of stopping and starting is reduced. Response: Subject to the existing bus stop being relocated as discussed above, this aspect of the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

(l) A single access to a development of this size may have health and safety implications for access by Fire brigade or ambulance. Response: The access to the site has been assessed by Roads and Transportation Services from a public and road safety perspective. Roads and Transportation Services are satisfied that the proposed access to the site is acceptable and that it raises no public or road safety issues.

(m) The developer’s new proposal does not appear to include for the provision of a 2 metre footway along the entire site frontage to Strathaven Road. This was included for public safety and requires to be maintained. Response: The provision of a 2 metre wide footway along the entire site frontage would result in the loss of a significant number of existing trees. Following discussions with the applicant, a relaxation on the provision of a 2 metre wide footway along the entire site frontage has been agreed with Roads and Transportation Services. This would reduce the number of trees that have to be felled within the site and would enable the retention of an important and attractive landscape feature along the frontage of the development. The existing footpath along Strathaven Road would be widened from the start of the south west boundary of the site along a distance of approximately 137 metres to Roads and Transportation Services’ satisfaction. In terms of permeability, additional footpath links within the site are proposed which would provide access to Strathaven Road to the south of the site and to the informal footpath network to the north-west.

(n) The new proposal does not include proposals for pedestrian links to the adjoining countryside and needs to accord with the Council’s countryside access. (SLC Supplementary Guidance on Green network and green spaces). Response: An amended layout was submitted which shows a footpath link to the adjoining footpath network at the north-western edge of the development as discussed above.

(o) No contamination report has been submitted detailing the nature or concentration of contaminants found on the application site. Response: A Ground Investigation Report was submitted with the application as a supporting document and was considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Environmental Services. Remediation of the site would have to be undertaken in accordance with the remediation plan detailed in

46 the report to the Council’s satisfaction, prior to the proposed development being brought into use.

(p) No details of written confirmation from Scottish Water in relation to original proposal to use culvert or for the suds plan on the site. Sewage issues have been previously encountered on this site by residents of Spinningdale as well as overflows to the pumping station at Whinriggs. The developer could upgrade the overflows and pumping station. The proposal needs to accord with Policy 17 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. Response: The proposal has been assessed by the relevant consultees in terms of Policy 17. With regard to flooding and surface water drainage, no adverse comments were raised by Roads and Transportation Services subject to the inclusion of conditions requiring the submission of a flood risk/drainage assessment and the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) within the site. Scottish Water have also confirmed that they have no objections to the application and any consent granted would include a condition to ensure that no dwellings are occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme constructed in accordance with Scottish Water standards.

(q) The current Section 75 requires to be amended and updated to take into consideration the following; the Contribution sums require to be revised to take account of the current market which has changed considerably since 2006. Additional flatted units within the site to the opposite side of the A71 frontage. Policy 13 Of South Lanarkshire Local Development plan “Affordable houses” An existing infrastructure and facilities study requires to be undertaken to assess what the impact on this development will be on the existing medical practice. Impact on nursery placement catchment area, currently nursery placements is restrictive. Response: Whilst the above points are noted, there is no requirement to amend or update the existing Section 75 Obligation as a result of this planning application. The level of financial contributions required as a result of the proposed development is controlled by the Section 75 Obligation associated with outline planning permission HM/04/0369. This Obligation requires the payment of between £400 and £600, depending on the size of dwellinghouse proposed, for each dwelling granted under any matters specified in conditions or detailed planning permission granted. The specified contributions cannot be increased due to the terms of the Section 75 Obligation which it should be noted reflected the financial contributions required under the Council’s policy guidance at that time.

(r) Additional planning condition considerations for inclusion on any planning permitted should relate to: site access and work times; wheel and road cleaning; whether existing crossing should be moved or an additional traffic crossing could be placed near the access to the hospital; replacement of trees on a like for like size basis. i.e. 10 year mature removed a 10 year mature replaces it; that the developer sets up a stakeholder group that includes community council and residents of Spinningdale; that consultation on street names is taken

47 with the local community; and that any changes to approved planning conditions are conveyed to community council for consultation. Response: Appropriately worded conditions and informatives would be attached to any consent granted, where necessary, in relation to site access and hours for audible construction activities, wheel and road cleaning facilities, and replacement planting. However, there is no requirement under planning legislation to request that the applicant sets up a stakeholder group or for the Planning Service to consult community councils on applications to re-word or revoke planning conditions as suggested. Street naming is undertaken by the Council’s Housing Service and is not a material planning consideration.

4.8 Education Resources – No response to date. Response: Noted.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Statutory neighbour notification procedures were undertaken and the application was advertised in the Hamilton Advertiser under the heading Non-notification of Neighbours. Seventeen letters of representation were received. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:-

(a) Strathaven Road is a busy road and another 400 potential cars leaving by a T-junction close to two bus stops and another two very busy junctions plus all the new traffic coming from developments in Strathaven, Sandford and Glassford make this road extremely busy. Object to the location of the proposed access into the development site, be it a roundabout or signalised T-junction. Traffic on Strathaven Road has increased dramatically within the last few years and since the development was approved in principle. The section fronted by the site already has 3 road hazards within 150 metres - a pelican pedestrian crossing, a bus stop with no layby, and a side road (Violet Crescent). To add a fourth (another side road) in the middle is inviting even more trouble - more queues, more collisions Queues also regularly form in the existing side roads at Mainsacre Road, Violet Crescent, Udston Mill Road and Manse Road. As a Planning Authority, the opportunity should be taken here to alleviate these problems; the current proposal just adds to them. Response: Roads and Transportation Services are satisfied that the proposal raises no access or road safety issues.

(b) The correct solution would be to form a new roundabout adjoining the A71 at Violet Crescent to serve both the development site and the large housing estate existing to the south east of the main road. It should be noted. Will there be an impact assessment on the A71. Response: Roads and Transportation Services are satisfied that an appropriate level of information was submitted to enable a proper assessment of the application. They are satisfied that the proposed access to the site is acceptable and that the proposal raises no public or road safety issues.

48 (c) The existing bus stop referred to will benefit the occupants of the new houses as well as the existing community. Any approval should also include the formation of a proper lay-by as drivers travelling northeast will risk the danger of passing a stationary bus on the wrong side of the road right at the blind exit from the roundabout. Response: In relation to bus stops, the existing bus stop, including the shelter and pole, would require to be relocated onto the 2 metre wide section of footway to the Council’s satisfaction. On this basis, this aspect of the proposed development is considered to be acceptable.

(d) Stonehouse doesn't need another 200 houses or flats, the schools are struggling as it is. The village does not have the infrastructure to support such a large development. Stonehouse is over saturated with housing as there is not the public amenities to support any further housing. There is a need for an inside play area for ball games for children or help to build a secondary school which will be needed when these houses are built. The two Primary schools are almost at full capacity. There are not enough leisure facilities in Stonehouse for the youth of Stonehouse to partake in. Also with the lack shopping available in Stonehouse to support the rising population this should be addressed first. Response: The application site is designated as a proposed housing site under the terms of Policy 12 of the adopted Local Development Plan. Therefore, the principle of residential development on the site is considered to be acceptable. The Planning Service is satisfied that the application site will be adequately served by the existing facilities located within Stonehouse.

(e) In relation to overlooking/loss of privacy, the site plan shows plots 54 to 70 running approximately parallel to Spinningdale. The rear gardens of plots 58 to 61 sit on land approximately 2 to 3 metres above the level of the existing homes in Spinningdale. There is a planned build of an Ettrick home (plot 59), around 10 metres from the rear of my property on land roughly 2 metres higher than mine. I calculate the eye level of someone on the upper floor level of the proposed building to be around 5 metres with new homes looking directly into my garden and conservatory completely removing any privacy I may have had in the past. Response: The existing ground levels within the rear part of the site currently slope downwards and would have to be raised to accommodate the development. It is considered that the raised levels would be acceptable and that the proposed dwellings would be located an acceptable distance from existing properties to ensure that there would be no significant adverse impact on those properties in terms of overlooking or overshadowing as a result of the development. Whilst the proposed dwellings would sit at a higher level than the existing properties referred to, the distance between the proposed dwellings and the above properties ranges between 24.5 metres and 29 metres which exceeds the minimum 20 metre distance required between directly facing habitable windows. On this basis, it is considered that the proposal will have no significant adverse impact on the properties referred to in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

(f) Several of the mature trees within the site have been tagged some of them twice. I sincerely hope that Persimmon are not allowed to cut them down. Many of these trees are over 100 years, hopefully they will remain within the site. Response: Subject to the conditions listed, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the proposed tree felling, which has been discussed in detail with the applicant, is acceptable.

(g) The proposed block of flats on Strathaven Road. A 4 story block with 12 units on the main road through a small village will be an eyesore and should be relocated at the rear south side of the plan where it will be hidden and can make the best of the stunning views it would command. Response: An amended site layout was submitted by the applicant showing the flatted block removed from the proposed development.

(h) The old wall on Strathaven Road is the only remaining part of the hospital. Will it be saved or destroyed? Response: Any consent granted would be conditioned to ensure the submission of appropriate boundary treatment details for the Council’s further approval.

(i) Mains Acre and Spinningdale. How are they going to be affected if the land has to be built up. This is a massive under taking and will affect them. Response: Due to the existing ground levels on site, the proposed increase in ground levels are necessary to facilitate the development. However, as a result of the distances involved between existing and proposed dwellings, it is considered that the changes in ground levels will not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjacent residents and that there would be no significant adverse impact on those properties in terms of overlooking or overshadowing.

(j) I understand some trees covered by the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) may need to come down and I'd expect any that do will be replaced. What guarantees of this are there. Response: Subject to the conditions listed, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer is satisfied with the details submitted and any consent granted would incorporate a condition requiring the submission of a replacement planting scheme for the Council’s approval.

(k) I am concerned that the boundary of the proposed development does not cover the hospital boundary at the side of our property and am concerned this will be waste ground. There are large trees on this area and the branches are overhanging our property. Who will be responsible for upkeep of this area? Response: Whilst this is not a material planning consideration, any former hospital land located outwith the application site would be held within the ownership of NHS Lanarkshire. The above matters would have to be resolved between the parties concerned.

50 (l) The advertising boards state 2-4 bedroom homes yet the plans do not show any 4 bedroom homes. Response: The submitted drawings indicate that the proposed dwellings would be a mixture of two and three bedroom houses.

(m) I am disappointed in the lack information that has been made available to residents of Stonehouse. Response: In terms of supporting information, it is considered that a sufficient level of information has been submitted to enable a proper assessment of the planning application.

(n) There will be houses overlooking our garden at the front and back of our home. I would object to a 2 metre high wall behind my house enabling other houses to overlook my house and garden. Response: Due to the distances involved between existing and proposed dwellings it is considered that the proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjacent residents in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The applicant seeks the approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of planning permission in principle HM/16/0174 in relation to the site layout, house design, road layout, pedestrian links, drainage, site phasing etc. The proposal involves the erection of 161 dwellings within the site which would comprise a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses, which would all be two storey. The determining issues in consideration of this application are its compliance with national and local plan policy and its impact on the amenity of adjacent properties and on the local road and footpath network.

6.2 In terms of residential development, Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) requires Councils to maintain a five year supply of effective housing land. Planning Authorities are also required to promote the efficient use of land by directing development towards sites within existing settlements, where possible, in order to make effective use of existing infrastructure and service capacity. In this instance, the proposal involves the re-use of previously developed land associated with the former Stonehouse Hospital in preference to green-field land for the provision of new housing which would have a positive impact on both the built and natural environment and would improve the visual and environmental quality of the area. The proposal also promotes development within a sustainable location which would be accessible by public transport, with bus stops located directly adjacent to the site on Strathaven Road. The development would also be well integrated into existing formal and informal walking and cycling networks. It is, therefore, considered that the principle of the proposal is acceptable and in accordance with national planning policy.

6.3 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is designated as a proposed housing site in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The site is also covered by the Green Network. The relevant policies in terms of the

51 assessment of this application are Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy, Policy 2 – Climate Change, Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making, Policy 5 - Community Infrastructure Assessment, Policy 12 - Housing Land, Policy 14 - Green Network and Greenspace, Policy 15 - Natural and Historic Environment, Policy 16 - Travel and Transport and Policy 17 - Water Environment and Flooding of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and the supplementary guidance of the Proposed Development Management, Place Making and Design Supplementary Guidance relating to ‘Design’.

6.4 Policies 1 and 2 encourage sustainable economic growth and regeneration, a move towards a low carbon economy, the protection of the natural and historic environment and mitigation against the impacts of climate change. In line with these policies, the proposal involves the reuse of an area of vacant land on a previously developed site located within a sustainable location within the Stonehouse settlement. It also includes opportunities for active travel routes and trips by public transport, with bus stops located directly adjacent to the site. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be in accordance with the terms of Policies 1 and 2.

6.5 As the application site is designated as a proposed housing site under the terms of Policy 12, the proposal raises no policy issues and, therefore, conforms with this policy.

6.6 In terms of the detailed design of the development, Policy 4 requires new development to have due regard to the layout, form, design and local context of the area and to promote quality and sustainability in its design. In this instance, it is considered that the proposed layout for the development is acceptable and that it meets the main standards set out in the Council’s Residential Design Guide, particularly in relation to window to window distances, garden depths, amenity open space and car parking. The proposed two storey houses are of modern high quality design with a suitably high standard of finish materials and it is considered that the development will be in keeping with the existing residential developments in the surrounding area. The density of the proposal is similar to that of neighbouring residential developments in the locality and the proposed access arrangements have been assessed and are considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Roads and Transportation Service. In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal will relate satisfactorily to adjacent development and that the character and amenity of the area will not be impaired by reason of traffic generation, parking or visual intrusion. The proposal represents a sensitive re-use of a brownfield site and it is considered that the re-development of the site will improve the visual and environmental quality of the area. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be in accordance with the terms of Policy 4.

6.7 In terms of Policy 5 - Community Infrastructure Assessment, the level of financial contributions that can be provided for this site is controlled by the Section 75 Obligation associated with outline planning permission HM/04/0369. This Obligation requires the payment of between £400 and £600, depending on the size of dwellinghouse, for each dwelling granted under any matters specified in conditions or detailed planning permission granted. The specified financial contributions cannot be increased due to the terms of the Section 75 Obligation which reflected the required contributions under the Council’s policy guidance at that time.

6.8 Policy 14 states that development proposals should safeguard the local green network, identified on the proposals map, and identify opportunities for enhancement and/or extension which can contribute towards:

i placemaking, ii mitigating greenhouse gases, iii supporting biodiversity, iv enhancing health and quality of life, v providing water management including flood storage, and buffer strips, vi providing areas for leisure activity, and vii promoting active travel.

6.9 It is considered that the proposed layout would create an enhanced sense of place at this location and would ensure new and continued access between the existing formal and informal footpath network in the area. Large areas of open space would be provided within the development in addition to existing and enhanced structured landscaping within the site. Any consent granted would be conditioned to ensure the submission of a landscaping scheme for the Council’s approval which could incorporate the use of native species or those with known benefits to biodiversity to ensure continued opportunities for biodiversity and leisure within the site and the surrounding area. Given the above, it is considered that the development of the site would have a positive impact on the environment and the quality of life for those living in the surrounding area. It is, therefore, considered that the proposal meets the aims of Policy 14.

6.10 Policy 15 defines a “Hierarchy of Natural and Built Heritage Sites” for protection, with areas covered by tree preservation orders being categorised as locally important. The policy states that the Council will assess all development proposals in terms of their effect on the character and amenity of the natural and built environment.

6.11 Policy NHE13 which relates specifically to Tree Preservation Orders, of the Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance provides more detailed guidance on assessing developments in such locations. The policy recognises the importance that both individual trees as well as areas of woodland play in terms of the quality of the urban environment. In this regard, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the proposed tree felling, which has been discussed in detail with the applicant, is acceptable subject to the conditions listed.

6.12 Policy 16 - Travel and Transport seeks to ensure that development considers, and where appropriate, mitigates the resulting impacts of traffic growth and encourages sustainable transport options that take account of the need to provide proper provision for walking, cycling and public transport. In this regard, the site is accessible by public transport with bus stops located directly adjacent to the site on Strathaven Road and would be well integrated into existing walking and cycling networks. Furthermore, Roads and Transportation Services consider the proposed access arrangements for the development to be acceptable and they are satisfied that the proposal raises no parking or road safety issues. It is, therefore, considered that the proposal complies with Policy 16.

53 6.13 The proposal has been assessed by the relevant consultees in terms of Policy 17. With regard to flooding and surface water drainage no adverse comments were raised by Roads and Transportation subject to the inclusion of conditions requiring the submission of a flood risk/drainage assessment and the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) within the site. Scottish Water have also confirmed that they have no objections to the application and any consent granted would include a condition to ensure that no dwellings are occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme constructed in accordance with Scottish Water standards. It is, therefore, considered that the proposal is in accordance with the terms of Policy 17.

6.14 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the proposal accords with Policy 1 - Spatial Strategy, Policy 2 – Climate Change, Policy 5 - Development Management and Place Making Policy, Policy 7 - Community Infrastructure Assessment, Policy 11 Housing, Policy 13 Green Network and Greenspace, Policy 14 – Natural and Historic Environment, Policy 15 - Travel and Transport and Policy 16 - Water Environment and Flooding in the Proposed Plan in addition to Policies DM1 - New Development Design, SDCC2 - Flood Risk, SDCC3 - Sustainable Drainage Systems, SDCC4 - Sustainable Transport, DM15 - Water Supply, NHE14 – Tree Preservation Orders, NHE18 - Walking, cycling and riding routes and NHE20 – Biodiversity of the SLLDP2 Volume 2.

6.15 In summary, it is considered that the application for the approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 of planning permission in principle HM/16/0174 in relation to the site layout, house design, road layout, pedestrian links, drainage and site phasing is acceptable and that it complies with national and local plan policy. The proposal is acceptable and it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The proposal has no adverse impact on residential or visual amenity nor raises any environmental or infrastructure issues and complies with Policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 16 and 17 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and the supplementary guidance of the Development Management, Place Making and Design Supplementary Guidance relating to ‘Design’. The proposal also complies with Policies 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and Policies DM1, SDCC2, SDCC3, SDCC4, DM15, NHE14, NHE18 and NHE20 of the Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2).

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

54 30 August 2019

Previous References P/19/0882 P/18/1516 HM/16/0174 HM/13/0118 HM/09/0406 HM/07/0283 HM/06/0704 HM/04/0369

List of background papers ► Application form ► Application plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015 (adopted) ► Proposed South Lanarkshire Development Plan 2 ► Development Management Place Making and Design Supplementary Guidance (2015) ► Residential Design Guide (2011) ► Neighbour notification letter dated 29.10.2018 and 03.06.2019 ► Press Advertisement, Hamilton Advertiser dated 08.11.2018

► Consultations Countryside And Greenspace 07.11.2018 Arboricultural Services 19.08.2019 Roads Development Management Team 15.08.2019 Environmental Services 28.05.2019 Roads Flood Risk Management 20.11.2018 Scottish Water 01.11.2018 Stonehouse Community Council 13.11.2018

► Representations Dated: Mr Darren Lone, 6 Secaurin Avenue, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 30.10.2018 ML9 3NZ

Mr Nick Groves, 26 Brankston Avenue, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 30.10.2018 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3JF

Mr Brian Adams, 11 Lowther Crescent, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 31.10.2018 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3JT

Mr Kristofer Bulloch, 53 Spinningdale, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 06.06.2019 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3QS

Mrs Jillian Storrie, 67 Spinningdale, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 07.11.2018

55 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3QS

Mr Greg Meikle, 43 Spinningdale, Stonehouse, Larkhall, ML9 16.11.2018 3QS

Mr William Robinson, Glen Mark, Manse Road, Stonehouse 07.11.2018 Larkhall, South Lanarkshire, ML9 3NX

Mr David Dick, 45 Spinningdale, Stonehouse, Larkhall, South 31.10.2018 Lanarkshire, ML9 3QS

Barbara Jarvis, Received Via E-mail 21.11.2018

Mr Keith Gallacher, 8 Naismith Court, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 13.11.2018 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3HE

Mr Mark Monie, 72 New Street, Stonehouse, Larkhall, South 07.11.2018 Lanarkshire, ML9 3LT

Mr Robert Freel, 75 Lockhart Street, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 12.11.2018 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3LX

Barbara Jarvis, Received Via E-mail 02.11.2018

Stonehouse Community Council, 75 Lockhart Street, 15.11.2018 Stonehouse, ML9 3LX

Mr And Mrs W Grant, 154 Murray Drive, Stonehouse, 13.11.2018 Larkhall, ML9 3NJ

Mrs Caroline Clark, 42 New Street, Stonehouse, Larkhall, 08.11.2018 South Lanarkshire, ML9 3LT

Mr Brian Gwyn-Davies, 8 Beechwood Drive, Stonehouse, 08.11.2018 Larkhall, South Lanarkshire, ML9 3EY

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Jim Blake, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 453657 Email: [email protected]

56 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/18/1515

Conditions and reasons

01. That before any development commences on site or before any materials are ordered or brought to the site, details and samples of all materials to be used as external finishes on the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactory in appearance and to maintain the visual quality of the area.

02. That before development starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls, including any retaining walls, to be erected on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactory in appearance and to maintain the visual quality of the area.

03. That before any of the dwellinghouses situated on the site upon which a fence is to be erected is occupied, the fence or wall for which the permission of the Council as Planning Authority has been obtained under the terms of Condition 2, shall be erected and thereafter maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Council.

Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactory in appearance and to maintain the visual quality of the area.

04. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans the boundary treatment details are not approved.

Reason: Full details have not been submitted.

05. That before any work commences on the site, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for written approval and it shall include: (a) 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; (b) details and specification of all trees, shrubs, grass mix, etc., including, where appropriate, the planting of fruit/apple trees; (c) details of any top-soiling or other treatment to the ground; (d) sections and other necessary details of any mounding, earthworks and hard landscaping; (e) proposals for the initial and future maintenance of the landscaped areas; (f) details of the phasing of these works; and no work shall be undertaken on the site until approval has been given in writing to these details.

Reason: To ensure the appropriate provision of landscaping within the site.

57 06. That the approved landscaping scheme shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority during the first available planting season following occupation of the building(s) or completion of the development hereby approved, whichever is the sooner, and shall thereafter be maintained and replaced where necessary to the satisfaction of the Council.

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

07. That no dwellinghouse shall be occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme constructed in accordance with Scottish Water standards and as approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Water as Sewerage Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a satisfactory sewerage system.

08. That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements (including all private gardens and landscaped areas) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and shall include signed appendices as required. The development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the disposal of surface water from the site is dealt with in a safe and sustainable manner, to return it to the natural water cycle with minimal adverse impact on people and the environment and to alleviate the potential for on-site and off-site flooding.

09. Remediation of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation plan as detailed in the Contaminated Land report SG536-14/MKB/FM by Johnson Poole & Bloomer Limited prior to the proposed development being brought into use. Any amendments to the approved remediation plan shall not be implemented unless approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure that the land is remediated and made suitable for its proposed use.

10. That unless otherwise agreed in writing, prior to the completion of the development hereby approved, a 2 metre wide footway shall be provided from the start of the site at the south corner on Strathaven Road for approximately 137 linear metres at the end of the 1.2 metre wall (the removal of this wall is required (Point c on plan FP-001)). The full width of footway shall be resurfaced to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning and Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interest of public safety.

11. That unless otherwise agreed in writing, prior to the completion of the development hereby approved the existing bus stop (shelter and pole) on Strathaven Road shall be relocated in a westerly direction onto the 2 metre wide section of the new footway to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

58 High Access Kerbs (HAKS) kerbing shall be installed which should consist of 4 kerbs and 2 transitions. The applicant shall meet all costs including the costs of relocating the shelter and pole.

Reason: In the interest of public safety.

12. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, the new vehicular access so far as it lies within the boundaries of the road abutting the site, shall be constructed in accordance with the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

13. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, the new vehicular access so far as it lies within the boundaries of the road abutting the site shall be constructed to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning and Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

14. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2 metres by 20 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided on both sides of all driveways and everything exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.9 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

15. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres measured from the heel of the footway shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and everything exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.6 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

16. That before development starts, a traffic management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning and Roads Authority for construction works during and after the construction period.

Reason: In the interest of public safety.

17. That wheel washing facilities shall be installed at the entrance/exit to the site in order that all vehicles leaving the site are kept clear and free from debris. The applicant or subsequent operator(s) shall at all times be responsible for the removal of mud or other materials deposited on both the public and private highways leading to the site by vehicles entering or leaving the site.

Reason: To prevent deleterious material being carried into the highway.

59 18. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, all of the parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

Parking levels for each dwelling within the development shall be provided at the following minimum rates: 1 Bedroom = 1 space. 2 or 3 Bedrooms = 2 spaces, 4 or more Bedrooms = 3 spaces All driveway parking spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 6m x 3m. In courtyard parking spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 5.5m x 2.5m. N.B. Any garage with minimum internal dimensions of 7m x 3m would qualify as 1 space.

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

19. That the first 2 metres of all driveways shall be surfaced, trapped and sealed to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority and Roads Authority.

Reason: To prevent any deleterious material or water from leaving the driveway and entering the carriageway.

20. That notwithstanding the terms of Condition 5 above, prior to completion or first occupation of the development hereby approved, whichever is the sooner; details of treatment of all parts on the site not covered by buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The site shall be landscaped strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season after completion or first occupation of the development, whichever is the sooner. Details shall include:

1) a scaled plan showing all existing vegetation and landscape features to be retained and trees and plants to be planted;

2) location, type and materials to be used for hard landscaping including specifications, where applicable for:

a) permeable paving b) tree pit design c) underground modular systems d) Sustainable urban drainage integration e) use within tree Root Protection Areas (RPAs);

3) a schedule detailing sizes and numbers/densities of all proposed trees/plants and compensation tree planting reflecting the scale of losses to the canopy cover deriving from the development (see AIA section 6.4);

4) specifications for operations associated with plant establishment and maintenance that are compliant with best practise; and

5) types and dimensions of all boundary treatments

60 There shall be no excavation or raising or lowering of levels within the prescribed root protection area of retained trees unless agreed in writing by the Council. Unless required by a separate landscape management condition, all soft landscaping shall have a written five year maintenance programme following planting. Any new tree(s) that die(s), are/is removed or become(s) severely damaged or diseased shall be replaced and any new planting (other than trees) which dies, is removed, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced. Unless further specific permission has been given in writing by the Council, replacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the area, to provide ecological, environmental and bio-diversity benefits and to maximise the quality and usability of open spaces within the development, and to enhance its setting within the immediate locality.

21. The recommendations as mentioned in the supporting reports 'Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) and constraints plan (June 2019) ' and 'Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Protection Plan (TPP) June 2019' shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Council in consultation with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer in particular:

a) Sequence of events (AMS Section 3) b) Pre-commencement Meeting (AMS Section 3) c) Prohibition of mechanical trenching within the RPA's and location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage. d) Methods of demolition within the root protection area RPA as defined in BS 5837: 2012) of the retained trees. e) Details of construction within the RPA or that may impact on the retained trees including building footprints overlaying RPA's. f) a full specification for the construction of building footprints overlaying RPA's and any roads, parking areas and driveways, including details of special no-dig specification /special engineering (see S6.2.3 AIA) and extent of the areas of the roads, parking areas and driveways to be constructed using a no-dig specification/suspended raft slab suspended on small diameter screw piles). Details shall include relevant sections through them. g) Detailed levels and cross-sections to show that the raised levels of surfacing, where the installation of special engineering/ no-dig surfacing within Root Protection Areas is proposed, demonstrating that they can be accommodated where they meet with any adjacent building damp proof courses. h) Tree protection during construction indicated on a TPP and construction and construction activities clearly identified as prohibited in this area. i) Methods to improve the rooting environment for retained and proposed trees and landscaping j) The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To satisfy the Council that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

22. The Arboricultural Method Statement (June 2019) and associated plans submitted in support of the application shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged tree protection monitoring (including communication with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer) and site supervision, detailed in Section 3 of the report, by a suitably qualified tree specialist.

Reason: To safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the site and locality and to avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees.

23. The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures as approved in condition 22 shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Council within 28 days from completion of the development hereby permitted. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition (insert condition(s)).

24. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including all preparatory work), details of all proposed Access Facilitation Pruning (see BS5837:2012 for definition) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The approved tree pruning works shall be carried out in accordance with BS3998:2010. The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

64 Agenda Item

Report 6

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/18/1409 Planning proposal: Erection of 11 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including sub-station, access tracks, construction compound and borrow pit (Section 42 application to vary conditions 75, 79 and 83 of planning permission EK/06/0311)

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Further application • Applicant: Wilson Renewables LLP Location: • Bankend Rig Windfarm Waterhead Peelhill And Linbank Highway Strathaven ML10 6RQ 2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Grant detailed planning permission (subject to conditions) based on conditions attached [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application. (2) The Committee should note that the decision notice should not be issued until the following matters are concluded:

A Legal Agreement securing: ● Community Benefit funds are provided to the satisfaction of the Council. ● Preparation and implementation of a Television Reception Remedial procedure. ● The preparation and implementation of a Habitat Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Council and SNH. ● The provision of an Ecological Clerk of Works. ● The funding of a Planning Monitoring Officer to be appointed by the Council. ● That access to the site has been secured in Planning terms

65 ● A Section 96 (Roads Scotland Act) Agreement between the Council and the applicant to ensure the satisfactory procedure and control over turbine transportation and the satisfactory and timely remedy of resultant damage to roads. ● Indemnification between the applicant and the Council as Roads Authority outlining the indemnity insurance requirements that the applicant must maintain for the duration of the turbine transportation period.

The applicant will be responsible for meeting SLC’s reasonably incurred legal expenses in respect of the legal agreement and restoration guarantee quantum.

In accordance with agreed procedure, should there be no significant progress, on behalf of the applicant, towards the conclusion of the Legal Agreement within 6 months of the date of the Committee, the proposed development may be refused on the basis that, without the planning control/ developer contribution which would be secured by the Legal Agreement, the proposed development would be unacceptable.

If, however, this matter is being progressed satisfactorily the applicant will be offered the opportunity to enter into a Processing Agreement, if this is not already in place. This will set an alternative agreed timescale for the conclusion of the Legal Agreement.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: Stuart Beattie ♦ Council Area/Ward: 05 Avondale And Stonehouse ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) Policy 2 - Climate Change Policy 3 - Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 15 - Natural and Historic Environment Policy 19 - Renewable Energy

Supplementary Guidance 9: Natural and Historic Environment

Supplementary Guidance 10: Renewable Energy

Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (2018)

Policy 2 - Climate Change Policy 4 – Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 14 - Natural and Historic Environment Policy 18 - Renewable Energy

Supporting Planning Guidance: Renewable Energy

♦ Representation(s):

► 0 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 1 Comment Letter

♦ Consultation(s):

Roads Development Management Team

Environmental Services

Roads Flood Risk Management

WOSAS

SEPA West Region

Historic Environment Scotland

Countryside and Greenspace

East Ayrshire Council

SNH

RSPB Scotland

67 Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application site is located approximately 7 miles south west of Strathaven, 1 mile west of Glengavel Reservoir and 5 miles south east of Darvel. The turbines are located on the upper slopes of Bankend Rig between Bibblon Hill and Mill Rig Hill. The access road into the wind farm site from the public road is located in the adjoining local authority area of East Ayrshire and a separate planning permission was granted by East Ayrshire Council for the access road. The access road is unaffected by this current application.

1.2 The application site lies within an area of commercial forest and extends to 752 hectares. It is designated as plateau moorland under Scottish Natural Heritage Landscape Character Types. An area close to the site at Glengavel Reservoir is designated as Upland River Valley. The site is located adjacent to the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA) designated under EEC Habitats and Birds Directives with a small area of the site access falling within the boundary of the SPA. There are a few properties close to the site, the nearest being High Pewland and Laigh Plewland situated approximately 1 mile to the north east of the site. The site is designated as Rural within the approved South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP) 2015.

1.3 The application site comprises an 11 turbine wind farm which has been in operation since 2013. The turbines are 76m in height to tip and the wind farm has a generating capacity of 14.3MW. The turbines are grouped in two rows running from the northwest to southeast and are spaced on average approximately 350m apart.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The application is made under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and is an application for planning permission for the development of land but without compliance with a condition or conditions attached to a previous planning permission.

2.2 In this instance, the applicant wishes to vary conditions 75, 79 and 83 of the wind farm’s original planning permission (EK/06/0311 – hereon referred to as the Original Permission. The Original Permission granted the 11 turbine wind farm and allowed it to be constructed and become operational subject to 91 planning conditions and a legal agreement ensuring the following:-

● Submission of a Bond for the Restoration and Aftercare of the site ● Community Benefit funds are provided to the satisfaction of the Council ● Preparation and implementation of a Television Reception Remedial procedure ● The preparation and implementation of a Habitat Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Council and SNH ● The provision of a Ecological Clerk of Works ● The funding of a Planning Monitoring Officer to be appointed by the Council

68 ● That access to the site has been secured in Planning terms ● A Section 96 (Roads Scotland Act) Agreement between the Council and the applicant to ensure the satisfactory procedure and control over turbine transportation and the satisfactory and timely remedy of resultant damage to roads ● Indemnification between the applicant and the Council as Roads Authority outlining the indemnity insurance requirements that the applicant must maintain for the duration of the turbine transportation period

2.3 Condition 75 of planning permission EK/06/0311 states:

‘The geotechnical personnel approved shall undertake an annual inspection of the Site commencing at a date not exceeding one year from the date of this consent. Such inspection shall be carried out annually until the site has been decommissioned and then restored. This inspection shall include a walkover inspection of the Site, with a report produced and submitted to the planning authority within 3 months of the inspection. Where the report identifies a risk of peat failure, measures shall be implemented in accordance with the contingency plan approved in condition 74.’

2.4 The applicant has requested that this condition be amended to state (changes in bold):

‘The geotechnical personnel approved shall undertake a 5 yearly inspection of the Site commencing at a date not exceeding one year from the date of this consent. Such inspection shall be carried out 5 yearly until the site has been decommissioned and then restored. This inspection shall include a walkover inspection of the Site, with a report produced and submitted to the planning authority within 3 months of the inspection. Where the report identifies a risk of peat failure, measures shall be implemented in accordance with the contingency plan approved in condition 74.’

2.5 Condition 79 of the Original Permission states:

‘Within 12 months of the end of the period of this consent (unless a further consent is granted) all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land shall be restored and subject to aftercare, in accordance with the Restoration Plan and Aftercare Scheme referred to in Conditions 80, 81 and 82. For the purposes of this condition, "restored" means the removal of all wind turbines, turbine pads, initial layer of foundation and all buildings and ancillary development and reinstatement of borrow pits. Notwithstanding this requirement, no later than one year prior to the commencement of the restoration and aftercare scheme, the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, shall review the retention of pads, foundations, cable/ducts and access tracks within the context of the restoration strategy to identify any elements to be retained on site or requiring alternative reinstatement.’

69 2.6 The applicant has requested this condition be amended to state (changes in bold):

‘Within 12 months of the end of the period of this consent (unless a further consent is granted) all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings, excluding the substation control building and compound, shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land shall be restored and subject to aftercare, in accordance with the Restoration Plan and Aftercare Scheme referred to in Conditions 80, 81 and 82. For the purposes of this condition, "restored" means the removal of all wind turbines, turbine pads, initial layer of foundation and all buildings and ancillary development and reinstatement of borrow pits. Notwithstanding this requirement, no later than one year prior to the commencement of the restoration and aftercare scheme, the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, shall review the retention of pads, foundations, cable/ducts and access tracks within the context of the restoration strategy to identify any elements to be retained on site or requiring alternative reinstatement.’

2.7 Condition 83 of the Original Permission states:

‘Prior to the 30 September of every year of construction and operations at the Site, until completion of the decommissioning phase, unless a variation of specified date or frequency is agreed by the planning authorities, the developer shall submit an environmental audit to the planning authority setting out the operations that have been carried out in the previous 12 months within the Site boundary. This audit shall include; deforestation, indicating the effects of the development on the environment including noise, dust, changes to ground water, habitat creation, biodiversity impact, maintenance, access, safeguarding the historic heritage and the protection of amenity. The environmental audit must specify the degree of compliance with the conditions to this consent and, thereafter, specify remedial measures required to be taken in order to safeguard the environment at the Site and the surrounding area in the event of a failure to comply with any condition. Any necessary remediation shall be approved by the planning authority and subsequently implemented by the developer. This audit shall be conducted by an independent party, appointed by the planning authority and all costs shall be met by the developer.’

2.8 The applicant has requested that this condition be amended to state (changes in bold):

‘Prior to the 30 September of every year of construction and operations at the Site, until completion of the decommissioning phase, unless a variation of specified date or frequency is agreed by the planning authorities, the developer shall submit an environmental audit to the planning authority setting out the operations that have been carried out in the previous 5 years within the Site boundary. This audit shall include; deforestation, indicating the effects of the development on the environment including noise, dust, changes to ground water, habitat creation, biodiversity impact, maintenance, access, safeguarding the historic heritage and the protection of amenity. The environmental audit must specify the degree of compliance with the conditions to this consent and, thereafter, specify remedial measures required to be taken in order to safeguard the environment at the Site and the surrounding area in the event of a failure to comply with any condition. Any necessary remediation shall be approved by the planning authority and

70 subsequently implemented by the developer. This audit shall be conducted by an independent party, appointed by the planning authority and all costs shall be met by the developer.’

2.9 With regard to the proposed amendment to condition 79 to exclude the substation control building and compound from the infrastructure required to be removed for restoration of the site, it is noted that this building and compound received planning permission (Ref: P/18/1408) to allow their use in relation to storage of forestry plant and materials as well as providing welfare facilities to forestry staff and those serving the wind farm. The use of the building for forestry was deemed an acceptable, permanent use as it is screened from public view and provides facilities for the surrounding forestry operations that would have otherwise required their own building and compound. Given this permission, the removal of the substation and compound from condition 79 as part of the site’s restoration, it is considered that the proposed changes to condition 79 are acceptable and no further assessment of this proposed amendment is required.

2.10 The assessment of this Section 42 application therefore only concentrates on the requested amendments to conditions 75 and 83 as outlined above.

2.11 If successful, the effect of a Section 42 application to modify a planning condition or conditions is to grant a further planning permission for the whole development again but with the amended condition or conditions replacing those that were previously issued, or with conditions removed if required. All other conditions, if relevant, are also required to be attached to any new planning permission. As a new planning permission would then be issued for the whole development, any legal agreements attached to the previous permission may not be valid for the new permission and a new legal agreement reflecting the new planning permission would be required to be entered into. If the proposed changes to the condition or conditions are deemed unacceptable, then Section 42 of the Act requires the application to be refused. Any refusal of an application under Section 42 of the Act does not have any effect on the original planning permission which remains intact.

2.10 It should be noted that, as the wind farm has now been constructed and is operational, the Original Permission had several conditions that required work(s) and information to be carried out and approved prior to the construction and operation of the wind farm. As these conditions have been complied with, if this Section 42 application is successful there is no requirement to replicate conditions that are no longer relevant and therefore these would be removed from any subsequent permission.

3 Background

3.1 National Policy 3.1.1 National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) June 2014 sets out the long term vision for the development of Scotland and is the spatial expression of the Scottish Government’s Economic Strategy. It has a focus on supporting sustainable economic growth which respects the quality of the environment, place and life in Scotland and the transition to a low carbon economy. The framework sets out strategic outcomes aimed at supporting the vision – a successful, sustainable place, a low carbon place, a natural, resilient place and a connected place. NPF 3

71 also notes in paragraph 3.8 “We want to meet at least 30% of overall energy demand from renewables by 2020 - this includes generating the equivalent of at least 100% of gross electricity consumption from renewables, with an interim target of 50% by 2015”.

3.1.2 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) June 2014 aligns itself with NPF3 and one of its policy principles states that there will be “a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development” (page 9). The SPP also identifies a number of considerations to be taken into account when determining energy infrastructure developments including net economic benefit, the contribution to renewable energy targets, cumulative impacts, visual impacts, environmental impacts, residential amenity, and landscape and visual impacts (paragraph169).

3.1.3 It is considered that this Section 42 application relates to an existing wind farm and involves amendments to conditions that are not on a scale that would have any national context and, therefore, other than noting that National Policy is in favour of wind development that takes account of, inter alia, environmental impacts, there is no further assessment required against National Policy.

3.2 Development Plan Status 3.2.1 The proposed development requires to be considered against the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2017 (GCVSDP) Onshore Wind Spatial framework (paragraphs 7.8 and 7.9). The Onshore Wind Spatial Framework is aligned to increasing energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions.

3.2.2 Again, as with para 3.1.3 above, it is considered that the proposed amendments to conditions are at a local, non-strategic scale and, therefore, there is no further requirement to be assessed against the GCVSDP.

3.2.3 The South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP) was adopted on 29 June 2015 and contains the following policies against which the proposal should be assessed:

• Policy 2: Climate change • Policy 3: Green belt and rural areas • Policy 15: Natural and historic environment • Policy 19: Renewable energy

3.2.3 The following approved Supplementary Guidance documents support the policies in the SLLDP and also require assessment:

• Supplementary Guidance 9: Natural and Historic Environment • Supplementary Guidance 10: Renewable Energy

3.2.4 All these policies and guidance are examined in the assessment and conclusions section of this report.

3.2.5 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. The new plan builds on the policies and proposals contained in the currently adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. For the purposes of determining planning applications, the

72 proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is now a material consideration. In this instance, the following policies are relevant:

Policy 2 - Climate Change Policy 4 – Green Belt and Rural Area Policy 14 - Natural and Historic Environment Policy 18 - Renewable Energy

3.2.6 All these policies and guidance are examined in the assessment and conclusions section of this report.

3.3 Planning Background 3.3.1 The Original Permission (EK/06/0311) for erection of 11 wind turbines and associated infrastructure including sub-station, access tracks, construction compound and borrow pit was granted by Planning Committee in 2011 subject to 91 conditions and a legal agreement as detailed in paragraph 2.2 above. The wind farm was subsequently constructed and has been operational since 2013.

3.3.2 Planning Permission Ref: EK/13/0324 to allow the Original Permission’s main temporary construction compound to be used for the permanent storage of forestry equipment separate to the wind farm was granted by planning committee in 2014 and the compound continues to be used for forestry operations and comprises the compound area of application P/18/1408 as outlined in para 3.3.3 below.

3.3.3 Planning permission Ref: P/18/1408 for the change of use of windfarm substation control building and compound to use as storage of forestry plant and materials and welfare facilities was granted permission under delegated powers in November 2018.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services (Development Management) – no comments to make. Response: Noted. The proposed amendments have no effect on any roads conditions. A new legal agreement in relation to roads obligations will replicate the existing roads requirements in relation to the restoration of the site. Any pre- construction obligations are no longer needed.

4.2 Environmental Services – no comments to make. Response: Noted. The proposed amendments have no effect on noise or shadow flicker or any other amenity related issue.

4.3 Historic Environment Scotland - no objection and state that the proposed amendments to conditions have no effect on their remit. Response: Noted.

73 4.4 SEPA – have no comments to make in relation to the proposed changes to conditions 75 and 79. In relation to condition 83, SEPA consider that the monitoring should remain annual. Response: The comments made in relation to conditions 75 and 79 are noted. The comments made in respect of condition 83 are assessed in detail in Section 6 below.

4.5 SNH - have no objections in relation to the proposed changes to conditions 75 and 79. In relation to condition 83, SNH state that as the site is still within its implementation phase annual monitoring should be maintained. However, as the habitat management matures the frequency of monitoring could be reduced subject to agreement by the Habitat Management Group. Response: The comments made in relation to conditions 75 and 79 are noted. The comments in respect of condition 83 are assessed in detail in Section 6 below.

4.6 WOSAS - have no comments to make on the proposed amendments as they do not impact on any archaeology remit. Response: Noted.

4.7 The following consultees had no comments to make on the proposed amendments:

Roads Flood Risk Management East Ayrshire Council Countryside and Greenspace RSPB

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Statutory neighbour notification was undertaken and the proposal was advertised in the East Kilbride News (7.11.2018) and the Edinburgh Gazette (09.11.2018).

5.2 Following this advertisement, one letter of representation was received with the following comments:- a) Bats and other species in decline must be protected as part of this development b) No demolition works must be carried out that would harm bats or other species present Response: This application relates to a Section 42 proposal for an already constructed development. Protected species surveys were assessed as part of the Original Permission and taken account of during construction. The proposed amendment to conditions would not affect any protected species if approved.

5.3 This letter has been copied and is available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) 1997 as amended

74 6.1.1 This application has been submitted under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). Section 42 of the Act states that:

'On such an application, the Planning Authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted.’

6.1.2 Consideration of this type of application, therefore, does not revisit the principle of development on the site but only considers the appropriateness of the conditions attached to the previous consent and whether it is acceptable to amend or delete as requested. Whilst, in essence, this is an application to vary condition(s) on the existing permission, if granted, the process requires a new, standalone planning permission to be issued for the original development but with a new suite of conditions, including all those still thought to be relevant as well as the varied condition(s). However, it is noted that the nature of the legislation would require all conditions to be revisited as they may be linked or connected to these specific condition(s). Should the proposed amendment to the condition(s) not be acceptable, a Section 42 application is to be refused but without affecting the status of the original permission.

6.1.3 The main matters for consideration are therefore whether the proposed amendment to the conditions proposed would undermine the reasons for the original conditions or the Development Plan position; and if it is considered this Section 42 application does undermine either of these, whether there are material considerations which would outweigh this to allow permission to be granted. As noted in paragraph 2.9 above the issue regarding allowing the substation control building and compound to be a standalone entity separate from the wind farm has already received planning permission and it is therefore considered it does not need any further assessment.

6.1.4 The assessment, therefore, relates to the acceptability of amending conditions 75 and 83 in relation to the frequency of the monitoring. This is assessed below.

6.2 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 6.2.1 Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, all applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises the approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (GCVSDP), the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015 (SLLDP) and its associated Supplementary Guidance. As noted in 3.2.2 above, the proposed changes are not of a strategic significance that requires any further assessment under the GCVSP. Also, as noted in 3.2.5 above, on 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. The new plan builds on the policies and proposals contained in the currently adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. For the purposes of determining planning applications, the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) is now a material consideration.

6.3 Adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015

75 6.3.1 The SLLDP’s overall strategic vision is ‘to promote the continued growth and regeneration of South Lanarkshire by seeking sustainable economic and social development within a low carbon economy whilst protecting and enhancing the environment.’ The relevant, specific policies relating to this Section 42 application are taken in turn below.

6.3.2 Policy 2: Climate change, seeks to minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change by a number of criteria. The criteria relevant to this proposal are (iii) utilising renewable energy sources, (vii) having no significant adverse impacts on the water and soils environment, air quality, biodiversity (including Natura 2000 sites and protected species) and green networks.

6.3.3 With regard to condition 75 and the frequency of the geotechnical monitoring, it is considered that now the wind farm development has been constructed and operational for 5 years, it is established in built terms. The geotechnical monitoring was to ensure that the construction and establishment of the wind farm did not result in any stability issues to the surrounding area. Given the wind farm is now established, altering the frequency of the monitoring to be every 5 years is appropriate. It is, therefore, considered that the amendment to condition 75 to carry out geotechnical monitoring every 5 years in relation to the development’s impact upon the soil environment is considered acceptable. There are no other relevant policies relating to the geotechnical monitoring and, therefore, it is considered that there is no further assessment required. With regard to the frequency of other environmental monitoring, including in relation to biodiversity, this is further assessed against relevant policy criteria throughout the remainder of this section of the report.

6.3.4 Policy 3: Green Belt and rural area, states that the Green Belt and rural area functions primarily for agricultural, forestry, recreation and other uses appropriate for the countryside. The proposal is located within the rural area but relates to an existing wind farm and does not propose any further built development. It is, therefore, considered that the principle of the development has already been deemed acceptable within the Rural Area and the proposed alterations to the planning conditions have no further implications for the countryside strategy set out within the Development Plan.

6.3.5 Policy 15: Natural and Historic Environment assesses all development proposals in terms of their effect on the character and amenity of the natural and built environment. Policy 15 seeks to protect important natural and historic sites and features as listed in Table 6.1 of the SLLDP from adverse impacts resulting from development, including cumulative impacts.

6.3.6 The proposed amendments to conditions relate to the frequency of environmental monitoring and will therefore have no impact on any historic asset.

6.3.7 In relation to natural assets and condition 83 of the Original Permission, the proposed amendment is to allow the frequency of the environmental monitoring of the site to be reduced from an annual basis to a five yearly basis. The site is located adjacent to the Muirkirk and North Lowther Uplands Special Protection Area (SPA) with a small area of the site access falling within the boundary of the SPA. The SPA is designated due its bird population. The Original Permission required the approval and implementation of a Conservation Management Plan

76 (CMP) to mitigate any impact the turbines may have had on the bird population as well as creating additional, suitable habitats for the protected bird species within the SPA. A Habitat Management Group (HMG) was formed to oversee implementation of the CMP and monitor its progress following implementation as well as agreeing any changes to the CMP that would be beneficial to the protected bird population. The HMG is separate to the environmental monitoring required by condition 83 but the resultant environmental audit is circulated to members of the HMG to inform their discussions. The HMG comprises the Planning Authority, the operator as well as SNH, East Ayrshire Council and the RSPB. The HMG discuss the previous year’s results of the CMP work and whether they should continue as approved or if there are any benefits to altering the works. It is considered that whilst the environmental monitoring and subsequent audit provide necessary information on the progress of CMP work, it is the HMG that shape best practice on what would be most effective to protect bird species and encourage breeding through habitat creation. As the HMG assesses the progress of CMP work and manages its future delivery it is, therefore, considered that the HMG should set the frequency of the monitoring through discussions and agreement with the members of the group. However, given the CMP work is considered to still be in an implementation phase and the HMG has yet to fully establish best practice on site it is considered that the period for environmental monitoring should be maintained on an annual basis but that the HMG should be allowed to review this time period for monitoring as the CMP work establishes best practice on site. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed amendment to the condition is not currently appropriate, but that there is potentially scope for this time period in the future. Therefore, it is considered acceptable to agree, in part, to the condition but maintain annual monitoring at this time and allow the time period to be agreed by the HMG in the future as the work of the CMP progresses. On this basis, it is considered that natural assets within the site would continue to be protected and the development would continue to be in accordance with Policy 15 of SLLDP.

6.3.8 Policy 19: Renewable Energy states applications for renewable energy infrastructure developments will be supported subject to an assessment against the principles set out in the 2014 SPP, in particular, the considerations set out at paragraph 169 and additionally for onshore wind developments the terms of Table 1: Spatial Frameworks. The policy also requires the Council to produce statutory supplementary guidance which accords with SPP. The Council’s approved guidance, Supplementary Guidance 10: Renewable Energy (SG10) provides guidance in line with paragraph 169 of SPP. The advice within SG10 is focussed on new wind farm developments over 15m in height and it is not considered to be particularly relevant to the assessment of this planning application as it relates to the amendment to conditions of an established wind farm. Notwithstanding, it is noted that SG10 provides guidance on the natural environment. However, this impact has already been assessed within paragraphs 6.3.5 to 6.3.7 above and this proposal is considered to be in accordance with this guidance.

6.3.9 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the

77 proposals accord with Policies 2, 4, 14 and 18 in the proposed plan, including the Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy.

6.4 Conclusion 6.4.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed amendments to condition 79 are acceptable given that a standalone planning permission has now been granted to allow the substation control building and compound to remain on site after the lifetime of the wind farm to provide welfare and storage facilities for the surrounding forestry operations. The use of this building for forestry operations also negates the need for any further built development within the local area to provide replacement facilities to the forestry operations. With regard to the proposed amendment to condition 75 to reduce the frequency of the geotechnical inspections from an annual basis to a five year basis, this is also considered acceptable. The wind farm has been constructed for over 5 years and this is considered to be an appropriate period of time to allow the construction works to have settled. However it is considered prudent to require a geotechnical report within the first year of this permission, if approved, and then to allow the monitoring to proceed on a five yearly basis. With regard to the proposed amendment to condition 83, it is considered that as the habitat management being undertaken through the approved Conservation Management Plan is still to be considered to be in its implementation phase, it would be prudent to maintain the current annual monitoring period. The Conservation Management Plan is to be an evolving document to ensure that effective habitat management following best practice is carried out throughout the lifetime of the site. A Habitat Management Group has been established to monitor the results of the CMP and, therefore, it is also recognised that it may be acceptable in the future to allow the frequency of the monitoring to be reduced as the CMP works become established. This would require to be subject to agreement by the Habitat Management Group, of which the Planning Authority is a member.

6.6.2 As detailed above, a Section 42 planning application, if successful, involves the issuing of a brand new planning permission for the approved development and, therefore, affords the Council, as Planning Authority, an option to update any conditions attached to the new permission to ensure that only relevant conditions are attached to a decision. In this instance, the conditions recommended are considered to be appropriate for the development as it operates now and removes any unnecessary conditions that have been complied with prior to operation of the wind farm. It should be noted that, due to this updated suite of conditions, the conditions originally applied for are now numbered differently. In this instance in the attached recommended conditions, condition 75 is now numbered 34, condition 79 is now numbered 6 and condition 83 is now numbered 36. It should also be noted that since the original decision was made, the Council, as Planning Authority finds the use of a condition to secure a financial guarantee for restoration to be more effective than attaching said guarantee within a legal agreement. A financial guarantee condition has, therefore, been attached to the recommendation (condition number 4) and this element removed from the legal obligations required.

7 Reasons for Decision

78 7.1 The proposals to vary conditions 75, 79 and 83 of planning permission Ref: EK/06/0311 are considered acceptable and the updated suite of approved documents appropriate. The removal of the substation and compound from the restoration of the site, amending the frequency of the geotechnical monitoring and allowing the frequency of the environmental monitoring to be agreed by the site’s Habitat Management Group are considered to not have any significant, adverse impact in relation to the previous planning approval and accord with National Policy and the relevant provisions of the Development Plan subject to the imposition of the attached environmental conditions as allowed under Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Scotland) 1997 as amended.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 22 August 2019

Previous references  EK/06/0311  EK/13/0324  P/18/1408

► Consultations

WOSAS 06.11.2018 SEPA West Region 04.12.2018 Historic Environment Scotland 16.11.2018 SNH 22.01.2019

► Representations Dated:

Mr Joe Allan, 94 Franklin Place, Westwood, East Kilbride, 14.11.2018 G75 8LS

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

79 James Wright, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455903 Email: [email protected]

80 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/18/1409

Conditions and reasons

01. This decision relates to drawing numbers: - Environmental Statement Volume 1 May 2006 2. Environmental Statement Volume 2 May 2006 3. Non-Technical Summary May 2006 4. Environmental Statement Confidential Appendix to Annex C (Birds) May 2006 5. BMT Cordah Additional Ornithological Information/ Response to SNH January 2007 6. BMT Cordah Additional Ornithological Information May 2007 7. DLA Piper Wintering Bird Survey 2007-2008, Breading Bird Survey 2008 & Ornithological Assessment Update October 2008 8. Bankend Rig Breeding Bird Survey (Proposed Access Track) September 2008 9. Collett Transport Route Access Route Bankend Rig October 2009 10. Bankend Rig Windfarm Management Plan Version 5 December 2009 11. Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Updated to Original ES) August 2018

Reason: In order to define the terms of the consent.

02. That consent is granted for a period of no more than 20 years from the date of this permission. The operator is required to obtain by no later than the end of said 20 year period, written confirmation from the planning authority that all decommissioning works have been completed in accordance with the approved decommissioning scheme referred to in condition 7 of this consent.

Reason: In order to maintain effect control of the site.

03. The development is carried out strictly in accordance with the terms of the application and the accompanying Environmental Statement, including all mitigation measures as stated in it subject to the conditions below.

Reason: In the interests of environmental management.

04. That within one month from the date of this permission, a guarantee to cover all site restoration and aftercare liabilities imposed on the expiry of this consent will be submitted for the written approval of the planning authority. Such guarantee must:- i. be granted in favour of the planning authority ii. be granted by a bank or other institution which is of sound financial standing and capable of fulfilling the obligations under the guarantee; iii. be for an amount which covers the value of all site restoration and aftercare liabilities as determined by the planning authority at the commencement of development

81 iv. contain provisions so that all the site restoration and aftercare liabilities as determined at the commencement of development shall be increased on each fifth anniversary of the date of this consent. v. come into effect on or before the date of commencement of development, and expire no earlier than 24 months after the end of the aftercare period.

In the event that the guarantee becomes invalid for any reason, no operations will be carried out on site until a replacement guarantee completed in accordance with the terms of this condition is lodged with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control.

05. In the event of any turbine, or group of turbines, failing or being no longer required for electricity generation, or any other reason, for a continuous period of six months, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority, the turbine(s) shall be replaced (in the case of failures), or dismantled and removed. In the case of removal, that part of the site accommodating the turbine, the turbine pad and access roads shall be reinstated within three months of the end of the six month period of non-generation in accordance with the agreed scheme under condition 7 of this permission, all to the satisfaction of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintaining effective control of the site.

06. Within 12 months of the end of the period of this consent (unless a further consent is granted) all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings, excluding the substation control building and compound, shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land shall be restored and subject to aftercare, in accordance with the Restoration Plan and Aftercare Scheme referred to in Conditions 7 and 8. For the purposes of this condition "restored" means the removal of all wind turbines, turbine pads, initial layer of foundation and all buildings and ancillary development and reinstatement of borrow pits. Notwithstanding this requirement, no later than one year prior to the commencement of the restoration and aftercare scheme, the planning authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage, shall review the retention of pads, foundations, cable/ducts and access tracks within the context of the restoration strategy to identify any elements to be retained on site or requiring alternative reinstatement.

Reason: In the interests of restoring the site

07. That no later than 12 months from the date of this permission, a plan for the restoration of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The Restoration Plan shall set out the means of reinstating the site following the removal of the components of the development as specified in condition 6 above. In particular the Restoration Plan shall detail the level of subsoil, topsoil and peat replacement required over each part of the site. Details of all seed mixes proposed to be used shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval in consultation with SNH. The approved Restoration Plan shall be implemented and overseen by an ECOW.

Reason: In the interests of restoring the site.

82 08. Without prejudice to the generality of condition 7 above, the Restoration Plan will include details of phased decommissioning, the land use prevailing after decommissioning has taken place, the means of disposal of all waste materials and road metal, the dismantling methodologies for each turbine setting out the extent of recovery or of recycling of all metals and other recyclable parts, the means of removing the turbine bases and crane pads and the removal of cabling and ducts within the site.

Reason: In the interests of restoration

09. None of the turbines, anemometer masts, and ancillary buildings or above ground fixed plant shall display any name, logo, sign or advertisement without express consent from the planning authority, unless such sign is required for health & safety or operational reasons.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

10. The blades of all turbines shall rotate in the same direction.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

11. No signs will be erected on the site without the prior written consent of the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

12. No track shall exceed 6.5m in width.

Reason: In order to maintain effective control of the development approved.

13. No electricity or control cables between the turbines and control buildings shall be laid other than underground alongside tracks which are to be constructed on the Site, unless otherwise agreed with the planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

14. No material to be used for the development shall be brought on Site unless it has certification from a suitably UKAS accredited laboratory to confirm that the material is not contaminated.

Reason: In the interests of the surrounding environment.

15. No fuel, oil, lubricant, paint or solvent shall be stored on Site other than within bunds or double skin tanks which must be locked and capable of containing at least 110% of the largest capacity vessel stored therein and any spillage of any oil shall be cleaned-up immediately. Any electrical equipment utilising oils or organic fluids should similarly be in a bunded area sufficient to contain any spillage.

Reason: In the interests of environmental protection.

16. The Site shall not be illuminated by lighting unless:

83 (a) the planning authority has given prior written approval; (b) lighting is required during working hours which has been approved by the relevant planning authority; or (c) an emergency requires the provision of lighting.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

17. No blasting shall take place on site without the further written approval of the Council, as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

18. Noise from the wind turbines shall not exceed the following levels at the boundary of the curtilage of any adjacent noise sensitive receptor at wind speeds of up to 9 meters per second:

- Quiet Daytime Hours background noise level plus 5dB(A) L90 or 40 dB(A) L90 whichever is the greater;

- Night Hours background noise level plus 5dB (A) L90 or 43 dB(A) L90, whichever is the greater.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

19. If the tonal noise emitted by the development exceeds the threshold of audibility by 6.5 dB or more, then the noise level as specified in condition 18 shall be reduced by 5dB, always providing that the definition of audibility for the purposes of this condition shall be as described in ETSU-R-97.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

20. At the reasonable request of the planning authority and following a complaint to the planning authority relating to noise emissions arising from the operation of the wind farm, the wind farm operator shall appoint an independent noise consultant, whose appointment shall require to be approved by the planning authority, to measure the level of noise emission from the wind farm at the property to which the complaint relates. The measurement and calculation of noise levels shall be undertaken in accordance with ETSU-R-97 having regard to paragraphs 1 to 3 and 5 to 11 inclusive of the schedule on Pages 95 to 97 inclusive, and Supplementary Guidance Notes to the Planning Obligation pages 99 to 109 of ETSU-R-97.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

21. In evaluating a complaint relating to one of the dwellings specified in condition 20 above, noise emission levels shall where appropriate be compared with the relevant ETSU-R-97 derived 'quiet waking hours' or 'night hours' noise limits defined in condition 18, derived from previously measured background noise levels. In the event of a complaint from any property not specified in the Environmental Statement (2009) Table 11.1 Baseline Monitoring, the measured wind farm noise emission level shall be compared to the prevailing background

84 noise level at the property specified in Table 11.1 which is most likely to experience background noise levels similar to the complainant property.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

22. The applicant/developer shall provide and utilise water bowser facilities to control dust emissions from the site from access tracks and mineral stockpiles.

Reason: In the interests of dust suppression

23. The applicant/developer shall ensure that vehicles used for the movement of materials within the site do not have downward pointing exhaust pipes.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

24. That throughout the lifetime of the development, hereby approved, (including tree felling operations) monitoring of the surface waters shall be undertaken where they enter and leave the site. Confirmation shall be provided that the surface water quality is not being compromised by any on site activities.

Reason: In the interests of water management.

25. Only mechanical means of snow clearance shall be used to clear access tracks, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authorities after consultation with SNH.

Reason: In the interests of the environment.

26. Foul drainage from sanitary facilities must be disposed of to the satisfaction of the planning authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Reason: In the interests of drainage management

27. The mitigation identified in Conservation Management Plan (Version 5 or any subsequently approved versions) in relation to the qualifying interests of the SPA, black grouse and breeding waders shall be fully implemented in accordance with the associated Section 75 Planning Agreement. Survey, monitoring and assessment of species present and habitat quality to be restored and enhanced under the prescriptions stipulated within the Habitat Management Plan shall be undertaken by an appropriately qualified ecologist. Any proposed amendments to the Conservation Management Plan must be approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH.

Reason: In the interests of habitat management

28. Three months prior to the commencement of decommissioning an Ecological Clerk of Works shall be appointed by the operator and approved by the planning authority after consultation with SNH until the completion of aftercare or such earlier date as may be agreed in writing by the planning authority. The scope of work of the Ecological Clerk of Works shall be agreed in writing by the Council, as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of environmental management.

29. Water crossing proposals require the prior written approval of the planning authorities after consultation with SEPA and SNH. No culverting shall be undertaken unless the culverting has been approved in writing by the planning authority after consultation with SEPA and SNH. All culverts shall be designed to ensure the free and safe passage of fish, otters and water voles.

Reason: In the interests of environmental protection.

30. Excess peat excavations shall not be placed onto the peat surface until the adequacy of the ground to support the load has been determined and the Planning Authority has given its written approval.

Reason: In the interests of peat management

31. All water discharged from excavations shall be directed into suitably designed or natural drainage lines.

Reason: In the interests of drainage.

32. All release of water shall be into a formalised drainage path which shall form part of Site-wide drainage network.

Reason: In the interests of water management.

33. All excavation shall be suitably supported to prevent collapse and development of tension cracks.

Reason: In the interests of land stability.

34. The geotechnical personnel approved by the planning authority shall undertake an inspection of the Site commencing at a date not exceeding one year from the date of this consent. Thereafter further geotechnical inspections shall be carried out every 5 years until the site has been decommissioned and then restored. This inspection shall include a walkover inspection of the Site, with a report produced and submitted to the planning authority within 3 months of the inspection. Where the report identifies a risk of peat failure, measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved on site contingency plan.

Reason: To mitigate peat slide risk.

35. Prior to the decommissioning of any turbine, an Aftercare Scheme for the restored site shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority and thereafter implemented. The Aftercare Scheme shall include the measures necessary to manage the site or that part of the site as the case may be, in accordance with the Conservation Management Plan subject to the Section 75 Agreement compiled in conjunction with this planning permission.

Reason: In the interests of effective aftercare following site restoration.

86 36. Prior to the 30 September of every year of operations at the Site, until completion of the decommissioning phase, unless a variation of specified date or frequency is agreed by the planning authorities in conjunction with the site's Habitat Management Group, the developer shall submit an environmental audit to the planning authority setting out the operations that have been carried out in the previous 12 months within the Site boundary. This audit shall include; deforestation, indicating the effects of the development on the environment including noise, dust, changes to ground water, habitat creation, biodiversity impact, maintenance, access, safeguarding the historic heritage and the protection of amenity. The environmental audit must specify the degree of compliance with the conditions to this consent and, thereafter, specify remedial measures required to be taken in order to safeguard the environment at the Site and the surrounding area in the event of a failure to comply with any condition. Any necessary remediation shall be approved by the planning authority and subsequently implemented by the developer. This audit shall be conducted by an independent party, appointed by the planning authority and all costs shall be met by the developer.

Reason: In the interests of retaining effective planning control.

37. That no later than 3 months prior to the restoration plan required by condition 7 being implemented, a full road management plan, including, but not limited to, the proposed abnormal route assessment for removal of all turbines, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council as Roads Authority. The road management plan as approved shall thereafter be implemented fully for the duration of the site's restoration. For the avoidance of doubt the road management plan will replicate all the requirements of the road management measures required for construction of the wind farm under planning reference EK/06/0311 unless otherwise advised by the Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

88 Agenda Item

Report 7

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/19/0567 Planning proposal: Erection of 66 dwellings and associated infrastructure and landscaping.

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Detailed planning application • Applicant: Persimmon Homes Location: • Site Of Former Roadmeetings Hospital Goremire Road Carluke South Lanarkshire [1purpose]

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application. (2) Detailed planning permission should not be issued until an appropriate obligation under Section 75 of the Planning Act, and/or other appropriate agreement, has been concluded between the Council, the applicants and the site owner(s). This planning obligation should ensure that appropriate financial contributions are made at appropriate times during the development towards the following:

- Financial contribution towards educational facilities - Financial contribution towards the upgrade of community facilities

The agreement should also ensure the on-site provision of 14 residential units, to be built by the developer and then transferred to the Council in a turnkey arrangement, to form part of their housing stock.

89 In accordance with agreed procedure, should there be no significant progress, on behalf of the applicant, towards the conclusion of the Planning Obligation within 6 months of the date of the Committee, the proposed development may be refused on the basis that, without the planning control/developer contribution and affordable housing which would be secured by the Planning Obligation, the proposed development would be unacceptable.

All reasonable legal costs incurred by the Council in association with the above Section 75 Obligation shall be borne by the applicant

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: ♦ Council Area/Ward: 01 Clydesdale West ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 2 Climate change South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 4 Development management and placemaking South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 5 Community infrastructure assessment South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 6 General urban area/settlements South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy13 Affordable housing and housing choice South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 16 Travel and transport Proposed SLDP2: Policy 2 Climate change Proposed SLDP2: Policy 3 General Urban Areas Proposed SLDP2: Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Placemaking Proposed SLDP2: Policy 7 Community Infrastructure Assessment Proposed SLDP2: Policy 12 Affordable Housing Proposed SLDP2: Policy 15 Travel and Transport

♦ Representation(s):

► 16 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 0 Comment Letters

♦ Consultation(s):

90 Countryside and Greenspace

SEPA West Region

Environmental Services

Roads Flood Risk Management

Scottish Water

Education Resources School Modernisation Team

Housing Services

Arboricultural Services

Carluke Community Council

Scottish Power

SNH

Coal Authority Planning Local Authority Liaison Dept

Change and Development

Roads Development Management Team

91 Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application site extends to 2.24 hectares and relates to the former Roadmeetings Hospital which was closed in 2012 before being demolished. It can now be described as a vacant brownfield site. Most of the site consists of unmanaged grassland with remnant landscape features including mature trees/ shelter belts marking the boundaries, a small woodland in the south western corner and two small copses along the former driveway. There is an existing access onto Goremire Road. Topographically, the site slopes in a south westerly direction down to the Goremire Road frontage to the north.

1.2 The site is bounded to the west, south and east by established residential areas. The northern boundary adjoins Goremire Road and beyond by detached dwellings. Also fronting Goremire Road and enveloped on three sides by the application site are two 2 semi-detached dwellings.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for the erection of 66 dwellings incorporating a range of styles and sizes ranging (detached, semi-detached, terraced and cottage flats) from 1 to 4 bedrooms. The design is reflective of contemporary housing in the surrounding area. The finish will be a mixture of brick, render and tiles. As a means of addressing the need for affordable housing, fourteen of these units, once built, will be transferred to the Council to add to its housing stock – this will be secured by a legal agreement. The proposal also includes associated roads, footpaths, landscaping and a SUDS basin.

2.2 The layout has been designed around a circulatory road system and influenced by the need to provide a standoff from an historic mineshaft and retention of landscape features with pockets of new amenity space. There will be a varied street façade to create visual interest and variety. An integrated Sustainable Urban Drainge System will link into a SUDS pond, located at a natural low point at the northern end of the site. A new access will be formed onto Goremire Road.

2.3 As supporting documents, the applicant has submitted a Design and Access Statement, Ecology Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Impact Assessment, Transport Assessment, Tree Survey and Site Investigation Report.

2.4 As the proposal relates to a residential development which falls within the definition of ‘major’ development, as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 the applicants undertook a pre-application consultation prior to the submission of this planning application.

3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Status

3.1.1 The adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan identifies much of the site as part of housing supply land and as lying within the settlement boundary of

92 Law where Policy 6 - General Urban Area/Settlement applies. In addition, Policies 2: Climate Change, 4: Development Management and Place Making, 5: Community Infrastructure Assessment, 13: Affordable Housing and Housing Choice and 16: Travel and Transport are relevant as is the Supplementary Guidance on Development Management, Place Making and Design; Affordable Housing and Housing Choice; Sustainable Development and Climate Change; Green Belt and Rural Area and Community Infrastructure Assessment. The Council’s Residential Development Guide should also be taken into consideration.

3.2 Relevant Government Advice/Policy

3.2.1 In terms of residential development, SPP advises that the planning system should identify a generous supply of land to support the achievement of housing land requirements and maintaining at least a 5 year supply of land at all times. It should also enable the development of well designed, energy efficient, good quality housing in sustainable locations and focus on the delivery of allocated sites. In terms of development in the rural area, SPP states that most new development should be guided to locations within or adjacent to settlements. Planning should take every opportunity to create high quality places and direct development to the right places, in particular, by encouraging the re-use of brownfield sites.

3.2.2 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. The new plan builds on the policies and proposals contained in the currently adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. For the purposes of determining planning applications, the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 is now a material consideration. In this instance Policies 2 ‘Climate Change’, 3 ’General Urban Areas’ 5 ‘Development Management and Placemaking’, 7 ‘Community Infrastructure assessment’, 12 ‘Affordable Housing’ and 15 ‘Travel and Transport’ are relevant.

3.3 Planning Background

3.3.1 There have been no relevant planning applications in the past five years, however, prior to the submission of the current application, as part of procedures for major applications (see para 2.4 above), a Proposal of Application Notice P/18/0009/PAN was submitted in August 2018.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services HQ (Flooding Unit) – offer no objection subject to conditions requiring a flood risk assessment and a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS). Response: Noted. Should consent be granted, a condition can be attached to cover these matters.

4.2 SNH – The proposal does not meet criteria for consultation. Response: Noted.

93 4.3 Scottish Power – No objection, however, advise that there are LV underground cables in the area and reserve the right to protect and/or deviate apparatus at the applicant’s expense. Response: Noted.

4.4 Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions covering piling, contaminated land investigations, waste control and dust mitigation along with informatives on construction noise, pest control, nuisance and contaminated land register. Response: Noted. If permission is granted, appropriate conditions and informatives will be attached.

4.5 Scottish Water – No objection. There is currently capacity at water and waste treatment works, however, formal application to Scottish Water will be necessary to confirm connection Response: Noted. A condition will be attached requiring confirmation on connections to the sewerage and water networks.

4.6 The Coal Authority – As matters relating to instability relate to minerals other than coal, as discussed in the Site Investigation Report, the Coal Authority does not offer objection, however, advises that recommendations in the submitted report to deal with potential risks are considered. Response: Noted. If consent is granted a condition will be attached requiring mitigation measures, where necessary, to secure the stability of the site.

4.6 Education Resources – No objection although developer contributions would be required to address capacity shortfall at Crawforddyke Primary School, Carluke High School and local nurseries. Response: Noted. Financial contributions towards education will be secured through the Section 75 legal agreement.

4.7 Change and Development – There are a number of community assets in the area ranging from leisure centres, libraries, halls, outdoor recreation, and play facilities and the majority of them need investment. Response: After discussions, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards the cost of upgrading the Crawforddyke play area.

4.8 SEPA – No objection. Any discharge of surface water to the water environment should be in accordance with the principles of the CIRIA SUDS Manual (C753) Response: Noted.

4.9 Arboricultural Services – objects to the removal of a number of trees, also the position of a number of dwellings close to trees may result in pressure to have them removed. Also recommends a TPO to cover retained trees. Response: Noted. A revised layout has been submitted ensuring the retention of more trees than originally intended.

4.10 Greenspace and Countryside – submitted details on the specification for a proposed footpath link. Response: After taking consideration of security concerns raised by local residents, it has now been decided to omit the footpath.

94 4.11 Housing Services – Have been in discussions with the developer and have agreed the on site provision of affordable housing units within the site. They will be built by the applicants and then handed over to the Council on completion. Response: The provision of affordable housing will be secured through the conclusion of a Section 75 agreement.

4.12 Carluke Community Council – no response received to date Response: Noted.

4.13 Roads and Transportation Services Development Management Team– raised no objections subject to conditions relating to a number of matters including access, visibility, parking spaces for construction staff and wheel washing facilities. Response: Noted. These matters can be covered by condition.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 In response to the carrying out of neighbour notification 16 letters of objection have been received. The issues raised are summarised below:

a) Loss of light and overshadowing Response: In considering the position of the proposed dwellings relative to existing dwellings, I do not consider that there will be any significant loss of light and overshadowing affecting neighbouring properties.

b) The proposed unmade and unlit walkway creates a health and safety issue and presents opportunities for unofficial dumping and anti- social behaviour. The footpath does not connect anywhere and would just be an area for youths to congregate and cause a nuisance. Response: In considering these concerns, the proposed footpath along the western boundary has now been omitted. The area earmarked for this will now be incorporated into individual curtilages along with mature trees situated along the boundary.

c) Noise and disturbance. Response: There will be a degree of disturbance/noise during the construction phase, however, this will only be for a temporary period and as development progresses further into the site, disturbance to neighbouring residents will dissipate. Also an informative will be attached to a Decision Notice if permission is granted advising the developer of the need to comply with construction noise standards.

d) Adverse impact upon traffic safety. Increase in level of traffic on the road network in conjunction with other nearby housing development. Response: A Transport Assessment has been submitted by the applicant. This has been considered by colleagues in Roads and Transportation Services who have raised no objections subject to conditions.

e) Request for the removal of some trees along the western boundary – concerned about damage from root system and falling branches. Response: This is a legal matter between the site owner and the neighbouring properties affected.

95 f) Impact upon privacy Response: In considering the position, orientation and distance between proposed and existing dwellings, I am satisfied that privacy standards will not be compromised. g) Pollution from additional cars. Response: The site is not within an area or a designated air quality zone where existing pollution levels are considered to be problematic. h) New entrance will be situated opposite 10 Goremire Road making it more difficult to enter and leave. Response: Such a situation is commonplace within housing developments and, given the scale of development, no significant delays should occur. i) Are the schools going to cope with the extra children? Response: Education Resources have not raised any concerns other than a requirement for developer contributions to address anticipated increases in the school rolls. The developer has agreed to make a contribution. j) The plan for 66 residential units will result in a density of buildings and supporting infrastructure which is not in keeping with the current environment in particular building of 2 storey blocks of flats is out of keeping with the locality. Response: There are a variety of housing densities throughout Carluke. This proposal reflects the average density and meets current guidelines and standards. There are only 4 cottage flats, a small proportion of the proposed 66 units. k) Introduction of affordable housing is questionable as it was not required on other sites. Response: For development sites of 20 or more residential units, the current policy requires a proportion of affordable housing to be provided on site or that a contribution is made to facilitate provision elsewhere. The preferred option depends on which is most feasible. l) Impact upon nature conservation. Response: An Ecological Assessment has been undertaken which outlines mitigation measures to minimise disturbance of wildlife – these measures will be covered by use of condition if consent is granted. m) Which body or company will be responsible for the maintenance of trees? Response: This matter will be covered by a maintenance regime which is likely to be managed through a factoring system. n) Surface water runoff. Response: Surface water flow will be controlled and regulated through means of an installed Sustainable Urban drainage System (SUDS). o) If 3 trees which overhang gardens at Hillhouse Gate are not cut down then all overhanging branches should be cut back.

96 Response: The owners of neighbouring properties have legal rights to cut back overhanging branches.

q) Property is less than 5 metres from retained trees. Response: These are existing mature trees, therefore, there is no change in circumstances relative to neighbouring properties.

r) The south western corner of the proposed development will be left undeveloped with no mention of a fence at Goremire Road. Open access from the roadside as well as the near development may encourage misuse of the area. Response: Revised plans show a 1.8m fence along the frontage which will discourage direct access from Goremire Road.

s) Overhanging trees restrict visibility when exiting driveway. It is necessary to keep the trees and bushes trimmed and cut back to help any sightlines and where they come into contact with roofs and overhead cables on Goremire Road. Who will be responsible for this? Response: Trees and shrubs within the development site will be subject of an approved maintenance regime. Within the realm of the public adopted roads, pavements and verges, the Roads Authority is responsible for ensuring the removal of obstructions. Infrastructure/service providers are responsible for cutting back vegetation that might affect the service. Individual house owners have legal rights to cut back vegetation which encroaches onto their property.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning consent for the erection of 66 dwellinghouses and associated infrastructure at Goremire Road, Carluke. The determining issues in considering this application are its compliance with the policies of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, the associated Supplementary Guidance and the Council’s Residential Development Guide and, in particular, the impact on the amenity of the adjacent properties and surrounding area and road safety.

6.2 The application site comprises vacant brownfield land within the settlement boundary of Carluke. As such, residential development is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other Council policy and guidance on new residential development with particular reference to layout and design.

6.3 Policies 4: Development Management and Place Making and 6: General Urban Area/Settlements along with supplementary guidance on Development Management, Placemaking and Design requires the Council to seek well designed proposals which integrate successfully with their surroundings, take account of the local context and built form and to be compatible with adjacent buildings and surrounding streetscape in terms of scale, massing, design, external materials and impact on amenity. In addition, development should be well related to existing

97 development, public transport, local services and facilities. The submitted layout accords with the principles of the Designing Street policy as a result of the permeability of the site and the creation of safe streets. The proposed detailed house designs are of an acceptable quality and are of an appropriate scale and mass that is similar to the existing dwellings in the locality. Although largely complying with the Council’s Residential Development Guide in terms of plot ratio, garden sizes, window to window distances and parking provision, in many instances, throughout the layout, the gable to gable distance is, at points, less than the recommended minimum 4 metres. However, variation in building lines and gable spacing creates character and avoids a monotonous streetscene. Quality and residential amenity will not be compromised on this basis and, as such, I am comfortable with a variation in guidelines on this occasion. In view of this, the proposals are considered to be in compliance with Policies 4 and 6 and associated Supplementary Guidance.

6.4 With regard to road safety Policy 16 – Travel and Transport requires all new development proposals to consider the resulting impacts of traffic growth. A Transport Assessment was submitted in respect of the development of the site. This shows that the development would not have an adverse impact on the local road network. Roads and Transportation Services agree with these conclusions and that the proposal can, therefore, be accommodated in transportation and road safety terms. In addition there are no objections in terms of the internal layout which meets Designing Streets objectives.

6.5 Policy 2: Climate Change and the associated Supplementary Guidance seeks to, where possible, minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change and sets out a range of criteria which new development should consider to achieve this. The proposed development will re-use a vacant brownfield site and is sustainably located close to public transport routes and services and avoids areas of medium to high flood risk. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with Policy 2 and with the guidance set out in the supplementary guidance.

6.6 Policy 5 - Community Infrastructure Assessment states that where development proposals would require capital or other works or facilities to enable the development to proceed, financial contributions towards their implementation will be required. These contributions will be appropriately assessed and developers will be required to ensure transparency in the financial viability of a development. In compliance with this, the applicant has agreed to make financial contributions towards education and community facilities. Policy 13 Affordable Housing and Housing Choice states that the Council will expect developers to contribute to meeting affordable housing needs across South Lanarkshire by providing, on sites of 20 units or more, up to 25% of the site’s capacity as serviced land for the provision of affordable housing, where there is a proven need. If on-site provision is not a viable option, the Council will consider off-site provision in the same Housing Market Area. The provision of a commuted sum will only be acceptable if on or off site provision cannot be provided in the locale or there are no funding commitments from the Scottish Government. The Council’s preference in this case is for on-site provision which will be built by the applicant and then, once completed, transferred to the Council to manage as part of their housing stock.

98 6.7 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the proposal accords with Policies 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12 and 15 in the proposed local plan.

6.8 The proposals represent an appropriate form of residential development for the site and it is, therefore, recommended that detailed planning consent be granted subject to the conditions listed. However, consent should be withheld until the conclusion of a Section 75 Obligation, or other appropriate agreement, to ensure the submission of the necessary financial contributions and on site provision of affordable housing.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The proposal will have no adverse impact on residential or visual amenity and raises no road safety concerns. The development complies with Policies 2, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 16 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan together with the relevant Supplementary Guidance.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 29 August 2019

Previous references  None

► Consultations

Countryside And Greenspace 24.07.2019 SEPA West Region 25.04.2019 Environmental Services 16.04.2019 Change and Development - Community Services 30.04.2019

Roads Development Management Team

99 Roads Flood Risk Management 20.05.2019 Scottish Water 16.04.2019 Education Resources School Modernisation Team 23.04.2019 Arboricultural Services 27.06.2019 SP Energy Network 15.04.2019 SNH 15.04.2019 Coal Authority Planning Local Authority Liaison Dept 14.05.2019

► Representations Dated:

Karen Shields, 10 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML8 4PQ 07.05.2019

Angela Muldoon, 2 Birkfield Place, Carluke, South 24.04.2019 Lanarkshire, ML8 4PZ

Michelle Daly, 1 Birkfield Place, Carluke, ML8 4PZ 01.05.2019

Mr And Mrs J Barr, 1 Hillhouse Gate, Carluke, ML8 4BW 05.08.2019

Ann Gracie, 25 Goremire Road, Carluke, South Lanarkshire, 05.08.2019 ML8 4PQ

Mr IAN MCCORMICK, 19 Goremire Road, Carluke, South 01.08.2019 Lanarkshire, ML8 4PQ

Stuart Syme, 5 Hillhouse Gate, Carluke, South Lanarkshire, 25.04.2019 ML8 4BW

Jim Lockhart, 3 Hillhouse Gate, Carluke, South Lanarkshire, 29.07.2019 ML8 4BW

Mrs M Stevenson, 17 Goremire Road, Carluke, South 07.05.2019 Lanarkshire, ML8 4PQ

Kenneth Small, Received Via Email 08.05.2019

M J Milliken, Received Via Email 07.05.2019

Ian And Elaine McCormick, 19 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML8 01.08.2019 4PQ

Angela Muldoon, By Email 30.07.2019

Michelle Daly, 1 Birkfield Place, Carluke, ML8 4PZ 30.07.2019

100 Yvonne Phillips, Received Via Email 19.07.2019

Mr Andrew Ferguson, 114 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML8 08.08.2019 4PQ

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Ian Hamilton, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455174 Email: [email protected]

101 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/19/0567

Conditions and reasons

Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactory in appearance and to maintain the visual quality of the area.

03. That before any of the dwellinghouses situated on the site upon which a fence is to be erected is occupied, the fence or wall for which the permission of the Council as Planning Authority has been obtained under the terms of Condition 2 shall be erected and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Council.

Reason: To ensure the development is satisfactory in appearance and to maintain the visual quality of the area.

04. That before any work commences on the site, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for written approval and it shall include: (a) 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; (b) details and specification of all trees, shrubs, grass mix, etc., including, where appropriate, the planting of fruit/apple trees; (c) details of any top-soiling or other treatment to the ground; (d) sections and other necessary details of any mounding, earthworks and hard landscaping; (e) proposals for the initial and future maintenance of the landscaped areas; (f) details of the phasing of these works; and no work shall be undertaken on the site until approval has been given to these details.

Reason: To ensure the appropriate provision of landscaping within the site.

05. That the landscaping scheme relating to the development hereby approved shall be carried out simultaneously with the development, or each phase thereof, and shall be completed and thereafter maintained and replaced where necessary to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

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

102

06. That before any work commences on the site, a scheme for the provision of an equipped play area(s) within the application site shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for written approval 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(s); (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(s); and (d) details of the phasing of these works.

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

07. That prior to the completion or occupation of the 25th dwellinghouse within the development, all of the works required for the provision of equipped play area(s) included in the scheme approved under the terms of Condition 6, shall be completed, and thereafter, that area shall not be used for any purpose other than as an equipped play area.

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

08. That proposals for the maintenance of all areas of open space within the development shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority and no work on the site shall be commenced until the permission of the Council has been granted for these proposals or such other proposals as may be acceptable.

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

09. That prior to the completion of the development hereby approved, the maintenance and management scheme approved under the terms of Condition 8 shall be in operation.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

10. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped, pollarded or felled, or otherwise affected, without the prior written consent of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the protection and maintenance of the existing trees within the site.

11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any demolition and all preparatory work), a scheme for the protection of the retained trees, in accordance with BS 5837:2012, including a tree protection plan(s) (TPP) and an arboricultural method statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. Specific issues to be dealt with in the TPP and AMS: a) Location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage. b) Methods of demolition within the root protection area (RPA as defined in BS 5837: 2012) of the retained trees. c) Details of construction within the RPA or that may impact on the retained trees. d) A full specification for the installation of boundary treatment works.

103 e) A full specification for the construction of any roads, parking areas and driveways, including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the roads, parking areas and driveways to be constructed using a no-dig specification. Details shall include relevant sections through them. f) Detailed levels and cross-sections to show that the raised levels of surfacing, where the installation of no-dig surfacing within Root Protection Areas is proposed, demonstrating that they can be accommodated where they meet with any adjacent building damp proof courses. g) A specification for protective fencing to safeguard trees during both demolition and construction phases and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing. h) A specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones. i) Tree protection during construction indicated on a TPP and construction and construction activities clearly identified as prohibited in this area. j) Details of site access, temporary parking, on site welfare facilities, loading, unloading and storage of equipment, materials, fuels and waste as well concrete mixing and use of fires k) Boundary treatments within the RPA l) Methodology and detailed assessment of root pruning m) Arboricultural supervision and inspection by a suitably qualified tree specialist n) Reporting of inspection and supervision o) Methods to improve the rooting environment for retained and proposed trees and landscaping p) Veteran and ancient tree protection and management.

The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

12. That no dwellinghouse shall be occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme and water supply constructed to the specification and satisfaction of Scottish Water as Sewerage Authority.

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate sewerage system and water supply is provided.

13. That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and shall include the following signed appendices: 1 'Sustainable drainage design compliance certificate' , 2 'Sustainable drainage design - independent check certificate' 3 'Flood risk assessment compliance certificate', 4 'Flood risk assessment - independent check certificate' and 5 'Confirmation of future maintenance of sustainable drainage apparatus' . The development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority.

104

14. That the surface water drainage system, approved under the terms of Condition 13 above, shall be implemented simultaneously with the development hereby approved, to the satisfaction of the Council as the Planning and Flood Authority and shall be completed prior to the last dwellinghouse hereby permitted being occupied.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a satisfactory surface water drainage system.

15. Prior to development commencing on site, a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No changes to the approved scheme shall take place unless agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the risk of nuisance from dust to nearby occupants.

16. That before any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved are occupied, details of the storage and collection of refuse within the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter, prior to the occupation of any dwelling, the approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate refuse arrangements are provided that do not prejudice the enjoyment of future occupiers of the development or neighbouring occupiers of their properties, to ensure that a satisfactory external appearance is achieved and to ensure that appropriate access is available to enable refuse collection.

17. No piling works shall be carried out until a method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This statement shall include an assessment of the impact of the piling on surrounding properties, taking into account the guidance contained in BS 6472: 1992 'Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings'. It shall detail any procedures which are proposed to minimise the impact of noise and vibration on the occupants of surrounding properties. This statement shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person, and the piling works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: To minimise noise, vibration and disturbance to neighbouring residents/occupants during blasting.

18. (a) The applicant shall be required to undertake a comprehensive site investigation, carried out to the appropriate Phase level, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The investigation shall be completed in accordance with the advice given in the following:

105

(i) Planning Advice Note 33 (2000) and Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995);

(ii) Contaminated Land Report 11 - 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) - issued by DEFRA and the Environment Agency;

(iii) BS 10175:2001 - British Standards institution 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice'.

(b) If the Phase 1 investigation indicates any potential pollution linkages, a Conceptual Site Model must be formulated and these linkages must be subjected to risk assessment. If a Phase 2 investigation is required, then a risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages using site specific assessment criteria will require to be submitted.

(c) If the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risks, a detailed remediation strategy will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No works other than investigative works shall be carried out on site prior to receipt of the Council's written approval of the remediation plan.

Reason: To avoid unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure that the land is remediated and made suitable for its proposed use.

19. (a) Remediation of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation plan prior to the proposed development being brought into use. Any amendments to the approved remediation plan shall not be implemented unless approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

(b) On completion of the remediation works, the developer shall submit a completion report to the Council as Planning Authority, confirming that the works have been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation plan and that the works have successfully reduced these risks to acceptable levels.

(c) Any previously unsuspected contamination which becomes evident during the development of the site shall be brought to the attention of the Council as Planning Authority within one week or earlier of it being identified. A more detailed site investigation to determine the extent and nature of the contaminant(s) and a site-specific risk assessment of any associated pollutant linkages, shall then require to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure that the land is remediated and made suitable for its proposed use.

20. That before the development starts, a certificate from a recognised firm of chartered engineers shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority confirming the mineral stability of the site.

Reason: To ensure the mineral stability of the site.

106

21. That the development shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Ground Investigation Report (AECOM, March 2017).

Reason: In the interests of environmental health and to ensure the mineral stability of the site.

22. That the development shall be carried out in accordance with mitigation measures set down in section 7 ' Recommendations' of the Ecological Assessment (JDC Ecology, June 2019).

Reason: In the interests of wildlife.

23. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, the new vehicular access so far as it lies within the boundaries of the road abutting the site, shall be constructed with visibility splays of 2.4m by 43.0m, all in accordance with the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

24. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, the first 2 metres of the driveway of each plot from the heel of the footway/service strip shall be hard surfaced across its full width to prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

Reason: To prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

25. That before a dwelling is completed or brought into use, all of the parking spaces shown within the curtilage of the plot as detailed on the approved plans shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

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

26. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2.0 metres by 20 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided on both sides of each driveway and everything exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.9 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

27. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 2.4 metres measured from the heel of the footway shall be provided on both sides of the driveways and everything exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.6 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

107 28. The developer shall ensure that any vehicle transporting excavated material on or off the site shall be treated by means of adequate wheel washing facilities. The facility will require to be in operation at all times during earth moving operations. The wheel washing facility shall be fully operational prior to works commencing on site. A ''clean zone'' shall be maintained between the end of the wheel wash facility and the public road. Furthermore the developer shall ensure a road brush motor is made available throughout the construction period to ensure adjacent roads are kept clear of mud and debris.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

29. That prior to any work starting on site, a programme indicating the phasing of construction of development, together with a Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented throughout the period of the development of the site.

Reasons: In the interests of road safety.

108

109

110 Agenda Item

Report 8

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/19/0267 Planning proposal: Erection of extension to side and rear of existing Class 2 office premises

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Detailed planning application • Applicant: Beattie Communications Location: • 18 Glasgow Road Uddingston G71 7AS [1purpose] 2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Refuse Detailed Planning Permission (for reasons stated) [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: Nicholas Goward ♦ Council Area/Ward: 16 Bothwell And Uddingston ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) Policy 4: Development Management and Placemaking Policy 6: General Urban Area/Settlements Policy 15: Natural and Historic Environment

Supplementary Guidance 3: Development Management, Placemaking and Design Policy DM13: Development within General Urban Area/Settlement Supplementary Guidance 9: Natural and Historic Environment

111 Policy NHE7: Conservation areas

Proposed SLDP2 Policy 3: General Urban Areas Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking Policy 14: Natural and Historic Environment Policy NHE6: Conservation Areas

♦ Representation(s):

► 14 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 2 Comment Letters

♦ Consultation(s):

Roads Development Management Team

Environmental Services

Uddingston Community Council

112

Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application site, extending to 1544 sq. metres, comprises of a large, Victorian, detached red sandstone villa, located within a predominantly residential area at 18 Glasgow Road, Uddingston. The former residential dwelling has been utilised as Class 2 Office premises for approximately 30 years, with the current applicant, an established Marketing and PR firm, operating from the site for the last 22 years.

1.2 The existing office building is set within a substantial curtilage, occupying an elevated position above Glasgow Road. The area to the front of the main building is predominantly laid to grass lawn, with a gated footpath and steps providing direct pedestrian access onto Glasgow Road. Approximately two thirds of the area to the rear of the existing property comprises an unmarked, gravel car parking area that can accommodate approximately 12 cars, accessed directly from Brooklands Avenue. The remaining area of ground at the rear of the property is also laid to grass, whilst a small, 10 sq. metre summerhouse is located to the rear of the site. The existing property has a 42 sq. metre, flat roof extension on its south facing gable and also incorporates a steel fire escape structure on the north facing gable. A detached storage shed (proposed to be removed) is positioned between the existing property and the neighbouring dwelling to the north-west.

1.3 The site is bounded by similar sized, detached residential properties to the north- west, the south, east and west, and to the north-east by an area of mature woodland with the M74 motorway beyond. It should also be noted tha,t whilst the applicant’s property is not a Listed Building, it occupies a visually prominent position within the designated Glasgow Road, Uddingston, Conservation Area.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning permission to erect a single storey (191 sq. metre) extension onto the side and rear of the existing office premises, to create a film studio, a boardroom, a meeting room and a visitor reception. The detailed plans submitted indicate that the new extension would be constructed in a contemporary style, finished externally in traditional materials, including natural slate, smooth render and natural stone. In terms of siting, the new extension would be constructed primarily on the grassed area at the rear of the existing premises, requiring the removal of both the existing summerhouse, a detached storage shed and a number of planting beds. Alterations to the existing car parking layout are also proposed, including the provision of 12 revised car parking spaces, 10 cycle stands and 6 PTW (powered two wheel) spaces.

2.2 The applicant has submitted a number of supporting documents with the application, including a Design Statement, a Parking Statement, a Travel Plan and a Socio-Economic Impact Report.

113 3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Status 3.1.1 Within the adopted 2015 South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan, the application site lies within the settlement boundary of Uddingston. Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making and Policy 6 - General Urban Area /Settlements, therefore, apply. As the site is located within the designated Glasgow Road Conservation Area, Policy 15: Natural and Historic Environment also applies. The proposals also require to be assessed against the guidance contained within the associated supplementary guidance documents, namely contained within the Development Management, Place Making and Design SG and the Natural and Historic Environment SG.

3.1.2 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. Policies 3: General Urban Area/Settlements, Policy 5: Development Management and Placemaking and Policy 14: Natural and Historic Environment are relevant to the assessment of the current application.

3.2 Relevant Government Advice/Policy 3.2.1 None relevant.

3.3 Planning Background 3.3.1 No recent applications have been submitted for the site, however, it should be noted that the property has been continually used as a Class 2 Office for approximately 30 years, including by the current applicant for the last 22 years.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services (Development Management Team) – recommend refusal of the application due to the lack of adequate, useable parking provision within the site. They have also advised that the existing premises currently have sub-standard parking provision, with only 12 spaces available within the site. Based on current guidance contained within the Scots Roads guide, the existing property should have over 24 dedicated car parking spaces. Response: Noted. The applicant’s agent has had various discussions with both Planning and the Council’s Roads Service, seeking to resolve the parking issues and maximise the level of parking provision within the site. A number of amendments to the parking layout have been suggested, however, none of the amended layouts submitted are considered to provide an acceptable solution for the development proposed.

4.2 Environmental Services – no objections, subject to the use of an appropriate condition in respect of noise emitted from the site, and an informative for all works on site to be carried out in accordance with BS5228, Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Response: These matters can be covered by appropriate conditions and informatives, if consent is granted.

114 4.3 Uddingston Community Council – objects to the planning application as the development will generate increased traffic, lead to more severe parking problems in the local streets, is not in keeping with the existing site or neighbouring properties, proposes a white render finish that would clash with the existing red sandstone villas and is an unwelcome form of development within a conservation area. Response: The various grounds of objection stated are noted, and are fully considered in Section 5 below.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Statutory neighbour notification was undertaken and the proposal was advertised in the local paper due to non-notification of neighbours and affecting the character of the conservation area. Following this publicity, 16 letters of representation were received, including one with 34 signatures. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

a) The proposals are considered to represent a massive overdevelopment of the site, which is located within both a residential area and a Conservation Area. A characteristic of the properties in the local area is the generous spacing between buildings. The proposed extension is a significantly larger structure, which will create the visual impression that the building has been shoehorned in, eroding the open spaces between the properties. Response: A detailed assessment of the application is described in section 6 below, however, in terms of the scale of the proposals, the existing, substantial sized property has a building footprint of 264 sq. metres and currently occupies 17% of the total site area. The proposals seek to add a further 191 sq. metres, single storey extension to the existing property, which would result in the extended property occupying only 29% of the total site area. With regard to the visual impression of the extension being shoehorned in, it is considered that the site is capable of accommodating the scale of new build proposed, noting that the single storey extension is proposed to be sited on the rear of the property, and that it will be partly screened by the existing high stone boundary walls from the surrounding residential properties and from the wider surrounding streetscape. It is noted that the property is located within both a predominantly residential area and a designated Conservation Area, however, this does not prevent the principle of extending the existing property, subject to it being carried out in a sympathetic manner that takes account of the surrounding area. Indeed, there are many examples of new build extensions to existing traditional properties having been successfully constructed throughout South Lanarkshire. In summary, whilst the proposals are not considered to represent a physical overdevelopment of the site and there would be adequate open space/distances retained between the new extension and the nearest adjacent properties, there are concerns that the proposed use of the area of open space could be considered overdevelopment in terms of the level of on-site parking requirements, both existing and proposed, and these concerns are discussed further below, in section 6.

115 b) The proposals will have a detrimental effect on parking, road safety and traffic generation, as approval will generate more visitors and staff to the premises, in turn increasing the amount of inconsiderate parking on the surrounding residential streets. This inconsiderate parking leads to traffic conflicts, especially for larger vehicles (bin lorries, emergency and delivery vehicles etc.). It is imperative that adequate parking is provided before the application is considered, noting that there are little or no unused parking facilities within this part of Uddingston. Have the Council’s Roads Section been formally consulted on the application? Response: Roads and Transportation Services have been formally consulted on the application. In response to the consultation, they have raised a number of objections to the proposals, recommending refusal on the grounds of lack of adequate parking provision. Concerns are also raised over the ability to fully utilise some of the proposed parking spaces, in particular, where they are sited next to the boundary wall at the access onto Brooklands Avenue and close to the existing/proposed buildings within the site. Concerns over the existing and potential level of on-street car parking and their potential impacts on road safety are also duly noted and have been taken into account in the assessment of the application. c) The proposed external finishes include white render. This will look appalling in an avenue of fine, stone built Victorian detached villas located within a designated Conservation Area, which has already been compromised by the destruction of part of the rear garden area and the insensitive creation of a sterile car park. The design and appearance of the proposed structure is in no way sympathetic to the existing buildings. Response: In terms of external materials, the detailed design submitted incorporates a mixture of external finishes, including natural slate, stone walling and an element of white render. The majority of the materials proposed are considered to be acceptable for a new build structure within a designated Conservation Area. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the predominant building material evident on the surrounding properties is red sandstone and whilst a smooth or wet dash render is considered an appropriate external finish within a Conservation Area, a stark, white render may not be the most appropriate external finish in terms of visual integration within the local streetscape. Similar proposals to extend properties within Conservation Areas are normally subject to a planning condition that requires samples of all external materials to be submitted for written approval. A similar planning condition would be attached to any approval if Committee were minded to approve the application. d) The proposals will have an adverse impact on the private rear garden areas of the existing adjacent residential properties, in terms of loss of light and overshadowing. Response: These concerns are noted, however, in terms of loss of light and overshadowing, the orientation of the properties on this side of Glasgow Road results in the rear garden areas of the properties having a north easterly aspect. As a result of this, the substantial scale and mass of the original Victorian villas on Glasgow Road currently restricts the amount of daylight afforded to the rear garden areas, leading to existing high levels

116 of overshadowing. The plans submitted indicate that consent is sought for a single storey extension to the rear of the property, set off the mutual boundary wall with the closest affected dwelling to the north-west. The detailed plans also indicate that the new extension has been designed to be set at a low ground level where the wallhead/eaves height will be set below the height of the boundary wall, and that the roof structure for the majority of the extension will be at its lowest point along the boundary wall. Taking all of the above into account, it is considered that, whilst there will be a degree of reduction of daylight and overshadowing of the neighbours garden at certain times of the day, this would not be to an extent that is unacceptable.

e) The proposals, if approved, will make any future conversion of the offices back to residential use impossible. Response: This concern is not a material consideration in the assessment of the current application. Notwithstanding this, the detailed plans submitted indicate that the extension proposed could be capable of being utilised for an alternative use, subject of course to the necessary planning permission and building warrant process.

f) The proposals, if approved, will result in increased noise and disturbance for existing residents, given the intended use of the property, which includes a film studio and additional meeting rooms. This will result in a high number of transient visitors to the proposed property. Response: The extension proposed is seeking to extend the existing premises for the applicant, an established media and PR company that has operated from the current site for 22 years. This service is unaware of any previous noise issues with regard to the ongoing use of the premises over this time. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the new extension has been designed in a manner that minimises any potential impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of noise disturbance, noting the position of the new windows and external doors. Concerns over the potential impacts of higher numbers of transient visitors to the site are noted, in particular, the potential increase in parking demand. These parking concerns are covered above, in section b).

g) The area of ground proposed to be developed could be utilised to create more on-site parking to accommodate the existing level of visitors to the applicant’s property, reducing on-street parking. Response: This suggestion is noted, however, the applicant wishes to have the current application determined in its present form.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner, and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning permission to erect a single storey extension onto the side and rear of existing office premises, to create a film studio, a boardroom, a meeting room and a visitor reception. The application requires to be assessed against the relevant policies of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local

117 Development Plan, Policies 4, 6 and 15, its associated supplementary guidance, and against the policies of the emerging proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, namely Policies 3, 5, 14 and NHE 6.

6.2 Policy 4: Development Management and Placemaking of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan states that ‘All development proposals will require to take account of and be integrated with the local context and built form. Development proposals should have no significant adverse impacts on the local community, and where appropriate, should include measures to enhance the environment.’ When assessing development proposals, the Council will ensure that applications seek to accord with a number of criteria. These criteria seek to ensure that proposals have no significant adverse impact on adjacent buildings or streetscape in terms of layout, scale, massing, design, external materials or amenity, have no adverse impact on landscape character, built heritage, habitats or species, provide suitable access and parking, appropriate infrastructure, consider sustainability issues, have no adverse impacts on the water environment and on air quality.

6.3 Policy 6: General Urban Area/Settlements of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan states that ‘within urban areas and settlements, developments which by virtue of visual impact, noise, smell, air pollution, disturbance, traffic or public safety will not be permitted if they are detrimental to the amenity of residents. Each proposal will be judged on its own merits, with particular consideration given to the impact on the amenity of the area, proposed servicing and parking arrangements.’

6.4 As stated above, the applicant seeks planning permission to extend an existing Class 2 Office premises, to provide additional facilities for their long established Media and PR Company. Following a detailed assessment of the application, it is evident that there is insufficient parking on site at present and any extension to the premises that does not increase the parking on site will exacerbate current parking issues. It is considered that the detailed design of the extension sought is appropriate in terms of its external appearance and potential impacts on neighbours with regards to overlooking and daylight/sunlight reduction. However, the proposals are deemed to be contrary to Policies 4 and 6 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated supplementary guidance, and Policies 3 and 5 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed off-street parking associated with the application is insufficient to accommodate the requirements of the proposal, thereby resulting in the parking of vehicles on-street, causing adverse traffic conditions which will detract from the amenity of the surrounding area.

6.5 In addition to the above, the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policies 4 and 6 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated supplementary guidance, and Policies 3 and 5 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, as approval of the proposals would represent overdevelopment of the site, removing an area of existing open space and the resultant capability of the applicant to extend and improve the current sub- standard on-site car parking provision within the confines of the site.

6.6 As the site is located within the Glasgow Road, Uddingston Conservation Area, the proposals also require to be assessed against the relevant polices of the

118 adopted local development plan, in this case Policy 15: Natural and Historic Environment and Policy NHE7: Conservation Areas of the associated Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance. The policies of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 are also considered to be material considerations, namely Policies 14: Natural and Historic Environment and NHE6: Conservation Areas. All these policies seek to ensure that development within a conservation area, or affecting its setting, shall preserve or enhance its character. Further, the design, materials, scale and siting of any development shall be appropriate to the character of the conservation area and its setting. Following a detailed assessment of the application, it is considered that the proposals comply with the policy requirements of Policies 15 and NHE7 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated SG, and with the policies of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2. The proposed scale, design, siting and external finishes (with the exception of the white render indicated), are all deemed to be appropriate for the site.

6.7 The applicant has submitted a number of supporting documents with the application, including a Design Statement, a Parking Statement, a Travel Plan and a Socio-Economic Impact Report. These documents have all been taken into account in the assessment of the application, however none are deemed to address the basic issue of a lack of on-site car parking for either the existing or the extended Class 2 premises.

6.8 In summary, whilst the proposals are considered to comply with Policy 15 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Plan, Policy NHE7 of the associated Natural and Historic Environment SG, and Policies 14 and NHE6 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development 2, they are considered to be contrary to Policies 4 and 6 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and Policy DM13 of the associated Development Management, Placemaking and Design SG. The proposals are also considered to be contrary to the emerging policies of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, specifically Policies 3 and 5.

6.9 In view of all of the above it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the proposed development.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The proposed development does not comply with the requirements of Policies 4 and 6 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015), or with the relevant policies and guidance contained in the Development Management, Placemaking and Design SG. The proposals are also considered not to comply with the emerging policies of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, specifically Policies 3 and 5.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 20 August 2019

119 Previous references  None

List of background papers ► Application form ► Application plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015 (adopted) ► Proposed South Lanarkshire Development Plan 2 ► Supplementary Guidance 3: Development Management, Placemaking and Design ► Supplementary Guidance 9: Natural and Historic Environment ► Neighbour notification letter dated 27.02.2019 ► Press advert, Hamilton Advertiser dated 07.03.2019 ► Site Notice dated 07.03.2019

► Consultations Roads Development Management Team 12.03.2019 Environmental Services 04.03.2019 Uddingston Community Council 02.04.2019

► Representations Dated: Pauline Campbell, 3 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, G71 29.03.2019 7AT

William Barclay, 6 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, G71 7AT 01.04.2019

Mr John F Watson, "Westlane", 8 Brooklands Avenue, 08.03.2019 Uddingston, G71 7AT

Lyndsay Marshall, Received Via E-mail 29.03.2019

Stephen Marshall, 12 Glasgow Road, Uddingston, G71 7AS 29.03.2019

Janette Sanderson, Glenpark, 14 Glasgow Road, 01.04.2019 Uddingston, G71 7AS

Jackie Tees, Received Via E-mail 01.04.2019

Stephen Breen, 4 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, G71 7AT 09.04.2019

W Barclay, 6 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, G71 7AT 19.03.2019

Mr David Cameron, Received Via Email 26.03.2019

Margaret Miller, 7 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, G71 7AT 12.03.2019

Professor James C Curran, 15 Brooklands Avenue, 14.03.2019 Uddingston, G71 7AT

Mr Mark Cox, 23 Glasgow Road, Uddingston, Glasgow, 15.03.2019

120 South Lanarkshire, G71 7AU

James Lockhart, 9 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, 14.03.2019 Glasgow, South Lanarkshire, G71 7AT

Mrs Anna S Brown, 2 Brooklands Avenue, Uddingston, G71 01.04.2019 7AT

Ivan Sanderson, Glenpark, 14 Glasgow Road, Uddingston, 01.04.2019 G71 7AS

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Stuart Ramsay, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 453601 Email: [email protected]

121 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/19/0267

Reasons for refusal

01. The proposals are contrary to Policies 4 and 6 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated supplementary guidance, and Policies 3 and 5 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 as the proposed off-street parking associated with the application is insufficient to accommodate the requirements of the proposal, thereby resulting in the parking of vehicles on-street causing adverse traffic conditions and detracting from the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

02. The proposals are contrary to Policies 4 and 6 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and its associated supplementary guidance, and Policies 3 and 5 of the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2, as approval of the proposals would represent overdevelopment of the site, removing an area of existing open space and the resultant capability of the applicant to extend and improve the current sub-standard on-site car parking provision within the confines of the site.

122

123

124 Agenda Item

Report 9

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/18/1424 Planning proposal: Erection of 46 dwellinghouses, associated roads, infrastructure, amenity areas and landscaping (approval of matters specified in conditions on planning permission CL/15/0395)

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Approval of matters specified in conditions • Applicant: GP Properties Ltd. Location: • The Pleasance Byretown Road Kirkfieldbank Lanark South Lanarkshire ML11 9TG [1purpose] 2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Grant matters specified in conditions planning permission (subject to conditions) based on conditions attached [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application. (2) If planning consent is granted, the decision notice should be withheld until a financial contribution of £69,000 has been paid to allow the provision or upgrading of community facilities in Kirkfieldbank identified through consultation with the residents of Kirkfieldbank.

In accordance with agreed procedure, should there be no significant progress, on behalf of the applicant, towards making the payment within 6 months of the date of the Committee, the proposed development may be refused on the basis that, without the planning control/developer contribution which would be secured by the Planning Obligation, the proposed development would be unacceptable.

125 If, however, this matter is being progressed satisfactorily the applicant will be offered the opportunity to enter into a Processing Agreement, if this is not already in place. This will set an alternative agreed timescale for the conclusion of the Planning Obligation.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: Tom Walker ♦ Council Area/Ward: 02 Clydesdale North ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policy 2 Climate change Policy 4 Development management and placemaking Policy 6 General urban area/settlements Policy 12 Housing land Policy 15 Natural and historic environment

Supplementary Guidance 9: Natural and historic environment Policy NHE 1 New Lanark World Heritage Site Policy NHE4 Gardens and designed landscapes. Policy NHE7 Conservation areas

Supplementary Guidance 3: Development Management, Placemaking and Design Policy DM13 Development within general urban area/settlement

Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 Policy 2 Climate change Policy 3 General Urban Areas Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Policy 11 Housing Policy 14 Natural and Historic Environment Policy NHE1 New Lanark World Heritage Site Policy NHE6 Conservation Areas Policy NHE4 Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy DM1 New Development Design

♦ Representation(s):

► 5 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 2 Comment Letters

♦ Consultation(s):

Roads Development Management Team

126

Roads Flood Risk Management

SEPA West Region

Scottish Water

Environmental Services

Countryside and Greenspace

CER Play Provision Community Contributions

Cleansing - Refuse Uplift

Garden History Society for Scotland

New Lanark Conservation Trust

SNH

The Royal Burgh of Lanark Community Council

WOSAS

Historic Environment Scotland

127

Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application site is located on Byretown Road on the south-eastern edge of Kirkfieldbank. The site, overall, extends to 5 hectares in area and consists of two separate areas of land, namely a brownfield commercial yard from which the applicants GP Plantscape Ltd currently operate a horticultural and landscaping business, situated to the east of Byretown Road, and a wedge of undeveloped agricultural land situated between Kirkfield Road and Byretown Road.

1.2 The area occupied by the business currently contains various buildings consisting of offices, stores, greenhouses and workshops as well as commercial yard space. A recently constructed housing development (Byretown Grove) sits to the north of this part of the site. The River Clyde bounds the site to the east, and a dwellinghouse known as Bonnington is located to the south. Byretown Road runs along the western boundary, and two dwellinghouses known as Cedar Lodge and Braeside are located on this road opposite the site. A substantial area of ancient woodland encloses the site to the east adjacent to the river.

1.3 The other part of the site consists of agricultural land, located between Kirkfield Road and Byretown Road. The land rises from Byretown Road to the south and west towards Kirkfield Road. The northernmost tip of the site contains a pocket of woodland and trees line the eastern boundary with Byretown Road. The remainder of the site is bounded by mature hedging. Open countryside stretches to the south and west of the site and the previously mentioned recently constructed housing developments are located to the east on the opposite side of Byretown Road. There is an existing 2m wide footpath along the frontage of this land which terminates just before the junction of Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road.

1.4 The site is located within the New Lanark Conservation Area, New Lanark World Heritage Site buffer zone and the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank. Part of the site is located within the Falls of Clyde Gardens and Designed Landscapes.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The proposal for matters specified in conditions principally relates to erection of 29 dwellings at Site A (greenfield) and 17 at Site B (brownfield). Both sites shall be accessed from Byretown Road. In that respect necessary plans, elevations, drawings, sections, roads and drainage details have been submitted

2.2 At Site A, due to the steepness of the topography, the access road serving the dwellings will be s-shaped to enable the houses to be built along a series of tiered platforms, progressing up the hillside with generous bands of landscaping separating them and creating the impression of small clusters of housing. The proposal is for 29 three and four bedroom single storey detached dwellings with roof overhangs and hipped ends. Externally, the houses will be finished in masonry quoins, render and grey roof tiles. Each house has a detached garage.

128 2.3 Site B involves the erection of 17 detached dwellings (same style as described for site A in para 2.2) arranged around a traditional cul-de-sac. Existing mature woodland around the eastern and northern boundaries shall be retained whilst additional landscaping shall be established along the western and southern boundaries.

2.4 Surface water drainage will be dealt with by SUDS comprising roadside swales and underground holding tanks to control flow.

2.5 As supporting documents and to enable discharge of other conditions attached to the section 42 approval CL/15/0395, the applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment, Design Statement, Landscape and Impact Visual Assessment, Ecological Constraints Report, Drainage Assessment Report, Flood Risk Assessment and Archaeological Investigative Works Method Statement.

3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Status

3.1.1 The adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (SLLDP) identifies the site as being located within the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank where Policy 6 - General urban area/settlements applies. The site is also identified as a proposed housing site within South Lanarkshire Council’s Housing Land Supply audit where Policy 12 – Housing Land is applicable.

3.1.2 The site is located within the New Lanark World Heritage Site (WHS) Buffer Zone, New Lanark Conservation Area and the Falls of Clyde Designed Landscape. The proposal requires to be assessed against Policy 15 - Natural and Historic Environment, and the Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance in this respect.

3.1.3 Other relevant policies in the assessment of this application are: Policy 2 - Climate Change and Policy 4 - Development Management and Placemaking, together with Supplementary Guidance on Sustainable Development and Climate Change and Development Management, Placemaking and Design. The content of the above policies and how they relate to the proposal is addressed in detail in Section 6 of this report.

3.2 Relevant Government Advice/Policy 3.2.1 SPP advises that the planning system should identify a generous supply of land to support the achievement of housing land requirements and maintaining at least a 5 year supply of land at all times. It should also enable the development of well designed, energy efficient, good quality housing in sustainable locations and focus on the delivery of allocated sites. Planning should take every opportunity to create high quality places and direct development to the right places, whilst taking cognisance of the natural, built and historic environment.

3.3 Planning Background 3.3.1 Planning permission in principle CL/12/0201 for residential development was granted in December 2012 and that consent was extended by a further 3 years by a section 42 approval CL/15/0395l in November 2015.

129 4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services (Flooding) – No objection subject to the conditions of original Planning Application CL/15/0395. Response: An appropriate condition has been attached.

4.2 SNH – No licence is required from SNH at this stage. Advise that permission should take account of recommendations and enhancement measures outlined in the ecological survey. Response: A condition has been attached to ensure compliance with these recommendations and enhancement measures.

4.3 Historic Environment Scotland – In terms of Site A, advise that given the location and height of the proposed housing, the intervening topography and the heavily wooded nature of the Clyde Valley, they are satisfied that the proposed development would not be visible from New Lanark in important views along the valley. These views towards the upper slopes of the Clyde Valley of woodland and open agricultural land bounded by mature trees define the edge of the valley in which the World Heritage Site (WHS) is set. The proposed development would, therefore, not have an adverse impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the WHS. Although the development of Site A would result in a change of character of this part of the New Lanark WHS buffer zone from agricultural to suburban land, it would not impact on important views from, towards or within the WHS. As the land is set on rising ground above the valley, it would not appear in important views from the WHS of the distinctive landscape edge of the Clyde Valley gorge. The development would not have a significant effect on either the authenticity or integrity of the WHS.

The impact upon the Falls of Clyde Inventory designed landscape has also been considered. The designation incorporates New Lanark and the estates of Corehouse, Bonnington, Braxfield and Castlebank Park. The main views are mostly inward-looking towards and across the falls and the river. The proposed development would, therefore, not have a significant impact on views from New Lanark village nor the Bonnington, Braxfield and Corehouse estates. However, there are open views SW across the valley from the parkland and garden terraces which form significant elements of the Castlebank Park designed landscape. The open agricultural land on the opposite side of the River Clyde valley makes an important contribution to the setting of Castlebank Park. However, having considered the submitted Heritage Impact assessment and Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, they are satisfied that while housing in Site A would have an impact on views from Castlebank Park, the development would be contained within the landscape of the valley, would not break the skyline, and would form one element of the wider landscape view. It is, therefore, not significant enough to warrant an objection.

The proposed residential development at Site B on brownfield land would have a neutral impact on the designated assets. The existing site contains a number of large horticultural buildings which have already impacted on the Inventory designed landscape. The site is well screened from the World Heritage Site by the presence of mature trees – both broadleaf and conifer.

130 In conclusion, having assessed the proposal together with the Heritage Impact Assessment and visualisations, no objection is offered as the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the OUV of the WHS. Response: Noted.

4.4 Scottish Water - No objection. There is currently sufficient capacity at water and waste treatment works. Response: Noted.

4.5 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – A method statement has already been submitted and the programme of works outlined should be sufficient. However, as the work has still to take place, the condition attached to the 2012 and 2015 consents should be reapplied. Response: Noted. If permission is granted the requested condition shall be attached.

4.6 Community Facilities – It is calculated that £69,000 would be available for investment in community assets in this area ranging from leisure centres, libraries, halls, outdoor recreation and play facilities and the majority of them are in need of investment. In terms of contribution for access they would seek a developer contribution to the management/maintenance of the Clyde Walkway which is in the immediate vicinity of the site and will clearly be used by residents of the new houses. Other walkways and a bridge over the swale have been identified. Response: The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards community facilities. Community representatives from Kirkfieldbank have highlighted a number of projects within Kirkfieldbank and, therefore, I am of the view that the contribution should be allocated to these projects/facilities for the direct benefit of the residents of Kirkfieldbank and not redirected elsewhere.

4.7 SEPA – On having reviewed submitted information, can confirm that the condition relevant to flood risk matters may be discharged, therefore, no objection is offered. Response: Noted.

4.8 New Lanark Trust - object to the application on the following grounds: • The application has no legal status and should be declined; • The HIA does not accord with the guidelines of ICOMOS and should not be accepted without prior full stakeholder consultation on scoping, the significance of identified heritage assets, the assessed impacts and any proposed mitigations; • The assessment is based on the current screening effect of trees, most of which, especially on the lower slopes of Braxfield, are plantation conifers which will be harvested in due course. This will reveal the entire development site to most of the WHS, as is shown on the Landscape and visual impact document. The likelihood of this is shown by the ongoing transformational programme for forest management on the Corehouse side. The likely long term impact of the proposed development on the historic, architectural and scenic qualities of New Lanark and of the Braxfield estate within the WHS and the Falls of Clyde Designed Landscape is significant; • In the event of any approval being given consent, screening of the site, especially the upper site, from the WHS and Braxfield should be maximised by far greater blocks of tree planting than are indicated on the proposed

131 plans. (The office report on the original 2012 application referred to ‘’woodland planting’’). This should fully use the land shown within the applicant’s control. A woodland management plan must be approved and conditioned to be enforceable. The thin strips of landscaping on the south eastern and south western boundaries of site A will be ineffective for many years. Any planting needs to be specified to a very high standard to achieve both screening and biodiverse habitat aims. Landscaped areas should not be feuded off to adjacent owners but should be subject of a factored maintenance regime. A TPO should be applied once the landscaping is complete. It would not be appropriate to introduce non- native species for fast growth. • The Trust was not consulted with regard to the revised plans.

Response: • The Trust originally questioned the validity of making the 2015 application to extend the time period for the submission of applications for the approval of matters specified in conditions by three years and this matter was addressed in the report that was presented to committee at that time. However to summarise the purpose of a section 42 application is to apply for planning permission for the development of land without complying with conditions attached to the original consent. In determining these types of applications the planning authority can consider only the question of the conditions that were subject to the original planning permission. Once accepted and validated, the Council has a duty to proceed to determine the application. Circular 3/2012 at Annex I, at paragraphs 6 and 8, is quite clear that a permission granted under Section 42 is a new permission. As with any decision by the Council the Trust had the right to challenge the decision to grant the application by judicial review within 3 months of the issue of the Decision but chose not to do so.

• The approach and methodology to the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was developed to comprehensively assess the impact of the development on all designated heritage assets, including the World Heritage Site, listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monument, and the Inventory designed landscape. It takes cognisance of the statutory responsibilities in relation to listed buildings and conservation areas including related guidance that are material considerations within the planning process (such as SPP, HESPS, HES Managing Change Guidance on Setting, World Heritage Sites) as well as the ICOMOS guidance on Impact Assessments on Cultural Heritage sites. The ICOMOS guidance is limited and does not allow for assessment of heritage assets in accordance with statutory duties. Discussion took place with HES and the Council on the scope and methodology of both the HIA and the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and they were carried out as part of an integrated assessment process. They formed an integral part of the design development process and informed the modelling and site layout of the development in order to mitigate (the limited) potential adverse impacts that may be deemed to arise from the development. The conclusions of the HIA are supported by the consultation responses for both sites provided by Historic Environment Scotland.

132 • HES, in their consultation response, concluded that the impacts are not significant enough to justify refusal. The felling of plantation conifers requires a Licence from the Forestry Commission who, as part of their remit, would consider the impact upon the setting of the WHS in consultation with the New Lanark Trust and other interested parties prior to the issue of a Licence. Where necessary, the issue of a Licence will be dependent upon phased felling and replanting to ensure continuous screening. A programme of felling will expose development along the valley and open up views to the outside all around and not just to the site. Beyond the confines of the WHS, even within the buffer zone, there have been significant changes including recent housing development, therefore in these areas, replication of the original historic landscape is not possible. Removal of trees should not prejudice development in the wider area especially on sites identified for housing in the adopted local plan and which have been subject of planning permission in principle.

• Revised Landscaping Plans with a higher specification have been submitted detailing additional tree planting and extending the woodland mix up to the southern boundary. It should be noted it is preferable in the longer term to use younger plants which are better able to grow and adapt to a new environment than more mature plants which, although providing more of an immediate visual impact, tend to have a restrictive growth pattern. The planting of trees on neighbouring fields to the south in the applicant’s ownership is questioned as it would not provide effective screening of the site when viewed from New Lanark. Landscaped areas will be subject of an approved maintenance regime and will not be feued off to individual house plots. The appropriateness of a TPO would be considered once the landscaping has been completed.

• The revised plans referred to included additional roads related information which did not make any material changes to the layout and design of the development. Further consultation was not therefore necessary

4.9 Roads and Transportation Services Development Management Team– raised no objections subject to conditions relating to a number of matters including access, visibility, parking spaces for construction staff, wheel washing facilities and a dilapidation survey. Response: Noted. These matters can be covered by condition.

4.10 Countryside and Greenspace – No response received to date. Response: Noted.

4.11 Environmental Services – No response received to date. Response: Noted.

4.12 Garden History Society in Scotland – No response received to date. Response: Noted.

4.13 The Royal Burgh of Lanark Community Council – No response received to date. Response: Noted.

133 4.14 Cleansing – No response received to date. Response: Noted.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Following the carrying out of statutory neighbour and owner notification and the advertisement of the application in the Lanark Gazette as Development Affecting the Character or Appearance of a Conservation Area and for the non-notification of neighbours, 5 letters of objection and 2 letters of representation were received. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

a) The proposed development is contrary to the Local Plan as it involves development in the greenbelt and the loss of natural landscape which frames the village. Response: The site falls within the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank and has been identified as a housing site on the Local Plan proposal map.

b) The proposal involves construction within the World Heritage buffer zone which increases the risk that the World Heritage status may be lost. Response: HES concur with the conclusions of the Heritage Impact Assessment that there would not be a significant adverse impact upon the integrity, value and authenticity of the WHS

c) Responsibility for the trees separating the new development and the rear to numbers 10,12 and 14 Byretown Gardens should any of them come down in inclement weather, causing damage to any of these properties subsequent to completion of the site. The present site occupiers bear this duty of care. Response: Responsibility for the trees lies with the applicant as landowner. At such time when the land is sold, this will transfer to the new landowner and thereafter, once the development has been built out and the houses sold, the areas of common landscaping, including areas of trees and screening will be managed by a common factoring agent, who it is assumed will have the necessary insurances in place to deal with any unforeseen events.

d) The proposed amenity area to the rear of numbers 10, 12 and 14 Byretown Gardens: Is this to be solely a lawned area or other, i.e., children’s playground, swing park, etc., and will it be locked during hours of darkness thus denying fly-tippers and also local adolescents access to the area who may use it as a congregating point to carry out anti-social activities? Response: The amenity area is intended to be grassed with seats/ benches for residents, small children and visitors to use as they see fit. It will be enclosed with a hedge and post and wire fence with a gate to prevent dog fouling. The area is well overlooked and surveilled by adjacent houses, with the intention that it should deter anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping.

e) Will there be any on-site security measures in place for the duration of the building work when there are no site personnel present. Response: The developer will be responsible for security on the site.

f) What is the projected start/completion dates for building.

134 Response: There has to be a site start within 3 years of the grant of planning permission otherwise the consent will expire. g) Will there be any restrictions in place on times when site work is permissible, e.g. early morning/late night, weekend/bank holiday working. Response: Development will have to adhere to standards on audible construction noise which specify hours of operation as 0800 – 1900 Monday to Friday, Saturday 0800 – 1300 and on Sunday no audible activity. These standards are enforced by Environmental Health. h) Will builders have adequate insurance in place with respect to defects/claims on any site problems which may subsequently arise after completion dates. Several households on the existing estate have had problems in this regard as neither the builder/architect are willing to accept responsibility in these areas. Response: This is not a relevant planning consideration. i) ln the file titled ‘Design statement-part 3c’ under the heading of 4.4 Site B, it states that Site B Will consist of 29, and not 17dwellings. Could it be confirmed that this is in fact a typo. Response: This is a typing error and should read 17 dwellings. j) The drawing 17-08 AL(0)07 indicates removal of the existing footpath directly above the objector’s property to allow alterations to the road; the footpath borders the common land with mature trees which belong to all residents of Wellbuttslea Drive and Nursery Court. These residents are liable for the maintenance of the common land and such work could cause damage to the root systems. The removal of the footpath to provide a grassed over 'service strip' does not show a crossing point from the new footpath to the Wellbuttslea Drive footpath or lowered kerb for Disabled Persons; this will cause problems of safety for pedestrians wishing to cross the road. Response: The PPiP Consent included a number of conditions in relation to off-site road works which the applicant and design team has addressed in the current application. The works around the junction of Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road were outlined in Condition 6.2 of the PPiP. The design team held a number of pre-application meetings with the representatives of SLC Planning and Roads Services to specifically discuss the footpath at Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road. It appears that the main safety issue for pedestrians walking the footpath towards Kirkfield Road is that existing properties and ownership prevents the footpath from being continued directly onto Kirkfield Road. Pedestrians are, therefore, required to cross over to the opposite side of Byretown Road close to the junction. The applicants design team provided details of various arrangements. It was agreed that a form of road narrowing at the bottom of Byretown Road would slow drivers down. This was discussed and debated, including the desire to cause least disruption to the larger trees and existing tree copse the junction. The provision of a small build-out/ carriageway runover with warning sign would alert southbound vehicles to slow down. A further improvement would be to take back the existing council adopted footpath on the east side of Byretown Road to a position at the new narrowing, thereby maximising the distance of a suitable pedestrian crossing point from the junction. The former footpath area would then be reinstated as a

135 grass verge. This proposal is shown on the development plan lodged with the application. It is unlikely that there will be any disruption to common land bordering the proposed service strip. The crossing point and lowered kerbs will be detailed on subsequent Road Construction Consent drawings. k) There will also be a great environmental impact due to increase of traffic, also increased danger to pedestrians e.g., pick up of school children, cyclists and horse riders. We would also ask that a condition be placed on any likely approval that access along Byretown Road is maintained at all times during the construction period to allow existing occupiers etc., access to their houses. Response: The PPiP Consent included a number of conditions in relation to off-site road works which the client has addressed in the current application. These works include establishment of a safe pedestrian crossing point at the junction of Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road, new footways at the north end of Kirkfield Road, formation of bus stops, and the extension of the existing 30mph speed limit on Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road and the provision of new speed limit signs with count down markings and vehicle activated speed signs. Any works to Byretown Road will be subject to a Road/ Traffic Order, which the developer/ contractor will have to obtain through Roads and Transportation Services and the developer will have to adhere to Health and Safety standards. l) Concerned about removal of mature trees along Byretown Road; the plan drawing number 512.01.01 shows a contradiction on the retention of a number of mature trees, we hope these mature trees will be retained. Response: Unfortunately, most of these trees will have to be removed to accommodate visibility splays at the access. m) Residents of Wellbuttslea Drive and Nursery Court are responsible for maintenance of common land; as there may be an encroachment on the common land, re 'service strip', we ask why all residents were not informed of proposed plan. Response: It is not proposed to encroach on any common land should the footpath removal works and reinstatement as a grass verge be undertaken. These proposals were put forward on the grounds of safety, to deter pedestrians from walking into a blind corner at the junction with Kirkfield Road, with the new footpath and road narrowing providing a safer place to cross. n) Capacity of sewerage network. Response: Scottish Water have confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in the system albeit a formal application direct to them will be necessary to confirm connection. o) Existing infrastructure challenges will be adversely impacted by this development of 46 houses coupled with the already approved 25 houses on the site to the South of Byretown Road -application number CL/17/0474. Response: There are no infrastructure constraints affecting the development of this site.

136 p) Existing problems with drainage currently means heavy runoff of water from the surrounding areas through gardens. Loss of the site to hard landscaping of driveways, pavements, roads and housing will reduce what existing natural drainage the green belt site provides and increase problems in the gardens at Wellbuttslea Drive opposite the proposed development and for existing roadway gullies. The flood risk assessment carried out focusses on the effects of the river Clyde but there is no assessment done for the impact of the development on adjacent land or properties. Response: A Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared by the Flood Specialist Kaya Consulting Ltd. They have made specific reference to the existing natural water run-off from the steeper Site A opposite Wellbuttslea Drive. Through the new development, run-off onto Byretown Road will be prevented and be maintained within the site curtilage and managed through a new Surface Water Drainage Scheme. q) There can be significant water runoff from surrounding fields during rainfall down Kirkfield Road which is not being fully dealt with by the works recently carried out to try to resolve the problem. This in low temperatures and frosty conditions can result in excess ice forming at the junction of Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road which risks causing accidents. Existing house owners on Kirkfield Road have to park their vehicles "on street" both sides ,which on many occasions causes issues when vehicles are approaching from both directions. Any new pavement will further narrow the road giving rise to further problems and the additional vehicles expected from the proposed housing developments will further add to this problem. Response: The PPiP Consent included a number of conditions in relation to off-site road works which the client has addressed in the current application. The works around the junction of Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road were outlined in Condition 6.2 of the PPiP. The design team held a number of pre- application meetings with the representatives of SLC Planning and Roads Depts to specifically discuss the footpath re-alignment at Byretown Road and Kirkfield Road from a safety issue. The applicant’s design team provided details of various arrangements. It was agreed that a form of road narrowing at the bottom of Byretown Road would slow drivers down. This was discussed and debated, including the desire to cause the least disruption to the larger trees and existing tree copse at the junction. The provision of a small build-out/ carriageway runover with warning sign would alert southbound vehicles to slow down. A further improvement would be to take back the existing footpath on the east side of Byretown Road to a position at the new narrowing, thereby maximising the distance of the pedestrian crossing point from the junction. This area would then be reinstated as a grass verge. r) Regular power outages are experienced and we question whether the substation can cope with this additional demand of 46 houses in addition to the 25 proposed (Planning reference CL/17/0474). Response: It the responsibility of Power companies to ensure that electricity supply is not disrupted. s) Concerned about the capacity of the local primary school to cope with the number of additional pupils a housing development of his size will

137 bring. Should an extension to the school be required this will result in further loss of the public park space at a time when the local community has worked hard to revive what little space is left in the park. Response: Planning Permission in Principle CL/12/0201 for a residential development at the site was granted in December 2012 and subsequently the site was identified in the Local Plan which was adopted in 2015. During this period, Education Resources did not identify capacity problems at the new replacement primary school. t) Increased traffic for this density of housing will increase carbon emissions and fumes. Response: In considering the relatively low traffic usage along a minor country road, the low density of the development and the open nature of the surrounding countryside, air pollution issues are unlikely.

u) Increased traffic flows will compromise public safety. Response: In their consultation response Roads and Transportation Services have not raise concerns about public safety. v) Kirkfield Road being affected by soil wash off and vehicles tracking mud etc. onto the roads. We would seek that should the proposal be approved that there is a condition attached on the need to maintain the cleanliness of the surrounding roads at all times, appropriate traffic control measures are made at all times during the period of construction and that a suitable parking compound / material delivery area is formed within the works to ensure adjacent estate roads are not used for the parking of contractors, workmen's and delivery vehicles. Response: Conditions would be imposed on any consent granted requiring the submission of a Traffic Management Plan, wheel washing facilities and workers parking facilities on site. w) Impact upon wildlife Response: An Ecological Survey has been undertaken which confirms that there will be no adverse impact protected species or habitat. x) Existing housing is located in pockets at lower ground level and better obscured by the remaining tree line. The village envelope should remain as existing thereby as a result no effect on the green belt, landscape, amenity land to the Southern Side of Byretown Road. We note also that all visual impact studies provided have been taken from across the river in Lanark and New Lanark but no such consideration has been given to the existing developments who will be visually impacted by the developments and we would seek that the developer provide further visual impact studies to allow further comment as and if required. Response: The entire site falls within the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank and does not encroach onto designated greenbelt or rural areas. The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) and Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) were undertaken as part of the design development process, and informed the modelling and site layout of the development in order to mitigate potential adverse impacts that may be deemed to arise from the development – the

138 mitigation measures set out in the Scoping Reports (draft HIA and LVIAs) were incorporated into the final design.

y) Loss of trees Response: In compensation, the landscaping scheme incorporates significant woodland belts within and around the site boundaries.

z) Non notification of neighbours who jointly own common land neighbouring the site. Response: Under current procedures there was no requirement to notify these neighbours, however, an advert for non-notification of neighbours was placed in the Lanark Gazette to cover situations where the site adjoins unoccupied land.

aa) Impact upon house value Response: This is not a relevant planning concern.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning consent for the erection of 46 No. dwellinghouses (29 at Site A and 17 at Site B) and formation of associated access, SUDs, landscaping on two separate sites adjoining Byretown Road, Kirkfieldbank. The determining issues in consideration of this application are its compliance with national and local plan policy and in particular its impact on the amenity of adjacent properties, road safety, and on the New Lanark World Heritage Site and surrounding landscape.

6.2 The application site is identified as part of the housing land supply in the adopted SLLDP and is included within the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank. The residential development of the site positively contributes towards the Council’s requirement to maintain a five year effective supply of housing land provision. Furthermore, effective housing land within the settlement of Kirkfieldbank meets the aims of Scottish Planning Policy by providing a sufficient and sustainable supply of housing within an existing residential area with access to services nearby. The proposal satisfactorily complies with aims of Policy 12 of the adopted local development plan and, therefore, the principle of the proposed development is acceptable.

6.3 The application site is located within the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank as identified in the adopted SLLDP. Policy 6 - General Urban/Settlements and Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making, together with the Development Management and Placemaking Supplementary Guidance supports residential developments where they do not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the area. In addition, any new development must relate satisfactorily to adjacent and surrounding development in terms of scale, massing, materials and intensity of use. The character and amenity of the area must not be impaired by reason of traffic generation, parking, overshadowing, overlooking or visual intrusion.

139 6.4 Nearby there are existing and approved residential estates which contain similar house types consisting of detached single storey houses of modern design and materials. The density and height of the proposal is similar to residential development in the locality and would visually integrate well with the existing pattern of development. The applicant has included sufficient open space to serve this scale of development. The design, mass, scale, height, size and materials of the dwellings are in keeping with their surroundings and are comparable to the adjacent phases of development. Adequate garden space for the amenity of residents is proposed and there would not be an adverse impact on residential amenity due to overlooking or overshadowing. The proposed access arrangement off Byretown Road has been carefully assessed and is considered acceptable by the Roads and Transportation Service. Satisfactory car parking provision is provided for each dwellinghouse. The proposals also comply with the aims of the Councils Residential Design Guide.

6.5 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would relate satisfactorily to adjacent development, and the character and amenity of the residential area would not be impaired by reason of traffic generation, parking, visual intrusion or physical impact. The proposal is therefore satisfactory in terms of Policy 4 - Development Management and Place Making, Policy 6 - General Urban/Settlements, and the Development Management and Placemaking Supplementary Guidance of the adopted local development plan.

6.6 Policy 15- Natural and Historic Environment and the associated Natural and Historic Environment supplementary guidance require the character and setting of the New Lanark World Heritage Site Buffer Zone, New Lanark Conservation Area, and Designed Landscape be protected. The applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment to demonstrate their consideration of how the development impacts upon the historic environment. The density and external appearance of the dwellings complement existing residential areas to the north and east. Site B relates to an existing commercial yard which sits lower down in the valley than Site A. It is effectively screened from New Lanark by existing mature woodland along its eastern and southern boundaries, therefore, visibility is not as pronounced as Site A. The redevelopment of a brownfield site where there are existing industrial style buildings and offices does not cause any issues in respect of heritage impact.

6.7 Within Site A, housing has been aligned along platforms stepping up the hillside separated by generous bands of landscaping to create housing clusters. Restricting housing types to single storey with roof overhangs restrains vertical massing giving the impression of low lying bands of development broken up by woodland planting. This design has been influenced by the findings of the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment. New Lanark village, the most important element of the WHS, is enclosed by a wooded valley restricting views towards the application site. In terms of the wider area, photomontages demonstrate there will only limited inter-visibility from specific viewpoints on higher ground within the WHS and Designed Landscape. The character of the Conservation Area will not be significantly affected as mitigation measures including house design, layout, the introduction of landscaping and retention of mature woodland ensure impacts can be satisfactorily contained. Forming part of the wider rural context at the outer edges the site in its current state as an enclosed field makes a negligible contribution to the setting of New Lanark and the character of the Conservation

140 Area. On balance, I am satisfied that there is no unacceptable impact on the setting of New Lanark Conservation Area, the Falls of Clyde Gardens and Designed Landscapes and that the integrity of the New Lanark World Heritage Site buffer zone will not be significantly eroded. In view of the above, it is considered that the development proposal accords with the aims of the aforementioned policies.

6.8 Policy 2 Climate Change seeks to minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change by considering criteria, including being sustainably located. The site is sustainably located within the settlement boundary of Kirkfieldbank and is closely located to bus routes and nearby shops and services. The site is not at risk of flooding and there are no infrastructure constraints. In consideration the proposals would not undermine the objectives of the policy.

6.9 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the proposal accords with Policies 2, 3, 5, 11, 14, NHE1, NHE4, NHE6 and DM1 in the Proposed plan.

6.10 There would be no significant adverse impact on residential or visual amenity, the integrity of the WHS, New Lanark World Heritage Buffer Zone, New Lanark Conservation Area or Falls of Clyde Gardens and Designed Landscapes. The development would provide housing accommodation in Kirkfieldbank within a sustainable location that would integrate with adjoining housing development. In summary the proposals represent an appropriate form of residential development for the site and it is, therefore, recommended that approval of matters of specified by conditions (attached to section 42 approvals CL/15/0395) be granted subject to the conditions listed.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The principle of residential development is acceptable on this site, and the proposed dwellings will have no significant adverse impact on residential or visual amenity, or on the commercial character or the integrity of the New Lanark World Heritage Buffer Zone or New Lanark conservation Area. The proposal raises no significant environmental or infrastructure issues and complies with Policies 2, 4, 6, 12 and 15 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and associated Supplementary Guidance.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 29 August 2019

Previous references

141  CL/12/0201CL/15/0395

► Consultations Roads Development Management Team 28.03.2019 Roads Flood Risk Management 09.11.2018 SEPA West Region 02.11.2018 Scottish Water 23.10.2018

Environmental Services

Countryside And Greenspace CER Play Provision Community Contributions 02.11.2018

Cleansing - Refuse Uplift

Garden History Society In Scotland

New Lanark Conservation Trust SNH 13.11.2018

The Royal Burgh Of Lanark Community Council WOSAS 19.10.2018 Historic Environment Scotland 23.11.2018

► Representations Dated: Mrs E Munro, 1 Wellbuttslea Drive, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, 12.11.2018 ML11 9BF

Mrs R Garden, 9 Wellbuttslea Drive, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, 12.11.2018 ML11 9BF

William And Catriona Browning, 11 Wellbuttslea Drive, 09.11.2018 Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, ML11 9BF

David Mclaughlin, 14 Byretown Gardens, Kirkfieldbank, 13.11.2018 Lanark, South Lanarkshire, ML11 9NZ

Pat And Helen Ritchie, 6A Byretown Gardens, Kirkfieldbank, 07.11.2018 Lanark, ML11 9NZ

142 Mrs Laura Boyle, 15 Byretown Grove, Kirkfieldbank, Lanark, 07.12.2018 ML11 9NY

Ed Archer, Received Via E-mail 01.11.2018

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Ian Hamilton, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455174 Email: [email protected]

143 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/18/1424

Conditions and reasons

Reason: In the interest of amenity and to retain planning control.

Reason: These details have not been submitted or approved.

03. That before any of the dwellinghouses situated on the site upon which a fence/wall is to be erected is occupied, the fence or wall for which the permission of the Council as Planning Authority has been obtained under the terms of Condition 2 above, shall be erected and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Council.

Reason: In order to retain effective planning control.

04. That the approved landscaping scheme, detailed in drawings 512.01.01, 512.01.02, 512.01.03, 512.01.04, 512.01.05, 512.01.06, and 512.01.07 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority during the first available planting season following occupation of the last dwellinghouse hereby approved and shall thereafter be maintained and replaced where necessary to the satisfaction of the Council.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

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

06. That proposals for the maintenance of all areas of open space/play areas within the development shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority and no work on the site shall be commenced until the permission of the Council has been granted for these proposals or such other proposals as may be acceptable.

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

144 07. That before any work commences on the site, a scheme for the provision of play area(s) within the site shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for written approval and shall include:(a) details of the type and location of play equipment, seating and litter bins to be situated within the play area(s); (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(s); and (d) details of the phasing of these works unless agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate play facilities within the site and in order to retain effective planning control.

08. That prior to the occupation of the 10th dwellinghouse within Site A and the 10th dwellinghouse within Site B, all works required for the provision of the equipped play area in each of the respective site areas, shall be completed in accordance with the details approved under the terms of condition 7 and thereafter the areas shall not be used for any purposes other than as an equipped play area.

Reason: In order to retain effective planning control.

09. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped, pollarded or felled, or otherwise affected, without the prior written consent of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the protection and maintenance of the existing trees within the site.

10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including any demolition and all preparatory work), a scheme for the protection of the retained and neighbouring trees, in accordance with BS 5837:2012, including a tree protection plan(s) (TPP) and an arboricultural method statement (AMS) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. Specific issues to be dealt with in the TPP and AMS: a) Location and installation of services/ utilities/ drainage. b) Methods of demolition within the root protection area (RPA as defined in BS 5837: 2012) of the retained trees. c) Details of construction within the RPA or that may impact on the retained trees. d) A full specification for the installation of boundary treatment works. e) A full specification for the construction of any roads, parking areas and driveways, including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the roads, parking areas and driveways to be constructed using a no-dig specification. Details shall include relevant sections through them. f) Detailed levels and cross-sections to show that the raised levels of surfacing, where the installation of no-dig surfacing within Root Protection Areas is proposed, demonstrating that they can be accommodated where they meet with any adjacent building damp proof courses. g) A specification for protective fencing to safeguard trees during both demolition and construction phases and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing. h) A specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection zones.

145 i) Tree protection during construction indicated on a TPP and construction and construction activities clearly identified as prohibited in this area. j) Details of site access, temporary parking, on site welfare facilities, loading, unloading and storage of equipment, materials, fuels and waste as well concrete mixing and use of fires k) Boundary treatments within the RPA l) Methodology and detailed assessment of root pruning m) Arboricultural supervision and inspection by a suitably qualified tree specialist n) Reporting of inspection and supervision o) Methods to improve the rooting environment for retained and proposed trees and landscaping p) Veteran and ancient tree protection and management.

The development shall thereafter be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the trees to be retained will not be damaged during demolition or construction and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.

11. That the recommendations, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in the Ecological Constraints Survey (Wild Surveys Ltd, July 2018) complied with.

Reasons: In the interests of wildlife.

12. That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and shall include signed appendices as required. The development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority.

13. That no dwellinghouse shall be occupied until the site is served by a sewerage scheme and water supply constructed to the specification and satisfaction of Scottish Water as Sewerage Authority.

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate sewerage system and water supply is provided.

14. No development shall take place within the development site until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording

146 and recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.

Reason: In order to safeguard any archaeological items of interest or finds.

15. Prior to completion or first occupation of the development hereby approved, whichever is the sooner; a woodland management plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The management plan should be prepared by a qualified and experienced forestry or arboricultural consultant and should include the following elements: a) a statement of the overall design vision for the woodland and for individual trees retained as part of the development - including amenity classification, nature conservation value and accessibility. b) type and frequency of management operations to achieve and sustain canopy, under-storey and ground cover, and to provide reinstatement including planting where tree loss or vandalism occurs. c) frequency of safety inspections, which should be at least three yearly in areas of high risk, less often in lower risk areas d) confirmation that the tree pruning work is carried out by suitably qualified and insured tree contractors to British Standard 3998 (2010). e) special measures relating to Protected Species or habitats, e.g. intensive operations to avoid March - June nesting season or flowering period. f) inspection for pests, vermin and diseases and proposed remedial measures. g) recommendations relating to how trees within the immediate vicinity of properties or within private areas are to be protected, such that these are retained without the loss of their canopy or value as habitat. h) confirmation of cyclical management plan assessments and revisions to evaluate the plan's success and identification of any proposed actions.

Reason: To ensure that woodland areas are satisfactorily safeguarded, managed and maintained in the long term /in perpetuity in the interest of nature conservation and the visual amenity of the area.

16. That prior to the completion of the development hereby permitted, the woodland maintenance and management scheme approved under the terms of Condition 15 above, shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure the protection and maintenance of the existing woodland within the area.

17. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, the new vehicular accesses so far as they lie within the boundaries of the road abutting the site, shall be constructed with visibility splays of 2.4m by 90.0m, all accordance with the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

18. That before a dwelling is completed or brought into use, all of the parking spaces shown within the curtilage of the plot; as detailed on the approved plans shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

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

19. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, the first 2 metres of the driveway of each plot from the heel of the footway/service strip shall be hard surfaced across its full width to prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

Reason: To prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

20. That none of the driveways shall have a gradient exceeding 8%.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

21. That before the occupation of Plots 1 to 7, a turning space shall be provided within each of these plots to enable vehicles to enter and leave the plot in forward gears at all times.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

22. That prior to commencement of development on site, details of the relocated bus shelter shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with SPT.

Reasons: In the interests of public transport.

23. The developer shall ensure that any vehicle transporting excavated material on or off the site must be treated by means of adequate wheel washing facilities. The facility will require to be in operation at all times during earth moving operations. The wheel washing facility shall be fully operational prior to works commencing on site. A ''clean zone'' shall be maintained between the end of the wheel wash facility and the public road. Furthermore the developer shall ensure a road brush motor is made available throughout the construction period to ensure adjacent roads are kept clear of mud and debris.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

24. The prior to the commencement of development, a dilapidation survey of the delivery route, shall be undertaken and submitted to the Council as Planning and Roads Authority and any defect identified during the construction period which had not been identified at the time of the dilapidation survey shall be the responsibility of the developer to repair.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

25. That prior to any work starting on site, a programme indicating the phasing of construction of development, together with a Traffic Management Plan indicating the circulation of vehicles and pedestrians, shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented throughout the period of the development of the site.

Reasons: In the interests of road safety.

148

149

150 Agenda Item

Report 10

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. CL/17/0325 Planning proposal: Residential development including the formation of new vehicle access (Planning permission in principle)

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Permission in principle

Applicant: • Green Shoots Land Ltd Location: • Goremire Road/Old Lanark Road Carluke [1purpose] 2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Grant planning permission in principle (subject to conditions) based on conditions attached [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application.

(2) Detailed planning permission should not be issued until an appropriate obligation under Section 75 of the Planning Act, and/or other appropriate agreement, has been concluded between the Council, the applicants and the site owner(s). This planning obligation should ensure that appropriate financial contributions are made at appropriate times during the development towards the following:

- Financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing. - Financial contribution towards educational facilities - Financial contribution towards the upgrade of community facilities

In accordance with agreed procedure, should there be no significant progress, on behalf of the applicant, towards the conclusion of the Planning Obligation within 6 months of the date of the Committee, the proposed development may be refused on the basis that, without the planning control/developer contribution which would be secured by the Planning Obligation, the proposed development would be unacceptable.

151 If, however, this matter is being progressed satisfactorily the applicant will be offered the opportunity to enter into a Processing Agreement, if this is not already in place. This will set an alternative agreed timescale for the conclusion of the Planning Obligation.

All reasonable legal costs incurred by the Council in association with the above Section 75 Obligation shall be borne by the applicant.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: Mast Architects Ltd ♦ Council Area/Ward: 01 Clydesdale West ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Policy 1 Spatial strategy Policy 2 Climate change Policy 4 Development management and placemaking Policy 5 Community infrastructure assessment Policy 6 General urban area/settlements Policy 12 Housing land Policy13 Affordable housing and housing choice Policy 16 Travel and transport Supplementary Guidance 3: Development Management, Placemaking and Design Policy DM1 Design Proposed SLDP2 Policy 1 Spatial Strategy Policy 2 Climate change Policy 3 General Urban Areas Policy 11 Housing Policy 12 Affordable Housing Policy 15 Travel and Transport

♦ Representation(s):

► 4 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 0 Comment Letters

♦ Consultation(s):

Countryside and Greenspace

Roads Development Management Team

CER Play Provision Community Contributions

Housing Planning Consultations

Scottish Water

The Coal Authority Planning and Local Authority Liaison Dept

Carluke Community Council

Environmental Services

Flood Risk Management Section

SEPA West Flooding

152 Education Resources School Modernisation Team

West of Scotland Archaeology Service

153 Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application site is located on Goremire Road in Carluke and the housing development area comprises a generally level area of vacant rough grassland with mature woodland located to the south west, west and north west forming a structural landscape buffer on the edge of the Carluke South Community Growth area. The application site is currently unoccupied but had, in the past, been a former bing for ironstone workings. The site sits within the settlement boundary of Carluke located on the edge of the established residential area which runs along the opposite side of Goremire Road and is bounded to the south by agricultural land and the east by housing development land currently being developed by another developer. The site is part of the Carluke South Community Growth area, represents the smallest land ownership in the Community Growth area and is situated adjacent to a residential development of 51 houses approved in March 2017.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The applicant seeks permission in principle for a residential development on a 1.4Ha area of land within the applicant’s ownership. The housing site would be accessed from Goremire Road via a new distributor road and would be located adjacent to the houses already being developed by Shieldhill Developments under application CL/16/0364. The indicative layout shows that pedestrian access to the adjoining land in third party control can be achieved through the application site to connect to the housing in that part of the Carluke South Community Growth Area.

2.2 The applicant has submitted various documents in support of the application including a Development and Viability Appraisal, Trial Pit Plan - Soil Sample Testing and an Access and Transport Statement. In addition, pre-application consultation was carried out as required by the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Developments) (Scotland) Regulations 2009 prior to the submission of planning application CL/15/0388 which sought consent for 15 houses on an adjoining area of land owned by Shieldhill Developments. The consultation related to both that development and the current proposal and was required, as combined, the number of houses proposed fell within the definition of a major development. It included a public exhibition at Carluke Lifestyles Centre on 18 June 2015.

3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Background 3.1.1 The adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan identifies the site as lying within the settlement boundary of Carluke. The site is identified as a Proposed Housing Site and part of the Carluke South Community Growth area where Policy 1: Spatial Strategy and Policy 12: Housing Land apply. In addition, Policies, 2: Climate Change, 4: Development Management and Place Making, 5: Community Infrastructure Assessment, 6: General Urban Area/Settlements, 13: Affordable Housing and Housing Choice and 16: Travel and Transport are relevant as are the Supplementary Guidance on Development Management, Place Making and Design, Affordable Housing and Housing Choice, Sustainable

154 Development & Climate Change and Community Infrastructure Assessment. The Council’s Residential Development Guide should also be taken into consideration.

3.2 Government Advice/Policy 3.2.1 Scottish Planning Policy (2014) (SPP) advises that proposals that accord with up- to-date plans should be considered acceptable in principle and states that Planning Authorities should promote the efficient use of land making use of existing infrastructure and service capacity. In terms of residential development, SPP advises that the planning system should enable the development of well designed, energy efficient, good quality housing in sustainable locations and allocate a generous supply of land to meet identified housing requirements.

3.3 Planning History 3.3.1 Planning applications CL/12/0409, CL/13/326, CL/14/471, CL/15/0388, CL/16/0364 were granted in November 2012, April 2014, December 2014 and March 2016 respectively for the erection of 81 detached and semi-detached houses of which 30 have been developed and the others are currently being built by Shieldhill Developments on land adjacent to the applicant’s ownership, with the majority of the dwellings fronting onto Goremire Road to the north of the application site entrance almost complete.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services (Development Management Team) – no adverse comments subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in respect of access standards, parking, footpath provision and drainage. Response: Noted. The applicant has demonstrated that the requirements of the Roads and Transportation Service can be met. Should consent be granted, these requirements will be subject to conditions.

4.2 Roads and Transportation Services (Flood Risk Management Section) – no objections subject to the provision of a Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Assessment, SUDS scheme and maintenance details. Response: These matters will be addressed at the detailed application stage and can be covered by condition if consent is granted.

4.3 Environmental Services – no objections subject to the use of appropriate conditions in respect of a Contaminated Land Site Investigation being carried out before development starts. Response: This matter can be covered by condition if consent is granted.

4.4 Community - play provision/community contributions - no objections subject to the developer providing a financial contribution for community/play provision facilities in the local area. Response: Noted. Planning permission would not be issued until an appropriate obligation under Section 75 of the Planning Act, and/or other appropriate agreement, has been concluded between the Council and the applicants. This planning obligation would ensure that appropriate financial contributions are made at appropriate times during the development towards community provision in the area.

155 4.5 Housing Services – a formal response has not been received, however, it has been intimated that a commuted sum to support social rented provision elsewhere in the local housing market area is appropriate for Carluke and that an appropriate contribution should be sought from the developer. Response: Noted. Planning permission would not be issued until an appropriate obligation under Section 75 of the Planning Act, and/or other appropriate agreement, has been concluded between the Council and the applicants. This planning obligation would ensure that appropriate financial contributions are made at appropriate times during the development towards social rented housing provision.

4.6 Education Resources - School Modernisation Team – no objections subject to the developer providing a financial contribution to address the impact of the development on education accommodation within the catchments areas for the site. Response: Noted. Planning permission would not be issued until an appropriate obligation under Section 75 of the Planning Act, and/or other appropriate agreement, has been concluded between the Council and the applicants. This planning obligation would ensure that appropriate financial contributions are made at appropriate times during the development towards education accommodation.

4.7 SEPA – no objections to the proposed development. Response: Noted.

4.8 Coal Authority – no objections to the proposed development. Response: Noted.

4.9 Scottish Water – no objections to the proposed development. Response: Noted.

4.10 Carluke Community Council – have offered no comments on the proposed development. Response: Noted.

4.11 Countryside and Greenspace – have offered no objections subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions on habitat and protected species surveys being carried out and landscape / public access masterplan covering the site and structural landscape buffer. Response: Noted. These matters can be covered by condition if consent is granted

4.12 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – have offered no objections on the proposed development. Response: Noted.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 In response to the carrying out of neighbour notification and the advertisement of the application in the local press due to the non-notification of neighbours, 4 letters of objection were received. The contents of the letters are summarised below:

156 a) The proposal to build terraced housing contrasts sharply with the neighbouring recent construction of detached houses and the style of proposed houses is not in keeping with the existing houses in the surrounding area. Response: As an application for Planning permission in principle, no details of the proposed housing for this site have been submitted. The site plan shows an indicative layout for the site that shows terraced housing, however, the final road layout and style of housing will be determined at a later date with the submission of a detailed application. b) The access road to the development exits directly facing the objector’s property. Any vehicles leaving the estate or any people walking out of the estate will look directly into their property greatly reducing their current privacy. At night vehicles leaving this proposed development will shine headlights directly into properties creating significant disturbance. Response: The new access is a standard road junction within a residential area and the distances from the existing housing across Goremire Road will result in a development that will meet standards on overlooking and amenity. It is recognised that light from traffic will at times shine over the front of the existing houses opposite the proposed junction but this is not considered to be significant in terms of amenity loss. c) A number of issues have been raised in term of road layout, junction spacing, footpath provision and its suitability, road safety, lack of parking, the suitability of Goremire Road and pedestrian vehicle conflict points. Response: Roads and Transportation Services have no objections to the proposed development and have not raised any road safety issues with the proposed junction onto Goremire Road. They have requested that the application, if granted, has conditions imposed that ensure that the road junction is designed to the standards required in their response in relation to visibility and construction details. d) Car parking on Goremire Road is an issue. Recent developments seem to provide a block paving space for at least two vehicles, will this be the case for the proposed development? If not, why not? Response: As an application for planning permission in principle, no details of the parking arrangement for each dwelling have been submitted. All new development for residential development has to provide the appropriate level of off street parking and this will be part of the details submitted for approval at the detailed application stage. e) The junction between Goremire Road and Lanark Road is highly dangerous due to poor visibility. There has been a number of serious road accidents at this junction in recent years. The increased traffic volume leaving Goremire road onto Lanark road will further compound this issue. There is the underlying issue of the ongoing increase in traffic on Goremire Road. Response: Roads and Transportation Services have not raised any road safety issue as a consequence of traffic from this application site exiting onto Goremire Road or using the wider road network. This site is a small

157 part of the wider Carluke South Community Growth Area which was subject to a transport assessment looking at the effect of the whole development and, in particular, the section onto Goremire Road. It was concluded that the development of housing in the CGA accessing onto Goremire Road, including this site, was not at a level that influenced or required junction upgrades on the wider road network.

f) Property will be overlooked by the proposed houses on Goremire Road. Response: If the final development layout includes new housing on Goremire Road the separation distance would be approximately 24m across Goremire Road to the existing housing which is considered acceptable in terms of overlooking and does not adversely affect amenity.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The applicant seeks planning permission in principle for residential development on land off Goremire Road in Carluke. The determining issues in considering this application are its compliance with the policies of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Plan and associated Supplementary Guidance and, in particular, the impact on the amenity of adjacent properties and the surrounding area and road safety.

6.2 The application site comprises an area of open rough grassland surrounded by mature woodland and lies adjacent to a main residential area within the settlement area of Carluke. The principle of residential development on this site has been established by virtue of it being identified as part of a Community Growth Area in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. As such, residential development is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to compliance with other Council policy and guidance on new residential development with particular reference to layout and design. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of Policies 1: Spatial Strategy and 12: Housing Land of the adopted Local Development Plan.

6.3 An incremental approach to development of the Community Growth Areas was not envisaged when they were identified in the South Lanarkshire Local Plan adopted in 2009. The Carluke South CGA is in the ownership of three different parties and this ownership pattern and the recent economic downturn has meant proposals for the overall site have not been progressed. Nevertheless, the site remains identified as a CGA in the replacement South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. The view was taken when approving the applications on the adjacent area of the CGA that this would help ‘kick start’ development within the wider CGA. This current application would indicate that there is now an appetite to develop more of the designated housing site. The site layout submitted is only indicative but it demonstrates that the proposed development will connect satisfactorily with the wider CGA. As a result, the release of this portion of the CGA is considered acceptable.

6.4 Policies 4: Development Management and Place Making and 6: General Urban Area/Settlements of the adopted local development plan along with supplementary guidance on Development Management, Placemaking and Design requires the Council to seek well designed proposals which integrate successfully with their surroundings, take account of the local context and built form and to be

158 compatible with adjacent buildings and surrounding streetscape in terms of scale, massing, design, external materials and impact on amenity. In addition, development should be well related to existing development, public transport, local services and facilities. This is a planning permission in principle application and is, therefore, to establish if, in principle, the site is suitable for residential purposes. As the site is in the Community Growth Area and adjacent to a residential area, a residential development of some form is considered acceptable. Should permission be granted, a detailed planning application would require to be submitted showing the detailed proposals which would include elevations, floor plans, site layout etc. In view of this, it is considered that this site is capable of accommodating a development that will be acceptable in terms of design, density and material that would be in compliance with Policies 4 and 6 and associated Supplementary Guidance.

6.5 With regard to road safety, Policy 16: Travel and Transport requires all new development proposals to consider the resulting impacts of traffic growth. A Transport Assessment had been previously submitted that analysed the impact of the wider CGA on the local road network. This demonstrated that the development would not have an adverse impact, in particular, on road junctions in the vicinity of the site, and that no mitigation was required. The proposal can, therefore, be accommodated in transportation and road safety terms. In addition, the Roads service is satisfied with the proposed access onto Goremire Road.

6.6 Policy 2: Climate Change and the associated Supplementary Guidance seeks to, where possible, minimise and mitigate against the effects of climate change and sets out a range of criteria which new development should consider to achieve this. The proposed development is consistent with the criteria relevant to this type of development at this location, in particular, being sustainably located, ensuring new development includes opportunities for active travel routes and avoiding areas of medium to high flood risk. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with Policy 2 of the adopted Local Development Plan and with the guidance set out in the supplementary guidance.

6.7 The masterplan requirements for this CGA are described in the adopted Local Development Plan and include provision to be made for new landscape measures to consolidate the new Green Belt edge and establish green networks within the development; local road network improvements and walking/cycling network through the development Area; provision of a local retail facility of a scale appropriate to serve the Community Growth Area; contribution to local sports pitch upgrades; investment in drainage infrastructure at Mauldslie Waste Water Treatment Works; contributions to extensions to local schools; and provision of affordable housing. The Council’s adopted policy on Community Infrastructure Assessment is set out in Policy 5 and the associated supplementary guidance. It advises that a financial contribution from developers will be sought where it is considered that a development requires capital or other works or facilities to enable the development to proceed. Through an assessment of the proposal, it is considered that contributions will be required in terms of the impact on educational and community facilities. In addition, Policy 13: Affordable Housing and Housing Choice and the related supplementary guidance states that the Council expects developers to contribute to meeting affordable housing needs across South Lanarkshire. In this case, a commuted sum is the preferred option to address the developer’s contribution to affordable housing for the Carluke area. The applicants

159 have confirmed their agreement to entering into a Section 75 Obligation, or other appropriate mechanism to provide appropriate funds to address these matters.

6.8 On 29 May 2018, the Planning Committee approved the proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 (Volumes 1 and 2) and Supporting Planning Guidance on Renewable Energy. Therefore, the Proposed SLLDP2 is now a material consideration in determining planning applications. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the proposed plan and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the current adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 1. It is considered that the proposal accords with Policies 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 and 15 in the proposed plan.

6.8 In view of all of the above, and taking into account the current local plan context, the proposal represents an appropriate form and approach to complete the development of the section of the CGA that accesses off Goremire Road and will ensure that the wider development of the CGA will not be prejudiced. The proposed access arrangement is acceptable and it is, therefore, recommended that planning permission in principle be granted subject to the conditions listed. However, consent should be withheld until the conclusion of the Section 75 Obligation, or other appropriate agreement, to ensure the submission of the necessary financial contributions towards education, community facilities and affordable housing.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The proposal will have no adverse impact on residential or visual amenity and raises no road safety concerns. The development complies with Policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13 and 16 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan together with the relevant Supplementary Guidance. In addition the development is consistent with the policies in the proposed SLLDP2.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 20 August 2019

Previous references  CL/15/X0173/NEW

List of background papers ► Application form

► Application plans

► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015 (adopted)

► Proposed South Lanarkshire Development Plan 2

► Neighbour notification letter dated

► Consultations Countryside And Greenspace

Roads Development Management Team

160

CER Play Provision Community Contribs Judith Gibb

Housing Planning Consultations

Scottish Water

The Coal Authority Planning And Local Authority Liaison Dept

Carluke Community Council

Environmental Services

RT Flood Risk Management Section

SEPA West Flooding

Education Resources School Modernisation Team

West Of Scotland Archaeology Service

► Representations Dated:

Mr Eric Barr, 114 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML8 4PF 15.08.2017

Robert Thomson, 116 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML84PF 17.08.2017

Jane Thomson, 116 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML84PF 17.08.2017

Ray V Furminger, 122 Goremire Road, Carluke, ML8 18.08.2017

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Steven Boertien, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455116 Email: [email protected]

161 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: CL/17/0325

Conditions and reasons

01. Prior to the commencement of development on site, a further application(s) for the approval of any of the matters specified in this condition must be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority, in accordance with the timescales and other limitations in section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). These matters are as follows: (a) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, parking areas, structural landscape buffer and open spaces; (b) the siting, design and external appearance of all building(s) and any other structures, including plans and elevations showing their dimensions and type and colour of external materials; (c) detailed cross-sections of existing and proposed ground levels through whole site including structural landscape buffer, details of underbuilding and finished floor levels in relation to a fixed datum, preferably ordnance datum. (d) the design and location of all boundary treatments including walls and fences; (e) the landscaping proposals for the site, including details of existing trees, and woodland area including existing informal path network, proposed accessible path network showing connectivity to surrounding area from and through the site and other planting to be retained together with proposals for new planting specifying number, size and species of all trees and shrubs, including, where appropriate, the planting of fruit trees; (f) the means of SUDs drainage and sewage disposal; (g) details of the phasing of development (covering all relevant aspects of development detailed in (a) above); (h) a phase 1 habitat and protected species survey covering the site and structural landscape buffer.

Reason: To comply with section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended.

02. (a) The applicant shall be required to undertake a comprehensive site investigation, carried out to the appropriate Phase level, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The investigation shall be completed in accordance with the advice given in the following:

(i) Planning Advice Note 33 (2000) and Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995);

(ii) Contaminated Land Report 11 - 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) - issued by DEFRA and the Environment Agency;

(iii) BS 10175:2001 - British Standards institution 'The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice'.

162 (c) If the risk assessment identifies any unacceptable risks, a detailed remediation strategy will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No works other than investigative works shall be carried out on site prior to receipt of the Council's written approval of the remediation plan.

Reason: To avoid unacceptable risks to human health and the environment, to ensure that the land is remediated and made suitable for its proposed use.

03. That the site access and layout shall be designed to the following standards:

• The new junction with Goremire Road shall have minimum visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m provided and maintained in both directions. No fencing, vegetation, shrubs, trees, etc. above the height of 900mm shall be located within the sightlines. • Parking shall be provided at the following rate: 1 to 3 bedrooms - 2 parking spaces, 4 or more bedrooms - 3 parking spaces. • A 2m wide footway shall be installed along the site frontage onto Goremire Road and connected to the existing footpath.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and to ensure the provision of a satisfactory access and road design for the site.

163

164 Agenda Item

Report 11

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/19/0166 Planning proposal: Change of use from dwellinghouse to residential care home for children

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Detailed planning application • Applicant: Inspire Scotland Location: • 295 Lanark Road Auchenheath Lanark ML11 9UU [1purpose] 2 Recommendation(s) 2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Grant detailed planning permission (subject to conditions) based on conditions attached [1recs] 2.2 Other actions/notes

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: Keith Edwards ♦ Council Area/Ward: 04 Clydesdale South ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 2 Climate change South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 4 Development management and placemaking South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Policy 6 General urban area/settlements Supplementary Guidance 3: Development Management, Placemaking and Design Policy DM1 Design Proposed SLDP2: Policy 2 Climate change Proposed SLDP2: Policy 3 General Urban Areas

165 Proposed SLDP2: Policy 5 Development Management and Placemaking Placemaking

♦ Representation(s):

► 11 Objection Letters ► 0 Support Letters ► 0 Comment Letters

♦ Consultation(s):

Roads Development Management Team

166

Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The application site, which falls within the identified settlement of Auchenheath, relates to a 6 bedroom dwelling built of natural stone and slate (prior to conversion as a dwelling it was used as a primary school) and associated curtilage and parking. The building sits above the road level and along the road frontage is a stone retaining wall with metal railing on top of the coping stones. Access is taken from Lanark Road (B7018) via a gated access with pillars which adjoins the eastern boundary. Lanark Road is the principal road corridor connecting Kirkmuirhill to Lanark. The site is bounded to the east and west by detached dwellings, to the north by agricultural land, amenity space and a public carpark and to the south by Lanark Road and beyond by agricultural land.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 The applicant seeks planning permission to change an existing dwelling to a small ‘home from home’ style children’s care home. The proposal involves internal alterations to form 5 ensuite bedrooms and an office and bedroom space at the upper gallery level. The kitchen, dining and upper lounge spaces will remain as existing. Externally, there will be minor changes including addition of extract fans and flue, however, the existing character of the building will remain largely intact. Within the curtilage, 5 parking and one disabled space will be laid out. At the entrance, the wall will be reduced and the railings removed to improve visibility.

2.2 The care home will provide a full time home environment for 5 young people. Most of the referrals are for long term placements which support the young person well into adulthood. The house will operate as close to a family home as possible with staff and residents sharing domestic tasks. The intention is that school age children will attend local schools and older children will be in full time employment or training. Support and supervision will be provided by three staff members during the day and evening and, during the night, there will be a waken member of staff and another sleeping over (3 carers 08.00 - 16.00, 3 carers 16.00 - 22.00 (2 carers leave at 22.00 and 1 carer arrives) 1 night care and 1 sleeping over carer 22.00 - 08.00). Visitors would be planned for and monitored.

3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Status

3.1.1 In terms of the Adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (2015), the site is located within an identified settlement where policies 6 – General urban area/ settlements, 4 - Development management and placemaking and 2 – Climate change apply against which the proposal should be assessed.

3.2 Relevant Government Advice/Policy 3.2.1 Relevant Government guidance is set out within the consolidated Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014 and this advises that local authorities are required to consider the needs for supported accommodation including care homes.

167 3.3 Planning Background 3.3.1 Planning Permission CL/05/0581 was granted in October 2005 for change of use from a school to form a dwellinghouse. Following on from this, Planning Permission CL/09/0342 was granted in November 2009 for sub-division and erection of two extensions to form an additional residential unit.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads and Transportation Services – initially raised concerns about visibility at the access, however, this has now been resolved by the applicant agreeing to reduce the height of the boundary wall and removing railings. Adequate parking will be provided on site. Response: Noted.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 In response to the advertisement of the application in the local press for the non- notification of neighbours together with the carrying out of statutory neighbour notification, 11 letters of representation were received. The issues raised are summarised below: a) Two of the proposed bedrooms will look directly into an upstairs hall and vice versa. This is totally unsuitable for all parties concerned. Response: A hall is not a habitable room and in such circumstances privacy would not be compromised. Also, there are existing bedroom windows on the side elevation referred to by the objector.

b) Road safety and limited visibility at the access. Response: Roads have not objected subject to the reduction in height of the wall and removal of railings as detailed on the site plan.

c) Can the waste drainage actually support another several bathrooms; this area has had several issues with blocked pipes and roads dug up, due to the waste system not being suitable. Response: The building already has a connection to the public sewage network. Any issues with blockages are matters for Scottish Water.

d) Noise from music blaring and screaming teenagers. Could teenagers with a criminal past be staying next door? Youths in care likely to have challenging behaviour problems. Concerns of elderly residents being intimidated. Problems associated with anti-social behaviour, alcohol and drugs. Youths within this facility might not feel welcomed and damage the community cohesion. Response: The nature of a young person residing in the existing dwellinghouse or the proposed care home cannot be considered as a material planning consideration in assessing this application. Any anti- social behaviour, behavioural issues or criminal activities, vandalism etc. is a matter for the Social Services and or the Police to address. The children would be supervised on a 24 hour basis. The home will be regulated by the Care Inspectorate and any issues that may arise can be raised with them.

168 e) There has been no consultation on this proposal. Response: There has been a meeting on site with the applicant and neighbours at which all points raised by objectors were discussed. f) The entire village should have been notified of this change and not just six houses. The timescales have not been adequate enough for the village to get together and object as a united community. Response: In addition to neighbour notification, an advert was placed in the Lanark Gazette for non-notification of neighbours. Letters of objection have been received and registered after the statutory period for making representation had expired. g) Where this house is located there is nothing for the residents to do. The transport links are terrible, no shops, buses are few and far between. Kirkmuirhill the nearest village is well over a mile away with no path. Concerned about what they will do in their free time as they will not be able to spend lots of time on computers as the wifi speeds are extremely poor. Response: These are not material considerations in the assessment of this application. It should be noted that the house is an existing use which can be accommodated by young children. The children of the proposed residential care home would have the same opportunities as any new family moving into the house. The applicant has stated in response to objections that ‘Those children who are able to manage degrees of independence appropriate to their age, will be afforded that and those who need extra support to operate in the community will be provided with that which they require’. h) Impact upon value of house. Response: This is not a relevant planning matter. i) Due to staffing at this facility there will be additional persons and vehicles at these premises much more than a normal sized family. Response: There will only be 5 young persons and 3 carers similar in size to a large family group which could be theoretically accommodated in the current dwellinghouse. j) Depending on staffing levels an impact on parking may occur as parking on the roadway outside would prove dangerous. Response: Roads have confirmed that adequate spaces can be provided on site. k) Introducing a change of use from a family home to a care centre will most certainly effect the surrounding demographics of the neighbourhood. Response: The proposal is for a care home for 5 young persons and their supervisors, not a care centre and it relates to just one property, therefore, demographics are unlikely to be affected. l) Shift pattern changeovers can cause disruption to residents in this quiet area.

169 Response: The shift pattern involves a small number of car movements at 0800, 1600 and 2200, not dissimilar to the level of activity experienced in an established residential area. It should also be noted that the site adjoins a busy distributor road where ambient traffic noise is already higher than in quieter areas where traffic movement would be more noticeable.

5.2 These letters have been copied and are available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 The applicant seeks planning permission to change the use of a dwellinghouse to a children's home. The applicant has submitted a supporting statement explaining the need for a service to provide accommodation for five young people with the full time support and supervision of 3 staff members during the day and 2 at night who will rotate on a shift basis. The service will provide an environment where the specific needs of the individual can be assessed and assisted.

6.2 In view of the small scale and nature of the residential accommodation, similar to that of a traditional family home, it is considered that there would be no notable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Car journeys into and out of the property will not be significantly different from that of a traditional residential unit with no issues being raised by the Roads Service.

6.3 A number of concerns have been raised by local residents. The majority of these concerns are not relevant to the assessment of this application. All the points raised are addressed in section 5 above. None of the issues raised are of significant weight or relevance to the assessment of the proposed use to justify refusal of the application.

6.4 In summary, the proposal is a suitable development for the site and complies with local plan policy. It is, therefore, recommended that detailed planning consent for the change of use is granted.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The proposed use of the building is considered to be a suitable use within an urban area. It is considered that it would not adversely impact upon residential amenity or the character of the surrounding area. The proposed development complies with the provisions of Policies 2, 4, 6 and DM1 of the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and associated Supplementary Guidance.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 22 August 2019

Previous references  None

List of background papers

170 ► Application form ► Application plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015 (adopted) ► Proposed South Lanarkshire Development Plan 2 ► Neighbour notification letter dated

► Consultations Roads Development Management Team 05.08.2019

► Representations Dated: Mhairi Van Der Kaars, 330 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, 27.02.2019 Lanark, ML11 9UU

Majory A Stewart & Lynn M Stewart, 336 Lanark Road, 27.02.2019 Auchenheath, Lanark, ML11 9UU

Ian BW Simpson, 340 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark, 27.02.2019 ML11 9UU

Kendal Nicol, 289 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark, ML11 27.02.2019 9UU

Mrs Margaret Cardwell, 81 Honeywell Crescent, Chapelhall, 22.02.2019 Airdrie, ML6 8XW

Mrs Wilma Nicol, 289 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark, 22.02.2019 ML11 9UU

Miss Lauren Nicol, 289 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark, 22.02.2019 ML11 9UU

Mr Andrew Nicol, 289 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark, 22.02.2019 ML11 9UU

Mrs Loretta Nicol, 5 McAllister Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 7DF 27.02.2019

Mr Darren McGinn, 289 Lanark Road, Auchenheath, Lanark, 25.02.2019 ML11 9UU

Dr Josephine And Dr Jason Newton, Received Via E-mail 24.06.2019

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Ian Hamilton, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455174 Email: [email protected]

171 Detailed planning application

Paper apart – Application number: P/19/0166

Conditions and reasons

01. That prior to the occupation of the residential care home the stone wall will be reduced in height and the railings removed in accordance with approved plans A1354.19.09 and A1354.19.17.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety.

02. That before the development is completed or brought into use, all of the parking spaces shown on the approved plan A1354.19.09 shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

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

172

173

174 Agenda Item

Report 12

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Application no. P/18/1545. Planning proposal: Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of 11 flats with associated parking and landscaping.

1 Summary application information [purpose] Application type:• Detailed planning application • Applicant: Mr. Perella Location: • 41 Carlisle Road Hamilton ML3 7BZ

(1) The Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine this application.

3 Other information ♦ Applicant’s Agent: DTA Chartered Architects ♦ Council Area/Ward: 17 Hamilton North And East ♦ Policy Reference(s): South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (adopted 2015) Policy 4 - Development management and placemaking Policy 6 - General urban area/settlements Policy 12 – Housing land supply Policy 15 - Natural and historic environment

Supplementary Guidance: Development Management, Placemaking and Design (2015) Policy DM1 – Design Supplementary Guidance: Natural and Historic

175 Environment (2015) Policy NHE13 – Tree preservation orders

Proposed South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2 Policy 3 – General urban area/settlements Policy 5 – Development management and placemaking Policy 11 - Housing Policy 14 – Natural and historic environment Policy DM1 – New development design Policy NHE14 – Tree preservation orders

♦ Representation(s):

► 1 Objection Letter ► 0 Support Letters ► 0 Comment Letters

♦ Consultation(s):

Roads Development Management Team

Environmental Services

Scottish Water

SEPA Flooding

WOSAS

Roads Flood Risk Management

Arboricultural Services

Countryside and Greenspace

176 Planning Application Report

1 Application Site

1.1 The applicant seeks detailed planning permission for the demolition of a bungalow and the erection of 11 flats together with associated car parking and landscaped areas at 41 Carlisle Road on the eastern edge of Hamilton. The existing bungalow which is to be demolished has been vacant for some time. The site extends to approximately 0.4 hectares and is bounded by the Covan Burn to the east, Carlisle Road to the south and a number of residential properties to the north and west, with access taken from Carlisle Road.

1.2 The site is level with Carlisle Road to the front of the existing bungalow, however, the ground drops steeply away to the north of the site. The bungalow is single storey to the front although, due to the level differences on site, it is two storey to the rear. The bungalow occupies the south western corner of the site, with the eastern area being heavily wooded. The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan in support of this application.

2 Proposal(s)

2.1 In relation to matters of detail, the applicant intends to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a block of flats containing eleven flatted dwellings. The building has been designed to take account of the levels on site and will be constructed over three floors. Part of the building will appear as two storey when viewed from Carlisle Road and three storey from within the site itself. The lower ground floor contains three two bedroomed flats, with the ground and first floor containing four flats on each level comprising of three two bedroomed flats and one three bedroomed flat. The block’s entrance from Carlisle Road is located on the ground floor. Balconies are located along the front elevation and eastern elevation which overlooks the mature woodland area located alongside the Covan Burn.

2.2 The development consists of nine two bedroomed and two three bedroomed units which will all contain open plan living/kitchen areas. Whilst the footprint of the flatted block is larger than that of the existing bungalow, the built area is largely confined to the south western corner of the site, with parking to the rear.

2.3 The site is covered by a Tree Preservation Order and a Tree Survey has been submitted and assessed as part of the application. The applicant proposes to incorporate the trees on site into the amenity open space for the development, with both formal and informal outdoor areas proposed.

3 Background

3.1 Local Plan Status 3.1.1 The site is located within the settlement boundary of Hamilton where Policy 6 – General Urban Area/Settlements of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (Adopted June 2015) is applicable. The application also requires to be assessed against Policy 4 – Development Management and Place Making, Policy 12 – Housing Land Supply and Policy 15 – Natural and Historic Environment. In

177 addition, Policy DM1 – Design, of the Development Management, Placemaking and Design Supplementary Guidance and Policy NHE13 – Tree Preservation Orders of the Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance are also relevant to the assessment of this application.

3.1.3 The content of the above policies and how they relate to the proposal is assessed in detail in Section 6 of this report.

3.2 Relevant Government Advice 3.2.1 Relevant Government Guidance is set out within the consolidated Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014 which, amongst other matters, requires the Council to maintain a five year supply of effective housing land. Planning Authorities are also required to promote the efficient use of land by directing development towards sites within existing settlements, where possible, in order to make effective use of existing infrastructure and service capacity.

3.3 Planning Background 3.3.1 Planning Consent (HM/17/0003) was issued on 22 June 2017 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of 11 flats together with associated works.

4 Consultation(s)

4.1 Roads Development Management Team – no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to visibility splays, access arrangements and parking provision. Response: Noted and agreed.

4.2 Environmental Services – no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of further details relating to the storage and handling of refuse and the control of dust during the construction phase. In addition, they have commented that noise levels should be controlled during the construction phase and that formal action may be taken should any nuisance occur as a result of these operations. They have also advised that, in the unlikely event that any contamination is encountered during the development phase, an action plan is prepared in advance in order to guide staff. Response: These matters can be addressed through the use of a number of suitably worded conditions and informatives.

4.3 Scottish Water – no objection to the proposal. They have, however, commented that the applicant should be aware that they are unable to reserve capacity at their water and/or waste water treatment works for the proposed development. In

178 addition, they have advised that a formal connection application should be submitted to Scottish Water for their consideration in due course by the applicant. Response: These matters can be addressed by use of a number of suitably worded informatives.

4.4 SEPA Flooding – no objection to the proposal Response: Noted.

4.5 WOSAS – no objection to the proposal. Response: Noted.

4.6 Flood Risk Management – Highlight that a portion of the site lies within the potential flood envelope of the Covan Burn. Nevertheless, they do not object to the proposal subject to the inclusion of conditions relating to the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) within the site. In this regard, the applicant would require to concur with the Council’s current SUDs Design Criteria Guidance Note and complete the appropriate self-certification documentation. There is no initial concern regarding flood risk, however, the applicant should submit a flood risk assessment to ensure that there is no increase in the future flood risk as a result of the proposed development. Response: Noted. Should consent be granted then conditions would be incorporated into any consent granted to address the provision of SUDS and submission of a flood risk assessment.

4.7 Arboricutural Services – no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the safeguarding of existing trees and woodland and their future management. In addition, they have also advised of the need to safeguard the nature conservation and amenity value of the site. Response: Noted. It is considered that these matters can be addressed by a number of suitably worded conditions.

4.8 Countryside and Greenspace – no objection to the proposal. They have, however, recommended that the small screen planting on the eastern elevation next to the Covan Burn should comprise of native species and pollinator friendly planting in order to ensure that no inappropriate species form part of the watercourse which leads down to the River Avon. Response: This matter can be addressed by use of a suitably worded condition.

5 Representation(s)

5.1 Statutory neighbour notification was undertaken, following which one letter of representation was received. The grounds of this objection are summarised as follows:

(a) The number of flats proposed is an overdevelopment of the site. The appearance of the proposed buildings as shown on the 3d visuals is not in keeping with the type of residential properties in the surrounding area. Particularly the flat roof and balconies. No other residential buildings in the vicinity of Carlisle Road have flat roofs or balconies. In addition, consideration should be given to the health implications for residents, particularly the young, using balconies

179 given the known health hazards associated with exhaust emissions as a result of increased traffic in the area. Response: In terms of the number of flats, it is considered that, as planning consent (HM/17/0003) has already been issued for 11 flats, there are no issues raised in respect of the capacity or overdevelopment of the site.

In terms of the impact on the surrounding properties, the applicant has submitted a streetscape drawing which shows that the building is of a scale and mass which is compatible with the adjoining properties. There are examples of modern flatted developments within the area which have both flat roofs and balconies. It is also noted that the balconies themselves measure approximately 1.5 metres in depth which will restrict the amount of furniture which could be placed there. In addition, it is considered that the balconies on the front elevation raise no issues given they overlook the public street. The balconies on the eastern side elevation of the block look onto an established area of mature woodland and no issues are raised in respect of the privacy of the adjoining property. Environmental Services have been consulted and they have not raised any concerns over air quality at this location.

(b) The amount of traffic that will be generated to and from the entrance to the proposed building on to an already busy Carlisle Road will be considerable. As the vehicular access/exit appears to be restricted to one vehicle there would be instances when vehicles are stopped on Carlisle Road waiting to gain access. In addition the proximity of the access with the junction of Laverock Avenue and Carlisle Road raises road safety concerns. Response: The Roads Service has been consulted in respect of this proposal and has raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to access arrangements, visibility splays and parking arrangements.

(c) In relation to the previous consent (HM/17/0003) conditions were applied to protect the trees should this application be approved it would be expected that the same conditions would apply Response: The Arboricultural Service was consulted in respect of this proposal and raised no objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to tree management and protection measures. Should the application be approved, then suitable conditions relating to tree protection would be attached to the planning permission.

5.2 The letter of objection has been copied and is available for inspection in the usual manner and on the planning portal.

6 Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 In terms of Policy 4, all development proposals require to take account of the local context and built form. In this case, the principle of a flatted block of 11 dwellings on this site has been accepted in relation to the previous consent (HM/17/0003). The applicant has submitted a streetscape drawing which shows that the height of the building itself is compatible with the adjoining properties in terms of the main

180 frontage of the building which fronts on to Carlisle Road. It is considered that the proposed development can be accommodated within the site without creating an adverse physical or over dominating effect on the existing neighbouring properties to the west.

6.2 Policy 6 seeks to safeguard the character and amenity of urban areas and settlements. In this case, it is considered that, in terms of scale, massing and design, the proposal is compatible with the adjoining properties. Whilst the appearance of the building will contrast with surrounding properties, its design is considered to be acceptable. In addition, sufficient areas of landscaping have been retained in order to ensure that there is a satisfactory setting for the development. It is, therefore, considered that no issues are raised in respect of this policy. The development has been designed to minimise the impact on surrounding residential properties and no unacceptable overlooking will occur. Adequate parking on site and a suitable vehicular access will be provided whilst ensuring that there is provision of a suitable useable garden area.

6.3 The proposed residential development complies with the aims of Policy 12 - Housing Land - where the Council supports residential development as it will contribute positively towards the Council’s five year effective supply of housing land provision.

6.3 Policy DM1 of the Development Management, Placemaking and Design Supplementary Guidance recognises that good design is essential in creating attractive places for people to live. In relation to this proposal, the design has taken account of the nature of the site by retaining many of the existing trees and utilises the gradient of the ground in order to ensure that the building does not over dominate the adjoining properties. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of this policy.

6.4 Policy 15 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan defines a “Hierarchy of Natural and Built Heritage Sites” for protection, with areas covered by tree preservation orders being categorised as locally important. The policy states that the Council will assess all development proposals in terms of their effect on the character and amenity of the natural and built environment.

6.5 Policy NHE13 which relates specifically to Tree Preservation Orders, of the Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance provides more detailed guidance on assessing developments in such locations. The policy recognises the importance that both individual trees as well as areas of woodland play in terms of the quality of the urban environment. In this regard, the applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and tree protection plan. Although some trees will be felled, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted in respect of this proposal and has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions relating to replanting and suitable tree protection measures being put in place. It is, therefore, considered that no issues are raised in respect of this policy since the site will retain a wooded feel.

6.6 The proposed development has been considered against the relevant policies in the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 and it is noted that these policies are broadly consistent with the Adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with Policy 3, Policy 5, Policy 11

181 Policy 14, Policy DM1 and Policy NHE14 of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2. It is recommended that planning permission is granted.

7 Reasons for Decision

7.1 The proposal complies with Policy 4, Policy 6, Policy 12 and Policy 15 of the South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan. In addition, the proposal generally complies with Policy NHE13 of the Natural and Historic Environment Supplementary Guidance and can be viewed favourably in terms of Policy DM1 of the Development Management, Placemaking and Design Supplementary Guidance. The proposal also complies with Policy 3, Policy 5, Policy 11, Policy 14, Policy DM1 and Policy NHE14 of the Proposed Local Development Plan 2. There are no other material considerations which would justify the refusal of planning permission.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Date: 21 August 2019

Previous references  None

List of background papers ► Application form ► Application plans ► South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2015 (adopted) ► Proposed South Lanarkshire Development Plan 2 ► Neighbour notification letter dated 5 November 2018 ► Development management, placemaking and design supplementary guidance (2015) ► Natural and historic environment supplementary guidance (2015) ► Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan for DTA Architects and Perella Homes April 2019 Julian A Morris

► Consultations

Roads Development Management Team 07.02.2019 Environmental Services 07.11.2018 Scottish Water 09.11.2018 SEPA Flooding 14.08.2019 WOSAS 07.11.2018 Roads Flood Risk Management 26.11.2018 Arboricultural Services 16.08.2019

182 Countryside And Greenspace 15.11.2018

► Representations Dated:

K J Matheson, 26.11.2018

Contact for further information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Mary McGonigle, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton, ML3 6LB Phone: 01698 455103 Email: [email protected]

183 Detailed Planning Application

Paper apart – Application number: P/18/1545

Conditions and reasons

01. That before any development commences on site, details of facilities for the storage of refuse within the site, including design, location, external finishes and access for its uplift, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No dwelling unit shall be occupied until these facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved scheme or such alternative as may be agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority.

02. Prior to development commencing on site, a scheme for the control and mitigation of dust shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. No changes to the approved scheme shall take place unless agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the risk of nuisance from dust to nearby occupants.

03. That no development shall commence until details of surface water drainage arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority; such drainage arrangements will require to comply with the principles of sustainable urban drainage systems and with the Council's Sustainable Drainage Design Criteria and shall include signed appendices as required. The development shall not be occupied until the surface drainage works have been completed in accordance with the details submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority.

04. That the small screen planting on the eastern elevation next to the Covan Burn shall comprise of native species that are pollinator friendly in order to ensure that no inappropriate species form part of the watercourse which leads down to the River Avon.

Response: To ensure that the proposal will have no adverse impact on the River Avon.

184 05. That proposals for the maintenance of all areas of open space within the development shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority and no work on the site shall commence until the written permission of the Council has been granted for these proposals or such other proposals as may be agreed.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

06. No development, including tree works or tree removal, shall take place until full details of both soft and hard landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include a monitoring and implementation programme [proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures ( e.g. furniture, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc.) ; proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc., indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration where relevant). Soft landscaping works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme].

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

07. All approved hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation and monitoring programme agreed with the Council as Planning Authority and in accordance with the relevant recommendations of the appropriate British Standards. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building or the substantial completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

08. No development, tree works or site clearance shall take place until details of earthworks have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. These details shall include the proposed grading and mounding of land areas including the levels and contours to be formed, showing the relationship of proposed mounding to the existing tree Root Protection Area, vegetation and surrounding landform; and any retaining walls with structural calculations verified by a qualified company. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the protection and maintenance of the existing woodland within the area.

185 09. That before any development commences on site or before any materials are ordered or brought to the site, details and samples of all materials to be used as external finishes on the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control.

10. That before development starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls, including any retaining walls, to be erected on the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason; These details have not been submitted or approved.

11. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011 (or any such order revoking or re-enacting that order), no development shall take place within the curtilage of the application site other than that expressly authorised by this permission without the submission of a further planning application to the Council as Planning Authority.

Response: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control.

12. That prior to any work starting on site, a Flood Risk/Drainage Assessment and Independent Check shall be carried out, submitted to, and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. This Assessment shall include confirmation that a suitable FFL is provided and procedures are considered to ensure access/egress can be obtained should flooding occur. The Assessment and Independent Check shall be carried out in accordance with the latest industry guidance listed within Section 4.0 of the Council's SuDS Design Criteria Guidance Note.

Response: To ensure that there will be no increased risk of flooding to land and properties either on - site or downstream due to impedance of flood flows, increased surface water run-off and/or reduction of flood storage capacity.

13. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, a visibility splay of 2.4 metres by 43 metres measured from the road channel shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and everything exceeding 0.9 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and thereafter nothing exceeding 0.9 metres in height shall be planted, placed or erected within these sight lines.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety

14. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use the first 2 metres of the access road from the heel of the footway/service strip shall be hard surfaced across its full width to prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

Reason: To prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

186

15. That the site shall be accessed via a 5.5 metre wide driveway for the first 15 metres and thereafter shall be reduced to a minimum width of 3.5 metres to the satisfaction of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road and in the interests of traffic and public safety

16. That during the construction phase sufficient parking shall be provided within the confines of the site for all site personnel to the satisfaction of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and public safety

17. That before the development hereby approved is completed or brought into use, 22 parking spaces (2.5m x 5.0m modules) shall be laid out, constructed and thereafter maintained at all times to the specification of the Council as Roads and Planning Authority.

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

18. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped, pollarded or felled, and no shrubs or hedges shall be removed from the application site without the prior written consent of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to protect existing trees on the site throughout the period of the proposed building operation.

19. That the existing trees to be retained must be protected in accordance with methods as set out in BS5837/2012 during and until completion of all site operations and building works

Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to protect existing trees on the site throughout the period of the proposed building operation

20. That prior to any work commencing on site an Arboricutural Method Statement shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Council as Planning Authority and thereafter shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority and shall include the following:

a) Location and installation of services/ utilities drainage.

b) Method of demolition within the root protection areas of the trees which are to be retained in accordance with BS5837 (2012) – Trees in relation to demolition, design and construction.

c) Construction details and relevant sections relating to the parking areas and driveways and shall include full details of the no dig specifications around tree 47 (Tree Survey Report, Tree Constraints Plan, Julian A Morris) and extent of the areas of the roads, parking areas and driveway/ paths to be constructed using a no dig specification

187 d) Detailed levels and cross sections which show that the raised surface levels within the no digging proposed root protection areas can be accommodated where they meet with any proposed building damp proof courses.

Reason: To ensure that the trees to be retained are fully protected.

21. That prior to the start of the development hereby approved a ten year Greenspace/Tree Management Plan shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Council as Planning Authority and thereafter fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority and shall include:

a). A statement of the overall design vision for the greenspace, woodland and individual trees retained as part of the development.

b) Details of management arrangements and operations to secure and sustain canopy, understorey and ground cover and to provide reinstatement, including planting where tree loss occurs.

c) Recommendations relating to how trees within the immediate vicinity of the flatted building are to be protected without loss of their canopy or habitat value.

Reason: To ensure that the areas of greenspace, woodland and individual trees are adequately managed, safeguarded and maintained in the longer term in the interests of nature conservation and the amenity of the area in general

22. That before any development commences, a pre start meeting shall be held on site with the relevant parties concerned in order to ensure that the appropriate working procedures and root protection measures are in place.

Reason: To ensure that the trees to be retained are fully protected.

23. That prior to the completion of the development, full details of all proposed tree planting shall be submitted in writing for the written approval of the Council as Planning Authority and shall include planting and maintenance specifications, including cross sections, use of guards or other protection measures and confirmation of location, species and sizes, nursery stock type, supplier and defect period. All tree planting shall thereafter be carried out during the next available planting season following completion of the development in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the long term future of the trees to be planted

24. That prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of all tree protection monitoring and site supervision by a suitably qualified tree specialist shall be submitted in writing for the prior written approval of the Council as Planning Authority and thereafter fully implemented at all times during construction on site, to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to effective planning control.

188 25. That the bedroom windows on the western side elevation hereby approved shall be glazed in obscure glass as indicated in the approved drawings and thereafter shall be maintained as such in perpetuity to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control.

26. Prior to the commencement of development, details of a two metre high screen fence to be erected along the western boundary of the application site shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter the fence shall be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling within the development and maintained in this position unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to retain effective planning control.

189

190 Agenda Item

Report 13

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Subject Update on the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose • Update Members on the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 that received Royal Assent on 25 July 2019 and highlight the implications of the additional duties for the Council. [ 2. Recommendation(s)

2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Note the contents of the report (2) Note that further reports will be presented to Committee once further detail is available following the introduction of secondary legislation and associated Regulations. [1re 3. Background

3.1 In September 2015, the Scottish Government set up an independent panel to carry out a review of Scotland’s planning system. The panel indicated that they intended to focus on 6 key themes – development planning, housing delivery, planning for infrastructure, development management, leadership, resourcing and skills and community engagement. In December 2015, the Planning Committee considered and approved the Council’s response to the panel. The Scottish Minsters published a White Paper (‘Places, People and Planning’) on 10 January 2017. In March 2017, the Planning Committee considered and approved the Council’s response to the consultation on the White Paper. Thereafter, the Scottish Ministers consulted on a position statement describing the key changes they are considering taking forward through a Planning Bill. The Committee considered and approved the Council’s response on 13 February 2018.

3.2 The Bill followed normal Parliamentary process and was considered by the Local Government and Communities Committee and the Scottish Parliament over a period of 15 months. This culminated in a debate in the Scottish Parliament over three days in June this year. The Bill was passed on 20 June 2019 and it received Royal Assent on 25 July 2019 when it became the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. It will sit alongside the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning etc (Scotland)

191 Act 2006. There are no proposals to consolidate the legislation into a single piece of legislation.

4. Current position

4.1 The reform of the planning system has had, as its core, the Scottish Government’s desire for Planning to have a key role in delivering Scotland's Economic Strategy and making Scotland an attractive place to invest. The reforms were seen as important in strengthening the planning system's contribution to inclusive growth, housing and infrastructure delivery and empowering communities and maintaining the Government’s commitment to a strong, high-performing system that enables housing and infrastructure delivery and supports quality of life of all communities by promoting quality of place.

4.2 The main outcomes of the Act and the likely implications for the Council are described below.

4.3 Purpose of Planning 4.3.1 The definition of a ‘purpose for planning’ is a new introduction not found in other Planning Acts. The final wording is “to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest”. The long term public interest is considered to include, among other matters, anything contributing to sustainable development or achieving the national outcomes set out in the Community Empowerment Act. The latter point reflects one of the overarching aims of the Government to strengthen links between spatial and community planning.

In addition, the Bill requires every Planning Authority to have a Chief Planning Officer whole role is defined as advising the Council about the carrying out of its planning functions. The Council employs a Head of Planning and Economic Development and, therefore, there are no implications from this change.

4.4 Development Planning 4.4.1 Overview The Development Plan for the Council currently comprises the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan which is prepared by the Council and covers the Council’s area and the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (known as Clydeplan) which is produced by the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Authority made up of 8 member authorities including South Lanarkshire Council.

The Act now defines the Development Plan as comprising the Local Development Plan together with the National Planning Framework (NPF). The need to prepare a Strategic Development Plan has been removed and, in its place, there is a statutory duty to prepare Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). However, the RSS will not form part of the Development Plan. This is explained in more detail below.

4.4.2 Strategic Development – Regional Spatial Strategies The requirement to prepare SDPs has been removed and replaced by a statutory requirement for one or more authorities to prepare a Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). The RSS will identify the need for objectives for which strategic development will contribute and the priorities for delivering strategic development, as well as proposed locations. An RSS must be adopted as soon as practicable after the relevant part of the Act comes into force and be kept under review and a new strategy prepared and adopted at least once every 10 years. While the RSS will not form part of the

192 Development Plan, the National Planning Framework (NPF) and relevant Local Development Plan (LDP) will have to have regard to the RSS.

The Strategic Development Plan process has been an important factor in terms of the promotion and delivery of sustainable economic growth and development across the Clydeplan area. However, both the Glasgow City Region and the Strategic Development Authority already work closely together in relation to the delivery of the Regional Economic Strategy. This document is currently being refreshed. The associated Economic Strategy Action Plan includes a commitment to develop a Regional Land Use Spatial Strategy which was included in anticipation of the demise of the SDP. As a result, the Act is broadly in alignment with the approach already being taken by the Glasgow City Region. Officers will continue to participate in the work streams associated with these arrangements and, given the close working relationships already established, it is expected to be a smooth transition with no impact on resources.

4.4.3 National Planning Framework National planning policy prepared by the Scottish Government includes the National Planning Framework (NPF) which sets the long term spatial strategy for Scotland and Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) which contains policy on a wide range of land use planning matters. The Act incorporates the SPP into the NPF and, as noted above, this single document will become part of the Development Plan. The preparation of NPF4 is due to commence in 2020 and it will have to have regard to the SDP and LDPs in place at that time. Councils may be directed to provide information on a range of matters in their area to inform the NPF. The Government has emphasised that it is keen to see Councils involved in the co-production of the document. In addition, the NPF must now be approved by Scottish Parliament which is not the case at present. It must be reviewed at least once every 10 years.

4.4.4 Local Development Plans The timescales for preparing a new LDP has been increased from 5 to 10 years although an authority may seek to amend the plan at any time. A range of additional issues that the LDP must consider have been introduced including the consideration of the needs of students and older and disabled people; the health and education needs of the population and the likely effects of development on those needs; maintaining a number and range of cultural venues and facilities and the assessment of play opportunities.

At the moment, a Main Issues Report has to be prepared before work starts on the LDP. This is subject to public consultation but not to external scrutiny. The Act introduces the requirement to prepare an evidence report which will set out the Council’s views on a range of matters including the additional issues described above. The views of key agencies and the general public are to be sought. The report must be submitted to Scottish Ministers who will appoint a Reporter to assess whether it contains sufficient information to enable the LDP to be prepared. If it does not, the Reporter will prepare an assessment report that contains recommendations to improve the evidence report following which the Council should revise the report and resubmit it. This layer is intended to front load the LDP preparation process and highlight any issues that need to be addressed at an early stage (for example housing land supply). The examination of the plan will still be required where there are unresolved representations following publication of the proposed plan.

In terms of consultation during the preparation of the LDP, the Act places a duty on the Council to promote and facilitate participation by children and young people in the

193 process. It must also assess the sufficiency of play opportunities in its area for children when producing its evidence report.

4.5 Local Place Plans 4.5.1 The Act introduces the ability of a community body to prepare a Local Place Plan (LPP) for their area. It is described as a proposal for the development and use of land and buildings in the area. The rationale behind this is to give local communities more say on how they wish to see their local area develop and provide a means of integrating spatial and community planning. An LPP is seen as being a separate entity to a neighbourhood plan that may be prepared through the Community Empowerment Act. Before a planning authority starts work on preparing an LDP local communities are to be invited to prepare LPPs. LPPs can be produced at any point in the LDP cycle but it must accord with the Development Plan in place at the time. A community body may submit the LPP to the planning authority and, if it is valid (i.e. it accords with the LDP and the National Planning Framework in place at the time), it must be included in a register of LPPs. It is not clear how a local authority should respond to competing requests to prepare a local place plan, and the nature and extent of the consultation community bodies would be expected or required to undertake. Further, it is likely that support will be needed by community bodies wishing to develop local place plans which could have a significant impact due to requests for guidance, assistance and support.

4.6 Open Space Strategies 4.6.1 The Act introduces a statutory duty to prepare and publish an Open Space Strategy which is to establish policies and proposals on the development, management and use of green infrastructure. This will include open spaces and green networks as well as civic areas such as squares, market places and other paved or hard landscaped areas with a civic function. Initial work has already started on this in association with Countryside and Greenspace Service and the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Network Partnership.

4.7 Development Management A number of changes in relation to the processing of applications and the planning enforcement function are included in the Act.

4.7.1 Short term holiday lets The Act permits Planning Authorities to designate all or part of their area as a short term let control area. This relates to the use of a property for short stays by visitors. The definition of what constitutes development has been amended to make the use of dwelling houses for short term holiday lets a material change of use requiring planning permission but only in a short term let control area.

4.7.2 Pre-application consultation Before submitting a planning application for a major development, a developer must first carry out statutory pre-application consultation (PAC) at least 12 weeks before the application is made. At present, there is no time limit on when the application has to be submitted following the carrying out of PAC, however, the Act now requires PAC to be carried out again if the application is not submitted within 18 months.

4.7.3 Repeat applications At present, the Council can decline to determine an application if a similar proposal has been refused permission by Scottish Ministers following an appeal within the previous 2 years. This period has now been extended to 5 years.

194 4.7.4 Noise-sensitive developments This provision relates to cases where residents or occupiers of a new development are likely to be affected by significant noise from existing activity in the vicinity of a development. In considering the application for the new development, the Council must take account of whether it includes sufficient measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effect of noise from any existing cultural venues or facilities or businesses in the surrounding area.

4.7.5 Provision of toilet facilities The granting of planning permission within large developments must now contain a condition that the development includes at least one toilet facility. Large developments include schools, universities, sports and leisure centres, hospitals, stadiums, retail outlets and railway/bus stations.

4.7.6 Planning application fees The Act gives Scottish Ministers powers to make Regulations that require a surcharge to be imposed on retrospective applications; the surcharge should not be greater than the fee that would normally be payable for the development in question. In addition’ the powers allow provision to be made for fees to be waived where the development contributes to a social enterprise or a not for profit organisation.

4.8 Infrastructure Levy Scottish Ministers have been given the power to establish and make provision for an infrastructure levy. This is defined as a levy payable to the Planning Authority to fund, or contribute toward, the funding of infrastructure projects. Infrastructure is defined as including communications, transport, drainage, sewerage and flood defence schemes; the supply of water and energy; green infrastructure; educational and medical facilities; and recreation facilities. There is provision in the Act for these powers to lapse if Regulations on the topic have not been made within 7 years of the Act receiving Royal Assent.

4.9 Elected Member Training 4.9.1 The Act requires elected members who are involved in decision making on planning matters to have carried out training requirements that are to be specified by Ministers.

5 Next Steps 5.1 None of the provisions of the Act are in force yet. In addition, many of the provisions of the Act will be subject to further secondary legislation and associated Regulations and guidance and so will not be enacted until these instruments are published. The timescales for this are unknown but, in most cases, are expected to be rolled over a period of around 2 years. The impact on existing processes and procedures will be considered at this point and further reports to update members and seek approval for changes to processes/procedures will be presented to Committee, as necessary.

6 General/Other Implications for the Council 6.1 The requirements of the Act, when introduced, will be incorporated into the Planning Service Plan, where appropriate. There are no sustainability implications in terms of the information contained in this report.

7 Employee Implications 7.1 Any resulting changes to the existing processes and procedures could have implications for the Council which will be considered when they are more detailed. In addition, the effect on service delivery and existing staff resources are not known at present. Approval is being sought at the Community and Enterprise Resources

195 Committee on 3 September 2019 to add one additional FTE Planning Officer post to the establishment.

8 Financial Implications 8.1 Any resulting changes to the operation of the planning system and its fee regime for the Scottish planning system proposed would have implications for the Council which would have to be considered when they are detailed. It is expected a Financial Memorandum will be prepared by the Scottish Government.

9. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements 9.1 The Scottish Minsters have undertaken the consultation on the Scottish planning system. Any resulting changes would, thereafter, be the subject of assessment and consultation by the Scottish Ministers.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

29 August 2019

Link(s) to Council Objectives/Values/Ambitions • Achieve results through leadership, good governance and organisational effectiveness

Previous References • Scottish Government Review of the Planning System – report to 15 December 2015 planning committee • Scottish Government Review of the Planning System – report to 28 March 2017 planning committee • Scottish Government Review of the Planning System – report to 13 February 2018 planning committee

List of Background Papers • Call for evidence - Scottish Government’s Review of the Planning System. • Empowering planning – an independent review of the Scottish planning system. • Review of planning – Scottish Government response. • Places, people and planning – a consultation on the future of the Scottish planning system • Places, people and planning – Position Statement

Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Tony Finn, Montrose House,154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton ML3 6LB Ext 4672, (Tel: 01698 455105) E-mail: [email protected]

196 Agenda Item

Report 14 Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Subject: BT Payphone Removal

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose]  Advise Committee of the consultation process that has been undertaken by the Council as part of BT’s proposals to remove 36 public payphones throughout South Lanarkshire  Seek Committee approval to publish a ‘First Notification’ stating whether the Council agrees or objects to the removal of each individual payphone and seeking further representations on this  Seek Committee approval to take any further representations into account and to publish a ‘Final notification’ setting out the Council’s final decisions and to submit this to BT and to the Secretary of State [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s)

2.1 The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) Approve the publication of a ‘First notification’ stating which BT payphones the Council agrees to the removal of and which ones it objects to, as set out in Appendix 1.

(2) That the Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised to consider any further representations received in response to consultation on the ‘First notification’ of the Council’s draft decisions and to prepare a ‘Final notification’ for publication and for submission to BT and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport by 28 October 2019, setting out the Council’s final decisions and reasons.

3. Background

3.1 In July 2019, the Council received notification from BT that it was proposing to remove 36 payphones from the network in South Lanarkshire (see list in Appendix 1). This is part of their programme of intended public payphone removal throughout Scotland. BT stated that the overall use of payphones has declined by over 90% in the last decade and the need to provide payphones for emergency situations is diminishing, with at least 98% of the UK having either 3G or 4G coverage. BT also advised that, as long as there is network coverage, it is possible to call emergency services even when there is no credit or no coverage from your own mobile provider.

197 3.2 Before the removal can take place, BT must place notices in each payphone advising of its proposed removal and allowing a 42 day period for comment to the Council’s Planning and Economic Development Service. This part of the consultation ended on 27 August 2019. In addition to this initial consultation by BT, the Council must separately consult on the proposed removal of the payphones contained in the list. This has involved contacting all community councils with details of proposed removals in their particular areas and providing a consultation on the Council’s website. Three weeks were given for comment, with the consultation period ending on 19 August 2019. Details of the consultation were listed online in the South Lanarkshire View and through the Council’s Facebook and Twitter pages. Finally all elected members were advised of the consultation process and details of the payphones proposed to be removed and given the opportunity to make representations.

3.3 As part of the process, the Council can object to the removal of any payphone, but must provide a reason for their objection. The grounds on which objections can be submitted, however, are limited. For example, the type of housing surrounding a payphone and the likelihood of how important the phone would be to those residents; lack of mobile signal in an area; the degree of usage of a phone; or whether the location of the phone indicates that it is likely to be important for emergency use such as accident blackspots (identified as calls to police, fire or ambulance) because there is no mobile coverage at the location. An objection to the removal of a phone has to be founded on these factors being relevant. In all cases where the Council objects, BT has a right of appeal to the Competition Appeals Tribunal.

3.4 Finally, BT has pointed out that the consultation process also allows local communities to adopt traditional red heritage phone boxes if they are proposed for removal. They would not be operational but could be used for other purposes, such as housing defibrillators.

4. Representations

4.1 Community Councils, Councillors, MPs and MSPs

4.2 Quothquan and Thankerton Community Council objected to removal of the payphone at the junction of Millands Road and Mill Road in Thankerton. This was based on it being the only payphone in the village and at times of power outages, it is the only method of communication. In addition, the age demographic of this rural area is such that there is a higher proportion of elderly residents, many of whom do not have access to mobile phones. The payphone is also a BT hotspot for BT customers and provides an internet service which is particularly useful to younger residents.

Response: It is agreed that this is suitable justification for objection to removal of the payphone.

4.3 The Royal Burgh of Lanark Community Council objected to the removal of the payphone at Smyllum Park, Lanark, based on it being an area of deprivation and being needed for emergency calls.

Response: Agreed. The phone has reasonable usage and there are socio-economic reasons in favour of its retention, with the area being ranked in the most deprived 20% in Scotland (Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation 2016).

4.4 St Leonards Community Council is in favour of the removal of the payphone at St Leonards Shopping Centre, St Leonards Square, East Kilbride as it is constantly

198 vandalised. As Tesco provide a free phone for ordering taxis, it is not considered that it will be missed.

Response: Whilst it is appreciated that the payphone is subject to vandalism, the phone is well used (196 calls in the last year). Public responses to consultation were 11 in favour of removal, 9 against, with mention made of the use of the phone by the elderly. The surrounding area does have a higher percentage of the population in the 65+ age group than the national average and, in particular, in the 75-84 age group who may be less likely to own a mobile. Pensioner households comprise 32.5% of households in the area, compared with 20.6% nationally. On balance, it is recommended that an objection is made to the loss of this phone due to its usage and the demographics of the nearby population.

4.5 Leadhills Community Council stated that if the payphone in Ramsay Road, Leadhills was removed, they would wish to put a defibrillator in it.

Response: It is considered that, for reasons set out in Appendix 1, an objection should be made to removal of this phone.

4.6 Councillor McClymont – objected to the loss of the payphones at Main Street, Forth and Smyllum Park, Lanark on the basis of retaining at least one public phone in Forth and because of the need to retain phones for emergencies in both areas which experience social issues.

Response: Agreed. There are socio-economic reasons for the retention of both phones, as set out in Appendix 1.

4.7 David Mundell MP – objected to the loss of payphones across the Clydesdale area and in particular, raised concerns from constituents about the loss of phones in Thankerton and Leadhills. Payphones are considered essential to community safety and play an integral part in rural life.

Response: It is agreed that there are reasons for objecting to the loss of the majority of rural payphones, for the reasons set out in Appendix 1.

4.8 Claudia Beamish MSP – objected to the loss of payphones at Smyllum Road, Lanark; Main Street, Forth; Crossford Hall, Lanark Road, Crossford; Forrest Lane, Carstairs; Charles Avenue, Carstairs Junction; Beechgrove Street, Rigside; Abbeygreen Road/Priory Road, Lesmahagow; Ramsay Road, Leadhills; Station Road, Law; Carlisle Road, Abington; Gateside Road, Crawfordjohn; Dumfries Road, Elvanfoot; Main Street, Symington; Millands Road, Thankerton; adjacent to Walston UAX (Telephone Exchange); Carnwath Road, Elsrickle; Edinburgh Road, Dolphinton; Larkhall Road, Glassford; Main Street, Newbigging. The main reasons being that these boxes would be the only payphones left in the respective villages for emergency use, mobile coverage is poor in many places and in some of these areas there is a high level of social housing.

Response: It is agreed that there are reasons for objecting to the loss of the majority of rural payphones, for the reasons set out in Appendix 1.

4.9 Public responses

4.10 Consultation with the wider public took place on the Council website in the form of a survey. A total of 74 responses were received. In particular, the payphones which received the most comments were: 199

• Mill Road/Millands Road, Thankerton – 67% objected to its removal (8 people); • Smyllum Road, Lanark – 73% objected to its removal (8 people); • Crossford Hall, Crossford – 73% objected to its removal (8 people); • Abbeygreen Road, Lesmahagow – 77% agreed to its removal (10 people); • Calderwood Square, East Kilbride – 52% objected to its removal (13 people); • St Leonards Shopping Centre, East Kilbride – 48% agreed to its removal (11 people)/ 39% objected to its removal (9 people); • Calderwood Road, East Kilbride – 83% agreed to its removal (19 people) • Westwood Square, East Kilbride – 46% agreed to its removal (11 people)/ 38% objected to its removal (9 people); • Westwood Hill, East Kilbride – 58% agreed to its removal (14 people); • Clarkwell Road, Hamilton – 40% objected to its removal (12 people)/ 30% agreed to its removal (9 people); • Main Street, High Blantyre – 68% agreed to its removal (23 people); • Station Road/Farm Road, Blantyre – 64% objected to its removal (21 people); • Fleming Way, Hamilton – 45% objected to its removal (13 people)/ 31% agreed to its removal (9 people) • Russell Street, Hamilton – 62% agreed to its removal (18 people); • Opposite sports centre, Glasgow Road, Blantyre – 59% objected to its removal (19 people) • Low Waters Post Office, Birkhall Road, Hamilton – 41% objected to its removal (12 people)/ 28% agreed to its removal (8 people).

4.7 Objections to rural phone removal were based on them being isolated areas where the phone provides a vital community resource, poor mobile signal and the need to be kept for emergencies.

4.8 The urban objections were based on the phones being reasonably well used, being close to shops or stations where they provide a valuable resource and being available for the elderly and for emergency use.

4.9 Some comments stated that removal of some payphones would be favoured due to them suffering from vandalism and being an eyesore.

Response: I am in general agreement with the comments and points raised in relation to both urban and rural phones. Individual recommendations for each payphone are listed in Appendix 1.

5.0 Assessment

5.1 The removal of public payphones inevitably raises concerns regarding the impact upon the community and its ability to access these services, particularly in rural areas if the mobile coverage is poor, or in rural/urban areas where socio-economic factors suggest that mobile ownership may be lower than average. An initial view, therefore, has been taken on whether to agree or object to the proposed removal of each payphone.

5.2 As well as taking account of the representations made by community councils and the public, a separate analysis of each payphone has also been undertaken. When assessing each payphone, a number of factors have been taken into consideration including:

• Payphone usage • Proximity of alternative phone boxes to the community 200 • Socio economic factors and housing types near the phone box • Mobile phone coverage in the area • The number of households served by a phone box • The need to make emergency calls

All of these factors contribute to providing a perspective on the character of each area and the likely need for the payphone.

5.3 The analysis has identified that some of the payphones proposed for removal are located within some of the most poorly ranked areas in South Lanarkshire in terms of socio-economic criteria and have a record of often being used. It has also been noted that a number of the phones proposed for removal are located in remoter rural areas where the phone is not actually working. Therefore, usage is shown to be very low. In most cases where the phone has not been working, this has been allied to the phone box being in a poor state of repair. It is considered that, if repaired and appropriately maintained, the presence of the payphone would provide an important emergency link for the community.

5.4 Taking account of these factors and the comments referred to above, Appendix 1 sets out the reasons for agreeing or objecting to the removal of each payphone. Having regard to the specified and limited criteria which can be used to assess if payphones should be retained, it is not considered that objections to the removal of payphones can be justified in every case.

5.5 In summary and for the reasons set out in Appendix 1, it is proposed to initially object to the removal of the following payphones:

Ward BT payphone location – objection to removal 01 - Clydesdale • Crossford Hall, Lanark Road, Crossford, ML8 West 5RE 02 – Clydesdale • Smyllum Road, Lanark, ML11 7BT North • Main Street, Forth ML11 8AE 03 – Clydesdale • Opp. 38, Main Street, Newbigging, ML11 8LZ East • Forrest Lane, Carstairs, ML11 8QB • Charles Ave, Carstairs Junction, ML11 8PG • Adjacent to bus shelter, Ramsay Road, Leadhills, ML12 6YA • Carlisle Road, Crawford, ML12 6TP • Gateside Road, Crawfordjohn, ML12 6SL • Car park, Carlisle Road, Abington, ML12 6SD • Dumfries Road, Elvanfoot, ML12 6TF • Main Street, Symington, ML12 6LL • Millands Road, Thankerton, ML12 6NX • Adjacent to Walston UAX (Telephone Exchange), ML11 8NF • Carnwath Road, Elsrickle, ML12 6QZ • Dolphinton Hall, Edinburgh Road, Dolphinton, EH46 7AD 04 – Clydesdale • Abbeygreen Road/Priory Road, Lesmahagow, South ML11 0AL • Beechgrove Street, Rigside ML11 9LU 05 – Avon and • Larkhall Road, Glassford, ML10 6TH Stonehouse

201 Ward BT payphone location – objection to removal 07 – East Kilbride • Westwood Square, East Kilbride, G75 8JQ Central South • Westwood Hill, East Kilbride, G75 8DD 08 – East Kilbride • Calderwood Square, East Kilbride G74 3BQ Central North • St Leonards Shopping Centre, St Leonards Square, East Kilbride 15 – Blantyre • Junction Station Road/Farm Road, Blantyre, G72 0EL • Opposite Sports Centre, Glasgow Road, Blantyre, G72 9HN 17 – Hamilton • Russell Street/Glasgow Road, Hamilton ML3 North and East 0QP 18 – Hamilton • Clarkwell Road, Hamilton, ML3 9TQ West and Earnock • Opposite 72 Fleming Way, Hamilton, ML3 9PF 19 – Hamilton • Low Waters Post Office, Birkhall Road, South Hamilton, ML3 8BG

6. Next Steps

6.1 Should the Committee approve the decisions listed in Appendix 1, the Council must publish its decision in the form of a ‘First Notification’. This sets out whether we agree or object to BT’s plan to remove the payphone and the reasons why. Copies of the ‘First Notification’ must also be sent to community councils and be published on the Council’s website. A further period of one month must then be allowed for representations to be made in response to the ‘First notification’.

6.2 Following consideration of any additional comments received, a ‘Final notification’, setting out the Councils final decisions and reasons is prepared. This must be sent to BT by 28 October 2019; to community councils and to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. There will not be an opportunity to report any representations back to committee in order to meet the deadline by which the ‘Final notice’ must be submitted to BT and, therefore, it is proposed that the Head of Planning and Economic Development be authorised confirm the ‘Final notification’ to allow this matter to be concluded within the required timescales.

7. Employee Implications

7.1 There are no employee implications. Any work undertaken in connection with the consultation can be met from existing resources.

8. Financial Implications

8.1 There are no budgetary implications.

9. Other Implications

9.1 An Ofcom Direction requires Councils to carry out consultation with affected local communities where a payphone is proposed for removal. If the Council does not respond within the allowed time period or follow the procedure correctly, then it will lose its right to object to any payphone removal, irrespective of local objections.

9.2 There are no significant implications for sustainability in terms of the information contained in this report.

202 10. Equality Impact Assessment and Consultation Arrangements

10.1 This report does not introduce a new policy, function or strategy or recommend a change to an existing policy, function or strategy and, therefore, no impact assessment is required.

10.2 All necessary consultation with the community has taken place.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

29 August 2019

Link(s) to Council Objectives/Ambitions /Values • Make communities safer, stronger and sustainable • Promote economic growth and tackle disadvantage • Focused on people and their needs

List of Background Papers • Letter from BT dated 18 July 2019 advising of proposed payphone removal and consultation process • Email from Quothquan and Thankerton Community Council dated 30 July 2019 • Email from Royal Burgh of Lanark Community Council dated 1 August 2019 • Email from Leadhills Community Council dated 26 July 2019 • Email from St Leonards Community Council dated 5 August 2019 • Results from South Lanarkshire Council web survey • Email from Councillor McClymont dated 30/07/2019 • Email from Claudia Beamish MSP dated 08/08/2019 • Email from David Mundell MP dated 14/08/2019

Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Tony Finn, Area Manager - HQ, Montrose House, Hamilton Ext: 5105 (Tel: 01698 455105) E-mail: [email protected]

203

204 14

Appendix 1 – List of BT payphones proposed for removal Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

01 01555860270 CROSSFORD HALL PCO2 ML8 5RE 23 Object - Reasonable usage LANARK ROAD - adjacent to community facility CROSSFORD CARLUKE - near a stretch of the A72 that has a history of vehicle accidents.

- located at a main entrance point to the Clyde Walkway, frequented by walkers, fishermen, swimmers and cyclists

- area frequented by tourists who may not have access to the network

- high percentage of public comments in favour of its retention rather than its removal.

01 01698373229 PCO PCO 1 STATION ML8 5JA 2 Agree - Low usage ROAD LAW CARLUKE - Socio-economic factors do not support retention.

02 01555662050 AT SMYLLUM PARK PC01 ML11 7BT 42 Object - Reasonable usage SMYLLUM ROAD LANARK - higher social need in the area (ranked in the most deprived 20% in Scotland (SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (35.9% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish

205 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (18.4% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- higher than average income deprived (19.4% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- close to primary school where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

02 01555811242 PCO PC01 MAIN STREET ML11 8AE 2 Object - Higher social need in the area -(ranked FORTH LANARK in the most deprived 20% in Scotland (SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (41.4% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- 87.8% of houses in council tax bands A and B, compared to 44% Scottish average

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (20.5% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- Higher than average income deprived (21.2% compared to 12.3% Scottish

206 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

average)

- close to shops/commercial area where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service

- if both this phone and the phone at Merlindale, Forth are lost, Forth will have no public payphone. The nearest payphone would be approximately 7 miles away in Carwath/Carstairs. This would be unacceptable for the community.

02 01555811269 PCO PCO1 MERLINDALE ML11 8DP 0 Agree - Removal of this payphone is agreed FORTH LANARK solely on the basis that the phone in Main Street, Forth (01555811242) is retained in order to prevent the village having no payphone at all.

03 01555840499 OPP. N0.38 PCO1 MAIN ML11 8LZ 1 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor STREET NEWBIGGING condition, therefore inaccurate indication LANARK of calls made. - inconsistent mobile coverage

- located on A721 which has a history of road traffic accidents

- area frequented by tourists who may not have access to the network

03 01555870221 ADJ. NO.2 PCO1 ML11 8QB 1 Object - Higher social need in the area: FORREST LANE

207 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

CARSTAIRS LANARK - Significant proportion of council rented accommodation (33.4%, compared to Scottish average of 13.2%)

- Located adjacent to playpark and shops where payphone may provide a valuable service

03 01555870361 PCO PCO1 ST. CHARLES ML11 8PG 4 Object - Higher social need in the area: AVENUE CARSTAIRS - significant proportion of council rented JUNCTION LANARK accommodation (47.1%, compared to Scottish average of 13.2%);

- close to railway station where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

- Adjacent to playpark where phone may provide a valuable service

03 0165974254 ADJ BUS .SHELTER PCO ML12 6YA 15 Object - Reasonable usage 1 RAMSAY ROAD - Lack of mobile coverage LEADHILLS BIGGAR - Safety – emergency calls - Extreme weather conditions: lifeline

- only publically accessible fixed line phone on 15 mile stretch between Abington/Mennock

- highest usage of the rural phones listed

208 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

- loss of red phone box in Conservation Area

- Leadhills Community Council would favour use of the box for housing a defibrillator if the facility was lost

- higher percentage of public comments in favour of retention rather than removal

- remote rural area where provision of such a facility is important to the community

03 01864502200 PCO PCO1 CARLISLE ML12 6TP 5 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor ROAD CRAWFORD condition, therefore inaccurate indication BIGGAR of calls made. - Adjacent to playpark where there may be need for emergency call or for emergency use by children without mobiles

- isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

- located on National Cycle Route 74 where the phone may provide a valuable service to passing cyclists

03 01864502334 PCO PCO1 CARLISLE ML12 6SD 3 Object - isolated rural area where the phone can ROAD ABINGTON be a lifeline to the community BIGGAR - located on National Cycle Route 74

209 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

where the phone may provide a valuable service to passing cyclists

03 01864504242 PCO PCO 1 GATESIDE ML126SL 1 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor ROAD CRAWFORDJOHN condition, therefore inaccurate indication BIGGAR of calls made. - Rural area with inconsistent mobile coverage

- Isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

03 01864505218 PCO PCO 1 DUMFRIES ML12 6TF 1 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor ROAD ELVANFOOT condition, therefore inaccurate indication BIGGAR of calls made. - Inconsistent mobile coverage

- A702 at this location has suffered four traffic accidents in the last 5 years - requirement for emergency payphone

- isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

03 01899308258 PCO PCO1 MAIN STREET ML12 6LL 0 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor SYMINGTON BIGGAR condition, therefore inaccurate indication of calls made.

- isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

03 01899308301 PCO PCO MILLANDS ML12 6NX 23 Object - Reasonable level of usage. Mobile

210 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

ROAD THANKERTON coverage variable. BIGGAR - in an area of social housing

- higher percentage of public comments in favour of its retention than its removal.

- Isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

03 01899810231 ADJ WALSTON U.A.X. ML11 8NF 0 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor (TELEPHONE condition, therefore inaccurate indication EXCHANGE) PCO of calls made. CARNWATH LANARK - poor mobile coverage in the locality

- area frequented by tourists and walkers who may require access to a payphone

- isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

03 01899810271 PCO PCO 1 CARNWATH ML12 6QZ 0 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor ROAD ELSRICKLE condition, therefore inaccurate indication BIGGAR of calls made. - inconsistent mobile coverage

- located on A721 which has had a number of road traffic accidents in recent years in the locality

- area frequented by tourists who may not have access to the network

211 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

- isolated rural area where the phone can be a lifeline to the community

03 01968682225 PCO PCO1 EDINBURGH EH46 7AD 1 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor ROAD DOLPHINTON condition, therefore inaccurate indication WEST LINTON of calls made. - inconsistent mobile coverage

- located on A702 which has had 14 road traffic accidents in the last 10 years along this stretch close to Dolphinton – potential emergency requirement for payphone

- area frequented by tourists and walkers who may require access to a payphone

04 01555880257 PCO PCO1 BEECHGROVE ML11 9LU 1 Object - Higher social need in the area (ranked in STREET RIGSIDE the worst 5% in Scotland - SIMD 2016), LANARK including: - higher than average council rented accommodation (50.1% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- isolated rural area where payphone provides valuable service

04 01555892244 PCO PCO / 01555 892244 ML11 OAL 23 Object - Reasonable usage ABBEYGREEN ROAD - Higher social need in the area (ranked in LESMAHAGOW LANARK worst 10% in Scotland – SIMD 2016)

212 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (37.9% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (27.5% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- Higher than average income deprived (28.1% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- 98% of dwellings in council tax band A (13.2% for Scotland)

- Higher percentage of public comments objected to its removal than favoured its retention

04 01555892341 PCO PCO / 01555892341 ML11 OAL 0 Agree - No objection to loss of this phone if the ABBEYGREEN ROAD other Abbeygreen Road payphone LESMAHAGOW LANARK (01555892244) is retained.

05 01357521269 PCO 1 LARKHALL ROAD ML10 6TH 0 Object - Phone was out of order and in poor GLASSFORD condition, therefore inaccurate indication STRATHAVEN of calls made.

07 01355221511 ADJ TO SHOPS PCO1 G75 8DD 65 Object - Reasonable usage WESTWOOD HILL EAST - Serves a large number of households, with 98% of dwellings in the area being

213 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

KILBRIDE, GLASGOW terraced or flatted properties (58.2% nationally)

- Located adjacent to shops where the phone may provide a valuable service to customers

07 01355223484 PCO PCO 1 WESTWOOD G75 8JQ 196 Object - Reasonable usage SQUARE EAST KILBRIDE - Relatively higher social need of the area: GLASGOW - higher % of population is 75+ compared to national average

- high density of population (high % of terraced houses/flats)

- high % of council rented accommodation

- relatively high usage of the phone

- located adjacent to shops where the phone may be provide valuable service to customers

08 01355220803 PCO PC01 CALDERWOOD G74 3BQ 508 Object - High usage. SQUARE EAST KILBRIDE - Higher percentage of public comments GLASGOW in favour of its retention rather than its removal.

- Located in shopping area where it provides useful service.

08 01355221285 PCO1 CALDERWOOD G74 3EU 0 Agree - High percentage of public comments in

214 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

ROAD EAST KILBRIDE favour of its removal. GLASGOW - Agree to removal on basis of retention of Calderwood Square phone (01355220803) which is within 0.5 miles

08 01355265860 OUTSIDE ST. LEONARDS G74 2AT 196 Object - Reasonably high usage SHOPPING CENTRE ST. - higher % of population is 75+ compared LEONARDS SQUARE to national average, likelihood of less EAST KILBRIDE mobile phone ownership GLASGOW - located adjacent to shops where the phone may provide a valuable service to customers

15 01698713049 PCO PCO1 MAIN STREET G72 0EL 2 Agree - Low usage. BLANTYRE GLASGOW - higher percentage of public comments favour removal rather than retention

15 01698822271 JCN STATION RD PCO1 G72 9AH 198 Object - Reasonably high usage, higher social FARM ROAD BLANTYRE need of the area (ranked in the most GLASGOW deprived 30% in Scotland - SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (33.3% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (25.3% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

215 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

- Higher than average income deprived (27.4% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- close to railway station and primary school where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

- higher percentage of public comments favour retention rather than removal

15 01698828542 OPPOSITE SPORTS G72 9HN 301 Object - Reasonably high usage, higher social CENTRE PCO1 need of the area (ranked in the most GLASGOW ROAD deprived 10% in Scotland (SIMD 2016), BLANTYRE GLASGOW including: - higher than average council rented accommodation (28.4% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (21.1% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- higher than average income deprived (22.9% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- close to main commercial/retail area where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

- on a stretch of road which has had

216 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

numerous accidents over recent years

- higher percentage of public comments in favour of its retention than its removal.

17 01698823599 PCO PCO1 RUSSELL ML3 0QP 28 Object - Reasonable usage, higher social need of STREET HAMILTON the adjacent areas (ranked in the most deprived 10% and 20% in Scotland (SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (34.7% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (20% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- higher than average income deprived (22.9% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- close to main commercial/retail area where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

18 01698711466 PCO O/S CLARKWELL ML3 9TQ 466 Object - High usage ROAD HAMILTON - higher social need in the area (ranked in the most deprived 5% in Scotland (SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented

217 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

accommodation (60.7% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (29.8% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- Higher than average income deprived (36.9% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- close to primary school and shops where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

- higher percentage of public comments favour retention rather than removal

18 01698822752 OPP NO 72 PCO 1 ML3 9PF 274 Object - Reasonably high usage, higher social FLEMING WAY HAMILTON need in the area (ranked in the most deprived 20% in Scotland (SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (31.0% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (21.1% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- higher than average income deprived

218 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

(19.2% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- close to a primary school where presence of payphone can provide a valuable service.

- more public comment in favour of retention rather than removal.

19 01698285904 O/S LOW WATERS POST ML3 8BG 378 Object Reasonably high usage OFFICE PCO1 BIRKHALL Higher social need in the area (ranked in the ROAD HAMILTON most deprived 20% in Scotland - SIMD 2016), including:

- higher than average council rented accommodation (25.9% of the housing tenure compared to 13.2% Scottish average)

- higher density of housing in the vicinity (higher percentage of flats than national average)

- higher than average working aged residents employment deprived (15.5% compared to 10.8% Scottish average)

- Higher than average income deprived (15.0% compared to 12.3% Scottish average)

- located adjacent to shops, pub and local

219 Ward Telephone Address Postcode Number of Agree/Adopt Comments/Reasons number calls in / Object last 12 months

facilities where payphone useful for calling taxis

- higher percentage of public comments in favour of retention rather than removal

20 01698884502 NEAR JCN CARLISLE RD ML9 1LE 0 Agree - Phone had been vandalised and didn’t PCO1 ROBERT SMILLIE have a receiver, therefore inaccurate CRESCENT LARKHALL indication of calls made. - Other payphones located nearby in the centre of Larkhall.

- Higher percentage of public comments in favour of its removal rather than retention

20 01698886502 PCO PCO 1 CHURCH ML9 1EZ 9 Agree - Low usage in past year. STREET LARKHALL - Other payphones located in the centre of Larkhall.

- Higher percentage of public comments in favour of its removal rather than retention

220

Agenda Item

15 Report

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Subject: South Lanarkshire Council Tree Preservation Order No. SL53 (2019) Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [purpose]  Seek approval to confirm the South Lanarkshire Council Tree Preservation Order No. SL53 (2019) Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen. [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s)

2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) that Committee confirm the South Lanarkshire Council Tree Preservation Order No. SL53 (2019) Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen. [1recs] 3. Background

3.1 Approval was given by Committee on 11 June 2019 in relation to Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen to promote a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

3.2 The Order to protect the two mature trees at Blairbeth Terrace was imposed in order to protect the trees from being removed or harmed by inappropriate tree works. T1, a beech tree and T2, a lime tree, are considered to make a positive contribution to the sense of place, character and amenity in the local area as a result of their size, form and siting. Following an assessment of the site by the Council’s Arboricultural Manager it was recommended that the two trees were protected by the promotion of a TPO and this was agreed to by the Planning Committee at the meeting of 11 June 2019.

3.3 In terms of ownership, T1 is owned by the four flatted properties at 4 Blairbeth Terrace and T2 is owned by 1 Blairbeth Terrace, however, the trees are maintained by all residents at Blairbeth Terrace through a communal fund.

4 Current Position

4.1 Following the period of consultation carried out by the Council’s Legal Service, two letters of objection have been received by the Council in respect of this matter. These were submitted by neighbours at Blairbeth Terrace.

4.2 The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

221 a) T1 is owned by 4 Blairbeth Terrace but maintained between all residents. This TPO has been requested by one of the owners as a way of getting around maintenance. It would be inappropriate for a local authority’s powers to be used for a private owner to further their interests alone. Response: The Council does not arbitrate in private tree owner disputes. The Planning Service can make a TPO if it appears to be appropriate in the interest of amenity and/or, that the trees, groups of trees or woodlands are of cultural or historical significance. Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are made by a Planning Authority under Section 160 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, and within the procedures set out in the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. TPOs are a means of protecting individual trees, groups of trees or woodlands whose removal would have a significant impact on the public amenity of an area.

In this case, the reasons for promoting the Order were that the mature beech and lime trees identified within the order contribute to the character, amenity and sense of place of the listed building Blairbeth Terrace (dating back to 1873) and the surrounding area. The trees are of notable visibility by virtue of their size, and contribute to the wider green infrastructure of Burnside. The Council believes the trees are immediately at direct risk as a result of disfiguring pruning. It is noted that T1 has been extensively crown lifted in the past to its detriment. We, therefore, consider it would be appropriate to make a TPO to prevent the trees from being cut down or pruned in ways which would have a significant impact on the amenity and setting of the area. b) The TPO would result in the trees management becoming impossible and would stop any maintenance which would be desirable to the upkeep of the tree and surrounding area. Response: Where protection is given by a TPO, permission is required from the Planning Service to carry out any work on the trees. Anyone wishing to carry out work on a tree must apply for permission specifying the tree or trees requiring work, and explaining the proposed works. A site inspection will be carried out, and an assessment made of the impact of the proposed work on local amenity and the condition of the tree. Consent to fell or prune will only be granted if necessary for arboricultural reasons and will usually be on condition that replacement planting takes place with trees of an appropriate size and species, and in the same location or near to that location or on such other land as may be agreed. c) The trees result in a significant volume of bird droppings which is unpleasant for residents and requires cars to be regularly washed. This is also a health issue. Response: Whilst it is acknowledged that bird droppings can be a nuisance for local residents, it is noted that, generally, felling a tree will not alleviate this problem as the birds tend to relocate to another tree in the vicinity. Similarly, pruning does not resolve this problem as the birds tend to relocate to other branches. For this reason, the Council does not allow the felling or pruning of trees purely on the basis that there are birds using the trees. In addition, it is noted that many birds are protected and advice requires to be undertaken prior to the consideration of any works.

222 d) T1, whilst stable at present, has signs of causing damage to the surrounding area, including the car park, retaining wall backing onto Crawfurd Road and potentially the pathways leading from the car park to the front of each building. This could become costly due to the building being listed. Does the listed building or TPO take precedence? In addition, it has been noticed that there are falling branches when it is windy outside which may damage cars. Should any further parking spaces be lost this will negatively affect the value and usability of the road and properties in general. The Council will be held liable for any issues which could be foreseen and relate to the TPO. It should be noted that a home report for 4 Blairbeth Terrace advised that a tree within close proximity of the building should ideally be cut back or removed as it could cause damage to building fabric. Response: A visual Tree Assessment was undertaken and the tree in question is in a healthy and stable condition and does not show any signs of immediate tree failure or damage to the soil retaining wall along the Crawfurd Road boundary. It is noted that the tree has been extensively crown lifted in the past to its detriment. Whilst, as with all trees, there is no absolute guarantee that exceptionally strong winds would not cause structural damage, the current assessment has indicated that failure is unlikely and the tree does not pose an unacceptable level of risk.

In a situation where the uprooting, felling or lopping is urgently required in the interests of safety, those responsible for the tree would be required to provide the Council with at least 5 days notice. If tree works are required immediately for safety, they may be carried out but it must be fully demonstrated that the works were absolutely necessary. It should be noted that only a minimum amount of work necessary to remove a danger can be carried out for example a tree cannot be felled if it would have been sufficient to remove a branch. In this case, evidence would be required to demonstrate why the works were required such as a tree surgeons report, photographs and/or an independent witness statement with a tree works application submitted to the Council as soon as possible.

In terms of the trees proximity to the listed building, there is nothing to suggest the trees are currently causing damage to the building or that any of the parking spaces have become un-useable. However, any proposed future tree works would be considered in terms of impact on the listed building. e) Due to the addition of double yellow lines in the surrounding streets near Blairbeth Terrace, parents picking up children from the local primary school require to park further away which has resulted in cars regularly parking under the radius of the branches and increased pedestrians walking under the trees. This is a safety issue due to falling branches and bird droppings. Response: There is no transfer of ownership or responsibility for trees when they are covered by a TPO. As with any other trees, liability for their safety, their condition, and any damage they may cause continues to lie with the landowner. There is a clear duty on the owner to comply with a TPO, and they should be aware that failure to do so may result in financial penalties and a requirement to reinstate trees. The management of trees covered by TPOs is encouraged.

223

4.3 The grounds of objection detailed above are noted, however, it is considered that they do not merit the withdrawal, alteration or modification of the Tree Preservation Order, all factors considered. As such, it is recommended that the South Lanarkshire Council Tree Preservation Order No. SL53 (2019) Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen is confirmed.

5 Employee Implications

5.1 None.

6 Financial Implications

6.1 None.

7 Other Implications

7.1 There are no significant implicationsfor risk or sustainability in terms of the information contained in this report.

8 Equality Impact and Consultation Arrangement

8.1 The Order has been advertised in the local press, and made available at the Cambuslang Q&A Office and at the office of the Executive Director, Montrose House, for public inspection.

8.2 Consultations have taken place with the Council’s Arboricultural Manager. There is no requirement to carry out an impact assessment in terms of the proposals contained within this report.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

22 August 2019

Link(s) to Council Objectives/Values/Ambitions • Work with communities and partners to promote high quality, thriving and sustainable communities (Source: Connect)

Previous References • Report of Planning Committee – 11 June 2019

List of Background Papers • Newspaper Advert, Rutherglen Reformer, dated 03 July 2019 • Objection – Mr Michael Riley, 4 Blairbeth Terrace, First Floor Flat, Rutherglen, G73 4JB, dated 09 July 2019 • Objection – Kevin Sturgeon, Second Floor Flat, 4 Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen, G73 4JB, dated 29 July 2019 • South Lanarkshire Council Tree Preservation Order No. SL53 (2019) Blairbeth Terrace, Rutherglen

224

Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Julie Pepper, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton Ext: 5058 (Tel: 01698 455046) E-mail: [email protected]

225

226 16Agenda Item

Report

Report to: Planning Committee Date of Meeting: 10 September 2019 Report by: Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

Subject: Tree Preservation Order – Beechwood Avenue, Rutherglen,

1. Purpose of Report

1.1. The purpose of the report is to:- [ Seek approval for the making of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on the trees at Beechwood Avenue, Rutherglen which fall within the boundary shown on the accompanying plan. [1purpose] 2. Recommendation(s)

2.1. The Committee is asked to approve the following recommendation(s):- [recs] (1) That a Provisional Tree Preservation Order is promoted under the terms of Section 163 (Provisional Tree Preservation Order) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 on the area identified on the attached plan.

(2) That this Provisional Tree Preservation Order be confirmed within six months from the date of this Order, should there be no objections. [1recs] 3. Background

3.1 The trees that are subject to the proposed TPO are a group of mature beech trees located along the southern side of Beechwood Avenue, Rutherglen near its junction with Calderwood Road. The trees are considered to contribute to the character, amenity and sense of place of Beechwood Avenue, Stonelaw High School and surrounding area. Branches of each tree overhang the front boundaries of several houses along the road, and, as such, there is the potential that certain works could be undertaken to the trees by all the householders. The promotion of a TPO would not stop maintenance works being undertaken to the trees, but it would require such works to be agreed in advance with the Council to ensure that no inappropriate work takes place.

227 4 Policy History

4.1 The site is identified in the adopted South Lanarkshire Local Development Plan as being within a designated residential area. The surrounding land uses are predominantly residential, with Stonelaw High School and its playfields to the east and north, Calderwood Primary to the south and Templeton Bowling Club to the west. 4.2 It is advised that the Planning Committee granted approval on 4 December 2018 to promote a TPO in relation to these trees. Confirmation of the TPO was not completed within the 6 months, therefore, Committee approval is again requested. The promotion of a TPO would not stop maintenance works being undertaken to the trees, but it would require such works to be agreed in advance with the Council to ensure that no inappropriate work takes place. 5 Grounds for Making the TPO

5.1 The reason for making the TPO is that the mature beech trees are considered to contribute to the character, amenity and sense of place within the local area. The trees are notably visible in the area by virtue of their size, form and siting along the southern end of Beechwood Avenue. To ensure that only appropriate maintenance is undertaken, in consultation with the Council, and to ensure the future retention of the trees, the promotion of a TPO is considered necessary.

6 Employee Implications

6.1 None.

7 Financial Implications

7.1 None.

8 Other Implications

8.1 There are no significant implications for risk or sustainability in terms of the information contained in this report.

9 Equality Impact and Consultation Arrangement

9.1 Consultations have taken place with the Council’s Arboricultural Manager who has recommended that a Tree Preservation Order be placed on the trees in question. There is no requirement to carry out an impact assessment in terms of the proposals contained within this report.

Michael McGlynn Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources)

228 22 August 2019

Link(s) to Council Values/Ambitions/Objectives Work with communities and partners to promote high quality, thriving and sustainable communities (Source: Connect)

Previous References None

List of Background Papers None

Contact for Further Information If you would like to inspect the background papers or want further information, please contact:-

Iain Morton, Planning Officer, Montrose House, 154 Montrose Crescent, Hamilton Ext: 5058 (Tel: 01698 455048) E-mail: [email protected]

229

230