North Lanarkshire

Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee

Committee Date: 27-02-2020

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

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE

27th February 2020

Page Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation No

7-22 19/00563/PPP Advance Residential Development with Refuse (P) Construction Associated Car Parking, Access, Open Scotland Ltd Space, Drainage Infrastructure and Other Associated Development Site To West Of Potassels Road Muirhead

23-37 19/00878/PPP Mr Thomas Residential development in principle Refuse McInally Site At 16 Holytown Road (Hearing Bellshill Requested) ML4 1EE

38-47 19/00992/FUL Wilson Residential Development Comprising Grant (P) Developments Flatted Block of 24 Flats, 16 Cottage (Scotland) Ltd Flats, 4 Terraced and 4 Semi- Detached Houses Former North Lanarkshire Council Offices Philip Murray Road Bellshill ML4 3PA

48-59 19/01360/PPP Dullatur Golf Residential Development (In Principle) Refuse (P) Club & Smart Dullatur Golf Club Group 1A Glen Douglas Drive (Scotland) Ltd. Craigmarloch Cumbernauld G68 0DW

(P)

19/00563/PPP – If the committee is minded to grant planning permission a legal agreement to secure education contributions will be required before the permission is issued

19/00992/FUL – If the committee is minded to grant planning permission a legal agreement to secure developer contributions for education and play will be required before the permission is issued

19/01360/PPP - If the committee is minded to grant planning permission a legal agreement to secure a commuted sum in respect of Affordable Housing will be required before the permission is issued

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/00563/PPP Residential Development with Associated Car Parking, Access, Open Space, Drainage Infrastructure and Other Associated Development

Site Address:

Site To West Of Potassels Road Muirhead

Date Registered:

5th June 2019

Applicant: Agent: Advance Construction Scotland Ltd Barton Willmore Strathclyde Business Park Centrum Business Centre Caldergrove 38 Queen Street 4 Linnet Way Glasgow Bellshill G1 3DX ML4 3RA

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 05 Stepps, Chryston And Muirhead 60 letter(s) of representation received. John McLaren, Lynne Anderson, Stephen Goldsack,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development is considered unacceptable as it would result in the removal of an area of amenity open space considered to be a valuable visual and landscape amenity feature and noise buffer to the detriment of adjacent housing to the south. The proposal whilst within Local Plan Policy area HCF 1A (Protecting Residential Amenity) is not designated as a housing site within the current North Lanarkshire Local Plan and the proposal is considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact on established residential amenity of the area contrary to Local Plan policy. The proposed dwellings require to have windows closed to meet modern noise standards and there is no need overriding need for housing in this area such that standards should be relaxed in this case

Note to Committee:

Should the committee be minded grant planning permission, no permission should be issued until a Legal Agreement in terms of Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been finalised, agreeing appropriate provisions for mitigation against impacts upon local education provision, as a result of the development

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/00563/PPP the Ordnance Survey on behalf Name (of applicant): Advance of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All Construction Scotland Ltd rights reserved. Ordnance Site Address: Site To West Of Survey Licence number Potassels Road

100023396. Muirhead Development: Residential Development with Associated Car Parking, Access, Open Space, Drainage Infrastructure and Other Associated Development

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to the Spatial Development Strategy of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017, Policy 1 Place Making and Policy 12 Green Network and Green Infrastructure and North Lanarkshire Local Plan Policy DSP4 Quality of Development, in that the development will result in a significant loss of amenity, identity, and character resulting in an irreversible adverse impact on the open space character associated with the site and surrounding area and the proposal fails to protect, promote or enhance the green network

2. The proposed development is contrary to policies HCF 1 (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as it is considered that the removal of this area of amenity open space (including recent woodland regeneration) the vegetation cover and earthen bunds which were created as a requirement of a planning condition of a previous planning permission would have a detrimental impact on the established amenity of the adjacent dwellings to the south. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development site offers a valuable physical and landscape buffer between the A80 dual carriageway and existing housing and its removal would be detrimental to the character and setting of the area.

3. The proposed development is also unacceptable in terms of policy DSP 4 d) Quality of Development – (Mitigating any likely noise impacts), as the current Noise Impact Assessment has not currently demonstrated that in terms of the proposed site layout noise impact on future residents of the development can be kept within acceptable criteria. The solution to address the site levels/noise issues on this site is reliant on having houses gable onto the A80 and having windows closed which is not considered to be acceptable on this site and acoustic fencing and the orientation of properties will have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area, particularly when viewed from the A80 road.

4. The site is not an allocated housing site in either the current North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 or the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Modified Proposed Plan and cannot be justified under Policy DSP2 Location of Development in the Housing Market sub-area on the grounds of sufficient housing supply land currently being available.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Greenspace received 18th June 2019. NLC Education and Families received 19th June 2019. Traffic & Transportation received 27th June 2019. The Coal Authority 27th June 2019. Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 8th July 2019. NLC Greenspace received 31st July 2019. Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 9th August 2019. Play Services Manager received 6th September 2019.

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Mark Forrest at 01236 632500

Report Date: 14th February 2020 APPLICATION NO. 19/00563/PPP

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The proposed development site is approximately 1.85ha in area and located on the western approaches to Muirhead and Chryston. The A80 (Cumbernauld Road), forms the northern site boundary, the housing estate of Belhaven Park is immediately to the south with residential areas also immediately east at Potassels Road/Lilybank Avenue and west at Crow Wood Road. The site is generally rectangular with a 250m frontage to the A80 and a depth of approximately 60m. An additional arm of land at the west protrudes southwards for approximately a further 150m. The site is bisected by a well-surfaced tarmacadam footpath located between two previously created 3-4m high soil bunds which stretch the length of the site. The footpath leads to a signalised pedestrian crossing of the A80 which connects to Chryston.

1.2 Site landscape cover atop bunds were previously a mix of trees and shrubs created by a planning condition as a landscape barrier to screen the Belhaven Park estate from the A80 at the initiation of that housing development in the late 1990’s however this cover was largely cleared from the site in September 2017 several years prior to submission of the current planning application. Some tree and shrub cover has naturally regenerated since the previous tree clearance works.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The applicant is seeking planning permission in principle and has submitted an indicative layout showing approximately 34 dwellings, currently consisting of 16 detached, 10 semi-detached and 8 terraced dwellings in a linear development on either side of an internal estate road. Site access is taken from the A80 Cumbernauld Road. Individual houses would face the internal road which lies parallel to the A80. Four to five dwellings are also located on the western arm of the development which is proposed to incorporate an area of landscaped open space, an urban drainage system pond and a newly created habitat area for water voles. The application is for Planning Permission in Principle which determines whether the site is acceptable in principle for the proposed use. The applicant has however submitted a site plan with a detailed indicative site layout as a result of which during the neighbour notification process adjacent residents have commented both on the indicative layout and the principle of proposed site use for residential purposes. Should the application be granted planning permission, details regarding a finalised site layout and other matters such as detailed external finish of dwellings may amend and would be assessed as part of a subsequent application for Matters Specified in Conditions.

2.2. Acoustic fencing barriers measuring 2.2m – 2.6 m in height would require to be sited between gardens and dwellings on the northern side of the site and the A80 dual carriageway to mitigate noise from the road to acceptable levels. All gardens are predicted to meet the WHO (World Health Organisation) daytime external upper noise limit of 50dB LAeq16hr. but not NLC guidelines level of 55dB LAeq16hr. although NLC does have exceptional circumstances criteria to allow levels above 50dB LAeq 16hr). The majority of affected dwellings and their gardens would be re-orientated to have gable ends facing the A80 and gardens behind those dwellings to achieve acceptable upper limits. The most recent Noise Impact Assessment report considers that with the proposed mitigation strategy, 74% of properties would meet the 50dB LAeq,16hr target for external daytime noise levels with the remainder of the site within a 53dB LAeq,16hr limit.(Noise Impact Assessment, Sept 2019 s.6.1).

2.3 With the proposed acoustic fencing internal night time noise levels are predicted to exceed NLC’s proposed target of 30 dBLAeq,8h with open windows at the majority of properties in the north of the site with facades facing directly towards the A80. The entire development is predicted to comfortably meet the internal noise target with closed windows on facades facing the A80 and trickle ventilation systems. The Noise Impact Assessment does not specify whether these are closed windows or non- opening.

2.4 It should be noted that the proposed acoustic barrier of 2.2m – 2.6m height is a reduction on a 3.6m acoustic barrier which would be required to successfully achieve a World Health Organisation 50dB limit for daytime external noise levels for all properties in the development. The 2.2m – 2.6m barrier is recommended to achieve more acceptable visual amenity but is at the expense of more complete acoustic/noise mitigation. NLC Protective Services have indicated that further noise impact modelling should be implemented if the application is granted Planning Permission in Principle however the planning assessment of this proposal is that the site layout as proposed would also require to be significantly amended to acceptably achieve a reasonable level of noise mitigation for future residents including potentially removing or relocating dwellings current proposed north of the internal estate road.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has submitted additional supporting information including a Planning Statement, Design Statement, Ecology Report, Noise Impact Assessment, Transport Assessment, Engineering Desktop Report and Coal Mining Risk Assessment. Several of these reports have either been updated or additional information been submitted following requests from consultees ie. NLC Greenspace Development, NLC Roads and Transportation and NLC Protective Services.

4. Site History

4.1 The site area subject to this application previously formed part of an earlier planning application site for residential development granted planning permission in 1997 (Ref: planning permission N/97/00208/FUL). As a condition of the 1997 planning permission the site forming the current planning application was to be re-contoured with earthen bunds and landscaped to form an amenity feature and buffer between the residential development granted at that time and the A80 trunk road. Traffic using the A80 has subsequently been reduced due to the use by some traffic of the extension to the M80 motorway route north of Stepps. However traffic statistics indicate that the A80 is still subject to approximately 6000+ vehicles movements in each direction each day.

4.2 Substantial tree and shrub felling occurred in September 2017 which led to complaints by residents of the Belhaven Park estate to the south objecting to loss of the amenity land created by the earlier planning permission. Felling operations were carried out by contractors working on behalf of the current applicant. Planning enforcement officers investigated the matter at that time however no enforcement action could be initiated as the felling works did not require planning permission and planning conditions in the original planning permission, whilst requiring the landscaped area to be created and subject to management/maintenance, did not include a condition to protect the trees in perpetuity.

4.3 An Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Request (Ref: 19/00449/EIASCR EIA) was received in 2019 relating to the current development proposal and prior to submission of this planning application. The EIA Screening Opinion identified that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required and that necessary environmental information could be obtained through applicant’s submissions and comments on these from internal and external consultees.

5. Development Plan

5.1 This application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of both the Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan SDP 2017) and Local Plan (North Lanarkshire Local Plan) which identifies the site as HCF1 Protecting Residential amenity and community facilities.

5.2 The application site is in an area designated as policy HCF 1 (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities - Residential Areas) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Part A of this policy has a presumption against development detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. Developments of an ancillary nature may be acceptable, (eg. guest houses, children’s nurseries, medical surgeries or retail for local needs), subject to impact on residential amenity and provision for servicing and parking.

5.3 Strategic Local Plan Policies DSP 1-4 may also be relevant namely, DSP1 Amount of Development, DSP2 Location of Development, DSP3 Impact of Development and DSP 4 Quality of Development,

6. Consultations

6.1 The consultation responses are summarised below. As this is an application for Planning Permission in Principle the design and internal layout of the development could be amended at the Matters Specified in Conditions application stage in order to satisfy planning authority and Local Development Plan requirements particularly regarding noise and in response to matters raised in consultation input and neighbour notification responses. i) NLC Traffic & Transportation response of 24th June 2019 raised concerns regarding the indicative site layout and site access to the A80 since proposed access is opposite an existing signalised junction access to Chryston from the A80. Full details of proposed alterations to the existing signal controlled junction at site access and alterations to the internal layout to address pedestrian safety in the form of site footway provision were requested as a more acceptable alternative to some shared surface areas proposed. Other issues noted were levels of internal parking provision provided, uneven distribution of parking provision across the site and the straight linear nature of the internal site road layout which may not restrict internal road speeds nor comply with Scottish Government Designing Streets principles. It is recognised however that the limited site area, site shape and current proposed housing density makes compliance with Designing Streets guidance difficult. The applicant has subsequently submitted revised site access and internal layout and other revisions but a Street Engineering Review and further amendments would be required at an early stage in the detailed design process, should the application be granted Planning Permission in Principle. The applicant would have to address these issues at Matters Specified in Conditions stage. ii) NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) raised no objection subject to certain conditions being met. These related to site construction operating practices, need for site investigation regarding contaminants and need for methane gas protection measures for future dwellings. Specifically, Environmental Health commented on the submitted Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) and subsequent amended NIA report. The amended report indicated that noise levels would exceed Council guidelines for houses adjacent to the A80 and would require affected dwellings to have closed windows facing towards the A80 with trickle ventilation vents. The report does not state whether other windows on affected dwellings would also require to be closed. Pollution Control indicated that further consultation comments regarding the suitability of noise mitigation measures and site layout would not be possible until finalised site layout is confirmed, should Planning Permission in Principle be granted. iii) NLC Education and Families has no objection to the proposal provided that the developer agreed to a developer contribution of £7800 per qualifying dwelling unit (2-bedroom and above) towards the impact on the school estate. This contribution is intended to contribute towards the needs of St Barbara’s Primary School and Chryston Primary School. The developer has confirmed agreement to comply with this developer contribution requirement. iv) NLC Greenspace Development advised some replacement planting should be considered to compensate for vegetation lost to on-site tree felling several years earlier. Japanese Knotweed, an invasive controlled waste species, had been recorded on site and a species management plan was required detailing removal measures for this species. Greenspace Development supported proposals for inclusion of a wildflower area and native tree planting on some site areas. Core Path (No 144), a footway adjacent to the A80, is located parallel and adjacent to the northern site boundary. Greenspace recommended this Core Path be kept open during construction phase by use of a banksman or by other means. Following submission by a local resident of a photograph of a rodent on the footpath bisecting the site, a water vole study was implemented which identified evidence of the presence of water voles (whose nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981). Although no specific water vole burrows were identified recommendations were made for a suitable area of habitat to be created on site for water voles to migrate or be translocated to should the development be granted permission. v) NLC Play Services provided details of the requirements for on-site provision of at least 1500m2 of open play space, with 500m2 of this being equipped play space. Details of the type and amount of equipped play equipment would be confirmed at Matters Specified in Conditions stage. Play equipment requires to be located at least 15m from the nearest dwelling. The indicative site layout indicates an open space area/equipped play area in the western arm of the site. vi) NLC Housing (New Supply Team) indicated a requirement for on-site provision of approximately 25% social housing due to the site being within the Cumbernauld Housing Sub Market Area. For a development of 33 units this would equate to 8 social housing dwellings. The developer has confirmed agreement to provide this social housing element should the application be granted and this could be covered by planning condition if members were minded to grant planning permission. vii) The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposed development subject to a planning condition within any Permission in Principle requiring that, prior to Matters Specified in Conditions application, a scheme of intrusive site investigations to locate/assess an historic on-site mine entry and a report of findings arising from the site investigations indicating exact mine entry position and definition of suitable no build zones be submitted. A treatment scheme treatment would also require to be submitted for approval including details of remedial works implemented and verification report to confirm works had been appropriately completed.

viii) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) was not consulted as part of the consultation process as no flood risk was identified within a constraints check (including SEPA Flood Risk Maps) prior to validation of the planning application. However, given the concerns raised by local residents a Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategy could be required should Planning Permission in Principle be granted permission.

7. Representations

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and press advertisement 60 letters of objection or representation were received including several sets of comments from some households as a result of a re-notification process due to further amendments to the indicative site layout. Local elected member Councillor John McLaren objected to the development in principle but not regarding specific site elements.

7.2 Points of representation or objection were received mainly from Belhaven Park housing area but also came from the other adjacent residential areas. Representations and objections are summarised under a series of categories below:

Flood Risk:

 A proposed unfenced drainage pond adjacent to existing dwellings presents child safety and flooding risk. A proposed drainage gulley at the west of the site will result in either the site, including the proposed play area, Crow Wood Road dwellings, or both being flooded. A sample borehole in the site engineering report flooded at 2.2 m depth suggesting the whole area has potential to flood. In-site is predominantly clay resulting in existing flooding issues. Tree felling on the adjacent land has led to flooding.

Impact of Cumulative Residential Development:

 The significant number of residential developments granted planning permission in the Muirhead/ Chyston/Gartcosh areas have adversely impacted on local infrastructure and community facilities resulting in local primary and secondary schools (Chryston PS, St. Barbara’s PS, Gartcosh PS, and Chryston HS) being at or near capacity.  The local medical centre has long appointment waiting times.  Cumulative development has increased traffic levels, road congestion and road safety issues with queuing traffic queueing resulting in noxious exhaust fumes in Muirhead/Chryston. The development will exacerbate this problem.  The submitted Transport Assessment does not take account of cumulative traffic impact of other recently permitted residential developments.

Loss of the Open Space Area forming the Application Site:

 The open space area forming the application site was created as a visual amenity and noise barrier as a planning condition within the Belhaven Park estate planning permission. Resident title deeds indicate the area was to be retained for that purpose. Residents purchasing houses believed the area would remain wooded/undeveloped to serve visual and noise mitigation purposes. (The Planning Service has not had sight of the title deeds however title deed burdens restricting land uses would require to be addressed as private civil legal matters as planning legislation does not have specific powers to enforce title deed burdens).  The open space area was and still is, frequented by a variety of wildlife. Prior to clearance it contained a variety of native trees and other plant species.  Development of the open space area reduces the trees carbon capture function and exacerbates adverse effects of climate warming.  The submitted ecological report incorrectly states that the area has low ecological value.  There is Japanese Knotweed on site which is a controlled waste.  The developer has shown disregard for residents of Belhaven Park by clearing the application site of trees prior to submitting the planning application.

Noise Implications

 Loss of trees has increased noise impact on existing residents in Belhaven Park. Replacement of trees with housing will not have the same noise mitigating effect.  Alternative noise mitigation measures proposed are inadequate. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment has concluded that current noise levels from the A80 significantly exceed the noise criteria guidelines of North Lanarkshire Council.  Proposed acoustic fence for the site will not provide the same level of noise mitigation previously provided by trees. The acoustic barrier will look unsightly when viewed from the A80.  Noise and disturbance will occur during construction.

Loss of Privacy

 The proposed housing will result in loss of privacy through overlooking of existing dwellings. The proposed housing is too close to existing dwellings.

Proposed New Footpath Links

 Non-residents will have easier access to Belhaven Park from Lilybank Avenue/Potassels Road due to proposed path linkages resulting in increased anti-social behaviour and crime which is already a problem particularly at the existing children’s play area maintained through payments by Belhaven Park residents.  A proposed footpath link along the eastern boundary of Belhaven Park was previously subject to anti-social behaviour which ceased as the area became overgrown.  Potassels Road is unsuitable as a footpath link with a poor road surface and insufficient lighting.

Road Safety and Traffic Concerns

 The indicative internal road layout is a shared surface design with minimal pavement provision resulting in road safety issues/danger to children who use the existing footpath route to the A80 pedestrian crossing point to access school.  The proposed site access opposite the existing A80 road junction providing access to Chryston will lead to congestion and road safety issues  Cars using the A80 exceed speed limits along this straight section of road.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and Local Development Plan Proposed Modified Plan

 The site is not a specifically allocated housing site in the current North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012.  The site is not a specifically allocated housing site under policies HCF2A Sites for Short or Medium Term Development or HCF 2BB Further Locations for Housing Development in the current North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The application does not satisfy Local Plan policy DSP4 Quality of Development nor qualify as a potential addition to planned land supplies under criteria within Policy DSP2 B. The application does not accord with the Placemaking Policies stated in the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Proposed Modified Plan.

Miscellaneous Issues

 The proposed development will lead to loss of natural light to existing dwellings.  The development will use the existing perimeter fence of the properties in Belhaven Park as a boundary feature.  Substantial earth moving will be required to remove existing bunds to create a suitable development site.  Site chemical analysis states high levels of copper and lead in the soil samples.  The proposed site access road cuts across the existing footway and cycleway parallel to the A80. This presents a safety risk and an obstacle to cyclists, joggers and walkers.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 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 Development Plan consists of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The application is of strategic significance by virtue of Schedule 14 due to the site capacity and location (more than 10 units on a green field site).

Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 (SDP

8.2 The site lies within the settlement of Muirhead and forms part of the Green Network (Diagram 7) under the Spatial Development Strategy of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017. In summary of particular relevance to this application within the Clydeplan SDP 2017 are the following Policies:

• Policy 1 (Place making) • Policy 12 (Green network) • Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals)

8.3 SDP Policy 1 Place making states that new development should take account of the place making considering the following criteria.

• Distinctive • Safe and Pleasant • Easy to Move Around • Welcoming and Adaptable • Resource Efficient

8.4 Policy 1 Place Making states that new development should take account of the place making principle set out in Table 1, which provides a range of criteria under the six qualities of a place set out in ‘Creating Places 2013’ and ‘Place Standard for Scotland 2015’. An assessment of the proposal against these six qualities is as follows:-

Distinctive: The proposal will significantly erode the setting, character and visual amenity of the area in removing this area of valued and protected amenity land under a previous planning permission and in doing so its community value as an area of open space. This is also contrary to the objectives of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green network.

Safe and Pleasant: The proposal, in principle, while capable of complying with detailed design policy is thereby capable of producing a safe local environment with scope for sustainable connectivity into and through the site to the wider area possible through sympathetic design at detailed stage.

Easy to Move Around: the pedestrian connections from the site into the existing urban environment require improvement in order to connect to surrounding networks and infrastructure and this is technically achievable in principle.

Welcoming: the development is capable of satisfying this criterion.

Adaptable: the development is not supported by this criterion as it runs counter to the ‘compact city’ model which prioritises brownfield sites for development and mixed use development, this is a single use development on a Greenfield site.

Resource Efficient: the development is capable of finding a technical solution in connecting to existing infrastructure but will require investment in public infrastructure to mitigate its impacts (Sewer, Transportation, upgrades etc.).

On balance in considering the six qualities set out above, by removing an area of open space which is of intrinsic value in its own right the proposal cannot reasonably be held to comply with Policy 1 of the SDP on Place making. It is therefore an unacceptable departure from the Strategic Development Plan.

Green network and Green Infrastructure Policy 12

8.5 The Spatial Development Strategy provides support to the positive action-orientated Green Network programme (a pro-active approach to wider environmental improvement throughout the plan area). In terms of the Spatial Vision of the Strategic Plan, it highlights that the Green network is an important strategic tool with a significant role to play in achieving key environmental objectives, directing planned growth to the most appropriate locations.

8.6 Policy 12 seeks to support the vision of the spatial development strategy and delivery of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Network by identifying, protecting, and enhancing the green network, ensuring that development proposals prioritise green infrastructure prioritising the Green Network in strategic delivery areas identified in schedule 11. Opportunities for delivery are associated with land uses which could deliver greater societal and wild life benefits. These are:

• New build development of scale. • Vacant and derelict land. • Underperforming green space.

While the site is not identified in schedule 11, it none the less forms a green corridor linking areas of green value within the designated green network and may reasonably be viewed as part of the Green Network (Diagram 7). The change from amenity open space to residential would have profound and significant negative effects on the character of the area and subsequently existing amenity and accessibility for residents of the area. Given the scale of the development proposed for this green field site (developing the majority of the site) it cannot achieve the aim set out in maintaining the function of the green network. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 12 of the SDP in that the proposal does not support the aims of the spatial development strategy and delivery of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Network.

Diagram 10 Assessment of Development Proposals

8.7 Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals) aids the consistent application and implementation of the SDP and should be used when assessing strategic scale development proposals or other proposals that may impact on the Plan strategy. This Diagram is used to determine whether strategic scale development proposals (Schedule 14) comply with the policies, schedules and diagrams of the SDP. The policy poses two fundamental questions on the Vision, Spatial Development Strategy and the Place making Policy (Box 1) and Departures from the Strategic Development Plan (Box2).

Assessment of Development Proposals (Successful, Sustainable City Region)

Development proposals should be considered against the related policies, schedules and diagrams appropriate to the type of development under consideration. Any development proposal that fails to meet the relevant criteria in Box 1 will be regarded as a departure from the Strategic Development Plan.

Departures from the Strategic Development Plan

Departures from the Strategic Development Plan considers whether the development proposal is an acceptable departure from the Strategic Development Plan having regard to the criteria set out in the SDP and any other material considerations.

8.8 Diagram 10, (Assessment of Development Proposals).

Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals) –Box 1 asks the question:

Does the development proposal support the Vision, Spatial Development Strategy and the Place making Policy including having regard to the Glasgow City Centre Joint Strategic Commitment?

8.9 It is considered that the answer to this question is ‘no’ given the assessment of policies 1, and 12 above. Accordingly, the development is considered to be a departure from the SDP. On this basis, the proposals are contrary to Clydeplan SDP 2016.

Box 2 goes on to pose the question:

Is the development proposal an acceptable departure from the Strategic Development Plan having regard to the following criteria and any other material considerations?

 make a significant contribution to sustainable development particularly through enabling modal shift and the contribution to carbon reduction;

Response: there is no evidence that the development will make such a significant contribution.

 provide significant net economic benefit including the need to accommodate inward investment that would otherwise be lost to the city region or Scotland;

Response: There is no evidence that the development will afford a significant economic benefit of this nature. Any benefit (however large) could be accommodated on a suitable and sustainable location.

 respond to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, including the protection of jobs or the creation of a significant number of net additional permanent jobs to the city region;

Response: not relevant

 specific locational need;

Response: There is no suggestion that there is specific locational need for this development.

 protect enhance and promote natural and cultural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment;

Response: The proposed development fails to meet this aim. The loss of valuable amenity open space will significantly erode the existing sense of place and setting of the area as a result of introducing further housing, resulting in profound and significant negative effects on the character, amenity and identity of the area.

 improve health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation;

Response: There is no evidence that the development will offer benefits of this nature. Indeed the development does not promote and facilitate better open space access for recreation or enhance local landscapes and natural features. The implementation of the proposals would see interaction with the site reduced rather than enhanced with many existing opportunities removed. The Council’s aim to maintain community wellbeing will thus be compromised by allowing this proposal to proceed. Sustainable management of greens spaces is a key part of the green infrastructure of our towns. The retention of green spaces have a common goal in that everyone living and working in urban Scotland has easy access to quality greens places that meet local needs and improve their quality of life.

• Support the provision of digital connectivity in new developments and rural areas.

Response: Not relevant.

On balance, the development is not considered to be in accordance with the vision and spatial development strategy of the SDP and neither has it been found to be an acceptable departure.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan

8.10 The proposed development is subject to detailed assessment against Strategic Local Plan Policies DSP 1-4.

8.11 Policy DSP 1 Amount of Development refers to Planned Land Supplies (DSP1 A) and Potential Additions to Land Supplies (DSP1 B). The site is not identified within the Housing Land Supply of the current Local Plan which was adopted in 2012 nor is the site identified as a allocated housing site in the emerging Local Development Plan: Modified Proposed Plan which included a Call for Sites for developers with potential residential sites to submit these for assessment for inclusion in the emerging Local Development Plan. There is no current shortfall in housing land supply in this area

8.12 DSP2 Location of Development: This policy requires additions to land supply for sites above 10 units to be justified in terms of supply and demand. The most recently agreed Housing Land Audit (2018) for the Cumbernauld Housing Sub Market Area identifies that within the Northern Corridor housing sub-market area there is currently an oversupply of housing allocated or currently granted planning permission as committed development. The site is green field and will not lead to urban regeneration and the development will erode access to a valuable area of open space regarded as a community facility. The shortcomings of the site are further discussed below under Policy HCF1 (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). Therefore there is no justification for the site under policy DSP2.

8.13 DSP3 Impact of Development: As noted above NLC Education have provided a financial contribution requirement per qualifying dwelling to be provided by the applicant to contribute towards impact on the capacity of the existing school estate. NLC Housing (New Supply) have requested that affordable housing be provided on-site at a ratio of 25%. The applicant has agreed to comply with both these policy requirements.

8.14 DSP4 Quality of Development: This policy considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes and provides a range of assessment criteria. The policy requires development proposals to only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable development are achieved.

Since the application is for Planning Permission in Principle to establish whether the proposed use for residential housing is acceptable the issue of detailed site attributes is less critical in assessment terms as design, site layout and other relevant matters may be amended at the Matters Specified in Conditions application stage should Planning Permission in Principle be granted. However, the site layout as currently proposed does present some issues of concern in design terms in relation to sections within DSP4. These sections of policy DSP4 are assessed below.

8.15 DSP4 3 a). A clear vision for the site addressing siting, overall layout, density, form and related issues:

 The siting of the proposal close to the A80 presents resident amenity issues which are discussed at DSP4 d) below. Issues relating to the internal layout have been raised by NLC Roads and Transportation. These are stated at paragraph 6.1 i) but include the straight linear nature of the internal road rather than a layout taking cognisance of Designing Streets guidance which consequently may not restrict vehicle speeds to safe level. Other issues are the level of parking provision, the uneven distribution of parking within the site, desire for more appropriate turning facilities such as turning circles or turning heads at street termini and need for a Street Engineering Review. This is related to the size and shape of the site and a lower housing density to provide adequate space may potentially resolve these issues.

8.16 DSP4 3 d). Mitigating any likely air quality, noise or pollution issues.

 The issue of mitigation of traffic noise from the A80 is discussed at paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 above however it is considered that a design solution in relation to noise that can only mitigate to the upper acceptable level (or above) for residential development and requires the use of closed windows raises significant concerns and is not acceptable in terms of residential amenity. Site constraints are such that this cannot be improved upon without a reduction in numbers and relocation of some dwellings.

 The whole site is affected by noise to the extent that noise mitigation measures in the form of an acoustic barrier (fence) of 2.2m -2.6m will not be sufficient. To fully mitigate against adverse levels of noise the Noise Impact Assessment considers that a 3.6m fence would be required however has recommended the lower heights to reduce adverse visual impact amenity issues along the boundary with the A80. As part of this compromise the applicant is of the view that a number of properties along the A80 will have to be orientated in such a way that gable ends would face the A80 to allow dwellings to reduce noise levels to houses. Additionally some windows within affected dwellings would require to be closed with trickle ventilation to allow internal-external air circulation. In terms of whole-life planning for the site there is additionally no provision for the case that the acoustic barrier becomes compromised after a number of years resulting in the future residents having to incur expense to renew the mitigation barrier. Noise experienced in amenity areas such as private gardens - the most recent Noise Impact Assessment report considers that with the proposed mitigation strategy 74% of properties would meet the 50dB LAeq,16hr external daytime target with the remainder of the site within a upper acceptable 53dB LAeq,16hr limit. On this basis the proposal is not considered to result in a high quality of development and therefore fails to accord with Policy DSP4.

8.17 DSP4 3 f). Integrating successfully into the local area, avoiding harm to neighbouring amenity by relating well to existing context and avoiding adverse impact on existing or proposed properties through overlooking, loss of privacy or amenity, overshadowing or disturbance. Whilst it may be possible to devise a layout that meets these aims the loss of amenity that will arise through the development of this area of open space is considered to be detrimental to residential amenity

Again the issue of successfully mitigating against noise within the proposed development has not been fully addressed. The issue of impact of the development on amenity for existing properties relates to the former use and purpose of the current application site and is addressed at Policy HCF 1 (paragraph 8.18 below).

8.18 Policy HCF1 (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities). The overarching aim of Policy HCF1 is to protect Residential Amenity and Community Facilities. Part A of the Policy deals more specifically with the protection of residential amenity and states there will be a presumption against developments that are detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. Whilst a development of new houses has the potential to comply with this policy it is considered that in this case that the development is contrary to the aims of this policy. In the introduction to the housing chapter of the local plan it is stated that there has to be ‘enough housing in appropriate locations and in good quality environments’. It is also stated that community facilities can include buildings, community centres but also areas of open space and open areas of grassland. The proposal to develop this site which is an important area of open space that contributes in a significant way to the quality of environment for the existing residents does not accord with the principle of this policy. The site is a valued community facility (as evidenced by the letters of representation) and is of intrinsic value in its own right providing an attractive and pleasant setting for existing residential properties but also for those travelling through the area. The site is also considered to be an important part of the green network in this area and is one of a number of open spaces that punctuates and defines the A80 Road and links to the wider countryside.

8.19 The proposed development is considered contrary to policy HCF1A as it would result in the removal of an area of amenity open space and a valuable landscape buffer for the existing housing development to the detriment of the wider housing area and would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on established residential amenity and the character of the area. Residential amenity to local residents would also be adversely impacted due to the visual impact of the proposed acoustic barrier adjacent to a major route through the locale. It is considered that the site functions as a valuable landscape buffer which is currently naturally regenerating and even without natural regrowth, the physical mass of the earthen bunds still provide a degree of visual and noise screening to residents within the Belhaven Estate from the A80 dual carriageway. Evidence of the value of the site to residential amenity is strengthened by the fact that the site formed part of a previous planning permission (Ref N/97/00208) which resulted in the construction of the Belhaven housing estate but which required by planning condition the creation of a landscaped area and earthen bunds and the submission and implementation of a maintenance and management plan. Over time the management arrangements for the area appear to have lapsed and the site has changed ownership but this does not negate the original purpose of the landscaping and bunding.

8.20 Policy HCF3 (Assessing Affordable Housing Development) requires that on sites capable of accommodating 20 or more dwellings, the developer will normally be required to make on-site provision for 25% affordable dwellings integrated into the proposed development; The applicant has agreed to comply with this policy requirement based on the number of dwellings allowed on the grant of planning permission and as such the proposal would be considered to accord with policy HCF3 (a).

North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Modified Proposed Plan

8.21 The site is not identified as a housing site within the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Modified Proposed Plan which was previously subject to public consultation part of which was a Call for Sites during which development interests could submit potential housing sites for consideration for inclusion within the Proposed Plan. No submission was made for the application site. The Modified Proposed Plan is not adopted as it is currently awaiting Local Plan Inquiry and therefore has less weight as a material planning consideration. The Modified Proposed Plan however the application site is designated as part of a General Urban Area under Placemaking Policy PP3 Purpose of Place. That policy maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development in keeping with urban areas residential character and encourages diversity in more mixed-use areas.

9. Other Material Considerations

Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011: Planning and Noise, and associated Technical Advice Note

9.1 The PAN notes that the statutory planning system has a role to play in helping to prevent and limit the adverse effects of noise. Good acoustic design and a sensitive and pragmatic approach to the location of new development needs to be actively promoted to ensure that quality of life is not unreasonably affected and that new development continues to support sustainable economic growth. As noted above, it is considered that noise levels on the site could not be mitigated against in an acceptable way. Therefore it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the residential development, as proposed, is appropriate at this location and is therefore in conflict with the terms of the PAN.

North Lanarkshire Council - Noise Guidance for New Developments

9.2 This North Lanarkshire Protective Service’s guidance provides information to developers where noise sensitive developments are planned near to existing noise sources. It notes that only in exceptional circumstances will mitigation in the form of windows closed with other means of ventilation be considered acceptable. The applicant through the updated Noise Impact Assessment appears to contend that the proposals meet the exceptional circumstances criteria to allow acceptance of windows closed on this site. For clarity, it should be noted that mere compliance with the guidance of the exceptional circumstance above do not of themselves, constitute qualification of exceptional circumstance. Rather, it is for the Planning Authority to determine on a case by case basis, which proposals qualify as exceptional circumstances, in the expectation that the noted benefits form a minimum qualifying criteria. It is considered that the proposals which remove an area of amenity open space of intrinsic value in its own right does not support the aim of sustainable development, as the level is such that in the event that residents open windows, they would be exposed to unacceptably high forms of disturbance and would thereby place residents in a location a low quality of environment. In addition, the noise experienced within amenity areas ie. gardens in daytime hours, is in excess of World Health Organisation recommended limit. ie. The most recently submitted Noise Impact Assessment report considers that with the proposed mitigation strategy 74% of properties would meet the 50dB LAeq,16hr target with the remainder of the site within a 53dB LAeq,16hr limit. Protective Services have stated that noise mitigation issues can be revisited once the detailed site layout is confirmed however based on the current layout with houses to the north of the internal estate road projected to experience significant excess noise levels it is unlikely this issue can be resolved without a significant amendment to site layout. On this basis, the proposals are not considered to meet the terms of exceptional circumstances and in turn, windows closed is not considered an acceptable form of mitigation for excessive road noise and night time internal noise also breaches NLC guidelines without implementation of closed windows on a number of dwellings.

Letters of Representation

9.3 In responding to the objections raised in letters of objections (see 7.2 above) the following should be noted:-

Flood Risk

 A proposed unfenced drainage pond adjacent to existing dwellings presents child safety and flooding risk.

Response: Scottish Water will not adopt a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) pond unless it is securely fenced. A condition could be added to any planning permission granted to ensure that water features have suitable safety measures in place.

 A proposed drainage gulley at the west of the site will result in either the site, including the proposed play area, Crow Wood Road dwellings, or both being flooded. A site engineering report sample borehole flooded at 2.2 m depth suggesting that the whole area has potential to flood. Soil on-site is predominantly clay resulting in existing flooding issues.

Response; Should the application be granted a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy will require to be submitted to address any potential flooding or drainage issues.

Cumulative Impact of Residential Development:

 Significant residential developments granted planning permission in the local and adjacent areas have adversely impacted on local infrastructure and community facilities including primary and secondary schools, the local medical centre and increased volumes of traffic and congestion.

Response: North Lanarkshire Council Education Services have requested £7800 per qualifying dwelling within the development proposal towards capacity impacts on the school estate locally. The volume of traffic generated by this development in not projected to be significant how the issue of cumulative impact of traffic from residential developments is acknowledged in a number of urban areas. Unfortunately in the current climate of limited resources, road improvements are similarly limited and prioritised to key locations and congestion issues.

Loss of the Open Space Area forming the Application Site:

 The open space area forming the application site was created as a visual amenity and noise barrier as a planning condition within the Belhaven Park estate planning permission. Resident title deeds indicate the area was to be retained for that purpose. The open space acted as a wildlife refuge and green corridor

Response: The planning assessment is that the application development proposal adversely affects the existing residential amenity for the reasons outlined earlier in this report. It is the assessed that the application proposal does not accord with planning policy HCF 1A (Protecting Residential Amenity). As Japanese Knotweed is controlled waste any removal or disturbance is a matter for others and of permission were to be granted would need to be attended to before any development takes place

Noise Implications

 Loss of trees on the application site has increased noise impact on existing residents in Belhaven Park. The proposed noise mitigation measures proposed for the development inadequate as the submitted Noise Impact Assessment concludes that current noise levels from the A80 significantly exceed the noise criteria guidelines of North Lanarkshire Council. The proposed acoustic fence for the site will not provide the same level of noise mitigation previously provided by the bund and trees and will look unsightly when viewed from the A80. Noise and disturbance will occur during construction.

Response: The planning assessment of the noise mitigation measures proposed is that they exceed the criteria set in North Lanarkshire Council guidelines and even with closed windows and re- orientation of the most affected dwellings both external day time and internal night time noise levels are not considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity. The development could be acceptable in noise terms however this would potentially require a reduction or relocation of some dwellings. The proposed acoustic barrier is considered to be detrimental to visual amenity. For the reasons above the proposed noise mitigation does not accord with Local Plan policy DSP 4 sections 3 d) and 3 f).

Loss of Privacy

 The proposed housing will result in loss of privacy through overlooking of existing dwellings. The proposed housing is too close to existing dwellings.

Response: The layout provided is indicative only and whilst several of the rear gardens do not quite obtain the NLC Open Space Around Dwellings guidance rear garden length of 10m these plots are a sufficient distance from existing adjacent dwellings not to adversely impact on privacy. Other plots meet accepted privacy distances between dwellings.

Proposed New Footpath Links

 Non-residents will have easier access to Belhaven Park from Lilybank Avenue/Potassels Road and around the eastern boundary of the site due to proposed path linkages resulting in increased anti-social behaviour and crime Non-residents will use the play area within the estate which is maintained financial by Belhaven Park residents. The condition and lack of lighting on Potassels Road make it unsuitable as a footpath link

Response: In response to representations made by residents the applicant has removed the previously proposed new footpath links from the indicative site proposals.

Road Safety and Traffic Concerns

 The indicative internal road layout is a shared surface design with minimal pavement provision which will lead to road safety issues particularly for school children. The proposed site access is at a busy and dangerous junction on the A80. There will be adverse impact on users of the existing footpath crossing the application site and the footway along the A80.

Response: NLC Traffic and Transportation have requested a number of changes to the access and internal road layout to address site design issues. These matters would require to be resolved as part of any Matters Specified in Conditions application.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and Local Development Plan Proposed Modified Plan

 The site is not a specifically allocated housing site under policies HCF2A Sites for Short or Medium Term Development or HCF 2BB Further Locations for Housing Development in the current North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The application does not satisfy Local Plan policy DSP4 Quality of Development nor qualify as a potential addition to planned land supplies under criteria within Policy DSP2 B. The application does not accord with the Placemaking Policies stated in the emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan Proposed Modified Plan.

Response: The planning assessment confirms that the site is not specifically allocated for housing and does not qualify as an acceptable potential addition to planning supply under criteria with Policy DSP2B.

Miscellaneous Issues

 The proposed development will lead to loss of natural light to existing dwellings. The development will use the existing perimeter fence of the properties in Belhaven Park as a boundary feature.  Substantial earth moving will be required to remove existing bunds to create a suitable development site. This would also impact on the operation of the A80. Site chemical analysis states high levels of copper and lead in the soil samples.

Response: There is no evidence that natural light will be lost to existing light to an unacceptable level. It is acknowledged that earth moving would be required to achieve the proposed layout. NLC Protective Services has indicated a requirement to implement Site Investigation and remediation measures if a potential contamination is identified within the site. The applicant would require to submit their own boundary treatment measures for assessment. These matters could be addressed by planning conditions and assessed as part of any Matters Specified in Conditions application.

10. Conclusions

10.1 Having considered the development against the Development Plan and other material considerations, it is considered that the proposals are not acceptable in that the development of the application site does not accord with Clydeplan or Local Plan Polices HCF 1 and DSP4 in protecting existing amenity as a result of the removal of the existing landscaped and bunded area which comprises the application site. Neither has not been demonstrated that noise can be mitigated in a satisfactory way without significant amendments to the existing layout or proposed noise mitigation measures. It is hereby recommended that the application be refused.

10.2 Should the committee be minded grant planning permission, no permission should be issued until a Legal Agreement in terms of Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been finalised, agreeing appropriate provisions for mitigation against impacts upon local education provision, as a result of the development.

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/00878/PPP Construction of 14 Dwellings

Site Address:

Site At 16 Holytown Road Holytown ML4 1EE

Date Registered:

Applicant: Agent: Mr Thomas McInally Allison Architecture 40 Kenilworth Crescent 13 Royal Crescent Bellshill Glasgow ML4 3EG G3 7SL

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: Representations: 16 Mossend And Holytown 11 letters of representation & petition David Baird, Frank McNally, Jim Reddin, with 30 signatories received.

Recommendation:

Reasoned Justification:

Residential development on this site is considered to be contrary to the Development Plan. The proposal will significantly erode the sense of place, setting, character and visual amenity of the area in removing this community facility as an area of open space. No material considerations have been identified that outweighing the provisions of the Development Plan.

Note to Committee:

Should the Council be minded grant planning permission, no permission should be issued until a Legal Agreement in terms of Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been finalised, agreeing appropriate provisions for mitigation against impacts upon local education provision, as a result of the development.

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/00878/PPP the Ordnance Survey on Name (of applicant): Mr Thomas McInally behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right Site Address: Site At 2009. All rights reserved. 16 Holytown Road Ordnance Survey Licence Bellshill number 100023396. ML4 1EE Development: Construction of 14 Dwellings

Reasons for Refusal:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to the Spatial Development Strategy of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017, Policy 1 Place Making and Policy 12 Green Network and Green Infrastructure and North Lanarkshire Local Plan Policy DSP4 Quality of Development, in that the development will result in a significant loss of amenity, identity, character resulting in an irreversible adverse impact on the open space character associated with the site and surrounding area and the proposal fails to protect, promote or enhance the green network.

2. The proposed development is considered detrimental to of the character and setting of the area and thereby contrary to policies HCF1 Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities, DSP2 B Additions to Planned Land Supplies and DSP 4 Quality of Development of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as it is considered that the removal of this area of amenity open space (including trees) would have a detrimental impact on the setting and established amenity of both the adjacent dwellings and wider housing area. The site offers a valuable established green space which contextually provides balance to the existing street scene by complementing existing boundary planting and in conjunction with the extended area of open space along Holytown Road cumulatively, contributes to and maintains a valued sense of place as set out in the National guidance on design ‘Designing Streets’.

3. That should planning permission be granted a precedent will be set for inappropriate development on valued areas of open space that are of intrinsic value in their own right

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Protective Services memorandum received 3rd September 2019 NLC Greenspace (ecology) memorandum received 10th February 2020 NLC Transportation memorandum received 23rd December 2019 NLC Education memorandum received 3rd February 2019 SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency letters received 2nd September 2019, 8th January and 30th January 2020. The Coal Authority letter received 5th September 2019 Scottish Water letter received 29th January 2020

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01236 632500

Report Date:

10th February 2020 APPLICATION NO. 19/00878/PPP

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site in the main includes part of a wider area of natural open grassland and woodland to the west of Holytown Road, Holytown. The site has an area of 0.78ha and has a mature hedgerow frontage along Holytown Road and includes a steading comprising of out buildings and dwellings 16-18 Holytown Road fronting on to this road. The open space which is rural in character comprises mostly of trees, shrubs and grassland/scrub sloping downwards steeply in a southerly direction to a watercourse. There is mature woodland along the burn which has been designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The SINC generally follows the burn located within the southern section of the site but extending to the south away from the main location of the proposal. The site is bounded to the north by Holytown Road and a line of 6 residential properties which front onto this road. The site is bound to the east by Holly Grove a residential development and to the west by further open space which converges towards the access of Leander Crescent. The site is bounded to the south by the Thankerton Burn.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The application which is in principle proposes a new residential development accessed via Holytown Road. The applicant has provided indicative layout drawings demonstrating that the site has area capacity for 14 houses the site linked by two access roads one terminating in a cul de sac arrangement serving three dwellings on an east west axis connecting to Holytown Road and the other connecting 11 dwellings separately again via an east west access to Holytown Road. The grouping of three dwellings will be on the footprint of the existing dwelling requiring its demolition.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has provided the following:

 Coal Mining Risk Assessment.  Tree survey  Habitat Survey  Bat Survey  Flood risk assessment  Planning Support Statement

4. Site History

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

 Application for erection of a dwellinghouse at this site by the same applicant was withdrawn in 7th October 2009 (reference: 09/00946/FUL) following concerns raised over the lack of justification for a dwellinghouse at this site and adverse impact on the area of protected open space.

 The applicant then resubmitted an application for the same proposal with a supporting statement attempting to provide justification for a dwelling at this location which was refused 20th May 2010 (reference: 10/00068/FUL). Reasons for refusal included lack of justification for a dwellinghouse at this location, loss of protected open space and detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

 Application 10/00941/FUL for the erection of a dwellinghouse refused 8th December 2010 Reasons for refusal included lack of justification for a dwellinghouse at this location, loss of protected open space and detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

5. Development Plan

5.1 This application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of both the Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan SDP 2017) and Local Plan (North Lanarkshire Local Plan) which identifies the site as HCF1 Protecting Residential amenity and community facilities and NBE1 A4 Protecting the Natural and built Environment, (Tree Preservation Orders and Site Important for Nature Conservation).

6. Consultations

6.1 The consultation responses are summarised below:-

The Coal Authority The site falls within a Coal Authority Zone 1 high risk area and following consultation the Coal Authority note that the application is supported by a coal mining risk assessment. The report advised a requirement for intrusive investigations to identify any necessary remedial measures. As such, the Coal Authority has no objection to the application subject to appropriate planning condition to ensure these matters are covered. An appropriate planning condition can be imposed should members be minded to approve.

NLC Protective services has no objection to the proposal and provided comment on construction noise. A desk study site investigation for potentially contaminated sites report was also recommended. Subsequently any remedial measures identified by the study should form the subject of a remediation strategy report prior to commencement of development. Similarly, before work commences on site, a noise survey demonstrating the impact of road traffic noise on the development is recommended and could be covered by planning condition should members be minded to approve the application.

NLC Traffic & Transportation did not object to the proposal but provided comments on the submitted junction arrangement to which the applicant responded on a point by point basis. The applicant thereafter submitted a revised layout taking cognisance of the points raised by Roads. Again if members are minded to grant planning permission the points raised by Transportation can be the subject of planning conditions.

Scottish Water has no objection to the proposal

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has no objection to the application following the submission of a flood risk assessment. Regulatory advice was provided by SEPA for the applicant’s attention.

NLC Greenspace (ecology) provided comments on the protected species survey and noted that while no signs of protected bat species were recorded during the survey, this survey was undertaken late in the season and should be repeated at the appropriate seasonal period. As such should members be minded to approve the application then an updated survey will be needed if works have not commenced within 1 year of this survey in confirming the presence of protected species. The trees proposed for buffer planting should be native species and appropriate for the site. A condition on this matters is recommended should the application be approved. Green space commented that at present is a SINC and as such the area to the south acts as a green corridor along the Thankerton Burn as such to avoid fragmentation between sites and protect the burn a construction exclusion zone is recommended with a minimum 10 metre stand-off. This too could be covered by a planning condition if members were minded to grant planning permission. There are no known rights of Way or core paths within the boundary of the proposed development. Comments were provided on invasive species which is the subject of SEPA guidance. NLC Education: The proposed development lies within the catchment area of Holytown Primary school and Christ the King Primary school. Pupils from these schools ordinarily transfer to Brannock High school and Taylor High schools for secondary provision. Christ the King Primary school is currently operating over its overall capacity. It is anticipated that Holytown Primary school will reach capacity in future years. The projected pupil product from this proposed development will add to capacity constraints in the local area. Education has therefore requested a developer contribution in the form of a commuted sum in order to offset the cost to education infrastructure (based on 14 units a sum of £60,796 .71 is required which equates to £4340.69 per dwelling). 7. Representations

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process 11 letters of representation were received within the statutory period. A petition with 30 signatories was also received citing reasons for objecting. All comments are summarised as follows: The proposal will reduction in road safety and amenity to the surrounding residential area. Comments have also been provided on planning procedure and a number of miscellaneous contentions were proposed. This is discussed in section 8 below. Objections are summarised into sections as follows:

Road Safety

There are road safety concerns as the surrounding road network in particular access and parking within and via Holy Grove will add to an already congested area (Holy Grove). Parking levels within the site are also inadequate and objector considers the development access to be in the wrong position. The proposal will result in a reduction of road safety on Holytown Road and Junction arrangements proposed are unsafe.

Amenity and community well being

Residential amenity will be significantly eroded by virtue of overlooking resulting in loss of privacy to existing properties on Holytown Grove. Increased noise and disturbance, impact on residential amenity by virtue of Loss of amenity, existing trees and green space used for informal local play provision. The proposal will also result in a reduction in daylight levels from overshadowing.

The area of open space acts as a valued green space providing a significant level of amenity for existing residents. The character of the area is being eroded by the development. The site is a community resource forming an integral part of the health and wellbeing of residents.

Procedural

The applicant does not own all the land within the red line boundary of the site.

Policy

The site is designated planned and established open space and is valued by local residents. Good urban planning should take into account the wellbeing of people who live in the area, the proposal offers no improvements to existing residents. The site is covered by a tree preservation order. The proposal will result in an adverse impact on the Green Belt as such contravenes government policy which favours brown field sites.

Infrastructure

The following comments on infrastructure were received:

 Traffic congestion will occur as a result of this development.  The site lies in a mine risk area.  The site is at risk of flooding  The site has drainage problems

Ecology

The site acts as a Wildlife corridor and its development will result in loss of habitat and wild life displacement. Healthy protected trees will be removed and a site important to nature conservation impacted upon negatively.

Pollution

The proposal will result in Noise pollution additional vehicle pollution and increased traffic noise.

8. Planning Assessment

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

8.2 Development Plan: The Development Plan consists of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The application is of strategic significance by virtue of Schedule 14 due to the site capacity and location (Green field). The principle policy designation of the site in the adopted Local Plan protects the site as open space (a Community Facility) within the general urban area.

Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 (SDP)

8.3 The site lies to the south of Holytown Road, Holytown and forms part of the Green Network (Diagram 7) under the Spatial Development Strategy of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017.In summary of particular relevance to this application within the Clydeplan SDP 2017 are the following Policies:

 Policy 1 (Place making)  Policy 12 (Green network)  Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals)

8.4 SDP Policy 1 Place making states that new development should take account of the place making considering the following criteria.

 Distinctive  Safe and Pleasant  Easy to Move Around  Welcoming and Adaptable  Resource Efficient

8.5 Policy 1 Place Making states that new development should take account of the place making principle set out in Table 1, which provides a range of criteria under the six qualities of a place set out in ‘Creating Places 2013’ and ‘Place Standard for Scotland 2015’. An assessment of the proposal against these six qualities is as follows:-

 Distinctive: The proposal will significantly erode the setting, character and visual amenity of the area in removing this area of valued and partially protected land and in doing so its community value as an area of open space. This is also contrary to the objectives of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green network.  Safe and Pleasant: The proposal, in principle, while capable of complying with detailed design policy is thereby capable of producing a safe local environment with scope for sustainable connectivity into and through the site to the wider area possible through sympathetic design at detailed stage.  Easy to Move Around: the pedestrian connections from the site into the existing urban environment require improvement in order to connect to surrounding networks and infrastructure and while this is technically achievable in principle, this has not been satisfactorily demonstrated with the applicant preferring to show a footway out with the site boundary rather than a more sustainable connection to wider environs and community facilities. As such, movement is anticipated to be primarily car based by virtue of the sites proposed enclosure and disconnected location, contrary the Spatial Development Strategy which seeks to limit vehicle movements.  Welcoming: the development is capable of satisfying this criterion.  Adaptable: the development is not supported by this criterion as it runs counter to the ‘compact city’ model which prioritises brownfield sites for development and mixed use development, this is a single use development on a Greenfield site.  Resource Efficient: the development is capable of finding a technical solution in connecting to existing infrastructure but will require investment in public infrastructure to mitigate its impacts (Sewer, Transportation, upgrades etc.).

On balance in considering the six qualities set out above, by removing an area of open space which is of intrinsic value in its own right the proposal cannot reasonably be held to comply with Policy 1 of the SDP on Place making. It is therefore an unacceptable departure from the Strategic Development Plan.

Green network and Green Infrastructure Policy 12

8.6 The Spatial Development Strategy provides support to the positive action-orientated Green Network programme (a pro-active approach to wider environmental improvement throughout the plan area). In terms of the Spatial Vision of the Strategic Plan, it highlights that the Green network is an important strategic tool with a significant role to play in achieving key environmental objectives, directing planned growth to the most appropriate locations.

8.7 Policy 12 seeks to support the vision of the spatial development strategy and delivery of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Network by identifying, protecting, and enhancing the green network, ensuring that development proposals prioritise green infrastructure prioritising the Green Network in strategic delivery areas identified in schedule 11. Opportunities for delivery are associated with land uses which could deliver greater societal and wild life benefits. These are:

 New build of scale.  Vacant and derelict land.  Underperforming green space.

While the site is not identified in schedule 11, it none the less forms a green corridor linking areas of green value within the designated green network and may reasonably be viewed as part of the Green Network (Diagram 7). The change from amenity open space to residential would have profound and significant negative effects on the character of the area and subsequently existing amenity and accessibility for residents of the area. Given the scale of the development proposed for this green field site (developing the majority of the site) it cannot achieve the aim set out in maintaining the function of the green network. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy 12 of the SDP in that the proposal does not support the aims of the spatial development strategy and delivery of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Network.

Diagram 10 Assessment of Development Proposals

8.8 Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals) aids the consistent application and implementation of the SDP and should be used when assessing strategic scale development proposals or other proposals that may impact on the Plan strategy. This Diagram is used to determine whether strategic scale development proposals (Schedule 14) comply with the policies, schedules and diagrams of the SDP. The policy poses two fundamental questions on the Vision, Spatial Development Strategy and the Place making Policy (Box 1) and Departures from the Strategic Development Plan (Box2).

Assessment of Development Proposals (Successful, Sustainable City Region)

Development proposals should be considered against the related policies, schedules and diagrams appropriate to the type of development under consideration. Any development proposal that fails to meet the relevant criteria in Box 1 will be regarded as a departure from the Strategic Development Plan.

Departures from the Strategic Development Plan

Departures from the Strategic Development Plan considers whether the development proposal is an acceptable departure from the Strategic Development Plan having regard to the criteria set out in the SDP and any other material considerations.

Diagram 10, (Assessment of Development Proposals).

8.9 Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals) –Box 1 asks the question:

Does the development proposal support the Vision, Spatial Development Strategy and the Place making Policy including having regard to the Glasgow City Centre Joint Strategic Commitment?

8.10 It is considered that the answer to this question is ‘no’ given the assessment of policies 1, and 12 above. Accordingly, the development is considered to be a departure from the SDP. On this basis, the proposals are contrary to Clydeplan SDP 2016.

Box 2 goes on to pose the question:

Is the development proposal an acceptable departure from the Strategic Development Plan having regard to the following criteria and any other material considerations?

 make a significant contribution to sustainable development particularly through enabling modal shift and the contribution to carbon reduction;

Response: there is no evidence that the development will make such a significant contribution.

 provide significant net economic benefit including the need to accommodate inward investment that would otherwise be lost to the city region or Scotland;

Response: There is no evidence that the development will afford a significant economic benefit of this nature. Any benefit (however large) could be accommodated on a suitable and sustainable location.

 respond to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, including the protection of jobs or the creation of a significant number of net additional permanent jobs to the city region;

Response: not relevant

 specific locational need;

Response: There is no suggestion that there is specific locational need for this development.

 protect enhance and promote natural and cultural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment;

Response: The proposed development fails to meet this aim. The loss of valuable amenity open space will significantly erode the existing sense of place and setting of the area as a result of introducing further housing, resulting in profound and significant negative effects on the character, amenity and identity of the area.

 improve health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation;

Response: There is no evidence that the development will offer benefits of this nature. Indeed the development does not to promote and facilitate better open space access for recreation or enhance local landscapes and natural features. The implementation of the proposals would see interaction with the site reduced rather than enhanced with many existing opportunities removed. The Council’s aim to maintain community wellbeing will thus be compromised by allowing this proposal to proceed. Sustainable management of greens spaces is a key part of the green infrastructure of our towns. The retention of green spaces have a common goal in that everyone living and working in urban Scotland has easy access to quality greens places that meet local needs and improve their quality of life.

 Support the provision of digital connectivity in new developments and rural areas.

Response: Not relevant.

On balance, the development is not considered to be in accordance with the vision and spatial development strategy of the SDP and neither has it been found to be an acceptable departure.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP):

8.11 The Local Plan development strategy describes the council’s vision for the development of land and buildings in North Lanarkshire. It aims to balance the regeneration of communities with growth that is sustainable, considering not only the amount and location of development, but also the impact on communities, and its quality. As set out in the plan’s development strategy, good quality environments need to be protected and community facilities need to be integrated with housing areas to achieve balanced communities that meet their residents’ needs. It should be noted that part of the proposal is for the replacement of the existing dwelling within the existing steading arrangement (an indicative plan shows 3 houses being constructed on this part of the site). In terms of compliance with policy on its own this part of the overall development has the potential to be acceptable.

8.12 The overarching aim of Policy HCF1 is to protect Residential Amenity and Community Facilities. Part A of the Policy deals more specifically with the protection of residential amenity and states there will be a presumption against developments that are detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. Whilst a development of new houses has the potential to comply with this policy it is considered that in this case that the development is contrary to the aims of this policy. In the introduction to the housing chapter the local plan it is stated that there has to be ‘enough housing in appropriate locations and in good quality environments’. It is also stated that community facilities can include buildings, community centres but also areas of open space and open areas of grassland. The proposal to develop this site which is an important area of open space that contributes in a significant way to the quality of environment for the existing residents does not accord with the principle of this policy. The site is a valued community facility (as evidenced by the letters of representation) and is of intrinsic value in its own right providing an attractive and pleasant setting for existing residential properties but also for those travelling through the area. The site is also considered to be an important part of the green network in this area and is one of a number of open spaces that punctuates and defines Holytown Road and links to the wider countryside. This is discussed in more detail below under Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development)

8.13 Policy DSP1 Amount of Development and in particular Part B of this policy deals with additions to the land supply and for housing 10 or more units on a greenfield site such as this requires to be justified in terms of supply and demand with the criteria of maintaining a minimum 5 year housing land supply. Although the applicant has not provided an assessment of this it is noted that there is no current shortfall in housing land supply in this area

8.14 Policy DSP2 Locations of Development. Part B of this policy deals with additions to the planned land supply and details the circumstances in which new development may be permitted when assessed against a range of locational criteria. It is considered that the proposal does not meet the requirements of this policy in that:

• The site is green field and will not lead to urban generation • The development will erode access to a valuable area of open space regarded as a community facility

The shortcomings of the site are further discussed below under Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development)

8.15 Policy DSP3 (Impact of Development) assesses the demand of new development on existing neighbouring community infrastructure and where new or extended infrastructure is required the cost to be met by means of developer contributions. Of particular interest in this instance, Education have requested a developer contribution where impacts on the school estate have been identified. The applicant has indicated a willingness to enter into a legal agreement in relation to this matter should planning permission be forthcoming and as such the application is considered capable of complying with the objectives of policy DSP3.

8.16 Notwithstanding the proposals inconsistency with Policy DSP2, Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) states that development will only be permitted where high design standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved a consideration which is predominantly considered at the detailed stage of the planning process. That said, part 3(a) of the policy considers links to nearby green networks in considering design principles and in this case a site, a green community resource, will be lost to the residential development. It is considered that by virtue of the transformative nature of the development would have profound and significant negative effects on the character of the area and subsequent loss of amenity and accessibility to an area designated as a community resource. The applicant in his supporting information considers the site should be developed for housing and therefore not worthy of protection as open space. This argument does not take into account the contribution made to the amenity to the surrounding area. Nor does it take cognisance of the role in linking green sites or identification function in defining the sense of place, character and identity of the surrounding settlement. Members may also wish to note that in planning policy terms recreation includes the passive enjoyment of open spaces.

8.17 In respect of more technical assessment points, should planning permission in principle be granted, it is accepted as with any principle approval, that a suitable internal layout could be achieved subject to detailed consideration. This would include the submission of further detail in complying with current adopted standards and design policy. Similarly, in terms of infrastructure requirements, while challenges have been identified, no substantive reason for refusal has emerged from the consultation process.

8.18 In considering DSP4 part 1 ground stability, the Coal Authority’s consultation comments that the information submitted is accepted. Pollution control commented on potential contamination and it is recommended site investigation requirements which should be the subject of a planning condition should members be minded to approve this application.

8.19 In terms of part 2 of the policy the applicant has submitted an ecology habitat survey, and supplementary information on protected species and habitat. It is considered that wildlife interests have been assessed and where relevant safeguarded. A condition could be imposed should the members approve the application, should 12 months or more elapse from the initial habitat survey submitted with this application then a further survey should be undertaken.

8.20 DSP4 Quality of Development also considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes and provides a range of assessment criteria which are addressed in turn below:

8.21 Part 1 & 2: The applicant has submitted various supporting information noted in section 3 above setting out their appraisal of the site the applicant has not sought to provide commentary on adopted planning policy in particular the amenity value of the site as open space. It is reasonable to state that the proposed development will result in a detrimental impact on the character, sense of place and setting of the area and by consequence its intrinsic amenity value. The application site offers a planned and valuable green resource to the wider residential area which will be largely lost to the development.

8.22 Part 3(a) Siting, Overall Layout, density, form, scale, height, massing, proportion, detailing, colour, materials and open space and Part 3(f) integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. In terms of layout these matters may be addressed by a detailed application should members be minded to approve the proposal in principle. Part 3(f) integrating successfully into the local area is discussed in further detail below in considering what this means for the existing residential area.

8.23 Local plan policy DSP 4 ‘Quality of Development’ provides that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Commenting that to accord with DSP 4, provision has to be made to link the proposed development to, and enhance, open spaces and green networks. The local plan emphasises that there must be adequate housing provision in appropriate locations, with good quality environments and that good places to live require a mix of different uses that make a community. Notably, residential areas require community facilities which can include informal open spaces, and open areas of grassland. The site has an attractive, open, undeveloped appearance. It affords a sense of identity to this part of Holytown and accords with the description of a community facility as set out in the local plan. As such, a high standard of site planning and sustainable design would not be achieved, contrary to local plan policy DSP 4(1).

8.24 Part 3(b) safe inclusive convenient and welcoming development. Attractive pedestrian links, integration with public transport, green networks, wider links, access for cars and appropriate car parking being well located. The proposal shows two access on to Holytown Road. As noted above NLC Traffic and Transportation provided comment on the application relating to the proposed access, visibility splay and general internal layout arrangements of the development which were found to be generally acceptable. It is reasonable to consider this site an important component of the urban area and a means of attracting people into their local natural environment by maintaining community access, recreation opportunities and environmental quality close to and within the community. In this respect this site functions as part of the Green Network and its loss could therefore reasonably be considered contributing to the integration of such networks. The proposed development has the potential to cause further erosion and fragmentation between sites of connected green value and habitat. This would be contrary to policy DSP4 3b). The applicant has illustrated a pedestrian access connecting the proposed site to Holly Grove preferring to circumvent the site along the boundary out with the red line boundary of the plan rather than a more sustainable route through the site falling within the applicants control contrary to local plan policy DSP 4(1) connections.

8.25 Part 3(c) Sustainable Development: Having assessed the proposed development it is considered that the proposed development does not accord with the principles of sustainable design by virtue of location. This site forms an important component of design of the urban area and a means of attracting people into their local natural environment by maintaining community access, recreation opportunities and environmental quality close to and within the community.

8.26 Part 3(d) Mitigating likely air quality, noise or pollution impacts: The development of the site would not result in a significant increase in residential units (private vehicles), as such, NLC Protective services has not highlighted a significant increase on the impact of air quality. It is acknowledged that there will be noise associated with construction works, however this impact will be temporary and subject to control by the relevant legislation. Ground investigation works would form part of recommended conditions should the application be approved contrary to recommendation and, should any contaminants be found as a result of the investigation, suitable mitigation works would be carried out. Protective Services have no objections to the proposed development subject to recommended conditions. Protective Services have advised that a noise impact assessment should be carried out before development starts on site. Whilst we would normally look to have this matter resolved in advance of our determination of the application it is anticipated that if the development were otherwise acceptable it would be anticipated that the properties proposed along the road frontage would require to have windows closed to meet modern noise standards. The remainder of the site sits lower than the noise source (Holytown Road) so is likely to be acceptable. Whilst a closed windows solution is not usually the preferred solution if the development were to proceed then some element of road frontage would be desirable from a planning perspective. As such if members were minded to grant planning permission then a suitable condition could be imposed.

8.27 Part 3(e) Protecting Water bodies and SUDS/Drainage: SEPA assessed the submitted flood risk assessment and has no objection to the proposal on flood risk. In terms of flood risk and site drainage planning conditions could be imposed should members be minded to grant planning permission

8.28 Part 3(f) Integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity by relating well to the existing context: This policy is in two parts the first being the contextual element considering the existing local area. The other part considers the avoidance of adverse impact resulting in loss of loss of privacy, sunlight daylight, amenity and disturbance to existing and proposed dwellings. The latter part can only be reasonably assessed with a detailed application, as such, with any residential development there is scope to comply with this part following consideration of that detail. In considering the contextual part of the policy, the form and positioning of this site (open space) at this location provides balance to the existing built form and morphology, forming the context of the wider area. To accord with DSP 4, provision is required to link the proposed development to, and enhance, open spaces and green networks. The local plan emphasises that there must be adequate housing provision in appropriate locations, with good quality environments and that good places to live require a mix of different uses that make a community. Notably, residential areas require community facilities which can include informal open spaces, and open areas of grassland. These areas of open planned space and mature boundary planting cumulatively contribute to and strengthen the existing sense of place. Removal of components of this form will therefore erode the exiting context and consequentially diminish existing levels of residential amenity as discussed above under principle policy HCF1. As such, the proposal in eroding a component of the planned established form contributing to a sense of place will consequentially result in a significant loss of amenity. The local plan confirms that informal open spaces, such as open areas of grassland, are community facilities. Representation also confirms this site as a valuable local asset. The local plan adds that “good places to live need to have a mix of community facilities”.

8.29 In concluding the proposal does not comply with local plan policies DSP 4 Quality of Development and HCF 1 Protection of Residential Amenity and Community Facilities and as such the proposal does not conform to the requirements of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

8.30 Considerations include the impact of the proposal on the natural environment under policy NBE1 4 which states that the Council will safeguard sites of importance for natural heritage and biodiversity from development. The site covered by a tree preservation (4d) of the policy with the southern boundary of the site containing a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (4a) following and extending out from the Thankerton Burn. While these designations remain a constraint on any final design it should be borne in mind that the detail of such a layout is not available given that this is an application in principle. Therefore should members be minded to approve the application conditions could be imposed restricting construction areas around both the SINC and trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

9. Material Considerations

Consultation Responses

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

9.2 Representations:

In response to representations, the following comments are given on topic subjects put forward:

Road Safety

The applicant does not propose to take vehicular access via Holy Grove and therefore the impact from traffic using the completed site is not considered significant. More generally in providing comments on the proposal the Roads Service does not object to the proposal on road safety grounds with the access design meeting the requirement of their recommendation where appropriate. The proposal while recognising that there may be periodic traffic congestion during construction, it is for the constructor to manage construction related activities and residents visitors near the site to modify driver behaviour appropriately to all situations they encounter. Post development the design will be subject to a detailed application for further assessment should members be minded to approve the principle application.

Amenity and community well being

In considering the potential for loss of privacy, overshadowing it should be recognised that the application proposes a residential development in principle where this level of detail is will follow (matters specified) should members be minded to approve the application. The resultant noise and disturbance on completion of the development is anticipated to be equivalent to that found in the general urban area. The loss of green space and trees providing informal community benefit is discussed in detail in section 8 above.

Procedural

The applicant has indicated in his submission (declaration) that all the land within the location plan red line boundary is within his ownership.

Policy

The Policy position is assessed in section 8 of the report however members may wish to note that the site does not lie within the green belt as stated by objector.

Amenity impact

The impact on amenity and function of the site as open space is discussed in detail at section 8 of the report.

Infrastructure

Comments on infrastructure, mining legacy and flood risk potential are discussed in sections 6 and 8 of the report.

Ecology

Green space commented that at present the area contains a SINC. This riparian corridor acts as a green link beyond the site boundary. The proposed planning layout looks to cause fragmentation between these sites. This would be contrary to policy DSP4 3b)

Pollution

Comments on potential pollution resulting from the development are addressed in section 6 and 8 of the report.

9.3 Planning History

In referring to section 3 above the Council has been consistent in its interpretation of the policy and reasons for refusal over a number of applications spanning both the previous and adopted local plan. With the assessment concluding in both cases as follows:

10/00068/FUL (Refused) and 10/00941/FUL (Refused)

Both applications were considered contrary to development plan policy and the relevant national planning guidance and advice, and the applicant has provided insufficient justification to support an exceptional departure from Policy L3 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and Policy HCF B1 of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (current adopted policy). The proposal was considered to be an unacceptable development in that it would result in the loss of valuable open space and would adversely impact upon the character of the surrounding area.

9.4 The proposed replacement local development plan

The council has not yet submitted the modified replacement North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2020 for an examination by Scottish Ministers. However, given the age of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012, the Council’s replacement local development plan is an important material planning consideration and the weight which can be attached to the emerging plan increases as it approaches adoption. In the emerging plan the site is not allocated for residential development but is annotated as being part of the General Urban Area with a section designated a natural heritage protected site, clearly demonstrating the council’s view that that the appeal site has local natural heritage interest. It is the status of the site as open space remains undiminished by the zoning in the replacement plan.

10. Conclusions

10.1 Taking the above assessment into account, it is considered that the development if approved would result in the removal of an area of a natural green open space valuable in terms of amenity and a valued natural setting for the existing housing development. If developed this would be to the detriment of the character and amenity of the wider housing area. Furthermore it is considered that its removal would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on established residential amenity of the area. Therefore, for the reasons detailed in the planning assessment above, it is recommended that planning permission in principle be refused.

10.2 Should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission, permission in principle should not be issued until a legal agreement has been concluded to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Council’s Education estate under Policy DSP3.

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/00992/FUL Residential Development Comprising Flatted Block of 24 Flats, 16 Cottage Flats, 4 Terraced and 4 Semi-Detached Houses

Site Address:

Former North Lanarkshire Council Offices Philip Murray Road Bellshill ML4 3PA

Date Registered:

13th August 2019

Applicant: Agent: Wilson Developments (Scotland) Ltd Allison Architecture Brandon House 13 Royal Crescent 23 Brandon Street Glasgow Hamilton G3 7SL ML3 6DA

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 15 Bellshill 19 letters of representation received. Colin Cameron, Angela Campbell, Harry Curran, Jordan Linden,

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The proposed development is acceptable in terms of its impact upon the site and the surrounding residential area.

Note to Committee:

Should the committee be minded grant planning permission, no permission should be issued until a Legal Agreement in terms of Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been finalised, agreeing appropriate provisions for mitigation against impacts upon local education provision, as a result of the development and for off-site play provision

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/00992/FUL the Ordnance Survey on Name (of applicant): Wilson behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right Developments (Scotland) Ltd 2009. All rights reserved. Site Address: Former North Lanarkshire Ordnance Survey Licence Council Offices number 100023396. Philip Murray Road Bellshill ML4 3PA Development: Residential Development Comprising Flatted Block of 24 Flats, 16 Cottage Flats, 4 Terraced and 4 Semi- Detached Houses

Proposed Conditions:-

1. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers: - 00-001, 00-002, 00-003 Rev C 00-005, 00 006, 02-001, 02-002, 02-003.1 Rev A , 02-003.2, 02-004, 02-006, 02-007, 02-008, , 00-005, 02 004, 02-003-2, 09-001, 09-002, 523.09.01, 523.09.902, 523.09.903, 19030_00_005, Topographic Survey Sheet1, and Sheet 2, (Contract 7762, Oct 2019).

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

2. That before the development starts, a comprehensive site investigation requires to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175:2001, “Investigation of Potentially Contamination Land”. This report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, be carried out in accordance with the Environmental Agency publication, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination CLR11 and be submitted in both hard copy and electronic format. Depending on the results of this 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 well being of future residents.

3. That before works commence on site, any remediation works identified by the site investigation required under the terms of Condition 3 above shall be carried out. Thereafter, 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.

4. That before the use hereby permitted starts, the applicant shall provide confirmation by a professionally qualified acoustic consultant that all the noise mitigation measures included in the applicant’s submitted Noise Impact Assessment Report by New Acoustics dated 20th December 2019 (Project Ref: 7021 Rev 01.) Validation requires to be provided that the mitigation measures in the report with regard to glazing and acoustic barriers have been completed. The validation report requires to demonstrate that all properties meet current internal standards prior to occupation.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of residents and the wider residential area.

5. That before the construction of any roads or houses, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority; full details of the final surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority and a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans.

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

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

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

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

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

8. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, set out in drawings 523.09.01, 523.09.902, 523.09.903 shall be completed in accordance with a timetable that is agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before any development starts, 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: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity.

9. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:-

(a) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas including the hedge at the Chestnut Grove; (b) any communal fences, walls and footpaths; (c) play provision within the site.

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

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

Reason: To ensure there is an adequate landscape maintenance scheme in place.

11. 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. For the avoidance of doubt, these materials shall respect the palette of materials for the streets, junctions, footways, and driveways agreed under the terms of this planning permission.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and design by ensuring that external materials are appropriate for the site.

12. That before the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the design and finish materials to be used in the construction of the streets, footways, junctions, parking courtyards and driveways, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the materials shall be a well- considered palette of materials.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and design by ensuring that the materials are appropriate for the site.

13. 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 and at site boundaries 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 the last of the dwellings hereby permitted is occupied; all streets, footpaths, footways and manoeuvring areas shown on drawing 00-003 Rev C shall be completed to sealed final wearing course.

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

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

 Details of the location of site compound and management facilities;  Details of construction access, parking and manoeuvring areas and;

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

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

16. That if construction work on site does not commence within one year of the date of the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) dated July 2019 produced by Acorna Ecology Ltd, a further PEA shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work on site to confirm whether or not there have been any significant ecological changes on site and if it is found that significant changes have taken place then the identified mitigation measures shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of construction work on site.

Reason: In the interests of the ecology of the site.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Greenspace- received 10th September 2019 and 15th October 2019 Play Services Manager – received 23rd August 2019. Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) – received 23rd August 2019 and 14th January 2019. Education – received 9th October 2019 and 3rd February 2020. Traffic & Transportation – received 25th September 2019.

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Mark Forrest at 01236 632500

Report Date:

12th February 2020 APPLICATION NO. 19/00992/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site covers an area of 1.93 acres and is currently occupied by a vacant office building and associated car park. The site is accessed from a roundabout at Philip Murray Road which then feeds out to Old Edinburgh Road to the north and New Edinburgh Road to the south. The site is bound by an existing factory unit to the north and existing residential areas on all other sides with Philip Murray Road itself immediately to the east, Cockhill Way to the south and Sanderson Avenue and McCulloch Avenue to the west and a small proportion of the northern boundary by dwellings on Old Edinburgh Road.

1.2 The site is situated on the top of a gently sloping south facing slope and with the exception of the factory unit is surrounded by traditional 2 storey dwellings, cottage flats and 3 storey pedestal flats at Kent Road/McGurk Way to the east. There are also single storey and one and a half storey dwellings to the north along Old Edinburgh Road.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The proposed residential development is for the construction of a flatted Block of 24 flatted dwellings, 16 cottage flats, 4 terraced houses and 4 semi-detached houses with associated access, parking and landscaping. With the exception of the proposed block of 24 flats which are 3 storey (10 metres with shallow mono-pitch roof), all other proposed residential units are 2-storey with traditional dual pitched roofs. External finishing materials area a mixture of brick, roughcast, timber panelling and concrete roof tiles.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 In addition to site drawings and plans, the applicant has also submitted additional supporting information including a Bat Roosting Potential Survey and a Noise Impact Assessment. Several of these reports and submitted plans have been updated, amended, or additional information submitted following requests from consultees ie. NLC Greenspace Development, NLC Roads and Transportation and NLC Protective Services.

4. Site History

4.1 The site has been in industrial or commercial use since the 1960s, initially as a storage use and subsequently as office accommodation. During that time residential development has taken place in the surrounding area, including up to the boundaries. The main planning application record for the site was 01/00992/NID Extension of Car Park and Alterations to Access Roads.

4.2 The site immediately to the north which was previously occupied by a factory unit was granted planning permission at 30th January 2020 Committee for a Part Change Of Use from Use Class 5 Industrial Use to a mixture smaller units comprising Use Class 5, Use Class 1 (Retail), Use Class 3 (Food and Drink) Use Class 6 (Business with Trade Counter) and Use Class 2 (Office use). The main access to that premises is by an access from Phillip Murray Road which would be shared with the application site.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The main part of the site is industrially zoned (Policy ED1 A1) reflecting its historical use and occupancy with the north western section currently occupied by an ancillary car park zoned within an established residential area (Policy HCF1 A). At the time of establishment of the previous site use the areas to the west and north were established residential areas however in more recent times residential development has been granted immediately to the south and to east across Phillip Murray Road.

5.2 The emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan: Modified Proposed Plan which is scheduled to go to Local Plan Inquiry identifies the area as a General Urban Area. That policy aims to maintain and improve the level of amenity in urban areas, by encouraging development in keeping with urban areas residential character and encourages diversity in more mixed-use areas. The Modified Proposed Plan is not yet adopted as it is currently awaiting Local Plan Inquiry and therefore has less weight as a material planning consideration however the proposed policy indicates the uses now considered appropriate to the area.

6. Consultations

6.1 The consultation responses are summarised below.

i) NLC Traffic & Transportation (Roads Operations) response of 25th September 2019 raised concerns regarding the use of the shared access to the site particularly if used by a mix of HGV traffic to the business site to the north and residential traffic entering the application site, particularly with regard to safety of pedestrians entering the site. Other issues highlighted were the level of parking provision, parking arrangements outside the proposed semi-detached properties the internal road layout and its lack of compliance with Scottish Government Designing Streets guidance.

ii) NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) raised no objections subject to certain requirements being met, these relating to construction operating practices and hours, compliance with the submitted Noise Impact Assessment recommendations and a requirement for a site investigation to identify any pollution or contamination issues,

iii) NLC Education and Families has no objection to the proposal provided that the developer agreed to a developer contribution per qualifying dwelling unit (2-bedroom and above) towards the impact on the school estate. This contribution is intended to contribute towards the needs of both local primary schools with catchments covering the site. South Lanarkshire Council also sought a contribution towards a secondary school financial contribution as the site is also within the cross-boundary catchment of Uddingston Grammar School. The developer has confirmed agreement to comply with this developer contribution requirement to both local authorities. (£10,382.51 to help alleviate capacity issues in the local school. Also South Lanarkshire Contribution - £1398 per unit so total of £36348)

iv) NLC Greenspace Development requested a bat potential survey and that any demolition work or tree removal should be implemented outwith the bird breeding season or nesting sites found not disturbed during that time.

v) NLC Play Services advised that for developments proposing 30 units or above there is a requirement for on-site play provision or a contribution towards the upgrade and improvement of play opportunities within the community. On this occasion we would be minded to accept a contribution towards off site provision in the Fallside/Viewpark area. This contribution is calculated at a rate of £500 per house and £250 per flat which would total £14,000.

7. Representations

7.1 19 letter(s) of representation received.

A total of 19 representations or objections have been received within the 3 week neighbour notification deadline period. The points of objection can be summarised as follows:-

 The proposed development is too dense, is overdevelopment and is out of character with area in terms of proposed flats being overbearing.  The proposal will impact on the privacy of existing dwellings in terms of overlooking.  The proposal will impact on the daylight/sunlight of existing dwellings caused by the proposed flats.  The proposal will lead to road safety issues at the access points caused by the extra traffic generated and the number of dwellings to be accessed.  The proposal will lead to excess traffic and noise and air pollution.  The proposal will lead to drainage/flooding issues.  The proposal will impact on the existing adjacent private play park at McGurk Way approximately 50 metres to the east.  Detrimental impact on the extension approved at 22 McGurk Way (19/00704/NLC)  The proposal will detrimentally impact on property values.  Questions were also asked regarding how the development will be maintained and how it will be segregated from Cockhill Way.  Disturbance and disruption to existing residents during construction.  The proposal will put further demand on local services such as dental treatment.

7.2 Additionally the owner of land adjacent to the rear (north-west corner of the site) has stated that the development will prevent access to his site and that the development layout should be amended to provide a means of access to that land.

7.3 Responses to the above objections are addressed at section 8.6 of this report.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning authorities are required that in determining planning application proposals, where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, determination should be in accordance with this Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance there are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to Local Plan Policy. Therefore the proposal requires to be determined under the terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and any other material considerations.

8.2 Although allocated for industrial business use the site is vacant and has been for some time. There is no shortage of industrial land and as such, in this case, in principle, residential development is appropriate to the surrounding residential area provided that it does not significantly impact on residential amenity. In planning terms the distances to existing dwellings are acceptable in respect of privacy concerns. In this context, it leaves the proposal to be assessed against policies DSP 3, Impact of Development and Policy DSP 4, Quality of Development in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan requires.

8.3 In relation to DSP3 (Impact on Infrastructure) it is considered that there are no significant issues with regard to the potential impact of the proposal on existing infrastructure as confirmed by consultation responses.

8.4 With regard to DSP4 (Quality of Development) an assessment has to be made. With regards to the proposed layout, it is considered that the proposed layout complies with Council’s space standards for residential development. It is further considered that the layout is acceptable in terms of there being no potential amenity issues such as privacy/overlooking, adequate parking and the amenity planting around the southern and western boundaries to be retained. In terms of design, the proposed dwellings are of a similar design to surrounding dwellings and the overall layout complies with council standards. Furthermore, it is considered that the positioning, height, scale and massing of the proposed fronting blocks is acceptable in terms of the existing streetscape and topography. The proposal is in keeping with what in now a predominantly surrounding residential area.

8.5 With regard to consultation responses:-

vi) NLC Traffic & Transportation (Roads Operations) The applicant has agreed to amendments to the site access to comply with visibility and vehicle movements requirements. Regarding the issue the mixing of commercial and residential traffic using the site access, the mixed use planning application to the north is of a nature that is projected to use predominantly light goods vehicles (LGV) rather than Heavy Goods (HGV). If that application had not been granted the northern site would remain a Class 5 general industrial use. The applicant has amended footway provision at the site entrance and within the main access road within the application site to increase vehicle/pedestrian separation. The relatively compact size and two-armed shape of the site is acknowledged to restrict detailed implementation of Designing Streets design guidance. The applicant has therefore undertaken a series of amendments to reduce internal vehicle speed by the use of horizontal traffic calming, pavement extensions and the separation of parking courts on aesthetic grounds into an increased number of smaller bays. Given the housing mix with a number of one bedroom properties parking provision is assessed as appropriate to the development.

vii) NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) The issues raised relating to construction operation practices and hours, site investigation and, if necessary remediation and noise mitigation for new residents can all be addressed by the use of planning conditions to ensure implementation..

viii) NLC Education and Families. The applicant has agreed to make developer contributions in the form of a commuted financial sum to address the impact of the development on school capacity within the relevant school catchments. This can be covered by legal agreement

ix) NLC Greenspace Development The applicant submitted a bat potential survey related to any demolition or tree removal works proposed as part of the development. Protection of breeding birds can be addressed by use of advisory guidance.

x) NLC Play Services The applicant has confirmed to make a financial contribution towards the provision of play facilities in the local area. The site also provides private gardens for houses and areas of communal landscaped space around the flatted block.

8.6 The points of representation can be addressed as follows :-

 The proposed development is too dense, is overdevelopment and is out of character with area in terms of proposed flats being overbearing.

Response – It is considered that the proposed development and housing mix is acceptable for the reasons given above.

 The proposal will impact on the privacy of existing dwellings in terms of overlooking.

Response – Due to distance between proposed and existing dwellings the impact on privacy is not considered unacceptable in terms of space standards in residential urban areas of this nature.

 The proposal will impact on the daylight/sunlight of existing dwellings caused by the proposed flats.

Response –Due to distance between proposed and existing dwellings impacts on daylight sunlight are acceptable particularly given the developments position to the north of properties in closest proximity.

 The proposal will lead to road safety issues at the access points caused by the extra traffic generated.

Response – NLC Traffic and Transportation have confirmed that the proposal is acceptable in terms of access.

 The proposal will lead to drainage/flooding issues.

Response – It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure there are no detrimental impacts in this regard. A drainage strategy has been submitted for the site.

 The proposal will impact on the existing adjacent private play park at McGurk Way approximately 50 metres to the east.

Response – Although this playpark is privately maintained, it is a public play area as there is no restriction on its use by non-residents. The development has adequate private garden space for houses and a communal landscaped area around the flatted block.

 Detrimental impact on the extension approved at 22 McGurk Way (19/00704/NLC).

Response – Due to distance between proposed and existing dwellings impacts on daylight/sunlight and privacy are acceptable for residential areas of this nature.

 The proposal will detrimentally impact on property values.

Response – This is not a material planning consideration. However, redevelopment of a vacant commercial site for residential purposes could confirm the residential nature of the wider area.

 Questions were also asked regarding how the development will be maintained and how it will be segregated from Cockhill Way.

 Response – The development site will have appropriately high boundary fencing. Details of boundary fencing and other boundary treatments will be required by use of planning conditions. The development will be subject to a maintenance scheme for communal or shared elements and will have its own ongoing maintenance provision.

 The proposal will prevent access to an area of private land adjacent to the north west corner of the site.

 Response -The land in question was previously sold by North Lanarkshire Council under its garden ground policy to a resident in Old Edinburgh Road for the purpose of being used as rear garden ground with access to the site being from Old Edinburgh Road. The fact that a development proposal may prevent another route of access is not a material planning matter

8.7 It is therefore considered for the above reasons that the proposed development is acceptable in policy terms and is acceptable in terms of residential amenity. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions

9. Conclusions

9.1 It is therefore considered for the above reasons that the proposed development is acceptable in policy terms and is acceptable in terms of residential amenity. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/01360/PPP Residential Development (In Principle)

Site Address:

Dullatur Golf Club 1A Glen Douglas Drive Craigmarloch Cumbernauld G68 0DW

Date Registered:

Applicant: Agent: Jewitt & Wilkie Limited Dullatur Golf Club & Smart Group (Scotland) Ltd. Jewitt & Wilkie Architects Limited 27 Lenziemill Road 38 New City Road Cumbernauld Glasgow G67 2UE G4 9JT

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No

Ward: Representations: 02 Cumbernauld North 31 letters of representation received. Danish Ashraf, Calum Currie, Tom Fisher, Alan Masterton,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

Notwithstanding the site location in the general urban area the principle of residential development is not supported in this instance. The diminished golf club parking provision as a result of this residential development will result in a significant loss of car parking provision associated with a community facility (golf club) with no scope within the proposed development site boundary to relocate parking spaces removed to adequately serve the golf club. This will result in a displacement of parking provision in to the surrounding residential area significantly reducing current levels of road safety. On that basis and considering the significant amenity resulting from the development, it is considered contrary to policy DSP 4.

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/01360/PPP the Ordnance Survey on Name (of applicant): Dullatur Golf Club & behalf of HMSO. © Crown Smart Group (Scotland) Ltd. Copyright and database right Site Address: Dullatur Golf Club 2009. All rights reserved. 1A Glen Douglas Drive Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396. Craigmarloch Cumbernauld G68 0DW Development: Residential Development (In Principle)

Refuse for the following Reason:-

1. The development will result in a significant loss of car parking provision associated with a community facility (golf club) with no scope within the proposed development site boundary to relocate sufficient replacement parking spaces to accommodate the parking demands of the golf club, resulting in a displacement of parking provision in to the surrounding residential area significantly reducing current levels of road safety. On that basis the development is considered contrary to policies DSP 4 and HCF1.

2. The proposed development is considered contrary to policy DSP 4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as it is considered that the removal of mature planting (including boundary planting and trees) would have a detrimental impact on the established sense of place and amenity of both golf club the adjacent dwellings and wider housing area. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development site offers a valuable established landscape buffer and its removal would be to the detriment of the character and setting of the area.

3. That should planning permission be granted a precedent will be set for inappropriate development on Facilities (car parks). As such, the development is considered contrary to policy DSP 4.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation memorandum received 4th December 2019

Pollution Control memorandum received 5th November 2019

NLC Affordable Housing Consultations memorandum received 30th October

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01236 632500

Report Date:

12th February 2019

APPLICATION NO. 19/01360/PPP

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 This planning application seeks permission in principle for 8 houses (indicative plots aprox 500 -800 sqm) at Dullatur Golf Club, Cumbernauld. The site which is approximately 0.84 hectares in area and currently forms a large part of a golf club carpark and enclosure landscape. It sits adjacent to and south of the club house. The site is bounded to the south, west and east by existing houses on Glen Douglas Drive. To the east and beyond the site boundary is a pedestrian link to the club house from Glen Douglas Drive.

1.2 The site consists of the existing club house carpark, and intermittent landscaped areas within and forming the carpark boundary to the front of the club house. The ground slopes steeply down from Glen Douglas Drive to the current golf club facilities and the golf course beyond. A belt of mature planting and including intermittent tree planting follows the line of Glen Douglas Drive separates the car park site from the existing two storey dwellings. This landscaping along with the entrance features for the golf club provide a sense of place appropriate for this community facility and is otherwise important to the setting of the wider area.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The application which is in principle proposes a new residential development accessed via existing Glen Douglas Drive. The applicant has provided indicative layout drawings demonstrating that the site has area capacity for 8 houses. The proposal will result in the re arrangement of a carpark for an adjacent golf club facility resulting in a reduction in and rationalisation of the carpark area.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has provided an additional supporting statement on the parking allocation.

4. Site History and Context

4.1 The following applications provide significant planning history.

 06/01637/OUT Residential Development approved 4th April 2007.  06/01638/OUT Residential Development withdrawn 3rd July 2007  07/01786/FUL Construction of Replacement Tennis Courts and Bowling Green approved 28th December 2007.  09/00291/FUL Construction of 18 Detached Dwellinghouses approved 21st December 2019  12/00721/PPP Construction of 2 Two Storey Houses (In Principle) approved 25th October 2012  13/00836/PREAPE Erection of House, Provision of a Landscaped Buffer Zone and New Footpath  13/00936/FUL Erection of a Detached Two Storey Dwelling approved 9th August 2013  13/01215/FUL Detached Two Storey Dwellinghouse approved 30th August 2013  19/01240/FUL Enclosing and Construction of Roof over existing Tennis Courts (including Plant) approved 24th January 2020.

5. Development Plan 5.1 This application does not raise issues of a strategic and therefore do not require consideration in terms Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan SDP 2017). As such, the application is assessed against the policies in the Local Plan (North Lanarkshire Local Plan) which identifies the site as a residential area Policy HCF1A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) and other material considerations.

6. Consultations

6.1 The following comments were received from consultees,

NLC Protective Services raise no objection subject to conditions on matters including site investigation. Advice is also provided on construction working hours, dust suppression, importation of materials, burning of waste and external lighting.

NLC Traffic and Transportation recommended refusal of the application in that the proposed reduction in parking provision from 219 spaces to 108 spaces would represent a significant shortfall in the number of parking spaces required and would be likely to encourage indiscriminate parking along the length of the access leading to the car park and on surrounding local roads. This could impede the flow of traffic, obstruct visibility splays and have a negative impact on road safety. No scope appears to exist within the proposed development site boundary to relocate the parking spaces removed to accommodate the propose development. The applicant has submitted further information on the site operation and parking arrangement which is discussed below.

NLC Affordable Housing

The Council’s Affordable Housing team referred the planning Service to Policy HCF3 which seeks provision of a proportion of affordable housing in the Cumbernauld Sub Market Area

Commenting that in this instance, where the site capacity has been indicated as 8 units, there will be a requirement for a commuted sum equivalent to 2 units (i.e. 25%). The value of the commuted sum will be determined by the District Valuer. Following joint appointment by North Lanarkshire Council and the Developer. They would recommend early discussions with the Developer in relation to meeting the requirements under HCF3.

NLC Education

NLC Education comment that the proposed development lies within the catchment area of Cumbernauld Primary school and St Andrew’s Primary school. Pupils from these schools ordinarily transfer to Cumbernauld Academy and Our Lady’s High school for secondary provision. Education conclude that schools in the local area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated pupil product from this proposed development. They therefore do not request a Developer Contribution in respect of this development.

7. Representations

7.1 31 letters of objection have been received including representation from the 1 constituency Member for the Ward (Councillor Masterton), following the neighbour notification procedure and advert in the local press. Objections are summarised into sections as follows:

Infrastructure and Sustainability

The following comments on infrastructure were received:

Impact on local infrastructure is not sustainable.

Infrastructure includes:

• A lack of public transport servicing this area leading to dependency on private car use.

• Impact on existing drainage infrastructure Local Education provision being oversubscribed.

• Lack of local medical (Doctor Surgery) facilities local surgeries at full capacity

• There is a lack of local amenities and community facilities in the wider area.

• Drainage infrastructure at capacity.

• Impact on local power supply necessitates additional electrical generation infrastructure.

• Glen Douglas Drive requires to be widened to accommodate this development and additional parking. • Traffic congestion is a frequent occurrence

• Site traffic should use the carpark to enter the site

With regard to the development the proposal to reduce car parking spaces will give rise to a situation where there are not enough parking for all the various activities which take place at this club.

Amenity

The development is not in keeping with the character of the area and will result in overlooking, overshadowing, Loss of privacy, loss of sunlight daylight impacting existing neighbouring dwellings. The site includes areas of landscape and a landscaped buffer providing a significant level of amenity for existing residents. The unique character of the area is being gradually eroded by sequential developments. The site is a community resource forming an integral part of the health and wellbeing of residents. As such, the proposal will result in level changes contrary to planning principles. Construction of this site will result in Construction noise and damage to local roads.

Road safety and parking

The rationalisation of the existing car park will result in a significant shortfall in parking impacting on the wider residential area. Resulting in a reduction of road safety by encouraging on street parking causing obstruction along Glen Douglas Drive, resulting in inadequate parking provision and a significant reduction in road safety. This is particularly relevant where the Golf Club is multi- functional in its provision of functions and activates beyond golf. The level of parking proposed does not meet the minimum requirements set out in the guidance.

Site traffic during construction will result in a significant impact on road safety.

Procedural

It has been highlighted that the application form is inaccurate advising that there will be no tree removal. Residents also consider that insufficient information has been included in the application submission to determine the impact on residential amenity. Residents request that the application should be determined by the Planning Committee notwithstanding the current scheme of delegation. Residents have requested clarification on who owns the landscaped verge along Glen Douglas Drive. Stating that the applicant does not have the authority to develop all the land shown on the submitted plan.

NLC has a duty of care in complying with the Human Rights Act Protocol 1 article 1 the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions.

No public consultation has taken place to develop this site for housing.

Miscellaneous

The following comments are not material to the assessment of a planning application;

 Construction, traffic, noise, dirt, disturbance resulting from on-site works.  Deterioration of road surface  Inconvenience of construction works  Too many houses being built  Disturbance to existing residents through construction activity  Loss of view/outlook  NLC employees with any link to the club cannot be involved in the process.  Alternative housing sites are available  Will the builders be part of the considerate constructors’ scheme  Loss of unrestricted view  The proposal does not concur the minutes of the Golf Clubs AGM discussing the proposal  There has been recent ongoing works by contractors carrying out work to water infrastructure resulting in congestion.  Deterioration of Road surface

Habitat

The site acts as a Wildlife corridor and its development will result in loss of habitat, by virtue of the removal of planting trees (ecology impact). Of particular concern to residents is the loss of bird habitat and green space planting.

Policy and planning history

The proposal is contrary to the Local Plan representing the erosion of local amenity through the loss of green space. The proposal is not justified on grounds of housing need. Good urban planning should take into account the wellbeing of people who live in the area, the proposal offers no improvements to existing residents. This land provides a green network, as such, the application is contrary to NLC plans to preserve this area as a green network site. Developing this site sets a precedent for further removal of green space elsewhere in the area. The proposed development does not accord with the vision of the Local Development Plan, policies on NBE 3 promoting the natural built environment, DSP1 amount of development or National planning policy on environmental quality. Policy DSP2 (B5) states that an application must enhance social inclusion and integration by improving access to community facilities the application is a diminishment of this facility. The zoned community facility and therefore not subject to development similarly strategic requirements development not justified in meeting local housing needs. As such, the area is already over developed. Does the council have policies in place to avoid ‘town cramming.’ The proposal will conflict with boundary planting required as condition permission 12/00721/PPP.

Design

The following comments have been made on the design of the proposal;

o Remaining parking is insufficient for activities at the golf club which are numerous and Golf Club itself. o The massing of the proposed dwellings would be inappropriate as is the proposed layout and density design and access inappropriate. o The development erodes the existing sense of place by removing key landscape components and will result in damage to neighbourhood harmony and loss of the original vision for the development of the wider area, as such, the layout and density is inappropriate for this area. o Replacement planting should be a requirement.

Pollution Control

There is the Potential for historic ground contamination

8. Planning Assessment

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

8.1 The Development Plan consists of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The application is not of strategic significance by virtue of Schedule 14 due to the site area and location. The principle policy designations of the site in the adopted Local Plan (Policy HCF1) protects Residential Amenity and Community Facilities.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan

8.2 Policy HCF1A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) - Residential Areas in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan sets out that there is a presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. It is considered that the redevelopment of the site currently a car park with mature planting in the urban area. The principle with policy HCF1A, states that there is a presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. Developments of an ancillary nature may be acceptable (e.g. guest houses, children’s nurseries, medical surgeries or retail for local needs) subject to impact on residential amenity and provision for servicing and parking. The proposal will result in a loss of mature landscape planting contributing to the sense of place and local natural environment of significant environmental quality. Its loss would result in a significant loss of residential amenity as will the reduction in provision of servicing and parking. This is further discussed under policies DSP 1-4.

8.3 Policy HCF3 (Assessing Affordable Housing Development) requires that for sites of 5 to 19 dwellings, the Council will seek payment of a commuted sum, in lieu of site provision, of value equivalent to the cost of providing the percentage of serviced land required by the Affordable Housing Policy. It is noted that the applicant has accepted in principle the provision of Affordable Housing and is willing to enter into early discussion on how this is best achieved their agreement in fully complying with this policy and provision of an agreed commuted sum in line with the Affordable Housing Policy Guidance, should members be minded to approve the application.

8.4 Policy DSP1 ‘Amount of Development’ being a development of 8 dwellings with a site area of 0.84Ha this does not represent an addition to the planned land supply. As such, DSP1 and subsequent locational assessment under DSP2 ‘Location of Development’ is not considered.

8.5 Policy DSP3 (Impact of Development) looks at wider impacts on community facilities and infrastructure. The development can be accommodated within the local road network and impacts on education facilities can be addressed through financial contributions from the developer to be spent on local schooling needs. The development therefore meets the terms of policy DSP3.

8.6 Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) states that development will only be permitted where high design standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. Developments are also required to integrate successfully into the local area and the following criteria are considered against this application. These matters are addressed below:

8.7 Part 1 & 2: The applicant has submitted various supporting information noted in section 3 above setting out their appraisal of the existing character and features of the site and its setting. That said it is considered that the proposed development will result in a detrimental impact on the sense of place, character and setting of the area and by consequence its amenity value. The application site offers a valuable landscape buffer to the existing built form along Glen Douglas Drive with established planting provides a desirable set-back for development away from the current car park.

8.8 Part 3(a) Siting, Overall Layout, density, form, scale, height, massing, proportion, detailing, colour, materials and open space and Part 3(f) integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. In terms of layout, the application is in principle and should members be minded to approve a further detailed application may be forthcoming. As noted above NLC Traffic and Transportation have recommended changes to the original submission relating to the proposed access, visibility splay and general internal layout arrangements of the development. It is accepted and demonstrated that these matters may be addressed by amendments to the initially submitted layout of the development. Part 3(f) integrating successfully into the local area is discussed in further detail below in considering what this means for the existing residential area.

8.9 The Developers Guide to Open Space minimum space around dwellings guidance requires that houses provide 3m side garden ground and 10m rear garden length. The overall indicative plot sizes have the potential to meet these requirements and given the distance and orientation of the plots a detailed proposal can be accommodated avoiding impact on the existing neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing. As the development is less than 30 units there is no requirement for formal play provision to be accommodated within the site. The site is flat and level with that of the adjacent properties to the east and as such there are no level issues or retaining elements required in the layout.

8.10 Part 3(b) safe inclusive convenient and welcoming development. Attractive pedestrian links, integration with public transport, green networks, wider links, access for cars and appropriate car parking being well located. The proposal shows individual plot access to Glen Douglas Drive. As noted above NLC Traffic and Transportation provided no comment on the application relating to the proposed access and indicative general internal layout arrangements of the development which may be revisited at the detailed stage should members be minded to approve the application. It is reasonable to consider this site an important component of the urban area and a means of attracting people to the numerous recreation opportunities the golf club offers. However, in doing so the application proposal represents a significant reduction in parking provision with the consequential impact on road safety highlighted by NLC Transportation. Pedestrian links will remain unaffected by this proposal were it to be approved. In turning to green networks no part of the site is part of the Green Network and its loss could therefore could not reasonably be considered contributing to the integration of such networks. That said, the existing landscaping, in particular along Glen Douglas Drive make a contribution to the overall design, sense of place and amenity of the area. The site being within the existing urban area does not present an opportunity for further integration with public transport by virtue of scale resulting in dependency on private vehicles.

8.11 Part 3(c) Sustainable Development: Having assessed the proposed development it is considered that the proposed development accords with the principles of sustainable design by virtue of location in the existing urban area as this site forms an important component of design of the urban area and a means of attracting people into their local recreation opportunities albeit at the expense of environmental quality through the loss of mature landscaping.

8.12 Part 3(d) Mitigating likely air quality, noise or pollution impacts: The development of the site would not result in a significant increase in residential units and, as such, is highly unlikely to increase any impact on air quality. It is acknowledged that there will be noise associated with construction works, however this impact will be temporary. Ground investigation works would form part of recommended conditions should the application be approved contrary to recommendation and, should any contaminants be found as a result of the investigation, suitable mitigation works would be carried out. Protective Services have no objections to the proposed development subject to recommended conditions.

8.13 Part 3(e) Protecting Water bodies and SUDS/Drainage: There are no water courses within the site which require specific protection. If approved a condition could be imposed requiring the submission of a more detailed certified drainage scheme should members be minded to approve the application.

8.14 Part 3(f) Integrating successfully into the local area and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity by relating well to the existing context: This policy is in two parts the first being the contextual element considering the existing local area. The other part considers the avoidance of adverse impact resulting in loss of loss of privacy, sunlight daylight, amenity and disturbance to existing and proposed dwellings. In considering the contextual part the form and positioning of this site (carpark with mature boundary planting and planted areas within the carpark itself) at this location this urban form provides balance to the existing street scene and morphology, forming, in part, informing the context of this part of the residential area around the golf club house where landscaped areas cumulatively contribute to and strengthen the existing sense of place. Removal of components of this form will therefore erode the exiting context and consequentially diminish existing levels of residential amenity as discussed above under principle policy HCF1. As such, the proposal in eroding a component of the established form contributing to a sense of place will consequentially result in a significant loss of amenity. Given this contention at the principle stage a robust landscape scheme taking cognisance of this loss would be required at the detailed stage should members be minded to approve the application. In considering the foregoing sections of the policy it has not on balance been demonstrated that the proposal has the potential to comply with Policy DSP4 on site context (Quality of Design). There is however scope for the proposal at the detail stage to comply with the requirements of policy DSP4 (3f) on sunlight day light, privacy, disturbance etc.

8.15 In concluding the assessment of the proposal against DSP4 it is considered that overall the proposal does not comply with this policy on road safety nor has it been demonstrated that it meets the requirements on integration and place.

Other Material Considerations

Local Development Plan Modified Proposed Plan

8.16 The North Lanarkshire Modified proposed plan continues to place this site in the general Urban Area as such the designated policy remains unchanged from the adopted Local Plan, protecting residential amenity and place policies.

Consultation responses a. In respect to more technical assessment points, should planning permission in principle be granted, it is accepted that a suitable layout could be achieved subject to detailed consideration. This however as Transportation comment would be at the expense of a significant loss of parking at the golf club with a subsequent significant reduction in road safety and give the constraints of the site and current design requirements it is apparent that there is no scope to ameliorate this significant impact. b. The applicant provided a supporting statement setting out their understanding of the parking requirement for the golf course. This varied significantly from NLC Transportation’s assessment and comments. In allowing for the golf course alone the applicant considered 147 spaces sufficient thirty nine more than the guidance preferred by the applicant using a different standard not adopted by the Council. Using this minimum standard where there is overlap of activities at the club house including bowling, gymnasium, pro-shop, education centre, hairdressers, diet business and functions and events. It would appear on the balance of probability given the evidence presented, particularly on the basis of comments from objectors, that insufficient parking would remain post development for the various activities which omits the use of activities such as the tennis courts, the subject of a recently approved planning permission on the site. c. Responding to the letters of representation it should be noted:-

Response Infrastructure and Sustainability

It is not considered that the development of the site for an indicative 8 dwellings at this location would have a significant detrimental effect on local services and amenities sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. As such, it is considered that the development can be accommodated without detriment to the adjacent dwellings in terms of drainage, electricity supply. If approved planning consent would be subject to standard conditions relating to the requirement to adhere with the latest SUDS requirements. It is considered that the development of an additional 8 dwellings can be accommodated without detriment to public transport provision. The education service view on local education provision is discussed in section 6 of the report.

Response Amenity

The development could not reasonably be considered, at principle consideration, to be of a design likely to result in significant overlooking, overshadowing, loss of privacy impacting existing neighbouring dwellings that could not be ameliorated by detailed design and would not therefore merit refusal of a planning application in principle on that basis.

That said, the application site offers a valuable planned landscape buffer with for the existing properties along Glen Douglas Drive with established planting features within the carpark. The former provides a good set-back for existing dwellings and is an important design feature. The context of the development and loss of landscape features is discussed above under policies HCF1 and DSP4. The proposal will result in a loss of mature landscape planting contributing to the sense of place and local natural environment of significant environmental quality. Its loss would result in a significant loss of residential amenity as will the reduction in provision of servicing and parking. The assessment of a planning application considers the resultant change as it relates to land use and whether those changes are appropriate and while noted construction impact is not a material planning consideration particularly where such impacts may be considered by other bodies within the remit of their guiding legislation.

Response Road safety and parking

As noted above NLC Traffic and Transportation have object to the proposed development ,as such, the development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of impact on loss of parking, traffic and road safety. The objection on this basis is upheld.

Response Procedural

The applicant has incorrectly indicated that no trees will be removed from the site, this error has been corrected by the resubmission of a revised form. The application is in principle, as such, it is considered that sufficient detail has been submitted to comment on the application. In referring to the Councils scheme of delegation the application has raised significant objections many of which are material planning issues. The signed land ownership certificate submitted with the application indicates that the applicant is the sole land owner of the land within the site. The red line boundary, on checking, includes the verge referred to in the objection e-mail thereby falling within the site boundary. This information concurs with records, in that, this strip of land does not appear to be in public ownership. In turning to the human rights legislation. It should be noted that these rights are preserved and protected by virtue of the inherent aims of the planning process. Public consultation prior to the submission of a planning application is not a requirement for developments falling within the Local scale within the hierarchy of development.

Response Habitat

As with the loss of all mature landscaping (Green space) to development there is a resultant displacement of bird population and wider ecology, however, developers are subject to current habitat protection legislation notwithstanding the provisions of the planning system. While the mature planting acts as a green corridor between areas of green space it is not part of the designated or proposed green network. However, the proposed planning layout has the potential to result in fragmentation between habitats, thereby conflicting with policy DSP4.

Response Policy and planning history

As noted in the assessment in section 8 above it is considered that the development of the site for residential purposes has the potential to accord with policy HCF1A being located in the general urban area subject to detailed assessment against policies DSP 1-4. Policy DSP1 and 2 which combined consider additions to housing land supplies greater than 10 units on greenfield or non- urban brownfield locations outside identified sites require to be justified by demand assessments. Given the current position of the development plan, it follows that this proposal (being 8 dwellings with a site area of 0.84Ha) does not represent an addition to the planned land supply. As such, DSP1 and subsequent locational assessment under DSP2 ‘Location of Development’ is not considered. In considering conflict with boundary planting required as condition permission 12/00721/PPP Construction of 2 Two Storey Houses (In Principle). This aspect of the development may be further considered at the detailed stage of the development and should be subject to planning condition, should members be minded to approve this application.

Response Design

As noted in the assessment in section 8 the application has been considered against the design policies in the local plan and it is agreed the proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on both the setting of the area and its amenity value. The density of the proposed development is considered acceptable concurring with existing arrangement within the urban area at this location. Visitor parking meets the current minimum standard. The proposal will not impact on formally designated walking routes

Response Pollution Control

Pollution control have not commented on potential air pollution. Whilst it is accepted that there will be some noise and disturbance from the construction of the development it is not considered that the proposals if approved would cause any noise disturbance on completion of the development significant to warrant the refusal of the application. Site investigation may be conditioned at the detailed stage. If permission were to be granted.

9. Conclusion

9.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is reasonable to conclude that the diminished golf club parking provision as a result of this residential development will result in a significant reduction in road safety and residential amenity, through the loss of established landscape features and verges. The proposed development will also adversely impact on the sense of place, character and amenity of the area, as such, it is recommended that this application is refused.

9.2 As the site capacity has been indicated as 8 units, there will be a requirement for a commuted sum equivalent to 2 units (i.e. 25%). The value of the commuted sum will be determined by the District Valuer. Following joint appointment by North Lanarkshire Council and the Developer. A planning condition on the above is recommended should members be minded to approve the application.