Lanarkshire Council

AGENDA ITEM No. l.ll...... -3

North Lanarkshire Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee

Committee Date : !jthFebruary 2008

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

1 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE !jthFebruary 2008

Page Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation No 6 N10710044510UT UK Select Property Residential Development Grant Partnership Carradale Crescent Broadwood Cumbernauld

12 N/07/00755/FUL Gladedale (Central Construction of 175 Houses Grant Scotland) Ltd. and Flats Smithstone 5 Cumbernauld

20 N/O7/01902/FUL A. G. Barr Plc Erection of a 50 metre High Grant Wind Monitoring Mast Mollins Road Cumbernauld

24 N/07/01904/FUL Mr. & Mrs. Gilmour Erection of a Conservatory Grant 18 Rannoch Lane Moodiesburn

29 N/07/01976/FUL Mr. D. McLeod Extension to a House Grant 16 Glen Orchy Place Cumbernauld.

34 C/06/01202/OUT NHS Lanarkshire Re-Development of Former Grant NHS Hospital for Residential Use (In Outline) Incorporating the Retention of FaCade of Hospital Building at Alexander Hospital, Blair Road, Coatbridge

43 C/07/01088/REM Mr & Mrs B Hopkins Erection of 14 Grant Dwellinghouses at Request for Site Glengowan House, Visit & Hearing Gowanbrae, Caldercruix

50 C/07/01417/FUL Mr James Lannigan Construction of Refuse Dwellinghouse at 1 Airdriehill Street, Airdrie

56 C/07/01530/OUT Banks Residential Development (in Refuse (P) Developments outline) at Land North of Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coltswood Road, Coatbridge

62 C/07/01532/0UT Banks Residential Development (in Refuse (P) Developments outline) at Land at Blacklands, Hollandhurst Road, Gartsherrie, Coatbridge

2 68 C/07/01540/FUL North Lanarkshire Demolition of 126-130 Main Grant Council Street and Construction of 8038 m2 Five Storey Public Building for NHS Services and North Lanarkshire Council (including Bank, Registrars Office and Public Library) at 126 -130 Main Street, Coatbridge, ML5 3BJ

79 C/07/01605/FUL North Lanarkshire Formation of Tiered Car Grant Council Park (Ancillary to Proposed Request for Site Development at 126-130 Visit & Hearing Main Street : Planning Application C/07/01540/FUL) at Land to South of High Coats Flats, Main Street, Coatbridge

89 C/07/01777/FUL Mr and Mrs A Eyles Side and Rear Extension to Grant Dwellinghouse at 21 Golfview Drive, Drumpellier, Coatbridge

94 C/07/01804/FUL T-Mobile (UK) Ltd Installation of 12metre High Refuse Telecommunication Mast and Associated Equipment Boxes at Land at East High Street, Airdrie

100 C/O7/01810/FUL Mr & Mrs A Two Storey Side Extension Grant Anderson to Dwellinghouse at 15 Rochsoles Crescent Thrashbush Airdrie

105 C/07/01832/FUL Swinton Group Change of Use from Class 1 Grant (Shop) to Class 2 (Insurance Brokers) at Unit 21, Quadrant Shopping Centre, Main Street, Coatbridge

110 C/07/01875/FUL Link Group Ltd Construction of 20 Grant (P) Dwellinghouses & 16 Two Storey Flats at Chapelhall Primary School Gibb Street, Chapelhall

117 C/O7/01888/FUL Mr Thomas McClure Two Storey Development Grant Comprising 6 Flats Request for Site Land south of 56 Lauchope Visit & Hearing Street, Chapelhall

126 C/07/02032/FUL T Mobile (UK) Ltd Siting of Telecoms Mast at Grant Land North Of 103 Cairnhill Road, Airdrie

3 131 S/07/01295/FUL Mr & Mrs D Wilson Erection of Two Storey Refuse Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse 57 Lincoln Avenue, Uddingston

136 S/07/01361/FUL Newhouse Construction of Office Grant Investments Building The Nursery Bungalow, Motherwell Road, Newhouse

144 S/07/01494/FUL lan Telfer Construction of Replacement Grant Dwellinghouse Mill House Allanton Mill, Old Mill Road, Shotts

150 S/07/01 6861F U L N LC Environmenta I Change of Use From Car Grant Services Park to Landscaped Bed Car Park at Witcutt Way, Netherton

156 S/07/01805/AMD Transform Schools Extensions to Approved Grant School (Amendment to Previous Permission S/05/02029/FUL) St Ignatius' Primary School And Wishaw Academy Loch Park

161 S/07/O1890/FUL Anthony Smith Erection of Two Storey Grant Extension to the Side of Request for Site Dwellinghouse Visit 28 Morris Crescent, Cleland

166 S/07/0195O/FUL Mr G Bavaird & Mr R Subdivision of Public House Grant Codona for use as Betting Office 21 Muir Street, Motherwell

172 S/07/01964/FUL Mr Connelly Erection of a Single Storey Grant Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse 17 Hillfoot Gardens, Uddingston

177 S/07/01986/FUL Mr Mohammed Change of Use from Shop to Refuse Fast Food Ta keaway/Restauran t 7 Stewarton Street, Wishaw

4 182 S/07/02048/FUL Punch Taverns Ltd Subdivision of Public House Grant and Change of Use to Create a Bookmakers 259 Netherton Road, Wishaw

C/07/01530/OUT If granted, refer to Scottish Ministers (Contrary to Policy) C/07/01532/0UT If granted, refer to Scottish Ministers (Contrary to Policy) C/07/01875/FUL If granted, Section 69 Agreement required, refer to Scottish Ministers (Council Interest)

5 Application No: N/07/00445/OUT

Date Registered: 19th March 2007

Applicant: UK Select Property Partnership Clo Knight Frank LLP 120 Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 7JS

Agent Knight Frank LLP 120 Bothwell Street GlasgowG2 7JS

Development: Residential Development

Location: Land Adjacent to Broadwood Business Park Carradale Crescent Broadwood Cumbernauld

Ward: 2 - Cumbernauld North : Councillors Chadha, McCulloch, Murray & O'Brien Grid Reference: 272642 673813

File Reference: N/07/00445/OUT

Site History:

Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 : Business & Industry

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: West of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objections) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) Strathclyde Police (Comments)

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 28th March 2007

Recommendation : Approve, Subject to the Following Conditions :-

I. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within five years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the date on 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.

6 -!Am

7 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 layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (c) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (d) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (c) above; (f) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (9) the phasing of the development (h) the provision of drainage works (i)the disposal of sewage;

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

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

5. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 4, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

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

6. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled 'Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

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

8 7. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 6; shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

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

8. Notwithstanding the terms of Conditions 6 and 7, a Flood Risk Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Flood Risk Assessment must take account of Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP 7) : Planning & Flooding and Planning Advice Note 69 (PAN 69) : Planning & Building Standards Advice on Flooding.

Reason: In order that the Planning Authority might be satisfied that the proposed development will not give rise to flooding within the application site and will not increase the flood risk elsewhere.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 19 March 2007

Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 16'h April 2007 Letters from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 7th May & 4'h October 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 2"' & 2 1'' May 2007 Letter from Strathclyde Police received 23" April 2007

Memos from Local Plans Section received 1Oth May, 5'h July & 1Oth October 2007 Memo from Traffic and Transportation (Northern Area)

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Mary Hogg at 01236 616459. Date: 28'h January 2008.

9 APPLICATION NO. N/07/00445/OUT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I The application site is a 0.9ha. plot of undeveloped land within the Broadwood Business Park at Carradale Crescent, Cumbernauld. It is adjacent to a housing estate currently under construction by the Walker Group.

1.2 Planning consent is sought for the principle of residential development, and no further details are available.

2. DeveloPment Plan

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

2.2 The site is covered by Policy 167 - New Industrial Areas, in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The site is one of a number identified for new industrial / business development.

3. Consultations

3.1 My Traffic & Transportation and Geotechnical Sections have no objections, subject to conditions.

3.2 My Protective Services Section has requested that a site investigation survey assessment be submitted. This can be dealt with by a planning condition.

3.3 West of Scotland Archaeology Service has no objections.

3.4 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has no objections in principle provided that measures relating to foul drainage, surface water drainage, flooding and construction and pollution control measures are satisfied. These matters can be dealt with through planning conditions.

3.5 Scottish Water has confirmed that there is capacity at the relevant Water Treatment and Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate the proposed development. SW will deal directly with the developer relative to any improvements which might be required to the pipework infrastructure.

3.6 Strathclyde Police have raised some concerns about traffic management on match days at Broadwood Stadium. This issue will be dealt with by the police and the Stadium Company in the usual way.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusion

10 4.2 The proposal is not in accordance with the Cumbernauld Local Plan. However, the applicant has submitted supporting site marketing history and I am prepared to accept that the site is no longer essential or marketable for its original purpose as a Class 4 Business use. There is no shortage of suitable sites in the Cumbernauld area for industrial and business development.

4.3 The site is bounded to the north-west by housing under construction and to the north-east by proposed housing. The development to the south is class 4 business use which by its definition is a use that can be carried out in any residential without detriment to the amenity of that area. It is considered therefore that the site is suitable for housing purposes.

4.4 On the basis that the application site is no longer required for a Class 4 Business use, and that it is physically and locationally suitable for housing purposes, it is recommended that outline planning permission be granted subject to conditions

11 Application No: N/07/00755/FUL

Date Registered: 2nd May 2007

Applicant: Gladedale (Central Scotland) Ltd Argyll Court The Castle Business Park Stirling FK9 4TT

Development: Construction of 175 Houses and Flats.

Location: Smithstone 5 Site to the North of Smithstone Road Cumbernauld

Ward: 2 - Cumbernauld North : Councillors Chadha, McCulloch, Murray & O'Brien.

Grid Reference: 272866675272

File Reference: N/07/00755/FUL

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy HG5C: New Housing Developments in terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Education (No Objection) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) Strathclyde Passenger Transport (Comments) Strathclyde Police (Comments) Network Rail (Comments) West of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objection)

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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

12 Construction of 175 Houses and Flats

13 2. That no works of any description shall be commenced within the application site, unless with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority, until the following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the said Authority, in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Water as appropriate:-

1. Planning drawing confirming Finished Floor Levels and the development location in relation to the 200 year flood outline for the un-named watercourse. 2. Any landraising within the functional floodplain will require an appropriate amount of compensatory storage. 3. Improvements of culvert approach and entry conditions in line with current best practice. 4. Details of the structural and hydraulic condition of the culvert. 5. Details of the maintenance regime for the culvert. 6. Planning drawing confirming availability of overland flow pathways allowing water back into the watercourse rather than increasing flood risk to the development. 7. Confirmation that Scottish Water will adopt and maintain the SUDS.

3. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 2 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

4. Notwithstanding the terms of Conditions 2 and 3, a Flood Risk Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Flood Risk Assessment must take account of Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP 7) : Planning & Flooding and Planning Advice Note 69 (PAN 69) : Planning & Building Standards Advice on Flooding.

5. That any flood mitigation works identified in the Flood Risk Assessment, approved in terms of Condition 4 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of all of the flood mitigation works, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in flood mitigation) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the flood mitigation works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that the development site and adjacent land and property will not be subjected to unacceptable flooding in the interests of public safety and amenity.

14 6. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the materials to be used for the upgrading of the right of way to the north of Plots 5 - 23 shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. For the avoidance of doubt the right of way shall remain unobstructed at all times, except for when it is being upgraded.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control, in the interests of pedestrian access.

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

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) details of a 'focal point' feature as required by the relevant Development Brief; (d) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.

For the avoidance of doubt, specific attention requires to be paid to the landscaping andlor bunding area between the development site and the site of the proposed Croy Railway Station multi-storey car park.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to assess these aspects, ensuring that there is adequate landscaping provision within the site in the interests of the amenity of future residents.

8. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 7 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

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

9. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme, for the provision of 2 equipped play areas within the application site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and this shall include:-

(a) details of the type and location of play equipment, seating and litter bins to be situated within the play areas; (b) details of the surface treatment of the play areas, including the location and type of safety surface to be installed; (c) details of the fences to be erected around the play areas, (d) details of the phasing of these works.

Reason: To ensure that the play areas are satisfactory to the Planning Authority in the interests of the amenity of future residents.

10. That BEFORE occupation of the 5th last house within the development hereby permitted, all works required for the provision of the equipped play areas and, included in the scheme approved under the terms of condition 9, shall be completed.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate play facilities within the site, in the interests of the

15 amenity of future residents.

11. That within three months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the proposed landscaped areas, play areas and the right of way to the north of plots 5 - 23.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory management arrangements will be put in place in the interests of the amenity of future residents.

12. That BEFORE completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 11 shall be in operation.

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

13. 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 and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in the interest of the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area.

14. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in the interest of the visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area.

15. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, tke information requested in the memorandum from the Head of Protective Services dated 10 September 2007 in association with the submitted site investigation, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

16. That any remediation works required as a result of the further information submitted in connection with Condition 15 shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the said Authority.

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

17. That, if as a result of the RCC approval process, Drawing SS/SUOl Rev. M requires to be altered in respect of the horizontal geometry of the roads, footway and footpath locations and design, on- street lay-by car parking and traffic calming, then a revised Drawing shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority.

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

16 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd May 2007

E-mail from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received May 2007 Letter from Network Rail received 24'h May 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 2gthMay 2007 Letter from Strathclyde Passenger Transport received 7'h June 2007 Letter from Strathclyde Police Architectural Liaison received 4'h June 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 21'' November and 24'h December 2007 Memos from Traffic & Transportation Team Leader (HQ-Northern) received 24'h May, 20thJuly and 12'h November 2007 Memos from Geotechnical Team Leader received 2gth November and 21'' December 2007 Memos from Head of Protective Services received 21'' May and lothSeptember 2007 Memo from Education received 17'h May 2007 Memo from Countryside and Landscape Manager received 31'' July 2007

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

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

Date : 28'h January 2008

17 APPLICATION NO. N/07/00755/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application is for the construction of 175 houses comprising :-

0 79 detached villas 18 semi-detached houses 0 11 terraced houses 0 19 town houses 0 48 x three storey flats.

on a 7.6 hectare site at Smithstone, Cumbernauld. The Council is in the process of selling the site to Gladedale (Central Scotland) Ltd.

1.2 This is the fifth of six residential sites to be marketed by the Council within the Western Extension Area of Cumbernauld. The Smithstone development area extends to 54 hectares.

1.3 The site is bounded to the north by the temporary car park of Croy railway station (the site of the recently approved multi-storey car park) and the railway line, and to the west by the housing development currently under construction by Dawn Homes. To the east lies Dulattur Golf Club, and to the south lies the final housing development site, which is currently being marketed by the Council.

2. DeveloPment Plan

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

2.2 In terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 the site is covered by Policy HG5: New Residential Development - Western Extension Area.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Traffic & Transportation and Geotechnical Sections have no objections.

3.2 My Pollution Control Section is currently assessing some additional site investigation information submitted by the applicant, but has no objections to the development.

3.3 My Land Services Section has no basic objections, and any outstanding matters can be covered by planning conditions.

3.4 The Director of Education has confirmed that all schools within the catchment area have sufficient accommodation to cope with the projected pupil increase such a development may produce.

3.5 Network Rail has no objections.

3.6 Scottish Water has no objections.

3.7 Strathclyde Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections.

18 3.8 Strathclyde Passenger Transport referred to their intention to construct a multi-storey car park at Croy railway station. They request a condition be attached for a parking regime at Smithstone, with the developer assuming responsibility. This however, is not feasible as the roads and majority of the footpaths will eventually be adopted and maintained by the Council. They also made reference to cyclepath links between the site and the station.

3.9 SEPA have confirmed that all surface water from the site requires to be collected and treated prior to discharge to the adjacent watercourse. SEPA confirmed that flood risk to the site from the watercourse should be low, and the proposed houses are outwith the floodplain. Outstanding matters can be covered by a planning condition.

3.10 West of Scotland Archaeology Service confirmed that there are no substantive archaeological issues.

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. The proposals are in accordance with local plan policy as the site is allocated for residential development in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

4.2 Gladedale’s proposals are acceptable in terms of the site layout, house types & their design and play areaAandscaping provision and are in accordance with the Smithstone 5 Development Brief. It is recommended that planning permission be granted.

19 Application No: N/07/01902/FUL

Date Registered: 28th November 2007

Applicant: A G Barr Plc 4 Mollins Road Westfield Industrial Estate Cumbernauld

Agent RD Energy Solutions SAC Bush Estate Edinburgh EH26 OPH

Development: Erection of a 50m High Wind Monitoring Mast

Location: A G Barr Westfield House 4 Mollins Road Westf ield Cumbernauld

Ward: 2 - Cumbernauld North : Councillors Chadha, McCulloch, Murray & O'Brien

Grid Reference: 271488672544

File Reference: N/07/01902/FUL

Site History: N/05/00225/FUL : Construction of Storage Facility and Distribution Centre - approved 13'h April 2005

Development Plan: The site is covered by existing industriaVbusiness policy in terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Office of Communications (No response)

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 5th December 2007

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. 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 & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

20 - F t//

21 2. That on completion of the monitoring, the mast hereby permitted shall be removed and the land returned to its former use.

Reason : In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 28th November 2007

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

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

Date: 28fhJanuary 2008

22 AP PLlCAT10 N NO. N/07/01902/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application is for the erection of a 50 metre high wind monitoring mast at AG Barr Ltd., Mollins Road, Westfield. The mast will monitor the wind regime at various heights (50, 40 and 30 metres) to assess the feasibility of installing a wind turbine at the site. It has been indicated that the mast would require to be in place for a period of between 6 and 18 months.

1.2 The site for the proposed mast is at the north end of the warehouse at AG Barr’s complex, adjacent to the main accesdegress point from Orchardton Road. The area is currently open and used for the temporary parking of vehicles.

2. Development Plan

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

2.2 In terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 the site is covered by policy IBI: Existing IndustryBusiness areas. This policy states there is a presumption in favour of industrial and business Class 4 development.

3. Consultations

3.1 The Office of Communications was consulted, however no response has been received.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal is not contrary the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

4.2 The 50 metre high mast, supported by guy wires, will not to be visually intrusive and would be viewed against the 40 metre high warehouse building.

4.3 There are no planning objections to the proposed mast and it is recommended that permission be granted. In due course, AG Barr Plc might submit a planning application for a permanent wind turbine at the site, and this will be considered on its own merits.

23 Application No: N/07/01904/FUL

Date Registered: 29th November 2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Gilmour 18 Rannoch Lane Moodiesburn

Agent Robert Thompson Designs 625 Clarkston Road Glasgow G44 3QD

Development: Erection of a Conservatory

Location: 18 Rannoch Lane Moodiesbu rn

Ward: Ward 5 - Strathkelvin : Councillors Hogg, McGlinchey, Shaw and Wallace Grid Reference: 270169670915

File Reference: N/07/01904/FUL

Site History: No applications of relevance

Development Plan: Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005 - Policy HG3(Residential Amenity)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: One letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the base course and the render of the conservatory hereby permitted, shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

24 Erection of a Conservatory .k Representation

25 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 29th November 2007

Letter from Mr & Mrs W McLaughlin, 20 Rannoch Lane, Moodiesburn, Glasgow, G69 OEZ received 10th December 2007.

Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr G. Forrest at 01236 616466.

DATE: 28'h January 2008

26 APPLICATION NO. N/07/01904/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks permission for the erection of a conventional conservatory (3.7 metres x 5.0 metres, and 4 metres in height at its highest point) at the rear of 18 Rannoch Lane, Moodiesburn, which is a 2 storey mid-terraced house situated within an area of similar properties.

2. Development Plan

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

2.2 The application site is covered by the Northern Corridor Local Plan Policy HG3 (Retention of Residential Amenity) which seeks to ensure that the character and amenity of established housing areas is retained.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were necessary with respect to this application

3.2 There has been one objection received from the occupier of number 20 Rannoch Lane, the points of objection and my comments thereon being as follows :-

0 The fire wall which needs to be built is too high and will overshadow our back garden, back door and kitchen window and will block out any natural light to our home.

Comments : It should be noted that the rear of # 20 Rannoch Lane is north-east facing, and contains a door and a kitchen window (with the door being closest to the proposed conservatory.). In planning terms a kitchen is not regarded as being a ’habitable’ room, so does not enjoy the same level of protection when considering loss of sunlight and daylight. Nevertheless, sunlight and daylight tests have been carried out.

Both tests show that the proposed conservatory, with its 3.4 metre high fire wall, will have a minimal impact on the level of sunlight and daylight enjoyed by # 20 Rannoch Lane and any impact is not so significant to justify refusing planning permission.

There will be a loss of sunlight (for a period in the mornings) and daylight in the part of the garden immediately to the rear of # 20, although not enough to justify refusing permission.

0 There will be a loss of view

Comments .- The view to the east over the garden of # 18 and beyond from # 20 will be affected by the erection of the conservatory’s fire wall. This is a common situation with all boundary extensions to semi-detached or terraced houses, and could not justify a refusal of permission.

27 The infrastructure of the conservatory is inappropriate to the area.

Comments :The conservatory is of a scale and size appropriate to the row of terraced houses. There will still be sufficient garden ground available at # 18, and the materials to be used for the conservatory are in keeping with the materials of the existing house - ie. matching brick and roughcast and UPVC glazing.

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 relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposed conservatory does not conflict with the terms of the relevant Local Plan.

4.2 While the concerns expressed by the occupiers of 20 Rannoch Lane, as discussed above, are understandable, they are not so serious to justify refusing planning permission. It is recommended that planning permission for the erection of a conservatory at the rear of 18 Rannoch Lane, Moodiesburn, be granted.

28 Application No:

Date Registered: 11th December 2007

Applicant: Mr D McLeod 16 Glen Orchy Place Craigmarloc h Cum bernauld G68 ODG

Agent Archaus Ltd 12 Lonsdale Avenue Giffnock Glasgow G46 6HG

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 16 Glen Orchy Place Craigmarloch Cum bernauld G68 ODG

Ward: 2 - Cumbernauld North : Councillors Chadha, McCulloch, Murray and O’Brien

Grid Reference: 273834676005

File Reference: N/07/01976/FUL

Site History: 0 02/00331/FUL Extension to Dwellinghouse, granted April 2002

Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993: Housing Policies apply

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 1 letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

29 Extansron to a House * Reprassntation

30 3. That, notwithstanding any other terms of this permission, no approval is given to the window shaded RED on the approved plans, and this window shall be deleted from the proposed first floor extension.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at 14 Glen Orchy Place, Cumbernauld.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1Ith December 2007

Letters from Owner / Occupier of 14 Glen Orchy Place received 3rdJanuary 2008.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Jennifer Thomson at 01236 616473.

Date: 28'h February 2008

31 APPLICATION NO. N/07/01976/FUL

REPORT

1. DescriPtion of Site and ProPOsal

1.I The application site is the rear garden of a 2 storey detached dwellinghouse at 16 Glen Orchy Place, Craigmarloch. The garden is surrounded by a 1 metre high wooden fence with Dullatur Golf Course to the rear.

1.2 The application seeks consent to create an additional floor above an existing extension which contains a living room. The proposed first floor will contain a bedroom and en-suite bathroom and the overall height of the rear extension will be 7 metres, roughly 0.5 metres below the roof ridge of the main house.

2. Development Plan

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

2.2 In the Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993, the site lies within a defined residential area where policy HG5A (Housing Policy) applies.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 No consultations were required in this case.

3.2 One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 14 Glen Orchy Place. The objection raised is as follows:-

* The upstairs windows North East Facing directly into our garden. This is an invasion of our privacy.

Comments : The proposed first floor extension will have a floor-to-ceiling corner window feature, with the north-east facing elevation being about 13 metres from the boundary between Nos. 16 and 14. While the ‘offending’ window is not essential to the natural light received by the proposed bedroom, the applicant is not prepared to delete it from his proposals in the interests of his neighbour’s privacy. The issue to be considered by the Council in the determination of this application is whether or not the window in question is acceptable in planning terms. As already stated, it will be about 13 metres from the boundary of the houses and will look out over most of the rear garden of # 14. There will be no window-to-window privacy implications, but there will be greater overlooking of the rear garden of # 14 that from the two existing bedroom windows in the first floor of # 16.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 The design and scale of the extensions are in keeping with the existing house and surrounding area and will create no significant adverse effects on neighbouring residents, other than a significant reduction in the privacy currently enjoyed within the rear garden of 14 Glen Orchy Place. Given that the north-east facing window is not essential and that there will be two north- west facing windows in the proposed bedroom, it is considered that the ‘offending’ window should not be approved, notwithstanding the applicant’s reluctance to delete it from his

32 proposals.

4.3 Having taken account of all relevant material considerations, including the concerns raised by the neighbouring proprietor No 14 Glen Orchy Place, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for a first floor addition to the existing extension at 16 Glen Orchy Place, subject to condition that the north-east window be deleted.

33 Application No: C/06/01202/OUT

Date Registered: 12th July 2006

Applicant: NHS Lanarkshire Clo Agent

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

Development: Re-Development of Former NHS Hospital for Residential Use (In Outline) Incorporating the Retention of Faqade of Hospital Building

Location: Alexander Hospital Blair Road Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 2EW

Ward: 06 Coatbridge North and Glenboig: Councillors Clarke, McWiIliams, Shields & Wilson

Grid Reference: 272 145 66571 3

File Reference: C/PL/CTB/468/AlexHosplLK/LR

Site History: None

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Covered by Residential Policies within Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Civic Trust (Comments) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No objections) Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections) NLC Learning and Leisure (No objections) Environmental Services (Comments) Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments)

Representations: 1 letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted 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 details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site.

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

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 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 dwelling units within the site shall be not more than 50

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in particular to ensure that the traffic generated by the new development is within acceptable limits.

5. That notwithstanding the generalities contained within condition no. 1 above, the reserved matters shall include a scheme for the retention of the entire old hospital building or for its faGade and for the retention andlor relocation of the existing front boundary wall and railing. Until such a scheme has been agreed in full, no demolition works or partial demolition works shall be undertaken to the old hospital building or the boundary wall.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure the retention of structures of visual and historic interest which are considered to contribute significantly to the amenity and character of the site and the wider area.

6. That notwithstanding the generalities contained within condition no. 1 above, the application for reserved matters shall include a single point of vehicular access to the site and this shall be located at the north-most part of the site.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in order to ensure the retention of the old hospital building.

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

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

36 8. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 6 shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

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

9. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled ‘Drainage Assessment: A Guide for Scotland’ and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

10. That no trees or shrubs within the application site shall be lopped, topped, felled, or otherwise affected, without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority. Once such approval has been given, any works to trees and shrubs shall only be carried out between October and February inclusive.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that works are carried out outwith the bird- breeding season in the interests of nature conservation.

11. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1, the detailed housing layout for the site shall comply with the approved Council Guidelines in relation to the provision of open space in residential developments.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure that the development complies with the Council‘s guidelines in this respect.

12. Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, and before the start of development on site, an updated Protected Species Survey shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its written approval from a suitably qualified ecologist. This shall contain details of any necessary mitigation works and a timetable for their implementation.

Reason: In the interests of the protection of any protected species which may be present within the site.

13. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1, BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, details of existing and proposed site levels shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in particular to protect the visual amenity and character of the area and to protect the residential amenity of those living around the site.

37 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th July 2006 and additional plans. Letters from GVA Grimley dated 1lth July 2006, 8'h November 2006, 2gth November 2006, and 14th November 2007. Letters to GVA Grimley dated 21" July 2006, 31"August 2006, 1 December 2006, 21'' December 2006, Letter from Scottish Civic Trust received 18th August 2006 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 23rd August 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 25th July 2006 Letter from British Gas received 31st July 2006 Letter from Scottish Power received 21st July 2006 Letters from Scottish Natural Heritage received 19th September 2006 and 27thNovember 2006 Memo from Transportation Section received 13'h December 2006, Cith April 2007, 7'h June 2007 and 10th December 2007. Memo from NLC Learning and Leisure received 1st August 2006 Letter from M Corrance, 102 Blair Road, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 2EW received 24th July 2007. Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Lindsay Kellock at 01236 812379.

Date: 15 January 2008

38 APPLICATION NO. C/06/01202/OUT

REPORT

Description of Site and ProDosal

Alexander Hospital, contained within a rectangular shaped site extending to 1.48 hectares at the north end of Blair Road Coatbridge, was closed in 2005 when its services were transferred to Coathill Hospital. Until recently, the site comprised a variety of disused hospital buildings including the original hospital building (a traditional 2 storey stone and slate building dating from 1899) and a variety of other more modern buildings. The site was cleared of all buildings in 2006 other than the original hospital building which is located at the east of the site looking onto Blair Road. Also within the site are the remains of old access roads, building foundations, grassed areas and several mature trees. Being at the top of a hill, the site slopes down gently from the centre of the site in all directions. Around the site are 2 storey houses and flats to the north, west and south (Blairpark Avenue, Muirdyke Road and Espieside Crescent respectively) with a 1% storey house at the south-east corner on Blair Road and an electricity sub-station at the south west corner. On the opposite side of Blair Road are two 2 storey detached houses built around the same time and in the same style as the old hospital building. The site is bound mostly by brick walls along the west, north and south boundaries with decorative railings and stone piers along the frontage to Blair Road. Although now closed off to traffic, the hospital was accessed via 3 vehicular access points along Blair Road. It should be noted that as well as being well trafficked, this part of Blair Road is used extensively for on-street parking particularly by people using the nearby Blairhill railway station.

The application under consideration is for the residential development of the site. Although submitted in outline, the applicant has submitted supporting information including details of 3 different vehicular access options from Blair Road. Of these, the access point taken at the centre point of the site frontage would necessitate the entire demolition of the old hospital building, whilst the other 2 alternatives (located at either end of the site frontage) would allow for the retention of most of the building, other than part/all of the small wings at either end of the building. The planning application as originally submitted indicated that the applicant was willing to accept a condition which required the retention of the faqade of the old hospital building. However, during subsequent discussions, the applicant began to favour the central vehicular access option into the site which necessitated the complete removal of the entire building.

Development Plan

The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (as altered) and therefore it can be assessed solely against the relevant local plan policies.

The site is shown as being part of a residential area within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and there fore Policy HG9 is relevant. In relation to this development, this policy states that new development will not be permitted if it is likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the area or is not clearly of a nature ancillary to housing.

Consultations and Representations

There were no letters of representation received in respect of the application when it was first submitted (which made specific allowance for the retention of the building faqade). In July 2007, the applicant was asked to notify neighbours of the possibility of the old hospital building being completely demolished and one letter of objection was received from 102 Blair Road. The summary of the objection is as follows:

39 0 The building is part of Coatbridge’s heritage and is in excellent condition. It would be a sacrilege to demolish the building.

0 Other towns and cities are struggling to save buildings of this stature and it is hoped that Coatbridge is not one of them.

0 In response to the applicant’s argument that the demolition is required to achieve safe access, the objector notes that despite repeated attempts by local residents to address the problem of on-street parking, nothing has been done to address the problem by the relevant authorities (i.e. the Council and the Police).

0 It was clear that when the hospital was open, traffic seemed to cope perfectly well going in and out of the 3 access points, and it is clear that traffic from the new residential development could be directed safely into a properly designed single access point which also allowed the building to be retained.

3.2 NLC Learning and Leisure has advised that local schools have sufficient capacity with which to absorb additional child numbers from the development.

The Head of Community Services has commented as follows:

0 Play provision will be required should the development exceed 30 units.

0 Proper tree protection measures should be carried out.

3.3 Following the submission of a bat survey, SNH offered no objections to the proposal but it has asked that conditions be attached to any permission requiring a re-survey of bats before works start on site and also asked that tree workshemovals are undertaken outwith the bird breeding season.

3.4 The Scottish Civic Trust has asked that the entire building be retained and not just the faqade. Although it notes that the building is not ‘listed’ and is outwith the nearby Blairhill and Dunbeth Conservation Area, the Trust feels that this building, and the 2 villas opposite at 100 and 102 Blair Road, create a grouping of buildings of similar ages and styles which are a match for the buildings within the conservation area. Furthermore, it is noted that successful conversions can be achieved from many awkward shaped buildings and the old hospital building should be entirely suited to conversion.

3.5 SEPA has no objection in principle to the development subject to proper arrangements being made for surface water.

3.6 Scottish Water has noted that there is sufficient capacity with the Balmore Water Treatment Works to accommodate the development and that it has no objections subject to the proposal subject to proper arrangement being made for drainage.

3.7 Both Scotland Gas Networks and Scottish Power have noted the presence of their apparatus within the site.

3.8 When commenting upon the planning application as submitted originally, the Transportation Manager advised that a safe access could be achieved at the centre point of the site frontage (which by implication would necessitate the complete demolition of the building) and this would be preferred over the other 2 options where visibility could be hindered by the rise in the road. The applicant was then asked to submit additional information which sought to demonstrate if an access point could be accommodated at either end of the site frontage which was capable of offering a suitable standard of road safety as well as the opportunity of retaining the old hospital

40 building. On receipt of this information, the Transportation Manager confirmed that the central access point would appear to meet the required standard visibility splay of 4.5m x 90m but that the other 2 options would fall short to an extent. In particular, it was noted that the following splays could be achieved:

0 Central Access: 4.5m x 90m (both directions)

0 Southern Access: 4.5m x 64m (to the north) and 4.5 x 90 (to the south)

0 Northern Access: 4.5m x 90m (to the north) and 4.5 x 70 (to the south)

3.9 However, it is further noted that the standard of visibility available at these points is theoretical as on-street parking on Blair Road would substantially reduce the visibility achievable from all of the access points and it is estimated that actual standards could be as little as 4.5 x 20m in both directions from all access positions depending on the location and numbers of parked cars.

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. In this instance, the residential policy within the local plan allows for the principle of the proposed residential development (subject to detailed assessment) therefore it is held that the planning application is in accordance with the development plan and therefore must be granted unless there are material considerations of sufficient weight which would merit the refusal of permission.

4.2 In this instance, the 2 key (and inter-related) issues are the retention of some or all of the old hospital building and the availability of a safe means of vehicular access.

4.3 In assessing the qualities of the old hospital building, it should be noted that it is outwith the conservation area and is not ‘listed’ therefore the applicant could have chosen to demolish it entirely when the contract for the demolition works was being awarded by them in 2006. It is with appreciation to the co-operation of NHS Lanarkshire that it agreed to the requests of the Planning Service to retain the building in order that the merits of the building retention are assessed as part of this planning application. It appears clear that in terms of its architecture and condition, the building makes a significant contribution to the amenity and character of the site and the wider area. Furthermore, along with the 2 villas opposite, there is a collection of fine and attractive buildings which are of a standard worthy of conservation area status had they been part of larger area of similar quality. It is also possible that the old hospital building could be worthy of listed building status. However, until recently, the building was operational, in public ownership and with no obvious threat of redevelopment and therefore it would not have been a priority for ‘listing’ by Historic Scotland. In addition, ‘spot listing’ (whereby Historic Scotland could impose listed status in an emergency) is not currently a feasible option at present as Historic Scotland’s own advice and protocol is not to undertake this process when a planning application is under consideration. Finally on this matter, it is noted that the Scottish Civic Trust and the local objector have both put forward arguments for the building’s retention. Based on the above assessment of the merits of the building, it is concluded that there should be strong presumption in favour of its retention.

4.4 In terms of whether the building should be retained in its entirety or merely just the faGade, it is clear that the preference would be for the former. However, despite the claims made by the Scottish Civic Trust, I am satisfied that in this instance the faGade on its own will be able to allow for the attractiveness of the site and the wider area to be retained sufficiently. A suitably worded planning condition could allow for a degree of flexibility which would allow either option to be used by any future developer.

41 4.5 The issue of road safety is also critical to the success of this development and has been the basis of significant discussion and correspondence between relevant parties. It is noted that in terms of maximum available visibility, only the central access point achieves the necessary requirement of 4.5m x 90m. However, bearing in mind the degree of shortfall in visibility at the other 2 points and weighing this up against the significant benefit of building retention, it is argued that in the first instance, the central access option should be discounted. Thereafter, the merits of the other 2 options (i.e. at either end of the site frontage) are quite similar, although it appears that the north-most access option is likely to offer greatest benefits in terms of being further away from Blairhill Station (and therefore likely to be least affected by on-street parking) and the fact that the trees and attractive boundary wall at the northern boundary would offer most benefits in terms of visual amenity as an entrance feature.

4.6 However, the crucial issue in terms of vehicular access is clearly the constraint of on-street parking and its significant impact on visibility and hence on road safety. It must be made quite clear that the standards of access which may be available are poor and in most other circumstances would be found to be unacceptable. However, weighing in favour of the development are the need to ensure an appropriate re-use of the site and a building of local impoprtance, the fact that other feasible access options from other roads are not available, the fact that the site (when in use in recent years) would have generated significant levels of traffic over 3 sub-standard access points and finally the fact that the applicant has agreed to restrict the development of the site to a maximum of 50 residential units with a view to keeping traffic generation from the site to an acceptable limit. Also, it is noted that the current on-street parking problem appears to be of a nature and magnitude which requires attention at some point in the future, whether it be in the form of a local traffic control regulation or a wider ranging reform of parking associated with Blairhill Station (although it should be note that neither of these matters are within the remit of this planning application). In judging those matters which weigh for and against the development, it is concluded that an acceptable access could be achieved onto Blair Road.

4.7 In terms of other aspects of the development, it is noted that the front boundary railings and stone piers make a significant contribution to the amenity and character of the site and the wider area and these should be retained and/or relocated as required. This can be addressed by condition.

4.8 Bearing in mind the comments from NLC Learning and Leisure regarding the capacity of local schools within the catchment area, it is argued that a developer contribution in this respect is not necessary.

4.9 A detailed drainage scheme would be required as part of any application for reserved matters. In the meantime, and based upon initial responses from SEPA and Scottish Water, it would appear that this should pose any significant constraints for future developers.

4.10 In terms of its impact on local amenity, there should be no significant issues associated with the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes on residential properties located around the site.

4.11 In conclusion, the proposed redevelopment of the site of the old Alexander Hospital accords with the development plan. The opportunity to retain the old hospital building (either entirely or just the fagade) weighs significantly in its favour and this (in part) provides justification for allowing a vehicular access which would be below the normal acceptable standard. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission should be granted for the aforementioned reasons.

42 Application No: C/07/01088/REM

Date Registered: 21st June 2007

Applicant: Mr And Mrs Brian Hopkins Glengowan House Gowan Brae Caldercruix Airdrie ML6 7RB

Agent Cullen Lochhead And Brown 10 Auchingramont Road Hamilton ML3 6JX

Development: Residential Development of 14 Dwellinghouses

Location: Glengowan House Gowan Brae Caldercruix A irdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7RB

Ward: 07 Airdrie North Councillors Cameron, Sophia Coyle, McGuigan & Morgan

Grid Reference: 282782668003

File Reference: C/PL/CCG78000/1J/LR

Site History: 0 06/00442/OUT Residential Development Comprising Individual Plots (In Outline) - Granted July 2006

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG9: Existing Residential Areas

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No objections) British Gas (No objection) Scottish Power (No response)

Representations: 7 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

43 _-- I

Planning Application No, C/07/01088/REM

Residential Development of 14 Dwellinghouses

Glengowan House, Gowan Brae, Caldercruix, Airdne N

Representations Ik Not to Scale Site Area 0.82HA A +-

44 Recommendation: Approve 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 any works commence, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

3. That before any further works commence, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

4. That prior to any works of any description being commenced on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency's (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

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

5 That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of condition (4) above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

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

6. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with amended drawing numbers:- 799-05F, 799-1 1Rev.C 8, 799-18.

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

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

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

45 8. That before the last of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all roads and footways shall be completed to final wearing course.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th June 2007

Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 3rd September 2007 Letter from British Gas received 5th July 2007

Memo from Transportation Section received 22nd October 2007 Memos from Protective Services Section received 19th July 2007 and 7'h December 2007 Memo from Environmental Services Section received 13th December 2007

Letter from Thomas Gallagher, 97 Gowan Brae, Caldercruix, ML6 7RB received 4th July 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs J Bell, 99 Gowan Brae , Caldercruix, Airdrie, ML6 7RB received 17th July 2007. Letter from Mr And Mrs J Bell, 99 Gowan Brae, Caldercruix, Airdrie, ML6 7RB received 5th July 2007. Letter from Mr A D Johnston, 4 Arthur Gardens, Caldercruix, North Lanarkshire, ML7 7RN received 5th July 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs Stirling, Morar, 98 Gowanbrae, Caldercruix, ML6 7RB received 2nd July 2007. Letter from T Ovens & Signatory, 101 Gowan Brae , Caldercruix, By Airdrie received 18th July 2007. Letter from Thomas Gallagher, 97 Gowan Brae, Caldercruix, ML6 7RB received 20th July 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

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

Date: 16 January 2008

46 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01088/REM

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site measures 0.78 hectares and currently contains a single large detached dwellinghouse set in its own substantial garden grounds. The site is located to the east of the main settlement of Caldercruix and is accessed directly from Gowanbrae. The site slopes gradually downwards in a north to south direction and is bounded to the north and west by residential properties, and to the east and south by fields. Hillend Reservoir is located to the south east of the application site.

1.2 The proposal is for the erection of 14 detached dwellinghouses with associated new site access road served directly from the existing Gowanbrae public road. The new build will all be 2 storey in height with traditional pitched roofs and externally finished in render with concrete roof tiles. The internal access road will be centrally located and will incorporate a turning circle while allowing direct vehicular access to plots 1-12a. Plot 14 will access directly onto Gowanbrae.

1.3 To accommodate the development the existing large detached dwellinghouse within the site will be demolished and a number of semi-mature trees will be removed.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by policy HG9: Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 SEPA offered no objections to this proposal subject to the site foul drainage being connected to the public foul sewer and the surface water being treated in accordance with the principles of the “SUDS Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland”. British Gas offered no objection to the proposal while Scottish Power did not respond. Scottish Water offered no objection to a private waste water treatment plant to serve the development.

3.2 The Transportation Section has highlighted that Gowanbrae does not have a continuous footway, varying carriageway widths and substandard road geometry which makes it unsuitable for further development. However, they have recommended specific conditions should any subsequent planning permission be granted. NLC Pollution Control Section recommended a site investigation survey to determine the stability of the site.

3.3 The Land Services of Environmental Services Dept. (Ecologist) requested the submission of a habitat survey to determine the presence of any Bat Roosts or other protected species within application site. Following the submission of the required survey details, which confirmed the necessary destruction of Bat Roosts within the existing dwellinghouse, the Environmental Services Dept. has offered no objections to the proposals subject to appropriate mitigation measures being put in place. A licence from the Scottish Executive will be required for the destruction of any bat roosts. A tree survey submitted by the developer has fully been assessed by the Council’s Arboriculturalist and no objection in principle to the proposed level of tree removal to accommodate development has been received. It had been recommended that to compensate for the anticipated tree loss then the applicant make a commuted sum to the Council for replacement planting within a suburban setting.

47 3.4 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures 7 letters of objection was received against this proposal. The relevant points of objection are as follows: a. any proposed dwellinghouse in the plot adjacent to Gowanbrae would block the view, lighting and privacy of the property on the north side of the road. b. the Gowanbrae road has no pavements for the majority of its length is not in a condition that could accommodate a further 20+ cars resulting from this development. The inevitable increase in traffic created by this development would be detrimental to the safety of children and the increased noise would shatter the peaceful nature of the area. c. the hours of work during construction would be detrimental to the amenity of residents through noise and inconvenience. d. the loss of the dense tree cover within the grounds of Glengowan House would affect wildlife, birds etc. including bats which are often seen within the grounds. e. the proposed properties along the western part of the site are very close to the existing properties within the adjoining development and this may create a privacy problem. There should also be a substantial fence erected along this boundary to provide some privacy.

3.4 A request has been made for a site visit by a number of the objectors.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard has to be had to the development plan. In particular, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In respect of this proposal policy HG9 is appropriate together with the design guidance on new housing.

4.2 The site is located within an area designated for residential purposes in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and therefore in policy terms the proposal is considered acceptable. Taken that the adjacent lands (to the west) have previously been developed for similar (residential) purposes and the application site itself was the subject of an outline application for residential purposes, subsequently granted in July 2006, then the proposed use is considered acceptable at this location. Having been considered in the light of the relevant Design Guidance on “New Housing Areas” the internal layout of the site, in terms of road detail, is being proposed to the standards required by the Roads Authority. The proposed detailed site layout has also been considered against the criteria for individual dwelling/window positions etc. and this is also considered acceptable. The layout as proposed is compliant therefore with the Design Guidance on “New Housing Areas”.

4.3 With regard to the points of objection submitted the following comments are made in response: a. It is often an inevitable consequence of development that loss of open outlook from existing premises will result although this in itself is not a justification for refusing a proposal. The positioning of the new dwellings on the south side of Gowanbrae (plots 1 & 14) are in excess of 20 metres from the existing properties on the north side of Gowanbrae and as a result will not impact either on the lighting or privacy of those existing properties. In addition the heights of the new build on plots 1 & 14 have been reduced to one and a half storey to reduce any visual conflict with existing properties on Gowanbrae. b. The applicant has sought to comply with the requirements of the Roads Authority in terms of road and footpath widths both within the application site and the connections into the new road/footpaths to ensure safety of vehicular/pedestrian movement. Unfortunately the applicant has no control over the majority of the Gowanbrae road which is currently in a sub-standard condition. c. It is also an inevitable consequence on new development that during construction work there are inconveniences to existing residents through noise, dust etc. although this is a short term inconvenience and good practice by the developer in terms of hours of working should minimise this problem. d. The loss of existing mature tree cover within the site is disappointing although the tree

48 survey submitted confirms that a number of trees are either dead or diseased. As regards the presence of wildlife the submitted Protected Species Assessment confirms only the presence of bats within the existing dwellinghouse and appropriate mitigation measures required to offset the necessary relocation of any bat roosts have been recommended by the Land Services. The applicant is also fully aware that a licence from the Scottish Executive is required for the destruction of any bat roosts and any planning consent issued would highlight this requirement as an advisory note to the applicant.

4.4 The concerns raised by the Transportation Section regarding the current condition of Gowanbrae are noted although that road, which is publicly adopted, is outwith the control of the applicant and the responsibility of North Lanarkshire Council as roads authority. Notwithstanding the sub- standard condition of this road, which has existed for many years, planning permission was previously granted in 1996 for a plotted development (14 off) on the land directly adjoining (to the west of) the current application site and also in 2002 for a 5 dwelling development on the site of a former builders yard located on the north side of Gowanbrae. The Council has also recently granted, albeit in outline, a similar planning application (ref:C/06/00442/OUT) for a plotted development on the application site in the full knowledge of the Gowanbrae road constraints. Taken that there is no history of recorded accidents on this restricted road I do not consider that the introduction of an additional limited number of residential vehicle movements created by this development would give rise to a potential road safety issue.

4.5 Taking all of the above matters into consideration then the proposal is considered compliant in terms of the Local Plan and accords with the general principles of the Design Guidance on New Housing Areas. While the majority of Gowanbrae is sub-standard the points of objection are noted but do not merit the refusal of this application. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

4.6 It should be noted that a request has been made for a site visit prior to a decision being made on the application.

49 Application No: C/07/01417/FUL

Date Registered: 15th August 2007

Applicant: Mr James Lannigan 1 Airdriehill Street Rawy a rds Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7HX

Agent IFT Partnership Ltd Fountain Business Centre Ellis Street Coatbridge ML5 3AA

Development: Construction of Dwellinghouse

Location: 1 Airdriehill Street Rawy a rds Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7HX

Ward: 7 Airdrie North Councillors McGuigan, Cameron, Sophia Coyle and Morgan

Grid Reference: 277190 666502

File Reference: C/PL/AIA285001OOONVS

Site History: 0 96/05313/FUL- Erection of Single Storey Extension To Dwellinghouse - granted 26/07/1996

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B i3 C September 1996 - Policy HG9:Existing Residential Areas

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Rep resentat io ns :

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

50 A Not to Scale

51 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The development is contrary to Policy HG9 (G) of the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991in that the road fronting the development site is substandard, private and would serve more than two residential properties.

2. The development is contrary to the approved Design Guidance on “lnfill Housing” in that the required privacy standards cannot be achieved within the development site.

3. The development is contrary to the approved Developers Guide to Open Space in that the minimum standards for open space provision around the dwelling cannot be achieved within the development site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 15th August 2007 Memo from Transportation Section received 26’hSeptember 2007 Memo from Protective Services Section received 31’‘ August 2007 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 812231 Date: 23 January 2008

52 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01417/FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The application is for the construction of a single dwellinghouse at 1 Airdriehill Street, Airdrie. At present the site is used as a parking area which has a stand alone garage. The site is adjoined by housing to the south, west and north and the area to the east has been granted outline planning permission for a housing development. The access to the site is by the way of a gravelled private road and accompanying paths. The area has a slight slope in a southward direction. The dwellinghouses to the south and north are both two storeys high and the dwellinghouse to the west is single storey in height. All the adjoining dwellinghouses have relatively large garden areas. The dwellinghouse to the west faces directly towards the application site. The surrounding dwellinghouses vary in scale and design.

The applicant proposes to construct a single storey dwellinghouse within the site formerly used as a car parking area. The applicant resides in 1 Airdriehill Street which is to the south of application site. The dwellinghouse would face west in direction towards 7 Airdriehill Street. The access to the dwellinghouse will come in the form of the existing private access for 1 and 7 Airdriehill Street which leads off of Airdriehill Street itself. The dwellinghouse would be a one and a half storey building. On the ground floor there would be a bedroom with en-suite, hall, lounge, dining room, kitchen and utility room. The upper floor would also be allocated as living space with there being two bedrooms both with en-suites. The front elevation of the dwellinghouse facing west would contain two windows, one from a bedroom and one from the lounge. There would also be a velux window on the roof from the stairs. The rear elevation facing east would contain 2 windows, one from the kitchen and one from the en-suite of the ground floor bedroom and the roof would contain 4 velux windows. The rear elevation would also have patio doors leading from the dining room. The dwellinghouse would consist of a facing block base course from the ground to a height of 500mm with coloured render above this. The applicant has not stated the colours of the materials to be used. The type of roof materials to be used has also not been specified.

Development Plan

The relevant development plan is the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

The proposed development does not have any strategic importance and therefore would not be assessed against the criteria of the Structure Plan.

The site is located within an area designated as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991.

The Monklands District Council Design Guidance 'Infill Housing' and 'Developers Guide to Open Space' are also appropriate for this application.

Consultations and Representations

The Transportation Section were consulted and recommended that the application be refused as the proposal would result in 3 dwellings being served from a private sub standard road with no scope for improvement in terms of carriage width or footway provision.

Protective Services were consulted and they request a site investigation be carried out on the

53 site before any work takes place.

3.3 Following the standard neighbour notification process no letters of representation were received.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The site is located within an area designated as HG9 in the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991 and therefore the construction of a dwellinghouse on this site would not be contrary to the development plan. Although the site is an ideal location for housing it is considered that the site constraints are considerable material considerations for this application.

4.3 Policy HG9 (G) of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 states that in some residential areas there is scope to build additional houses in the gardens of existing houses or in cleared sites. In general backland housing development will not be acceptable to the District Council where sites do not have road frontage or a development results in two dwellings sharing the same private road or driveway. This proposal would result in the site containing 3 dwellinghouses (the proposed site, 1 and 7 Airdriehill Street) taking access from an access which has not been adopted by the Local Authority. The Transportation Section also recommend refusal for this reason. They stated that a development of 3 or more houses should be served by a road constructed to adoptable standards which would include a road of 5.5 metres width with 2m wide footpaths on either side and sufficient turning facilities. Due to the site constraints this cannot be achieved and therefore access to this site would always be through a private access. Due to this, the proposal could be said to be contrary to Policy HG9 (G) as the access cannot be engineered to adoptable standards and thereby three dwellinghouses will share the same private road.

4.4 Policy HG9 of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 also states that proposals must conform to the District Councils Development Control Advice. The Monklands District Design Guidance 'Infill Housing' states that any house surrounding the site should not suffer any loss of privacy from the proposed development. The introduction of this dwellinghouse would potentially have a privacy impact on 7 Airdriehill Street as the properties would look directly across from each other. There is a requirement of an 18 metre distance between directly facing windows to provide privacy for both properties which cannot be sustained here. The provision of a 9.5 metre adopted road with 6 metre front gardens will provide the necessary privacy for two buildings looking directly towards each other however this cannot be provided at this site. The distance proposed by the applicant between the two properties would be 16 metres with 6 metres of front garden being provided and only 5 metres of rear garden being proposed. The proposed dwellinghouse windows would be at 90 degrees to 7 Airdriehill Street and therefore there would be a requirement for 18 metres distance between the two on looking dwellinghouses which cannot be provided. There are several windows on 7 Airdriehill Street which will look towards the proposed dwellinghouse and therefore there is no provision for the proposed dwellinghouse to be moved in order to reduce the privacy impacts. Furthermore there is no provision for the house to be moved eastward to increase the distance between the dwellinghouse as this would decrease the backgarden space and would also have a potential future privacy impact on the proposed housing development to the rear due to sub standard garden space provision.

4.5 The Developers Guide to Open Space requires that each housing development plot provides a minimum front garden depth of 6 metres, a minimum rear garden depth of 10 metres, a total side garden width of 5 metres and in plots of over 300 square metres the garden area must take up at least 70% of the site. Also for sites of over 300 square metres a minimum rear garden of 100 square metres should be provided. Although these space standards are primarily

54 for new development sites, they are a guidance for a good standard of amenity space on any given site. The development plot of this application cannot provide the required open space standards. The rear garden depth at most is approximately 4.91 metres and at some points as little as 3.37 metres. This is sub standard for a housing development and would not provide sufficient private amenity space. There is no scope to increase this due to the potential privacy impacts with the dwellinghouse to the front. The development meets the space standards for the rear and side, however for safety reasons the Transportation Section requested a 2 metre wide footpath be created to the front of the dwellinghouse to carry on from the existing footpath. If this was provided the front garden would also be sub standard. The plot is approximately 325 square metres in area and the proposed dwellinghouse would take up 31% of the plot leaving only 69% of the plot for garden space which is also sub standard. Furthermore 100 square metres of rear garden space cannot be provided. The proposed development is sub standard in space provision and is unlikely that a dwellinghouse could be provided that would be small enough to meet the minimum space standards. The site is also relatively small compared with the neighbouring properties and therefore it could be argued that this proposal is not in keeping with surrounding residential plots.

4.6 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable under the terms of the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991. The site is too constrained to sufficiently provide a dwellinghouse which would not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. An adequate access cannot be provided to the site, and due to the lack of space which can be afforded there are likely to be major implications with reference to a lack of amenity space and privacy problems. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused for the recommended reasons.

55 Application No: C/07/01530/OUT

Date Registered: 10th September 2007

Applicant: Banks Development Clo Agent

Agent GL Hearn Graeme Laing 241 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5QY

Development: Residential Development (In Outline)

Location: Land North Of Greenhill Industrial Estate Coltswood Road Greenh i II Coatbridge North Lanarkshire

Ward: 06 Coatbridge North And Glenboig Councillors Clarke, McWilliams, Shields & Wilson

Grid Reference: 273407666385

File Reference: C/PL/CTC750000/1J/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 - Strategy Policies 1,9 & 10 The site is covered by policy GB1 (Restrict Development in the Greenbelt), HG10 (Residential Development Outwith Residential Areas) and LI 1/2 (Medium Quality Landscape) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991,

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage Objections Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objections Scottish Water No response British Gas No objections Scottish Power No objections

Representations: I letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1gth September 2007

56 I \ \ \ Y \

Planning Application No, C/07/01530/OUT Residential Development (In Outline)

Land North of Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coltswood Road, Greenhill, Coatbridge N A yi * Representation Site Area 2 51HA Notto Scale +%

57 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to policy GBl :Restrict Development in the Greenbelt of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the aims of Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 and SPP 21:Green Belt as the residential units proposed are not required for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture or to support an acceptable countryside use and therefore the proposal represents an incursion into the countryside with no justification for a Greenbelt release.

2. That the proposed development is contrary to policy HGlO and the Development Control Design Guidance associated with policy GB1 "New Houses in the Countryside" in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development can be accessed onto a section of Coltswood Road at points with satisfactory geometry and alignment and therefore there is no safe vehicular access serving the development site.

3. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information, as requested, in order to assess all aspects of the proposal.

Note to Committee:

If approved the application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications)(Scotland) Direction 1997 as it is development Contrary to the Development Plan in the Designated Green Belt.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 10th September 2007

Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 7th January 2008 Letter from British Gas received 27th September 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 1gth September 2007 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 17'h December 2007

Memo from Local Plans Section received 8th November 2007 Memo from Protective Services Section received 16th October 2007 Memo from Transportation Section received 22"d November 2007

Letter from Mr & Mrs Colquhoun, Braeside Cottage, Coltswood Road, Coatbridge, received 8th October 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382. Date: 16 January 2008

58 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01530/0UT

REPORT

I. Descriotion of Site and Prooosal

1.1 The application site measures 2.5lhectares and is located directly to the north of Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coatbridge. The site is overgrown, contains an area of woodland within its northern boundary and has an open burn (North burn) within its eastern boundary. The site is bounded to the north by woodlands and open fields, to the south by Greenhill Industrial Estate, to the east by a recently constructed housing development and to the west by Coltswood Road.

1.2 Permission is being sought, in outline, for a residential development on the application stage. No detailed proposals have been submitted as these matters would be dealt with at a subsequent “reserved matters” stage should this current submission be considered favourably.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal is of a scale to be of strategic importance and requires to be assessed in terms of Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) and Strategic Policy 10 (Departures from the Structure Plan).

2.2 The site is covered by policy GB1 Restrict Development in the Green Belt in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal is also assessed against policy HG10 (Residential Development Outwith Defined Residential Areas) and policy LI 1/2 (Medium Quality Landscape).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures and public advertisement one letter of objection was received against this proposal. The relevant points of objection are as follows: a. the site is Greenbelt and home to lots of wildlife. b. the adjacent road is an accident blackspot and is unsuitable to support a development of this size in terms of increased traffic.

3.2 Scottish Power and British Gas have offered no objections to this proposal.

3.3 Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that the proposed development has the potential to have adverse impacts on natural heritage interests within the site which includes an area of woodland within the northern boundary and a burn within the eastern boundary. However, as no information has been provided on the potential presence of EPS such as otters, bats and Great Crested Newts, badgers and water voles then SNH recommends that prior to determining whether planning permission should be given surveys should be undertaken to determine the potential presence of the protected species. In addition, SNH recommend that to assess the potential impacts of the development on the adjacent woodland then a woodland and tree survey be undertaken.

3.4 SEPA has offered no objection to the proposal subject to the development being connected to the public sewer and that surface water from the site be treated in accordance with the principles of the SUDS manual (C697). In addition, while SEPA is not minded to object at this stage it is recommended that further information is supplied at the detailed planning stage to confirm the development layout and existing & proposed site levels in relation to the watercourse to clearly demonstrate that it is sufficiently above the watercourse not to be at significant risk of flooding.

3.5 The Transportation Section has recommended against this proposal on the grounds that

59 although proposals exist for the construction of a new roundabout on Cotswood Road to provide access to the former Castle Cement development site it does not appear to be possible to provide a suitable access to this development site from that roundabout. However, should a resolution be found a Transport Statement (TS) should be prepared to assess the impact of the additional traffic generated by the development on the local road network. The Protective Services Section requires the submission of a Site Investigation Survey and a Noise Impact Assessment.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations.

4.2 Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 requires the continued safeguarding of the Greenbelt and presumes against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development in the countryside. The proposal is of strategic significance as it proposes more than 10units outwith any of the areas identified for housing development, being located within the countryside. It therefore has to be assessed against Strategic Policies 9 to determine whether the proposal represents a departure from the Structure Plan. The relevant criteria are whether the proposals are required in terms of the housing land supply and whether they also represent sporadic development in the countryside. Similarly, the tests for justification for such a departure in terms of Strategic Policy 10 are shortfall in housing land supply and specific locational need. In this regard, there is no projected shortage in housing land supply within the area which could justify the proposal in strategic terms and the proposal is clearly contrary to Strategic Policies 9 & 10 and is as such a departure from the development plan.

4.3 Policy GB1 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 states that no development will be permitted except for; new houses for full time workers in Agriculture or Forestry; non residential developments in connection with Agriculture or Forestry and Uses requiring a rural location. The proposed development is not within the categories of acceptable development in the countryside and it is therefore clearly contrary to policy GB1.

4.4 Policy HG10 (Residential Development Outwith Residential Areas) applies housing policy within the rural context. This policy states that development will not be permitted outwith residential areas unless it occurs in identified housing sites in the Local Plan, is a minor development in a Secondary Core Area, General Urban Area or is justified under policy GBI. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy HG10. Notwithstanding the above, the associated design guidance also requires that the site have an adequate vehicular access provided. For the reasons outlined by the Transportation Section the applicant has not demonstrated that adequate vehicular access into the site from Coltswood Road can be achieved.

4.5 In terms of relevant material considerations it is firstly noted that the planning application submission did not include any specific design/layout proposals or other supporting material. Scottish Natural Heritage have stipulated a requirement for both habitat and tree surveys prior to the determination of this planning application and the Transportation Section also requires a Transport Statement to assess the potential impact of this development on the surrounding roads. In addition a Drainage Strategy is required at this outline stage to indicate the types of site drainage measures to be used and assess the flood risk. Despite formal requests no supportive material has been forthcoming and therefore in the absence of this information it is impossible to render any detailed assessment of those particular issues.

4.6 In respect of the points of objection received I would offer the following comments: a. the site is within the Green Beft and requires to be assessed against the appropriate development plan policies as detailed in Par. 4.2 to 4.4 above. The issue of wildlife presence

60 within the site has been highlighted by Scottish Natural Heritage and requires to be determined before determination of the planning application. b. a Transport Statement requires to be submitted to determine both an acceptable point Of vehicular access to the site from Coltswood Road and also the impact of the development on the surrounding road network. The non provision of such a Statement makes the proper assessment of the proposals impossible in terms of any road safety issues.

4.7 In conclusion it is considered that the development, in terms of the Structure Plan, is a departure when assessed against Strategic Policy 9 and cannot be justified against Strategic Policy 10. The application is also contrary to policies GB1& HSG 10 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. For the reasons identified this is an inappropriate form of development in the countryside and there are no material considerations that could justify departing from the presumption against development. It is therefore recommended that the application is refused for the stated reasons. If the Committee is minded to grant planning permission the application should be referred to the Scottish Government in view of the site’s location in the green belt.

61 Application No: C/07/01532/OUT

Date Registered: 10th September 2007

Applicant: Banks Development Clo Agent

Agent GL Hearn Graeme Laing St Vincent House 241 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5QY

Development: Residential Development (In Outline)

Location: Land At Blacklands Hollandhurst Road Gartsherrie Coatbridge North Lanarkshire

Ward: 06 Coatbridge North And Glenboig Councillors Clarke, McWilliams, Shields & Wilson

Grid Reference: 272727666633

File Reference: C/PL/CTH750000/1J/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 - Strategy Policies 1,9 & 10 The site is covered by policy GBI (Restrict Development in the Greenbelt), HGI0 (Residential Development Outwith Residential Areas) and LI 1/2 (Medium Quality Landscape) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage Objections Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objections Scottish Water No objections British Gas No objections Scottish Power Objection West Of Scotland Archaeology Service Comments

Representations: I letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1gth September 2007

62 Ceme

Planning Application No, C/07/01532/OUT Residential Development (In Outline)

Land at Blacklands, Hoilandhurst Road, Gartsherrie, Coatbridge * Representation Site Area 16.35 HA Not to Scale

63 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to policy GB1:Restrict Development in the Greenbelt of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the aims of Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 and SPP 21 :Green Belt as the residential units proposed are not required for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture or to support an acceptable countryside use and therefore the proposal represents an incursion into the countryside with no justification for a Greenbelt release.

2. That the proposed development is contrary to policy HGlO and the Development Control Design Guidance associated with policy GBI "New Houses in the Countryside" in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development site can be satisfactorally accessed and will not detrimentally impact on the existing road network.

3. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information, as requested, in order to assess all aspects of the proposal.

Note to Committee:

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 10th September 2007

Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 21st December 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 7th January 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 19th October 2007 Letter from British Gas received 17th October 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 2nd October 2007

Memo from Local Plans Section received 8th November 2007 Memo from Transportation Section received 22nd November 2007 Memo from Protective Services Section received 16th October 2007

Letter from J Colquhoun, Braeside Cottage, Coltswood Road, Coatbridge, ML5 2EG received 26th October 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

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

Date: 16 January 2008

64 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01532/0UT

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The application site measures 16.35 hectares and is located to the north of Coatbridge Town Centre and south of the nearest village settlement of Glenboig. The site is of an agricultural nature made up of open fields and is bounded to the north and west by wooded areas including Blacklands Farm and Coltswood Kennels. To the east the site is bounded by Coltswood Road, to the south by Gartsherrie Industrial Estate and the former Castle Cement site.

Permission is being sought, in outline, for a residential development on the application stage. No detailed proposals have been submitted as these matters would be dealt with at a subsequent “reserved matters” stage should this current submission be considered favourably.

Development Plan

The proposal is of a scale to be of strategic importance and requires to be assessed in terms of Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) and Strategic Policy 10 (Departures from the Structure Plan).

The site is covered by policy GB1 Restrict Development in the Green Belt in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal is also assessed against policy HGlO (Residential Development Outwith Defined Residential Areas) and policy LI 112 (Medium Quality Landscape).

Consultations and Representations

Following the standard neighbour notification procedures and public advertisement one letter of objection was received against this proposal. The relevant points of objection are as follows: a. the site is Greenbelt and home to lots of wildlife. b. the adjacent road is an accident blackspot and is unsuitable to support a development of this size in terms of increased traffic.

Scottish Water and Scottish Gas offered no objections to this proposal. Scottish Power advised that they had both underground and overhead apparatus within the vicinity of the site and therefore had no option at this time but to object to the proposal. SEPA has offered no objection to the proposal subject to the development being connected to the public sewer and that surface water from the site be treated in accordance with the principles of the SUDS manual (C697). In addition, while SEPA is not minded to object at this stage it is recommended that further information is supplied at the detailed planning stage to confirm the development layout and existing & proposed site levels in relation to the watercourse to clearly demonstrate that it is sufficiently above the watercourse not to be at significant risk of flooding.

The West of Scotland Archaeology Service advise that a prior archaeological evaluation of the site requires to be carried out before the planning application is determined.

Scottish Natural Heritage has advised that the proposed development has the potential to have adverse impacts on natural heritage interests within the site which includes an area of woodland within the north and north east boundary which is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a burn within the northern boundary. However, as no information has been provided on the potential presence of EPS such as otters, bats and Great Crested Newts, badgers and water voles then SNH recommends that prior to determining whether planning permission

65 should be given surveys should be undertaken to determine the potential presence of the protected species. In addition, SNH recommend that to assess the potential impacts of the development on the adjacent woodland then a woodland and tree survey be undertaken.

3.5 The Transportation Section has recommended that this application be deferred pending the submission of a Transport Assessment to demonstrate points of access to the development site and assess the impact of additional traffic generated by the development on the existing road network. A Stage 1 Road Safety Audit should also be submitted at the outline application stage to assess the safety implications of all new accesses. The Protective Services Section requires the submission of a Site Investigation Survey.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations.

4.2 Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 requires the continued safeguarding of the Greenbelt and presumes against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development in the countryside. The proposal is of strategic significance as it proposes more than 1Ounits outwith any of the areas identified for housing development, being located within the countryside. It therefore has to be assessed against Strategic Policies 9 to determine whether the proposal represents a departure from the Structure Plan. The relevant criteria are whether the proposals are required in terms of the housing land supply and whether they also represent sporadic development in the countryside. Similarly, the tests for justification for such a departure in terms of Strategic Policy 10 are shortfall in housing land supply and specific locational need. In this regard, there is no projected shortage in housing land supply within the area which could justify the proposal in strategic terms and the proposal is clearly contrary to Strategic Policies 9 & 10 and is as such a departure from the development plan.

4.4 Policy HGIO (Residential Development Outwith Residential Areas) applies housing policy within the rural context. This policy states that development will not be permitted outwith residential areas unless it occurs in identified housing sites in the Local Plan, is a minor development in a Secondary Core Area, General Urban Area or is justified under policy GB1. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy HG10. Notwithstanding the above, the associated design guidance also requires that the site have an adequate vehicular access provided. For the reasons outlined by the Transportation Section the applicant has not demonstrated that adequate vehicular access into the site can be achieved.

4.5 In terms of relevant material considerations it is firstly noted that the planning application submission did not include any specific design/layout proposals or other supporting material. Scottish Natural Heritage have stipulated a requirement for a habitat survey prior to the determination of this planning application and the Transportation Section also requires a Transport Statement and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to assess the safety implications of any new access and the potential impact of this development on the surrounding roads. In addition, a Drainage Strategy is required at this outline stage to indicate the types of site drainage measures to be used and assess the flood risk. Despite formal requests no supportive material has been forthcoming and therefore in the absence of this information it is impossible to render any detailed assessment of those particular issues.

66 4.6 In respect of the points of objection received I would offer the following comments: a. the site is within the Green Belt and requires to be assessed against the appropriate development plan policies as detailed in Par. 4.2 to 4.4 above. The issue of wildlife presence within the site has been highlighted by Scottish Natural Heritage and requires to be determined before determination of the planning application. b. a Transport Statement requires to be submitted to determine both an acceptable point of vehicular access to the site and also the impact of the development on the surrounding road network. The non provision of such a Statement makes the proper assessment of the proposals impossible in terms of any road safety issues.

67 Application No: C/07/01540/FUL

Date Registered: 13th September 2007

Applicant: North Lanarkshire Council Property Services Fleming House Tryst Road Cumbernauld G67 IJN

Agent Keppie Design 160 West Regent Street Glasgow G2 4RL

Development: Demolition of 126-130 Main Street and Construction of 8038 sq. m. Five Storey Public Building for NHS Services and North Lanarkshire Council (including Bank, Registrars Office and Public Library)

Location: 126 -130 Main Street Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 3BJ

Ward: 006 Coatbridge North and Glenboig Councillors Clarke, McWilliams and Wilson

Grid Reference: 273407665006

File Reference: C/PUCTM/030/126-130/LK

Site History: No significant planning history

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Historic Scotland No comment Architecture & Design Scotland Comments Scottish Civic Trust Objection Scottish Power No Comments Scottish Water No objections West of Scotland Archaeology ServiceNo objections Strathclyde Police Comments

Representations: No letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

68 Planning Application No. C/07/01540/FUL

Prcduiodlywnn Lmn L.W< Urn Demolition of 126-130 Main Street and Construction of , b.,raw I-<,,, .i,,.*l LIY.PpII I_ i*,l ,S>C,,,* ...dU..,b,, r rni.ih,,ll ,.'37 L,, 8038 sq m Five Storey Public Building for NHS Services t*.,?*be.b: $1 Lu C.F'll"!li and North Lanarkshire Council (Including Bank, Registrars Office and Public Library)

126-130 Main Street Coatbridge

69 Recommendation: Approve 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 and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

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

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

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

4. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 3, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

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

5 That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled 'Drainage Assessment: A Guide for Scotland' and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

6. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 5 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

70 Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution.

7. That notwithstanding conditions 5 and 6 above, and before the start of development on site, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from Scottish Water which confirms that the appropriate wastewater treatment works and associated network has the capacity to process waste from the site in a satisfactory manner and that approval has been given for a connection to its infrastructure.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory wastewater drainage from the site.

8. That before any part of the proposed building first comes into operation, the car park within the basement of the building and the car park which forms part of planning permission ref. no. C/07/01605/FUL shall be complete and operational.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking provision in the interests of road safety.

9. That no more than 75% of the floorspace of the building shall be occupied until a further 50 car parking spaces have been provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking provision in the interests of road safety.

10. That before any part of the proposed building first comes into operation, the alterations to the public road in and around the roundabout at the junction of Main Street, South Circular Road and Coatbank Street, as referred to with the Transportation Assessment submitted in relation to the planning application, shall be complete.

Reason: To ensure the timeous completion of road works which are necessary in order to help the local road network cope with additional traffic demands in the interests of road safety.

11. That BEFORE any works start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of a comprehensive scheme of works in and around the public square shall be submitted to the Council for its prior written approval. These details shall include (but no restricted to) the following details:

Two items of public art, including decorative security gate to be designed by metalwork artist (located between the new building and the adjoining telephone exchange building) and a piece of sculpture.

Coloured glass window treatment at the ‘ceremony suite’

Etched glass pattern (or any other glass treatment agreed in advance) to be applied to ground floor windows facing onto the square and Main Street (other than the coloured glass referred to above).

Scheme of lighting including feature lighting poles and up-lighters or similar.

Scheme of alterations and enhancements to the surfacing of the square.

Public benches

Bike racks

The works as approved shall thereafter be implemented in full as part of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the building and the adjoining public square are of appropriate quality and design in the interests of enhancing the amenity of the site and the town centre.

71 12. That for the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no plant or machinery sited upon any part of the roof without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In recognition of the prominent nature of the roof in the interests of protecting the appearance of the building and the visual amenity of the wider area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th September 2007 and 17'h January 2008 Letter to Keppie Design dated 19 October 2007. Letter from Historic Scotland received 17th October 2007 Letter from Architecture & Design Scotland received 21st December 2007 Letters from Scottish Civic Trust received 16th October 2007 and 8'h November 2007. Letter from Scottish Power received 19th October 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 19th October 2007 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 26th October 2007 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 16th October 2007 Letter from SEPA received 17'h January 2008. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 E-mail from Transportation Section dated 28 January 2008.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Lindsay Kellock at 01236 812379.

Date: 28'h January 2008

72 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01540/FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

Planning permission is sought for a large multi-use public building at the east end of Coatbridge town centre. The application site currently comprises 2 separate buildings, these being a health clinic and the old Coatbridge public baths. Along with the telephone exchange building to the east, these buildings form the 3 faces of a public square which contains 6 ornamental trees. The 3 buildings which form the square share the same style, materials and height (2 storeys, stone faced with flat roofs). At the time of writing this report, the health clinic building was still in use but the public baths building has lain vacant since the early 1990’s following the opening of the ‘Time Capsule.’ In late 2007, the rearmost part of the baths building was demolished.

The application site adjoins a pedestrianised section of Main Street and faces directly onto the front entrance of the “Quadrant” shopping centre. Immediately to the north-west (and adjoining the health clinic building) is a row of shops with offices above set over 3 levels. To the south is a narrow service lane providing vehicular access the rear of the application site and several shops and offices on Main Street. To the south and west of this lane is the rear of the nearby ASDA supermarket and its multi-storey car park. Generally, there is very little variation in building height in and around the application site.

It is proposed to demolish the buildings within the site and construct a new multi-use public building over 5 levels extending to 8,038 sq. m. The footprint of the new building would match that of the old buildings almost exactly, and would therefore be arranged in a ‘T’ shape. The north-most part of the new building (forming the frontage onto Main Street and the west part of the public square) would be laid out in three levels. The section which forms the south part of the square would be seen over 4 levels whilst the rear most part (backing onto the service lane) would be seen over 5 levels. Further details of the proposed uses within the site are as follows:

0 North Lanarkshire Council would be the primary user of the ground floor. This would comprise a registrar’s office, one-stop shop, public library and municipal bank. All these uses would be relocated from other buildings within Coatbridge town centre notably the public library on Academy Street and the one stop shop and registrar’s office on Main Street.

0 NHS Scotland would use the upper 3 floors for a variety of health related uses. This would include dental surgeries (which would be re-located from other sites within Coatbridge) a dental school (which would replace facilities currently provided by universities elsewhere in Scotland) and finally by consulting rooms used by community mental health doctors.

0 The basement floor would comprise plant and machinery as well as 20 parking spaces intended for doctors and the disabled drivers.

The building is modern in appearance and is clearly a design of the 21’‘ century. The elevations onto the Main Street and public square incorporate strong geometric shapes and would comprise dark coloured glass curtain walls with light coloured reconstituted stone panels. All roofs would be flat and the one above the main part of the building would incorporate roof-lights. The rear most part of the building (i.e. the 5 storey section towards the rear) would be clad in ‘micro-rib’ metal cladding. Overall, the new development would be a maximum of 7 metres or so higher than the existing buildings (and hence those buildings in and around the application site). Access to the building would be via an entranceway sited on the public square which would lead to into a central atrium extending over 4 floors. The public square would be the subject of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works which would include the removal of 4 of

73 the 6 trees, some re-surfacing works, seating, bike racks and 5 feature lights and public art.

1.5 In addition to the basement car park, the development would be served by a remote car park sited some 200m to the east and this is the basis of a separate planning application (ref. no.C/07/01605/FUL) which is also under consideration at this meeting.

1.6 In support of the planning application, the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment and Green Transport Plan, a Design Statement, a Planning Statement and a variety of plans and photomontage.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal is not considered to be of strategic significance and can therefore be assessed solely against the local plan. The site is zoned as being part of a “Secondary Core Area” (Policy Econ 9) within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. This policy states that the “principle of mixture of uses will be accepted” including shopping and related uses, light industrial uses, office accommodation, business and houses with workshops subject to plot size, built form and amenity being met.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 There have been no representations received in respect of the planning application as a result of the standard notification procedure being carried out.

3.2 The Transportation Manager has stated that a development of this size and nature would require 241 spaces when assessed taking into account various factors related to the predicted actual use of the building. Only 169 spaces are proposed and the Transportation Manager has serious concerns about the shortfall.

3.3 The views of Architecture and Design Scotland (ADS) were sought. ADS are the Scottish Government’s advisors on design and architecture and comment on planning matters of significant importance. In this instance, the proposal was the basis of a ‘design review’ whereby a presentation was made by the applicant, through their agents Keppie Design, to a board of ADS advisors prior to it making its formal comments. In its letter of response, ADS made the following comments:

Whilst welcoming the development in principle, we do not think that the designs as currently presented aspire to these goals, or realise the full potential of the opportunities offered.

Whilst regretting the potential loss of buildings of some quality, we acknowledge that a sound argument may be made for demolition. However, any replacement building should be a recognisable improvement on those that exist,

The site layout should be reconsidered, to facilitate the creation of a new urban space of high amenity value, commensurate with the public nafure of fhe building and the large numbers of people using it.

The building lacks distinction. It does not present a welcoming or active frontage to Main Street, nor does it respond favourably to the scale of the buildings around it. The faGade to the south seems to bear no relation to that to the north, and would be both unwelcoming and unrecognisable for what it is.

This initiative presents a unique opportunity for the town to acquire a civic building and public space of which it can be proud, and we encourage the Council and their designers to

74 significantly develop the designs to match the aspirations and commitments given in ‘Designing North Lanarkshire’, the ‘Policy on Design Quality for NHSScotland‘ and the Scottish Government’s ‘Designing Places‘.

3.4 In its first letter of representation, the Scottish Civic Trust stated that it had serious concerns about the proposal. In particular, the buildings are on their “Buildings at Risk” register and appear to be in relatively good condition and were award winning when built in 1938. No case appears to have been made for the demolition works. The new building is significantly bigger than the existing buildings and would dominate the area. These comments were on the basis that the site is within the Blairhill and Dunbeth Conservation Area (which it is not). Having been advised of this error, the Trust wrote a further letter acknowledging the fact and also stating that its previous comments still stood.

3.5 Following the submission of survey which confirmed that there were no bats within the existing buildings, the Conservation and Greening Services Section offered no objections to the proposal.

3.6 The Protective Services Section has confirmed that a ground investigation survey should be undertaken to ascertain (and if necessary address) any ground contamination issues.

3.7 The West of Scotland Archaeology Service has confirmed that there are no substantive archaeological issues at this site.

3.8 Historic Scotland was asked to comment on the proposal (in particular the proposed demolition works) but it confirmed that it had no statutory interests in this matter.

3.9 Scottish Water has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity within its network to accommodate the proposed developmen t.

3.10 SEPA has no objections in principle to the proposed development but has asked for assurances from Scottish Water that any increased flows into the public sewer will not result in the premature operation of combined sewer outfalls. It has also asked that surface water be addressed using the principles of SUDS and that this should take account of the presence of possible ground contamination.

3.11 Scottish Power and Scotland Gas Networks have both confirmed that they have apparatus beneath the site which may have to be re-routed at the developer’s expense.

3.12 Strathclyde Police (Architectural Liaison Officer) has made detailed comments on the proposal which for the most part are relevant to the applicant in the detailed design and management of the building.

4. Planninn 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. In this instance, the local plan zoning for the site allows for a mixture of uses (subject to detailed assessment) and whilst the policy does not specifically mention the mixture of uses proposed, it is clear that they fall within the spirit of the policy. Moreover, the local plan (and policies COMl and 2 in particular) and the Council (through its support to its town centres including the recent significant works to the public realm) support developments which contribute towards the vitality and viability of town centres. It is clear that this development will bring significant benefits to the town centre though additional employment and visitors to the town centre. Accordingly, it is concluded that the development plan offers significant support for the development and therefore planning permission must be granted

75 unless there are material considerations of sufficient weight which would merit its refusal.

4.2 In this instance, the principal material considerations are considered to be the loss of the building, the design and appearance of the new building and the transportation impacts associated with the new development.

Loss of Buildings 4.3 The loss of the building has been raised by the Scottish Civic Trust and ADS as a concern. The buildings (as they front Main Street) certainly appear to be in reasonably good condition and could (if necessary) be altered to accommodate redevelopment which incorporated either the retention of the building or its faGade. The buildings which form the square (and the old Coatbridge baths in particular) are a landmark within Coatbridge which provides character and interest within this part of the town centre (although the prospect of the loss of the buildings has not resulted in any objections from local people). In favour of demolition, the applicant has suggested that the buildings in their current form do not lend themselves well to a new modern multi-use public building. In particular, it believes that the arrangement and size of the window openings would create a dark and un-welcoming exterior and interior. Despite their merits, the buildings are not considered to be of sufficient quality to merit their retention for this particular use, although this should be subject to a proviso that any replacement building either matches or exceeds their quality.

Design 4.4 Bearing in mind the scale, nature and prominence of the building and the Council's recently stated commitment to design matters (as contained within the policy statement "Designing North Lanarkshire"), the design of the building is clearly a very important consideration in this instance. As noted in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4 above, the design of the building has been subject to criticism from ADS and the Scottish Civic Trust. Some of these concerns were shared by Planning and Development and these are summarised as follows:

Scale and Massing: This is a large building which would rise above others in the immediate area and would be visible from higher parts of the town centre and from some viewpoints to the south. Concern was expressed that the bulk and shape of the building would dominate and be at odds with its surroundings. It was suggested to the applicant that one way to address this concern was to redesign the building to make it taller but slimmer and more elegant which would stand out as a landmark building.

0 Institutional Feel: It was felt that the design was clinical and severe in its appearance and not welcoming and attractive (which is at odds with a new public building, particularly one which seeks to address health issues). Although the building stood out in terms of its size and design, it was felt that it did not stand out in terms of its identity, character or quality. This was evident in particular on its elevations directly onto Main Street and the public square (the latter being devoid of any proof that it was leading the visitor to the entrance into the building).

4.5 In order to address the above concerns there have been lengthy discussions between officers of the Council and the applicant's architects. In response, revised plans have been submitted which demonstrate the following:

4.6 In terms of scale and massing (when viewed from the rear) the window treatment on the rear elevation has been altered and now includes a large bold bay window feature measuring 8 metres x 9 metres which relates to the waiting areas on the top 2 floors and would be picked out in contrasting coloured cladding. In addition, the fenestration has been re-organised and certain features have been picked out in contrasting coloured cladding, in particular the stairwells and the library on the ground floor. Clearly, these works stop short of the suggestion to make a taller and slimmer building. In support of these changes, the applicant has stated that the building in its current shape is a more honest reflection of the uses within the building and their

76 functional requirements and that a radical re-think of the building’s shape was not necessary, particularly when the revised elevational treatment was taken into account.

4.7 To the front of the building, the applicant has submitted revised plans which seek to address the various concerns relating to the institutional and anonymous feel of the building which are summarised as follows:

Public Square 4.8 A variety of works have been incorporated into the square including 2 new pieces of public art (a stand alone piece of sculpture and decorative features incorporated into the metal gates between the new building and the adjoining telephone exchange), partial redesign of surface of the square, feature lighting including 5 lighting poles and other lighting features in and around the 2 remaining trees, new seating areas and bicycle racks. These works also seek to address concerns that the location of the entrance in to the building was not obvious.

Building 4.9 Revised plans now show signage incorporated into the building, coloured glass features incorporated into the window of the ceremony suite of the registry office (located next to the entrance way), the use of etched glass features along the remainder of the ground floor windows (designed partly to enliven the faGade at ground level and also to screen the Main Street from the usual clutter associated with offices) and finally the use of more distinctive materials affording the building more of a distinctive edge.

4.10 It is clear that the basic shape and appearance of the building would remain as before and that the changes that were made are detailed in nature. It is unfortunate that more substantive changes have not been introduced to the design of the building to address the concerns of Planning and Development and ADS, However, on balance, it is felt that the changes to the rear elevation (whilst relatively minor in nature) will make a quantifiable difference to how the scale and massing are perceived from local viewpoints. To the front, the changes made are less obvious in plan form but together should make a sizable change to the overall feel of the building, and should afford the development a degree of civic pride which was previously missing. It is with some regret that the revised plans do offer the degree of change as requested by the Planning Service but overall it is felt that sufficient changes have now been made to the design of the building and its immediate environs in order to address the above noted concerns and in order to make the proposed development of sufficient quality.

4.11 Finally, it is noted that ADS commented upon aspects of the building’s interior. Whilst the success of the interior will clearly be significant aspect of the success of the entire development, this is outwith the remit of the planning application.

Transportation 4.12 As noted in paragraph 3.2 above, the development would require 241 spaces. This is compared to the total of 169 spaces provided as part of the development (i.e. a shortfall of 72 spaces). A shortfall of this nature in such a large development appears in the first instance unacceptable, even when it is weighed up against other benefits afforded by the development. In order to qualm any concerns in this respect a condition is recommended to require the construction of a further 50 spaces next to the site of the proposed remote car park thus reducing the shortfall to around 22 spaces. With this condition and taking into account the wider benefits of the scheme, it is concluded that the proposed parking scheme is acceptable.

4.13 The Transportation Manger has agreed with the conclusions of the applicant’s Transportation Assessment which is that the impacts on the wider road network should be within acceptable limits other than some road widening at the roundabout at the junction of Main Street, South Circular Road and Coatbank Street. This requirement can be addressed by planning condition.

77 Other Considerations 4.14 Issues relating to drainage and contamination can be addressed by planning conditions. Conclusion 4.15 It has been found that the proposed building is in accordance with the development plan. Moreover, it is felt that the combination of a variety of public uses within a new purpose built building in an easily accessible location would be of significant benefit to its users and to the vitality and viability of the town centre. These benefits should not be underestimated and help to justify a degree of shortfall in design and parking issues. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the aforementioned conditions.

4.16 Finally, bearing in mind the lack of objections to the proposal and the fact that it has been judged to be in accordance with the development plan, there is no need to notify the Scottish Ministers of the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for one of its own developments.

78 Application No: C/07/0 1605/FUL

Date Registered: 4th October 2007

Applicant: North Lanarkshire Council Property Services Fleming House Tryst Road Cum bernauld G67 IJN

Agent Keppie Design 160 West Regent Street Glasgow G2 4RL

Development: Formation of Tiered Car Park (Ancillary to Proposed Development at 126-130 Main Street : Planning Application C/07/01540/FUL)

Location: Land To South Of High Coats Flats Main Street Coatbridge

Ward: 006 Coatbridge North and Glenboig Councillors Clarke, McWilliams and Wilson

Grid Reference: 273652 664969

File Reference: C/PL/CTM/030/LWLR

Site History: None

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency Comments Scottish Water Com ments Scottish Power No comments West Of Scotland Archaeology Service No objections

Representations: 6 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1Oth October 2007

79 Planning Application No. C/07/01605/FUL

Formation of Tiered Car Park (Ancillary to Proposed Development at 126-130 Main Street : Planning Application C/07/0154O/FUL) n Cll -* ?? .%L*-**.l "-9

80 Recommendation: Approve 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, revised plans shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval and thereafter these shall be implemented in full as part of the completed development;

a) Parking spaces to measure no less than 4.8metres by 2.5metres

b) Access lane between main Street and car park to be redesigned to incorporate corner radii in accordance with the Council’s Roads Guidelines (or any other reasonable standard agreed in writing).

c) Footpath connections at west end of car park to be relocated to minimise pedestrian/vehicular conflict, and the paths to be re-sited to ensure a more direct connection between the car park and the town centre.

Reason: To ensure the submission of revised details and in particular in the interests of road safety.

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This shall to relate to those areas to the west, south and east of the car park (both within and outwith the planning application site boundary and as shown indicatively within plan no.521/C) and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing;

(b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety

(d) details of the maintenance of these works.

(e) size of trees and shrubs to be planted;

(f) measures for their protection in the course of development

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and to ensure and adequate and proper setting to the car park in the interests of the visual amenity of the site and the wider area.

4. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 3 above, shall be completed no later than the end of the first planting season after the car park first comes into use. Any trees, shrubs or areas of grass which die, are removed, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the scheme being completed shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

81 5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of the railings and the materials to be used for the retaining walls to be erected around the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the materials and location of the boundary treatment are appropriate for the site and general area.

6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of a scheme of lighting within the car park shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the submission of necessary details and in particular to ensure the safety of car park users and to protect the amity of local residents.

7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the means of managing the barrier control (or any other means of control system) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval. In particular, this scheme shall set out to demonstrate that the means of control will reduce the likelihood of cars queuing onto Main Street to an acceptable limit.

Reason: To prevent the likelihood of cars having to queue onto Main Street before entering the site in the interests of road safety.

8. That before developments starts, full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the application site shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall comply with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency's (SEPA) principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

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

9. That the SUDS compliant drainage scheme approved in terms of condition 8 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage work) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the proper implementation of this requirement.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd October 2007 and 15'h January 2008. Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 17th January 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 19th October 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 19th October 2007 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 26th October 2007 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 17th October 2007 Letter from J H Smith, 7 High Coats, Coats Street, Coatbridge, ML5 3PD, received 3rd October 2007 Letters from P Winnie, Coatbridge Community Forum, C/o Mr A. Forrest, 62 Agnew Avenue, Coatbridge, ML5 3PX, received 10th October 2007 and 13'h November 2007. Letter from K Robertson, 5 High Coats, Coatbridge, ML5 3PD received 12th October 2007.

82 Letter from A Rae, 2 High Coats, Coatbridge received 17th October 2007. Letter from E McCusker, 8 High Coats, Coatbridge received 18th October 2007. Letter from Councillor Martin McWilliams, Ward 6, Civic Centre, Motherwell received 24th October 2007. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Lindsay Kellock at 01236 812379.

Date: 28'h January 2007

83 APPLICATION NO. C1071016051FUL

REPORT

1. Descrbtion of Site and ProPOsal

1.1 The application site is comprised of an area of public open space at the foot of the ‘High Coats’ and ‘Jackson Court’ high rise flats on Main Street Coatbridge. More specifically, the site, which extends to 0.7 hectares, is sited immediately to the north of the roundabout at the junction of Main Street, South Circular Road and Coatbank Street at the east end of Coatbridge town centre. Around the site are the High Coats flats and its parking area to the north, an area of grass landscaping to the east (with ‘Jackson Court’ flats some 36 metres further to the east), areas of amenity open space to the south and west with McDonalds restaurant further to the south on the opposite side of Main Street. The site is surrounded and bisected by a series of public footpaths and is made up of amenity grass with several ornamental trees. The site generally slopes down from north to south (with ground level differences of up to 6 metres) and incorporates several grass mounds designed as landscaping features.

1.2 It is proposed to construct a car park which would accommodate around 149 cars. Vehicular access would be taken from Main Street at the south east corned of the site. In order to accommodate the changes in ground levels, the ground would be dug out resulting in a reduction in ground levels over most of the site (up to a maximum of 3 metres at the north end of the site) and would be laid out in 2 tiers. In order to accommodate these changes in ground levels, much of the car park would be surrounded by retaining walls. The site would be enclosed by 1.1 metre high railings and additional landscaping would be provided the west, south and east. The existing footpath network would be retained although the new access road (which extends to around 40 metres between Main Street and the car park) would cross one footpath. Additional footpath connections would be put in place at the west end of the car park to facilitate pedestrian access between the car park and the town centre. Access to the car park from Main Street would be controlled by a new system of traffic signals and there would be off-site works on the adjoining public road which would include a right-turn lane into the car park.

1.3 This car park is required in order to serve the new multi-use public building at 126-130 main Street, some 200 metres to the west. This development is the basis of a separate planning application (ref. no. C/07/01540/FUL) which is also under consideration.

1.4 It should be noted that when originally submitted, the planning application extended to around 210 spaces and necessitated the stopping up of one of the footpaths within the site. It was this plan that was the basis of consultation with local residents and most consultees (apart from the Transportation Manager). That plan was replaced by the reduced scheme as a result of the outcome of the Transportation Assessment which accompanied the planning application. Should planning permission be granted for this planning application, the applicant has stated its intention to submit a further planning application for an enlarged car park at some time in the future which would resemble the larger car park which was originally proposed.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (as altered) and therefore it can be assessed solely against the relevant local plan policies.

2.2 The site is shown as being part of a residential area within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and therefore Policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) is relevant. In relation to this development, this policy states that new development will not be permitted if it is likely to have

84 an adverse effect on the amenity of the area or is not clearly of a nature ancillary to housing.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The planning application was advertised within the local press as a potential departure from the development plan and was also the basis of the normal neighbour notification procedure. As noted above, these comments are in respect of the larger proposal for the 210 space car park. Six letters of representation have been submitted and are summarised as follows:

3.2 Cllr. McWIliams, one of the local members for the area, has advised that he has received numerous objections from tenants of the High Coats flats in respect of the proposal.

3.3 The Coatbridge Community Forum has expressed concern at the loss of open space within the heart of the town, especially at a time when the Council is undertaking an audit of open space within the Council area. It is also concerned at the position of the entrance, its impact on road safety and also the likely increase in local congestion. It has asked that consideration be given to enhancing the area of ground between the McDonalds restaurant and JJB Sports to the south of the site (which it considers to be rundown and unattractive in appearance) as compensation for the loss of open space. Finally, the Forum has asked for the opportunity of addressing the committee before it makes its decision as it believes that there are several compelling arguments in relation to the loss of open space, positioning of the entrance and suggestions to improve the application which require to be presented in person.

3.4 Letters of objection have been received from 4 local residents in the High Coats flats and their concerns are summarised as follows:

Extra noise from cars and people using the car park in close proximity to flats

Extra pollution from cars using the car park in close proximity to flats with an impact on health.

Green space and trees will be destroyed where local children play.

Car park will be magnet for undesirables who deal in drugs and crime.

Development will only assist workers within the new building and not local people

The proposal should have been the basis of open discussion prior to the planning application being submitted.

Local people are encouraged to recycle but this is at odds with proposal for car park which will create more pollution.

There is already adequate car parking within the town centre.

3.5 The Transportation Manager has no objections in principle to the car park subject to the following conditions:

0 Revised road geometry required at site access.

0 Further details required of section of footpath which crosses the new access road.

0 Siting of new access footpaths need to be revised.

3.6 It should be noted that these comments are merely in relation to the layout and design of the car

85 park, and detailed comments from the Transportation Manager on the ability of the car park to serve the associated multi-use public building at 126-130 Main Street are addressed with the report for that development.

3.7 SEPA has asked that any drainage be dealt with by means of ‘SUDS’. It is also noted that the site is close to (but outwith) the Coatbridge Air Quality Management Area (located between Whiflett and Shawhead) and that the additional traffic generated by the development may result in increases in pollutants within this area. SEPA therefore recommends that an assessment be made of the development’s impact on the air quality management area.

3.8 Strathclyde Police (Architectural Liaison Officer) has made detailed comments on the proposal which for the most part are relevant to the applicant in the detailed design and management of the car park. However, it is suggested that pedestrian access points in and out of the site be kept to a minimum, that the site be enclosed and that the car park be designed and laid out in accordance with ‘Park Mark’ (an accredited scheme which aims to enhance safety in public car parks).

3.9 Scottish power has advised of the presence of some of its apparatus in and round the site.

3.10 The West of Scotland Archaeology Service has advised that there is unlikely to be any items of interest beneath the site worthy of investigation.

3.11 Protective Services has advised that a ground investigation survey would not be necessary in this instance.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 It is accepted that a car park ancillary to a new public building would not be the type of use which policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) would seek to encourage. However, car parks, per se, are not in themselves an alien feature within residential areas. Also, it is noted that the site, being adjacent to the town centre and next to a major arterial route way is not entirely typical of most residential areas. It is felt that the development plan, whilst not supporting the proposed development, would also not presume against it and that on balance the development plan is neutral on the matter. Accordingly, the success or failure of the planning application should therefore depend on weighing up other material considerations.

4.3 In this instance, the key material considerations are considered to be the loss of open space, the impacts of the car park on the amenity of the surrounding area and the suitability of the means of access. Issues which are not being assessed within this report are the suitability of the car park for the associated development at 126-130 Main Street as that particular issue is being addressed as apart of planning application C/07/01605/FUL.

Loss of open Space 4.4 In purely functional terms, it is noted that the car park development will have no impact on the existing footpath network which will remain as existing. Despite the arguments put forward by one of the objectors (who claimed that the area was used by local children) it is argued that the open space is of little use as a play facility bearing in mind its location next to a busy main road, its topography and the erection of high railings around the high flats (put up several years ago when they were refurbished) which has effectively divorced the open space from the flats.

86 4.5 When seen from the adjoining roadways, much of the development would be screened by the dense shrubbery located between Main Street and the application site and this would be supplemented by additional planting proposed as part of the development. The visual impact from this perspective would be reduced further by the lowering of the ground levels particularly at the north end of the site.

4.6 The Coatbridge Community Forum has suggested that areas outwith the site be enhanced in compensation for the loss of the open space (and in particular has suggested the area between McDonalds and JJB Sports be investigated). The applicant has advised that the area in question is outwith their control but that substantial areas of new compensatory planting will be created around the west, south and east of the application site.

4.7 In relation to the Council’s audit of open space, it is noted that policies and proposals in respect of this matter have yet to be formalised. In the meantime, therefore, proposals which have an impact on open space must be treated on their own merits.

impacts on Local Amenity 4.8 Some local residents with the high flats have expressed concern at the likely increase in noise and disturbance from cars and people using the car park and from air pollution from cars. It is accepted that residents on lower floors (with windows which overlook the site) will certainly experience an increase in such disturbance, however, bearing in mind the fact that the car park will be used intensively only during office hours, the proximity of the flats to a junction of several busy main roads and the lowering of the ground levels close to the ‘High Coats’ flats, it is suggested that this impact would not be significant.

4.9 It has been suggested that the development will exacerbate existing problems of anti-social behaviour at the site. However, bearing in mind the increase in pedestrian traffic in and around the site and the use of CCW, it is suggested that an increase in this problem is unlikely. In addition, some of the security concerns raised by Strathclyde Police have been incorporated into the design of the car park by the deletion of footpath connections to the east and by reducing the availability of escape routes further by enclosing most of the site by railings.

4.10 One objector has suggested that the proposal will offer benefits to people working at the new multi-use building at Main Street and no benefits to local residents. It would be difficult to argue that the proposal would have any direct positive benefits for local residents. The applicant has suggested that the car park could be made available for local residents at off-peak times although it is not clear how this would benefit local residents when they already have adequate parking provision.

4.1 1 SEPA has suggested that the increase in vehicle traffic may have implications for the nearby “Air Quality Management Area.” It is noted that the closest part of the Coatbridge AQMA is some 560metres to the south, and therefore need to carry out a full assessment at this stage is not accepted.

4.12 SEPA has also asked that site drainage takes the form of SUDS and the applicant has shown permeable block pavers to facilitate this.

Road Safety 4.13 Concerns of the Transportation Manager (in terms of road geometry, car park spacing/layout and potential conflict between cars and pedestrians at the crossing point) can be addressed by conditions. It is also noted that the Transportation Manger, having examined the results of a full Transportation Assessment, has no objections to the siting of a new access point at the south- east corner of the site and this may allay the fears of local objectors with concerns in this respect.

87 Conclusions 4.14 In conclusion, judging the proposal purely on its own merits, it is considered that negative impacts of the development can be mitigated to an extent, although not entirely. However, what must weigh heavily in its favour are the benefits afforded by the multi-use building which the car park is intended to serve. These benefits are set out within the report associated with that planning application (which can be found elsewhere within this agenda) and are considered significant but can only be realised within the provision of adequate car parking close to the development site. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the aforementioned conditions.

4.1 5 The provisions of planning circular 5/2007 (Notification of Planning Applications) apply in this instance given the interest which the Council has in the proposal. In particular, it is necessary for the Council to refer planning applications to the Scottish Government (affording it the opportunity of calling it in for its own determination) in cases where there is a substantial body of local opposition to the proposal or when the development is found to be contrary to the development plan. In this instance, it is considered that the presence of 6 letters of objection do not constitute a substantial body (particularly when considering the proximity of around 400 flats to either side of the application site boundary). Also, the development has not been found to be contrary to the development plan therefore there is no need for the Scottish Government to be notified of this planning application.

4.16 Finally, it should be noted that a request has been made by the Coatbridge Community Forum that the Planning and Transportation Committee carry out a site visit and hearing prior to it reaching its decision on this planning application.

88 Application No: C/07/01777/FUL

Date Registered: 31 st October 2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs A. Eyles 21 Golfview Drive Drumpellier Coatbridge ML5 IJN

Agent R Carrick 3 Whirlow Gardens Glasgow G69 6LE

Development: Side and Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 21 Golfview Drive Drumpellier Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 IJN

Ward: 6 Coatbridge North And Glenboig Councillors Clarke, McWiIliams, Shields, & Wilson

Grid Reference: 271458665092

File Reference: C/PL/CTG7350021000/CMN/LR

Site History: 0 01/00542/FUL Erection of Double Domestic Lock-up $?rage and Formation of New Vehicular Access - Granted 27 June 2001

Development Plan: Policy HG9: Housing Policy for existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991, including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 1 letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

89 Planning- Application.. No. C/07/01777/FUL

Side and Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse

21 Golfview Drive Drumpellier Coatbndge * Representation Notii to Soak +-

90 Recommendation: Approve 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 first floor windows on the southern gable as coloured RED on the plan E2, hereby approved, shall be fitted with obscure glazing and retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of privacy.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 31 st October 2007 Letter from A. B. Ferguson, 23 Golfview Drive, Drumpellier, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 1 JN received 14th November 2007. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991,Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236 812375. Date: 14'h January 2008

91 APPLICATION NO. C1071017771FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The property to which this application relates is a one and a half storey detached house and its garden ground. The building is located within the Drumpellier area of Coatbridge which is predominantly residential in nature. The property is bounded to the south by Davaar Drive, to the east by Golfview Drive, to the west by Drumpellier Golf Course, and to the north by a neighbouring residential property. The house is orientated so that it faces west onto the golf course accessed by a footpath from Davaar Drive. The vehicular access is from the rear (east) and can be considered to operate as the main frontage. The site has a detached double garage extension, swimming pool and associated small heating plant, in the form of a garden shed. The garden is fenced or hedged to 1.8 metres on all sides, creating a private area around the swimming pool. The site level in height and the external materials are brown timber cladding and red painted facing brick the roofing tiles are brown concrete profile tiles. The properties on either side (north and south) are single storey detached dwellinghouses.

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a one and a half storey extension to the side (south) elevation of the dwellinghouse at 21 Golfview Drive, Coatbridge. The proposed extension would project 6.8 metres from the side of the dwelling, and would be 15.3 metres in length. It would match the eastern elevation of the existing house and incorporate the heating plant of the swimming pool into the main building. It would be set off the southern boundary by 1.25 metres. The roof would be double pitched and perpendicular to the existing roofline sloping down to the front and rear. The maximum height would match the existing at 7.8 metres. The overall footprint created would be 130.5 square metres. The extension would provide a bedroom and sun room on the ground floor with two bedrooms on the first floor. There would be traditional dormer with hipped roof and three windows facing east from the first floor and a smaller traditional dormer with hipped roof and two windows facing west. There would also be an enlargement to full length window on the existing first floor window facing west. There would be two small windows on the first floor of the gable facing Davaar Drive, and three windows and a door from the ground floor. The windows would be inset from the gable creating a canopy over the entrance. There would be no changes to the existing car parking arrangements. The proposed finishing materials would match the existing.

DeveloDment Plan

There are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to Local Plan Policy which is HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Consultations and Representations

The Transportation Section were consulted and offered comments relating to the fencing around the vehicular access.

One letter of objection was received from the neighbour to the north at 23 Golfview Drive. The objection can be summarised as follows: 0 Building is forward of the building line and as such is not in keeping with the original planning for the estate. Overshadowing to No.23 Golfview Drive

92 4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 Policy HG9 of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 is of relevance to the determination of this application, It states that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the District Council.

4.3 The Development Control Advice design guidance for 'House Extensions' is of relevance to the determination of this application. The advice states that extensions should relate to the scale and design of the original house and should not affect the amenity of neighbours. It should integrate into the surroundings by virtue of its scale, form, proportions and materials and it should not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking. In the case of an extension its positioning and proportions should be in keeping with the existing building and should be finished in materials with colours and textures which complement the existing building and other buildings in the locality. The guidance also states that side extensions should leave garden ground appropriate for the size of the house and plot and access to the rear should be maintained. The proposals accord with the guidance.

4.4 In response to the above points of representation the following comments can be made.

0 Any proposed projection forward of the building line toward a road would require planning permission regardless of previous planning restrictions. As such this proposal to develop forward of the established building line must then be assessed on its own merits. The house plots along Golfview Drive do not form a coherent building line, indeed the objector's plot is forward of the applicants by 3.4 metres, and the southern neighbour is a further 3 metres forward. The site is well screened from the road and footways, it has a small heating plant and swimming pool within the front garden that would be incorporated into the main house and the proposal in this respect would better integrate this feature into the surroundings.

The objector has also stated that the proposal would over shadowing their property. The extension is some 11 metres distant from the objector's plot and a further 5 metres from the objector's house. As the maximum height of the extension is 7.8 metres there would be no skylight affect on the northern neighbour. There would be no change to the direct sunlight to the northern neighbour at the equinox from the proposal.

4.5 It is concluded that the proposals are acceptable. In its proposed position the extension would be built in the southern side garden of the applicant's house. By virtue of its size, scale, architectural form and positioning on the side of the house the proposed extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the house or of the character and appearance of the area. The proposed extension would not constitute an overdevelopment of the house plot as the resultant garden area would be acceptable. The parking arrangements would be retained and there would continue to be adequate pedestrian access around the sides of the house. The external materials proposed match those existing on site. To ensure the privacy of other properties is not seriously affected it is considered that the windows on the southern gable from the bathroom and bedroom should be obscure glazed to protect the privacy of the southern neighbour across Davaar Drive. It is considered that this proposal would integrate satisfactorily with the adjacent properties, and would cause no adverse amenity effects in relation to their sunlightldaylight or privacy. It is therefore recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.

93 Application No: C/07/01804/FUL

Date Registered: 19th November 2007

Applicant: T-Mobile (UK) Ltd Hatfield Business Park Hatfield Hertfordshire ALIO 9BW

Agent WHP Wilkinson Helsby Unit 46 Evans Business Centre Belgrave Street Bellshill ML4 3NP

Development: Installation of 12metre High Telecommunication Mast and Associated Equipment Boxes

Location: Land At East High Street Town Centre Airdrie North Lanarkshire

Ward: 8 Airdrie Central Councillors Devine, Logue & Stocks

Grid Reference: 276026665739

File Reference: C/PL/AIE288/KS/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The site falls within an area designated as ENV 15/3 (Victoria and Town Centre Airdrie Conservation Area and HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan. In addition policy TEL 1 (Telecommunications Development) also applies.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: None

Represen ta t ions: 1 letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 28th November 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of TEL 1 (Telecommunications

94 P OdLLBC SY Nrrn ienemm e"oY"r Installa

Not 10 Scab

95 Development) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that it would result in an unacceptable environmental impact on the Victoria and Airdrie Town Centre Conservation Area.

2. That the proposed development would be contrary to the terms of policy ENV 513 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in the at the proposal would have a detrimental affect upon the character of the ENVI 513 Victoria and Airdrie Town Centre Conservation Area.

3, That it has not been demonstrated that there are no suitable alternative sites outwith the Victoria and Airdrie Town Centre Conservation Area and outwith the proximity of the Mavisbank Primary School.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 7th November 2007

Memo from NLC Education received 26 November 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B 8, C September 1996

Letter from Mr A McAuley, Orchard House, Fruitfield, East High Street, Airdrie received 12'h December 2007. Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Keith Simpson at 01236 812372

Date: 23rd January 2008

96 APPLICATION NO. C1071018041FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for the installation of a 12.0 metre high telecommunication mast and associated equipment boxes at the junction of East High Street and North Bridge Street Airdrie, beside the area known as Old Cross.

1.2 The mast and equipment comprise a grey coloured 11.7 metre high pole including antenna and transmission dish and two grey coloured ground level equipment cabinets 1642mm high, 925mm by 1300mm and 1330mm high, 570mm by 1228mm. The style of mast is to be one designed to be as insignificant as compared to the surrounding landscape as possible, and the equipment cabinets are proposed to avoid larger equipment cabins. The developer has submitted a supporting statement that advises this site is required as a replacement for an existing mast located outside Mavisbank Primary School.

1.3 The mast and equipment would be located to the front of a large advertising hoarding, between the paved amenity area and tarmac footpath to the south west corner of the area at the junction of East High Street and North Bridge Street by Old Cross. The site lies within the Victoria and Town Centre Conservation Area.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site falls within an area designated as ENV 15/3 (Victoria and Town Centre Airdrie Conservation Area and HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan. ENV 16 Conservation Area Improvements Policy states in determining applications for development within Conservation Areas, regard will be paid to the height, scale, materials, colour, overall character of the proposal, and would seek that developments in such areas do not adversely affect them. In addition policy TEL 1 (Telecommunications Development) also applies. The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed against the development plan and any other relevant material considerations.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The proposals were advertised in Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser on the 28'h November 2007 as the site lies within the Airdrie Conservation Area.

3.2 The Education Department advised that there are concerns over the installation of radio equipment in the vicinity of schools, due to perceptions of the local school community that such installations may represent a danger, and that this may affect parental decisions on the appropriateness of schools for their children.

3.3 Following standard neighbourhood notification procedures one letter of representation has been received objecting to the proposal. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

(i) significant disruption during construction phase (ii) significant adverse visual impact (iii) probability of electromagnetic interference (iv) probability of physical interference (v) Health risk due to prolonged exposure to strong electromagnetic fields

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

97 4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and all other material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under the terms of Policy ENV 15/3 Victorian and Airdrie Town Centre Conservation Area and TEL 1 Telecommunication Development as contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

4.2 Policy ENV 15 requires developments to retain and enhance the unique character of the Victoria and Town Centre Conservation Area, hence any developments must be assessed as to whether they would be detrimental to the Conservation Area designation, in terms of visual and amenity impacts.

4.3 The site is located in ENV 1513 Victoria and Town Centre Airdrie Conservation Area in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 which states the need to retain and enhance the unique characters of the designated areas.

4.4 Policy TEL 1 (Telecommunications Development) states that any telecommunications developments will be considered with regard to national policy and against economic benefit, specific locational need, and environmental impact.

4.5 It is unlikely that there would be a significant negative or positive impact in regards to economic benefit that can be measured. It will be of general benefit to the community to have full signal coverage for mobile phones.

4.6 In terms of specific locational need the applicant has supplied a supporting statement that indicates that the site is required to provide coverage for mobile phone users of the surrounding locality of Central Airdre. This site is required as a replacement site for the existing mast located to the front of the Mavisbank Primary School.

4.7 NPPG 19 explains that the aim of telecommunications policy is to ensure that business and domestic users have a wide range of choice and there is equitable access to the latest technologies which will enable business growth by opening up new markets and new and diverse innovative services. It is accepted that the service provided by the mast and ground equipment will be of general benefit to the community; however the benefits must be judged against that of amenity of the conservation area and the concerns of the primary school com m unity.

4.8 In terms of environmental impact it is appreciated that the applicant is proposing a 12m mast with reduced size equipment box as opposed to a cabin. It is considered that the development will have a detrimental impact upon pedestrians and add to existing street furniture to create a cluttered corner area. The proposal is considered to be the least prominent of the telecoms masts designs, yet the site would be highly visible to people passing through the area, and would be considered to be detrimental to the sites amenity value. In particular the proposed mast would be a prominent vertical feature within streetscape corridor when looking north towards the ‘top cross’ from the town centre. This would have a significant impact on the character of an established view to the detriment of the Victoria and Airdrie Town Centre Conservation Area.

4.9 NPPG 19 provides support for telecommunications development, where the applicants have demonstrated the ability to carefully consider the siting and design options, and where possible the environmental impacts have been minimised. With regard to PAN 62 it should be noted that the preferred location for telecommunication masts and equipment is in unobtrusive locations. As noted above this location is in prominent position on the corner of North Bridge Street and Chapel Street and occupies an elevated position in relation to the Town Centre it is therefore considered that this is an obtrusive location and therefore not acceptable in terms of environmental impact and siting.

4.10 The points raised by the objector can be addressed as follows:

98 (i) This is not a material planning consideration. (ii) As discussed above it is considered that the visual impact of the proposed mast is unacceptable. (iii - v) The required ICNIRP Declaration has been supplied stating that the proposal is in compliance with the international safety standards for electro-magnetic radiation emissions.

4.11 In summary, it is considered that taking into account the development plan and all material considerations including national policy and public concerns, planning permission should be refused in this case. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 as it fails to meet the terms of policy TELI in relation to its siting and environmental impact. It is considered that the obtrusive siting of the mast is contrary to the guidance of NPPG and PAN62. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the stated reasons.

99 Application No: C/07/01810/FUL

Date Registered: 30th November 2007

Applicant: Mr i& Mrs A Anderson 15 Rochsoles Crescent Thrashbush Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 6TE

Agent Mrs J Barbour 13 Cherry Tree Drive Blackwood Lanark ML11 9TF

Development: Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 15 Rochsoles Crescent Thrashbush Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 6TE

Ward: 7 Airdrie North Councillors Cameron, Coyle, McGuigan & Morgan

Grid Reference: 276163666710

File Reference: C/PL/AI R434000015/KS/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Rep resentat io ns: 2 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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.

100 Planning Application No. C/07/0181O/FUL

Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse

i 15 Rochsoles Crescent Airdrie * Representations NotA to Scab +-

101 2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling.

Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 7th November 2007

Memo from Transportation Section received 16'h January 2008

Letter from P Gallagher, 11 Rochsoles Crescent, Thrashbush, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 6TE received 22nd November 2007. Letter from Mr And Mrs A McCormick, 13 Rochsoles Crescent, Airdrie, ML6 6TE received 26th November 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Keith Simpson at 01236 812372.

Date: 23rdJanuary 2008

102 APPLICATION NO. C/07/0181O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1. Planning Permission is being sought for a two storey side extension to the eastern side of 15 Rochsoles Crescent, Airdrie. The extension would be 7.3m overall in depth, the frontal section being 2.5m wide by 2.9m and the rear section 3.5m wide by 4.4m. The extension is set back from the front elevation with a ridge height of 7.2 metres which is lower than the existing roofline. Rear access will still be possible via the paved section between the property and the electricity sub station adjacent, yet space for parking two cars will not be available, which although the house did not originally possess would be possible at present.

1.2. The application property is a small, modern, semi-detached dwellinghouse located within a small estate development, set within the established residential area of Thrashbush, Airdrie. The property lies adjacent to a vehicle turning area and electricity sub-station and is bounded by residential curtilages.

2. DeveloPment Plan

2.1. The site lies in an area zoned as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The development is in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Presentations

3.1. The Transportation Section has formally objected to this proposal on the grounds that the development would result in the loss of an in curtilage parking space which could result in vehicles parking on-street or in the turning head. This in-curtilage car parking space accesses from a turning head and is unauthorised while there is parking provision in the designated parking area opposite no.15 (in line with the original planning permission) to serve the application property.

3.2. Two letters of objection were received from neighbours at 13, and 11 Rochsoles Crescent to the west and nearest the property. The main points of which are as follows:-

(1) Potential fire hazard caused by building in close proximity to the electricity sub-station. (2) A previously built conservatory was not built in matching brick to the property. (3) Visually the property with the additional extension would dominate and would not be in keeping with the surrounding properties. (4) There would be detrimental impact on sunlight to the neighbouring property. (5) The area at the end of the street is for turning purposes only and not for parking or access. (6) The positioning of the windows on the front elevation would be out of character and they would be of a different type to those on the existing property. (7) The road would be affected if any building works were being undertaken. (8) The extension would be detrimental to the value of neighbouring properties. 3.3. Scottish power was notified and has not objected to the proposal.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposal requires to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. In this instance the site is located within a well established residential

103 area and the proposals should be assessed under the terms of policy HG9 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and the associated design guidance on house extensions.

4.2 Policy HG9 of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 is of relevance to the determination of this application. It states that house extensions will generally be permitted SO long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the District Council.

4.4 In response to the above points of representation the following comments can be made. (1) th is is not a material planning consideration (2) a condition requiring the materials to match those of the existing house would be placed on any permission. (3) t he extension is considered acceptable in design terms, it is not considered to be of a size or scale which would dominate the existing character of the property. The design reflects that of the existing dwellinghouse and it is considered that the extension would integrate satisfactorily with dwellinghouse and the surrounding streetscape. (4) a sunlight daylight test has been carried out and will the extension will not reduce sunlightldaylight to the neighbouring property. (5) the current parking area within the site curtilage will be lost as a result of the extension and therefore no vehicular access will be taken from the turning head which will be an improvement on the current situation. The pedestrian access will not impinge on road safety and is therefore considered acceptable. (6) the style and positioning of the windows are considered acceptable. As noted above in point 2 a condition would be placed on any permission which would require the materials (including the windows) to match the existing. (7) th is is not a material planning consideration (8) th is is not a material planning consideration.

4.5 While the comments of the Transportation Section are noted with regard to the loss of an existing in curtilage parking space it should be highlighted that this existing parking space has been formed without permission from the roads authority over the adjacent turning head and this in itself has raised concerns by other residents. In addition, the removal of this facility will not adversely impact on the parking arrangements for the subject property as adequate parking provision will be retained in the designated parking area opposite no. 15 (in line with the original planning permission).

4.4. In conclusion I have considered the points of objection but do not consider that these merit the refusal of this proposal. The design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is in keeping with the scale of the existing dwelling. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions.

104 Application No: C/07/01832/FUL

Date Registered: 18th December 2007

Applicant: Swinton Group Ltd Swinton House 6 Great Marlborough Street Manchester M15SW Agent Ken Aynsley Management Surveyor Swinton House 6 Great Marlborough Street Manchester M1 5SW Development: Change of Use of Retail Unit (Class 1) to Insurance Brokers (Class 2)

Location: Unit 21 Quadrant Shopping Centre Main Street Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 3EG

Ward: 6 Coatbridge North And Glenboig Councillors Clarke, Shields, Wlson and McWilliams

Grid Reference: 273456665035

File Reference:

Site History: 03/00269/FUL Erection of New Shopfronts and Formation of ATM Unit - Granted 7'h April 2003 04/00966/FUL Alterations to Shop Front - Granted 20thJuly 2004 05/00908/FUL Change of Use From Class 1 Shop to Hot Food Takeaway - Granted 1'' August 2005

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 The site is located in area covered by policy COM 3 (Maintain Retail Core Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations:

Representations:

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 9th of January 2008

105 Planning Application No, C/07/01832/FUL

Change of Use of Retail Unit (Class 1) to Insurance Brokers (Phase 2)

Unit 21 Quadrant Shopping Centre, Main Street, Coatbridge Not to Scale

106 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

2. That the permission hereby granted relates to a change of use only.

Reason: To define the permission.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th November 2007

Memo from Local Plans Section dated lothJanuary 2008

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 812231.

Date: 23 January 2008

107 APPLICATION NO. C1071018321FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application property is a ground floor commercial unit located within a shopping centre (Quadrant) in the Coatbridge Town Centre. The unit is addressed as Unit 21, The Quadrant Shopping Centre, Coatbridge and fronts onto the main retail street of Coatbridge (Main Street,) being positioned at the entrance to the Quadrant Centre. The property is adjoined to the west by a 'Burger King' restaurant and to the east by 'Ethel Austin' a Class 1 shop. The unit at present is unused and its most recent use was for a Class 1 shop.

1.2 The application is for the change of use from a Class 1 (Shop) to a Class 2 (Financial, Professional and Other Services). The applicant proposes to use the unit as an Insurance Brokers (Class 2) which requires a change of use application from a Shop (Class 1). The applicant does not propose to make any structural alterations to the externals of the building.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The relevant development plan is the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2.2 The proposed change of use does not have any strategic importance and therefore would not be assessed against the criteria of the Structure Plan.

2.3 The unit is located within an area designated as COM3 (Maintain Retail Cores) in the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991. This policy states that within this defined retail core area the Planning Authority should resist any further changes of use out of Class 1 (Retail) and should encourage changes into Class 1 (Retail). A later alteration to this policy stated that the heavy bias towards Class 1 retail units should be retained but indicated that no less than 80% of the area should be of a Class 1 use.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the Standard Neighbour Notification Process no objections were received.

3.2 The Local Plans Section was consulted and offered no objections to the application. They advised that as there are existing Class 2 & 3 uses on the first level of the Quadrant Centre then the introduction of a Class 2 on the first level is an acceptable use and will contribute to SPP 8 vitality and viability indicators to check the health of the town centre.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 It is considered that the application for a change of use from a Class 1 (Retail Shop) to Class 2 (Insurance Brokers) is contrary to the development plan. Policy COM 3 states that the Planning Authority should resist any change away from Class 1 uses in this area and also should promote changes to Class 1 uses. The development plan policy is the dominant determinant in this application.

108 4.3 It is felt however that the material considerations of this application outweigh the development policy of which it relates. Firstly, although a retail core is being promoted in this town centre location, not all the units within the COM 3 area are of a Class 1 use. There are currently two units used for Class 2 purposes, one unit used for a restaurant and takeaway (Class 3) and a unit used as a nightclub (Class 11). In this respect a material consideration is the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991 First alteration policy C(iii) to the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991 which acknowledged that the original Local Plan policy (COM 3) was difficult to achieve and promoted a less rigid policy for enhancing the retail core. That alteration provided for a target of no less than 80% of the COM3 area being retained for retail (Class 1) while allowing other use classes to be introduced into the COM3 area. The inclusion of the Class 2 Insurance Broker would not diminish the number of Class 1 units in the area to below 80% and the retaining of the inside of the Quadrant Shopping Centre for retail would help promote a retail core to the area.

4.4 Secondly, the difficulty of maintaining the aim of the policy is reinforced in the fact that this particular unit has been vacant for 6 years. The unit previously had Planning Permission granted for the change of use to a hot food takeaway in 2005 however that use was never taken up. It would seem it has proven difficult to attract Class 1 uses to this particular location, which has been reinforced in the relaxation of the COM 3 policy in 2005 to allow the locating of a hot food takeaway to this unit. This suggests that it may be some time before a prospective retail tenant may be found for this unit. Vacant units have the potential to harm the vitality and viability of town centres. Although retail units should be promoted in the town centre, particularly in the core, this should not be at a detriment to the vitality and viability of the town centres as described in PAN 59. SPP8 (Town Centres and Retailing) also states that there is a need for a variety of shops and services within the town centre and therefore to improve the health of the town centre requires that vacant units are avoided and that a variety of uses are provided.

4.5 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable as in this instance the material considerations of the application outweigh the development plan policy for this area. It is felt that refusing the change of use from a class 1 unit to a class 2 unit in order to preserve the retail core would be detrimental to the area. The first alteration to the COM 3 policy calls for a degree of flexibility within areas zoned as retail core and this would allow the inclusion of the Class 2 unit without harming the retail core. The retention of a vacant unit in the hope of attracting a retail tenant would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted subject to the stated conditions.

109 Application No: C/07/01875/FUL

Date Registered: 21st November 2007

Applicant: Link Group Ltd Watling House Callendar Business Park Falkirk FKI IXR

Agent Robert Potter & Partners Architects 4 Park Circus Place Glasgow G3 6AN

Development: Construction of 20 Dwellinghouses & 16 Two Storey Flats

Location: Chapelhall Primary School Gibb Street Chapelhall Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8UG

Ward: 11 Airdrie South Councillors M. Coyle, Curley, Fagan & Love

Grid Reference: 277736662919

File Reference: C/PL/CHG3 75/CMN/L R

Site History:

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - EDUC1:Protect and Improve Schools

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No response) Scottish Water (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections) British Telecom (No objections) British Gas (No objections)

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 28th November 2007

110 Planning Application No. C/07/01875/FUL Construction of 20 Dwellinghouses and 16 Two Storey Flats

Chapelhall Primary School, Gibb Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie N

Site Area 1.02 HA NotA to Scale +-

111 Recommendation: Approve 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 any works commence, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

3. That before any of the flatted dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied, the fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

4. That before any works commence, 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 the location, design and materials of bin stores to serve the flats.

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

5. That before any works commence, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted;

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

6. That prior to the occupation of the last two dwellinghouses within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

7. That before the development hereby starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- a. the proposed footpaths shown on the approved plans; b. the proposed parking areas shown on the approved plans; c. the proposed external lighting provided for the areas shown on the approved plans; d. the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas shown on the approved plans; e. the proposed fences to be erected along the boundaries shown on the approved plans

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.

8. That prior to the occupation of the last two dwellinghouses, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 7 shall be in operation.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

112 9. That prior to any works of any description being commenced on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency's (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP).

The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

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

10. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of condition 9 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a responsible Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

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

11. That before any further works commence, 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 enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

12. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 11 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

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

13. That before the development hereby permitted starts, details of the design, location and construction of the proposed vehicular and pedestrian facilities shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

14. That before any of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied, all the road works shall be completed in accordance with the details approved under the terms of condition 13 above.

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

113 Note to Committee

If granted, this application will require to be notified to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications)(Scotland) Direction 2007 as it is development Contrary to the Development Plan.

If the Committee are minded to grant planning permission the decision notice will not be issued until a Section 69 Agreement is signed between the Council and the developer with regard to the agreed financial contribution for the upgrading of the existing recreational facilities in Chapelhall.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2 1st November 2007

Letter from Scottish Water received 10th December 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 3rd December 2007 Letter from British Telecom received 3rd December 2007 Letter from British Gas received 21st December 2007

Memo from Transportation Section received 8th January 2008 Memo from Environmental Service Section received 3rd January 2008

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236 812375.

Date: 16'h January 2008

114 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01875/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application site measures 1.035 hectares and is located on the former Chapelhall Primary School site in Gibb Street, Chapelhall. The site is on the brow of a hill and slopes downwards in a southern direction. The former school buildings have been demolished and removed from the site. The site is bounded to the north, south and east by residential buildings and to the west by a public floodlit football park affiliated with the new Chapelhall Joint Campus Primary School.

1.2 The proposal is for the erection of 36 residential units, comprising 20 dwellinghouses and 16 flatted dwellinghouses. Four house types have been proposed including a single storey wheelchair cottage, 7 terrace houses, 12 semi-detached dwellinghouses, and 3 two storey blocks of two bedroom flats. The site would be accessed from Gibb Street in the east via a new access road leading to a turning circle in the south and a parking area in the north. Three of the proposed houses would include direct access onto Gibb Street. The site incorporates in curtilage parking for each house and two parking areas, one to the south and one to the north.

1.3 As the site is in excess of 30 dwellings a minimum 1500 square metres of play space is required to service the site. Given the physical restrictions of the site and its proximity to the public open space at School StreeVSherdale Avenue the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Council for the upgrading of amenity facilities within the general area in compensation for the non-provision of any on site play area provision.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by policy EDUCl: Protect and Improve Schools. The site has been identified as surplus as a new primary school has been recently completed in Chapelhall. The site should therefore be considered in the context of the surrounding area which is zoned as HG9: Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas. There are no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure and public advertisement no letters of representation have been received.

3.2 None of the statutory consultees offered any objection to this proposal.

3.3 The applicant has applied to the Police for a Secured by Design Accreditation. The Police Architectural Liaison officer offered comments on how this could be achieved and concluded that with clarification and minor adjustments to the proposal the accreditation could be issued.

3.4 The Transportation Section offered no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

3.5 The Conservation and Greening Section have offered comments regarding the integration of Swift boxes into the site as the area is a known breeding ground. Landscape Services had no adverse comments to make about the proposal.

3.6 The Pollution Control Section has requested the submission of a site investigation survey.

115 4. Plannincl Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard has to be made to the development plan. In particular, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the development on the whole is not held to be of strategic importance therefore the Structure Plan is not relevant in the assessment of this planning application.

4.2 In terms of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area designated for educational purposes under policy EDUCI: Protect and Improve Schools but has been identified as surplus. The site is regarded as suitable for residential development and as such is assessed against policy HG9: Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas. The proposed use is therefore considered acceptable in policy terms. The surrounding areas are predominantly of a residential nature and therefore an overriding issue in respect of this proposal is its compliance with the appropriate Design Guidance.

4.3 In general terms the proposed buildings are of acceptable standard and are of a complementary height to those surrounding (two storeys). The only immediate neighbour is the one and a half storey former janitor’s house to the north which bounds with the parking area for the northern flats and is 18 metres distant from the nearest proposed house. The applicant has verbally proposed to utilise high efficiency materials in the build, including solar panels & locally sourced (low carbon footprint) materials however details of this have not been provided. The comments from the Police regarding the Secure by Design Accreditation are encouraging and it seems likely that the development would achieve accreditation.

4.4 No representations were received from the statutory consultees against the proposal and the internal consultees all offered no objections subject to conditions. While the constraints of the site have made it not possible to include any elements of play provision within the development site as normally required in the Design Guidance the applicant is willing to make a financial contribution (normally based on f500 per dwelling) to the Council to upgrade existing amenity facilities within the general area. Play Services have agreed verbally that there is scope to upgrade nearby facilities. Should members be minded to grant planning permission no decision notice would be issued until a Section 69 Agreement has been concluded in respect of this financial contribution.

4.5 The Transportation Section were involved in the pre-application stage and have raised concern with certain aspects of the development i.e. visibility splays, footpath connectivity, dropped kerb location and traffic calming as well as acknowledging that the required visibility splays along Gibb Street from the site access to the left cannot be achieved. A transport statement was submitted with the application and concluded that there would be no detrimental affect on the junction and the Transportation section commented that this was a reasonable assumption. The Transportation Section offered no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

4.6 No representations were received following the standard neighbour notification procedure and advertisement in the local press. The proposal was also presented at a public meeting held by the applicant. No objections were received following that meeting.

4.7 Having regard to the foregoing I consider that the proposal accords with the provisions of the local plan both in policy and design terms. The comments received from the internal consultees can be dealt with through condition and therefore I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions and the conclusion of a satisfactory Section 69 Agreement. If the Committee is minded to grant planning permission then the application should be referred to the Scottish Government in view of the development being contrary to the development plan.

116 Application No: C/07/01888/FUL

Date Registered: 27th November 2007

Applicant: Thomas McClure 21 Darran Road Ballymo ney County Antrim BT53 7LB

Agent J.Kerr McDougall Ltd 13 Canyon Road Netherton Industrial Estate Wishaw ML2 OEG Development: Two Storey Development Comprising 6 Flats

Location: Land South Of 56 Lauchope Street Chapelhall North Lanarkshire

Ward: 01 1 Airdrie South Councillors M Coyle,Curley,Love & Fagan

Grid Reference: 278065662927

File Reference: C/PL/CHLI 9556/CM/LR

Site History: 04/00832/FUL Erection of 2 No. Houses - Granted 14'h July 2004 05/00191/FUL Erection of Three Storey Flatted Development (Nine Flats) with Associated ParkingIAmenity Space - Refused 6'h June 2005 06/00749/FUL Erection of Three Storey Flatted Development (Nile Flats) with Associated Parking/Amenity Space - Refused 20 October 2006

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy ECON 8:General Urban Area Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections) British Telecom (No response)

Rep resenta t io ns : 7 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

117 Planning Application No C/07/01888/FUL Two Storey Development Comprising of 6 Flats Land South of 65 Lauchope Street

118 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the boundary walls or fences to the side and rear of the site shall be at least 1.8 metres in height.

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

3. That before any of the flats hereby permitted, are occupied, the fences or walls as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

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

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

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

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

6. That notwithstanding the terms of condition 5 the proposed landscaping scheme shall incorporate proposals for trees to be placed along the site frontage.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to minimise the impact of the loss of trees from the site.

7. That within before the last two flats are occupied, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

119 8. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed footpaths (b) the proposed parking areas (c) the proposed external lighting (d) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas (e) the proposed fences or walls to be erected

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

9. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 8 shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

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

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

11. That a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 90 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and before the flats hereby permitted are brought into use, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety,

12. That before the development hereby permitted is completed a 2 metre wide footway shall be constructed along the full frontage of the site, in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the said Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.

13. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, a dropped kerb vehicular access shall be constructed 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: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

14. That all parking spaces shall be a minimum of 5.0 metres long and 2.5 metres wide with aisle width a minimum width of 6 metres

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

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

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory drainage arrangements.

16. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled ‘Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland’ and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

17. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 16 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

18. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a desk top study 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 enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

19. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 18 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

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

121 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th November 2007

Letter from British Gas received 4th January 2008 Letter from Scottish Power received 14th December 2007

Memo from Transportation received 9th January 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 14th December 2007 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 31st December 2007 Email from Strathclyde Police Architectural Liaison Officer dated 1gth December 2007.

E mail from Councillor M Coyle, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, ML1 IAB received 12th December 2007. Letter from D Robson, 45 Lauchope Street , Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SW received 18th December 2007. Letter from T McPake, 16 George Street , Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SZ received 19th December 2007 Letter from A Chapman, 56 Lauchope Street , Chapelhall, Airdrie received 18th December 2007. Letter from Chapelhall Tenant & Residents Associates, C/o Mr G Smith , 28 Loch Road, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8TP received 21st December 2007. Letter from Karen Whitefield MSP, Constituency Office, 3 Sandvale Place, Shotts, ML7 5EF received 7th January 2008. Letter from Alex Neil MSP, The Scottish Parliament, Holyrood, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP received 19th December 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Marshal1 at 01236 812376.

16 January 2007

122 APPLICATION NO, C/07/01888/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is being sought for the erection of 6 flats and associated car parking and amenity space at a site located off Lauchope Street, Chapelhall. 1.2 The site consists of an area of flat open space with a grass surface, some mature trees and hedgerow situated to the north of a Senior Citizens Day Centre. Overall the site measures some 40m x 40m. The site has a frontage onto Lauchope Street and is located within an area Of mixed commercial and residential uses. Most of the surrounding properties are generally two storey in height with single storey bungalow to the north and single storey day centre to the south. 1.3 The proposals would involve the erection of a 2 storey block of 6 flats. Internally the flats would be provided with 2 bedrooms, living room, kitchen, bathroom and storage areas. The building would be T shaped with a hipped tiled roof. The building would be finished with facing brick to extrernal walls and tiles to the roof. A total of 9 car parking spaces would be provided with a new vehicular access with dropped kerb being formed off Lauchope Street. A communal amenity space would be provided to the rear and the surrounding open space area would be landscaped with additional tree planting. A bin storage area would also be included.

1.4 The public footpath to the front of the development site is to be widened to 2.0 meters and an existing bus would be relocated to the front of the proposed building and set back from the roadway.

2. Development Plan

2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policy ECON 8 (General Urban Areas). The proposal raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section had no objections subject to conditions.

3.2 The Protective Services Section had no objection subject to conditions requiring a ground contamination survey and ensuring the site works comply with BS environmental regulations 3.3 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures there were 7 letters of representation received. The terms of objection can be summarised as follows.

a. The proposals will create additional traffic congestion on the main road b. The proposed development would overshadow adjacent properties C. The proposed development would overlook adjacent properties resulting in a loss of privacy. d. There would be a loss of direct sunlight to garden areas e. There would be increased noise and activity levels due to use of the communal car park f. The height of the proposed building is inconsistent with other buildings in the area 9. Boundary treatment is unacceptable and will result in loss of privacy to adjacent residents h. Planning permission has been refused for similar types of development at this site.

123 3.4 A letter was received from Karen Whitefield MSP in which she advised that she had received concerns from constituents regarding the positioning of flats next to a Senior Citizens Centre and that she did not believe that the development was appropriate at this location due to noise and safety issues created by additional traffic on an already congested road.

3.5 A letter was received from Alex Neil MSP who objected to the proposal on behalf of local residents on the grounds of refusal of previous similar applications, increased traffic levels on existing congested road, backland development, height of new build against adjacent single storey dwellings and potential blocking of disabled access.

3.6 Correspondence was received from Councillor Michael Coyle in which he objected to the proposal on the grounds of the site accessing onto a busy congested road and also that previous similar proposals had been refused by the Council.

3.7 A number of requests were made for a site visit and hearing prior to the determination of the planning application.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions 4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. There are no strategic planning issues. 4.2 As noted above the site falls within an area zoned as ECON 8 (General Urban Areas) where the principle of mixed uses is considered acceptable subject to requirements for access, plot size, built form and amenity can be met. The proposals would also be required to meet the terms of the design guidance on new housing proposals. 4.3 As the application details relate to a residential development the proposals are considered to acceptable in principle under the terms of policy ECON 8. The Transportation Section has no objection to the proposals subject to conditions that can be met by the developer. Access to the site via a private parking court is considered to be satisfactory and the required visibility splay can be provided. The developer is to provide a 2.0 metre wide footway along the frontage of the site and relocate a bus shelter to the rear of the existing footway. The provision of 9 off-street car parking spaces is also considered to be acceptable.

4.4 The development is located within an area of mixed commercial and residential uses and the use of the site for a flatted development is not out of keeping with the characteristics of the area. The surrounding buildings are generally single and two storey in height and the proposed buildings would not be out of character. The proposed finishing materials would consist of facing brick to external walls with pitched tiled roof. A new landscape scheme would be introduced and this would include a scheme of tree planting to the rear of the site. No boundary treatments were shown on the plans however this could be covered by condition.

4.5 The T shaped building would be approximately 8.5m in height to its roof apex and set back from the site boundaries and include private parking court, amenity space, drying green and bin store. Overall there would be approximately 500 square metres of amenity space, which would be an acceptable level of provision. There would be no significant overlooking problems for adjacent neighbours. The existing dwellinghouses to the rear of the site would be at least 20 metres away, which is acceptable distance apart. The proposed building would be 20 metres from the property to the north of the site and window openings would overlook the proposed car park for security purposes as suggested by the Strathclyde Police Architectural Liaison Officer who had no objection to the proposals. As such there would be no overlooking problem from the flats to the existing property to the north. There would be no overshadowing problems to any of the adjacent properties.

124 4.6 In terms of security, the private parking court would be accessed from the public road this and the private amenity/drying green would be overlooked from the proposed flats. The site would be subject to a landscaping scheme that would not compromise the security of the site.

4.7 The proposals are generally considered to be acceptable in terms of the development plan and associated design guidance.

4.8 Turning to the terms of objection the following comments can be made.

a. Whilst the proposals would lead to increased vehicles using this part of Lauchope Street, this was not considered significant by the Transportation Section although it was suggested it would be preferable if the access be repositioned to prevent the creation of a cross roads with the access at the Co-op car park. It was considered that if the site layout was handed to prevent a cross roads, this would have resulted in the proposed building being located nearer to the northern site boundary thus creating possible overlooking problems affecting the property to the north. The access to the Co-op is not a main through access road and the creation of a cross roads is not considered to be unacceptable by the Transportation Section. b. As noted the proposed building would not cause overshadowing problems C. Overlooking issues have been discussed above and it has been determined that the privacy of surrounding properties would not be significantly affected. d. There would be no significant loss of sunlight to adjacent properties. e. Whilst the use of the car park by residents may increase activity levels over the current situation, this would not be significant as the proposal relates to a residential development and associated vehicular use similar to the surrounding area. There would be adequate screening provisions and these would be covered by condition. f. The proposed building would be 2 storeys in height, and would not have an incongruous appearance as the overall height of its roof apex is similar to other buildings to the front and rear of the site. 9. The communal car park would be private and accessed via a dropped kerb and it is envisaged that a low boundary wall would be provided to create a formal entrance. The car park would be overlooked by residents thereby creating a defensible space which in turn would discourage through pedestrian movements by non-residents. In addition it would be a condition of any grant of planning permission that a 1.8 metre high wall or fence be provided along the rear and side boundaries of the site. h. The current proposals should be considered on their own merits.

4.9 Following consideration of the terms of the development plan, associated design guidance, and other material considerations, the proposals are considered to be acceptable. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.10 It should be noted that a request has been made for a site visit and hearing prior to a decision being made on the application.

125 Application No: C/07/02032/FUL

Date Registered: 21st December 2007

Applicant: T Mobile UK Ltd

Agent WHP Projects Unit 46 Evans Business Centre Belgrave Street Bellsh ill ML4 3VP

Development: Siting of Telecoms Mast

Location: Land North Of 103 Cairnhill Road Cairnh ill Airdrie North Lanarkshire

Ward: 11 Airdrie South Councillors Michael Coyle, Love, Curley and Fagan

Grid Reference: 274561659963

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Area)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 14 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: 21'' November 2007

126 Planning Application No C/07/02032/FUL Siting of Telecoms Mast

Land North of 103 Cairnhill Road, Cairnhill, Airdrie

!k Representations NotA I0 scale +-

127 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

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

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

3. That the T-UK equipment cabinets hereby approved be painted dark green in colour.

Reason: To blend in with back drop and surrounding greenery in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

4. That the T-UK monopole hereby approved be painted grey in colour.

Reason: To match the existing lamp posts in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th December 2007

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000

Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Letter from Mrs Joan Campbell, 105 Cairnhill Road, Airdrie, ML6 9HP received 21st January 2008. Letter from Mr And Mrs M Reilly, 80 Faskine Avenue, Cairmhill, Airdrie received 21st January 2008. Letter from Gladys Crawford, 89 Faskine Avenue, Cairnhill, Airdrie, ML6 9EA received 21st January 2008. Letter from Thomas And Joyce Carr, 91 Faskine Avenue, Airdrie received 21st January 2008. Letter from Miss Rosina Peacock, 4 Woodburn Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 9ED received 21st January 2008. Letter from E Middleton, 5 Woodburn Avenue, Airdrie received 21st January 2008. Letter from Joan Joyner, 2 Woodburn Avenue, Airdrie received 21st January 2008. Letter from John W Binnie, 3 Woodburn Avenue, Airdrie received 21st January 2008. Letter from Mr And Mrs McGonnell, 1 Woodburn Avenue, Airdrie received 21st January 2008. Letter from A Chalmers, 101 Cairnhill Road, Airdrie received 22nd January 2008. Letter from A Forsyth, 99 Cairnhill Road, Airdrie received 22nd January 2008. Letter from E Learmonth, 103 Cairnhill Road, Airdrie received 22nd January 2008. Letter from J And H Campbell, 105 Cairnhill Road, Airdrie received 22nd January 2008. Letter from M. Gartshore, 2 Parnell Street, Airdrie, ML6 9EE received 21st January 2008.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Keith Simpson at 01236 812372.

Date 24 January 2008

128 APPLICATION NO. C1071020321FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application is for the erection of an 11.7 metre high monopole and associated ground based equipment cabinets for telecommunications. The telecommunications equipment would be sited on a grass verge adjacent to Cairnhill Road, Airdrie. The site is to the north of an intersection where Woodburn Avenue connects with Cairnhill Road. To the north and west of the site is a former rail line which is now used as a cycle way with housing beyond this at approximately 50 metres from the site. To the south west and south of the site is an area of woodland with North Lodge house located at the edge of the woodland. There is housing to the south and east of the site on the other side of Cairnhill Road at an approximate distance of 30 metres. The applicant has not stated what colour will be used for the monopole or the associated transmission equipment.

1.2 The applicant has supplied a supporting statement that indicates the need for a mast within this area to meet a shortfall in coverage, which will be of general benefit to business, and domestic users in the area. Several sites were investigated to reduce the shortfall however all of these did not meet the requirements. The applicant has also provided the necessary ICNIRP compliance certificate with regards to health impacts from the development.

2. DeveloPment Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) and Policy TEL 1 (Telecommunications Developments) of the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991 is also applicable.

2.2 The proposed development does not have any strategic importance and therefore would not be assessed against the criteria of the Structure Plan.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process 14 letters of objection were received. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows :-

a. Traffic - due to it being on a tight bend, and could contribute to accidents, similarily when siting a cherry picker during installation. b. Residential Amenity - The development could attract vandalism. c. Impact on natural environment- The site chosen has more recently been improved environmentally and this development would adversely impact on the improvements. Also the development will impact negatively on the skyline for the immediate residents. d. Health - The potential likelihood of developing cancer, and other health risks.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 In assessing this application the local plan policy HG9 for existing residential areas is relevant.

129 This policy seeks to protect such areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity of the established housing. In land use terms the proposal is compliant with the development plan as the proposed development is unlikely to adversely affect the amenity of the established housing.

4.3 Policy TEL 1(Telecommunications Development) contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 indicates that any telecommunication development will be considered with regard to national policy and against; economic benefit, specific locational need and environmental impact.

4.4 It is unlikely that there would be a significant negative or positive impact in regards to economic benefit that can be measured. It will be of general benefit to the community to have full signal coverage for mobile phones.

4.5 As for specific locational need several sites were investigated. Due to the limited coverage, lack of site providers and the inability to site-share with any other telecommunications installations in the surrounding area, the application site was chosen to provide the appropriate network coverage.

4.6 NPPG 19 provides support for telecommunications development where the applicants have demonstrated the ability to carefully consider the siting and design options, and where the possible environmental effects have been minimised. Should the applicant have taken all these factors into consideration, refusal is unlikely to be warranted. With regards to PAN 62, it should be noted that it is preferred to locate telecommunication equipment in unobtrusive locations. The applicant has satisfied the criteria set out in both NPPG 19 and PAN 62.

4.9 The points raised by the objectors can be addressed as follows: a. Regarding the impact upon traffic PAN 62 recommends siting on road junctions where street furniture is present and it is considered that the proposal will have little impact on traffic. b. Residential amenity could potentially be adversely affected by providing a meeting area for gangs but it is not a material consideration for a planning application. c. In considering environmental impact, it is felt that the proposed installation will be of similar appearance to the surrounding street furniture and will not have a significant impact. The monopole is sited close to existing lamp posts and therefore will not look out of place next to these. The backdrop to the equipment is approximately 8 metre high trees and shrubs which provide an ideal screen to the dwellinghouses to the north and allows any equipment to blend into the settings. PAN 62 states that to reduce visual impact telecommunications equipment should be placed at major road junctions where lamp posts, traffic lights and road signs are present. The proposed location would meet this criteria as it is placed near a road junction and close to both trees and lamp posts. A condition would need to be applied to ensure that the colour used for the equipment would allow it to blend in with the surrounding environment. d. The required ICNIRP Declaration has been supplied stating that the proposal is in compliance with the international safety standards for electro-magnetic radiation emissions.

4.9 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable under the terms of the Adopted Monklands Local Plan and all material considerations including national policy. The design of the telecommunications equipment would allow for it to sufficiently blend in with the surrounding environment thereby reducing the visual impact on the surrounding area. The proposed design and location meets the criteria stipulated in National Planning Policy Guidance 19 and Planning Advice Note 62. The accompanying statement states that there is a shottfall in mobile phone coverage in this area which can be reduced through the siting of this equipment at this location. As the applicant has provided the ICNIRP Declaration Certificate then any health fears can be alleviated. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions.

130 Application No: S/07/01295/FUL

Date Registered: 25th July 2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D Wilson 57 Lincoln Avenue Tannochside Uddingston G715QZ

Agent lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell MLI 3JL

Development: Erection of Two Storey Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse

Location: 57 Lincoln Avenue Tan noc hside Uddingston Glasgow G715QZ

Ward: 13 Thorniewood: Councillors Burrows, McCabe and McShannon

Grid Reference: 269867662109

File Reference: S/PL/B/9/84 (418)IGSMIGF

Site History: 378/80 Extension to Dwellinghouse by Adding Two Dormer Windows Granted 10th September 1980 S/99/01262/FUL Single Storey Extension to Dwellinghouse Granted 15th October 1999

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 Established Housing Areas in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal is contrary to Policies HSG 8 and HSG 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the proposed extension is considered to represent overdevelopment by virtue of its size and design in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding properties and will adversely affect the character of the existing dwellinghouse and wider area.

131

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25'h July 2007

4 Letters from lan Keachie, received 26'h September, 2gfh,31" October and 12fhDecember 2007

Amended plans received 2gthOctober 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081

Date: 16 January 2008

133 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01295/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the side of 57 Lincoln Drive, Uddingston. The extension would project 3.5 metres from the side of the house and would be 7.2 metres in height. The roof would be pitched with the ridge height approximately 1.8 metres lower than the ridge of the existing building.

1.2 The application property is a two storey semi detached dwellinghouse and is bound by dwellings to the north, east and west with Aitkenhead Primary School to the south. The two dwellings share a pitched roof with a gable frontage. The application property has a sloping roof and it currently has a single storey extension and two dormer windows to the side which the proposal would replace.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were carried out.

3.2 No letters of representation were received for this application.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. This application is not of strategic importance. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).

4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity, Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (Established Housing Areas).

4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight is also considered as is parking provision and access.

4.4 With regards to the proposed extension, this is considered to be excessively large in comparison to the existing dwelling. The applicant did submit amended plans that changed the style of the roof to one and a half storey. However, the distance the extension would project from the existing roof would still be 8 metres. As a result of this and in combination with the style and scale of the extension, the proposal is considered too large and not to integrate satisfactorily with the gable frontage of the existing house, creating an unacceptable imbalance with the adjoining semi detached property. It is noted that the property is in a prominent position within Lincoln Avenue and the impact of the extension on the streetscene as a result of this would be unacceptable inasmuch as it would result in an extension which is out of character

134 with the scale and context of the original dwellinghouse and other houses on the street. The proposal would also be oppressive when viewed from directly neighbouring properties. While the applicant highlighted other similar developments which received planning consent, these were either smaller in size or consisted instead of large dormer windows. These do not offer sufficient justification for the scale of development proposed here. This form of over development, if approved would also set an undesirable precedent for future development proposals.

4.5 Notwithstanding the unacceptable scale of the proposal, this property has an adequate garden area and overall plot size with a rear garden length of 13.7 metres remaining post development, retaining approximately 143 square metres of private garden ground. It is considered that while the extension itself is a considerable size there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained.

4.6 With regards to the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties the absence of over looking windows on the proposal ensures that there will not be a significant effect. The effect on the daylight and sunlight currently enjoyed by neighbouring houses will not be significant due to the location and orientation of the extension.

4.7 There is no impact on any parking provision or access. 4.8 In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policies HSG 8 and HSG 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The proposed extension is considered to represent overdevelopment by virtue of its size and design in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding properties and will adversely affect the character of the existing dwellinghouse and wider area.

135 Application No: S/07/01361/FUL

Date Registered: 7th August 2007

Applicant: Newhouse Investments The Old Nursery Motherwell Road Newhouse MLI 5ST

Development: Construction of Office Building

Location: The Nursery Bungalow Motherwell Road Newhouse MLI 5ST

Ward: 15 Mossend And Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

Grid Reference: 279471660911

File Reference: S/PL/BF/5/87/EMUG F

Site History: P/61/466: Erection of Bungalow Mallygonike Nursery. Approved 13th April 1961 P/73/1502: Erection of Bungalow at Mallygonike Nursery. Refused 24th September 1973 29979 Use of site for the growing and retail sales of market produce. Refused 21 st June 1979 S/98/00637/FUL Engineering Works Consisting of the Increase in Land Levels with Inert Material and the Culverting of Drainage Channel. Approved 14th December 1998 S/00/472/ADV Display of 3 x 96 Sheet Advert Hoardings with Ancillary Fencing and Landscaping. Refused 6th September 2000 S/03/01287/FUL Change of Use to Light Industry & Proposed Extension of Buildings. Approved 23rd December 2003 S/07/00587/FUL Construction of Office Building. Withdrawn 26th June 2007

Development Plan: The site is zoned as ENV6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No Objection)

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: 22nd August 2007

136 137 Recommendation: Approve 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 office building hereby approved shall only serve the light industrial, storage and distribution uses on the application site.

Reason: In order to limit the uses and buildings in this rural location.

3. That within 3 months of the occupation of office hereby permitted the existing portacabin offices shall be removed from the site.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of this rural site.

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

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

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

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

6. That notwithstanding condition 5 above, before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of a front boundary wall/fence along Motherwell Road, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The boundary wall/fence shall thereafter be constructed prior to the occupation of the office building.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

7. That before the office development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) a detailed schedule of all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.

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

8. That before the occupation of the office hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 7 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity,

9. That before the occupation of the office building within the development hereby permitted all the

138 access, parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as access, parking and manoeuvring areas.

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

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

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

11. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation report required in terms of Condition 10 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the office building hereby approved. A certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

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

12. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled ‘Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland” and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP).

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

13. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 10 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical and shall be completed before the office building hereby approved is occupied. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, and before the development hereby permitted is brought into use a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution.

139 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 7'h August 2007

Letter from Scottish Water 1lth September 2007

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 30thAugust 2007 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 21'' August 2007 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 20th November 2007 and email dated 24thJanuary 2008

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01698 3021 37.

Date: 25 January 2008

140 APPLICATION NO. S107/01361/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Full planning permission is sought for the construction of an office building at The Old Nursery, Motherwell Road, Newhouse. The application site is bounded by open space to the north, west and east and Mossband Opencast site to the south.

1.2 The applicant proposes to construct a new single storey office building measuring 5.6 metres in height with a footprint of 375 square metres. The proposed office would replace the existing portacabins which serve as the current offices for the site. In addition the applicant proposes to resurface the existing hardstanding area and form 27 parking spaces within the site.

1.3 The proposed office building will serve as offices for the current storage and distribution businesses operating from the four storage buildings located to the eastern edge of the site. Although the storage buildings are currently unauthorised a separate retrospective application (S/08/0019/FUL) for them is being processed.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as ENV6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader has recommended refusal of the application as the proposal would lead to additional braking and turning manoeuvres on an unlit section of a derestricted B class distributor road to the detriment of road safety.

3.2 My Protective Services Section has no objections to the proposed development subject to a condition relating to the requirement for a site investigation report.

3.3 My Geotechnical Team Leader has indicated that he is unaware of any incidences of flooding in the vicinity. However the absence of flood reports should not be interpreted as an absence of a flood risk. Geotechnical have indicated that further details are required for both the flooding and drainage issues. Whilst not ideal they have acknowledged that these details for can be addressed by appropriate SUDS conditions in this case.

3.4 Scottish Water have offered no objections to this application. There are no public sewers in the vicinity and the site will require to be served by a sceptic tank. A SUDS drainage system will be required.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 It should be noted that the application raises no strategic issues and therefore does not require to be assessed under the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan. This application must therefore be assessed against the relevant development plan policies of the Southern Area

141 Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The site is identified as Policy ENVG (Green Belt). Policies IND9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development), ENV5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implication of Development) are also relevant to the assessment of this application.

4.3 Policy ENV 6 presumes against any development that will affect the character and function of the Green Belt, within which there will be a presumption against development other than that directly associated with an appropriate rural use. The proposed development although not fully in compliance with the policy criteria set out in policy ENVG is considered acceptable given the existing and previous use of the site for storage and distribution purposes. Furthermore the site currently benefits from an existing live consent for the change of use to light industry (Class 4) and extension to buildings (S/03/01287/FUL). Offices also fall within (Class 4) and therefore the previous consent granted for the site has established office (Class 4) as an acceptable use for the site. 4.4 Policy IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft. Although the site has not been designated for industrial and business development it nonetheless is an established business site. The site is currently used for storage and distribution purposes and also benefits from a live consent for class 4 use on the site. The proposals will secure economic benefit for the area as it will enable the current business on site to continue and possibly expand. The proposed design of the office building is considered acceptable, and will incorporate a bungalow style design similar to the only nearby adjacent property. There have been improvements to the design of the building from that previously proposed in the withdrawn application. The site incorporates the existing access in addition to improvements to the hardstanding, parking and manoeuvring which are discussed in the section below. The proposed offices therefore reasonably accords with the provisions of policy IND 9. 4.5 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including: the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; the scope to integrate development proposals with existing public transport facilities; impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. My Transportation Section has recommended refusal of the application given that they consider that the proposal would lead to additional braking and turning manoeuvres on an unlit section of a derestricted B class distributor road to the detriment of road safety. However it is considered that notwithstanding the concerns raised by my Transportation Team Leader the access and parking provision is considered to be acceptable in this instance given that the proposals utilise the existing operational access to the site. The applicant has shown adequate turning facilities are available within the site and it is considered that there will not be a detrimental increase in traffic levels caused by the proposed office development, such as to have any significant impact on traffic circulation or road safety. The proposed development can be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding land uses and the parking and turning facilities proposed are acceptable. Therefore, although the proposals are not considered to be completely in accordance with Policy TR13, I consider the access arrangements to be acceptable at this site. The indicated transportation shortcomings are considered to be outweighed by the benefits of the further improvements to an already operational site. 4.6 In terms of consultation responses conditions are recommended to cover the SUDS issues raised by Geotechnical and the site investigation report required by Pollution Control. It should be noted that in this instance, the site circumstances and the proposed development are such that these conditions are acceptable. 4.7 The proposed development does not wholly comply with the provisions of policies ENV6, IND9 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Nevertheless it is considered that given the previous uses of the site, its location, the proposals compatibility with the surrounding land uses, coupled with the existing live consent for class 4

142 purposes it can be argued that the site is suitable for offices associated with the storage and distribution business. The Transportation comments are noted, however it is considered that the present access to the development site is acceptable and utilises an operational access which has been employed by all the previous operators of the site. The proposed development will also lead to the removal of the existing unattractive portacabin offices thus improving the appearance of the site. Therefore notwithstanding the proposals do not completely comply with development plan policy and Transportation’s guidance, I consider that the proposed office development is acceptable and recommend that this application be approved subject to conditions.

143 Application No: S/07/01494/FUL

Date Registered: 31st August 2007

Applicant: lan Telfer Clo Agent

Agent DTA Chartered Architects Ltd Elizabeth Court 4 Stuart Street East Kilbride G74 4NG

Development: Construction of Replacement Dwellinghouse

Location: Mill House Allanton Mill Old Mill Road Allanton ML7 5BX

Ward: 12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson

Grid Reference: 285403 658415

File Reference: S/PL/BF/l 7/59/EM LIGF

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: The site is zoned as ENV8 (Countryside Around Towns) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (0bjection)

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

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

144 \ \\ mduoed by olth Lanarkshire Council PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I07 I01494 I FUL lanning and Environment Dept leming Houw Try01 Road CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLINGHOUSE umbernauld, 67 1JW MILL HOUSE, ALLANTON MILL, OLD MILL ROAD, SHOTTS. 11 01238 616210 1x01238616232

145 Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

3. That the roof shall be finished in slate or synthetic slate, details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

4. That the external walls of the replacement dwellinghouse shall be finished in a smooth render finish with raised banding around the windows, colours and details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To conform with the terms of the application and to enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

5. That the windows shall be timber sash and case in style, colours and details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To conform with the terms of the application and to enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any walls and fences shall have regard to the rural location in terms of their design and positioning within the site.

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

That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied, all fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of condition 6 above, shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

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

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

9. That prior to the start of any works to demolish the existing building, three evening bat emergence surveys shall be carried out between late April and June 2008 by a suitably qualified person and a report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ascertain whether any bats are present within the site.

10. That any mitigation works required by the bat emergence surveys required in terms of Condition 9 above shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in accordance with a timetable to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any works to demolish the existing building commencing on site.

Reason: In order to protect any Bats that may be present on the site.

146 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 31 st August 2007 and 1 1th January 2008 Structural Inspection Report on the Mill House received lgthDecember 2007 Ecology Report (Bats) received 1gth December 2007

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 15'h October 2007 Memo from Conservation & Greening received 7'h January 2008

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01698 302137.

Date: 25 January 2008

147 AP PLlCAT10 N NO. S/07/01494/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a replacement dwellinghouse at the Mill House, Allanton Mill, Old Mill Road, Allanton. The application site is situated on Old Mill Road to the south of Allanton Mill and is located within the countryside between Bowhousebog and Allanton.

1.2 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 60 year old detached bungalow and replace it with a one and a half storey traditional style rural property. The proposed dwelling would be 7.7 metres in height, approximately 100 square metres in area and would sit on the approximate position of the existing dwelling. The new dwelling would incorporate traditional design features and materials which would include smooth cement render, slate effect roof, traditional timber sash and case windows and raised banding around the windows.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as ENV8 (Countryside Around Towns) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations 3.1 My Transportation Team Leader has commented that visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 90 metres are required in both directions, however, this is unachievable. Increased visibility could be achieved if the proposed access was moved to the northern boundary of the site. Transportation have, however, indicated that they would have no objections to the proposed development subject to the proposals being served by a single access, inclusion of a turning area and provision of 3 off road parking spaces.

3.2 My Community Services Section have no objections to the proposed development following the submission of a protected species survey which indicated that no protected species were present and subject to the further recommendations contained in the survey. Conservation and Greening however request to be consulted if the emergence survey for bats shows them to be present. In addition should a roost site be identified Conservation & Greening request to be consulted further on the method statement and mitigation recommended prior to demolition.

3.3 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have indicated that the bat emergence surveys should be carried out prior to permission being granted for the site.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

148 4.3 The site is identified as Policy ENV8 (Countryside Around Towns) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). Policy HSG12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implication of Development) are also relevant to the assessment of this application.

4.4 Policy ENV8 states that the Council will not normally permit development other than that directly associated with an appropriate rural use. In this case the proposal relates to the replacement of an existing dwelling which has fallen into disrepair. The more detailed policy relevant to the consideration of this application is Policy HSG12 and this is assessed below.

4.5 Policy HSG12 states that the replacement of existing houses will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the existing buildings are of poor quality, shall not result in an increase in the number of units or a significant increase in overall floorspace and shall be located, as nearly as possible, within the existing footprint. It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling meets all the above criterion given that the existing dwelling is of poor quality, the proposals would not result in an increase in the number of units or floorspace and the proposed dwelling would sit within the existing footprint. The proposed design is compatible with the rural location and incorporates many traditional design features and external finishes including a slate effect roof, timber sash and case style windows, smooth cement render and raised banding around the windows. I consider that the site also benefits from adequate access and drainage although the transportation issues will be assessed more fully in section 4.6 below. The application is therefore considered to accord with the relevant countryside policies in the Southern Area Local Plan.

4.6 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including: the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As indicated in paragraph 3.1 my Transportation Section has commented that visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 90 metres are required in both directions, however, this is unachievable. However given the existing access to the site, Transportation would have no objections subject to conditions relative to access, parking and turning. The applicant has amended their proposals to include a single driveway, three parking spaces and a turning area. It is considered that the replacement of this dwelling will have a minimal impact on the transport implications and level of traffic generated in the area. The access, parking and manoeuvring facilities proposed within the site are considered acceptable and the application is therefore considered to accord with policy TR13.

4.7 In terms of consultation responses conditions are recommended to cover the issues raised by both Conservation & Greening with regard to the potential for the presence of bats within the site. With regards to the verbal comments of SNH on this application it is considered that having examined the SNH guidance note (Flow Chart 1) that the application can be approved in accordance with European legislation with appropriate conditions regarding bat emergence surveys.

4.8 It is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of local plan policy as the impact of a replacement residential dwelling on the site and surrounding area, as well as the access and transportation implications, can be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding countryside area. The proposed replacement dwelling would replace the existing dwelling that has fallen into disrepair and incorporates a traditional rural design and finish more appropriate for this countryside location. Therefore, taking into account the local plan and other material considerations, I recommend that this application be approved subject to conditions.

149 Application No: S1071016861FUL

Date Registered: 22nd October 2007

Applicant: NLC Environmental Services Fleming House 2 Tryst Road Cumbernauld G67 IJW

Development: Change of Use From Car Park to Landscaped Bed

Location: Car Park At Witcutt Way Netherton

Ward: 20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland

Grid Reference: 278182 654125

File Reference: S1PL1B1212 1IGSMIGF

Site History: 264191 Outline Planning Permission Granted for the Erection of 7 Dwellinghouses and Provision of Associated Access Road (Land to South of Carbans, Wishaw) Granted 1st June 1992

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 6 letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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.

NOTE TO COMMITTEE

If granted, this application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 as the applicant is North Lanarkshire Council and the application has received a substantial body of objection.

150 151 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1lth October 2007 Amended plans received 17'h December 2007

Letter from Mr And Mrs D Charnley, 3 Witcutt Way, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OAP received 25'h October 2007 Letter from Mrs G McFadyen, 4 Witcutt Way, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OAP received 2nd November 2007 Letter from C McDonagh 6 Witcutt Way, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OAP received 2!jth October 2007 Letter from H M McDonagh, 6 Witcutt Way, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OAP received 2ndNovember 2007 Letter from Mr and Mrs A McFadyen, 8 Witcutt Way, ML2 OAP received 2ndNovember 2007 Letter from Mrs C Murray, 18 Islay Quadrant, Wishaw, ML2 OTB received 13'h November 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081.

Date: 22 January 2008

152 APPLICATION NO. S1071016861FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for a change of use of car parking facilities to landscape beds at the car park at Witcutt Way, Netherton, Wishaw. The application site is bounded by dwellinghouses on all sides. It is located between Witcutt Way and Islay Quadrant and can accommodate approximately 14 car parking spaces. The car park is being frequently used for ball games by local youths and this proposal has been put forward by the Development Projects Group following consultation with a local Councillor and the Transportation Team Leader.

1.2 The proposal involves the change of use of two corners of the car park replacing parking spaces with landscaped open space. The areas to be replaced are 5 metres in length, 7 metres wide and are situated towards the Witcutt Way end of the car park. This will reduce the parking provision by 6 spaces. The proposed landscaping comprises a tree with a maximum spread of 6 metres by 3 metres and lower level shrubs.

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 covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader was involved in pre-application discussions relating to this proposal and had advised the applicant on the most appropriate layout and planting. He raises no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Five letters of objection were received from the owners of 3, 4, 6, 8 Witcutt Way and one letter of support from 18 Islay Quadrant. The objections can be summarised as follows:

i. This proposal will reduce the amount of parking spaces to half. This is no where near the required amount and will have serious consequences for parking facilities for residents of Witcutt Way and Islay Quadrant. It is not a worthwhile proposal considering the car park is usually full and there is not alternative parking nearby. The council will receive numerous complaints from residents and visitors to Witcutt Way due to lack of available parking in the area. The car park is being used at all times of the day, even more so in the evenings and weekends, when it is used to the maximum. Visitors require this amenity as there are only 2 parking bays within Witcutt Way. ii. The proposal will not stop children playing at the car park. They will continue to play football at this location and there is a strong possibility that the landscaping will be vandalised and will not be maintained properly. It will become overgrown and litter will accumulate there. Will the council guarantee the frequent maintenance and upkeep of the landscaped beds? Can the council guarantee that this new area will not attract youths and anti social behaviour. iii. It will cost public money to construct and maintain the landscaped area. This money could have been spent on more important projects such as facilities for schools. iv. One of the landscape beds will adjoin 3 Witcutt Way and this will increase the difficulty of

153 the owners maintaining the boundary fence. v. The owners of 3 Witcutt Way are willing to purchase the area of land adjoining their property and change the use of it to private garden ground. vi. The residents of Witcutt Way purchased their properties in the understanding that there would be an overflow car park amenity in place. This was an important aspect why people decided to move there. The car park is an important facility for visitor parking.

3.3 The letter of support raises the following points:

i. The car park has always been under-used. Half of the car park is never used for parking as car owners do not want their vehicles damaged by ball games. ii. A better proposal would be to landscape the area directly adjacent to Islay Quadrant. Half the car park could be closed and there would still be plenty of car parking spaces for residents and visitors. iii. This car park was too large in the first place and the unused space in the car park attracts anti-social behaviour in the forms of gangs of youths playing football, sometimes after 9pm.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas).

4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Policy TR 13 Assessing the Transport Implications of Development is also relevant to this application in as much as it relates to the impact of the development on road traffic circulation and parking provision.

4.3 The background to this application is that the proposal comes from the council as a result of complaints relating to antisocial behaviour at the site and the intention of the change of use is to discourage ball games from being played there. This proposed change of use should offer a visual improvement to the area with enhanced landscaping and is not considered to detract from the established character of the residential area. The aim of the proposal is to discourage ball games being played at this location and to protect the gables of the adjacent houses from being hit with stray footballs. The success of this remains to be seen. However, In conclusion the application is in accordance with HSG 8.

4.4 The car park will retain 8 spaces post development and this is considered to be an acceptable amount. The results of surveys undertaken by my Traffic and Transportation Team Leader show that between five and seven vehicles typically park there during the evening. It is considered that the car park currently has an oversupply with 14 spaces and that this proposal therefore will not have an adverse impact on road safety as it is not considered to displace any cars. It will not significantly alter the existing road network or road traffic circulation therefore it complies with the spirit and intentions of TR13.

4.5 On the grounds of the objection raised, I would comment as follows:

i. In relation to the level of use of the car park as discussed above in paragraph 4.4 my Transportation Team Leader was consulted and raised no objections to the proposal. ii. With regards to children playing in the car park, as highlighted in paragraph 4.3, the introduction of landscaped beds with trees and shrubs may discourage them from playing football. The potential that these landscaped beds would be vandalised is not a material planning consideration and the area would be maintained by the council. iii. The allocation of public money is not a material planning consideration. iv. With resDect to the resident at 3 Witcutt Way there will be a aaD between the IandscaDed

154 bed and the boundary fence therefore they will still be able to access this fence for maintenance purposes. V. With regards to the owners of 3 Witcutt Way purchasing the land to convert to private garden ground this type of development would require formal planning permission. However this is not an option under consideration as part of the current application. vi. In relation to the residents of Witcutt Way purchasing their houses on the basis that the parking would be maintained as discussed in paragraph 4.4 there shall still be a car park at this location and the amount of spaces available is considered to be acceptable. vii. In relation to the use of the car park, as discussed in paragraph 4.3 and 4.4, my Transportation Team Leader does not oppose the reduction in the number of parking spaces. viii. With respect to the proposed layout as discussed in paragraph 4.3 this is considered the best as it protects the gables of the houses closest to the car park. In relation to the parking provision being reduced to half, as mentioned in paragraph 4.4 I agree that this will be an acceptable amount. ix. With regards to the size of the car park and the antisocial behaviour that takes place, as mentioned in paragraph 4.3, it is considered that the landscaped areas may discourage this.

4.6 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the change of use is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.7 The Committee should note that as a substantial body of objection has been received, the application must be referred to the Scottish Ministers.

155 Application No: S/07/01805/AMD

Date Registered: 16th November 2007

Applicant: Transform Schools Sir Alexander Fleming House Innovation Park Melford Road Bellshill ML4 3LR

Agent Aedas Architects Ltd Floor 9 No1 Cadogan Square Cadogan Street Glasgow G2 7HF

Development: Extensions to School (Amendment to Previous Permission S/05/02029/FUL)

Location: St Ignatius' Primary School And Wishaw Academy Loch Park Wishaw Lanarkshire

Ward: 20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland

Grid Reference: 280171 655274

File Reference: SIP LIBFl 1 014lL MU/G F

Site History: 0 S/03/00442/OUT Erection of Primary School, Nursery and Full Size Floodlit Multi Purpose Synthetic Pitch for Dual Use with the Community Granted 8th October 2003 0 S/04101047/FUL Erection of Primary School, Nursery and Full Size Floodlit Multi-Purpose Synthetic Pitch for Dual Use with the Community Granted 25th October 2004

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Policy L1 (Established Leisure Facilities) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None Required

Representations: 1 letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

156 Planning Applicatm No S I07 I01805 I AMD Extensions to Approved School (Amendment to Previous Permission S/05/02029/FUL)

St Ignatius' Pnmary School And Wtshaw Academy, Loch Park, Wishaw N * Representation h

157 Recommendation: Approve 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.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

3. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the existing swift box shall be relocated to a position satisfactory to the Planning Authority, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development starts.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail in the interests of nature conservation and the enhancement of local biodiversity.

4. That no construction works shall be permitted between the school and nursery start and finishing times (8:40am - 3.15pm and 8.45am - 11:45am / 12:30pm - 3:30pm) unless other agreement is entered into in writing with the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6'h November 2007

Memo from Landscape Services Manager received 5'h December 2007

Email from Diane MacLeod, 23 Campbell Street, Wishaw, ML2 8HT, received 24'h December 2007.

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

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

Date: 16 January 2007

158 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01805/AMD

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application relates to two extensions to the newly established St lgnatius Primary School and Wishaw Academy at Loch Park, Wishaw. The school is bounded by residential properties on all sides with Morrisons Supermarket to the north west of the site.

1.2 The applicant proposes to extend the school building on both sides to provide a ground floor cloakroom, boys toilets and a disabled toilet on the north western elevation and boys and girls toilets and a disabled toilet on the ground floor and quiet reading room and tutorial room on the first floor of the south eastern elevation. The extensions are to provide for special needs and disabled access. The north western extension will project 6.2 metres from the side of the existing school building and will measure the entire length of this section, some 14 metres, and will be 4.8 metres in height in keeping with the existing slightly pitched roof. The extension proposed on the south eastern elevation will project 6.7 metres from the side of this part of the school building and will measure the entire length of this section, 12.2 metres, and will be 8.7 metres in height, again in keeping with the existing roof height providing for a two storey extension to this side of the building.

2. DeveloPment Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy L1 (Established Leisure Facilities) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 Landscape Services were consulted on this application and raised no objections.

3.2 One letter of objection has been received in relation to this application. The points of objection can be summarised as follows:

1. The plans falsely indicate that there is a considerable distance between the wall of the entrance and the furthest part of the objector’s back garden causing even more in trepidation and unhappiness. 2. The extensions will result in further fencing having to be erected in the objector’s rear garden to provide a peaceful and secluded area. 3. The objector was not made aware of these extensions when the school was initially being built and therefore did not complain despite the considerable subsequent noise and lack of parking in the immediate area for some time.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and requires to be assessed against the relevant local plan policies which are contained within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The site is currently zoned as L1 (Established Leisure Facilities). This states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance, where appropriate, existing leisure facilities by implementing a programme of upgrading and refurbishment of Council facilities; supporting private sector and community initiatives in suitable locations; undertaking schemes for dual use of Council facilities, and resisting the loss of leisure facilities where a shortfall in provision for that locality will result. As this proposal is for extensions to a newly established

159 school on a previous public park site, which was granted planning permission on the 2tjth October 2004 (Reference S/04/01047/FUL), this policy is no longer relevant.

4.2 There is no specific policy relating to extensions to non-residential premises, therefore this application will be assessed on its individual planning merits in terms of design and impact on surrounding properties. In terms of design, scale and style, it is considered that both extensions are acceptable and in keeping with the scale and character of the existing building, and it is proposed to finish both extensions in render with a standing seam roof to match the existing building. There will be no privacy issues or detrimental impact on the amount of daylighffsunlight enjoyed by the surrounding residential dwellings due to the acceptable distance of over 18 metres from these properties with both extensions measuring 23 metres away from the site boundary at the closest point. The extensions will not significantly impede on the surrounding existing landscaped area and Landscape Services raised no objections to this application. Due to the small scale nature of these extensions, there will be no impact on the level of parking within the site.

4.3 In relation to the points of objection raised, I would comment as follows:-

1. In response to the objector’s concerns that the plans falsely indicate that there is a considerable distance between the wall of the entrance and the objector’s back garden this has been assessed on site. The plans submitted are to a suitable scale (1:500 metres) and I am satisfied that they accurately illustrate the existing and proposed development. 2. The objector’s concerns at the proximity of the extension to their property and the need for fencing are noted. However, as indicated at paragraph 4.2 above the extensions are located well away from this property and the staff car park separates the school grounds from the adjacent housing. 3. It would not have been possible to advise of potential future applications for extensions to the school at the time of the original applications. The objector’s concerns now at the disturbance caused by the school are noted but these do not justify the refusal of permission for the small scale extensions now being sought.

4.4 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in terms of design, scale, layout and the impact upon the character and amenity of the neighbouring properties. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

160 Application No: S1071018901FUL

Date Registered: 4th December 2007

Applicant: Anthony Smith 28 Morris Crescent Cleland Motherwell MLI 5NH

Development: Erection of Two Storey Extension to the Side of Dwellinghouse

Location: 28 Morris Crescent Cleland Motherwell MLI 5NH

Ward: 19 Murdostoun: Councillors Martin, McKendrick, Shevlin and Taggart

Grid Reference: 278411657895

File Reference: SIP Ll5150lG SMIGF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 1 letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve for the Following Reasons:-

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 dwellinghouse.

Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.

161 Produced by Planning Application No S I07 I01890 I FUL North LanarkshireCouncil Planning and Errriranmsnl Dapt Fieming Houu,'2 TVlROId Erection of a Single Storey Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse Cu*rnauld 067 1JW tel01236 616210 tax 01236 615232 28 Morris Crescent, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5NH

162 3. That before the development starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

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

4. That the extension hereby permitted shall be used solely as part of the existing dwellinghouse and at no time be used or sold as a separate dwelling.

Reason: To ensure that no more than one planning unit exists at the application site in accordance with established residential policy and in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties. 5. That the balcony on the rear elevation of the extension shall extend only 1.3 metres from the rear of the dwellinghouse as indicated on the approved plans.

Reason: To define the permission.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th November 2007

Letter from W.H. Dickie, 77 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, ML1 3DG received 20th December 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081.

Date: 24 January 2008

163 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01890/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a one and a half storey extension to the side of 28 Morris Crescent, Cleland. The extension would project 5.4 metres from the side of the house and would be set back 3 metres from the front of the building. The roof would be pitched and would tie in with the roof of the existing building.

1.2 The application property is a one and a half storey detached dwellinghouse and is bound by dwellings to the north, east and west with an area of open space to the south.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 No consultations were carried out.

3.2 One letter of representation was received from the owners of numbers 1 and 3 Sarazen Court. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

I. The location and block plans do not indicate the positions of the neighbouring dwellinghouses. ii. The plans show a balcony on the first floor. The floor plan appears to show the balcony projecting out one metre beyond the gable and the elevation shows the balcony to project 1.8 ... metres. 111. The extension would overshadow the single storey dwelling at 1 Sarazen Court considerably. iv. The windows on the upper floor gable and balcony windows will result in a loss of the privacy currently enjoyed by the dwellinghouses at 1 and 3 Sarazen Court.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (Established Housing Areas).

4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extension, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight is also considered as is parking provision and access.

4.4 With regards to the size and scale of the proposal this is considered to be acceptable as it would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse and would not dominate it.

4.5 The application property has an adequate garden area and overall plot size with a rear garden

164 length of 21 metres remaining after the proposed extension and retaining approximately 500 square metres of private garden ground. It is considered that there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained.

4.6 With regards to the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties the proposal contains a window on the games room on the first floor gable. This is a high level window that has been inserted to provide sunlight, the bottom of which would be 1.8 metres from the internal floor level. It is therefore not considered to result in a loss of privacy for the neighbouring dwelling at 1 Sarazen Court. The window on the front elevation of the extension would not be directly overlooking 1 Sarazen Court. The distance and angle between this window and the neighbouring house is such that it would not result in a significant loss of privacy. The boundary treatment at this location is a 1.8 metre high fence and trees adding a significant level of screening. In relation to the impact of the balcony to the rear will have on privacy, this is not considered to be significant as the balcony would be facing away from the nearest house at 1 Sarazen Court and 3 Sarazen Court will be positioned to the side of the balcony approximately 35 metres away. The existing dwellinghouse already overshadows the house at 1 Sarazen Court to an extent. The position and orientation of the proposed extension in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and the distance it is from 1 Sarazen Court ensures that there will not be a significant difference in the sunlight and daylight currently received by the neighbouring dwelling.

4.7 Extending to the rear, there is no impact on any parking provision or access.

4.8 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

i. In relation to the plans I can confirm that the initial block and location plans could have been clearer and displayed all the surrounding properties. Nonetheless, plans showing these properties have been used in the assessment of the application and the impact of the extension on these properties has been considered. ii. It is noted that there were inaccuracies in the plan of the balcony, however correct plans have subsequently been submitted. I can confirm that the balcony will project 1.2 metres from the back of the building. iii. With regards to the overshadowing of 1 Sarazen Court as discussed in paragraph 4.6 the orientation of the dwellinghouse ensures that this is already overshadowed by the house and the proposed extension is not considered to make a significant difference to the sunlight and daylight received by this house. iv. With respect to the impact on the privacy of the houses at 1 and 3 Sarazen Court as discussed in paragraph 4.6, the window on the gable is a high level window that will not result in any adverse overlooking. The balcony on the rear elevation of the extension does not directly face onto any dwellinghouses and will face away from the nearest dwelling at 1 Sarazen Court. Number 3 Sarazen Court is approximately 33 metres away and at a right angle to the balcony therefore this is not considered to result in any significant loss in privacy for this house.

4.9 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extensions are acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.10 It should be noted that the objectors have requested that a site visit be conducted prior to a decision being made on the application and that they be given a hearing at the committee.

165 Application No: S/07/01950/FUL

Date Registered: 18th December 2007

Applicant: Mr G Bavaird & Mr R Codona 54 Murray Square East Kilbride G75 OBH

Agent Ark Architecture And Design 14 Royal Terrace Glasgow G3 7NY

Development: Subdivision of Public House for use as Betting Office

Location: 21 Muir Street Motherwell North Lanarkshire MLI IBH

Ward: 18 Motherwell South East And Ravenscraig: Councillors Harmon, Lunny, McKay and Valentine

Grid Reference: 275109 657050

File Reference: S/PL/B/I 3/4/KD/GF

Site History: No relevant planning history

Development Plan: Zoned as Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 1 letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 28th December 2007

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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

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

2. That the permission hereby granted relates to a change of use only and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no alterations shall be made to the external appearance of the building.

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

166 Planning Application No. S I07 I01950 I FUL

Subdivision of Public House for use as Betting Office

21 Muir Street, Motherwell, MLI 1BH

167 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 4th December 2007

Letter from RR Planning Ltd, 82a Otley Road, Leeds, LS6 4BA received 17th December 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01698 302104.

Dated: 24 January 2008

168 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01950/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is sought for subdivision of public house for use as betting office at 21 Muir Street, Motherwell.

1.2 The application site is located on the ground floor of a three-storey building. The ground floor of the building is currently a public house, 'Motherwell Point', and is accessed off Muir Street. The second and third floors of the building are currently used as a night club. This area is located within Motherwell town centre and comprises of mixture of residential and offices. The site is bounded to the north and west by vacant land beyond which is the railway station and lines. Located to the south is a building of a similar size and style in which the ground floor is occupied by Ladbrokes bookmakers and the upper levels are used as offices. Opposite the application site is a bank, coffee shop and various retail units with offices uses on the upper floors.

1.3 The application is for the change of use of the premises only and no other details concerning any potential external alterations. The proposal would result in 55% of the ground floor area of the original premises being used as a betting office.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to this application.

3.2 One letter of representation was received from on behalf of a local business in response to the proposed development and their views are summarised as follows:

1. Within the immediate vicinity there are already existing betting facilities, such as Ladbrokes, William Hill, Bedfred, Coral and a Nobles Amusement Centre. Another use such as this will simply be replicating these uses and will not add to the diversity of the area.

2. The proposal will not revitalise nor reinforce the existing uses in the town centre, as set out in Policy RTL 5 and may harm the vitality and viability of the core area of the town centre. What will occur is the over concentration of betting facilities to the detriment of the character of the town centre.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposal requires to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The application is not of strategic significance and requires to be assessed against Local Plan policies. In this instance policies RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas), Policy RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) are relevant.

4.2 Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) seeks to encourage the improvement of existing Class 1

169 retail floorspace and support the establishment of new retail uses, however the policy also supports changes of use to non-retail town centre uses including Class 2 Financial, Professional and Other Services, where they reinforce and revitalise the town centre, as well as Class 3 Food and Drink and Class 11 Assembly and Leisure type uses where they do not adversely affect the character and amenity of the town centre and accord with the provisions of Policy RTL 11 (Bad Neighbour Developments), The application site is located within an area where there is a mix of retail and non-retail uses. These uses include shops, hot food takeaways, restaurants and other licensed betting offices. Policy RTL 5 considers that town centres not only act as focal points for retail and commercial activity but also provide a focus for social and leisure activities. Muir Street has a mixture of both retail and non-retail uses, which include social and leisure uses. Given the nature of the surrounding land uses, it is considered that the proposed Class 2 Licensed Betting Office would be acceptable at this location and it would not adversely affect either the amenity and character, nor the vitality and viability of the surrounding area. As the application site is presently part of a public house, there will be no loss of a retail unit as a result of this development. The proposal therefore complies with policy RTL5, subject to the provisions of policy RTLl 1 (Bad Neighbour Developments).

4.3 As detailed above, policy RTL 11 is a material consideration in the determination of this application. This policy states that Town Centre Areas and Secondary, Village or Neighbourhood Commercial Areas are the preferred location for bad neighbour uses and sets out criteria for assessing potential bad neighbour developments, including (1) the impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, (2) the resultant mix of retail and non-retail, (3) design issues, and (4) the provision for vehicle access and parking. (1) As indicated at paragraph 4.2 above, Muir Street has a mix of retail and non-retail uses, including other betting offices. While there are neighbouring residential properties, taking into account the existing mix of uses in the area and the RTL5 policy zoning of the site, it is considered that the current proposal will not have a significant impact on the amenity and character of the surrounding area. (2) Similarly, as detailed in paragraph 4.2, there is currently a good mix of uses in the vicinity, including retail and non-retail. I do not consider this application to undermine the overall mix to an unacceptable level, or result in an unacceptable dominance of betting shops or bad neighbour uses. (3) In respect to design, I would note that this application is solely for a change of use. Any alterations to the shop front would require a further planning application, allowing control over any changes to the fabric of the building. (4) transportation implications are covered in paragraph 4.4 below.

4.4 In assessing the transportation implications of a development, Policy TR 13 is applicable and states that the Council will take account of criteria including: the impact of the development on road traffic circulation/road safety and the provision made for access, parking, vehicle manoeuvring and access for all. In this regard, as indicated in paragraph 3.1 above, my Transportation Team Leader has raised no objections regarding the proposed development given its town centre location with good public transport links and parking provision. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with both policies RTLl 1 and TR13.

4.5 In relation to the points raised in the letter of objection as detailed above in Section 3, I would comment as follows:

1. There are four existing betting offices within Motherwell town centre. When you compare this to the number of retail units within the designated town centre, then it is clear that one additional betting office will not detrimentally affect the vitality and viability of the town centre and as stated at paragraph 4.2 above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy RTL 5 and there will not be any undue over provision of betting offices.

2. While Muir Street does already have a mixture of retail and non-retail uses, as indicated above it is considered the proposal complies with the criteria contained in Policy RTL 5 and 11 in that there will not be a significant impact on the surrounding area or an adverse impact on the town centre in that there will be no loss of a retail unit.

170 4.6 In conclusion, I consider that in view of the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding land uses, the proposed change of use complies with Policies RTL 5 and TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft. Notwithstanding the objections received, it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

171 Application No: SI07101 964lFUL

Date Registered: 17th December 2007

Applicant: Mr Connelly 17 Hillfoot Gardens Uddingston G716BN

Development: Erection of a Single Storey Extension to Side of Dwellinghouse

Location: 17 Hillfoot Gardens Uddingston G716BN

Ward: 13 Thorniewood: Councillors Burrows, McCabe and McShannon

Grid Reference: 269344661446

File Reference: S/PL/B/4/7/GSM/GF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 1 letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwellinghouse.

Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.

172 Produccd by North Lanarkshire COUnCll Aaoning and EnvironmentDept Flemlng HOUL~.2 Tryd Road Cumbernauid.087 IJW ki01238818210 Planning Application No. S I07 / 01964 / FUL tnx 01238 616232

173 3. That before the development starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th December 2007

Letter from R McMillan, 16 Hillfoot Gardens, Uddingston, G71 6BN received 17th December 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081.

Date: 16 January 2008

174 APPLICATION NO. S1071019641FUL

REPORT

1. DescriPtion of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection a single storey extension to the side of 17 Hillfoot Gardens, Uddingston. The application property is a two storey semi detached dwellinghouse and is bounded by houses to the north and west and an area of open space to the south and east.

1.2 The extension would project 3 metres from the side of the house and would maintain the front and rear building lines. The roof would be pitched and would be 4.6 metres in height from the highest point of the pitched roof and 3 metres at the eaves.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were carried out.

3.2 One letter of representation was received by the owners of 16 Hillfoot Gardens, Uddingston. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

I. The recent introduction of the 20’s Plenty Scheme has had a positive effect on road safety within the estate and this proposal is in direct contrast to this. The property has three vehicles and if this development is permitted it will increase the amount of on street parking. ii. During the time of construction there will be work vehicles and machinery parking on the street creating extra danger. iii. There are several children who live in the surrounding houses who often play on the street especially in the summer months. If this development is permitted the Planning Department will be forcing 3 more vehicles onto the street which will cause attention to be distracted while accessing the neighbouring properties and will threaten road safety in the area. IV. This development will cause unnecessary obstructions to be placed on the roadway and will impede other road users. V. The applicant should consider an alternative design of accommodation.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

175 relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight is also considered as is parking provision and access.

4.4 In relation to the size and scale of the extension this is considered to be acceptable as it does not dominate the original house and retains an adequate amount of private garden ground of around 240 square metres. The design is also acceptable, in keeping with the dwellinghouse with matching materials proposed.

4.5 With regards to the impact of the extension on the privacy of the surrounding houses it is not considered that there would be any adverse effects as the window at the front overlooks the houses across the street which are approximately 23 metres away exceeding the minimum standard. There are no houses to the east and south of the site therefore due to the location and orientation there will be no effect on privacy in these directions nor will there be any impact on the daylight and sunlight currently enjoyed by the neighbouring properties.

4.6 With respect to the impact of the development on parking provision the extension would result in a reduction in off street parking provision within the site due to it displacing a section of the driveway. The driveway at the front of the extension would accommodate one parking space post development. While this would normally be unacceptable in light of current standards which require a minimum of two off street parking spaces to be maintained, there are no restrictions on this site relating to retaining parking. Therefore, as this house is older and has no parking restrictions the council has no control over how many spaces should be retained. However, the applicants have confirmed that it is their intention to widen the driveway in the front garden to accommodate two spaces side by side.

4.7 On the grounds of the objections raised I would comment as follows: i, iii, iv, v In relation to the impact of the development reducing off street parking and the potential impact this will have on road safety with extra cars parked on the street, as discussed above in paragraph 4.6. The applicant has confirmed that they intend to provide 2 off street parking spaces. A revised design of extension is not justified. ii. In relation to any disruption caused during the construction of the extension this would not be a material planning consideration.

4.8. In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.9 It should be noted that an objector has requested that a site visit be conducted prior to a decision being made on the application and that they be given a hearing at the committee.

176 Application No: S/07/01986/FUL

Date Registered: 10th December 2007

Applicant: Mr Mohammed 30 Glen Noble Motherwell

Agent NIA

Development: Change of Use from Class 1 (Retail) to Fast Food Restaurant and Takeaway

Location: 7 Stewarton Street Wishaw

Ward: 20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland

Grid Reference: 279733654996

File Reference: S/P L/BF/10/26/SMCC/GF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 13th December 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed fast food restaurant and takeaway is contrary to Policy TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as the lack of off street parking provision and servicing and the proximity to a busy crossroads and junction is likely to have a detrimental impact upon road safety.

177 duwd by Ih Lananihire Council PLANNING APPLICATION No 07 / 01986 / FUL mng and Environment Depl ning House CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO FAST FOOD yrt Road nbernauld TAKE AWAY / RESTAURANT

‘1JW ~ 11236616210 7 STEWARTON STREET, WISHAW 01236616232

178 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1Oth December 2007

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 23" January 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 16thJanuary 2008

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Stewart MacCallum at 01698 302085.

Date: 23 January 2008

179 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01986/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing Class 1 shop at 7 Stewarton Street, Wishaw, to form a fast food restaurant and takeaway. The application site is located in Wishaw Town Centre within a row of existing shop units which are single storey. To the west lies a bank which is two storey, to the north off Young Street is a car parking area and to the south of the site is a row of commercial premises including an offsales, sit in caf&bakers and Public House. The closest residential properties are located 18 metres to the west, 70 metres to the north, 25 metres to the east and 15 metres to the south and these consist of mainly flatted properties above commercial units.

1.2 The change of use consists of only internal alterations including the formation of a seating area and serving counter. Also proposed is external signage which would require a separate application in the event that planning permission is granted.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Protective Services raised no objections to the application subject to conditions.

3.2 My Traffic and Transportation Team Leader recommends refusal of the proposal due to the likelihood of the development attracting significant short-term on street parking in close proximity to the traffic signals at East Cross. The traffic at these signals presently suffers from excessive delays due to the signals saturation and parking on this approach would make the situation worse. The location is subject to waiting restrictions (7am-1Opm Monday-Saturday) which highlights the road’s importance as a traffic route. The nature of enforcement of waiting restrictions invariably means their presence is unlikely to deter short-term parking.

3.3 No other objections were received as a result of neighbour notification procedure or advertisement of the application.

4. Planninn Assessment

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application is not of strategic significance and can be assessed against the relevant local plan.

4.2 The site lies within an area covered by Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 and 2005). This policy supports changes of use to non-retail town centre uses ‘in principle’, including bad neighbour hot food uses such as this, where they do not adversely affect the character and amenity of Town Centre Areas. Policy RTL 5 also states that changes of use should accord with the provisions of Policy RTL 11 Bad Neighbour Developments. In this respect, the proposed change of use is considered acceptable ‘in principle’, although remains to be assessed against more detailed assessment criteria.

180 4.3 Policy RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) is relevant and sets out the criteria for assessing such applications and this includes:

1) The impact upon the character and amenity of the adjoining residential area 2) The resulting mix of retail and non retail uses 3) Detailed design considerations 4) Provisions for vehicular access, servicing, parking and the impact on pedestrian safety and traffic circulation.

4.4 In assessing this particular proposal, it is considered that the relevant determining factors are whether the fast food restaurantltakeaway is acceptable in terms of its location, traffic safety and effect on the adjoining neighbours. As indicated at paragraph 1.1, the application site is located in relatively close proximity to residential properties. However, the site is primarily located within a defined town centre area, where predominantly a mix of uses prevail. Hot food uses are better directed to such town centre locations and I note that the proposed use would be contained within a single storey building with no residential properties directly above. From this perspective, the premises are considered appropriate. It is considered that the design of the proposal would not adversely affect the visual amenity of the area as there are only minor changes to the existing exterior of the building and this would be subject of a separate application for signage.

4.5 While in general terms the premises appear appropriate for the proposed use, policies RTLI 1 and TR 13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) set further criteria relating to road and pedestrian safety, parking and servicing. In this instance there is no immediate off street car parking provision or suitable servicing facilities due to the site being within the heart of the town centre, nor is there any scope to provide any. There are public car parks to the north of the site however given the nature of the proposal it is likely that both customers and deliveries are more likely to stop on Stewarton Street itself. This would be likely to cause significant disruption to the flow of traffic and pedestrian safety on a busy stretch of Wishaw Town Centre. Furthermore, as the site is in close proximity to the junction of Young Street and Stewarton Street and the crossroads of Caledonian Road and Stewarton Street, on street parking at this location would be further to the detriment of road safety and traffic flow within the wider town centre. I refer to paragraph 3.2 above and note that my Traffic and Transportation Team Leader recommended that the application be refused on this basis. I therefore consider the application to be contrary to policies RTLll and TR13 in as much as it relates to traffic and transportation matters. The application therefore also fails to comply with policy RTL5.

4.6 As detailed above, the proposed change of use to a fast food restaurant and takeaway is not considered to be in accordance with Local Plan policies RTL 5 & 11 and TR 13. Taking account of the above I therefore recommend that permission be refused.

181 Application No: Sl07102048lFUL

Date Registered: 19th December 2007

Applicant: Punch Taverns Ltd Jubilee House Second Avenue Button Upon Trent Staff ods hire DE14 2WF

Agent Mast Architecture and Design Limited Park Lane House 47 Broad Street Glasgow

Development: Subdivision and Part Change of Use from Public House to Bookmakers Including Frontage Alterations

Location: The Cherrytree 259 Netherton Road Wishaw

Ward: 20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland

Grid Reference: 277409654717

File Reference: SIP LlBFl2 ISISMCCIGF

Site History: S107102047lADV Installation of Advertisements - Submitted December 19th 2007- Under consideration

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised 16'h January 2008

Recommendation: Approve 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 alterations to the external walls shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: To maintain the character and amenity of the area.

182 183 3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows and doors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

4. That for the avoidance of doubt this permission relates solely to the change of use and alterations to subdivide part of the public house to form a bookmakers. No permission is hereby given for the relocation of the existing smoking area at the front of the building or any other external alterations to the property.

Reason: In order to define the permission.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 24th December 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 23'' January 2008

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698 302085.

Date: 24 January 2008

184 APPLICATION NO. S/07/02048/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the subdivision and part change of use of the Cherry Tree public house, 259 Netherton Road, Wishaw to a bookmakers. Also proposed are physical alterations to the extension of the building to facilitate this change of use and a small extension to the front of the building.

1.2 The Cherry Tree public house is located in an area characterised predominantly by residential properties, however there are other commercial properties nearby. A bookmakers is presently located to the south of the site and to the west and east are residential properties at a distance of approximately 25 metres. Located to the north of the site across Netherton Road is a car sales garage and the Netherton Industrial Estate.

1.3 The Cherry Tree is an established public house and the premises in question is a two storey building with a single storey extension, roughcast exterior and dark concrete rooftiles. The site benefits from its own car parking to the rear of the building.

1.4 It should be noted that a separate application for signage has also been submitted for this site which relates to the change of use and the existing public house however this has yet to be determined.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Team Leader has advised that he has no objections to the proposal.

4. Plannincl Assessment and Conclusion

4.1 The proposal requires to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The application is not of strategic significance and requires to be assessed against Local Plan policies. In this instance the site is zoned as policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policies RTLl 1 (Assessing Applications for Bad neighbour Development) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) are also relevant.

4.2 Policy RTL 9 identifies the site as commercial and this policy 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. As indicated above, the site is presently a public house which is also located adjacent to an existing bookmakers. This application reduces the level public house floorspace and increases the level of bookmakers floorspace within the wider site. In this respect, I consider this to constitute a continuation of the existing uses within the wider site and to comply with policy RTL9 in principle.

4.3 Policy RTLll notes that bad neighbour uses should preferably be located in town centre, secondary, village or neighbourhood commercial areas. It goes onto assess

185 the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the adjoining area, detailed design matters and the provisions made for parking and access. While this site is not a defined shopping area, it is zoned for commercial uses and the proposed use reflects those already operating on the site. A bad neighbour use is well established at this location. There are some established residential properties adjacent, however, the wider area has a mix of light industrial and business premises to the north. As the proposed use simply displaces an existing area of public house and does not result in any significant increase in floor space (only marginal alterations are proposed to the frontage), I consider that the over impact on the surrounding environment and adjacent properties will be marginal. Subject to appropriate materials, the physical alterations will also have little visual impact in comparison to the existing situation. A separate application is required to assess signage. The impact on traffic circulation, parking and manoeuvring will be considered under Policy TR 13 below, but otherwise, the proposal is considered to accord with Policies RTL9 and RTLl1.

4.4 Policy TR13 states that the Council will take account of criteria including: the impact of the development on road traffic circulation, road safety and the provision made for access, parking, vehicle manoeuvring and access for all. In this regard as indicated in paragraph 3.1 above, the applicant has demonstrated that adequate car parking and servicing provision can be provided within the site and my Transportation Team Leader has raised no objections. Again, I note that there is not significant increase in any floorspace of the existing building and the public house will reduce in size. The transportation implications of this development are therefore considered to be marginal. The proposal is consider to accord with policies RTLII and TR13 inasmuch as those policies assess transportation matters.

4.5 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed change of use and alterations would reflect the existing commercial uses of the site and have no significant impact on the existing levels of amenity of the surrounding properties. The application is considered to comply with policies RTL9, RTLI 1 and TR13 and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

186