North Lanarkshire Council

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Environment Committee

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 10 MAY 2006

Page Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation No.

16 N/05/00820/OUT Walker Group 2 Residential Developments (4.8 Grant (P) & 6.1 ha) and Retail/Commercial Development (3.4 ha) and Assem bly/Leisure Development(3.4 ha)(ln Outline)- Land at Broadwood between Blackwood Road/ Westfield Road/ Carradale Crescent, Broadwood Cumbernauld

28 N/06/00459/FUL Mr. & Mrs. Erection of Side and Rear Grant Lowrie Extension - 20 Hayston Road Carrickstone, Cumbernauld

33 N/06/00497/FUL Christopher Siting of Mobile Kiosk - Grant Conner Car Park at Croy Station Constarry Road, Croy, North Lanarkshire

38 C/06/00080/FUL Mr. Paul Parker Erection of Two Dwellinghouses - Grant Land adjacent to 20 Blairhill Street, Coatbridge

45 C/06/00364/FUL Mr. Kevin Sands Change of Use From Retail Grant (Class 1) to Ten Pin Bowling (Class 11) - Unit 2, 4 Manse Place, Town Centre Ai rdrie

C/06/00432/FUL Vodafone UK Erection of 13.3 metre Grant - Request for Site Ltd Telecommunications Pole and Visit & Hearing Associated Equipment Cabinet - No papers issued Land North of Unit 6, Palacecraig Street, Kirkshaws, Coatbridge

50 S/04/02238/OUT Barr Heritable Erection of 300 Houses and Grant (P) Ltd Associated Access, Parking and Landscaping (In Outline) Land east of Main Street Newmains

S/05/01746/FUL Taylor Homes Construction of a Two-Storey Grant - Request for Site (Scotland) Ltd Dwellinghouse - Visit & Hearing Plot IA, Land east of No papers issued Coltness Road, Wishaw

S/05/01749/FUL Taylor Homes Construction of a Two-Storey Grant - Request for Site (Scotland) Ltd Dwellinghouse and Detached Visit & Hearing Garage - Plot IC, Land east of No papers issued Coltness Road, Wishaw

S/05/01750/FUL Taylor Homes Construction of a Two-Storey Grant - Request for Site (Scotland) Ltd Dwelling House and Detached Visit & Hearing Garage - Plot IB, Land east of No papers issued Coltness Road, Wishaw APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 10 MAY 2006

Page Application No. Applicant DevelopmenWLocus Recommendation No.

63 S/06/00229/OUT Kevin Smith - Erection of One and a Half Storey Refuse - Request for Site AC Electrics Building for Storage and Office Visit and Hearing Use - 6 Main Street, Cleland

70 S/06/00229/OUT John Fagan Change of Use from Open Space Refuse to Private Garden Ground (in retrospect) - 19 Fir Grove, New Stevenston

75 S/06/00291/FUL Liam Murphy Change of Use from Open Space Refuse to Private Garden Ground - 20 Fir Grove, New Stevenston

80 S/06/00415/FUL Punch Taverns Erection of External Smoking Grant Area/Beer Garden and New Entrance Vestibule - 400 Coltness Road, Wishaw

86 S/06/00424/FUL QS Partial Change of Use of Vacant Refuse Developments Class 1 Retail Warehouse Unit to Hot Food Takeaway Plus External Alterations to Unit - Unit 1, 126 Airbles Road, Motherwell

(P) N/05/00820/OUT - If granted, refer to the Scottish Ministers (Due to Council Interest) S10410223810UT - If granted, subject to Section 75 Agreement Application No: N/05/00820/0UT

Date Registered: 15th June 2005

Applicant: Walker Group Westerwood House Royston Road Deans Industrial Estate Livingston EH54 8HH

Agent J M Architects Duddingston House Duddingston Edinburgh EH15 1RB

Development: 2 Residential Developments (4.8 & 6.1 ha), RetaillCommercial Development (3.4 ha) and AssemblylLeisure Development (3.4. ha)

Location: Land At Broadwood Between Blackwood Road And Westfield Road Carradale Crescent Broadwood Cumbernauld

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

Grid Reference: 272770673949

File Reference: N/05/00820/0UT

Site History: PA93/22 Non-Food Retail Park Granted 21/04/1993 PA93/99 4 Office Units Granted 25/05/1993 PA95/38 Office Unit Granted 10/05/1995 PA95/65 Food Retail Unit Granted 28/08/1995 N/98/01369/OUT Food Retail Unit Withdrawn 18/06/1999

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policies PS6, IB7 and EN31 in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Com ments) NLC Education (Com ments) Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Comments) Scottish Water (No Response) Strathclyde Police Architectural Liason (No Response) West of Scotland Archaeology Service (Comments) 'Fwo ResidentialDevelopments (4.8 &6.1 ha) and RetaillCommercial Development (3.4 ha) f Representatlon Representations: 18 Letters of Representation, including one from Cathie Craigie MSP Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised 22ndJune 2005

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within 5 years of the date of this permission, or within 2 years of the date of which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.

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

2. That before any part of the development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:-

(a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the provision of equipped play areas; (e) the provision of public open space; (f) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (9) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (d),(e) and (f) above; (h) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (i) the provision for loading and unloading of all goods vehicles; (j)the phasing of the development; (k) the provision of drainage works; (I) the disposal of sewage; (m) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (n) details of existing and proposed site levels; (0)the provision of drainage works, and (p) details of existing and proposed site levels.

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

3. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in Condition 2 shall be made to the Planning Authority.

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

4. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 2, the first submitted reserved matters application shall also include:-

(a) a full ecological survey of the site undertaken by a suitably qualified person; (b) full details of mitigation and compensatory measures for the loss of wildlife habitat to be provided within the site; (c) details of a 20 metre wide ecological buffer zone extending into the smaller residential site from the highest water level mark around the edge of Broadwood Loch, in so far as it falls within the application site; (d) details of the phasing of these works; (e) proposals for the future management and maintenance of these resources. Reason: To minimise risk to protected species, enhance the local biodiversity and protect the ecological integrity of the Broadwood Loch site.

5. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 2, the first submitted reserved matters application shall also include:-

(a) details of the provision of the civils infrastructure required to enable the future provision of traffic signalling on Craiglinn roundabout; (b) a signalling plan for the operation of traffic signals on Craiglinn roundabout; (c) details for the provision of the scheme of mitigation measures identified in the Transportation Assessment submitted in support of the application hereby permitted; (d) details of the phasing of these works.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in the interests of securing the continued safe and efficient operation of the local area roads network.

6. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 2, the first submitted reserved matters application shall also include:-

(a) a public footpath network strategy for the site which provides for pedestrian connections between the various approved uses within the site and between the site and the existing footpath network in the surrounding areas, including existing public transport nodes and Smithstone, Blackwood and Westfield residential areas; (b) a strategy for the provision of Green Travel Plans for the various approved uses; (c) proposals for the provision of a 3 metre wide public footpath around the perimeter of Broadwood Loch (in so far as it lies within the application site) which shall be positioned on the edge of the ecological buffer zone required under the provisions of Condition 4 (c) and the residential development area.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in the interests of securing a sustainable form of development which makes adequate provision for safe pedestrian access and encourages sustainable travel.

7. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 2, the first submitted reserved matters application shall also include:-

(a) a detailed study of the potential for Broadwood Loch to provide the flood alleviation storage required to accommodate the development and should this not prove feasible detailed proposals of alternative provision for flood alleviation measures; (b) details of the proposed above ground surface water drainage scheme, which must comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in terms of the relevant ClRlA Manual and other advice published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). (c) written confirmation from Scottish Water that the additional foul drainage flows arising from the development will not give rise to the premature operation of consented storm overflows.

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

8. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 2, the detailed proposals for the site shall aim to protect and retain existing mature planting belts within the site and provide for structure planting around the perimeter of the development areas to provide separation between conflicting uses and screening of the development from surrounding roads.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site and the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th April 2005 Flood Risk and Drainage Impact Assessment received 3' April 2006 Transportation Assessment received 3' April 2006 Emails from Applicant received 26'h October 2005, and 8th, 17'h & 20th Feb 2006

Memo from NLC Traffic and Transportation (Northern) received 29th July 2005 & email from Tom Peebles received 28'h February 2006

Memo from NLC Head Of Protective Services received 5th July 2005 Memo from NLC Community Services received 11th July 2005 Memos from NLC Education received 19th July 2005 & 12'h October 2005 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 26th July 2005 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 1st August 2005 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 2nd August 2005

Letter from Mr Derek MacDonald, 10 Wemyss Drive, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 9th May 2005. Letter from Louise Moultrie, 2 Kirkconnel Avenue, Blackwood, Cum bernauld, received 22nd May 2005. Letter from Andrew & Katrina McClung, 15 Gartshore Gardens, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 11th May 2005. Letter from Margaret Fraser & Leslie James Fraser, 8 Devon Walk, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 22nd May 2005. Letter from Mr lan Middleton, 13 Gartshore Gardens, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 3rd May 2005. Letter from Mr Charles J Bruce, 5 Kirkconnel Ave., Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 5th May 2005. Letter from Mr John Daly, 49 Valleyfield Drive, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 5th May 2005. Letter from Mr Joseph McTaggart, 8 Kirkconnel Avenue, Cumbernauld, received 9th May 2005. Letter from Miss Moira Morton, 17 Gartshore Gardens, Cumbernauld, received 12th May 2005. Letter from Austin O'Higgens & Valerie Rooney, 4 Kirkconnel Ave., Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 15th July 2005. Letter from Derek MacDonald, 10 Wemyss Drive, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 12th July 2005. Letter from Andrew & Katrina McClung, 15 Gartshore Gardens, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 5th July 2005. Letter from Mr Charles J Bruce, 5 Kirkconnel Ave., Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 4th July 2005. Letter from Sharon McCaffrey, 9 Middleton Place, Smithstone, Cumbernauld, received 7th July 2005. Letter from R B Kirkman & Carole Kirkman, 34 Blantyre Gardens, Cumbernauld, received 22nd July 2005. Letter from Leslie Fraser, 8 Devon Walk, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 26th July 2005. Letter from Margaret Fraser, 8 Devon Walk, Blackwood, Cum bernauld, received 26th July 2005. Letter from Colin Park & Lindz Burnatt, 40 Blantyre Gardens, Blackwood, Cumbernauld, received 16th September 2005.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Mary Stewart at 01236 616473. APPLICATION NO. N/05/00820/OUT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I The application site is adjacent to Broadwood Stadium and extends from the Blackwood Roundabout on the 88048 Kirkintilloch Road in the north to the Broadwood Roundabout on Westfield Road to the south. The site is bounded by the Blackwood Road, Blackwood housing area and Broadwood Loch to the west and extends to the north and south of Broadwood Stadium facilities in the east. The total site area is 23 hectares and comprises five distinct parcels of land as described below:-

1.2 3.4 Hectares adjacent to Blackwood Roundabout The applicant proposes that this site would be accessed from Broadwood Road and would be utilised for a mix of Class 1 (Retail) and Class 4 (Business). The site is bounded by the 88048 to the north, Blackwood Road to the west and open space and car parking for Broadwood Stadium to the south. The adjoining site (described in para. 1.3) lies to the east.

1.3 3.4 Hectares to the north of Broadwood Stadium The applicant proposes that this site would have two access points from the Broadwood Stadium circulation roads linking to Ardgoil Avenue and Atholl Drive. and would be utilised for a Class 11 (Assembly & Leisure) use. The site is bounded by the B8048 to the north, Broadwood Stadium to the south and open space to the east. The site described in para. 1.2 lies to the west.

1.4 5.3 Hectares to the west of Broadwood Stadium The applicant proposes that this site would remain as open space. The site lies to the west of Broadwood Stadium and is tjounded by Blackwood Road to the west.

1.5 4.8 Hectares to the north of Broadwood Business Park The applicant proposes that this site would be accessed from Atholl Drive, which currently provides access to Broadwood Stadium from Broadwood Roundabout. The site is bounded by Broadwood Loch to the north and west, Broadwood Business Park to the south and Atholl Drive to the east and would be utilised for residential development.

1.6 6.1 Hectares to the south of Broadwood Stadium The applicant proposes that this site would have two access points from Atholl Drive, which currently provides access to Broadwood Stadium from Broadwood Roundabout. The site is bounded by Atholl Drive to the west, Westfield Road to the south I west and Broadwood Stadium to the north. The site sits below the level of the stadium facilities being separated from it by a bank of tree planting.

2. Development Plan

2.1 NPPG14 Natural Heritage clarifies the Council’s responsibility to protect the ecological integrity of the wider countryside and should adopt a precautionary approach in dealing with development proposals which may cause damage to natural resources.

2.2 The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 identifies Cumbernauld as an established Urban Expwsion Area for both housing and industry. The proposed business use also effectively replaces the existing approval for a business park elsewhere within the site. The Broadwood Loch area is not identified as a strategic Environmental Resource and Broadwood Loch is not identified in the adopted Local Plan. The plan supports the development of sport and recreation facilities within urban areas of Lanarkshire. The retail element of the proposal is likely to fall below the threshold for consideration against Structure Plan policy. The development proposal therefore complies with the requirements of Strategic Policy 9 against which development proposals must be assessed.

2.3 Similarly, the development proposal also complies with the requirements of Startegic Policy 9 of Glasgow and the Clyde Valley 2025 Consultative Draft Structure Plan.

2.4 In terms of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, part of the site is covered by Policy PS6, which allocates si&s within new housing areas for provision of schools. It is proposed that this area of the site would be utilised for Retail / Business use.

2.5 Part of the site is covered by Policy IB7H in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan, which identifies the site for new industrial / business development. It is proposed that this area of the site would be utilised for Residential Development.

2.6 The remainder of the site is covered by Policy EN31A in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan, which identifies the site for integrated commercial leisure development. It is proposed that part of this area would be combined with the area covered by Policy PS6 for Retail / Business use, and part would be combined with the area covered by Policy IB7 for Residential Use. A further part of this area would also be utilised for Residential development, whilst another part would be retained for Leisure / Community use. The balance of this area would remain as open space.

3. Consultations

3.1 No responses were received from Scottish Water or Strathclyde Police Architectural Liaison.

3.2 West of Scotland Archaeology Service commented on the need for an Archaeological evaluation of the site prior to the determination of the planning application. In response the applicant supplied background information to WSAS which confirmed that the ground had been extensively remodelted 30 accommodate development in 1991, WSAS confirmed by e-mail that archaeological investigation would therefore not be beneficial.

Comments: This issue has now been satisfactorily resolved.

3.3 Scottish Natural Heritage commented on the importance of the site for nature conservation and suggested that a 100 metre ecological buffer zone be put in place around Broadwood Loch. They emphasised the need to attach planning conditions to any consent to secure habitat surveys, landscape design and management, protection of existing trees, the need to complete the footpath link around the loch, translocation of plants to the buffer zone, removal of existing non-native species and the need for a SUDS based drainage system.

Comments: It is considered that in forming their response to this proposal, SNH have attached undue weight to the Broadwood Loch SINC, which has no status within the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan. The site is identified for the development of a Business Park. The requirement for a 100 metre buffer zone is therefore considered unreasonable in that it would eliminate the majority of the smaller site proposed for residential use from development. Nonetheless the value of the site as a natural resource must be recognised and mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of habitat can appropriately and reasonably be required through the imposition of planning conditions, as can the remaining requirements specified by SNH. 3.4 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency commented on the need for a SUDS based system for surface water treatment. Whilst they advise that foul drainage should be connected to the public sewer they seek assurance from Scottish Water that this will not contribute to premature operation of consented storm overflows.

Comments: The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Impact Assessment Report give sufficient comfort that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated in terms of flood risk, provision of a SUDS based drainage system for surface water treatment and foul water sewerage treatment, to merit approval of the outline proposal. Further detailed information and designs will be required in relation to these factors at the detailed planning stage.

3.5 North Lanarkshire Council’s Community Services Department commented that the smaller of the proposed residential sites is entirely within the Orchardton Pond and Broadwood Loch SlNC and should not be developed. They further commented that should development proceed a 30 metre buffer zone should be established around the edge of the loch and that Conditions should be applied to secure biodiversity enhancements. In addition, they commented on the need to complete a footpath link around the edge of Broadwood Loch. In terms of the larger proposed residential site, they comment on the need for an adequate landscape buffer around the edge of the site and for existing planting alongside Westfield Road to be retained. Guidance was also provided on the requirements for play facilities for the residential sites. In relation to the proposed retaillbusiness site they comment on the need for adequate footpath links to surrounding residential areas and other commercial and leisure uses. They also comment on the need to retain established planting to the north east of the site and to protect the planting during construction.

Comments: The Broadwood Loch SlNC has no status within the adopted Local plan and the site is identified for the development of a Business Park. Nevertheless, the value of the wildlife habitat must be recognised and the applicant has offered the provision of an alternative habitat area in mitigation for the loss arising from the development and the incorporation of a 20 metre ecological buffer zone around the edge of the loch and . In addition, the applicant has indicated that the provision of a footpath link on the edge of the buffer zone to allow public access around the loch would be acceptable.

3.6 North Lanarkshire Council’s Education Department initially commented that both St Francis of Assisi and Westfield Primary Schools would require to be extended to meet demands generated by the residential developments proposed.

Comments: Following a re-assessment of the projected demand for places arising from committed residential developments in the surrounding area, both schools would appear to have adequate capacity to accommodate the projected demand from the proposed development.

3.7 My Traffic and Transportation Section intimated the need for the submission of a Transportation Assessment. The submitted assessment confirmed that with a scheme of mitigation measures, appropriate links to the existing public transport infrastructure and the promotion of green travel plans for the various uses at the detailed planning stage, the local roads network could accommodate the development satisfactorily.

Comments: These issues can be adequately and appropriately addressed through the imposition of planning conditions. 3.8 My Pollution Control Section commented that a Site Investigation Report should be submitted any remediation works required should be verified by the developer. They also advised of the need for a Noise Impact Assessment because of the close proximity of the proposed residential areas to other uses.

Comments: As this application is in Outline, it is appropriate that these matters be addressed through the imposition of planning conditions requiring such submissions.

4. Representations

4.1 As a result of neighbour notification and publication of the application in the local press, of total of 18 representations were received, including a request for further information from Cathie Craigie MSP.

4.2 The main concerns of the objectors and my comments thereon are as follows:-

0 The proposed changes of use are contrary to the Local Plan.

Comments: The proposed leisurelassembly use accords with the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The proposed residential and retaillbusiness uses proposed are contrary to the Plan. Part of the retaillbusiness site is identified for provision of a school and the Council’s Education Department have advised that the site is no longer required for this purpose. In addition, preliminary investigations have revealed that the site is not suited to this form of development. The smaller residential site has planning permission for development as a Business Park and the larger residential site has planning permission for a retail warehouse park development. Market demand would appear not to support either of these approved developments. a The Council should revert to the original proposal to build a primary school on the site now proposed for retail/business use. This would be more beneficial to residents of Blackwood and Sm ithstone.

Comments: The Council’s Education Department have advised that the site is no longer required for this purpose as adequate facilities can be provided at existing school sites in the surrounding area. In addition, preliminary investigations have revealed that the site is not suited to this form of development. a There have already been large scale residential developments in the area and there are no shops or other amenities to serve this increasing population.

Comments: The focus for the proposed retaillbusiness site would be the provision of local shops and other facilities, serving the Blackwood, Smithstone and Westfield housing areas. a Traffic noise arising from the development will have an adverse effect on adjacent residential properties.

Comments: Whilst the development would generate additional traffic on the local road network, the resulting increase in noise levels in adjacent residential areas would be unlikely to have a significant impact, particularly when viewed against the existing background and traffic noise levels and the potential impacts of the development proposals which were already approved for these sites. e The development will create additional pressure from traffic on Craiglinn roundabout, which is already congested. e Blackwood roundabout and the B8048 are already heavily congested at peak times and could not cope with the additional access to the retaillbusiness area. Access to this part of the site should be from the existing stadium access.

Comments: The submitted Transportation Assessment indicates that with minor adaptations and the introduction of signalling on Craiglinn roundabout, the surrounding road network can satisfactorily accommodate the proposed development. e Since any increase in traffic will affect all residents of Craiglinn, Blackwood, Smithstone, Westfield and Eastfield, all residents should be notified of the development to allow them to object.

Comments: The applicant went beyond the statutory requirements in terms of the neighbouring owners and occupiers who were notified. The application was also advertised in the local press as being Contrary to the Development Plan, making residents from a much wider area aware of the proposed development and thus enabling the submission of representations. e The bus services to Blackwood have been reduced so it seems ludicrous to propose further development with no transport infrastructure.

Comments: The provision of bus services to an area is largely determined by commercial operators, who will assess the viability of a service on the basis of the projected demand. The proposed development would support the provision of additional public transport services to the Blackwood area. e The information on the plans is vague and the application doesn’t give enough information about what exactly is proposed.

Comments: The application under consideration is an Outline submission, dealing only with the principle of the various uses proposed. Further Detailed or Reserved Matters applications would be submitted for consideration before any part of the proposed development could commence. Neighbouring owners and occupiers would thus have a further opportunity to consider the more detailed potential impacts of the development at that stage. e The retaiVbusiness and assembly/leisure uses will act as a gathering place for teenagers, impacting on the amenity of adjacent residential properties.

Comments: These proposed uses would be segregated from existing residential areas by the 88048 / Blackwood Road and areas of existing landscaping. In considering detailed proposals for these sites the need to address potential impacts on the amenity of adjacent residential areas will be part of the assessment of the proposed design, layout and landscaping of the sites. e The buildings of the retail/business and assem bly/leisure areas will overshadow existing adjacent residential properties. Comments: Whilst it is not possible to give a detailed assessment of potential for overshadowing of residential properties in relation to an Outline application, it would seem unlikely given that the nearest residential properties at Smithstone are elevated above the level of the site and the nearest residential properties at Blackwood lie 20 metres to the south and west of the site.

0 The development will impact on the natural environment by destroying an open space currently used by wildlife.

Comments: Whilst it is not disputed that parts of the site provide valuable wildlife resources, all of these areas are allocated for development in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan. In addition the two residential areas have planning permissions for alternative types of development, which have not been implemented. In recognition of the wildlife value of the site, the developer has offered to incorporate the provision of alternative habitats and an ecological buffer zone around the perimeter of the Broadwood Loch.

0 Any form of building on the smaller residential site would have a negative impact on the natural environment of Broadwood Loch.

Comments: Broadwood Loch is an artificial water body which was formed as part of the original Blackwood / Broadwood development approximately 15 years ago as a means of visually enhancing the wider development area. Since that time the Loch has become an important resource colonised by wildlife. In recognition of the wildlife value of the site, the developer has offered to incorporate the provision of alternative habitats and an ecological buffer zone around the perimeter of the Broadwood Loch, in so far as it falls within the development site. e There is no requirement for retail development as there is an existing supermarket within easy reach.

Comments: Whilst a number of residents have expressed the view that existing facilities at Craigmarloch adequately serve the needs of residents of the Blackwood and Smithstone and Craiglinn areas, others residents have expressed a strong desire for the provision of local shopping and other local service facilities.

0 There is no need to create facilities for business use within a residential area as there are plenty of industrial sites elsewhere in the town.

Comments: The proposed retail and business facilities would be separated from existing residential areas by local roads and structure planting, whilst conditions attached to the grant of consent can ensure that pedestrian links are provided to enable local residents to access the facilities.

0 What assurances are given that the retaiVbusiness units would be occupied when others in the area are vacant? This could lead to them appearing abandoned and have a negative effect on property prices in the area. e The development will restrict views to the Kilsyth Hills.

Comments: These are not material planning considerations. 5. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

% 5.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The proposed development accords with the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley 2025 Consultative Draft Structure Plan.

5.3 The proposed assembly and leisure use accords with the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan, whilst the proposed retail/business and residential uses are contrary to the Plan. The site identified within the Plan for educational use is no longer required for that purpose, whilst extensive marketing has failed to generate the take up of further development of the existing Business Park. Additional capacity would remain within the business park for further development. The approved retail warehouse park has also failed to generate development interest and an alternative facility is currently under construction on another site within Cum bernauld.

5.4 Broadwood Loch is not included within the Plan as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Nevertheless the applicant has recognised the ecological significance of the Loch and supports the provision of both alternative habitats and an ecological buffer around the Loch as mitigation for the impact of the development.

5.5 Having considered all of the concerns expressed by both consultees and objectors, I am satisfied that the majority of the issues raised can be appropriately addressed either through the imposition of conditions or at the detailed planning stage. None of these issues outweigh the other relevant material considerations or would be so significant as to merit the withholding of consent.

5.6 Accordingly, I recommend that outline planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions. Should the Committee be minded to grant outline planning permission, the application must first be referred to the Scottish Ministers, as a development in which the Council have a financial interest, which is contrary to the adopted Local Plan and against which a significant body of objections have been made. Application No: N/06/00459/FUL

Date Registered: 22nd March 2006

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Lowrie 20 Hayston Road Carrickstone Cumbernauld Glasgow North Lanarkshire G68 OBS

Development: Erection of Side and Rear Extension

Location: 20 Hayston Road Carrickstone Cumbernauld Glasgow North Lanarkshire G68 OBS

Ward: 57 Westerwood, Carrickstone And Dullatur Councillor Gordon Murray

Grid Reference: 275528675781

File Reference: N/06/00459/FUL

Site History: No recent planning history

Development Plan: The site is covered by Housing Policy HG5 in the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Not Required

Representations: 2 Letters of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:.

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

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

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building. 20 Hayston Road Carrickstone Cum bernauld Erection of Side and Rear Extension *Representations Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 22nd March 2006 Letter from Sian Conner,22 Hayston Road, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld, G68 OBS received 4th April 2006. Letter from Pauline Martin,21 Hayston Road, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld, Glasgow, G68 OBS received 5th April 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alan Graham at 01236 616394.

Date: 2!jth April 2006 APPLICATION NO. N1061004591FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks consent for a single storey side and rear extension at 20 Hayston Road, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld. The property in question is a detached two storey dwellinghouse which is part of a recent housing development and is located on the corner of Hayston Road. The proposed lounge/dining area extension is single storey with a pitched roof and measures 8.6 metres in length, 6.6 metres in width and 3.6 metres in height. A 7 metre wide grassed area within the applicant’s ownership, but outwith the originally approved fence line, runs along the east side of the site and falls at a steep angle away from the house.

2. Development Plan

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

2.1 Within the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 the application site is located within an area covered by policies HG5. Policy HG5 allocates this area of Carrickstone for new residential development and development of this housing site is now complete.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Two letters of representation have been received with the following objections being raised:

0 Size of extension and proximity to neighbouring property

Comments: The propo3ed development would be no closer than 19 metres to the nearest overlooking dwellinghouse and 6.5 metres from the neighbouring dwellinghouse. Furthermore, a brick wall a minimum of 1.8 metres in height and a 1.8 metre high wooden screen fence run along the boundary of the rear garden, which will reduce any potential problems of overlooking or impact on privacy.

0 The submitted plans are inaccurate.

Comments: It is acknowledged that there is a small discrepancy in one of the submitted plans where the garden wall on the existing floor plan drawing is inaccurately positioned on the wrong side of the dwellinghouse. This small error is not significant enough for the planning department not to make an appropriate judgement on the application.

0 No structures can be built on existing grass verges.

Comments: The planning consent of the original housing development has a condition which states: “That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no gates, walls or any other means of enclosure shall be erected between the front of any dwellinghouse and the adjoining road, other than those walls shown on the approved plans which form the part of this permission.” The current application is the appropriate means of altering this previous requirement with it being noted that a 3.5 metres deep grassed area will remain following construction of the extension. 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The proposed extension is considered acceptable in terms of scale and design and is in keeping with the original design. It is considered that there are no issues of overlooking due to the high boundary wall and fence and due to there being no directly overlooking windows. The application is, therefore, recommended for approval subject to the application of appropriate conditions. Application No: N/06/00497/FUL

Date Registered: 27th March 2006

Applicant: Ch ristopher Con ner 80 Glenhove Road Cum bernauld G67 2JZ

Developmen t : Siting of Mobile Kiosk

Location: Car Park At Croy Station Constarry Road Croy North Lanarkshire

Ward: 64: Croy And Kilsyth South & Smithstone. Councillor Francis Griffin

Grid Reference: 272962675483

File Reference: N/06/00497/F UL

Site History: 99/01625/FUL Siting of Kiosk Approved 20.12.1999

Development Plan : The site is covered by the open space policy in terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Strathclyde Passenger Transport (No Objection)

Representations: 1 Letter received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 5th April 2006

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

2. That there shall be no remote signage advertising the snack bar.

Reason:ln the interests of the amenity of the area by preventing obtrusive detached signage. A Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th March 2006

Letter from Strathclyde Passenger Transport received 18th April 2006 Memo from NLC Roads (Northern) received 21' April 2006 Letter from Donna Wallace,l8 Glen Moriston Road, Craigmarloch, Cumbernauld, G68 OEU received 19th April 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Kirsten Devlin at 01236 616463. APPLICATION NO. N/06/0049?/FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I This application is for the siting of a mobile snack van at Croy Train Station, Cumbernauld. It is proposed that the snack van be located west of the ticket office building, directly adjacent to the disabled access ramp leading to the west bound platform. This area is adjacent to the station car park, sitting north of the bus waiting shelter.

1.2 Temporary consent was granted in December 1999 for a snack van in exactly the same location. While the van has been removed for some time it is understood that it operated for a number of years without causing any disruption to passengers.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This application is covered by the open space policy in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. However, the site is within the existing station confines so this policy has little relevance to the consideration of the application. A snack van is considered a bad neighbour development and the proposal has been advertised as such in the local press.

3. Consultations and Representations ._. 3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Section have been consulted and have no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Strathclyde Passenger Transport has no observations to make on the proposal.

3.3 As a result of the bad neighbour press advertisement 1 letter of representation has been received. The following issues were raised:

+ There is concern that the proposal could hamper access for parents with prams and disabled persons.

Comment: While the snack van would be positioned adjacent to the disabled access ramp, it will not hamper access to it. Furthermore, my Traffic and Transportation Section have not objected to the proposal.

+ There is also concern that its location would block access to low-platform buses.

Comment: The proposed position will not interfere with any access to the buses, and as before my Traffic and Transportation have no concerns about the proposal.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 Snack vans are a common feature at smaller train stations that are unable to accommodate cafes, pubs and shops. It is considered that the snack van is acceptable in the proposed location, which is exactly the same position as the previously positioned van. Furthermore, it has been concluded in this case that there are no road safety or amenity issues surrounding the application. Notwithstanding the letter of representation, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. Application No:

Date Registered: 23rd January 2006

Applicant: Mr Paul Parker 20 Blairhill Street Coat bridge

Agent Richard Moss 12 Methven Terrace Coatbridge ML5 2BG

Development: Erection of Two. Dwellinghouses

Location : Land At 20 Blairhill Street Blai rhi I I Coatbridge ML5 IPG

Ward: 32: Blairpark Councillor: William Shields

Grid Reference: 272599665083

File Reference: C/PL/CTB486/GDlLR

Site History: No Relevant Site History

Development Plan: Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Policy ENV 15/1 (Blairhill and Dunbeth Conservation Area) and Policy HG9 (Existing Housing) would apply.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 4 letters of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1st February 2006

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

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

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. PIann ing Application N0. C/O6/00080/F U L mis mao is ieorcduced from Ordnance Survev materiaiwiththe perm1551anOf Ordnance %Ay cn behalfoilhe Conlrdleraf Herlla,ertfs SltiOnFry mce Ci Clown CopyriJht Unauthorised reproduction iniringer Crown copynghl and may Erection of 2 No. Dwellinghouses lead b prosecution or CNII proceedi7gs Ndh Lanarkshire Counc~I103023395 2034 Rodufed by Land at 20 Blairhill Street, Blairhill, Coatbridge Nuth Lm&shirr Counc11 Aanning and Environnent Oepartmeril N naning House. 2 Tryst Road Cumbemauid, G67 1JW Representations te 01236616210 3k (axO1256 816232 Site Area CO9 HA 3. That before the firs1 of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, visibility splays shall be provided of 4.5 metres x 60 metres as measured from Carradale Street to the right along Blairhill Street and 2.5 metres x 60 metres from both accesses, in both directions along Blairhill Street, within which nothing exceeding 0.85 metres should be placed or allowed to grow.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

4. The existing lighting column fronting the proposed dwellinghouses should be relocated, subject to approval from the Planning Authority, to ensure that it is located a minimum of 1 metre from the proposed driveways.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

5. That befxe the deielopment hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls io be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

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

6. That before the dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied, separate dropped kerb vehicular accesses shall be coristructed in the position shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the said Roads Authority.

Reason: To erisure the provision of satisfactory vehicular access facilities.

7. That before the dedeloprnent hereby permitted starts, a desktop study of the site, to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and to a standard approved by the Pollution Control Section be submitted in both writteri and electronic format. Depending on the findings of this study a full site investigaticn survey may require to be carried out in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BSI 0'1 75: 2001.

Reason: 'To ensure [hat the site is free of contamination.

8. That before the clviallinghouses hereby permitted are occupied, the existing pedestrian access onto Carradale Street from the development site should be permanently blocked up, details of vvh;ch should be s~brriittedfor the prior approval in writing of the Planning Authority.

Reasan: To erisuI't!that oil-street parking on Carradale Street is discouraged. Background Papers: Application form and plans received 20th January 2006

Memo from The Transportation Section received 26thJanuary 2006 Memo from TC7e Pollution Control Section received 03'' February 2006

Letter from E. Morris, 3 Bowling Street, Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, ML5 1PP received 3rd February 2006. Letter from Owner/Occupiei.. 31 Blairhill Street, Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, ML5 1PG received 6th February 2006. Letter from K Boyle, 5 Bowling Street, Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, ML5 1PP received 3rd February 2006. Letter from Blairhill Dundyvan Parish Church Congregational Board, 1 Mount Vernon Avenue, Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, ML5 1NR received 30thJanuary 2006.

Any person wishicrg to inzpect these docurnents should contact Mr Grant Douglas at 01236 812231.

2 May 2008 APPLICATION NO. C1061000801FUL

REPORT

1. -Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks permission for the erection of two detached dwellinghouses on land adjacent to 20 Blairhill Street, Coatbridge. The application site currently forms an 810 sq. metre section of private garden ground on the East side of Blairhill Street that is bounded to all sides by lraditional Victorian sandstone properties.

1.2 The proposed dwellings would be detached two storey buildings with dormer style windows to both the front anc rear elevations. The dwellings would be finished in a coloured harl with re- constituted stone detailing, including the quoins, chimney and window banding. The accommodation would include four bedrooms to the upper floor and an integral garage at ground level.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application si;e is located within an area designated as ENVl5/1 (Blairhill and Dunbeth Conseivation Area) in the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposals are also assessed against policy HG9 (Existing Housing) and associated design guidance on infill housing and conservation. This policy seeks to protect the established character of existing and new t!G:isirig areas koni development that is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the arnerii.ty of Established Housing Areas. The proposal is not, in itself, of a scale to be of strategic imporlance.

3. ---.-----.-.-,.Consbltatmns and Representations

3.1 TIE 1’~xpo‘tatic :n Section have been consulted and have no objection subject to appropriate conditions being attached to the permission.

3.2 Follow,r;g ti;e s“r,.&rd neighbour notification procedure and advertisement in the local press 3 no. leliet s of objtction nave been received citing the following grounds for objection:

(z) ine app:ic,ation site is riot cf a suitable size to accommodate 2 no. dwellings

(b) ’f he inscrii’:cient provision of off-street parking and the increased volume of traffic causing congestion on Carradale Street and Blairhill Street.

(c) The impact upon residential amenity within the conservation area due to unsympathetic c-.-, ate r 13):

(d) Overlook, ,ig and overshadowing of neighbouring gardens and properties.

(U) ‘i 179 ;n?;.i\Ct upon xsidzntial amenity during the construction period.

3.3 Ciie fU:t*\.:i k~.,his been received from the Congregational Board of the adjacent church raising the lollowiriy points for consideration. The parking problems that may be created by ahltioricl i7od;li:lg on the street and the possible solution of “yellow lines” and “no parking signs” on the north side of Carradale Street and the possible installation of a “white line” at the Church I‘Aare ~Jrivt?~~~’l,,~2 Carradale Street. In addition the letter suggests that an existing access from the app~catmw.6 to Carradale Street be blocked up. 4. Pllannina Asswynent and Conclusions

4.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered urider the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy HG9 and policy ENVl5/1 alorg with the relevant design guidance on infill housing and conservation. The Council's Guide to Cpen Smce , Minimum space standards around dwellings is also relevant.

4.2 The Adopted Mcnklands District Local Plan 1991 gives emphasis to development sites geared towards infi!l arid redevelopment of existing urban areas. Policy HG9 indicates that developments on suitable gap sites that are in accordance with the Design Guidance on lnfill Housing will be e.:cwraged. In this instance the two dwellings, as amended, are designed to

intwrat8.->b' v sxisf:x'~.~ri~y wltli traditional period properties within the surrounding conservation area.

4.3 ir! rsspon:e t:, th~points raised by the Congregational Board of the adjacent church and manse t!-,ese pooritsn~va JWR fawarded to the Transportation Section for their consideration of both the curt mt bjp; c-itiori arid apprspriate future action if required. In addition, a condition has bee;) rex i;mac!;cl which would restrict pedestrian access to Carradale Street. In terms of res'dentidi ?menit\/ ancl the points of objection raised these are addressed as follows:

(4 I; t-,> p:~posa!srepresent no contravention of relevant policy when assessed against crev/eiopr.ient control design guidance on open space around dwellinghouses. This ii-'iC,uds, '2s dual garderi ground of 10 metres in length to the rear elevation and :LL~:-I.: ;rtg:i7 of fron; jardens to the proposed houses.

(b) With regard to any increased demand for on street parking, the proposals make y, ;v,&-: 01' 'the i:;cIusion of off-street car parking within the curtilage of each dwelling. il 8uci tic.; an i,ikgral garage is provided for each property.

\cl . 11;; &sip1 of :he propoeed dwellings shows detail in keeping with the Victorian criaracts: of the Blairhill and Dunbeth conservation area. While the faqade of the two ~\JV~Iirgi AX~JICI finistied in a smooth render re-constituted stonework would be used tki! brlIdlicm of period detail, such as the quoins and the window banding. In &xilrd -I ( -IXL~Kihas been placed on the permission that samples of all facing ,.E ,.E bc, used on the walls and roofs are submitted to the planning authority in order lhal these may be considered in more detail.

(a) 6 1,s diiii!13 G, ,wi.ation of the proposed dwellings would be such, that in terms of LI JGCLI,s:lu,.ng, l~E neiglibouring properties would be largely unaffected. Despite a shoi:talr \ii one metre from the recommended four metre distance between the ~I'O~GSBCdwellings, as nighlighted in development control guidance on open space iLeriilci propt2'ties,sufficient open space has been maintained around the stc iri order t iat sunlighVdaylight levels are maintained to both the SUI rcldi'.a!r;~yalC1i.x and tL7e properties themselves. The building line to Blairhill Street u~c~luAC~,LG mmm'ned ensuring that the distance between any facing windows would u~ II ~XLJ;~cf 30 metie:, to the front elevation and 20 metres to the rear elevation.

, ! ,rnp&ct in terms of dusi and noise created during construction is not a material pi ann i r? 6 LO ns i d erat io n . 4.4 IQconclLsic?n it can be seen that the proposed development of two detached dwellinghouses would be IP xw'riance Ia.ith the relevant policies contained within the development plan. The design anci szak of 1 he nroposed dwellings would integrate satisfactorily with the surrounding area and C:IV'IQ olacea upon the permission would ensure that the materials used would be sympathetic to fh: amenity of the conservation area. It is recommended that permission be granted subject [c) :he proposed conditions for the reasons outlined in the above. Application No: C/06/00364/FUL

Date Registered: 24th March 2006

Applicant: Mr Kevin Sands 56 Station Road Mui rhead G69 9EY

Development: Change of Use From Retail (Class 1) to Ten Pin Bowling (Class 11)

Location: Unit 2 4 Manse Place Town Centre Ai rdrie North Lanarkshire

Ward: 47 North Cairnhill And Coatdyke Councillor P ter Sulliva

Grid Reference: 276042665332

File Reference: CIPLIAI M080004/LM/LR

Site History: C/00100286/REM Erection Of Two Retail Units With Car Parking, Service Provision And Landscaping Including Construction Of New Vehicular Access From Weavers Road (Reserved Matters Of O!ltli ie Planning Permission C/98/01065/0UT) Granted 01.08.00

Development Plari: The site is covered by policies COM6 (Promote New Retail Development), TRIO (Encourage Off Street Parking) and ENV 15 (Victoria Conservation Area) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary k~Development Plan: No

Consultatlons:

Reproseritatisns:

Newspaper kdvzrtisement: Advertised on 5th April 2006

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. Thai tne daveloptnent hereoy permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permissio?

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. P lan nin g App I icat ion No. C/06/00364/FUL

Change of Use from Retail (Class I) to Ten Pin Bowling (Class 11)

NotA Scale Unit 2, 4 Manse Place, Town Centre, Airdrie to Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 7th March 2006

Memo from Local Plans Section received 21st April 2006 Memo from Transportation Section received 21st April 2006 Memo from Protective Services Section received 18th April 2006

Any ?erson tJiSI$irig to inspect these documents should contact Ms Leigh Menzies at 01236 812372.

Date: 2 May 20dG APPLICATION NO. C106E003641FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I This application relates to the proposed change of use from Class 1 Retail to Class 11 for Ten Pin Bowling at Unit 2, 4 Manse Place, Airdrie. The application site is an existing vacant unit located on the edge of Airdrie Town Centre within an area of public and dedicated parking, in addition it is adjacent to a similar larger unit occupied by Lidl.

1.2 The proposal relates to the proposed change of use of the vacant unit for Ten Pin Bowling, with no request for any changes to the external faqade of the property.

1.3 The letting agent has indicated, in support of this application, that efforts have been made to market the application site since March 2000 on the basis of to buy or to let. However, very limirecl i. ~resihas bee^-^ receivec from potential retail occupiers.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is coverad by policies COM6 (Promote New Retail Development), TRIO (Encourage Of; Street Ps~KJ-I~)and ENV 15 (Victoria Conservation Area) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. As the application raises no strategic issues, it can be assessed in terms of the local plan policy.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 FoiIow,nq the staridard neighbour notification and public advertisement of this proposal no leiles ot j epressliiatlon were recaived.

3.2 7ie 'I I.a -lsporta!iori Section response indicated that while they have no objection to the applicarion, it should be noted that the parking provision previously provided for this site is curtenJy being uti,,sed by existing premises and commuters using the adjacent railway station. There rnay the(81'cre be insufficient parking within the area to serve the proposed development.

3.3 ?be Frotoztive Services response requested that a noise assessment be carried out.

4.

4.1 Iris s:k is located on the edge Airdrie Town Centre. In assessing this application, the local plan poiicy CGid rj; (fitornote New Ratail Development) and TRIO (Encourage Off Street Parking) is relevant. In terms of this policy, the initial development of this site, approved through application C/03ICi:;L~!YI3EiL satisfied the aims of the local plan zoning and has provided off street parking pro,disionwhich is partly dedicaed to the existing units and partly for general public use and two reiail ullits.

4.2 A proposal to develop commercial leisure within a unit designated specifically for retail cw.,eiome:ri; LV?,:'~ a?pe;ir to ccnilict with the Local Plan. However, the site lies within a Town Centre and, consequently would meet any modern interpretation of a sequential test as leisure , :('-I 1 I 3 iif:;: p:eiarei:c 2 be located in the town centre. In addition, the unit has lain vacant -.siice construction, on that prominent Town Centre site, adjacent to bus routes and i41~'ii!i: I-! 511 std 01 rnc; proposal would enhance the appearance, vitality and vibrancy of the I awn Getlire anc, ZSE~SLir! diversC;ying uses away from a reliance on retail, whilst retaining a use videly held as acceprable in Twin Centre locations. 4.3 It should be noted that in terms of the parking that should the site be retained for retail then, should such an occupier eventually be found, this could place additional unsustainable pressure on the available limited parking. The proposed development would not only provide a suitable use for the vacant unit, which has been unsuccessfully marketed for a number of years, but it should also have minimal additional impact in terms of available parking.

4.4 In terms of the request from Protective Services that a noise assessment be carried out it is considered that due to its town centre location that this would not be appropriate in this instance.

4.5 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and will not have a significantly detrimental impact on the surrounding area. The application raises no strategic issues and accords with the policies of the local plan. It is therefore recommended that planning perrnission be granted subject to the appropriate conditions. Application No: S/04/02238/OUT

Date Registered: 6th January 2005

Applicant: Barr Heritable Ltd C/o 12 Beveridge Terrace Mossend Bellshill ML4 2RJ

Agent Stanley C Cook M.R.T.P.I. 12 Beveridge Terrace Mossend Bellshill ML4 2RJ

Development: Erection of 300 Houses and Associated Access, Parking and Landscaping (In Outline)

Location: Land East Of Main Street Newmains North Lanarkshire

Ward: 16 Newmains Councillor David McKendrick

Grid Reference: 282242655403

File Reference: S/PL/B/3/78/RC/M M

Site History: The site was formerly the Coltness iron works and became a concrete manufacturing plant in the 1960’s. The more significant recent applications for the site are: -

S/03/01494/FUL - Erection of Steel Containers to Store Fireworks, Refused 2004. S/98/01153/FUL - Use of Land for Storage (Tarmac), Granted 1999. S/98/00859/FUL - Two Concrete Batching Plants (Tarmac), Granted 1999. S/97/00413/FUL - Main Building Re-Cladding (Tarmac Precast Concrete), Granted 1997. SI1 20/90 - Batching Plant and Conveyors, Granted 1990.

Development Plan: The majority of the site is zoned as Policy IND 8 (Established Industrial and Business Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policies IND 1, IND 10, ENV 3, ENV 5, ENV 6 (for a small portion of the site in the northeast corner which lies in the greenbelt), HSG 1, HSG 2, HSG 3, HSG 10, TR2, TR 12 and TR 13 are also relevant to this application.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes North Lanarkshire Counc11 Planning and Environment PLANNING APPLICATION NO. S / 04 I02238 / OUT Headquarters Suite 501 Fleming House 2 Tryst Road ERECTION OF 300 HOUSES ASSOCIATED ACCESS, CUMBERNAULD PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ( IN OUTLINE ). a71JW

Telephone 01238 616210 LAND EAST OF MAIN STREET, NEWMAINS, WISHAW. rbhire FBX 01238618232 Council Representatlon Site Area = 15.43 ha. OS Licence 100023380 2004 1 * Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Com ments) Scottish Water (Comments) Transco (Com ments) British Telecom (Com ments) Central Scotland Forest Trust (Comments) NLC Education Department (Com ments) NLC Community Services Department (Comments)

Representations: 4 letters of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: 27th January 2005

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That before development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:- (a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the provision of equipped play areas; (e) the provision of public open space; (f) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (9) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (d),(e) and (f) above; (h) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (i) the provision for loading and unloading of all goods vehicles; (j) the phasing of the development; (k) the provision of drainage works; (I) the disposal of sewage; (m) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (n) details of existing and proposed site levels.

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

2. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within 5 years of the date of this permission, or within 2 years of the date of which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.

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

3. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 1 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.

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

4. That the total number of dwellinghouses within the site shall be not more than 300

Reason: To comply with the terms of the application and to ensure that satisfactory vehicular access can be provided to serve the development, in the interests of road safety. 5. That in addition to the details submitted under the terms of Condition 1, the reserved matters application shall include a design statement for the entire site in accordance with PAN 68 and for the avoidance of doubt this shall provide details of the proposed site layout, scale and mix of housing, design details, materials and height of dwellings and landscaping and open space provision.

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

6. That as part of the details submitted with the application required under the terms of condition 1 above, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the site is free of contamination.

7. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, the landscaping proposals for the site shall include a planting strip at least 15 metres wide to the east and south boundaries of the site and at least 10 metres wide to the western boundary with the A731A71 and further details submitted for these proposals shall include cross section drawings.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity, visual amenity and to create a satisfactory buffer with the adjoining Green Belt land, the Auchter Water and the main A731A71 road.

8. That notwithstanding the requirement of Condition 1, the landscaping proposals shall include the integration of the least one continuous landscaped strip across the site in an east-west direction.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and maintaining a wildlife corridor link between important habitats adjacent to the site.

9. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, a high quality, visually attractive frontage to the development shall be proposed for the western site boundary with the A711A73; this shall include the landscaped strip required by Condition 6 and shall specifically not propose standard 1.8 metre high rear boundary fencing to dwellinghouses.

Reason: In the interests of securing a high quality visual appearance to the development site, as seen from a prominent approach road to Newmains.

10. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped or felled and no shrubs or hedges, shall be removed from the application site, without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and visual amenity.

11. A full protected species survey with recommended mitigation measures must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This must be undertaken by a suitability qualified person(s) with particular attention paid to the areas of woodland and areas associated with the Auchter Water. The agreed mitigation measures must subsequently be implemented prior to the start of development.

Reason: To protect the biodiversity on the site.

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

Reason: To ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage and water supply systems to allow the residential development to proceed

13. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, as part of the first reserved matters submission on site layout, full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the whole application site hereby approved, showing its land take requirements, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme requires to comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and with any requirements of Scottish Water. The proposed surface water drainage scheme shall take into account the remediation strategy to be agreed following the Site Investigation Reports, and shall consider the desirability of integration with the wetland areas to the southwest and northeast of the site, as well as the Auchter Water. Thereafter, written confirmation, from a suitably qualified engineer, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority, confirming that the drainage system has been installed in accordance with the approved scheme, prior to commencement of the construction of the first dwelling house.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area, to prevent groundwater pollution and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest SEPA guidance and Scottish Water requirements.

14. That as part of the details submitted with the reserved matters application required under the terms of condition 1 above, full details of any engineering works proposed to the Auchter Water river bank must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, following consultation with SEPA and SNH. Furthermore, the Auchter Water shall be protected at all times during the course of development from any material to enter it from the application site and details of protective fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any works commences upon the site.

Reason: To ensure the adequate protection of this important watercourse and its habitat.

15. That notwithstanding the flood report contained in the letter by Dr Riddell dated 6 May 2005 and the requirement of condition l(n) for existing and proposed site levels to be submitted, prior to the commencement of any development, a further report from a suitably qualified person shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which shall: - (a) confirm that ground levels for the development area are at least 10 metres higher than the Auchter Water; (b) assess the potential for flooding from intense rainfall or overflowing sewers; (c) assess existing surface water systems, culverts and lades on the site to ensure they cannot cause a flood risk; and (d) make recommendation about finished floor levels in relation to the proposed site levels. The recommendations of the approved report shall thereafter be confirmed in writing by a suitably qualified person to have been fully implemented before any house within the site is occupied.

Reason: To avert the potential for flooding in the area.

16. That notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 1, a future reserved matters or detailed application must observe the open space and play provision standards set out in the Council's Developers Guide to Open Space.

Reason: To ensure that adequate public open space, play provision and private garden areas are provided to serve the development.

17. That prior to the occupation of the first dwelling within the site, new bus stops, the position of which has first been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, shall be provided on Main Street.

Reason: To provide improved public transport facilities and encourage the use of non-car modes of transport by future residents of the development.

18. That prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse within the site, the developer shall provide a new puffin crossing across the A73 in the vicinity of School Road, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing before any work commences on site.

Reason: In the interests of providing good pedestrian access facilities to serve the development, which will encourage non-car modes of transport to local facilities.

19. That, notwithstanding that the details in the Concept Masterplan drawing are not specifically approved, reserved matters submissions shall generally conform with the principles contained therein, with the exceptions that the landscaping strip to the western boundary of the site shall be at least 10 metres in width.

Reason: To define the permission and in the interests of biodiversity, visual and residential amenity.

20. That the reserved matters application required by Condition 1 shall include proposals for pedestriankycle facilities.

Reason: In the interests of providing good pedestrianlcycle access facilities to serve the development, which will encourage non-car modes of transport to local shopping and recreational facilities.

21. That prior to the occupation of the loth dwellinghouse within the development site, a scheme of traffic calming proposals for School Road, which has first been agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, shall be implemented at the developer’s expense.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

22. That before the first dwellinghouse within the application site is occupied, the following road works shall have been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority: a) construction of the site access via a new roundabout at the junction of the A73 and A71, to a specification which shall be agreed in writing by the Roads Authority; b) improvements to the existing roundabout at Newmains Cross, to a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and which shall include carriageway widening and replacement and relocation of existing street furniture, signing and lighting; and c) a 2.0 metre minimum width footway along the full frontage of the site and continuing to the junction of the A73 with School Road.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

NOTE TO COMMITTEE:

If granted, the outline planning permission will not be issued until an agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been concluded between the applicant, other relevant landowners and the Council in respect of necessary off-site road works, to secure: a) construction of the site access via a new roundabout at the junction of the A73 and A71, to a specification which shall be agreed in writing by the Roads Authority; b) improvements to the existing roundabout at Newmains Cross, to a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and which shall include carriageway widening and replacement and relocation of existing street furniture, signage and lighting; c) a footway of minimum 2 metre width alongside the A731A71 in front of the development site and continuing to School Road; and d) the provision of new bus stops required on Main Street A731 A71.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21st December 2004 Revised plans received 5'h August 2005 Supplementary information and plans dated 6'h January 2006

Memo from Head of Protective Services received 10th March 2006 Memo from Community Services Department received 17th March 2006 Memo from Education Department received 27th February 2006 Memo from Transportation Manager received 1gth April 2006 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 9th March 2006 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 15th February 2006 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 7th and 15th February, 21 st September 2005 and 22nd March 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 20th September 2005, 3rd February and 6th March 2006 Letter from British Gas received 1st February 2005 Letter from British Telecom received 31st January 2005 Letter from Central Scotland Forest Trust received 15th February 2006

Letters from Ness, Gallagher And CO,95 Stewarton Street, Wishaw, ML2 8AG received 8'h February 2005 and 20th March 2006. Letter from Demond And Mary Ann McLaughlin, 131 Main Street, Newmains, Wishaw, ML2 9BG received 26th January 2005. Letter from Chris Gardner, GVA Grimley, Sutherland House, 149 St Vincent Street, Glasgow G2 5NW received 31st January 2005.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Richard Cartwright at 01698 302132.

Date: 18 April 2006 APPLICATION NO. S10410223810UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This is an outline application for up to 300 dwellings on the former ‘Costains’ site to the east of Main Street (the A73/A71), on the southern edge of Newmains. Immediately north of the site lie a number of commerciaVindustriaI units including the former car auctions site, currently being used for temporary pipe storage. To the northwest lies the former Victoria Park (currently overgrown) and some existing residential development at School Road (leading to Newmains Primary School and other local facilities in Manse Road). A petrol station and ‘Cooper Brothers’ garage lie at the junction of the A73/A71 at the western corner of the application site. To the southwest (beyond the A73), south and east of the site is open Green Belt land, with the Auchter Water forming the eastern site boundary. In the northeastern corner is a disused railway viaduct and sewage works. The application site falls away steeply to Auchter Water at it’s eastern boundary, and more gently to its southern boundary, but is otherwise only gently undulating.

1.2 The application site has a number of large industrial shed style buildings and remains in some use for storage, both inside and outside the buildings, including for lorries, containers and trailers. There is also a large amount of concrete waste product material within the site.

1.3 The application was originally made in respect of a larger site including the industrial land to the north and the properties fronting Main Street. It also originally included 450 houses, a community centre, housing office, band hall, a 15,000 sq ft retail unit and industrial yard space. The applicant has since amended site boundary so that it now only relates to the former ‘Costains’ site. The proposed development is now reduced to 300 houses only. The applicant has submitted a Concept Masterplan drawing, indicating that the site could be developed for residential use in five phases, each of approximately 60 units, starting near the entrance and working in a clockwise direction around the site. The drawing shows a planting bund 15-20 metres wide to the eastern boundary, 10 metres to the southern boundary and 5 metres wide to the western A73/A71 boundary to reinforce the existing hedgerow belt to this side. Access to the site would be from a new roundabout at the junction of the A71 and A73. A new pelican crossing is proposed across Main Street near to School Road, and a Transport Assessment, Flood Report, initial Site Investigation Report and other Supplementary Information have also been submitted.

1.4 It should be noted that a further application for similar proposals to those originally submitted for this site but with 400 houses and a 50,000 sq ft retail unit has been put on hold at the request of the developer pending the determination of this application.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within the Wishaw Area and is therefore included within the Wishaw Urban Renewal Area of Schedule l(b) of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000.

2.2 The majority of the site is zoned as Policy IND 8 (Established Industrial and Business Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policies IND 1, IND 10, ENV 3, ENV 5, ENV 6 (for a small portion of the site in the northeast corner which lies in the greenbelt), ENV 9, HSG 1, HSG 2, HSG 3, HSG 10, TR2, TR 12 and TR 13 are also relevant to this application. 3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Scottish Water initially objected to this application on the grounds of the wastewater treatment works (WWTW) capacity, They have since confirmed they will remove their objection if a suitable condition is imposed.

3.2 SEPA initially raised concerns regarding the capacity of the sewerage infrastructure serving the site. They also sought a master plan and that the land take for a SUDS scheme be considered at this stage. Following the submission of additional details and plans they request that conditions be imposed in order that the capacity in the sewer network at the Swinstie Waste Water Treatment Works is demonstrated. Conditions are also requested requiring the submission of a site investigation report, an assessment of proposed engineering works to the banks of the Auchter Water, a SUDS scheme and to ensure that the development will not be at risk of flooding.

3.3 My Geotechnical Team Leader notes the site is in a former mining area and that it is the developer’s responsibility to ensure a safe development. He also accepts the findings of the submitted Flood Report but notes that some further work is required. He notes that no drainage strategy or design has yet been submitted, and that this will be required.

3.4 North Lanarkshire Council’s Protective Services Section note that a Site Investigation is required in view of the site’s history and that the initial report submitted is not fully adequate to discharge this matter. They also recommend a condition to control construction hours and noise, due to the presence of nearby dwellings. .- _. 3.5 Scottish Natural Heritage have no objections to the proposals subject to conditions relating to the following: planting, wherever possible, should use local nature species; an ecological buffer zone of at least 25 metres in width between the Aucter Water and the edge of the development; a requirement for SNH to be consulted on the proposed riverbank engineering work and that any agreed treekhrub cutting must be done outwith the March-September bird breeding season. They note that the application site adjoins both the Auchter Water and Hot Water Pond Sites of Specific Scientific Interest.

3.6 Central Scotland Forrest Trust support the sympathetic development of this site which they observe is an eyesore. They consider the proposed landscaping to be inadequate and seek additional landscaping within the site, as well as the peripheral planting proposed. They are concerned about the potential impact on the valley of the Auchter Water and suggest that houses are kept away from the top of the valley side, with a low fence and a mown strip before the planted zone. CSFT also seek a quality frontage to the western boundary of the site. They suggest that a path link be sought from the northeast corner of the site towards Newmains Cross and Crindledyke Bing. Finally, CSFT suggest an additional pedestrian crossing facility to be sought for the A73 (in addition to the one proposed by the applicant near School Road), to facilitate a pedestrianlcycle link towards Greenhead Moss nature reserve.

3.7 North Lanarkshire Council Community Services Department has no objections in principle to the proposed redevelopment of this prominent site of very poor visual amenity. They consider that the density and layout of the proposed housing should reflect the urban fringe nature of the site. Integration of the development onto Main Street will be required, preserving existing planting and establishing a good bufferlroad corridor landscape treatment. They support the proposed substantial tree, banks to the site edges for visual and wildlife reasons, but would require further information including cross-section drawings, to assess this aspect fully. Integration of the Auchter Water river bank planting into the development site is suggested. Protection of the Auchter Water is vital with no materials to enter the burn and a 10 metre “no-go” area also suggested. The detailed house layout design should avoid rear fences backing onto remote vacant ground. A protected species survey is required, in particular for land adjacent to the Auchter Water. Footpath linkages from the site to the surrounding area are sought, including from the northeast corner of the site to the north. A centrally located play area is required to serve the development, with a minimum of 2000 square metres of equipped play space, with either a hard surfaced kickaboutlmultisport area or a skatepark incorporated. A detailed hydrological and SUDS based surface water drainage system will need to be designed as part of the initial layout design, and this could perhaps tie into wetland areas to the southwest and northeast of the site.. .. 3.8 My Transportation Team Leader has required the submission of a Transportation Assessment for this proposed major development. He accepts the principle of a single vehicular access to serve up to 300 new dwellings to be taken from the proposed new roundabout at the junction of the A73/A71. He agrees that a new pedestrian crossing facility is required for Main Street in the vicinity of School Road (but not by Woodhall Road junction). Other detailed requirements are raised, including a request for traffic calming facilities in School Road, Newmains. In view of the need for off-site road works including on land outwith the applicants’ control, he recommends deferral of the application until these matters are resolved.

3.9 Four letters of representation have been received from 3 parties as a result of the neighbour notification process and press advertisement. The points raised are summarised below: -

(a) the owners of 135 Main Street have stated that they felt that insufficient information was available for their clients to decide whether or not to object. Their initial concerns related to the inclusion of their clients land within the application site. They then submitted a second letter raising two points of concern. 1) no detail is provided on the plan of the land to the south of their clients property. 2) the area of ground to the rear of their clients property has been used for over 20 years as the access to their garage. A servitude right of access therefore exists and cannot be adversely affected by any development. (b) the owners of 131 Main Street have concerns about the lack of information available and about the type and scale of proposed housing adjacent to their property and to the construction timetable (they also objected to the retail element in the original application); and (c) the owners of the Kilt site, to be developed for a foodstore at Newmains Cross, objected to the retail element of the original application.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 This application needs to assessed against both the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 and the relevant local plan policies. In terms of the Structure Plan, this is a brownfield site which is not included in any of the Plan’s schedules of industrial and business land covered by Strategic Policy 5, nor is it included in the schedules of marketable industrial and business land that accompany the Plan. The application meets the requirements of Strategic Policy 9, as the proposal will promote urban regeneration by the redevelopment of urban brownfield land and promote sustainable transport, by improvements to pedestrian, cycling and bus movements; the provision of necessary infrastructure, site remediation and a sustainable urban drainage scheme would also be secured by conditions. This application does not therefore require assessment against Strategic Policy 10. Wishaw is identified as an Urban Renewal Area and Strategic Policy 1 gives priority to investment in such areas. A large part of the application site in included in the Vacant and Derelict Land Survey. Wishaw is not one of the identified communities where local employment opportunities are to be identified. In conclusion, the site’s location is not of strategic significance in relation to the economic competitiveness of policies of the Structure Plan. The redevelopment of this site for housing is supportive of the Metropolitan Development Strategy, in view of the renewal of a significant derelict site in an Urban Renewal Area. 4.2 The application falls to be assessed against the relevant policies of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) This site is zoned as predominantly as Policy IND 8(Established Industrial and Business Areas) and a small proportion is zoned as Policy ENV6 (Green Belt). Other relevant policies are IND 1, IND 10, ENV 3, ENV 5, HSG 1, HSG 2, HSG 3, HSG 10, TR2, TR 12 and TR13.

4.3 Three of the industrial policies of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) are relevant to this application. Policy IND 1 states that the Council will seek to maintain a 10 year supply of marketable land for industrial and business development, and that where industrial and business land is identified as surplus to the area’s long-term requirements, the Council will encourage it’s allocation to appropriate alternative uses. The associated text at paragraph 4.36 states that where oversupply in the industrial land supply exists this can create blight, and that where there is no clear prospect of their re-use for industrial development, sites will be allocated to an appropriate alternative use. In general terms, there is currently no shortage of industrial land in North Lanarkshire, and paragraph 4.1 above highlights that this location is not listed in any schedules of land to be protected for industrial use or for which employment use is to be sought. The applicant states that despite extensive advertising, no interest has been expressed in this site by industrial concerns, primarily due to the type and size of buildings on the site and the remedial works required to remove contamination. The site has been in limited use for storage over the past seven years. Overall, I consider that there is no need to seek to safeguard this site for industrial and business use, and that its redevelopment for an appropriate non-industrial use would not conflict with the intentions of Policy IND 1.

4.4 Policy IND 8 sets a general presumption in favour of retaining the existing character of Established Industrial and Business Areas, and of supporting new general industrial, storage and distribution or business use in such areas. In this case the site is semi-derelict and its existing character is not appropriate to retain. The associated text to policy IND 8, at paragraph 4.55, recognises there are circumstances where redevelopment to alternative uses may be appropriate, and notes that Policy IND 10 provides a framework to assess proposals for other uses.

4.5 Policy IND 10 lists criteria which the Council will consider in assessing other development proposals on Industrial and Business land. These are: - (1) the extent to which there is a surplus in the land supply for industry and business; (2) whether development would undermine the attractiveness of a location for business and industry; (3) whether there is a specific locational requirement for the proposal; (4) whether the proposal would result in significant economic benefit to the plan area; (5) the existence of suitable alternative sites; (6) the potential impact on travel patterns and accessibility by public transport; and (7) in the case of Established Industrial and Business Areas, whether their redevelopment would lead to the re-use of vacant or under-utilised industrial land.

In terms of the above criteria, point (1) has already been assessed above and I do not consider there to be any fundamental conflict with point (2). There is no specific need for housing on this site (3) and there are likely to be alternative sites available (5). However, the site’s redevelopment for residential use would bring economic benefits into the area (4) and it would lead to the re-use of under-utilised industrial land (7). I consider this to be a reasonably accessible site for residential development, as it is located close to and can be served by existing and planned facilities at Newmains, including public transport (bus) routes (6). Overall, I am satisfied that the proposal complies with the requirements of Policy IND 10.

4.6 A number or Southern Area Local Plan Policies on the environment are relevant to the assessment of this application and I consider the proposal to comply with these. Policy ENV 3 encourages the re-use of vacant and derelict land, particularly within urban areas, through new uses and also the creation of wildlife habitats, which is proposed by the current application. Policy ENV 5 sets criteria for the assessment of the environmental impact of a proposal, and those relevant to the current proposal are as follows:

(1) the suitability of a proposal to the character of the area in which it is set; (2) the landscape and visual impact of the proposal; (3) the extent of traffic generation, noise, dust, pollution, flooding risk and interference; (4) the loss of natural habitats, protected species and areas designated for their natural heritage value; (5) the loss of urban open space; and (6) the extent to which derelict land is regenerated.

I consider that a form of residential development would be suitable for this site on the edge of Newmains, and that the significant boundary and other landscaping which is proposed (and can be conditioned) will offer scope to significantly improve the landscape and visual impact of the site. The detailed concerns listed in point (3) have all been considered and could satisfactorily be covered by conditions. This proposal offers opportunities for habitat creation and enhancement, rather than loss. There would be no loss of valuable urban open space and some gain would be secured. The proposed development would secure the significant benefit of the regeneration of a large tract of derelict land.

4.7 Policy ENV 6 Green Belt applies to a small part of the application site in the northeast corner. The proposals for this part of the site are purely for open space use, and together with the possibility of securing a new footpathlcycle link from this corner of the site towards the north (suggested by a number of consultees and which is recommended as a condition), the proposal is in accordance with Policy ENV 6, as it safeguards the Green Belt’s character and promotes outdoor recreation.

4.8 I turn now to assess the application against the relevant housing policies of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy HSG 1 seeks to direct new residential development to brownfield sites within built up areas, in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations, to assist urban renewal and regeneration. Policy HSG 2 states the Council will support the release of suitable redevelopment sites within the existing built up area, for private sector housing development. Policy HSG 3 states that the Council will seek to bring forward the release of brownfield sites for housing development. Policy HSG 10 sets detailed criteria for assessing applications for housing development, many of which will be more applicable to a detailed or reserved matters planning application. However, of the criteria relevant for the current outline application, I consider the impact on the existing environment, the treatment of the existing environmental condition of the site, and the provision of the new landscaping and open space, to be positively met by the proposal. Overall, I conclude that subject to conditions this application conforms to the housing policies of the Local Plan.

4.9 The relevant transportation policies of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) are TR12 and TR13. Policy TR2 (Environmental Impact of Transport) states the Council will seek to promote a transition to more sustainable modes of transport. Through the use of appropriate planning conditions, the current application offers the opportunity to facilitate pedestrian and cycle movements, including by a new pedestrian crossing facility for Main Street to the west of the site. There is also scope to secure new bus stops to promote this form of transport. Policy TR 12 (Cycling) states the Council will seek to secure new routes and facilities for cyclists and this application offers scope to do this. Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) states that a Transport Assessment may be required (this has been submitted with the current application) and sets criteria to be considered in assessing a proposal as follows: -

(1) the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; (2) the scope to integrate development proposals with existing public transport facilities; (3) impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; (4) the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring; and (5) the extent to which the development promotes “access for all”, particularly for those with impaired mobility.

My Transportation Team Leader recommends deferral of the application until agreement is reached on off-site road works which would require the agreement of third parties. However, he accepts that the traffic impact of the proposed development can be accommodated without detriment to road safety, subject to the prior completion of a Section 75 Legal Agreement and the imposition of a number of conditions to ensure that the transportation requirements of this development are met. He seeks new bus stop and improved pedestrian facilities in the form of a new pedestrian crossing for Main Street, and traffic calming measures in School Road. I am satisfied that the relevant transportation policies of the Local Plan are complied with by this application, and consider that all transportation issues can be satisfactorily addressed by the combination of a Section 75 Legal Agreement and suitable planning conditions..

4.10 In response to the issues raised by consultees I would respond as follows:- Conditions are recommended requiring that the matters raised by Scottish Water and SEPA are addressed as part of the information submitted with any reserved matters application. This will include the requirement for a drainage strategy and details required by the Geotechnical Team Leader. A condition is recommended requiring a site investigation report to be submitted as part of any reserved matters application. Construction noise is a matter that should be addressed by other legislation and is not a material planning consideration. The concerns raised by CSFT and the Council’s Community Services Department are supported. I recommend that these be addressed by conditions concerning matters including better landscaping, a stand off zone adjacent to the Auchter Water Valley, a habitat survey, footpath links and play provision The access and parking arrangements and detailed matters raised by the Transportation Section can be addresses by the proposed conditions.

4.1 1 I would respond to the point raised in the letters of representation as follows: a) The application is in outline, therefore full details of the design and layout of the proposed housing will only be provided at the reserved matters stage b) The application site boundary has been amended and no longer includes the objectors property. The protection of the right of access is a legal matter and not a material planning consideration. c) The retail element of the proposal has now been deleted. 4.12 In conclusion, this outline residential application has to be assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise. In this instance it is considered that a justification exists for departing from the approved zoning of the site for industrial purposes. All of the issues raised by consultees and third parties have been assessed and all detailed concerns raised can satisfactorily be covered by appropriate planning conditions. I welcome the opportunity to secure regeneration of this major site which is no longer required for industrial use, and consequently recommend approval of the application, subject to conditions and the prior completion of a Section 75 Legal Agreement on off-site road works which are required. Application No: S106I002291FUL

Date Registered: 16th March 2006

Applicant: Kevin Smith - A C Electrics Ltd Ravenshall Drive CI e Ia nd Motherwell MLI 5QL

Agent . The John Russell Partnership Anderson House Dundyvan Road Coatbridge ML5 IDB

Development: Erection of a One and a Half Storey Building for Storage and Office Use

Location: 6 Main Street Cleland Motherwell MLI 5QN

Ward: 19 Cleland Councillor James Martin

Grid Reference: 2801 30 658279

File Reference: SIPLIBI4114 (30)IGLlMM

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: The site is zoned for uses other than major industrial in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) zones the site for community uses.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (Conditions) Transco (Com ments) Scottish Power (No Response)

Representations: 2 letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 29th March 2006 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. S/06/00229ffUL ERECTION OF A ONE AND A HALF STOREY BUILDING FOR STORAGE AND OFFICE USE

6 MAIN STREET, CLELAND, MOTHERWELL * Representation Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004) policies IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) in that the proposed access is substandard in terms of width, is lacking in footway provision and that the proposed building would not have satisfactory vehicular manoeuvring, servicing and parking facilities to the detriment of road safety.

2. That the proposed development is contrary to Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004) policies IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) and HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in that the proposed building is unacceptable in terms of scale and design and would not sit comfortably in the context of it’s setting, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and that it would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the adjoining dwellinghouse by virtue of overbearing effects and loss of light.

Note to Committee:

It should be noted that an objector has requested that a site visit and hearing be conducted prior to the Committee’s determination of the application.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th February 2006

Memo from Transportation Section received 25th April 2006 Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 7th April 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 31st March 2006 Letter from British Gas received 3rd April 2006

Letters from Mr G Thomson,2 Main Street, Cleland, MLI 5QN received 20th February, 10th April and 26‘h April 2006. Letter from Robert D D Trotter,Lodge Murdostoun Castle No.1096, 7 Fir Place, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5RF received 22nd February 2006.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Liddell at 01698 302128.

Date:3 May 2006 APPLICATION NO. S1061002291FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This proposal is for the erection of a 1% storey storageloffice building for an electrician business at 6 Main Street, Cleland.

1.2 The application site consists of a single storey building facing onto Main Street, previously used as a doctor’s surgery. To the rear of this lies a small parking and grassed area. The surgery ceased operation approximately 2 years ago and has lain vacant during the intervening period. Access is via Thistle Street, a private road taken off Main Street, which also serves a number of other properties, including a Masonic Hall, Church and car repair garage. Associated with the garage is a small petrol filling station and Thistle Street also forms part of an in-out arrangement related to this operation. Thistle Street is surfaced although not to a high standard and is currently used as an access and for informal parking for the various adjoining land uses. The existing garage has a dedicated yard but also currently utilises Thistle Street for overspill parking on an informal basis. Thistle Street does not form part of the application site and title deeds submitted by the applicant show that it is not under their legal control.

1.3 The application site is relatively small and narrow (130 sq metres), spanning the former doctors surgery and associated ground to the rear. The Masonic lodge is situated to the north west, beyond which is the church. A single storey dwellinghouse lies to the north east. The boundary between the application site and this dwellinghouse is marked by a 1.8 metre high boundary fence. To the south west is Thistle Street and the adjacent car repair garage and petrol filling station beyond. The south east of the site is bounded by Main Street, with a bank and public house located opposite.

1.4 This proposal is to demolish the existing doctors surgery building and erect a 1% storey storage/office building for an electrician business. The design of the building has a gable facing Main Street beyond which it would extend 15 metres into the rear of the site. Dormer windows are proposed on the roof section which allows for first floor accommodation. The ground floor of the building comprises a large storage area with a roller shutter door providing direct access onto Thistle Street. The first floor consists of 4 offices and a reception area. The remainder of the application site is entirely taken up by two off-street car parking spaces, located between the rear of the building and the Masonic lodge. The applicant has detailed that the office would be occupied by a maximum of 2 members of staff. In addition, the building would be visited periodically by electricians at the start of the working day when materials are required, albeit they would not be formally based at the building.

2. Develo pmen t PIan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan policies.

2.2 The site is zoned for uses,other than major industrial in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) zones the site as Policy CS2 (Established Community Facilities). The adjoining areas are zoned HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and RTL9 (Other Commercial Uses).

2.3 Policies IND9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant. 3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has recommended that planning permission be refused for a number of reasons. Thi,stle Street is private in nature and has insufficient width at its narrowest point to allow 2 vehicles to pass each other. The road has no footway provision over its entire length and no scope to provide this. Thistle Street is further constrained by land beyond its termination, which is purely for patrons of the church and is unsuitable for commercial vehicles to manoeuvre when at full capacity. In relation to parking provision, it is noted that the applicant states that a maximum of two staff will be associated with the office element of the proposals, while workmen will visit the site periodically. However, neither of the 2 parking bays proposed are acceptable as they abut the proposed building which would result in vehicles manoeuvring from the bays with virtually no pedestrian of vehicle visibility. It is also a concern that while the applicant has stated that a maximum of 2 staff would occupy the building at any one time, the plans detail 4 individual offices.

3.2 Protective Services have commented that the design and operation of any air conditioninglventilation or other plant for the proposed development and any other noise associated with the completed development should be such as will not give rise to inappropriate noise levels.

3.3 Scottish Water have no objection subject to conditions on the control of surface water. Transo have identified the location of their apparatus in relation to the application site.

3.4 Two letters of representation have been received following neighbour notification procedures and the press advertisement for the application. These are from residents of an adjacent dwellinghouse and from the Masonic lodge. The concerns can be summarised as follows:

a) The proposals will restrictaccess and parking for the adjacent Masonic lodge; b) The proposed building is too high and will cause overshadowing to the side and rear of the adjacent dwellinghouse; c) Information relating to parking a drainage was not clearly detailed on the application plans.

It is noted that the objection from the adjacent dwellinghouse initially requested a site visit and hearing for the application. However, they have advised that this request may be considered as withdrawn if members are minded to refuse this application.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 In terms of the development plan, the application is not of strategic relevance and can therefore be assessed against the provisions of the Local Plan. The site is zoned for development purposes other than major industrial uses in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964, however, this plan is significantly out of date. The up-to-date policy position is that found in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) where the site is identified as a community facility covered by Policy CS2 (Established Community Facilities). This zoning reflects the previous use as a doctors surgery. The other relevant policies relating to this development proposal are IND9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development), HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and TRI 3 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development).

4.3 As stated above, the primary CS2 zoning of the site reflects the previous operation of a doctors surgery from the existing building, as well as the location of the Masonic lodge and Church to the rear. Policy CS2 seeks to resist the loss of such facilities where a shorfall in provision for that locality will result. Notwithstanding this zoning, it is accepted that the building has been vacant for approximately 2 years and has fallen into a state of disrepair. In this time no formal proposal has been submitted for a community use. Given the size and history of the site and taking into account the mix of uses in the vicinity (including the garage) I do not consider that the loss of the site for community purposes is significant, and consider that a business use would be acceptable ‘in principle’. Regard does however have to be given to how any such proposal could be integrated into the site, in terms of building dimensions and design, transportation requirements and impact on surrounding properties, particularly the more sensitive adjacent residential property.

4.4 Policy IND9 details criteria against which businesslindustry proposals should be assessed and includes; suitability to the character of the area within which the proposal is set, detailed design elements such as height, materials and positioning and the provisions made for servicing, access, vehicle circulation, manoeuvring and parking. Policy HSG8 is also important in relation to the adjacent residential property at 2 Main Street. Policy HSG8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with their residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of the area. This proposal replaces an existing single storey building (4.5 metres in height) with a 1% storey building (6 metres in height). Furthermore, the footprint of the building approximately doubles and extends almost the full length of the adjacent side garden boundary. No general amenity, yard or landscaped space is provided. The result of this increase in size is that the proposed building would not sit comfortably within the plot or in relation to the adjacent single storey dwellinghouse. The building would be dominant along the side garden boundary of 2 Main Street, extending the majority of this mutual common property boundary. Subsequently, I consider that the building would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact of the garden ground and rear bedroom window of the adjacent property. Tests have indicated that the proposal will have a significant impact on the daylight attributed to the adjacent dwellinghouse. I further consider that the design of the proposed building is also dominant and inappropriate for this prominent site, particularly in relation to the adjacent dwellinghouse which is a traditional single storey design. In this respect I consider the proposal to be contrary to policy IND9 and to the spirit and intentions of HSG8 in relation to protecting established residential areas. ~., 4.5 Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) also requires consideration to be given to parking, access and manoeuvring arrangements. Turning to these issues, my Transportation Section have several concerns and have recommended that the application be refused as detailed in paragraph 3.1 above. It is also a concern that while the applicant has stated that a maximum of 2 staff shall occupy the building at any one time, the plans detail 4 individual offices. This use could, therefore, clearly intensify outwith the control of the planning authority. I would also reiterate that Thistle Street is private and not part of the application site. This street is not in full legal control of the applicant and there is no guarantee how it will be used in the future. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal fails when assessed against transportation aspects of policy IND9 and against policy TRI 3. I do not consider there to be any conditions that could be imposed to render the proposal acceptable

4.6 In terms of consultation responses, comments raised by the Pollution Control Section could be addressed by the use of conditions to limit noise levels and hours of operation should planning permission be granted. If permission was to be granted a condition could be imposed to ensure appropriate surface water drainage. An advisory note could also be appended to any decision to advise of Transo’s comments.

4.7 In relation to the points raised in letters of objection, I would comment as follows:

(i) I agree that the proposals are likely to restrict parking and access to the adjacent Masonic lodge. The applicant is relying on the use of a shared private road for parking, access and manoeuvring over which he has no legal control. While the applicant has noted an agreement with the adjacent garage for additional parking, it was noted at the time of the site visit that the garage was already informally using Thistle Street for additional parking, including to the front of the Masonic lodge. Transportation issues are addressed in paragraph 4.6 above. (ii) I would agree that the proposed development would have an unacceptable overbearing affect on the adjacent dwellinghouse. These matters have been addressed in paragraph 4.5 above. (iii) Full details relating to drainage of the building could be addressed by way of a planning condition.

4.8 In conclusion, while the site is zoned for other community uses the proposed business use would be acceptable in principle, due to the length of time the site has been vacant and the mix of surrounding uses. However, the details proposals are considered to be unacceptable by virtue of their impact on the adjacent dwellinghouse, the overdevelopment of the site and severe problems in relation to parking, access, servicing and manoeuvrability, which are matters that I do not consider could be reconciled by planning conditions. I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused. Application No: S106/002881F UL

Date Registered: 13th March 2006

Applicant: John Fagan 19 Fir Grove New Stevensto n Motherwell Lanarkshire

Development: Change of Use from Open Space to Private Garden Ground (In Retrospect)

Location: 19 Fir Grove New Stevenston Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 5 New Stevenston And Carfin Councillor Helen McKenna

Grid Reference: 2761 02 658942

File Reference: S/PL/BF/5/57 (79) I LMUIMM

Site History: 231/95 Erection of 94 Houses (Wrangholm Hall, Jerviston Street, New Stevenston) Granted - 22nd August 1995. S104100507lFUL Conversion of an Integral Garage to a Habitable Room Granted - 25th May 2004.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as L3 (Protected Open Space) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Community Services Woodlands Manager (0bjections) Community Services Landscape Services Manager (Objections)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The development involves the loss to private garden ground of an area designated as protected open space and has an adverse impact upon the woodland buffer between the housing and Jerviston Street. It is therefore contrary to policies L3 and ENV 10 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21 st February 2006

Memo from Woodlands Manager, Community Services received 27'h April 2006 Memo from Landscape Services Manager, Community Services received 2"d May 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) Tree Preservation Orders within Southern Area

Planning Application Reference 231/95 Erection of 94 Houses (Wrangholm Hall, Jerviston Street, New Stevenston)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Laura Murray at 01698 302134

Date: 2 May 2006 APPLICATION NO. S/06/00288/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning permission in retrospect for the change of use from open space to private garden ground at 19 Fir Grove, New Stevenston, Motherwell. The applicant seeks planning permission for the extension of their rear garden into an existing protected open space area facing onto Jerviston Street and the erection of a 1.8 metre high boundary fence. The application site is an area of woodland open space located to the rear of an established residential area, which backs onto Jerviston Street, one of the main routes into New Stevenston.

1.2 The extended garden area will projects 8.85 metres from the existing boundary of the site and measures the width of the existing garden which is 10.1 metres.

1.3 Permission was granted on the 22nd August 1995 (Planning Application Reference 231/95) for the redevelopment of the site of Wrangholm Hall for residential purposes. The original permission granted for the applicant’s dwellinghouse was part of this application. The existing structural planting within the site was retained and is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

1.4 A report is also being presented to this committee on a further similar application at 20 Fir Grove (Application Reference S/06/00291/FUL).

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site lies within an area covered by Policy L3 (Protected Open Space) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy ENV 10 (Trees and Woodland Management) is also of relevance.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Woodlands Manager has recommended refusal of this application as the change of use from protected open space to private garden ground would result in a change of conditions which would have an adverse effect on the existing mature trees health and wellbeing. Such conditions include a change in soil level and reduction of readily available water due to the creation of lawns, paving, garden huts etc.

3.2 The Landscape Services Manager also raised concerns over the effect this application would have on the original buffer area between the public road and residential area. In addition, it is believed that the tranquillity of the remaining open space would be lost and the area of greenery would be reduced from a change of use of this type, which could further lead to a reduction in the wildlife in this area.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In assessing the application reference is given to the Development Plan and any other material considerations. In terms of the development plan context, the development is not of strategic significance and should be assessed against local plan policies.

4.2 The site lies within an area covered by Policy L3 (Protected Open Space) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), which seeks to protect such areas from development by resisting proposals which would have an adverse affect on them. This woodland is part of the original structural planting that surrounded the former Wrangholm Hall and is covered with a Tree Preservation Order (number 14). The Tree Preservation Order seeks to retain and protect the woodland from any lopping or felling without prior consent from this department. This application also requires to be assessed against Policy ENV 10 (Trees and Woodland Management) which requires that the Council encourage the protection and enhancement of woodland areas by resisting development proposals which could adversely affect woodland areas; promoting the planting of sustainable woodlands at appropriate locations; encourage the sustainable management of woodlands in accordance with a Woodland Management Plan; and declare Tree Preservation Orders where appropriate. This application would therefore be contrary to Policies L3 and ENV 10, both of which aim to protect and retain such woodland areas. The change of use of part of the woodland to private garden ground would lead to fragmentation of the woodland. The Woodlands Manager confirmed that there are 7 mature trees in the woodland area at the rear of 19 and 20 Fir Grove. The mature trees include 1 oak, 3 sycamore, 2 beech and 1 lime tree as well as 1 small birch tree and approximately 20 young seedlings in the vicinity. The Woodlands Manager recommended refusal of this application given that there would be a change in conditions if this area is altered to private garden ground. Such conditions would have an adverse effect on the trees health and wellbeing as this may lead to change in soil levels and reduction of readily available water from the construction of paths, creation of lawns, garden huts etc. These comments were further supported by the Landscape Services Manager who moreover raised concerns over the loss of tranquillity of the communal open space, the reduction in the area of greenery and the possible loss of wildlife in the area from such a change of use. Although the applicant has not indicated that the existing trees are to be felled, approval would no doubt lead to pressure to do so. Also, it is preferable that the trees be retained within the single ownership of the Greenbelt Company and to continue to be maintained by them rather than sold to individual private owners.

4.3 The history relating to this site is a further material consideration. The original planning permission for this residential development was granted in accordance with several conditions, including a request for a scheme of landscaping to be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority indicating details of all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained from the proposed development. This was to ensure that certain areas of shrubbery and mature trees from the original estate, which existed, be retained as they were originally planted to compliment the previous stately home. The woodland within which the application site is located was retained to help soften the appearance of the development from the public road to the west. This development itself erodes an area of this retained woodland to create private garden ground.

4.4 Although several other dwellinghouses have chosen to and have been granted permission to extend their gardens within this housing estate, such proposals were assessed on their individual merits and permission was granted on the basis that none of the garden extensions in question were located adjacent to the main road or had a significant impact upon the integrity of the woodland. Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for the extension of other gardens at this location. The cumulative effect of which would be to erode this important landscape buffer between the site and Jerviston Street. This is also visually unattractive from the main road to the west due to the now uneven garden boundaries caused by the unauthorised fence at this site and at the other site under consideration.

4.4 Taking all aspects into account, I consider that the change of use from protected open space to private garden ground results in the loss of an area of woodland that is an important area of protected open space. In that respect it is therefore contrary to Policies L3 and ENV 10 of the Finalised Draft Local Plan. It is considered that the woodland forms an important visual buffer and that enclosure of parts of it as private garden ground would be unacceptable in terms of visual impact and due to the precedent for further similar developments I therefore recommend that permission be refused. Application No: S/06/00291/FUL

Date Registered: 13th March 2006

Applicant: Liam Murphy 20-Fir Grove New Stevenston Motherwell Lanarkshire

Development: Change of Use of Open Space to Private Garden Ground

Location: 20 Fir Grove New Stevenston Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 5 New Stevenston And Carfin Councillor Helen McKenna

Grid Reference: 2761 02 658942

File Reference: SIPL/BF/5/57 I LMUlMM

Site History: 231/95 Erection of 94 Houses (Wrangholm Hall, Jerviston Street, New Stevenston) Granted - 22nd August 1995. S105/01 719lFUL Conversion of an Integral Garage to a Habitable Room Granted - 23rd November 2005.

The site is zoned as L3 (Protected Open Space) in the Southern Develop ment Plan : Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Community Services Woodlands Manager (Objections) Community Services Landscape Services Manager (Objections)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The development involves the loss to private garden ground of an area designated as protected open space and has an adverse impact upon the woodland buffer between the housing and Jerviston Street. It is therefore contrary to policies L3 and ENV 10 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). ---J Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21 st February 2006

Memo from Woodlands Manager, Community Services received 27'h April 2006 Memo from Landscape Services Manager, Community Services received 2ndMay 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Tree Preservation Orders within Southern Area

Planning Application Reference 231/95 Erection of 94 Houses (Wrangholm Hall, Jerviston Street, New Stevenston)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Laura Murray at 01698 3021 34.

Date: 2 May 2006 APPLICATION NO. S/06/00291/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning permission in retrospect for the change of use from open space to private garden ground at 19 Fir Grove, New Stevenston, Motherwell. The applicant seeks planning permission for the extension of their rear garden into an existing protected open space area facing onto Jerviston Street and the erection of a 1.8 metre high boundary fence. The application site is an area of woodland open space located to the rear of an established residential area, which backs onto Jerviston Street, one of the main routes into New Stevenston.

1.2 The extended garden area will projects 9.1 metres from the existing boundary of the site and measures the width of the existing garden which is 10.1 metres.

1.3 Permission was granted on the 22nd August 1995 (Planning Application Reference 231195) for the redevelopment of the site of Wrangholm Hall for residential purposes. The original permission granted for the applicant’s dwellinghouse was part of this application. The existing structural planting within the site was retained and is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

1.4 A report is also being presented to this committee on a further similar application at 19 Fir Grove (Application Reference S/06/00288/FUL). This application is in retrospect at the 1.8 metre boundary fence has already been erected at the rear of 19 Fir Grove along the proposed extended garden boundary.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site lies within an area covered by Policy L3 (Protected Open Space) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). Policy ENV 10 (Trees and Woodland Management) is also of relevance.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Woodlands Manager has recommended refusal of this application as the change of use from protected open space to private garden ground would result in a change of conditions which would have an adverse effect on the existing mature trees health and wellbeing. Such conditions include a change in soil level and reduction of readily available water due to the creation of lawns, paving, garden huts etc.

3.2 The Landscape Services Manager also raised concerns over the effect this application would have on the original buffer area between the public road and residential area. In addition, it is believed that the tranquillity of the remaining open space would be lost and the area of greenery would be reduced from a change of use of this type, which could further lead to a reduction in the wildlife in this area.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In assessing the application reference is given to the Development Plan and any other material considerations. In terms of the development plan context, the development is not of strategic significance and should be assessed against local plan policies. The site lies within an area covered by Policy L3 (Protected Open Space) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), which seeks to protect such areas from development by resisting proposals which would have an adverse affect on them. This woodland is part of the original structural planting that surrounded the former Wrangholm Hall and is covered with a blanket Tree Preservation Order (number 14). The Tree Preservation Order seeks to retain and protect the woodland from any lopping or felling without prior consent from the department. Within this proposed site more specifically, Tree Preservation Order number TO9 covers a specific “Acer Pseudoplatanus” tree. In addition, this application should be assessed against Policy ENV 10 (Trees and Woodland Management) which requires that the Council encourage the protection and enhancement of woodland areas by resisting development proposals which could adversely affect woodland areas; promoting the planting of sustainable woodlands at appropriate locations; encourage the sustainable management of woodlands in accordance with a Woodland Management Plan; and declare Tree Preservation Orders where appropriate. This application would therefore be contrary to both policies. Policy L3 and Policy ENV 10 aim to protect and retain such woodland areas. The Woodlands Manager confirmed that there are 7 mature trees in the woodland area at the rear of 19 and 20 Fir Grove. The mature trees include 1 oak, 3 sycamore, 2 beech and 1 lime tree as well as 1 small birch tree and approximately 20 young seedlings in the vicinity. The Woodlands Manager recommended refusal of this application given that there would be a change in conditions if this area is altered to private garden ground. Such conditions would have an adverse effect on the trees health and wellbeing as this may lead to change in soil levels and reduction of readily available water from the construction of paths, creation of lawns, garden huts etc. These comments were further supported by the Landscape Services Manager who moreover raised concerns over the loss of tranquillity of the communal open space, the reduction in the area of greenery and the possible loss of wildlife in the area from such a change of use. Although the applicant has not indicated that the trees are to be felled, approval would no doubt lead to pressure to do so. Also, it is preferable that the trees be retained within the single ownership of the Greenbelt Group and to continue to be maintained by them rather than sold to individual private owners.

4.2 The history relating to this site is a further material consideration. The original planning permission for this residential development was granted in accordance with several conditions, including a request for a scheme of landscaping to be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority indicating details of all existing trees and hedgerows to be retained from the proposed development. This was to ensure that certain areas of shrubbery and mature trees from the original estate, which existed, be retained as they were originally planted to compliment the previous stately home. The woodland within which the application site is located was retained to help soften the appearance of the development from the public road to the west. This development itself erodes an area of this retained woodland to create private garden ground.

4.3 Although several other dwellinghouses have chosen to and have been granted permission to extend their gardens within this housing estate, such proposals were assessed on their individual merits and permission was granted on the basis that none of the garden extensions in question were located adjacent to the main road or had a significant impact upon the integrity of the woodland. Approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for the extension of other gardens at this location. The cumulative effect of which would be to erode this important landscape buffer between the site and Jerviston Street. This is also visually unattractive from the main road to the west due to the now uneven garden boundaries caused by the unauthorised fence at this site and at the other site under consideration.

4.4 Taking all aspects into account, I consider that the change of use from protected open space to private garden ground results in the loss of an area of woodland that is an important area of protected open space. In that respect it is therefore contrary to Policies L3 and ENV 10 of the Finalised Draft Local Plan. It is considered that the woodland forms an important visual buffer and that enclosure of parts of it as private garden ground would be unacceptable in terms of visual impact and due to the precedent for further similar developments I therefore recommend that permission be refused. Application No: S/06/00415/FUL

Date Registered: 27th March 2006

Applicant: Punch Taverns Jubilee House Burton On Trent

Agent David Stables Mast Architecture And Design Ltd Park Lane House 47 Broad Street Glasgow

Development: Erection of External Smoking ArealBeer Garden and New Entrance Vestibule

Location: The Cascade Public House 400 Coltness Road Coltness Wishaw

Ward: 10 Coltness Councillor Ernest Holloway

Grid Reference: 2801 50 656863

File Reference: S/PL/BF/4/6 (121 )

Site History: S/06/00407/ADV Installation of New Fascia and Amenity Board Signage. Application Under Consideration.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as RTL9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) and Policies RTLI 1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) also apply).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Not Required

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: 12th April 2006

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions :-

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

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

2. That no music shall be allowed in the exterior smoking area/beer garden as shown on the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining area.

3. That details of the proposed awning shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the start of works on site.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and as these details have yet to be submitted.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 14th March 2006.

Memo from NLC Transportation Manager received 7'h April 2006 Memo from NLC Head of Protective Services received 7'h April 2006

Planning Advice Note PAN 56 Planning and Noise (1999) Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004).

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Fraser Miller at 01698 302087. APPLICATION NO. S/06/00415/FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I Detailed planning permission is sought for the formation of a new main entrance vestibule and a beer gardenlexternal smoking area to the rear of the Cascade Public House, 400 Coltness Road, Coltness, Wishaw. The application site is situated in a small commercial area on Coltness Road adjacent to a convenience store and is bounded by dwellings to the north east, flatted dwellings to the south east, a convenience store to the south, and by a car park to the west with Webster Power Products and open space beyond on the opposite side of Coltness Road.

1.2 It is proposed to erect a 2.1 metre high timber fence around an area with an overall floorspace of 32.5 square metres in the service yard area at the rear of the public house which is accessed from Minto Park, off Maxton Crescent. A wall mounted awning is proposed to project over approximately a third of the smoking arealbeer garden to provide shelter from adverse weather. It is proposed to gain access to the beer gardenlsmoking area via a small lobby area at the rear of the public house. A new solid core external door will be fitted to reduce noise emanating from the public house into the proposed smoking area. It is also proposed to include an emergency exit on the timber fence into the service yard area. In addition the application seeks consent for minor alterations to the front of the public house through the formation of a new entrance vestibule to replace the existing entrance to the public house.

1.3 It should be noted that this application has been submitted in response to the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 which came into force on the 26th March 2006.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy RTL9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004). This policy states that the Council will accept the continuation of such uses. Policies RTLI 1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) are also applicable.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section have recommended that the application be refused as the existing rear service and loading area would be reduced in size due to the proposed beer gardenlsmoking area which would not allow the largest vehicle likely to serve the site to manoeuvre and loadlunload within.

3.2 My Protective Services Section have advised that the proposal may give rise to noise complaints from surrounding residents. However it has been recommended that that if consent is to be granted then:

(a) no piped music is allowed in the smoking area (b) the use of the smoking area be limited to 10pm; and (c) that double doors be incorporated at the entrance to the area to minimise transmission of music outdoors.

3.3 No letters of objection have been received following the press advertisement and neighbour notification procedures. 4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 It should be noted that the application raises no strategic issues and therefore only needs to be assessed against the relevant detailed policies of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004), and any other relevant material considerations.

4.2 Policy RTLS (Other Commercial Uses) states that the Council will accept the continuation of such “other commercial uses”. The applicant proposes to erect an external area for customers to utilise as a beer gardenlsmoking area and undertake external alterations as opposed to changing the use of the premises. The main use of the site as a public house would not be altered as such it is considered that the application complies with Policy RTLS.

4.3 Policy RTLI 1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) recognises that Town Centres and other Commercial Areas are the preferred location for many uses, including public houses, which are classed as bad neighbour development. The relevant criteria of this policy which need assessment for the current application are the impact on the character and amenity of adjoining properties and the surrounding environment, design and any impact on servicing and parking. The application site is located within a local commercial area and the nearest residential dwelling is located approximately 20 metres from the proposed beer gardenlsmoking area. However, given the existence of the public house at the site, and the fact that the beer gardenlsmoking area will be screened by the proposed 2.1 metre high timber fence and the existing wall and gates around the service area it could be argued that any additional impact upon residential amenity from the proposed development would be marginal. It is also relevant to note that, even without the proposed development, customers of the public house could utilise the public footpath at the front and side of the building as a place to smoke, and the containment of these activities within a designated area to the rear of the premises may be preferable. It is further considered that the design of the proposal would not adversely affect the visual amenity of the neighbouring properties and it compliments the style of the existing building. A roof has not been proposed for the smoking area as under the requirements of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act any area wholly or partially enclosed is covered by the smoking ban -in public places. Furthermore the beer gardenlsmoking area is not proposed to form a new entrancelexit to the public bar, although an emergency exit from the area is proposed, to meet Health and Safety requirements.

4.4 In assessing the transportation implications of a development, Policy TR13 is a material consideration and states that the Council will take account of criteria: including; the impact of the development on road traffic circulationlroad safety and the provision made for access, parking, vehicle manoeuvring and access for all. As indicated in paragraph 3.1 above my Transportation Section object to the application. However the applicant has stated that there is only one weekly delivery to the site, between the hours of Ilam and Ipm on Wednesdays, which at present parks to the rear of the public house on the public road, a practice which although not ideal will not change as a result of the proposals. In addition the applicant has advised that the refuse from the public house is collected from the roadside as well. The existing service yard is not large enough to accommodate the refuse vehicles or the delivery lorry. However, part of the service yard will be retained and will be able to be accessed by smaller vehicles. In the light of this, I do not consider there would be any significant adverse effect on road safety. Overall, I am satisfied that the requirements of Policy TRI 3 are satisfied.

4.5 In relation to the comments made by my Protective Services Section, I can advise that an entrance lobby containing double doors has been incorporated in order to reduce noise emanating from the public house. In respect of the requirements for music not to be piped into the smoking area, I can confirm that this can be controlled by a planning condition. However, I would advise against a planning condition restricting the use of the smoking area to 10pm as it is considered that it would not be reasonable and would be difficult to enforce. Furthermore customers of the public house would be able to utilise the public footpath at the front and side of the building as a place to smoke. However it should be noted that any time restrictions to be applied would be assessed by the Council’s Licensing Section.

4.6 Relevant government advice concerning this application is contained in Planning Advice Note PAN 56 Planning and Noise. This states in its paragraph 66 that a wide range of statutory powers to control noise exist outside the planning system and the granting of planning permission does not remove the need to comply with these. It recommends that applicants be advised that the grant of planning permission will not necessarily protect them from legal action on noise, and I would recommend that a note be included on any consent granted, to this effect.

4.7 As detailed above the proposed beer gardedexternal smoking area at this long established public house is considered to be in accordance with Local Plan Policy RTLS. The design of the proposed smoking arealbeer garden and the external alterations are acceptable. The impact of the development on surrounding neighbours is considered to be insufficient to warrant refusal given the current use of the site as a public house. It is also of note that no third party objections have been received in relation to this application. On balance I consider that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of Policy RTLll and Policy TR13. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. Application No: S/06/00424/FUL

Date Registered: 2nd March 2006

Applicant: QS Developments I0Shore Road Skermorlie Ayrshire PA17 5FY

Agent Mclnally Assocaites Ltd 6 Newton Place Glasgow G3 7PR

Development: Subdivision and Partial Change of Use of Vacant Retail Warehouse Unit to Hot Food Takeaway Plus External Alterations to Unit

Location: Unit 1 126 Airbles Road Motherwell North Lanarkshire MLI 2TQ

Ward: 11 Watsonville Councillor Alan Valentine

Grid Reference: 275480656201

File Reference: S/PL/B/I 2/23/G L/MM

Site History: S/01/00179/FUL Erection of Retail Units with Associated Parking Approved 16th May 2001

S/99/01118/OUT Erection General Retail Store (in Outline) Refused 17th November 1999

Development Plan: The site is zoned for residential use in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 & 2004) zones the site as RTL9 Other Commercial Areas.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None carried out

Representations: 6 letters of representation and one petition containing 50 signatures received Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 23rd March 2006

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal is contrary to policies RTLI (Retail Development), RTL4 (Assessing Applications for Retail Development), RTL9 (Other Commercial Areas), RTLI 1 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development), HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft in that the development is contrary to the Council’s aim of directing such development to the town centre or secondary retail areas, would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the adjoining residential area by virtue of noise and general disturbance through the introduction of an inappropriate use to the area and would encourage pedestrians to cross a busy dual carriageway and encourage on-street parking, to the detriment of highway safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd March 2006 Letters from Mclnally Associates received 21st April and 28th April 2006

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 21 st April 2006 and 2nd May 2006 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 21 st April 2006

Letter from Councillor Alan Valentine, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell, MLI ITW received 31st March 2006. Letter from Mr & Mrs A Spence, 156 Camp Street, Motherwell, MLI 1UG received 13th April 2006. Letter from Mrs Moira Nicholson, 168 Camp Street, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, MLI 1UG received 18th April 2006. Letter from Mr & Mrs T Mackin, 164 Camp Street, Motherwell, MLI 1UG received 18th April 2006. Letter from Mrs A Valentine, 148 Camp Street, Motherwell, MLI 1 UG received 24th April 2006 Letter from Mr A Djuritscher, 152 Camp Street, Motherwell, MLI 1UG received 24th April 2006 Petition containing 50 signatures received from Jean McVie, 131 Ravens Court, Camp Street, Motherwell received 2nd May 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Liddell at 01698 302128.

Date: 3 May 2006 APPLlCATlO N N0. S1061004241FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This proposal is for the sub-division and part change of use of a vacant commercial unit, (previously used as a plant hire outlet) to a Class 1 retail unit and hot food take away. Potential end users have been identified as a mobile phone shop and pizza take away.

1.2 The premises, Unit 1 126 Airbles Road, Motherwell, is the first of three commercial units forming part of a larger building. Units 2 and 3 are currently in operation as decorating and tile outlets. All three units are served by a communal access taken off Airbles Road to the west of the site with a communal car parking area to the rear. Currently, all of the unit entrances are to the rear of the building, accessed from the car park with no public access taken from Airbles Road. The applicant owns the entire building.

1.3 This proposal is to subdivide Unit 1 to form two separate smaller units. The front section would be used as a Class 1 retail outlet with a dedicated entrance created on the side elevation of the existing building. The rear section would be used as a hot food take-away with alterations to the existing shopfront. The applicant proposes to utilise the existing access and parking provision and to provide a formalised footpath to the proposed new side entrance.

1.4 The existing units lie within a wider area of mixed uses. There are flatted dwellings to the north on Camp Street, sheltered housing to the east and a church (The Kings Centre) to the west. The site is bounded to the south by Airbles Road, a busy dual-carriageway, which is the main arterial route through the town. On the other side of Airbles Road is a petrol filling station, Kwik Fit and some further flatted dwellings. The perimeter of the site, other than the frontage to Airbles Road, is marked by a 1.8 metre high fence.

1.5 A supporting letter has been submitted by the applicant detailing that the specific hot food use is for a pizza take away and that it would differ to other hot food uses in that cooking is carried out in closed ovens. It is also contended that 75% of custom is expected to be through deliveries and that the busiest time would be in the evening when the other businesses would be closed and the car park could be fully utilised.

1.6 It is useful at this stage to briefly consider the history of the site. Originally a petrol filling station, after a period of lying vacant, permission was granted for development of the site for the commercial units currently in use. This permission specifically restricted the type of retail allowed i.e. for trade type uses including plant hire, plumbing and tile centres and not for general Class 1 retail. Hours of operation were also restricted to prevent evening trade.

1.7 Prior to this consent, in 1999 outline planning permission was sought for a retail outlet (general store). This was refused as it was contrary to the Council’s retail policy which aims to direct such development to town centres. Additionally, it was felt that the development would encourage pedestrians to cross a busy dual carriageway to the detriment of highway safety.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan policies.

2.2 The site is zoned for residential use in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) zones the site as Policy RTLS (Other Commercial Uses). The adjoining area is zoned HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).

2.3 Policies RTLl (Retail Development), RTL 4 (Assessing Applications for Retail Development), RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development, HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and TRI 3 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has recommended that planning permission be refused as the proposed uses will encourage on street parking and pedestrian movement across a busy dual carriageway. Furthermore, the pedestrian route within the application site is sub-standard at the junction with Airbles Road.

3.2 Protective Services have commented that the proposal should have an adequate mechanical ventilation system and all noise generated from this system should be within Environmental Health guidelines. It is also noted that cooking odours should be controlled to ensure no nuisance to local residents.

3.3 Six letters of representation and a petition containing 50 signatures have been received following neighbour notification procedures and the press advertisement of the application. These are from residents of flatted dwellings on Camp Street and one letter of objection has been received from the Local Councillor. The concerns can be summarised as follows:

a) The site is located on a main dual carriageway and the possibility of pedestrians crossing, particularly at night and under the influence of alcohol is unacceptable; b) The junction is unsuitable for vehicles turning out and in at night; c) The proposal will encourage on-street parking on the busy Airbles Road and on Camp Street; d) The introduction of a late night activity where currently there are none will have an adverse affect on the amenity of local residents with respect to noise levels. This will affect an area where a number of elderly people live; including a sheltered housing complex; e) Loitering and littering associated with the hot food takeaway; f) There are more than sufficient hot food take-aways in the area, another is not required; and g) Site is more suitable for a specialist unit.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 In terms of the development plan, the application is not of strategic relevance and can therefore be assessed against the provisions of the Local Plan. The site is zoned for residential purposes in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964, however, this plan is significantly out of date. The up-to-date policy position is that found in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004) where the site is identified as a commercial area covered by Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Areas). Policy RTLS accepts the continuation of established commercial uses and requires changes of use or proposed new uses to be considered in light of other relevant policies and compatibility with surrounding land uses.

4.3 The relevant policies relating to this development proposal are RTLI, RTL4, RTLI 1, HSG8 and TR13. Policy RTLI (Retail Development) seeks to direct lesser retail development to town centres, village, neighbourhood and secondary commercial areas. Policy RTL 4 (Assessing Applications for Retail Development) details criteria against which retail development proposals should be assessed and includes; the effect on the vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, the availability of suitable alternative sites in or around town centres, the provisions made for vehicular access & parking and the proposal’s impact on pedestrian safety and traffic circulation. Policy RTL 11 (Bad Neighbour Developments) is also relevant in assessing the hot food take away element of the proposal. This policy sets out the criteria for assessing all bad neighbour developments and the main points include; the provision for vehicle access and parking; access for pedestrians; the resultant mix of retail and non-retail use; and the fundamental impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. In terms of transportation issues, Policy TRI 3 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) also requires consideration to be given to parking and access arrangements. Land directly to the rear of the application site is zoned HSG8 (Established Housing Areas). This policy seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing incompatible development that would have adverse effects.

4.4 The RTL 9 policy zoning reflects the site’s previous use as a petrol filling station and the current restricted uses operating from the building. The ‘Other Commercial Areas’ zoning relates to land uses that are not easily categorised such as, garages, petrol filling stations etc. While the current units at this location are a form of retail, the previous permission restricts the outlets specifically to the sale of tiles, timber, flooring, hardware, plumbing, electrical goods and plant hire and for no other general Class 1 retail use. This form of specialist retail was considered acceptable in that the units would not have an adverse impact on the vitality of existing shopping centres and would not attract pedestrian movement, particularly across the busy Airbles Road. A restriction on opening hours also exists to prevent evening trade which could be detrimental to the residential amenity of nearby properties. The site does not form part of any town centre, retail core or secondary, village or neighbourhood commercial area and in line with RTL 9, the proposals therefore require to be assessed against policies RTLI, RTL4 and RTLI 1. It is also necessary to consider policy HSG8 given the proximity of an established housing area to the rear of the site.

4.5 In relation to the proposed retail unit, I consider that permitting this general Class 1 shop would be contrary to the aims of policy RTLI. The current type of retail permitted from the site is restricted as detailed in paragraph 4.4, whereas this proposal includes a relatively standard form of town centre retailing. The site is not located within the town centre nor is it defined as any form of secondary, village or neighbourhood commercial area. The Council through its retail policies seeks to enhance established shopping centres by directing retail development to these areas and restricting such uses elsewhere. Subsequently, I consider that permitting the proposed uses within this unit would have an indirect adverse effect on the established retail centre and would set an undesirable precedent for possible future uses of the remaining units and for similar developments elsewhere, the cumulative effect of which would be to undermine the aims of policy RTLI. No justification has been provided to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites in or around Motherwell town centre for the proposed Class 1 use and I remain unconvinced that this is the case. I note at this stage the earlier refusal of planning permission for a general store for the reasons detailed above. The traffic issues relating to the proposal will be considered under assessment of the application against policy TRI 3.

4.6 Turning to the hot food element of the proposals reference is given to policy RTLII and to policy HSG8 in relation to the proximity of the adjacent residential area. The unit is located 40 metres from flatted dwellings and sheltered housing on Camp Street. Furthermore, located to the rear of the existing building, the unit would face towards the established housing area. Although at a slightly higher level and separated from Camp Street by a fence I am concerned at the proximity of the site to the adjacent residential properties, particularly as the existing car park that lies immediately adjacent to Camp Street would be used for customer parking. This proposal introduces a late night hot food use where currently there are none and delivery vehicles and members of the public visiting the shop via pedestrian routes or by car are likely to result in increased levels of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenity of the surrounding residents. It should be noted that the existing uses on the site have restricted operating hours, which were imposed to protect adjoining residents. Given that the site is not defined as a town centre, or a secondary, village or neighbourhood commercial area and that the current outlets are restricted in terms of type and opening hours; and taking into account the proximity of nearby residential properties I consider this to be an inappropriate location for a hot food take away. The applicants supporting information suggests that the impact would be less than a normal hot-food takeaway as the identified end user would be ’Domino’s Pizza’. While this operator may potentially have a higher level of home deliveries they do not operate on a delivery only basis and delivery vehicles would still create noise and disturbance. In addition I do not consider that it would be reasonable or acceptable to impose a condition to grant permission on a personal basis. While each application should be considered on it’s individual merits I am also concerned that permitting a hot-food take away at this location would set an undesirable precedent on how the other units might be used in the future.

4.7 Turning to transportation issues, my Transportation Section have several concerns and have recommended that the application be refused as detailed in paragraph 3.1. Following submission of additional comment by the applicant serious concerns still remain. The type of units proposed are likely to attract pedestrian movement, including across the busy Airbles Road where currently there are no adequate crossing facilities. The geometry of the central reservation at this location is also such that that it is not capable of accommodating a formal pedestrian crossing. The provision of a central island hard-standing would however not change the need for pedestrians to cross 2 carriageways. Airbles Road is a busy B classed dual carriageway distributor road subject to a speed limit. Although it is claimed that 30% of customers would actually visit the premises there still remains concern over road safety aspects since in the last few months a fatal accident involving a pedestrian has taken place in the vicinity. Concerns have’ also been expressed that the proposed units may encourage on-street parking on a very busy section of Airbles Road dual carriageway causing an obstruction to traffic flows to the detriment of road safety. Waiting restrictions currently exist on this stretch of road highlighting the importance of keeping this designated traffic route clear. Finally, the junction of the internal pedestrian footway with Airbles Road is substandard although there should be scope to rectify this deficiency. Although off street parking exists and the proposed hot food takeaway would be located at the rear of the site 1 do not consider that conditions could be imposed to satisfactorily resolve all of these concerns. In this respect, and taking into account paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6, the application is contrary to policies RTL4, RTI 1, HSG8 and TRI 3.

4.8 In terms of other consultation responses, the Pollution Control Section raised no concerns relating to noise except that generated from the ventilation system and a condition could be imposed to address the matter if permission was granted. They also recommended that cooking odours be controlled in order that they do not become a nuisance to local residents.

4.9 In relation to the points raised in letters of objection, I would comment as follows:

(i) I agree that the proposal is likely to adversely affect pedestrian and road safety. These matters are addressed in paragraph 4.7 above. (ii) I support the concerns raised in the points relating to impact on the existing residential area. These matters are covered in paragraph 4.6 above. (iii) Lack of demand for a hot food take away at this location is not a material planning consideration. (iv) I would concur with the view that the site is more suited to a specialist outlet such as those currently operating from the building. The present planning approval for the existing units reflects this position.

4.10 In conclusion, while the site is zoned for other commercial uses, the site is not located within the town centre or any defined neighbourhood shopping centre, nor is it considered to constitute a general retail area by virtue of the outlets currently operating. While there is a form of retail operating from the site this is restricted in terms of type and hours of operation. Draft local plan policies require the sort of retail uses proposed to be directed to identified retail areas. It is considered that the introduction of a hot food takeaway at this location would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the adjoining properties by virtue of general noise and disturbance generated by the unit. The transportation and pedestrian access implications of both units is also unacceptable. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the policies contained in the draft local plan. In view of this and the objections received it is recommended that permission be refused.