North Lanarkshire
Council
Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Sub-Committee
Committee Date: 20-09-2018
Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE
20th September 2018
Page Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation No
7-24 17/00518/PPP WB Properties Residential Development Refuse Scotland Ltd (Permission in Principle) (Request for Site North Of Bellshill Road Hearing) Uddingston
25-33 18/00816/AMD Design & Build Erection of Two Semi-Detached Grant (Scotland) Ltd Dwellinghouses and Alterations to Plot 1 Garden Area (Amendment to Permission 17/01910/FUL) Site Off Cumbernauld Road & Whitehill Avenue Stepps
34-39 18/01195/FUL Bridges Pole Mounted Number Plate Grant Antonine LLP Recognition with 2 Cameras C/o Savills within Antonine Shopping Centre (UK) Limited Car Park (In Retrospect) Antonine Centre Tryst Road Town Centre Cumbernauld
Application No: Proposed Development:
17/00518/PPP Residential Development (Permission in Principle) Site Address:
Site North Of Bellshill Road Uddingston
Date Registered:
7th April 2017
Applicant: Agent: WB Properties Scotland Ltd Paul Houghton 3 Inveresk Place 102 High Street Coatbridge Dunblane North Lanarkshire Stirling ML5 2DA FK15 0ER
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes
Ward: Representations: 14 Thorniewood 5 letters of representation received. Robert Burrows, Hugh Gaffney, Steven Bonnar & 15 Bellshill Colin Cameron, Angela Campbell, Harry Curran, Jordan Linden
Recommendation: Refuse
Reasoned Justification:
The proposed development is contrary to the Development Plan (Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012) as it fails to meet three of the six qualities of Placemaking being in a location surrounded by industry, active railways, busy roads and set at a lower ground level thereby offering an extremely low level of amenity for future residents and is therefore not considered appropriate to support residential development given the surrounding built context and noise evident on the site which is significantly above recommended limits. The site also has constrained ability to support active travel and it has not been demonstrated that a need exists for housing at this location.
Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 17/00518/PPP the Ordnance Survey on behalf Name (of applicant): WB Properties of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All Scotland Ltd rights reserved. Ordnance Site Address: Site North Of Bellshill Road,
Survey Licence number Uddingston 100023396. Development: Residential Development (Permission in Principle)
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
1. The proposed development is contrary to the Sustainability and Placemaking policies of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), fails to meet three of the six qualities of Placemaking contained in Policy 1 of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 (Welcoming, Safe and Pleasant, and Easy to Move Around), and conflicts with policies DSP2 (Location of Development), and criterion 3a of DSP4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan being in a location surrounded by industry, active railways, busy roads and set at a lower ground level thereby offering an extremely low level of amenity for future residents and is therefore not considered appropriate to support residential development given the surrounding built context.
2. It has not been demonstrated that road noise on the eastern and south-eastern parts of the site, nor that the general noise levels on the site which are significantly above World Health Organisation recommended limits can be satisfactorily mitigated thereby conflicting with Planning Advice Note 1/2011: Planning and Noise, the Welcoming, and Safe and Pleasant qualities of Placemaking Policy 1 of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017, and Policy DSP 4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
3. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 18 (Strategic Walking and Cycling Network) of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017, and Policies DSP 2 (Location of Development) and criterion 3b of DSP 4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan, as it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would encourage a modal shift away from private car use. The site is located in excess of maximum walking standards for public transport and most catchment schools, and the nearby external footway network leading northward is substandard in width with no physical opportunity for its improvement and where opportunities to enhance the Strategic Walking and Cycling Network are constrained with only a potential connection to the south, collectively thereby likely placing heavy reliance upon car based trips.
4. The proposed development is contrary to Policy 8: Housing Land Requirement; and does not meet the criteria for Sustainable Location Assessment (as contained within Diagram 10) of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017, and conflicts with Policy DSP1 (Amount of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. There is no shortfall of housing within the Motherwell sub-market housing area and there are sustainable sites which can contribute to any claimed shortfall in overall housing land supply within North Lanarkshire.
Background Papers:
Consultation Responses:
Memos from Protective Services received 1st May 2017, 6th June 2017, 7th June 2017, 30th June 2017, 21st July 2017, 25th August 2017, 12th October 2017, 17th November 2017, 23rd November 2017, and 21st February 2018, 19th July 2018, 24th August 2018, 31st August 2018 and 7 September 2018 Memos from Transportation received 21st July 2017, 10th August 2017, 9th October 2017, 12th October 2017, and 2nd November 2017 Memos from Greenspace received 5th June 2017 & 21st July 2017 Memos from Education received 15th May 2017, 13th October 2017, and 5th September 2018 Letter from Transport Scotland received 21st April 2017 Letters from Scottish Power received 19th April 2017 & 19th May 2017 Letter from Scottish Gas Network received 25th April 2017 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 15th May 2017 Letter from Network Rail received 12th May 2017 Letter from South Lanarkshire Council received 17th November 2017
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Joanne Delaney at 01236 632500.
Report Date:
7th September 2018 APPLICATION NO. 17/00518/PPP
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is located on the southern edge of Uddingston and aligns the Council boundary with South Lanarkshire. The site extends to approximately 4.6 hectares and is largely triangular in shape due to it being sandwiched between two operational railway lines converging on a north-westward course. The M74 also lies nearby to the south. The site comprises open fields mainly of scrubland with small drainage ditches being evident at the east and west edges. Semi-mature trees/bushes exist along the north and south edges whilst a concentration of woodland occupies the western half where the site narrows considerably to 10 metres at its edge. The site itself is subject of undulating topography but takes on a partial basin formation at its south-eastern side due to Bellshill Road rising to carry vehicular traffic over the southern railway line, whilst adjoining land generally within this part of Uddingston sits on a downward slope such that the land and railway to the north also sit at a significantly elevated position in excess of 6 metres and rising.
1.2 Beyond the railway to the north lies industrial/commercial premises to the north-west, woodland north-centrally, and the Ashley Park housing estate to the north-east. On the site’s frontage off Bellshill Road lies two sandstone dwellings and an electrical sub-station, whilst opposite to the east lies a small development of 5 modern houses. Otherwise land stretching eastward from Bellshill Road to the A725 Bellshill Bypass comprises open fields with concentrations of woodland. To the south beyond the railway lies an industrial estate within South Lanarkshire.
2. Proposed Development
2.1 Permission in principle is sought for residential development of the site. Since the application was continued at 21st March 2018 meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee, the applicant submitted four indicative site layouts, the first submitted on 2nd July 2018 conveyed the provision of 93 houses. A further three site layouts were submitted on 20th August 2018 detailing 78 houses; a mix of 110 houses and flats; and 244 flats. In order to mitigate noise, acoustic barriers measuring 2, 3, and 4.7 metres high are proposed on site boundaries, whilst houses themselves will be orientated a certain way on the eastern and south-eastern parts of the site to mitigate noise in garden areas.
3. Applicant’s Supporting Information
3.1 The applicant submitted supporting information in respect of the following:-
Pre-application consultation report; Design and access statement; Transport assessment; Ecology report; Flooding and drainage assessments; Site investigation; Noise and vibration impact assessment; and Planning statement.
3.2 The Pre-Application Consultation report summarised the public events which were held on 17th March 2017 at the Bothwell Community Hall, and on 20th March 2017 at VIP Pass, McCulloch Avenue, Fallside, both of which were publicised in the Bellshill Speaker beforehand.
3.3 The Planning Statement provides the applicant’s justification as to why residential development is acceptable at this location. Their views are summarised as follows:
There is a deficit of housing land within the Council area and this site can contribute toward remedying the shortfall, as it is a sustainable site with a choice of transport options, no insurmountable infrastructure constraints, and is effective given that it can be delivered within 5 years. There is a demand for housing at this location with the applicant having received several enquiries in this respect. The site has no notable landscape value, nor contributes to the Green Belt and is classified as brownfield in light of historic bing reclamation works. The site is also allocated for development in the emerging LDP. As such, it is not considered to conflict with the terms of the Clyde Plan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and is given support by Scottish Planning Policy which carries a presumption in favour of sustainable development where policies in a development plan are out of date.
3.4 Since the application was continued at 21st March 2018 meeting of the Planning Sub- Committee, the applicant has submitted further information. Their views are summarised as follows:
a) There are strong defensible boundaries in the railway lines defining NLC and SLC areas, thus the development does not diminish the defined separation between communities; b) A suitable residential environment for future residents can be secured. The relationship to industry, railways, and roads is no different to many others in the local area which have been consented. Two estate agents have given their opinions on the site and consider that the location adjacent to railways and the motorway would not deter purchasers and that with suitable landscaping and setting works, the site would be as successful as similar developments nearby within South Lanarkshire and Glasgow City areas which have sold quickly and are also adjacent to the motorway or railway; c) Noise is not significantly above recommended limits and it has been shown that it can be mitigated; d) Active travel is appropriate and will provide increased health benefits from having to walk slightly further to bus stops and railway stations. The footway on Bellshill Road cannot be widened but can certainly be improved by re-surfacing and signage, whilst it appears that SLC may have done some preparatory works to create a base upon which a new pavement could be constructed; and e) There is a deficit of housing land as re-affirmed by the applicant’s investigation into housing completions and housing land supply which the site will help to meet and provide additional choice at mid-range price.
3.5 In addition, a Road Traffic Noise Assessment was submitted on 2nd July in relation to the indicative 93 houses proposal stating that they consider noise can be suitably mitigated from all sources of road, railway, and industrial/commercial noise via the provision of acoustic barriers measuring 2, 3 or 4.7 metres high, and certain orientation of houses. The applicant also notes that Transport Scotland are due to re-test noise levels following the M74 motorway upgrade works and it is likely that acoustic barriers will be installed adjacent to the motorway to reduce road noise. On 20th August 2018 a further three indicative site layouts were submitted detailing alternative options for the provision of 78 houses, 110 houses and flats, and 244 flats. Supporting commentary was provided which referred to information provided in previous noise assessments and again noted the provision of acoustic barriers measuring 2, 3 and 4.7 metres high alongside orientation of houses, which they consider collectively demonstrates that suitable mitigation can be provided for the range of noise sources on a variety of layouts and designs. Barrier calculations were submitted which provided the workings of the road traffic noise report’s findings at specific positions, whilst it was also noted that electrification of the Edinburgh-Glasgow line is anticipated to noticeably reduce rail noise in the future. They consider that all they should be required to do at PPP stage is to show that there is a reasonable prospect that development can take place and that planning conditions be attached that are capable of being purified at Matters Subject to Conditions (MSC) stage. On 6th September 2018 at a very late stage in considering the application, further supporting commentary on noise was submitted noting that the 4.7 metres high barrier could be extended further along the north boundary facing industrial sites for as far as would be required by Protective Services. The applicant also clarified that road traffic sound from M74 was measured at the worst case positions and that the proposed barrier heights have been calculated on that basis.
4. Site History
4.1 The only relevant planning history on this site was the provision of the Proposal of Application Notice (17/00010/PAN), and Request for EIA Screening Opinion (17/00155/EIASCR) the latter of which determined that an environmental impact assessment would not be required for the proposals.
5. Development Plan
5.1 This site raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of the Strategic Development Plan and the Local Plan.
5.2 The site falls under Greenbelt in the Spatial Development Strategy of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017.
5.3 The site is zoned as NBE 3A (Green Belt) on the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP) 2012.
6. Consultations
6.1 Transport Scotland and Scottish Gas raised no objections.
6.2 Scottish Power originally objected to the proposals as the effect on their apparatus had not been determined. Following discussions with the applicant, they were content to remove their objection.
6.3 Network Rail requested that if minded to grant, conditions be imposed requiring the provision of a trespass proof fence to prevent access to the rail line, and provision of a SUDS scheme to divert surface water away from their property. They also requested that advisory notes be attached in respect of any infrastructure upgrade requirements; that care be taken when choosing planting in proximity of a railway line; that cognisance be taken of potential noise/vibration issues arising from the operational railways; that construction not disturb operation of the railway; and that any changes in levels, laying of foundations, and operation of mechanical plant in proximity to the rail line be advised to them prior to works starting.
6.4 SEPA advised that they largely concurred with the findings of the flood risk assessment but noted that should permission be granted, they would require further information in respect of Myers Burn and any proposed infilling of the pond within the site at the detailed MSC stage.
6.5 NLC Education previously noted that school roll projections indicate that there will be capacity issues in the denominational sector in the future. They noted that should the development be completed within 5 years, they anticipate no issues. However, should development continue beyond this timeframe, they would (if possible) seek to revisit their position at the applicable time, and requested a condition be imposed if minded to grant, that affords them this opportunity. Following receipt of the indicative layouts on 20th August 2018, they noted that they would request a proportionate contribution of £97,363 in respect of the 244 flats proposal. As pupils transfer to Uddingston Grammar within South Lanarkshire Council, they should be contacted for comment. South Lanarkshire Council (SLC) noted the zoning of the site, the built context and site attributes and advised that should it be considered that the site is an appropriate release from the green belt for housing, that effective mitigation be provided to control noise or dust from the southern industrial units and railway line. They advised that Uddingston Grammar is experiencing emerging capacity issues. In terms of roads and transportation impact it was noted that Bellshill Road is gradually changing from rural/commercial to residential/commercial where residents, councillors and MSPs continue to raise concerns about the speed of traffic, the number of vehicles now using the road, and pedestrian crossing facilities. This development will add to these concerns especially as children will transfer to Uddingston Grammar. The footway along the north side of Bellshill Road is not continuous with approximately 200 metres missing west of the industrial estate access. This requires pedestrians to cross to the south side of Bellshill Road unassisted to continue to Uddingston. It is requested that the signalised Main Street junction in Uddingston be analysed as this junction is already busy, particularly during peak periods.
6.6 Greenspace confirned that they were satisfied with the protected species survey noting that if minded to grant, a condition should be imposed requiring a pre-start check for badgers, and if found, suitable mitigation be carried out.
6.7 Protective Services requested the provision of a site investigation (SI) report and noise impact assessment (NIA) in respect of railway and commercial/industrial noise. They advised that in terms of SI, they were content that conditions could be imposed should permission be granted, requiring the submission of this information as part of the processing of a subsequent MSC application. The position when reporting the application to 21st March 2018 Planning Sub-Committee noted that Protective Services, having reviewed a fourth NIA, were satisfied that the evening background noise levels had now been measured. However, the range of permitted evening noise making activities of an adjacent industrial operator had still not been assessed against these background noise levels. By using other earlier information provided by the applicant’s acoustic consultant, they were able to extrapolate information. They acknowledged that there was a significant level of uncertainty in their assessment given that the requested evening assessment had not been carried out by the acoustic consultant. Nevertheless, they considered that their rudimentary assessment identified that an adverse impact should be considered. The indicative site layout detailed provision of a 2 metres high acoustic fence along the north, south, and west boundaries, but in the absence of the evening assessment, it has not been demonstrated that this would be sufficient mitigation albeit Protective Services consider it would not mitigate first floor rooms. In addition, the four reports provided information of on-site noise levels measured between 5.34 am to 11 pm at different locations. This breadth of information gave an overview of the general noise levels at the development site. With the exception of one location, all areas measured were consistently above the World Health Organisation’s recommended limit of LAEQ of 50 dB(A), in some cases were 20dB(A) above. The concerns over general noise levels at this site were raised in meetings with the developer and conveyed in an email dated 7th December 2017, but again to date, no response, nor means for mitigation were included in the NIAs on this particular matter. In light of this, Protective Services remained concerned as to the suitability of this location for residential development in respect of the general noise environment.
6.8 Since the March Committee meeting, officers from Planning and Protective Services met the agent and acoustic consultant to clarify requirements. It was made clear that general site noise levels were mainly attributed to vehicle movements on M74. However, it was noted that in carrying out an assessment on road noise and making recommendations, it should be ensured that mitigation proposed to reduce general residual noise on the site did not result in noise from any of the industrial/commercial businesses becoming more prominent and potentially a problem. The road traffic noise assessment was submitted on 2nd July 2018 and detailed acoustic barriers measuring 2, 3, and 4.7 metres high at certain boundaries of the site along with houses being orientated a certain way which the applicant considers will suitably mitigate road, rail, and industrial/commercial noise. However, Protective Services raised concerns that the road noise assessment did not provide calculations to clarify how the barrier heights were established and how effective they would be particularly as the barriers sit at the level of the M74 road surface or lower, and did not extend to the full limit of FP McCann’s operational area. In addition, if the conclusion of the report was to be accepted in that general site noise levels could be suitably reduced, there is increased likelihood of an adverse impact from industrial/commercial operators which was not considered in the report. They also noted that as advised at the previous meeting to discuss noise, that the orientation of houses to protect garden areas at the eastern and south-eastern parts of the site was not considered a suitable solution.
6.9 On 20th August 2018 three alternative site layouts were submitted with commentary referring to previous noise assessments and again noted the provision of acoustic barriers measuring 2, 3 and 4.7 metres high alongside orientation of houses, which the applicants consider demonstrates suitable mitigation for the range of noise sources on a variety of layouts and designs. Barrier calculations were submitted whilst they also noted that electrification of the Edinburgh-Glasgow line is anticipated to reduce rail noise in the future. Protective Services confirmed that the concerns raised in July had still not been answered as the barrier calculations still did not take account of the undulating nature of the whole site and the efficacy of the barriers throughout the site. The provision of alternative layouts only sought to raise further questions over the effectiveness of the mitigation. It was also noted that whilst there is possibility of mitigation at the M74 by Transport Scotland and electrification of railways, considerations on noise can only be based on confirmed information currently available at this point in time. On 6th September 2018, at a very late stage of considering the proposal, Protective Services acknowledged that the suggestion by the applicant to extend the 4.7 metres high barrier further along the northern boundary may mitigate industrial noise to an acceptable level provided the barrier was extended to provide coverage for all houses with line of sight to the industrial premises which is likely to result in the barrier being required halfway along the north boundary. However, the further information submitted on road traffic noise from M74 had still not demonstrated that general site noise levels can be satisfactorily mitigated on this site as questions remain over the effectiveness of the barrier as it is shown to sit at, or lower than the M74 road surface and the site undulates. In addition, no alternative mitigation had been submitted to address noise at the eastern and south-eastern parts of the site in lieu of orientating houses to provide protection given that this had been confirmed as an unsuitable solution.
6.10 NLC Transportation commented on the findings of the Transport Statement and indicative site layout detailing access arrangements to the site. They noted that having checked matters on site, the required visibility splay can be achieved outwith the crest curve of the railway bridge. They also accepted that the capacity of the junction at New Edinburgh Road with Bellshill Road could cope with the anticipated traffic likely to be generated by the proposals but nevertheless also noted that this junction was included on the Council’s list of accident cluster sites. However, the minimum recommended walking distances to bus stops, rail services, and most schools cannot be met and that the footway at the railway underpass to the north was substandard at 0.8-1 metres wide, preventing appropriate pedestrian access arrangements to the wider area.
7. Representations
7.1 Following the press advertisement and neighbour notification procedures, concerns were raised by 5 parties comprising two local residents, one resident from Bothwell, and two nearby businesses in respect of the following matters:
a) The site is manifestly countryside in terms of its visual characteristics and is zoned Green Belt on the adopted Plan. The site contributes to the sense of separation between North and South Lanarkshire, and the setting of the latter in particular. It provides opportunities for linking broader countryside with urban areas with a number of Green Network Sites being located nearby within the urban area, and contributes to the provision of wildlife corridors with species using the site as a through route; b) The site has not been designated for housing development in the new emerging Plan. In addition, there is a maintained objection to the site’s re-zoning as a Regeneration Site in the emerging Local Development Plan which prevents this application being determined as it may be considered in due course by a reporter at Examination of the Plan. A need for additional housing has not been identified within this area and indeed as part of the Boundary Review informing the emerging Plan, it is noted that this site is not required for the 5 year supply, and possibly not at all as questions remain over the site’s potential marketability; c) The site is isolated from settlements and residential use is not compatible with adjacent industrial and manufacturing uses, active railway tracks, and the M74 as residents will experience nuisance and disturbance regularly which will ultimately result in complaint and may undermine existing industrial operations and severely restrict future industrial development in breach of Policy EDI 1 (Protecting Economic Development and Infrastructure Resources) of the adopted local plan. In addition, assessments including the noise reports submitted in support of the application take no account of the nearby industrial land uses and indicatively position dwellings in close proximity to these which is entirely unfeasible. Following receipt of the industrial noise assessment, concerns remained that the measurements were not fully representative of normal permitted operations especially those which generate greatest noise, and did not provide full coverage of operational hours particularly in the evening. It should be noted that crushing activities are only allowed to occur in the south of the premises closest to the proposed housing development as a measure to protect the amenity of existing houses to the north. In addition, it is noted that the applicant has not responded on the matter that the site currently experiences noise levels far in excess of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommended limits. Upon receipt of the road noise assessment, it is noted that there are significant variations in the recorded background noise levels at the site across the multiple noise assessments, and that the road noise was not monitored during peak times and may not be wholly representative of the actual traffic noise. Whilst the application is in principle only, it is inappropriate that the noise assessment relies upon detailed design elements of a proposed dwelling to justify reduced values used in the noise prediction model. Also, the significant extent of screening now required surely suggests that the site is fundamentally unsuitable for residential use. Ground conditions are likely to be an issue in light of bing material having been spread across the site; d) This is a very busy road at present with congestion and tailbacks as far as Uddingston at peak times causing access problems for existing houses. Refuse collections in this area were moved from midweek to Sunday for health and safety reasons due to these problems. Seven reported injuries have occurred along the site frontage and at the nearby Fallside Road junction between 1999 and 2016. Additional houses at this location will significantly increase the amount of traffic and the use of traffic lights to control the new junction will make the existing problem significantly worse; and e) Extensive upgrading/widening of public infrastructure i.e. pavements, provision of a safety barrier to the footway under the railway bridge etc. will be required to make this proposal comply with sustainable transport ambitions. Who pays? A safe route could be constructed through the development eventually linking to Sustrans NCR 74 and thereafter to Uddingston train station.
7.2 The applicant has requested that a site visit and hearing be held to enable them to present the merits of the development prior to a decision being made. It is noted that Committee approved new procedures on such matters at their meeting of 22nd February 2018.
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 The Development Plan consists of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The application is of strategic significance due to the Green Belt zoning of the site in the adopted Local Plan and indicative number of dwellings proposed.
Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 (SDP).
8.3 SDP Policy 1 ‘Placemaking’ states that new developments should contribute towards the creation of high quality places across the city region. In support of the Vision and Spatial Development Strategy, new development proposals should take account of the Placemaking 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’ as being Distinctive, Safe and Pleasant, Easy to Move Around, Welcoming, Adaptable, and Resource Efficient.
8.4 Whilst the application seeks permission in principle only, in order to assist discussions over noise mitigation and access arrangements in particular, four indicative site layouts were submitted, with the internal layouts reflecting Designing Streets proposals. Requirements in respect of junction spacing and visibility splays dictate that the vehicular access be positioned part way atop the raised embankment carrying vehicular traffic over the southern railway line. From this vantage point, the site’s relationship with the surrounding built context would be more readily visible. Converging railway lines draw attention directly towards the industrial tower and travelling crane of the concrete works to the north, where an industrial tower and warehouses are also clearly evident nearby to the south, whilst the north corridor is defined by the elevated railway embankment of 6 metres and rising, with mature planting continuing to rise on a north course. In the immediate context, Bellshill Road also rises both to the north and south, whilst the site itself sits in a depression from the proposed access and is to be subject of further reductions in ground levels in some parts by up to 2 metres. The constrained width of the site heading west dictates that only approximately two thirds of the site’s length can accommodate a housing layout, thereby concentrating dwellings where level differences are more marked. The highest requirement for amenity is afforded to residential forms of development. Whilst the site’s dimensions could undoubtedly accommodate a housing development within most of the site, its relationship with the surrounding built context is such that it is considered that it would be placing residents within an area where they are likely to experience a heightened sense of enclosure from land and buildings towering above. In addition, upon approaching the site from the west on New Edinburgh Road or from the south on Bellshill Road, residents would be clearly aware of the industrial character of the area at close quarters to their homes.
8.5 Furthermore, proximity to heavy industry, railway lines, and busy roads/motorway would also be over-emphasised given that noise would be regularly evident in the background from these sources and has been shown to be significantly above WHO’s recommended limits within the development site. When the application was previously tabled for decision in March, there were outstanding concerns that it had not been demonstrated that noise could be satisfactorily mitigated for the general noise level on the site mainly attributable to M74, and that assessment of permitted evening industrial activities of an adjacent operator against background evening noise, had not been carried out but that following rudimentary assessment by Protective Services in respect of the latter, they advised that there is potential for an adverse impact. Whilst electrification of the adjacent railways and mitigation works to M74 by Transport Scotland may improve the noise environment if implemented, noise can only be considered on the basis of information which is confirmed at this time. Following submission of a road traffic noise assessment of M74, four alternative site layouts, and supporting noise commentary in July, August, and September, concerns over road traffic noise from M74 remain un-addressed as it has not been demonstrated that the barrier height will be effective particularly over an undulating site, and where the barriers sit at, or lower than the M74 road surface. Whilst Protective Services accept that industrial noise may be suitably mitigated by extending the 4.7 metres high barrier further along the north boundary, this then raises issues over the visual impact of such a structure within a residential setting which when coupled with its presence over the southern boundary, would be evident over half of the site. In addition, given that the use of houses to mitigate noise in gardens was confirmed as unacceptable, no alternative form of mitigation was submitted to address noise at the eastern and south-eastern parts of the site where the access and prominent site frontage lie on the eastern boundary. Concerns remain that the resultant required form of mitigation, which the road traffic noise report notes may require a barrier of 4.2 metres at the east, and 6.8 metres at the south-east, may be inappropriate particularly on the site’s most public face and gateway, may offer an extremely reduced level of residential amenity to residents from a heightened sense of enclosure, and introduce an adverse structure to the detriment of the streetscene at this busy location. In light of the information submitted on 6th September 2018, the site would require to be entirely enclosed by a range of barriers, the sheer height of which reinforces concerns that residential development is not acceptable at this location. The applicant has requested that the application be decided at the September meeting of the Planning Sub-committee and considers that they need only be required at PPP stage to show that there is a reasonable prospect that development can take place and that planning conditions be attached that are capable of being purified at Matters Subject to Conditions (MSC) stage. It is not considered appropriate to impose suspensive condition(s) on a matter of significant concern where it has not been demonstrated that mitigation could satisfactorily be achieved which could call the principle of such a use at this location into question. In addition, it is noted that the noise sources predominantly sit at a significantly elevated level from the site and in the absence of establishing why the maximum barrier of 4.7 metres has been chosen, mitigation may require an engineering solution in the form of a substantially higher bund/barrier, which whilst it may resolve the noise issue, could alternatively raise other concerns that such a structure within a residential setting would be unacceptable on visual amenity grounds. In any case, the absence of confirmation of suitable mitigation measures has not demonstrated that residential development is appropriate at this location. As such, it is collectively considered that the proposals are considered to conflict with the Welcoming, and Safe and Pleasant qualities of Placemaking Policy 1 of the SDP.
8.6 It is acknowledged that historically the site can reasonably be classified as brownfield owing to former bing material having been spread across the site in the 1980s. Nevertheless, in the intervening period, the site has successfully self regenerated to present a natural character of mainly scrubland with semi-mature trees and bushes, and is considered to contribute positively to the streetscene and play an important role in separating North and South Lanarkshire governing areas. Given that permission in principle (PPP) is sought, no credence is given to the indicative site layout. However, it is acknowledged that suitable conditions could be applied to ensure that any resultant development proposed under a subsequent Matters Subject to Conditions (MSC) application, reflected local character, and that the development also maintain and enhance the landscape character particularly along the frontage and southern boundary to retain the sense of the place’s role and function in identifying the Council’s boundary. As such, the proposals are considered to accord with the Distinctive quality of Placemaking Policy 1.
8.7 In addition, the Adaptable quality requires developments to contribute towards the delivery of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Network (GCVGN). Similarly, Policy 12 (Green Network and Green Infrastructure) notes that the GCVGN is one of the region’s greatest assets and comprises a network of urban greenspaces facilitating movement of people and species and connects them to the wider environment offering benefits of healthier lifestyles, enhancement of biodiversity, and integrating urban and rural areas. The indicative proposal to retain the rear third of the site as woodland with added walkways is welcomed, and opportunity exists via suitably worded conditions to secure further enhancement elsewhere on the site in accordance with the Adaptable quality of Policy 1, and the terms of Policy 12.
8.8 The Easy to Move Around quality supports developments concentrated along transport corridors in close proximity to public transport stops. It is noted from the Transport Statement that recommended walking distances for access to public transport cannot be met. Whilst there are no bus services passing the site, there are regular services on Old Edinburgh Road, Viewpark, or Main Street, Uddingston however distances to these from the centre of the site are 850 metres and 1400 metres respectively whilst 400 metres is the recommended walking distance. Of even greater concern is the distance to rail services with Uddingston station being the nearest at 2100 metres away whilst the recommended distance is 800 metres. In addition, of the 3 catchment schools in NLC (John Paul II Primary School, Tannochside Primary School, and Cardinal Newman High School), only John Paul II Primary School falls within the recommended walking distance of 1600 metres given its location 1100metres away, the others being located 2000 and 2100 metres away respectively. Uddingston Grammar in South Lanarkshire is located 3800 metres away. These distances are measured from the site access, and would therefore increase depending on specific areas of residence within the completed development. There is therefore likely to be heavy reliance upon car usage in conflict with this quality. In addition, increased car usage may also contribute to a decline in air quality in contravention of the Safe and Pleasant Quality.
8.9 Notwithstanding the issues with accessibility to public transport, Policy 18 (Strategic Walking and Cycling Network) additionally notes that high quality places and the location of development should provide safe and convenient opportunities for walking and cycling. It is noted that connection to Sustrans route 74 (runs parallel to the M74 and lies just beyond to the west) could be taken by heading south from the site access along Bellshill Road albeit SLC highlight a current constraint for walking owing to an approximately 200 metres stretch of discontinued footway. The applicant considers that provision of some length of footway could be provided within the verge and where not possible, a signalised crossing would be provided. Whilst this may represent a contrived route given that most foot traffic would be destined for Uddingston Grammar or Uddingston train station both to the north-west, which would result in pedestrians being directed across to the south side of Bellshill Road, only to have to cross back over to the north where footway provision is available to reach their onward destination, it is nevertheless considered that a southern pedestrian route could be accommodated in some suitable form via condition(s). Sustrans route 74 then links into Sustrans route 75 which lies nearby at the north-west corner of the site at Spindlehowe Road. Unfortunately, the site limit stops short of this route which is in any case set at an elevated position carrying foot traffic over the two railways, and where the intervening land beyond the site becomes land locked by the railway lines, thereby offering no opportunity for a link into this network.
8.10 At the opposite eastern end of the site, it is noted that the footway leading north from the site narrows to between 0.8-1 metres underneath the railway bridge, normally footways measure 2 metres wide. This section of footway is unlikely to cater for safe 2-way passage of pedestrians nor enable safe usage by those travelling by wheelchairs or using wide pushchairs. As the buttress walls fix the width of the railway underpass, there is no opportunity to widen the footway nor create a dedicated cycle lane, albeit cycling could be undertaken within the existing carriageway. The Transport Statement similarly notes that this constraint cannot be improved and therefore suggests that re-surfacing of the footway be undertaken and that additional signs and road markings be installed highlighting the existence of a narrow section of footway to both pedestrians and drivers. Crucially, the current footway is not considered to provide a safe route from the site to access amenities to the north, particularly the catchment schools. Whilst Transportation accept that the junction of New Edinburgh Road with Bellshill Road could cope with the anticipated increase in traffic from the development, it is nevertheless noted that currently, this junction is subject to significant levels of congestion during peak periods with cars backing up for a considerable length along Bellshill Road, and it is included within the Council’s list of accident cluster sites. SLC also note that the junction of Bellshill Road with Main Street to the south is also busy during peak periods and they continue to receive concerns from residents, councillors and MSPs regarding the speed and volume of traffic and pedestrian crossing facilities. On this basis, the proposals are also therefore considered to conflict with Policy 18 offering only constrained opportunity to enhance the Strategic Walking and Cycling Network by connecting to the south, and contrary to the Easy to Move Around, and Safe and Pleasant qualities of place under Policy 1 given the likely heavy reliance upon car usage and sub-standard footway connection to the north placing pedestrians unsafely adjacent to a route subject of heavy traffic during peak periods.
8.11 The Resource Efficient quality requires developments to optimise existing infrastructure. It is noted that Education consider that the capacity of the catchment schools within NLC are likely to cope with the anticipated pupil product arising from the indicative developments of 78-110 units if developed within 5 years and the applicant contends that the site can be delivered within that timeframe which is considered reasonable. Education noted that a contribution of £97,363 would be required for the 244 flats proposal. However, it is noted that the Transport Statement was based upon a capacity of up to 100 units, therefore if committee were minded to grant the proposal, a condition limiting the site capacity to 100 units would be recommended thereby negating the need for the contribution. Secondary school provision is also provided at Uddington Grammar within South Lanarkshire and as noted earlier, each Council will manage the costs where pupils transfer from an adjoining local authority area. The proposals are considered to comply with the Resource Efficient quality of Policy 1. However, collectively, the proposals are considered to contravene three of the six qualities of Placemaking as defined under Policy 1 of the SDP.
8.12 SDP Policy 8, Housing Land Requirement provides the policy mechanism to allow for the early release of land in advance of the adoption of the emerging local development plan (LDP) in order to contribute to the five year effective housing land supply. It notes that local authorities should take steps to remedy any shortfalls in the five-year supply of effective housing land through the granting of planning permission for housing developments on greenfield or brownfield sites, subject to satisfying each of five criteria. Where there is deemed to be insufficient land in the supply, this is a factor in considering planning applications for new sites for building houses that do not benefit from being identified for such development in the Development Plan. This position has been adopted by Reporters in recent appeal decisions in North Lanarkshire resulting in a number of successful appeals. Using the most up to date draft Housing Land Audit that position is no longer the case as there is sufficient effective land in the supply to allow house builders to meet their commitments. At the Planning Sub-Committee of the 25th January 2018, members were advised on the process of identifying how much land for housing is required in North Lanarkshire and agreed with the recommendation that the current housing land supply within North Lanarkshire is sufficient. Notwithstanding that the applicant has submitted further supporting information regarding housing land supply, housing completions data, and recent appeal decisions, the Council maintains that there is no shortage in housing land supply within the Council area or this particular sub-market housing area when considered against the requirements of SPP and SDP. In light of the concerns raised under Policy 1 above, the Council contends that even if additional housing sites are required to meet a perceived shortfall, they are best met in other parts of the sub-market housing area rather than being directed to this site. An assessment of the development against the five criteria is as follows;- - The development will help to remedy the shortfall which has been identified: There is no shortfall in housing land supply within the Council area or this particular sub-market housing area; - The development will contribute to sustainable development: The site is not considered to be sustainable in terms of its setting within an existing built context which would offer an extremely low amenity value to future residents, and where safe and accessible recommended standards for walking cannot be met, nor contributions made to enhance the Strategic Walking and Cycling Network with heavy reliance likely to be upon car based trips; - The development will be in keeping with the character of the settlement and the local area: Conditions could be attached to ensure housing density and design reflected local character in compliance with this criteria; - The development will not undermine green belt objectives: For the reasons discussed below at paragraph 9.4, the proposals are considered to comply with this criteria; and - That any additional infrastructure required as a result of the development is either committed or to be funded by the developer: No contributions will be required thereby complying with this criteria.
The development fails two of the five criteria and therefore contravenes Policy 8.
8.13 The site forms part of the Greenbelt under the SDP due to its current zoning as such within the adopted Local Plan. The Spatial Vision highlights that the Green Belt is an important strategic tool with a significant role to play in achieving key environmental objectives. Policy 14 Green Belt considers that the review of Green Belt boundaries should be a priority of Local Development Plans so as to ensure those key environmental objectives are achieved. As discussed below under paragraph 9.5, the emerging Local Development Plan seeks to remove the site from the defined Green Belt and re-allocate it within the General Urban Area with Promotion as a Regeneration site. As such, whilst the proposals contravene Policy 14, the development is not recommended for refusal on Green Belt grounds. However, just because the site is proposed for removal from the Green Belt, it does not give an automatic assumption that housing development would be acceptable on this site and as discussed above, strategic policy 1 directs that all developments should seek to deliver on the six qualities of Placemaking and the proposals are considered to fail to meet three of these qualities.
8.14 The purpose of Diagram 10 ‘Assessment of Development Proposals’ is to aid consistent application and implementation of the SDP and is to be used by Local Authorities when assessing strategic scale development proposals to determine whether they comply with the policies, schedules, and diagrams of the SDP. Diagram 10: Box 1 poses the question “Does the development proposal support the Vision, Spatial Development Strategy and the Placemaking Policy including having regard to the Glasgow City Centre Joint Strategic Commitment?” Taking account of the preceding paragraphs 8.3-8.13 it is considered that the development does not accord with the SDP. Diagram 10: Box 2 covers departures from the SDP and requires any development to comply with a range of 7 criteria and any other material considerations. An assessment of the development against the seven criteria is as follows;- - makes a significant contribution to sustainable development particularly through enabling shift to sustainable travel modes and the contribution to carbon reduction: As noted above, the site is not considered to be sustainable as safe and accessible recommended standards for walking cannot be met, and only a constrained contribution can be made to enhance the Strategic Walking and Cycling Network with heavy reliance likely to be upon car based trips; - provides significant net economic benefit including the need to accommodate inward investment that would otherwise be lost to the city region or Scotland: The indicative scale of development is not significant in terms of its economic benefit and there are sufficient development sites for housing in the city region to allow this investment to take place; - responds 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: Other than jobs during construction, the development does not provide for or protect jobs; - Meets a specific locational need: There is no shortfall in housing land supply in the Council area or the local sub market housing area; - protects, enhances and promotes natural and cultural heritage including green infrastructure, ,landscape and the wider environment: The development has the potential capacity to support this criterion; - improves health and well being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation: The development has the potential capacity to support this criterion; and - supports the provision of digital connectivity in new developments and rural areas: The development has the potential capacity to support this criterion.
The development fails four of the seven criteria and is therefore considered an unacceptable departure from the SDP on the basis of these criteria. ‘Any other material considerations’ are considered below under paragraphs 9.1-9.5.
North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 (NLLP):
8.15 The site is designated Green Belt under policy NBE 3A of the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Policies NBE 1A6 (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment (Protected Species)), DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development), and DSP 4 (Quality of Development), as well as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 01 (Landscaping), 02 (Trees and Development), 07 (Green Belt), 09 (Flooding and Drainage), and 20 (Biodiversity) are also relevant to the consideration of the proposals.
8.16 Policy NBE 3A ‘Assessing Development in the Green Belt’ defines acceptable forms of development in the Green Belt, including proposals necessary for agriculture, forestry, horticulture, telecommunications, renewables or appropriate outdoor recreation. The associated SPG 07 outlines the key purposes of the Green Belt as set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) as including directing growth to the most appropriate locations, and to protect and enhance the landscape setting and identity of towns. As discussed below under paragraph 9.5, the emerging Local Development Plan seeks to remove the site from the defined Green Belt and re-allocate it within the General Urban Area with Promotion as a Regeneration site. As such, whilst the proposals do not accord with policy NBE 3A, they are not recommended for refusal on Green Belt grounds.
8.17 Policy DSP1 ‘Amount of Development’ is relevant, with specific reference to Criterion B: Potential Additions to Planned Land Supplies due to the Green Belt status of the site. Additions to housing land supplies greater than certain thresholds outside identified sites require to be justified by demand assessments. The Council are of the view that there is not a housing shortfall within the Council area or the Motherwell sub-market housing area, and it is the Council’s contention that there are sustainable development sites within the sub-market housing area which can meet any perceived shortfall in supply. The development therefore fails to comply with this policy.
8.18 Policy DSP2 ‘Location of Development’ further considers the strategic approach to development locations. Located in the Green Belt and not forming part of the strategic housing land supply (as set out in policy HCF2 ‘Promoting Housing Development and Community Facilities’), reference to Criterion B: ‘Potential additions to planned land supplies’ is relevant. This states that new developments may be granted in the Green Belt, where they are consistent with locational criteria (maintaining clearly defined urban and rural boundaries) and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Green Belt Development. For the reasons discussed in paragraph 9.1 below, the proposals are not considered to contravene this criterion. However, developments also require to safeguard locations of recognised importance and support the hierarchy of walking /cycling/public transport/private transport. As discussed above under the SDP assessment, opportunities to support the accessibility hierarchy are constrained due to a sub-standard section of footway and walking distances being in excess of recommended maximums for access to public transport and schools. In these respects, the proposals fail to comply with policy DSP2.
8.19 Policy DSP3 (Impact of Development), requires developers to meet or contribute to the cost of providing or improving community facilities or infrastructure as a result of the additional demands arising from the proposals on its own or in conjunction with existing developments. No contributions are required thereby according with Policy DSP3. In relation to the capacity issue at Uddingston Grammar School, it has been agreed corporately that cross boundary impacts of this nature will be dealt with within each Council area, and therefore there would be no requirement for the developer to contribute towards South Lanarkshire Council.
8.20 Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development), considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes, and provides a range of assessment criteria which are addressed in turn below:
Landscape and Ecology
8.21 The site currently benefits from trees and bushes along all of its edges with a concentrated area of planting on its western half. Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 01 (Landscaping) recognises that one key element of successful schemes is an attractive well designed landscape whilst SPG 02 (Trees and Development) seeks to ensure that existing planting is retained as an asset to new development, giving instant maturity and retaining natural visual amenity. The indicative layout seeks to retain most of the existing planting and supplement it with additional planting in and around the proposed dwellings in compliance with this guidance and which could be secured via conditions.
8.22 In terms of ecology, Policy NBE 1A6 and SPG 20 (Biodiversity & Development) indicate that development that significantly affects a species protected by law will only be permitted where an appraisal has demonstrated that the protected species would not be compromised. An ecological appraisal was undertaken on the site to determine the existence of suitable habitat for, and evidence of bats, otter, water vole, badger, and great crested newts. Whilst no protected species were recorded, the site is considered to offer suitable habitat for badgers and a pre-start survey for badgers is requested by Greenspace. Had the application been recommended for approval, a condition could have been attached to suitably address this matter. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with this policy and SPG.
Flooding and Drainage
8.23 SPG 09 (Flooding & Drainage) requires that applicable developments demonstrate any risk and means for mitigation of flooding and detail the measures for treatment of surface water through the use of SUDS principles. A flood risk assessment was undertaken on the site and was deemed to pose a low risk for flooding. SUDS are proposed for installation, specific details of which would be submitted under the subsequent MSC application, should PPP permission be granted. SEPA were content with the investigations undertaken at this stage and noted that they would require further investigations of the Myers Burn and infilling of the pond at the MSC stage. Had the application been recommended for approval, conditions could have been attached to suitably address these matters. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with this SPG.
Building Design and Site Layout
8.24 Indicative site layouts have been submitted, however as the application is in principle only, no credence is given to these. Nevertheless, it is noted that efforts have been made to convey a ‘Designing Streets’ form of development which is welcomed in accordance with current design requirements. Had the application been recommended for approval, suitable conditions could have been attached to ensure the detailed aspects of the internal development in terms of layout, density, building design, open space, play requirements, and amenity planting, met suitable standards in compliance with DSP 4.
Transportation Considerations
8.25 Similarly, it is accepted that suitable access, sightlines, layout, and parking levels could potentially be achieved in support of the development and secured via conditions. However, as discussed earlier, concerns remain over accessibility in terms of the narrow footway and walking distances exceeding maximum levels which constrains opportunity for active travel at this location.
Environmental Considerations: Site Investigation and Noise
8.26 Having reviewed the extent of site investigations undertaken thus far, Protective Services confirmed that further work would be required to fully satisfy requirements. However, as the application is PPP, they were satisfied that the additional work could be secured by conditions requiring their submission as part of the processing of any subsequent MSC application. In terms of the noise and vibration assessments undertaken in respect of the nearby railways, road, and industrial/commercial businesses, as noted above in paragraph 8.5, Protective Services remain concerned as to the suitability of this location for residential development as satisfactory noise mitigation measures have not been demonstrated, in conflict with policy DSP 4.
8.27 Collectively in terms of DSP 4, it is accepted that drawings and additional information that would be received with any MSC application could address some criteria of DSP 4 in terms of ecology, flooding, site investigation, building design, layout, and access. However, notwithstanding this, the development fails to meet other important criteria contained in part 3a of policy DSP 4 which requires the creation of a successful place and as has been discussed above, it is considered that residential development in this location would be likely to offer an extremely low amenity value to residents given the surrounding built context which comprises heavy industry, active railway lines, and busy roads all at close quarters and set at elevated levels to the site, where concerns remain over noise levels on the site. In addition, the substandard footway connection to the north and distance to public transport thereby constraining opportunities for active travel, conflicts with part 3b of policy DSP 4 which requires safe access into the site which is attractive to pedestrians, cyclists, and people with disabilties. As such the proposals are considered contrary to DSP 4.
8.28 Drawing together consideration of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan, it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to policies DSP1, DSP2, and DSP4 (in terms of low residential amenity, noise, and constrained active travel options). Accordingly, given this conclusion and the assessment of the SDP in earlier paragraphs, it is concluded that the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan and must therefore be refused planning permission unless material considerations suggest otherwise.
9. Material Considerations
Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)
9.1 SPP provides general principles by which Scottish Planning Policy and other land use matters should be assessed. The purposes of Green Belts include directing growth to the most appropriate locations and protecting and enhancing the character, and identity of towns. SPP notes that Green Belt designation should provide clarity and certainty on where development will and will not take place. As noted below under paragraph 9.5, the Council seeks to re- allocate the site from Green Belt to promotion as a Regeneration site in the forthcoming LDP. It was considered that the site’s location as a sliver of land between two converging rail lines, with established urban areas to the north and south, with Bellshill Road as an obvious defensible boundary, that the site can no longer be seen as making any long-term contribution to the aims and function of Green Belt policy. On this basis, the site whilst zoned Green Belt in the adopted NLLP, is not considered to conflict with the SPP on Green Belt grounds. However, it is also important to note that in any case, paragraph 49 advises that for most settlements, a green belt is not necessary as other policies can provide an appropriate basis for directing development to the right locations.
9.2 Sustainability is the first of SPP’s 2 Principal Policies and in paragraph 33 notes that where a Development Plan is more than 5 years old, the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development will be a significant material consideration However, decision makers should also take into account any adverse impacts which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the wider policies in the SPP. As the adopted NLLP is now older than 5 years as at 28th September 2017, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. The second Principal Policy of SPP is Placemaking which notes that planning’s purpose is to create better places, Placemaking being a creative, collaborative process that includes design, development, renewal or regeneration of our urban or rural built environments. It notes that planning should direct the right development to the right place and should support development that is designed to a high quality which demonstrates the six qualities of successful place. New developments should also consider place and the needs of people before the movement of motor vehicles and should promote active travel to reduce the reliance on private car through the increased use of walking, cycling, and public transport. As discussed above under the SDP assessment, the site is not considered to contribute to sustainable development as it fails to meet three of the six qualities of Placemaking due to its relationship with the surrounding built context, accessibility issues, and constrained ability to promote active travel. As such, the proposals are considered to contravene the two Principal Policies of SPP.
Planning Advice Note (PAN) 1/2011: Planning and Noise, and associated Technical Advice Note
9.3 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. The Technical Note provides guidance in the preparation and evaluation of noise impact assessments. As noted above, Protective Services remain concerned that it has not been demonstrated that noise levels on the site which are far in excess of WHO’s recommended limits, can be suitably mitigated. Therefore it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that residential development is appropriate at this location in conflict with the terms of the PAN.
Housing Land Supply
9.4 Councils can introduce new sites into the housing land supply through a review of the Local Development Plan. North Lanarkshire Council Proposed Local Development Plan, agreed by the Council in 2016, identifies sufficient additional sites for housing development to meet more than the Housing Land Requirement in the Strategic Development Plan. To ensure that the supply of effective land is still sufficient to meet the agreed need, an annual Housing Land Audit is carried out and uses a methodology agreed by the constituent Authorities of Clydeplan which was recently given merit by a Reporters decision to dismiss an Appeal for housing in Renfrewshire. An alternative methodology by Homes for Scotland used in calculating effectiveness led to a number of successful appeals being granted in North Lanarkshire. However, as Reporters are unclear as to which methodology to use and as there is an agreed Local Authority methodology, there is little merit in altering the Council’s methodology at this time. The 2017 Housing Land Audit is the first Audit to include sites identified in the Local Development Plan Proposed Plan and sites granted Planning Permission since 2016. Using the agreed methodology and the Draft 2017 Housing Land Supply Audit, it is confirmed that the 5 year effective Housing Land Supply for North Lanarkshire is currently 8,317 units, with a Housing Land Supply Target derived from the Strategic Development Plan of 5, 295 units for the same period resulting in an effective supply of 7.85 years. As such, notwithstanding the applicant’s further supporting commentary on housing land supply and completions data, the Council maintains that there is no housing land shortfall within the Council area or the Motherwell Housing Sub-Market Area and therefore no need to develop this site as there are sufficient and sustainable housing development sites within the area to meet the needs of the growth aspirations of the Development Plan.
Emerging Local Development Plan
9.5 The emerging North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (NLLDP) seeks to remove the application site from the defined Green Belt, with it being re-classified as falling within the General Urban Area but with promotion as a Regeneration site. The site’s re-classification arose as a result of a review of the urban boundary taking account of the fact as noted above, that it was no longer considered to contribute to the aims and function of Green Belt policy as outlined in Scottish Planning Policy. The Plan notes that Regeneration sites will be a priority and will be delivered through Action Plans. There is no specific form of regeneration confirmed for this site but would be limited to whichever form of development deemed appropriate through a Development Management assessment. However, as part of the emerging Plan process, the Council asked developers to suggest suitable development sites and this is commonly known as ‘Call for Sites’. The submission to the ‘Call for Sites’ enables a site to be considered consistently and strategically in terms of the development plan process and wider area. There was engagement in this process with a submission seeking re- allocation of the site for residential/mixed use (community use/business). Following consideration, the site was not re-designated for these uses. As also noted above, there is no identified need for housing at this location. The fact that the Plan is at an early stage suggests that little weight should be given to the LDP but given that the site is not identified as a proposed housing site, it certainly does not provide any weight in its favour. It is also of importance to note that as there is a maintained objection to its re-zoning as a Regeneration site from the adjacent resident at 123 Bellshill Road, it is still to be subject of examination and the possibility exists that this re-zoning may not be supported by the Reporter, and as such, could be retained as Green Belt. Therefore, whilst the NLLDP Proposed Plan is a material consideration, its weight is affected by the existence of this unresolved issue. Nevertheless, it represents a step change in the Council’s consideration of the status of the site, and as such it would be remiss not to acknowledge the intention for its removal from Green Belt going forward. Whilst it does not meet the requirements of the SDP and adopted local plan to constitute an acceptable departure from the development plan, it is not recommended for refusal on Green Belt grounds. However, the NLLDP similarly places great emphasis upon place-making and for the reasons detailed above under the SPP, SDP and Local Plan assessments, it is also considered to conflict with the aims of the emerging LDP.
10. Assessment of Consultation Responses and Representations
Consultation Responses
10.1 With regard to consultation responses not covered in the discussion above, had the application been recommended for approval, suitable conditions could be attached with respect to Network Rail’s request for a trespass proof fence and provision of SUDS, whilst advisory notes could be attached in respect of infrastructure upgrades, choice of planting, recognition of potential noise/vibration issues, non-disturbance to the operation of the railway, and works in proximity of the railway line. In terms of South Lanarkshire Council’s request for further analysis of pedestrian movements/crossing facilities along Bellshill Road and analysis of the signalised Main Street junction, these could be suitably addressed by conditions.
Representations
10.2 With regards to the concerns raised in paragraphs 7a) – 7e), the assessment above has already addressed the concerns raised in 7a) and 7e), the remaining matters are covered below:
b) Notwithstanding the fact that there is a maintained objection to the site’s re-zoning within the emerging LDP, there is no legislative impediment preventing determination of this planning application ahead of completion of the Plan adoption process;
c) Some investigations have been undertaken in respect of ground conditions and the requirement for further testing could be adequately covered by conditions had the application been recommended for approval. In terms of noise, as discussed above, Protective Services are not satisfied that noise has been adequately assessed and mitigated, nor that residential development is appropriate at this location. The proposals are not considered to breach policy EDI 1 of the adopted Plan as this policy protects those areas zoned for industrial and business use, whilst the site is zoned Green Belt and the Plan has adequate alternative policies which protect existing uses as discussed in the assessment section above. Whilst it is acknowledged that the application seeks permission in principle, such an application still allows for detailed aspects to be considered, provided there remains at least some matters which would be reserved for later consideration under any subsequent Matters Subject to Conditions (MSC) application in the event PPP was granted. The use of detailed design elements provides a useful aid in furthering the discussion on noise mitigation and should the results of investigation dictate that these specific design elements (e.g. location, orientation, internal layout i.e. habitable rooms away from the noise source etc.) be required to enable suitable mitigation to be achieved, these could be adequately secured by planning condition requiring that they be reflected in the design/layout of the resultant MSC application should PPP be granted. However, as noted earlier suitable mitigation has not been demonstrated; and
d) It is proposed to form a priority junction access arrangement to the site rather than a traffic light control system.
10.3 In terms of the applicant’s request for a site visit and hearing, it is noted that Committee approved new procedures on such matters at their meeting of 22nd February 2018. In considering the application against the new procedures, it is considered that the development does not meet the criteria for approving the hearing request, as the application is recommended for refusal and the applicant will have a right of appeal to Scottish Ministers.
11. Conclusions
11.1 Having considered the development against the Development Plan and other material considerations, it is considered that the proposals fail to meet three of the 6 qualities of Placemaking due to the relationship with the surrounding built context, noise, accessibility issues, constrained ability to promote active travel, and there is no identified need for housing at this location. As such, the proposals are considered to represent an unacceptable form of development at this location and it is hereby recommended that the application be refused.
Application No: Proposed Development:
18/00816/AMD Erection of Two Semi-Detached Dwellinghouses and Alterations to Plot 1 Garden Area (Amendment to Permission 17/01910/FUL) Site Address:
Site Off Cumbernauld Road & Whitehill Avenue Stepps
Date Registered:
14th June 2018
Applicant: Agent: Design & Build (Scotland) Ltd Alan Agnew 26 Whitehill Farm Road 3 Aurs Place Stepps Barrhead G33 6BT Glasgow G78 2RU
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No
Ward: Representations: 05 Stepps, Chryston And Muirhead 8 letters of representation received. John McLaren, Lynne Anderson, Stephen Goldsack,
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification:
The proposed works meets the criteria set out in the residential and built environment policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The development is acceptable in terms of its impact upon the site and the surrounding area.
Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 18/00816/AMD the Ordnance Survey on behalf Name (of applicant): Design & Build of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All (Scotland) Ltd rights reserved. Ordnance Site Address: Site Off
Survey Licence number Cumbernauld Road & Whitehill Avenue 100023396. Stepps Development: Erection of Two Semi- Detached Dwellinghouses and Alterations to Plot 1 Garden Area (Amendment to Permission 17/01910/FUL)
Proposed Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
2. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped, felled, or otherwise affected and That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:-
(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development; (d) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects, in the interests of visual amenity.
3. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
4. Before the development starts, a comprehensive site investigation requires to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175: 2017 "The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites". The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, be carried out in accordance with the Environment 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. Any remediation work required must be completed and verification provided by the developer to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities before development begins. a comprehensive site investigation requires to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175: 2017 "The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites". The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, be carried out in accordance with the Environment 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. Any remediation work required must be completed and verification provided by the developer to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities before development begins.
Reason: To ensure potential risks arising from previous land uses around the site have been fully assessed before the development starts.
5. That for the avoidance of doubt, any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 4 above, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination.
6. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.
7. That before each of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied; all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.
8. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no development shall take place within the side of gardens of Plots 3 and 4 hereby permitted, other than that expressly authorised by this permission.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient off street parking is provided a within the curtilage in the interests of the amenity of the site and the general area.
9. That BEFORE any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by CIRIA in March 2000.
Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.
Background Papers:
Consultation Responses:
Roads operations received 30th July 2018 NLC Regulatory Services and Waste Solutions received 16th July 2018
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Kirsten Devlin at 01236 632500
Report Date:
7th September 2018 APPLICATION NO. 18/00816/AMD
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is a substantial plot that sits on the corner of Cumbernauld Road and Whitehill Avenue, Stepps. It is approximately 880 square metres in area and once housed the oldest residential property in Stepps. A number of mature trees are located on the site and an old boundary wall still remains.
1.2 The application site and the piece of land directly north on Victoria Road (owned by the applicant) currently has planning permission for 2 semi-detached dwellings and a single detached dwellinghouse (17/01910/FUL).
2. Proposed Development
2.1 The proposal is an amendment to application 17/01910/FUL to alter a portion of the rear boundary of approved plot 1 and to erect two semi-detached properties in place of the previously approved detached dwellinghouse and detached garage.
2.2 The repositioning of the boundary at Plot 1 will provide an extra 17 square metres of garden ground for the current proposal and results in a straight boundary line between the north and south elements of the proposal.
2.3 The approved detached dwellinghouse and its accompanying double detached garage are to be replaced with two semi-detached dwellinghouses which can be best described as being 1.5 storeys in height. No garages are proposed and in curtilage parking will take place within the side garden ground of each of the properties.
3. Applicant’s Supporting Information
3.1 No supporting information has been submitted or was requested.
4. Site History
4.1 The following applications are of relevance to the proposed development:
11/00721/FUL Construction of Extension to Dwellinghouse and Installation of Two Dormer Windows Approved 25.08.2011 12/00875/FUL Demolition of a Dwelling House and the Construction of a Replacement Dwelling Approved 22.10.2012 14/01405/PREAPE Erection of 3 Houses Approved 13.08.2014 14/01861/FUL Erection of Three Dwelling Houses Approved 18.12.2014 17/01910/FUL Renewal of Planning Permission 14/01861/FUL (Erection of Three Dwelling Houses) Approved 18.12.2017
5. Development Plan
5.1 The application site is covered by Policy HCF 1 A Residential Areas which states there is a presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas.
6. Consultations
6.1 NLC Roads Operations has not objected to the proposal and has commented that each plot requires to be served by a 5 metre wide dropped kerb footway crossing and visibility splays of 4.5 x 120m require to be provided. Amended plans have been received which provide 5 metre wide dropped kerb footway crossings. Given the wide footpath along the site frontage, the visibility splay is already being met and as such there is no requirement for a planning condition covering this matter.
6.2 NLC Regulatory Services and Waste Solutions has requested a site investigation be submitted to ensure potential risks from previous land uses have been fully assessed. They have also provided advice on lighting, control of site generated dust, burning of waste and construction noise and working hours, which have been attached as advisory notes.
7. Representations
7.1 8 letters of representation have been received in connection with the application. The points raised and comments thereon are as follows:
Point of Comment: 1 comment in support of the application was received outwith the neighbour notification period.
Comment: The above cannot be considered as it was received outwith the neighbour notification period.
Point of Objection: The proposal will result in overdevelopment of the site.
Comment: The proposal is not considered to be overdevelopment as each of the semi- detached dwellings will have sufficient garden areas and depths.
Point of Objection: The creation of 2 vehicular accesses onto Cumbernauld Road, in conjunction with the 2 accesses on Victoria Road are considered to be an increased danger to pedestrians, motorists and cyclists.
Comment: NLC Roads Operations has not objected to the proposal.
Point of Comment: The proposal will lead to an increase in parking issues.
Comment: Each of the properties will have sufficient in curtilage parking provision and turning facilities and as such are not considered to have a detrimental impact.
Point of Objection: There is concern that construction traffic will be an issue, combined with current on-street parking.
Comment: It is accepted that there will be an element of disruption during the construction process, this however is not a reason for refusal in its own right.
Point of Objection: The increase in numbers will increase the strain on the waste water system.
Comment: One further dwellinghouse is not considered to have a significant impact on the drainage system. The applicant will have to gain consent from the relevant public utilities.
Point of Objection: The proposal will lead to an increase in air and noise pollution.
Comment: One further dwellinghouse is not considered to have any significant impact on air quality or noise pollution levels.
Point of Objection: A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) is required to protect the mature trees on the site as there is concern that they will be removed or damaged.
Comment: No formal request has been submitted seeking the Planning Service promote a TPO. Planning conditions protecting trees have been attached to the previous permissions and has been done so again.
Point of Objection: The original building was of great historic importance being the oldest in Stepps, as such the site should be treated with more respect; one replacement dwellinghouse would be enough.
Comment: The original house has been demolished for some time. Planning permission currently exists for 3 dwellighhouses on the site and it is considered that a further semi- detached dwellinghouse (to replace the approved detached dwelling) can be accommodated well, without detriment to the surrounding area.
Point of Objection: The proposal, which results in a total of 4 houses, is considered to be severe overdevelopment, being detrimental to the visual impact of this iconic site. The density is similar to that in a modern housing estate in direct contrast to the surrounding openness of Stepps and the wide separation between the houses in the locale.
Comment: The proposal is not considered to be overdevelopment; fitting reasonable well within the site. The footprint of the semi-detached dwellinghouse is only marginally larger than the previously approved detached house with detached garage.
Point of Objection: The semi-detached dwellinghouse will be closer to the pavement than the other houses in the area, having a negative impact the appearance of the area and breaking the established building line.
Comment: The position of the semi-detached dwellinghouse in relation to Cumbernauld Road is almost identical to the previously approved detached dwellinghouse. It is accepted that it is closer than the detached properties directly east, however, further along the road the properties sit at varying distances from the road.
Point of Objection: The condition protecting the trees should be attached again if planning permission is granted. The developer should ensure the trees are protected during construction work by respecting the drip line of the trees.
Comment: As the trees are considered of importance a condition is attached requiring their retention/protection during works.
Point of Objection: There is concern that the formation of two vehicular accesses onto Cumbernauld Road will require the removal of some of the row of trees that were planted on the pavement under a street enhancement scheme.
Comment: It is agreed that these trees are an attractive feature which should be retained where possible. However, permission exists for the creation of one vehicular access already.
Point of Objection: Wooden fencing should not be permitted on this highly visible site as it is considered aesthetically out-of-keeping with the area. Furthermore, there is concern that the replacement concrete boundary wall will damage the roots of trees running from Victoria Road to Cumbernauld Road, and as such low fencing (not wooden) should be built.
Comment: A condition will be attached whereby fence and wall details will require to be approved by the Planning Service, although there is no particular issue with wooden fencing. The potential to damage roots is a legal matter that the applicant will need to take into consideration, which may result in changes to the boundary treatment.
Point of Objection: The landscaping plan should include a fast-growing hedge along part of the site boundary as the open aspect at the end of West Avenue will be lost being replaced by the gable of a dwellinghouse.
Comment: The landscaping details for the site are covered by a planning condition, and as such the Planning Service will agree such matters.
Point of Objection: The proposal conflicts with Scottish Government policy ‘The Value of Architecture and Place’ which states that the design of a development should enhance the setting in which it lies, be part of the positive identity of the community and add value to its environment.
Comment: The proposal is considered to be of an acceptable layout, design and material palette that does add value to the site and surrounding area.
Point of Objection: Good design and materials are vital to this prominent site. However, there is no visual evidence of what the development will look like and as such it is unfair for residents to make adequate value judgements on the proposal and how it will fit into the surrounding older area.
Comment: Adequate information in the form of site plans and elevations have been provided. Furthermore, the elevations outline the proposed material palette which is considered to be acceptable from a planning viewpoint.
Point of Objection: Local knowledge reports there is a well on the site.
Comment: This is probable and will be picked up during the required site investigation.
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 application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan and therefore it can be assessed in terms of local plan policy.
North Lanarkshire Local Plan
8.2 Policy HCF 1 A Residential Areas applies to the site, it states there is a presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. It is considered that the application complies with this policy as the design, scale, material palette and layout are considered acceptable and ensures that there is no unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity of adjacent neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, overlooking or overshadowing. Polices DSP1 – 4 apply to all application for planning permission, given the scale of the proposal only DSP4 applies.
8.3 DSP4 Quality of Development: This policy considers development specific impacts in terms of site attributes and provides a range of assessment criteria. The submitted plans makes it possible to adequately appraise the site, surrounding area and the proposals. The development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on any archaeological interests, historic environment, landscape features and wildlife interests.
8.4 The proposed semi-detached dwellinghouses are considered to sit well within the site and provide adequate garden depths and areas. Minor alterations have been made to the proposal in order to reduce the heavy appearance of the roof and make it more consistent with a traditional 1.5 storey dwellinghouse. Furthermore, reconstituted stone has been added to the front elevations and reconstituted sandstone cills and lintels have also been incorporated in order to add more visual interest to the proposal, given the site’s prominent location. The material palette (a mix of reconstituted buff sandstone, reconstituted cills and lintels, wet dash render and slate roofs) are considered to be good quality traditional materials that are appropriate for this older part of Stepps. The traditional design of the proposal is also considered to be in keeping with the immediate and wider locale.
8.5 The layout ensures that there is no unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity of adjacent neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, overlooking or overshadowing and, for the reasons outlined above, the development will in all other respects integrate satisfactorily with the surrounding area. The application site is well placed and links into the existing and well established road and footpath network. Each dwellinghouse will have sufficient in- curtilage parking and turning in order vehicles can enter and exit the site if forward gear. Roads Operations have raised no objection to the proposal. 9. Conclusions
9.1 The proposal meets the criteria set out in the residential and built environment policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. The development is acceptable in terms of its impact upon this prominent site and the surrounding area.
Application No: Proposed Development:
18/01195/FUL Pole Mounted Number Plate Recognition with 2 Cameras within Antonine Shopping Centre Car Park (In Retrospect)
Site Address:
Car Park at Antonine Centre Tryst Road Town Centre Cumbernauld
Date Registered:
3rd August 2018
Applicant: Agent: Bridges Antonine LLP C/o Savills (UK) Limited N/A Antonine Shopping Centre Tryst Road Cumbernauld Scotland G67 1JW
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No
Ward: Representations: 03 Cumbernauld South 10 letters of representation received. Junaid Ashraf, William Goldie, Allan Graham, Catherine Johnston,
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification:
The proposal complies with policy RTC 1A (Town Centres) in the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The proposals are considered to be acceptable and the proposal will not detract from the amenity of the application site or the wider town centre. The impact on neighbouring properties is considered to be acceptable.
Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 18/01195/FUL the Ordnance Survey on behalf Name (of applicant): Bridges Antonine LLP of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All C/o Savills (UK) Limited rights reserved. Ordnance Site Address: Antonine Centre, Tryst Road,
Survey Licence number Town Centre, Cumbernauld 100023396. Development: Pole Mounted Number Plate Recognition with 2 Cameras within Antonine Shopping Centre Car Park (In Retrospect)
Proposed Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
Background Papers:
Consultation Responses:
No consultations were required to be undertaken.
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01236 632500
Report Date:
10th September 2018 APPLICATION NO. 18/01195/FUL
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is located within the Antonine Centre Car Park at Tryst Road, Cumbernauld Town Centre. The application site consists of a very small area where four car parking spaces meet on a hardstanding area within the wider car park adjacent to the vehicular access from Tryst Road. Located immediately to the north, south, east and west are car parking spaces while the wider area is Cumbernauld Town Centre which has various retail, leisure and administrative uses.
2. Proposed Development
2.1 Full planning permission is being sought for the installation of a 4 metres high monopole with two cameras mounted on top. The pole and cameras have been installed on site so this planning application is seeking retrospective consent. No other development is being proposed and there will be no loss of car parking spaces as a result of the development.
2.2 It must be noted that this proposal is for the pole mounted camera only as there is no planning control over any restrictions that the Antonine Centre may place on the use of their car park, and while planning permission is required to erect the cameras, their purpose is not a material planning consideration. There is no charge for parking within the carpark.
3. Site History
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of planning application in the past given its significant town centre location, however, none directly related to this current proposal.
4. Development Plan
4.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.
4.2 The application site is covered by Policy RTC 1A (Town Centres) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012.
5. Consultations
5.1 No consultations were required to be undertaken.
6. Representations
6.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and press advert, 10 letters of representation received which object on the grounds of retrospective nature, bollards, traffic circulation, impact on emergency access, access improvements, pedestrian safety, parking restrictions and detrimental impact on town centre’s shops and leisure facilities.
7. Planning Assessment
7.1 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.
7.2 Development Plan: North Lanarkshire Local Plan: The site is located within Cumbernauld town centre and is covered by Policy RTC 1A (Town Centres) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan which seeks to protect town centres and identifies appropriate uses such as Class 1 (Shops), Class 2 (Financial, professional and other services), Class 3 (Food and drink), Class 4 (Business), Class 7 (Hotels and Hostels), Class 8 (Residential institutions), Class 9 (Houses), Class 10 (Non residential institutions) and Class 11 (Assembly and leisure). In assessment against the relevant policy, the proposed pole mounted cameras does not appear visually out of character of the town centre as it is in keeping with wider area that already has similar lighting columns and pole mounted CCTV cameras. The proposed camera is of a street furniture design such as the adjacent lampposts and other CCTV cameras located within the town centre. The proposal is directly linked to the existing shopping centre and will not result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the immediate area or wider town centre. In this respect, the proposed pole mounted cameras complies with the relevant policy and is considered acceptable.
7.3 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Due to the scale and nature of the development the proposal raises no issues with regards to Policies DSP 1, DSP2, and DSP3. Policy DSP 4 sets out that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. This policy sets out criteria and requirements in this respect which include; character and setting, integration into the local area, impact on traffic circulation and local roads network and avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. When assessed against the terms of policy DSP4 (Quality of Development), it is considered that the pole mounted cameras can be integrated successfully into the surrounding area without detriment to the amenity of the wider town centre area.
7.4 Representations: In response to the concerns raised, the following comments are offered:
Point of objection: This Pole has been erected without permission to support the cameras. The applicant states that they have not applied for permission for other locations where they have installed cameras - NLC should check and make them comply with their legal obligations, a business that openly confirms it takes no heed of regulations should be challenged where the best challenge is to deny them something until all other similar infractions in this councils boundaries are corrected.
Comment: This planning application seeks retrospective planning permission to regularise the breach of planning control and it will be for other planning authorities to satisfy themselves that planning legislation is being complied with.
Point of objection: As part of the Pole erection, the company have added bollards at the entrance to the car park which can cause traffic circulation and emergency access problems.
Comment: The bollards located on private land and does not require planning permission. Work to improve the access will be undertaken (involves the loss of one space to the left of the access).
Point of objection: The Pole will impact pedestrians.
Comment: Given the size and location of the Pole, there will be no significant impact on pedestrian safety.
Point of objection: It is understood the Antonine Centre is going to apply to widen the access entrance to the car park, so the pole should only be considered for erection once the entrance has been sorted out.
Comment: The works to the access do not require planning permission and the application can be considered in isolation
Point of objection: The camera will have an impact on privacy.
Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.
Point of objection: The parking restrictions and camera will have huge impact to the Antonine Centre and the wider town centre including leisure facilities such as the Tryst.
Comment: This is not a material planning consideration, the carpark remains free to use and whilst the parking restrictions are unfortunate this is a matter for the owners of the carpark/shopping centre and not a matter that is within the remit of the planning legislation.
8. Conclusions
8.1 In conclusion, taking into account of all the circumstances relevant to this application, the proposed pole and cameras are considered acceptable in this instance and will not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of this town centre location. As such the proposal is considered to be comply with policy RTC 1A (Town Centres) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Taking account of the provisions of the development plan, all other material considerations and notwithstanding the objections received, it is recommended that retrospective planning permission be granted subject to the planning conditions.