1 Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION NO

REPORT

TO: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMllTEE 1 Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. S/96/00267/0 UT RES1DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, From: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACCESS AND LANDSCAPING NEWLANDS FARM, TANNOCHSIDE Date:: 10 December 1996 Ref: WLS/Kw/9/74/S

1. Purpose of Report

I refer to the minutes of the Planning and Development Committee of 27 November, when the above planning application was continued to a site visit and hearing. The following information should be noted by the Committee at their special meeting on 20 December, 0 1996.

2. B ac kcl round

Since my original report was prepared, I have received a further letter from Lanarkshire Development Agency, seeking to clarify their position in relation to this application. In their letter, the LDA note that they do not wish to object to the planning application, but had been making reference to the necessary environmental improvements to Aitkenhead Bing; they now understand that this has been taken into account.

3. In principle the LDA support the application since they believe that the availability of quality residential development is an important factor in assisting the efforts to attract companies into the area, and were of the opinion that the proposed development at Newlands Farm would complement and help reinforce the efforts of the economic development policies of the area.

Recommendation e 4. That the Committee notes the contents of this rep0

A I Signed as relative to paragraph ...... A...

Stanley C Cook DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT J List of Backaround Papers.

Letter dated 2.12.96 from Lanarkshire Development Agency.

Contact for further information: Mr Stevenson 01 698 302090 Application No. Sf96fOO267fOUT Date registered 22 May 1996 APPLICANT PARKLANE INVESTMENTS LTDnURNBERRY HOMES, CALEDONIAN HOUSE, PHOENIX CRESCENT, STRATHCLYDE BUSINESS PARK, BELLSHILL Agent DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK AND ACCESS LOCATION NEWLANDS FARM, AITKENHEAD ROAD, TANNOCHSIDE

Estimated Cost Ward No. 21 Grid Reference 269800662600

File Reference WLSfJMi9174 & 9/72

Site History No significant pia nning history

Development Plan Green belt

Contrary to Dev. Plan Yes

CONSULTATIONS

Objection NLC Education LDA Glasgow City Council CSCT Glasgow & Clyde Valley Structure Plan Committee No Objection Scottish Office Agriculture Department Scottish Power SEPA Conditions Coal Authority West of Scotland Water Health and Safety Executive Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust NLC Leisure No Reply SNH British Telecom British Gas South Lanarkshire Council NLC Emergency Planning Fire Brigade

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours 179 objections received by the Department. 3 further similar sets of objections, as detailed in Section 3.1 of the report - have also been received. Section 23 NDP~~Ldnarnsnrre councl1 NEHLANOS FARM, Date 303 BP~MO~StPeec. uocnerueii HLI LRS to16981 251321 TANNOCHSIDE. 13/11/96 1 1 I COMMENTS This application is for a major housing development on a greenfield site within the Greenbelt. The site, in total, extend is some 37-6 hectares (93 acres), of which some 25 hectares (63 acres) could be developed; it is estimated that 500-600 houses could be accommodated. This proposal has attracted a very large number of objections, and raises major planning policy issues and infrastructure matters. A full report is attached.

RECOMMENDATION

Grant, subject to the following conditions, viz-

(1) 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 1972.

(2) That before development starts a written application and plans, in respect of the following reserved matters: shall be submitted to: and approved by! the Planning Authority:-

a. the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures;

b. the means of access to the site

c. the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas;

d. the provision of equipped play areas;

e. the provision of public open space;

f. the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site;

g. the design and location of all boundary walls and fences;

h. the phasing of the development;

i. the provision of drainage works, and

j. the disposal of sewage.

Reason: The approval is in principle only.

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

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. (4) That, notwithstanding the terms of conditions (1) and (2) above, no development shall take place until a Traffic Impact Assessment: provided by the applicants, in relation to the development proposed has been approved by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure that satisfactory measures a re identified to enable the existing and proposed road systems to cope with the traffic generated.

(5) That, notwithstanding the terms of this consent, the 'Masterplan' submitted is indicative only and no approval is given to any detail shown on that plan.

Reason: The approval is in principle only.

(6) That the total number of dwellinghouses within the site shall be not more than 600. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and define the use of the site.

(7) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, the only accesses to the application site shall be from (1) Kilmuir Road at its western extremity and (2) Aitkenhead Road, north of Aitkenhead Bing.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

(8) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, before the development starts a certificate, from a recognised firm of chartered engineers, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming the mineral stability of the site and this certificate shall be based on a professionally supervised and regulated boring programme.

Reason: To ensure the mineral stability of the area.

(9) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, before development starts! a report, from a professionally qualified source, 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 it is certified by a professionally qualified source that these works have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the site is free of contamination.

(10) That, notwithstanding terms of conditions (1) and (2) above, a detailed scheme of landscaping and ground moulding around the periphery of the application site and within the site! forming the structure of the neighbourhoods within the development, shatl be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this consent.

Reason: To ensure the early provision of the iandscape framework. (11) That, notwithstanding the terms of conditions (1) and (2) above, and subject to the requirements of condition (4) above, the landscape works required in terms of condition (10) above shall be commenced within 6 months of approval of these details, and shall be completed within 12 months of commencement.

Reason: To ensure the early provision of the landscape framework.

(12) That no house shall be occupied until the works required by condition (10) above have been commenced.

Reason: To ensure the early provision of the landscape framework.

(13) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, the landscape framework required in terms of conditions (10) and (11) above shall comprise a substantial peripheral mound with woodland planting (except along Kilmuir Road) together with internal wedges of open space of at least 20 metres width. 0 Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

(14) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, the site shall contain at least one centrally situated area of open space comprising a kickabout area of at least 1200 square metres in size in addition to at least two equipped play areas both of which should be of 600 square metres in size, and that, otherwise, equipped play areas shall be provided throughout the application site in accordance with Council Policy.

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

(15) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, all rear gardens within the development shall have a minimum area (net of garage space) of 80 square metres.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of future residents and to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

(16) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, the development hereby approved shall consist only of detached and semi-detached houses.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

(17) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent, the internal roads system shall be designed in accordance with the standards set out in 'Guidelines for Development Roads', 1986, and Chapter 6 of the 'Roads Development Guide', 1996, both published by Strathclyde Regional Council.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory road system.

(18) That, notwithstanding the generalities of this consent: no houses shall be erected within 80 metres, and no toddlers' play areas positioned within 152 metres of the gas transmission pipeline to the west of the site, and no houses shall be erected within 62 metres, and no toddlers' play areas positioned within 124 metres of the gas transmission pipeline to the north of the site. Reason: In the interests of public safety and to accord with the requirements of the Health & Safety Executive.

NOTES

(1) This application was advertised in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Development Contrary to Development Plans) (Scotland) Direction 1996 and Consultation was carried out in terms of Article 9(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992. A total of 179 letters of objection were received.

(2) The applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement in terms of Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in respect of contributions towards provision of, and/or improvement of social infrastructure, and has also agreed to provide a Bond of Caution in respect of the reclamation of Aitkenhead Bing, which would be the subject of a separate legal agreement. The planning consent should not be issued until these matters have been concluded.

(3) If granted, this application will require to be referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland in accordance with the Development Contrary to Development Plans procedure.

(4) The applicant should contact The West Of Scotland Water Authority, Clyde East District, Melford Road, Righead Industrial Estate, Bellshill ML4 3JU so that details of the drainage layout may be approved and the necessary consents obtained in terms of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968.

(5) The Coal Authority have indicated that shafts and/or adits are situated under or close to this site. No development should take place over or near any shaft or adit. The developer must contact:-

Mr. G. Offen, Head of Mining Reports, The Coal Authority, Mining Reports Office, Ashby Road, Stanhope Bretby, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, DE15 OQD (Tel: 01283 550606) so that a thorough investigation of the position can be made. The above office can also supply you with a plan showing the approximate position of the shafts and/or adits. A charge will be made for this service.

List of Background Papers

Application Form and Plans and supporting statement Report on migration into the residential development on the former Caterpillar site Report on ground conditions Environmental Report Report on Education Provision in Tannochside Traffic Impact Assessment Fax from Turnberry Homes dated 28.6.96 Letter dated 9.8.96 from Park Lane Investments (Scotland) Ltd Copy letter dated 22.8.96 from Anderson Fyfe, Solicitors Letter dared 6.1 1.96 from Park Lane Investments (Scot1and)Ltd Uddingston Tannochside Town Map Motherwell District Local Plan Consultative Draft Consolidated Strathclyde Structure Plan 1991 Strathclyde Structure Plan 1996 NPPG3 'Land for Housing' Letter from LDA dated 31.6.96 Letter from City of Glasgow Council dated 6.6.96 Letter from NLC Director of Education dated 6.6.96 Memo from Transportation Manager dated 11.6.96 Letter from LDA dated 14.6.96 Letter from Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Dept. dated 19.6.96 Letter from Scottish Power, received 14.6.96 Letter from Science Curator, Kelvingrove Museum dated 19.6.96 Letter from Health & Safety Executive dated 24.6.96 Letter from the Coal Authority dated 22.6.96 Letter from West of Scotland Water dated 20.6.96 Memo from NLC Director of Environmental Services dated 24.6.96 Letter from NLC Director of Education dated 26.6.96 Letter from Central Scotland Countryside Trust dated 5.7.96 Letter from LDA dated 16.7.96 Letter from SEPA dated 25.7.96 Letter from Joint Structure Plan Committee dated 29.7.96 Letter from West of Scotland Water dated 30.7.96 Letter from Health & Safety Executive dated 6.8.96 Letter from Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust dated 20.8.96 Letter from City of Glasgow Council dated 3.9.96 Fax from NLC Director of Leisure Services dated 21.8.96 Letter from Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust dated 2.10.96 Memo from Head of Planning & Transportation dated 4.10.96 0 Letter from Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust dated 4.1 1.96 Memo from Transportation Manager dated 8.1 1.96 Letter from Dale & Marshall, Solicitors dated 28 May 1996 Letter from J.W. Sommerville, dated 30 May 1996 Letter from Quinn Martin & Langan, Solicitors dated 31 May 1996 Letter from Quinn Martin & Langan, Solicitors dated 28 July 1996 Letter from Quinn Martin & Langan, Solicitors dated 23 August 1996 Letter from Quinn Martin & Langan, Solicitors dated 19 September 1996 Letter from I. Black dated 9 September 1996 176 Other letters of objection, plus 1 letter subsequently withdrawing an objection

Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 251321 Ext. 248 and ask for Mr Stevenson. APPLICATION No S/96/00267/0UT

1.o PROPOSAL AND SITE

1.I This application seeks outline planning permission for residential development on part of Newlands Farm, Tannochside. The site extends in total to 37.6 hectares (93 acres), although it is proposed only to build on approximately 25.46 hectares (63 acres) with the remainder of the site being landscaped. No figure has formally been suggested for the number of houses, but some 500-600 relatively low density which would be possible.

1.2 The site lies on the edge of the built up area of Tannochside, with the Birkenshaw Retail Park and Kilmuir Road forming the southern boundary, and Aitkenhead Road and Aitkenhead Bing the eastern boundary. The northern and western boundaries are effectively defined by the line of an old mineral railway. The land is currently used mainly for grazing purposes, as part of Newlands Farm, although part of the site (providing a connection to Aitkenhead Road) forms part of Aitkenhead Farm.

0 1.3 The land is gently undulating, rising slightly from the south then dropping off the north and north-west. The M73 Motorway lies approximately 1 kilometre (0.6 miles) to the west, and the North Calder Valley lies a similar distance to the north of the site.

1.4 The proposal is, at present, only in outline but the applicants have provided an indicative Masterplan to show the basis on which they would intend to develop the site. This shows the site being accessed at two points - one on Aitkenhead Road north of the bing, the other on Kilmuir Road - with a loop road running through the site between the two accesses (Further consideration on the roads and transportation issues is contained in section 5.4 of this report). Extensive peripheral and internal landscaping is proposed, enclosing the site with heavy, mounded planting and breaking the development up into defined neighbourhoods. In addition, a large centrally located area of public open space is proposed.

2.0 CONSULTATIONS

2.1 A wide range of bodies was consulted on this proposal, and the responses of those e who replied are summarised below. In a number of cases the issues raised require more detailed consideration, and this is done in section 5 of this report.

2.2 NLC Education Department objection to the proposal on the basis that the local primary school serving the area could not cope with a development of the scale proposed. Further discussions have since taken place with the Education Department, and the applicants have submitted a consultant's report on the education provision issue; this matter is considered in more detail in section 5.5.

2.3 Lanarkshire Development Agency objected on the basis that the application made no provision for the treatment of Aitkenhead Bing. However, it should be noted that the applicants do not exercise sufficient control over the bing either to include it as part of the application site or to be able to consider it as part of a "Section 50" planning gain package, but there is scope for the applicants to make some provision, subject to certain legal provisions being made; this aspect is discussed in section 6.4. 2.4 Scottish Office Agriculture Department indicated that, because the site was less than 50 hectares in size, they did not require to be consulted.

2.5 Scottish Power had no objections.

2.6 Glasgow City Council, as an adjoining planning authority, objected on the grounds that the proposal was contrary to Policies GBI and RES 2 of the Strathclyde Structure Plan; these issues are discussed in section 4. In addition, the Science Curator in Glasgow's Kelvingrove Museum made comments on the application, noting that there were areas of nature conservation interest in and nearby the site which required protection.

2.7 Coal Authority noted that there were two mine shafts within the site and recommended that appropriate technical advice be sought.

2.8 West of Scotland Water offered no objections, but noted that discussions were taking 0 place regarding the provision of sewerage infrastructure.

2.9 NLC Environmental Services recommended that, due to the proximity of Aitkenhead Bing and the history of mining in the area, a site investigation be carried out. It was also recommended that a bund be provided along the Birkenshaw Estate boundary, to reduce any possible noise nuisance.

2.10 Central Scotland Countryside Trust objected, stating that the proposal would be a substantial and poorly-justified incursion into designated Greenbelt, and the protection of the Greenbelt should be given priority. The Trust also noted the prominence of the site from the north and from the M73, and the importance of the North Calder Valley as a relatively narrow break between built-up areas. In addition, the importance of local wildlife habitats was noted. Such matters are considered in greater detail in sections 5.2 and 5.8 of this report.

2.1 1 SEPA had no objections to the proposal.

0 2.12 Health and Safety Executive drew attention to the existence of two high pressure gas transmission pipelines nearby, providing details of the relevant safety distances to be applied.

2.13 Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust initially noted that the effect of such additional houses would be to justify an additional practice in the area, and requested that a new medical facility be provided. Subsequent discussions with the Trust and the local GPs, however, resulted in the conclusion that, while a new practicehew facility would not be required, there would have to be some improvement to the existing Viewpark Health Centre; this matter is further considered in section 5.6.

2.14 NLC Leisure made comments drawing attention to the major visual impact of the development, the difficulty of screening the site (particularly from the M73), the loss of views which would be experienced by local residents, and the major impact of the transformation of open countryside to urban development. 2.15 The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan Committee noted that the Structure Plan considered the supply of housing land to be sufficient without recourse to further Greenbelt release, and that this proposal contravened Greenbelt policies in a particularly sensitive sector of the Greenbelt, along the A8/M8. It is considered that no strategic justification for the development had been produced, and that it did not meet the Structure Plan's criteria for acceptable departures from Greenbelt policy.

2.16 A number of consultees did not reply, specifically Scottish Natural Heritage, British Telecorn, British Gas, South Lanarkshire Council, NLC Emergency Planning and the Fire Service.

3.0 OBJECTIONS RECEIVED

3.1 The usual neighbour notification procedure was carried out and the proposal was also advertised under the 'Development Contrary to Development Plans' procedure. As a result, a total of 179 letters of objection were received between the Planning and Development Department HQ, the Southern Division office and the Leader of the Council; in addition, a further 213 were handed in for the attention of the Director of Planning and Development, and 21 1 for the Leader of the Council. I am also aware that the Director of Leisure received 173 letters objecting to the proposal.

3.2 Most of the letters of objection received were 'pro-forma' standard letters, in two different formats; the contents of these are outlined in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7. However there were four separate and distinct objections, the first of which was received from solicitors acting on behalf of the tenant farmer of Aitkenhead Farm. This objection raised the following issues: a) The proposal is contrary to the Local Plan b) The proposal is contrary to the Structure Plan c) If the farm's acreage's reduced by 15 acres it will cease to be a viable unit, and the land will deteriorate in quality and appearance. d) Local roads are already congested, and the road system is incapable of dealing with the increased traffic levels. e) Local primary schools would be unable to cope with the additional population.

3.3 One local resident raised the issue of lack of capacity in local schools, and noted that e he would expect a reduction in Council Tax if the development were to proceed.

3.4 Solicitors acting on behalf of the bing's owners objected on the following grounds: a) Increased traffic in the area may hinder operations involving the removal of the bing b) The bing, situated adjacent to a residential development, could pose a danger to children living there c) Their clients own part of the land shown as the access into the application site

Comments were also made regarding the Council's intention to promote a Compulsory Purchase Order on the bing site.

3.5 Another resident, living near the proposed Kilmuir Road access, suggested that access to the site should be from elsewhere, drawing attention to accidents which have occurred there in recent years. He was concerned that the proposed access would exacerbate this situation by increasing the volume of traffic, and increased noise pollution would also result. 3.6 The initial set of pro-forma objections received from people throughout the Viewpark- Tannochside area made the following points:- a) Greater pressure would be placed on education facilities in the area, both primary and secondary b) Medical resources are also noted to be at risk, with regard to waiting lists/appointed delays c) The problem of a lack of leisure facilities/outdoor amenities would be worsened by the increased population d) Increased traffic, and pollution arising from this, would have safety implications for children e) The site lies in the Green Belt, the reduction of which would diminish both the aesthetic quality of the area and its rural aspect.

3.7 The second set of objections, again from throughout the general Viewpark- Tannochside area, made similar points to those noted in 3.6 above, expanding on them. Specifically, the following points were made:- The site is Green Belt, which prevents neighbouring towns from merging; controls the growth of built up areas and preserves the special charactedsetting of towns. There is also a varied wildlife population in the wetlands, and the site provides enjoyment for the local community, through walking, birdwatching etc. A right of way was also mentioned. It is estimated that the area covered by the former Motherwell District will have a surplus of 350 houses by 1999, removing the need for greenfield sites being developed. Three of the five local schools could not cope with the increased numbers of children, and the current capacity surplus at Tannochside Primary will be lost when classroom annexes are demolished. Sports and leisure facilities are limited, and problems currently exist with local youths congregating and drinking; the additional houses would exacerbate these problems. Existing high volumes of traffic on all local roads already pose a threat to elderly residents and children. Viewpark Health Centre already has to cope with a greater population than it was designed for, leading to lengthy waiting times. Local police stations only operate on a part-time basis, and the additional houses would aggravate current problems. There has been no increase in cemetery provision for the community.

3.8 The points summarised in the previous paragraphs raise a wide range of issues, which will be considered in greater detail in subsequent sections of this report.

4.0 STATUTORY PLANN I NG POSITI 0N

4.1 The site lies within an area which is not presently covered by a Local Plan. The current development plan in force is the Uddingston-Tannochside Town Map, on which the site is zoned as Greenbelt.

4.2 The Motherwell District Local Plan Consultative Draft (1995) also locates the site within the Greenbelt. Policy ENV 4 of the draft plan seeks to reinforce the Plan's overall commitment to urban renewal by resisting development in the Greenbelt, emphasising the importance if such areas for active and passive recreation and for the protection and enhancement of natural habitats. Policy ENV 5 further emphasises this by presenting a presumption against new development unless it is required for agriculture, forestry or other appropriate local uses. Policy ENV 6 promotes improvements to the Greenbelt and urban fringe specifically highlighting the reshaping and landscaping of Aitkenhead Bing.

4.3 The draft plan, through Policy HSG1, also seeks to direct new residential developments to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations.

4.4 The current approved Structure Plan is the 1991 consolidated Strathclyde Structure Plan. Policy GB1 seeks to prevent the encroachment of urban development into the countryside around the conurbation. Policy GBlA sets out criteria against which proposals in the Green Belt should be considered, these being economic benefits; specific locational need; infrastructure implications and environmental impact.

4.5 The Structure Plan also, through Policy RES2, gives preference to brownfield sites over greenfield sites; Policy RES2A gives criteria to be used in considering greenfield e development, specifically:- a) the evidence of demand and the effective supply of opportunities in the relevant housing market area, in terms of quantity, quality and location within a District. b) infrastructure implications, and c) impact on environmental quality and on policy for the Greenbelt.

4.6 The 1995 Structure Plan, which as yet has not been approved, retains the emphasis on protecting the Green Belt and giving preference to residential development on brownfield sites.

4.7 With local government reorganisation, the responsibility for overall strategic planning co-ordination within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area lies with the Joint Structure Planning Committee, whose comments are noted in paragraph 2.15. This Committee, however does not have any call-in powers.

4.8 Scottish Office guidance on major developments is contained in National Planning Policy Guidelines (NPPGs). NPPG3, "Land for Housing", (revised in November 1996) refers to the need to make best use of existing urban areas; the importance of policies to protect the countryside generally, and the importance of policies to ensure that approved Greenbelts remain effective. The NPPG recognises that some greenfield release will be necessary, but stresses that the release of sites in greenbelts should be considered only in exceptional circumstances and where the release can be justified as part of an overall strategic appraisal of housing land requirements. Where greenfield release is required, development should be well integrated with the existing development in terms of scale, density, quality and suitability of site; and should not adversely affect either the local environment or amneity of small towns and villages or approved greenbelts; or the landscape character of an area.

4.9 If the Council decided to grant consent for this development, it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State for Scotland. 5.0 THE PRINCIPAL ISSUES

5.1 A number of issues clearly require to be considered in relation to this proposal. These are covered in the following paragraphs, with reference made to consultation responses and/or objections received.

5.2 Greenbelt

5.2.1 The site lies within the designated Greenbelt, within which there is a general presumption against new development. The purposes of Greenbelt include the prevention of built up area coalescing, the protection of agriculture land, the preservation of landscape character, the provision of recreational facilities and the preservation of habitats. Any development within the Greenbelt requires to be considered against a variety of criteria, as noted in previous paragraphs.

5.2.2 The applicants have submitted a report showing the origin of purchases of houses on e the nearby Caterpillar site, which shows that almost 60% of purchasers came from outwith the Uddingston/Bellshill area. The applicants therefore suggest that the site is in an area of proven market demand, particularly from outwith the local area, and make the point that the availability of good quality residential land and new housing is complementary to the Council's inward investment strategy.

5.2.3 The applicants also stress that their proposed development would be set in a landscaped framework, providing a "defensible greenbelt boundary" and enabling the creation of "an unobtrusive development". An Environmental Report, prepared by consultants on the applicants' behalf, was submitted as part of the application and considered various aspects including a general landscape assessment together with the landscaping proposals. This report concluded that residential development with community woodland would be "an asset to the landscape", with the woodland not only providing a strong Greenbelt boundary but also softening the existing impact of the housing and retail park on the views from the north.

5.2.4 There may, therefore, be some justification to consider this proposal as a possible 0 greenfield release, given that the applicants claim that it would complement local economic strategies ("economic benefit"), would provide housing in an area of known demand ("specific locational need") and could be integrated into a landscaped setting ("environmental impact").

5.3 Housing Demand

5.3.1 Greenfield housing land release is generally only undertaken when available brownfield housing land is unable to satisfy estimated demand. The estimates of demand and supply are carried out on the basis of 'housing market areas', of which the former Motherwell District was one. The draft Motherwell District Local Plan estimated that the then known effective land supply was sufficient, and could supply the estimated demand until the year 1999. More recent figures, updated in March 1996, show an effective land supply in the Southern Division of 31 14 units to the year 2003; over the last 10 years, house completions in the division have ranged between 300 and 600 per annum, giving an estimated requirement at the year 2003 of between 2100 and 4200 units, with an average of 3250. There may therefore be some mis- match between supply and demand over the next seven years within the Southern Division. While housing supply/demand analysis is generally conducted in a more detailed and sophisticated manner including population and migration trends, the above figures provide a broad indication of the possible position.

5.3.2 Furthermore, there may be a justifiable argument to consider housing land supply/demand figures in a more sophisticated manner, taking into account areas of particularly high demand, such as Tannochside. As noted by the applicants, the development at the Caterpillar site has shown a strong demand for owner occupied housing in the area, and there is currently no substantial, high quality site in the locality which could satisfy further demand.

5.3.3 As noted in paragraph 4.5 above, the Structure Plan Policy RES% requires greenfield proposals to be considered against various criteria, including evidence of demand and effective supply of opportunities. Notwithstanding the fact that Tannochside is not a housing market area on its own, there does appear to be some evidence of a demand 0 which is unlikely to be satisfied within the area. 5.4 Transportation Issues

5.4.1 A Traffic Impact Assessment has been carried out (on the basis of a 500 house development) and submitted as part of the application. Because of the scale of the study, and the timescales available to my department, a full analysis of the report has not yet been possible, but an interim assessment has been made. Generally, the access positions proposed (involving roundabouts at Kilmuir Road and Aitkenhead Road) appear to be acceptable, although the specific details of the geometry of the junctions etc will require to be considered in greater detail.

5.4.2 It is also likely that existing roundabouts and junctions in the general area would be able to cope with the additional traffic generated by the proposed development; one possible exception is the A8 interchange, should the upgrading of the A8 to Motorway standard not take place. It should also be noted that a development in excess of 500 houses may require a revised TIA. Improved pedestrian facilities would be required,involving footways along both Kilmuir Road and Aitkenhead Road, with pedestrian refuge islands at the new roundabouts; a further survey will also be required at a later stage to establish whether pedestrian crossing facilities are required.

5.4.3 Many of the objections received referred to possible traffic problems, but on the basis of the TIA it would appear that a development of the scale proposed could be accommodated within the existing road system. The specific objection which opposed the Kilmuir Road access should be considered in the light of achieving the best possible access to the site, if the development proceeds; as such, it would appear that Kilmuir Road is the preferred option, notwithstanding the local concerns.

5.5 Education

5.5.1 Many of the objections received cited the lack of opportunity at Aitkenhead Primary School, the school to which this site would be zoned. This has been confirmed by the Council's Education Department, which objected to the proposal. Further discussions took place between the Education Department and my department, and between the Education Department and the applicants directly, and the applicants commissioned a report on the education provision.

5.5.2 Aitkenhead Primary is effectively at full capacity, but there is scope to accommodate children from the proposed development at Tannochside Primary (which is currently the zoned school for the Caterpillar development); this would require the site being re- zoned. At present, Roman Catholic Primary schooling, and Non-Denominational Secondary provision, is made by South Lanarkshire; depending on possible developments in the South Lanarkshire area, there may be re-zoning required for RC Primary provision, but there appears to be capacity at St. Columba's PS iin Viewpark. The situation at Uddingston Grammar is of concern, as the school is currently over- capacity, but the Director of Education takes the view that the accommodation problems at that school would require to be considered by South Lanarkshire Council. Any re-zoning exercise will require a consultation exercise.

5.5.3 While the effect of the proposed development on local school provision will be substantial, and likely to require re-zoning, there is spare school capacity within the 0 general area. Re-zoning could therefore resolve possible difficulties.

5.6 Healthcare

5.6.1 Concern has also been expressed regarding the ability of the local healthcare facilities to cope with the additional population, and the Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust initially took the view that a new GP Practice, supported by community nursing, paramedical and medical consultancy services, would be required. However, more detailed discussions with the Trust and the local GP practices led to the conclusion that the existing practices could cope, but that some extension to Viewpark Health Centre would be required to accommodate the necessary additional support services.

5.7 Leisure Provision

5.7.1 Another source of local concern is the effect of such a development on local leisure facilities. As a result, discussions between North Lanarkshire Leisure and the applicants took place to determine where improvements could be made to local facilities, and the applicants have agreed to make contributions towards the provision and/or upgrading of certain facilities (see section 6 below). In addition, play facilities and open space would be integrated into the development.

5.8 Other Issues

5.8.1 Reference has been made by certain consultees and objectors to nature conservation and wildlife habitat issues. As the proposals contain extensive areas of landscaping, there would be scope to protect and enhance such areas, and the Environmental study submitted has noted such matters.

5.8.2 The site itself contains a number of constraints, and the required safety distances from gas pipelines and sewers will create areas which cannot be developed, as will a large former quarry near the centre of the site. 5.8.3 The objection from the tenant farmer of Aitkenhead Farm make specific comment to the loss of land from the farm; however, the land affected by this proposal is a relatively small part of that farm, and does not appear to be actively utilised at present.

5.8.4 The issue of Aitkenhead Bing is one which the Council is currently pursuing, attempting to purchase the site in order to reshape and landscape it. The applicants have purchased land adjacent to the bing to provide them with a connection to Aitkenhead Road, and have indicated their willingness to sell surplus land to the Council to enable the environmental improvements to proceed; the claims of the bing's owners that they also own the adjoining land have not been substantiated, and are disputed by the applicants. Further issues relating to the reclamation of the bing are noted in Section 6.

5.8.5 There is no formally recognised right of way within the site.

5.8.6 The current operating system of the local police stations is not a relevant land use planning matter.

@ 5.8.7 North Lanarkshire Leisure made no reference to any possible cemetery problems; Bothwellpark Cemetery was extended some years ago.

6.0 PLANNING GAIN

6.1 The Planning Acts allow planning authorities to enter into legal agreements (known as Section 50 Agreements) which can, in certain circumstances, result in developers providing, or contributing towards, certain facilities; this is generally known as "planning gain". Developments of the nature and scale proposed are often the subject of such agreements, and the applicants have indicated their willingness to do so in this case.

6.2 "Planning gain", however, is subject to certain restrictions imposed both by stated cases and by central government advice. In particular, any such benefits gained must be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, and must be directly related to the development. In cases where it is considered that a proposal could have adverse effects on the surrounding area, which could be overcome by carrying out certain works, then a section 50 agreement can be appropriate.

6.3 In this case, general discussions between my department and the applicants (involving other parties such as North Lanarkshire Leisure and Lanarkshire Healthcare Trust) have identified the following as possible subjects for inclusion in a Section 50 Agreement:- . Extension to Birkenshaw Sports Barn . Provision of a 5-a-side outdoor pitch at Birkenshaw Sports Barn . Contribution towards a new community centre . Extension to Viewpark Health Centre . Pelican Crossings, as required

6.4 The applicants have also indicated that they would be prepared to fund the reclamation of Aitkenhead Bing; this, however, could not be part of a Section 50 Agreement, because of the current ownership situation, but could otherwise be confirmed by other legal measures. 0

6.5 Obviously, at this stage, the precise details and costs involved in the works identified above are not known. The guiding principles, however, must remain the test of "reasonableness" in relation to the scale of these works, and their relationship to the development. The planning authority must not treat a proposal such as this as an opportunity to obtain extraneous or unrelated benefits for the area, but if the Council chose to grant consent localised problems arising, as noted in previous paragraphs, could be ameliorated.

7.0 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL

7.1 A proposal of this scale and nature, in the Greenbelt, requires to be assessed on a number of different levels, with consideration given to policy, infrastructure, environmental impact, local opinion and other matters. These have been outlined in the preceding sections of this report, and it can be seen that there are arguments both for and against the proposal.

7.2 The arguments against the proposal can be summarised as follows: . The site is in the Greenbelt, and so the proposal is clearly contrary to the policies of the Development Plan, the Draft Local Plan, the Structure Plan, and general national planning guidance. General policy nowadays is aimed at directing new development to previously developed brownfield sites within the urban area. . The site is prominently located, and development there would be particularly visible from a number of positions, notably the M73. . The North Calder Valley and its adjoining areas are considered important in wildlife habitat and nature conservation terms, and form a significant open wedge adjacent to the motorway corridors. . The local social infrastructure would be put under severe pressure by the additional population, particularly schools provision, healthcare facilities and leisure provision. . There has been substantial local opposition to the proposal.

7.3 In support of the proposal, the following points could be made: . The site lies within an area of strong demand for private housing, where there are no substantial sites remaining. It could, therefore be argued that there is evidence of demand allied to lack of supply within the local area to justify a greenfield release. . The developable area is clearly defined by existing high pressure gas mains, which restrict where new development can occur; there is no prospect of development either to the north or the west of the site. . The provision of a strong, mounded landscaped edge to the development will give a clearly defined, defensible Greenbelt boundary. Screening can also be provided to reduce the visual effect of the proposal. . The landscaping provision will enhance nature conservation. . The applicants can contribute towards the improvement of local healthcare and leisure facilities. Schools provision, however, can be satisified by using other local schools with spare capacity, as required by the Scottish Office.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 This is a particularly difficult proposal to determine, given the strong arguments available to both supporters and opponents. The Greenbelt argument is particularly valid, given the desire to direct development to previously developed sites, while the view that the local "social infrastructure" would be adversely affected is reasonable albeit that improvements could be made to health and leisure facilities.

8.2 On the other hand, the view that the area lacks a substantial site of good quality for housing and that such sites are required to underpin the Council's economic activities could be seen to be in line, generally, with Structure Plan and national policy guidelines. There is no possibility of expansion of the site, and the extent of the landscaping proposed would be able to provide a strong natural framework to a low density development.

8.3 In seeking to achieve the best possible outcome for the area as a whole, it may sometimes be necessary to take difficult decisions which may adversely affect a number of people. If greenfield release is considered to be acceptable in certain circumstances, for instance to provide land for housing where no other opportunity exists, or to enhance the economic prospects of the area, then this site offers an acceptable opportunity. It is unfortunate that this proposal itself has triggered the debate on greenfield release in the Tannochside area, as a more appropriate means of considereing public opinion and identifying the main issues would have been the local plan process; however, this application has been submitted and requires to be dealt with, and to pursue this matter through the local plan system would result in unnecessary and unacceptable delays. Local concerns over leisure and health facilities can be ameliorated by contributions from the developers, while the statutory position over education appears to be that capacity problems can be dealt wish be re- zoning.

8.4 I am therefore of the opinion that, given the exceptional and extenuating circumstances prevailing, consent can be granted. Conditions can be imposed to ensure an early commencement to the landscaping, to provide a satisfactory framework for the development, and various legal agreements can be drawn up to allow the developers to contribute to local facilities and to the rehabilitation of the bing; the total number of houses can also be restricted to 600, which represents a relatively low density for such a site. I therefore recommend that outline consent be granted.