Page 1 of 49

Our Ref: Your Ref: Contact: Mark Hamill Tel: 01698 302430 Fax: E-Mail: [email protected] Date: 4 Nov 2019

Chief Executive’s Office Members of the Archie Aitken Planning Committee Head of Legal & Democratic

Solutions Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street Motherwell ML1 1AB DX 571701, Motherwell 2 ww w .northlanarkshire.go v .uk

Notice is given that a Meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE is to be held within the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Motherwell on Thursday, 14 November 2019 at 10:00 am which you are requested to attend.

The agenda of business is attached.

Head of Legal and Democratic Solutions

Members : Councillors: L Anderson, S Bonnar, H Brannan-McVey, B Burgess, M Coyle, S Coyle, H Curran, T Douglas, S Farooq, F Fotheringham, S Goldsack, A Graham, T Johnston, P Kelly, J Logue, F MacGregor, J McLaren, M McPake, A McVey, C Quigley, J Reddin, W Shields, D Stocks, A Stubbs and S Watson.

Page 1 of 49

Page 2 of 49

AGENDA

(1) Declarations of Interest in terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000

(2) Planning Applications Index (page 5 - 42) Submit Planning Applications Index (copy herewith)

(3) Planning and Enforcement Appeals Lodged (page 43 - 44) Submit report by Head of Planning and Regeneration advising of two planning and enforcement appeals lodged with Scottish Ministers (copy herewith)

(4) Summary of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (page 45 - 49) Submit report the Head of Planning and Regeneration providing an update on the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 which was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 June 2019 and received Royal Assent on 29 July 2019 and details of the package of measures intended to strengthen the planning system’s contribution to promoting inclusive growth and empowering communities. (copy herewith)

(5) Presentation - Update on the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan and the next steps Hear presentation by Head of Planning and Regeneration

Page 3 of 49

Page 4 of 49 AGENDA ITEM 2

North Lanarkshire

Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Committee

Committee Date: 14-11-2019

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

Page 5 of 49 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE

14th November 2019

Page Application No Applicant Development/Site Recommendation No

7-21 19/00510/FUL Persimmon Homes 86 Detached, Semi- Grant (P) Ltd Detached and Terraced Dwellinghouses and Associated Infrastructure Site At Cleland Hospital Bellside Road Bellside Cleland ML1 5NR

22-27 19/01081/FUL Mr Wai Lam Au Change of Use From Refuse Shop to Hot food Takeaway 84-86 Cumbernauld Road Muirhead G69 9AB

28-33 19/01143/FUL Mr Muhammad Change of Use from Refuse Itesham Ashraf Grocery Shop to Hot Food Takeaway 27 Clouden Road Kildrum Cumbernauld G67 2EP

34-41 19/01155/FUL Enterprise and Twenty single storey and Grant Housing New Supply two storey dwellinghouses and cottage flats with associated access and landscaping Site At Mossburn Street Waterloo Wishaw

(P)

19/00510/FUL - Minded to Grant subject to conditions, the conclusion of a Section 75 Obligation (or other appropriate mechanism) securing Education contributions and a request for hearing

Page 6 of 49

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/00510/FUL 86 Detached, Semi-Detached and Terraced Dwellinghouses and Associated Infrastructure

Site Address:

Site at Cleland Hospital Bellside Road Cleland ML1 5NR

Date Registered: 26th April 2019

Applicant: Agent: Persimmon Homes Ltd. N/A Broxden House Broxden Business Park Lamberkine Drive Perth PH1 1RA

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 20 Murdostoun 12 representations received Robert McKendrick, Cameron McManus, Louise Roarty, Nicky Shevlin,

Recommendation: Minded to Grant subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Section 75 Obligation (or other appropriate mechanism) securing Education contributions.

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed residential development on this site is considered an acceptable departure from the Community Facilities policy of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the site is no longer required for such use. The site is therefore brownfield land within a predominantly residential urban area. The proposed development can be accommodated without detriment to the surrounding area and will contribute towards the supply of new housing in the Southern housing sub-market area.

Page 7 of 49

Reproduced by permission Planning Application: 19/00510/FUL of the Ordnance Survey on Name of applicant: Persimmon Homes Ltd. behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database Site Address: Site At Cleland Hospital right 2009. All rights Bellside Road reserved. Ordnance Survey Bellside, Cleland

Licence number 100023396. Motherwell ML1 5NR Development: 86 Detached, Semi-Detached and Terraced Dwellinghouses and Associated Infrastructure

Page 8 of 49

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. For the avoidance of doubt drawings approved include: LP-001 (location plan) CMNL-DL-001 revision I (site layout) NS_V6-TF-0613t(15)504 (Portree house type) NS_V6-TF-0931d(15)504 (Kearn house type) NS_V6-TF-0957d(15)501 (Elgin house type) NS_V6-TF-1217d(15)504 (Balerno house type) V6-TF-0886t(15)504 (Newmore house type) V6-TF-0990d(15)501 (Brodick house type) V6-TF-0799t(15)502 (Dunblane house type) V6-TF-1022d(15)501 (Bothwell house type) V6-TF-1033d(15)504 (Leith house type) V6-TF-1233d(15)504 (Thurso house type) STD-SGDH(7x3)-501 (single garage) FT-F18 (fence details)

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

2. That none of the trees shown as being retained in the Alan Motion Tree Consulting Ltd. “Tree Survey and Arboricultural Constraints” report dated 13 August 2019 shall be lopped, topped, felled, or otherwise affected, (apart from in the manner set out in that report) without the prior approval in writing of the Planning Authority. BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance with British Standard BS 5837 shall be erected along the drip line of the trees to protect the trees and roots from damage during construction works, as shown on the approved plans. Such protection measures shall not be removed until construction activities with potential to impact upon the trees have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the retention of and avoid damage to existing mature trees which contribute to the character and amenity of the site.

3. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme of landscaping for all landscaped areas and all boundary treatments shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:- (a) Details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) A scheme of additional tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted. (c) A timetable for the completion of these works contemporaneously with the development.

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

4. That unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 3 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the environmental amenity of the area.

5. That prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse on the site, details of the exact siting, boundary treatment, surfacing and play equipment of the 500sq/m equipped children’s play denoted on the approved site layout plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such play area shall thereafter be provided as approved prior to the occupation of the last dwellinghouse on the site.

Reason: In order to ensure the provision of appropriate children’s play facilities.

Page 9 of 49 6. That prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse on the site, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas; (b) any communal fences and walls; (c) the play area(s); and (d) the SUDS pond and related infrastructure Such management and maintenance scheme shall thereafter be brought into operation prior to the occupation of any dwellinghouse on the site (or by such other time as may be approved in writing by the Planning Authority).

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

7. That BEFORE development commences a scheme of biodiversity enhancements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such scheme shall include (unless otherwise approved): (a) native species planting at boundaries (e.g. hawthorn, hazel, holly, dog rose, willow and/or elder); (b) inclusion of bird and/or bat boxes and/or swift bricks at suitable locations within the development; and (c) use of nectar-rich native plants and food plant for caterpillars in the landscaping. Such scheme of biodiversity enhancements shall thereafter be implemented as approved.

Reason: To provide biodiversity enhancements to offset the loss of mature trees as a result of the development.

8. That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a detailed remediation strategy setting out the remediation and mitigation measures required to address the contamination/gassing issues identified in the Geotechnical Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by of the said Authority. Such remediation measures shall (unless otherwise agreed) include capping layer, barrier pipes and vapour membranes in foundations sufficient to mitigate against risks from hydrocarbons present in the soil.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to address ground contamination issues, in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

9. That the remediation works approved in relation to Condition 8 above shall be carried out in accordance with an implementation timetable. This timetable shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before any works start on site. No individual dwelling shall be occupied until a certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) has been submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any applicable remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the agreed Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to address ground contamination issues, in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

10. That BEFORE development commences a detailed coal mining legacy risk remediation scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved remediation scheme shall be implemented as approved, and no dwelling shall be occupied until a verification report confirming implementation of the work on the applicable section of the site has also been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that legacy risks from historic coal mining are adequately addressed, in the interests of public safety.

11. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme shall be fully implemented contemporaneously with the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans.

Page 10 of 49 Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

12. That driveways and unadopted parking courts shall be surfaced in permeable paving materials, details of which shall first be approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

13. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme of traffic calming to be installed on Bellside Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and such approved traffic calming measures have been installed to the standards specified in the Council’s Roads Development Guidelines.

Reason: To ensure the timeous provision of appropriate traffic calming measures in the vicinity of the new junction in the interests of road safety.

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

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

15. Where 12 months or more has elapsed between the timing of the habitat and protected species surveys hereby approved, and development commencing, further updated survey(s) shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, the said survey(s) shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the studies, should any mitigation measures be required for any protected species, this shall be implemented in accordance with the species protection plan agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended); the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) as amended; the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended); and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. (Note: The applicant is also advised of the requirement to obtain a bat license from Scottish Natural Heritage).

16. Notwithstanding the terms of condition 15 above, before the development hereby permitted starts, pre-start surveys shall be undertaken to determine the presence of any statutorily protected species. Should species be identified, any mitigation measures for their protection or relocation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

Page 11 of 49

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

The Coal Authority, received 31st July 2019 NLC Education, received 19th June 2019 NLC Greenspace, received 29th May 2019 NLC Landscape, received 23rd August 2019 NLC Play Services, received 13th May 2019 NLC Protective Services (including Pollution Control), received 14th May 2019 NLC Traffic & Transportation, received 28th October 2019 Scottish Environment Protection Agency, received 28th May 2019 Scottish Natural Heritage, received 9th September 2019 Scottish Water, received 9th May 2019

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Keith Bathgate at 01236 632500

Report Date:

31st October 2019

Page 12 of 49 APPLICATION NO. 19/00510/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site comprises the majority of the grounds of the old Cleland Hospital, and consists of grassland interspersed with mature trees which were originally part of the landscaping of the former hospital. Aside from a set of stone gate pillars near the entrance and a tree-lined driveway leading across the site to the present hospital, all of the old hospital buildings and most of the associated roadways have been removed and grassed over, leaving the site with an open, parkland character. The present Cleland Hospital borders the site to the east and a small part of its car park is also within the application site. The site extends to 2.93 hectares and is generally level, with a very gradual slope down toward the south. Access to the site is by way of a private driveway leading south from Bellside Road (B7029) near Cleland railway station, but the majority of the site is located behind existing houses and is not visible from the street.

1.2 The site is bordered by the back gardens of houses on Bellside Road to the north, and by gardens on Carrick Vale and Auchinlea Drive to the west. These gardens are bounded by an assortment of fences and walls, and there are mature trees on the site along both of these boundaries, with the trees along the western boundary forming a more or less continuous row. The new Cleland Hospital to the east is a predominantly single storey building used for the long-term care of elderly patients. The hospital car park is adjacent to the application site, the boundary with which is currently unmarked, and some reconfiguration of the car park would be necessary as a result of the development (but not part of this application). To the south, a cluster of trees and scrub separate the site from a disused railway line with rough grazing land beyond. There is an electrical substation surrounded by palisade fencing situated near the north-western corner of the site.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Full planning permission is sought for a development of 86 houses, comprising a mixture of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. Most of the houses would be two storey, but fifteen of the terraced units would be 2½ storeys with rooflights in the attic space and (on six units only) front dormers. Six of the detached houses would have detached single garages. Agreement of the precise finishing materials would be subject to a condition, but it is envisaged that the houses would be finished in a mixture of red or yellow facing brick and white or magnolia render, with dark grey concrete rooftiles. The new houses would be private sector homes for sale.

2.2 The layout of the development has been the subject of extensive discussions and amendments during the course of the application, primarily with the aim of retaining more of the significant trees on the site. A high proportion of the existing trees around the perimeter of the site would be retained, although there would be some thinning out of the trees on the western boundary to create gaps for light, and the large area of (mainly scrubby) trees at the southern end of site would be removed, partially in order to excavate the SUDS pond. Within the site it is proposed to retain a group of three large and prominent trees near the north-west corner of the site, within an area which would serve as a landscape feature at the site entrance and would contain an equipped play area. It is also proposed to retain most of the north side of the existing avenue of trees which flanks the east- west access into the hospital. The south side of the avenue and various individual trees on the site would be removed to facilitate the development, although there would be some new street trees and ornamental planting throughout the site.

2.3 The existing private access onto Bellside Road would be upgraded to an adoptable standard, with associated alterations to the junction and the provision of traffic calming measures on Bellside Road. The existing stone gate pillars on this access would be dismantled and repositioned accordingly. Within the site there would be a new loop road serving the new houses and also providing continued access through the site to Cleland Hospital, where the new loop road would connect with a stub of the existing hospital driveway at the north-east corner of the site. Most of the new houses would have private driveways, but there would also be two shared parking courts and two short shared driveways within the development. There would also be four areas of road/parking which would be laid out as shared surface zones, these being positioned at junctions and corners within the site. Parking for the new houses would be provided at the rate of 3 allocated spaces per house (except for the ten 2-bedroom mid-terraces which would have 2 allocated spaces each), plus 25 unallocated visitor parking spaces.

Page 13 of 49

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has provided supporting information, summarised as follows:

 Pre-Application Consultation Report;  Design and Access Statement;  Tree Survey;  Bat Survey;  Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey;  Geotechnical Report;  Borehole Investigations Report;  Street Engineering Review;  Acoustic Consultant’s Statement

3.2 Whilst not part of this application, the owner of the site (NHS Lanarkshire) provided a Transport Statement for an 80 house development at the time of pre-application discussions in 2016.

4. Site History

4.1 The original Cleland Hospital buildings were demolished around 10 years ago. There is no subsequent planning history.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The proposal is for development of a strategic scale as defined by Clydeplan Schedule 14, and it therefore requires to be assessed against Clydeplan Diagram 10. As the proposal does not conflict with the relevant policies on housing land supply and affordable housing it would be consistent with the Strategic Development Plan.

5.2 The North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 designates the whole of the original Cleland Hospital Site as a Community Facility, where Policy HCF1 B1 applies. This policy indicates that the Council will maintain community wellbeing by protecting designated community facilities.

5.3 Policies DSP1 to DSP4 apply to all applications for planning permission. Policy DSP1 requires that potential additions of more than 10 units to the planned housing land supply require to be justified in terms of supply and demand, while Policy DSP2 sets out locational assessment criteria for such sites. Policy DSP3 requires that the impact of development on community facilities and infrastructure be appropriate, with developer contributions towards any necessary improvements where applicable. Policy DSP4 specifies that development will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved.

6. Consultations

6.1 North Lanarkshire Council Traffic and Transportation notes that the development is likely to generate less traffic than the former hospital use, and has no objection to the proposal subject to the provision of suitable junction radii, visibility splays and traffic calming measures on Bellside Road. The proposed traffic calming arrangements appear to be acceptable in principle but will require to be subject to public consultation under Roads legislation. A wholly segregated access into the remaining hospital would be preferable, but it is recognised that this is not possible. Some concerns are raised in relation to details of the internal road layout and parking, and these are discussed below.

6.2 North Lanarkshire Council Education Service notes that the site lies within the catchment areas of Cleland and St Mary’s Primary Schools for primary education, and of Coltness and Taylor High Schools for secondary education. There are currently capacity issues within both the primary and secondary sectors in this catchment, but the Service already has plans to manage secondary capacity issues which should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the development. However, in order to address primary school capacity shortfalls a developer contribution of £1182.43 per unit is requested.

6.3 North Lanarkshire Council Protective Services has no objection to the proposal subject to final agreement of the site investigation and contaminated land remediation strategy, and to limiting hours of work during the construction period.

Page 14 of 49 6.4 North Lanarkshire Council Play Services recommend a play area of at least 500sq/m, the siting, boundary treatment and equipment for which should be agreed with Play Services prior to the proposal being implemented.

6.5 North Lanarkshire Council Greenspace Service has no objection to the proposal but notes that the site is currently well used as an informal recreation space. They recommend conditions in relation to protection of nesting birds and protected species, and the inclusion of biodiversity enhancements in the landscaped areas.

6.6 North Lanarkshire Council Landscape Services note that the proposed removal of 17 of the 30 lime trees forming the avenue leading to the hospital is disappointing as this is a major landscape feature of the site. They recommend that the number of house plots should be reduced so as to allow retention of the whole avenue.

6.7 The Coal Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to a condition relating to remediation of coal mining legacy risks.

6.8 SEPA have no objection to the proposal subject to foul drainage being connected to the public sewerage system and surface water disposal being by way of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

6.9 Scottish Natural Heritage advises that a bat license will be necessary for the removal of the trees used as bat roosts. They comment that a Bat Low Impact license is likely to be appropriate for these works,

6.10 Scottish Water has no objection to the proposal, and has advised that there is currently sufficient capacity in local water supplies and waste water infrastructure to accommodate the development.

7. Representations

7.1 The application was subject to the statutory neighbour notification and publicity in the local newspaper. It was subsequently subject to re-notification and re-publicity following the receipt of amended plans. Representations have been received from Cleland Community Council and eleven individuals/households, including one representation which is stated to be on behalf of three households. Ten of these representations (including that from the community council) object to the proposed development, while the other two do not object to the principle of residential development but raise concern about the detail of the proposal. Some of the objectors have submitted multiple letters of representation.

7.2 The following is a summary of the comments and objections:

(a) Policy Issues  Contrary to Clydeplan and proposed LDP as the site is not listed as a current or proposed housing site and there is no current shortfall in housing land supply;  Contrary to North Lanarkshire Local Plan policies DSP2 and DSP4 on location and quality of development;  Affordable and social housing is needed within the village;

(b) Open Space / Natural Heritage Issues  Site is used as open space by local people, which would be lost with no alternative space available locally;  Loss of mature trees and grassland/wild plants;  Loss of wildlife habitat (deer, birds, rabbits, bats, foxes, etc.);  Adverse impact on nearby Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC);

(c) Road Safety / Traffic Impacts  Additional traffic would have adverse impact on road safety on Bellside Road, which is relatively narrow and is already busy and dangerous due to HGVs, speeding and on-street parking;  Junction onto Bellside Road cannot be upgraded to a safe standard as applicant does not have control over hedgerows etc. within the required visibility splays;  Bellside Road unsuitable for proposed traffic calming because it is already too narrow for existing traffic, and traffic calming would cause delays to emergency vehicles;  Potential loss of on-street residential parking as a result of traffic calming. Some houses on Bellside Road do not have driveways, and there are already parking pressures in the street Page 15 of 49 due to overspill from the railway station (including use of the hospital access road);  Traffic using the junction would make access/egress to nearby driveways dangerous;

(d) Local Amenity Issues  Noise and air pollution from additional traffic;  Loss of privacy in back gardens due to loss of trees and overlooking by the new houses;  Overshadowing/loss of light to gardens in Bellside Road, especially in relation to proposed townhouses;  Proposed buildings are too high as former hospital buildings were single storey only (note: the hospital was in fact a mix of one and two storey buildings);  Noise from new homes/gardens will reduce amenity of existing gardens, which currently back onto a quiet site;  Rear access paths behind existing gardens may attract antisocial behaviour;  Car parking hard against the boundaries of existing gardens (note: this comment related to the superseded layout, and parking against boundaries is no longer proposed)  Superseded layout with gables facing Bellside Road was preferable as that would have caused less overlooking;  Superseded layout preferable as it retained more trees adjacent to 31 Auchinlea Drive;  Displacement of vermin into neighbouring houses;  Impact on house values and loss of views are of major concern to residents and ought to be material planning considerations

(e) Infrastructure and Community Facilities  Lack of capacity in local schools;  Lack of local amenities in Cleland (e.g. shops, entertainment);  Lack of capacity in local sewerage network;  Proposal may exacerbate previous localised flooding from a field drain behind Bellside Road;  Previous issues of subsidence at former hospital

(f) Construction Issues  Noise, dust and air pollution during construction, in particular at weekends/unsocial hours;  Impact of construction noise on neighbouring shift workers’ sleep;  Road safety impacts of construction traffic, including additional HGVs and mud on road;  Construction worker parking may obstruct driveways and make it difficult for residents to park on Bellside Road.

7.3 Prior to submitting the application the applicant undertook statutory pre-application consultation (PAC) with the local community, and a PAC Report has been provided summarising the responses received. Whilst around 30 people attended the applicant’s public exhibition few made comments at that stage, and the only person who provided feedback supported the development of housing provided that roads and education impacts were addressed.

7.4 In their representation, Cleland Community Council have requested that a planning hearing take place as part of the consideration of this application. As the application is subject to more than six objections and is recommended for approval, it meets the criteria in the Council’s hearings protocol.

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 development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the compatibility of the proposal with current and emerging development plan policy, the impact of development upon the amenity of surrounding houses, the suitability of the proposed design and layout including its impact on existing trees, and the impacts on road safety and local infrastructure.

Development Plan Policies 8.2 Whilst the proposal is of a strategic scale, it is not of strategic importance and does not conflict with any Clydeplan objectives, and it can therefore be assessed in terms of relevant North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP) policies. The site is part of a former hospital which the NLLP designates for community uses under policy HCF 1 B1. Within such areas the Council will maintain community wellbeing of by protecting community facilities so allocated. In this case the allocation reflects the former use of the site, and as the land is surplus to NHS requirements the original rationale for the community use designation no longer applies. Therefore, whilst the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is contrary to policy HCF1 B1 it is considered that the site is no longer needed Page 16 of 49 for community uses and that it forms a brownfield windfall site within the urban area which is in principle appropriate for housing. Furthermore, whilst housing is contrary to the land use allocation in the adopted plan, it would be consistent with the land use policy contained in the emerging local development (see paragraph 8.7).

8.3 Since the former hospital buildings were demolished the land has assumed an attractive parkland appearance, and it is understood that some informal use of the site is made of the site by local residents as an area of amenity open space. However, the land has never been designated as a public park, and its designation as a community use under HCF 1 B1 was never intended for this purpose. Whilst the loss of an attractive open space which is valued by some members of the local community is always regrettable, it is not considered reasonable to prevent redevelopment in these circumstances.

8.4 The NLLP also requires all proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 to DSP 4). The proposal is consistent with policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development) and DSP 2 (Location of Development) because although the site is not currently allocated for housing in the development plan and does not form part of the Council’s housing land supply, it is nevertheless a brownfield site within the urban area and it would use the existing infrastructure/services at the location.

8.5 In terms of Policy DSP 3 (Impact of Development), there is a shortfall in capacity at local schools and in order to address this a developer contribution of £1182.46 per dwelling is recommended. Technical consultations re discussed below, but there is sufficient capacity in local water and sewerage networks and the impact on local roads is considered acceptable. There is a lack of capacity in local schools, but this can be addressed by a developer contribution. Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with policy DSP 3.

8.6 DSP 4 (Quality of Development) requires that all applications should have a high standard of site planning and design. Assessment criteria for DSP 4 include respecting the existing character and features of the site, safeguarding existing features of natural or historic interest, achieving a high quality of development, and making adequate provision for open space and green networks. The design issues are discussed below, and it is considered that the proposed design is appropriate and that the application is consistent with policy DSP 4.

Emerging Development Plan 8.7 The North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan (Modified Proposed Plan) is at a relatively early stage and therefore carries limited weight as a material consideration. However, it does provide a more up-to-date indication of the direction of Council policy than the NLLP. Within this plan the site is no longer allocated for community uses, but rather is simply part of the General Urban Area. Within such areas policy PP 3 seeks to maintain and improve amenity, and there is a general presumption in favour of residential development. The proposal would therefore be consistent with policy PP 3.

Open Space and Natural Heritage 8.8 As noted above, although the site has been used informally as parkland it is not considered reasonable to prevent its redevelopment for that reason. The site does however benefit from a large number of mature trees which were originally part of the landscaping of the old hospital grounds. These comprise a mix of species, of which common lime are most numerous, but there are also examples of apple, ash, beech, cherry, copper beech, Corsican pine, elm, goat willow, hawthorn, horse chestnut, Norway maple, Scots pine and sycamore. Whilst these trees are not subject to any tree preservation order they nevertheless contribute substantially to the amenity of the site and the surrounding area, and it is therefore desirable that as many trees as possible should be retained and incorporated into the development. The applicant has provided a detailed tree survey undertaken by an arboricultural consultant. The existing trees on the site and the applicant’s intentions for these are as follows:

 A more or less continuous row of trees along the western boundary. Most of these trees are of only moderate individual quality as their proximity to each other has inhibited growth. It is proposed to ‘thin out’ these trees to create more space between them, retaining around half of them (including those of the highest quality/best condition);  A less continuous row of trees along the northern boundary. Of these nine trees it is proposed to remove three that are in poor condition and to ‘thin out’ two small moderate quality trees, retaining the four largest moderate/high quality examples;  Various trees on the lower ground along the southern boundary. These are mostly in poor condition and their retention would be incompatible with the formation of the SUDS infrastructure, so it is proposed to remove all of this group; Page 17 of 49  The avenue of lime trees flanking the driveway into the adjacent hospital. Some gaps have previously been created in this avenue to form passing places. It is proposed to retain 11 of the 15 trees on the north side of this avenue, but only 2 of the 16 trees on the south side. This issue is discussed below;  A cluster of six trees south of the avenue near the entrance to the site (i.e. the north-west corner). Three of these would need to be removed to accommodate the new road layout, and a fourth tree is in poor condition, but three large and impressive specimens (a lime, a copper beech and a sycamore) would be retained as part of the site’s open space/play area;  Ten individual trees dotted around the centre of the site, of which it is proposed to retain only one (on the eastern boundary with the hospital). Some of the others are of poor quality, but they do include three large and healthy lime trees which it is proposed to remove to accommodate the development.

8.9 The layout of the development has been the subject of much discussion between the applicant and officers, in order to increase the number of trees retained. In general it is considered that the proposals for the perimeter of the site are acceptable, as some thinning out of the dense group of trees is considered reasonable in order to give the remaining trees space and to allow more light into new and existing gardens. The proposal retains all of the highest quality trees and many of the moderate quality trees on the site boundaries. The retention of the group of three high quality trees near the north-west corner is particularly welcome as this will maintain the site’s ‘green’ character at the entrance to the site, and it is considered that the loss of the three large lime trees from the centre of the site is acceptable given the difficulties of incorporating these into the development layout.

8.10 The retention of the avenue of lime trees which runs across the site has proved difficult. Although none of the individual trees concerned is of more than moderate quality, collectively the avenue they form is a very distinctive and attractive feature. Unfortunately the narrow width of this avenue does not lend itself to conversion into a residential street, and any attempt to widen this driveway, to install subsurface services, footpaths or driveway crossings would involve excavations into the root system of these closely-planted trees which they would be unlikely to survive. Therefore, whilst retention of the avenue would be very desirable, to do so would effectively sterilise a sizeable area of the site. Instead, it is proposed to retain the majority of the northern side of the avenue only, and to form a replacement road to the north of these. The remaining trees would continue to form an attractive line along the southern edge of the new street, and new planting on the north side would go some way towards creating a new avenue in due course. On balance, it is considered that this is a reasonable compromise, and that overall the proposed development takes appropriate account of the existing trees on the site.

8.11 An equipped play area of at least 500sq/m would be provided within the open space area in line with the Council’s standards for new development, but details of its precise siting and its boundary treatment and equipment have not been provided. These matters can be addressed by a condition.

8.12 The applicant has provided a bat survey and a habitat survey. An initial appraisal highlighted the fact that a number of trees to be felled are suitable for use as bat roosts, and surveys conducted on three nights during July / August 2019 use of the site for foraging or commuting by common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bats. Two active bat roosts for soprano pipistrelle were identified, and whilst the number of bats found was not large (1 and 3 bats respectively) the development would be required to obtain a license from SNH before removing either tree. SNH advise that from the information available a Bat Low Impact licence is likely to be appropriate for these works subject to certain licensing conditions.

8.13 The habitat survey found no evidence of badgers or other protected species on or adjacent to the site, but the mature trees are obviously suitable for bird nesting. The latter issue could be addressed by a condition requiring updated surveys if development does not commence within one year of the original, and by an informative noting legal requirements in relation to felling during the nesting season. Whilst one of the objections had raised concerns about the impact on the Swinstie Burn SINC located to the south of the site, this SINC relates to a watercourse habitat which does not border the site, and it is therefore unlikely that the proposal would impact upon it.

Design and Layout 8.14 As explained above the proposed layout seeks to provide a reasonable balance between tree retention and maximising the development potential of the site. The location of the access and the general position of the SUDS pond are dictated by the boundaries and topography of the site, and its shape lends itself to a ‘loop’ road arrangement within the main residential area, the alignment of the northern part of this road being selected to minimise loss of trees as discussed above. Whilst incorporating some shared surface areas the road design is relatively conventional, with houses Page 18 of 49 arranged in rows fronting the streets and most properties having front or side driveways for parking. However, is some places houses would be grouped around shared surface squares and/or parking courts to provide visual variety, and new street trees would be used to break up rows of parking spaces. Density of development and plot sizes are considered to be acceptable, being similar to the density of the existing housing to the west of the site. House types and intentions for materials are also considered to be appropriate, and the final agreement of finishing materials can be controlled by a condition to ensure an appropriate mix of materials throughout the site.

Residential Amenity 8.15 Various existing houses on Bellside Road, Carrick Vale and Auchinlea Drive back onto the application site. There is not likely to be any significant impact on the properties on Carrick Vale, as these back onto the access road and the proposed open space/landscaped areas. The other neighbouring houses would mostly back onto the back gardens of new houses, and there would be adequate window to window and window to boundary separation distances to maintain privacy. Many of the existing trees along these boundaries would be retained, which would also enhance privacy at some plots. Objectors have referred specifically to the proposed townhouses backing onto gardens in Bellside Road, and have expressed concerns about overshadowing and overlooking from these properties. However, there should not be any significant overshadowing as the 2½ storey townhouses are not significantly higher than the 2 storey detached houses, and in terms of privacy the only windows on the second floor would be small rooflights for en-suite WCs. There is one plot (no. 13) where the gable of the new house would be positioned close to the rear boundary of an existing house on Langbyres Road, but there would be no upper floor windows on this gable and the relationship between the properties is considered acceptable Overall, it is considered that there would not be any unacceptable impacts on the privacy or lighting of neighbours.

8.16 It is recognised that adjoining residents currently back onto a quiet site and that its redevelopment may increase the level of noise which they experience in their rear gardens. However, such noise would be limited to ordinary domestic noise such as children playing in gardens and residential traffic, which is obviously considered to be an acceptable level of noise for residential properties to experience. The proposal would give rise to additional traffic within Cleland, but it is not considered that the impact of additional traffic for 86 houses would significantly affect noise levels or air quality for local residents. As noted by the Roads Service (q.v.), the level of traffic generated by the development would be likely to be less than that arising from a hospital on the site. Construction activity would inevitably involve some noise, but this is a short-term impact which is subject to controls by the Council’s Protective Services and it is not considered to be a reasonable grounds for preventing development.

Roads Issues 8.17 The development would utilise the existing access onto Bellside Road, although this would be subject to upgrading works to bring the access up to an adoptable standard. The access would be shared with the present Cleland Hospital, but due to that facility being used for long-term geriatric care it gives rise to a modest level of traffic in comparison to general medical hospitals. The proposed residential development would be unlikely to give rise to significantly more traffic than the former much larger hospital use, and the present driveway and junction bellmouth have previously been widened to facilitate hospital traffic. The bellmouth is already as wide as the site boundary allows, but visibility can be improved by realigning the access to be centred on the junction (instead of being offset, as it is now), and the provision of separate footpaths into the site is also proposed in order to improve pedestrian access into the site and the hospital beyond. These changes would allow 2.4m by 60m visibility splays to be provided, which Traffic and Transportation Service consider to be acceptable subject to the provision of traffic calming on Bellside Road. Amended plans of this junction demonstrate that these visibility splays can be provided within the road boundary.

8.18 Bellside Road functions as a through route connecting Cleland and neighbouring communities to the A73, and it also serves as part of a loop used by high vehicles to circumvent a low bridge on the A73. The street is therefore well trafficked, and it is substandard insofar as it lacks a footpath along its northern side. Objectors have expressed concerns about the volume and speed of traffic currently using Bellside Road and have expressed fears that the proposal will exacerbate safety issues. However, the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would be within the capacity of the local road network, and the proposed traffic calming measures on either side of the upgraded junction should help to improve safety by lowering traffic speeds. Details of the traffic calming measures are not part of this application, and these will require to be subject to statutory public consultation under separate Roads legislation. Residents will therefore have an opportunity to comment on the precise design and placement of traffic calming features through that process. Overall, however, it is considered that an appropriate scheme traffic calming will be achievable.

Page 19 of 49 8.19 Some on-street parking currently takes place on Bellside Road and at the access into the application site. This is understood to be a mixture of residents’ parking and overspill from Cleland railway station. All of the houses fronting this section of Bellside Road have at least some off-street parking. It is not likely that the introduction of traffic calming would reduce parking opportunities for local residents, and its provision may make egress from private drives onto the road safer. It is not considered reasonable to require the provision of overspill parking for the railway station as part of the redevelopment of this unrelated site.

8.20 Within the site, allocated parking spaces would be provided at the rate specified in the Council’s adopted parking standards (i.e. 3 spaces per unit, except smaller terraced units which would have 2 spaces each). There would however be a shortfall in the number of unallocated visitor spaces. The parking standard requires 1 visitor space per 3 houses (i.e. 29 spaces), whereas only 25 spaces are proposed. The Traffic and Transportation Service has therefore recommended that the number of visitor parking spaces be increased accordingly, however this would be difficult to achieve without further alterations to the layout or loss of trees, and on balance it is considered that the proposed level of parking is acceptable in this instance. All but ten of the houses have triple driveways, many of them triple-width, whereas a relatively small proportion of households actually have three or more cars (6% of households in the Murdostoun ward at the 2011 census), so it is reasonable to expect some visitors to use spare driveway spaces. Additionally, due to the layout of the site and the proximity of the relatively large hospital car park it is unlikely that any ‘overspill’ onto Bellside Road will arise.

8.21 The Traffic and Transportation has recommended several changes to the internal road design within the site, including the provision of footpaths at the hospital access, some repositioning of individual driveways and parking spaces, and the provision of a barrier to divide the central parking court into two separate courts. It is considered that most of these comments reflect the fact that the proposed layout is a hybrid scheme which incorporates some of the unconventional road design principles advocated in the Scottish Government’s ‘Designing Streets’ guidance, but which is in other respects relatively conventional. As a result, the layout does not fully comply either with the Designing Streets principles or with the roads development standards applicable to conventional layouts. However, the Planning and Place Service considers that a hybrid design is reasonable on this particular site, particularly because access through the site to the hospital is still required and thus a more conventional road design is appropriate for this part of the site. At the same time, it is desirable to incorporate Designing Streets principles where possible. On balance, it is considered that the proposed layout is acceptable.

Other Consultations 8.22 The Education Service has noted capacity issues at local primary schools. These could be addressed by a developer contribution of £1182.43 per house (at present costs), and this could be secured by way of a Section 75 Planning Obligation (or such alternative mechanism as may be agreed with the developer).

8.23 There are no objections to the development from the Environmental Health service, the Coal Authority, SEPA or Scottish Water, subject to various conditions relating to contaminated land, coal mining risk and drainage. It is not considered necessary to impose an hours of work condition as any statutory nuisance arising is subject to Environmental Health controls.

Representations 8.24 In relation to the representations summarised in paragraph 7.2 above, the following comments are offered:

8.25 (a) Policy Issues Response: The proposal is not considered to be contrary to the North Lanarkshire Local Plan policies DSP 2 or DSP 4 in terms of location or quality of development. It is contrary to policy HCF1 B1 inasmuch as that policy designates the site for community use, but since the closure of the original hospital the site has not been required for that purpose. Whilst there is a policy requirement for provision of affordable/social housing as part of new development within some parts of North Lanarkshire, it is not applicable to the Cleland area. There is no conflict with either Clydeplan or the emerging LDP.

8.26 (b) Open Space / Natural Heritage Issues Response: Whilst the site has been used informally as an open space since the hospital buildings were demolished it is not considered reasonable to prevent redevelopment to protect this relatively recent informal use. There would be no impact on the nearby SINC, and the only protected species likely to be affected are bats, where the impact would be minor and subject to SNH licensing Page 20 of 49 requirements. The proposal would result in some loss of trees, and whilst this is unfortunate it is not realistic to expect all trees to be retained and it is considered that the proposed layout is a realistic compromise which would retain many of the most important trees.

8.27 (c) Road Safety / Traffic Impacts Response: Issues relating to road safety, parking and the principle of traffic calming on Bellside Road are discussed in paragraph 8.17 et seq above. The proposed design of the junction would achieve visibility splays which the Traffic and Transportation Service consider to be acceptable. Whilst earlier plans appeared to show one of the visibility splays crossing private land this was due to plotting errors on the Ordnance Survey base map, and amended plans based on site surveys demonstrate that visibility splays can be provided within the public road boundary.

8.28 (d) Local Amenity Issues Response: The proposal would not generate sufficient additional traffic to have an appreciable impact on noise or air quality in the surrounding area, and noise from the development itself will be limited to acceptable domestic noise from neighbouring houses. The proposed new houses would not be unduly high or positioned close to site boundaries, so they would not give rise to any significant overshadowing or overlooking of neighbouring properties. The proposal retains a high proportion of the existing trees along site boundaries to minimise impacts on neighbouring houses. It is not likely that the few short rear paths for bin access will give rise to antisocial behaviour or that the development will give rise to increased vermin in the area. Whilst any potential to impact upon house prices is acknowledged to be a concern for residents, the issue is not a material planning consideration.

8.29 (e) Infrastructure and Community Facilities Response: Scottish Water have confirmed that there is capacity in the local water and sewerage networks, while the Coal Authority have no objection to the proposal subject to the proposed coal mining risk assessment. Whilst Cleland is a small village it has two primary schools and a range of local shops, and it is appropriate to allow modest expansion. The Education Service acknowledge that there are capacity issues in the local schools, but these can be satisfactorily addressed by a developer contribution towards increased primary school capacity. The proposal will include a new SUDS pond to deal with surface water drainage, which would be well away from existing houses and would be likely to address any existing localised surface water flooding.

8.30 (f) Construction Issues Response: Whereas some short-term inconvenience during construction is inevitable, this is not a reasonable grounds for preventing development. Noise, dust, air pollution and mud of the road can all be minimised by effective site management. There should be no need for construction workers to park on Bellside Road as access through the site to the hospital is to be maintained throughout the development period and there is ample room for temporary parking areas on the site.

9 Conclusions

9.1 Whilst the site is allocated for community uses in the adopted local plan, it is redundant from its former hospital use and the principle of residential development is therefore acceptable. The proposal would retain a significant number of the existing trees on the site, and it is considered that its design and layout would be acceptable. There should be no significant adverse impacts on neighbouring homes, and all technical matters are satisfactory or capable of being addressed through conditions. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out above.

9.2 In the event of the Committee being minded to grant planning permission, it is recommended that authority to issue the decision be delegated to the Planning and Place Manager in order to allow the completion of a Section 75 planning obligation (or other appropriate agreement) securing developer contributions towards local school capacity improvements.

9.3 As noted in paragraph 7.4 above, a hearing has been requested and the circumstances meet the criteria for hearings in the relevant protocol.

Page 21 of 49

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/01081/FUL Change of Use From Shop to Hot food Takeaway

Site Address:

84-86 Cumbernauld Road Muirhead G69 9AB

Date Registered:

23rd August 2019

Applicant: Agent: Mr Wai Lam Au N/A 6 Branklyn Place Anniesland Glasgow G13 1GH Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No

Ward: Representations: 05 Stepps, Chryston And Muirhead 12 letter(s) of representation received. John McLaren, Lynne Anderson, Stephen Goldsack,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification: The Change of use to a Hot Food Takeaway will be detrimental to road and pedestrian safety.

Page 22 of 49

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/01081/FUL the Ordnance Survey on Name (of applicant): Mr Wai Lam Au behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right Site Address: 84-86 Cumbernauld Road 2009. All rights reserved. Muirhead Ordnance Survey Licence G69 9AB number 100023396. Development: Change of Use From Shop to Hot food Takeaway

Page 23 of 49 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

The change of use to a Hot Food Takeaway is contrary to policy DSP4 3B of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan (2012) in that there is a lack of appropriate and well located parking to serve the development meaning that it will be harmful to road and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

NLC Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) NLC Traffic & Transportation

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Bradley at 01236 632500

Report Date:

1st November 2019

Page 24 of 49 APPLICATION NO. 19/01081/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is an existing, ground floor commercial unit situated at 84 Cumbernauld Road, Muirhead. The property is located in a two storey terraced development consisting of 10 commercial units on the ground floor, these units are currently occupied by hot food takeaways, and a mix of class 1 (shops) class 2 (Financial, Professional and other Services) units. A car park is located to the south (rear) and there is a layby suitable for up to 5 cars to the front of this parade of shops. The site is bound by dwellings to the north, dwellings and car sales to the west and a variety of commercial units to the east.

1.2 The proposed development is located on a main road within the settlement of Muirhead which already suffers from congestion. There is a traffic island to assist with pedestrians crossing the road directly opposite the proposed development and a bus stop, without a layby, located to the north of this traffic island

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of a former pet shop (class 1) to a hot food takeaway (Sui-generis). The proposal includes a fully operational commercial kitchen alongside a publicly accessible space with a service counter for transactions.

2.2 Permission is also sought for a flue extractor to the rear of the building with the outlet sitting the minimum of 1 m above the ridge height of the building.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has not provided any additional supporting information.

4. Site History

 97/00107/LUC Lawful use of Premises as Hot Food Take-Away and Restaurant – Application permitted – delegated – 12th May 1997.

5. Development Plan

5.1 Sections 25(1) (a) and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that this application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the Local Development Plan.

5.3 The application site is covered by Policy RTC 1 C (Neighbourhood and Local Centres) which identifies acceptable uses for Neighbourhood and Local Centres. Policies RTC 3B (Bad Neighbour development) and DSP 4 (Quality of development) are also relevant.

6. Consultations

a. NLC Protective Services do not object and offer advice that measures must be taken to protect against excessive noise with regards to the extraction system/other plant that may be required and that detailed steps require to be taken to ensure smells associated with the development do not cause a nuisance (appropriate extraction system)

b. NLC Traffic and Transportation have no objections and advise that normally there is a requirement for 5 allocated parking spaces in association to hot food takeaways. As this proposal has access to a rear parking area it is considered that this is not required in association to this application.

7. Representations

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and the newspaper advertisement, 12 letters Page 25 of 49 of representation have been received, all objecting to the proposed change of use. The main areas of concern within the letters of objection relate to an over-supply of takeaway food shops in the area, parking problems as a direct result of fast food takeaways, litter (leading to a flooding problem) and evening disturbance to local residents. One objection further raised the potential issue of competition between the businesses although this is not a material planning concern. These issues shall be examined in further depth in the main Planning Assessment body of this report.

8. Planning Assessment

a. Sections 25(1) (a) and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that this application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

b. Development Plan: North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP): The site is covered by local plan policy RTC 1 C (Neighbourhood and Local Centres) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Policy RTC 1 C has identified appropriate use classes for the area to be (1) Shops, (2) Financial Professional & Other Services, (3)Food & Drink, (9) Houses and (10) Non- Residential Institutions.

c. Policy RTC 3B (Bad Neighbour Development) outlines that planning permission will only be granted in circumstances where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that amenity would not be adversely affected. In this instance it is considered that the proposed change from shop to hot food takeaway will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding road and pedestrian safety in terms of the likely increase in traffic movements, decreased sight-lines and increase in patrons visiting the premises for short periods of time and the potential for parking erratically whilst doing so. The proposals are therefore considered not to comply with policies HCF 1A and RTC 3B as noted above.

d. The NLLP also requires developments be assessed against policies DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). Given the scale and nature of the development DSP1, DSP2 and DSP3 are not relevant in this instance.

e. Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) is of relevance which seeks a high quality of development ensuring that proposals are well designed. Policy DSP 4 requires that a high standard of design and sustainable planning are achieved with regards to all developments. This policy specifically states under DSP 4 3(b) that there is a requirement to “…provide a safe, inclusive, convenient and welcoming development”. As noted above the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on road and pedestrian safety. There are concerns regarding the increase in disturbance associated with additional vehicular traffic associated with the use (especially late at night) and similarly concerns in relation to the associated parking provision and lack of on-street public parking provision in the immediate surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not integrate successfully into the local area or avoid harm to the current level of road and pedestrian safety, contrary to the requirements of policy DSP4.

Consultation Responses

f. NLC Traffic and Transportation have been consulted with regards to this planning application and have stated that they hold no objection to the planning application due to the availability of car parking directly to the rear of the unit.

g. NLC Protective Services have no objections and provide advice that all mechanical ventilation plant will require to be isolated from the structure of the building and that all cooking odours shall be controlled so as not to create a statutory nuisance in terms of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Exacting specifications to achieve this are included within the Environmental Health consultation response.

Representations

h. A total of 12 representations have been received all objecting to the proposed change of use. The main areas of concern within the letters of objection relate to an over-supply of takeaway food shops in the area, parking problems as a direct result of fast food takeaways, litter (leading to a flooding problem) and evening disturbance to local residents. One objection further raised the potential issue of competition between the businesses although Page 26 of 49 this is not a material planning concern. Each of these shall be examined individually in the following paragraphs.

i. Overprovision: there are already 3 snack outlets, 3 restaurants and 5 takeaways located within the settlement of Muirhead, within this parade of shops there are 4 different kinds of takeaway within 20m of each other.

Comment: It is noted that it is not unusual to find groups of business types clustered together. Where competition between businesses is not a material planning concern it is noted that there is the potential for so many Hot Food Takeaways located in the one area to have a significant and detrimental impact on traffic flow and road safety, in particular arising from short term, inappropriate parking close to these businesses

j. Parking: There is a lack of parking available to the proposed Hot Food Takeaway where the road already experiences significant congestion. Available parking is full during busy times and the increased on-street parking, alongside the traffic island, has a detrimental impact on the provision of public transport

Comment: Notwithstanding NLC Traffic and Transportation response, it is agreed that there is a lack of well-located parking to serve the proposed takeaway. Although there is parking to the rear uses such as this are typified by inappropriate, short term parking close to the entrances of these businesses.

k. Litter (& Flooding): Litter associated to the Hot Food Takeaways collects on the street and adds to the problem of flooding in the vicinity.

Comment: There is a bin located on the street however a planning condition may be added to any consent given requiring adequate bin provision to be supplied by the proposed development.

l. Evening Disturbance: There is already disturbance in the evening associated with existing takeaways.

Comments: It is acknowledged that the hours of a Hot Food Takeaway can have an impact on residential amenity but given the location to the closest houses, across a busy road, this is not considered to be so significant as to justify refusing planning permission in this instance.

Further Material Considerations:

m. A similar application was received for a Hot Food Takeaway to another unit within the same parade of shops at number 92 Cumbernauld Road, Muirhead under planning application reference number 15/01014/FUL. Although recommended for approval the application was refused by Planning Committee the 3rd September of August after a Site Visit and Hearing had been conducted.

n. The grounds for the refusal of this application were listed as the proposed development was “….not considered to be acceptable in terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 in that it would lead to an over concentration of this type of use and the existing off street car parking arrangements are insufficient to cope with current demand.”

o. An appeal was then made to the Scottish Government’s Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA). The result of this appeal upheld the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse planning permission for a hot food takeaway in this location. Although the appeal was dismissed, the sole reason the appeal was dismissed related to parking and pedestrian safety i.e. the concerns in relation to cumulative impacts (too many takeaways) and adverse impact on residential amenity were not accepted.

9. Conclusions

9.1 For the reasons listed above, it is therefore concluded that the proposed development is contrary to policy DSP 4 3 (b) of the North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 2012 and, accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be refused on the grounds of Road and Pedestrian Safety.

Page 27 of 49

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/01143/FUL Change of Use from Grocery Shop to Hot Food Takeaway

Site Address:

27 Clouden Road Kildrum Cumbernauld G67 2EP

Date Registered:

12th September 2019

Applicant: Agent: Mr Muhammad Itesham Ashraf Waseem Hussain 10 Deans Avenue 4 Binniehill Road Glasgow Cumbernauld Scotland Scotland G72 8UT G68 9AJ

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No

Ward: Representations: 04 Cumbernauld East 73 letter(s) of representation received. Gillian Fannan, Claire Barclay, Paddy Hogg, Tom Johnston,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification: The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that it would lead to additional disturbance and activity in a primarily residential area to the detriment of the residential amenity of the area.

Page 28 of 49

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/01143/FUL the Ordnance Survey on Name (of applicant): behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right Mr Muhammad Itesham Ashraf 2009. All rights reserved. Site Address: 27 Clouden Road Ordnance Survey Licence Kildrum number 100023396. Cumbernauld G67 2EP Development: Change of Use from Grocery Shop to Hot Food Takeaway

Page 29 of 49 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

The proposal does not comply with Policies HCF1A, RTC3B and DSP4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the proposed change of use would increase noise, activity and general disturbance such that the amenity of the surrounding residential area would be adversely affected to an unacceptable degree. In addition there is a lack of suitable or available parking to serve the proposed use and as such the proposal will adversely impact on road and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation Environmental Health (including Pollution Control)

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Bradley at 01236 632500

Report Date:

1st November 2019

Page 30 of 49 APPLICATION NO. 19/01143/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The application property is a currently vacant commercial unit located at the end of a cul-de-sac within Kildrum, Cumbernauld. The surrounding land use is entirely residential with occasional open space to provide for communal amenity. There are residential properties in close proximity to the proposed takeaway

1.2 The building is currently showing early signs of dilapidation with disconnected gutter, loose slates and soffits requiring attention.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Permission is sought to change the use of an existing retail unit from Class 1 (Shops/Retail) to a Hot Food Takeaway (Sui-Generis).

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The applicant has not provided any additional supporting information.

4. Site History

4.1 The property appears to have operated as a local convenience store for a significant period of time. Being located in the former New Town it is likely that the building would have been purpose built as a shop at the same time as the surrounding homes.

5. Development Plan

5.2 The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the Local Development Plan.

5.3 The application site is covered by Policy HCF 1A which presumes against development detrimental to residential amenity whilst indicating that development which is of an ancillary nature may be acceptable, subject to impact on residential amenity and provision for servicing and parking. Policies RTC 3B (Bad Neighbour development) and DSP 4 (Quality of development) are also relevant.

6. Consultations

6.1 NLC Pollution Control offer no objection subject to conditions relating to noise in relation to ventilation.

6.2 NLC Traffic and Transportation recommend refusal of the application on the grounds of it being detrimental to road safety, a lack of parking spaces for the proposed change of use and the increase in demand during operational hours of the existing parking spaces.

7. Representations

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement 73 letters of representation have been received including one from Jamie Hepburn MSP and one from the community council. The majority of issues raised within these letters voice concerns over environmental issues, road and traffic safety concerns, noise and disturbance concerns, proximity to housing.

7.2 Specific concerns were raised with regards to the following topics; noise, litter, disturbance, the emittance of smells, light pollution, risk to safety of children & vulnerable adults, anti-social behaviour, youth congregation, a lack of access to the unit, a lack of parking available in the immediate vicinity, lack of suitable turning circle within the turning circle, impact of deliveries to the unit, over provision of the service being proposed, potential pest infestation, proximity to residential Page 31 of 49 dwellings, loss of privacy within gardens associated to the dwelling houses

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 Sections 25(1) (a) and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that this application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 Development Plan: North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP): The site is covered by local plan policy HCF1A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) which presumes against developments detrimental to residential amenity. New development which is of an ancillary nature may be acceptable subject to impact on residential amenity and provision for servicing and parking (discussed further below).

8.3 Policy RTC 3B (Bad Neighbour Development) outlines that planning permission will only be granted in circumstances where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that amenity would not be adversely affected. In this instance it is considered that the proposed change from shop to hot food takeaway will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding residential amenity in terms of associated noise and disturbance from the likely increased traffic movements, increased evening opening hours and increase in patrons visiting the premises later in the evening than the existing established use. The proposals are therefore considered not to comply with policies HCF 1A and RTC 3B as noted above.

8.4 The NLLP also requires developments be assessed against policies DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). Given the scale and nature of the development DSP1, DSP2 and DSP3 are not relevant in this instance.

8.5 Policy DSP4 is of relevance which seeks a high quality of development ensuring that proposals are well designed and safeguard the amenity of neighbouring properties, taking account of transportation issues. As noted above the proposed development is considered to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding residential amenity in terms of associated noise and disturbance from the likely increased traffic movements, increased evening opening hours and increase in patrons visiting the premises later in the evening than the existing established use. In terms of traffic and transportation there are concerns regarding the increase in disturbance associated with additional vehicular traffic associated with the use (especially late at night) and similarly concerns in relation to the associated parking provision, or lack thereof, and lack of on-street public parking provision in the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not integrate successfully into the local area or avoid harm to the neighbouring amenity as it will not relate well to the existing context which is that of a quiet residential area and would introduce noise and disturbance and loss of amenity contrary to the requirements of policy DSP4.

8.6 Consultations: NLC Traffic & Transportation recommend the application be refused for road safety issues. NLC Pollution Control has no objection to the development subject to conditions relating to noise in relation to ventilation.

8.7 Representations: This application has received 73 letters of representation, all of them objecting to the proposed development. The Community Council have provided a letter of objection to the proposal as has Jamie Hepburn MSP, who has contacted the planning department on behalf of his constituents.

a. The main subjects within these letters of objection orientate around 4 subject matters;

 Environmental factors,  Road Safety Matters,  Loss of residential amenity,  Over provision within the wider conurbation of Cumbernauld with regards to the service being proposed.

b. In terms of the objections raised, I would offer the following comments:

Objection: Environmental factors, (emittance of smells, risk of increased pests, light pollution, litter, noise and disturbance);

Page 32 of 49 Response: It is not considered that the development would have a significant impact on odours in the area given that the proposed flue to deal with such odours and having consulted NLC Pollution Control they have offered no objections to the proposals subject to conditions. Light Pollution is similarly able to be controlled through the use of planning conditions. Whilst the proposal has the potential to impact on litter in the area and therefore may result in an increase in vermin planning conditions could be employed to ensure a suitable level of bin provision is supplied. Any concerns regarding this element are therefore considered in-sufficient to warrant refusal of the application in this instance. However, it is considered that with regard to noise and disturbance this is considered to be a significant and material concern given the very close proximity of the surrounding dwelling houses so much so that it warrants a refusal of this application in this instance.

c. Objection: Road Safety Matters, (Risk to safety of children & vulnerable adults, a lack of access to the unit, a lack of parking available in the immediate vicinity, lack of suitable turning circle within the cul-de-sac, impact of deliveries to the unit)

Response: After consultation with the NLC Traffic and Transportation it has been determined that the proposed change of use has the potential to be detrimental to road safety for all users. During the site visit the lack of excess parking spaces was noted alongside a lack of suitable turning circle, particularly when considering deliveries to the unit. As noted in paragraph 8.5 above whilst there are concerns in terms of the increase in disturbance associated with additional vehicular traffic that could be generated by the proposed use and there are further concerns in relation to the lack of associated parking provision and availability of on-street public parking provision in the surrounding area to service the premises.

d. Objection: Loss of residential amenity, (anti-social behaviour, youth congregation, proximity to residential dwellings, loss of privacy within gardens associated to the dwelling houses).

Response: As noted in paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 above it is considered that the proposed development will have a significant and detrimental impact on the surrounding residential amenity given concerns regarding an increase in noise and disturbance associated with the use and likely increase in activity later in the evening which will not relate well to the existing context which is that of a quiet residential area.

e. Objection: Over provision within the wider conurbation of Cumbernauld with regards to the service being proposed.

Response: Whilst there is a variety of fast food takeaways available within the wider conurbation of Cumbernauld the relevant planning policy (RTC3B) seeks to ensure that issues of cumulative impact do not occur. There are no other hot foods in such close proximity that this would be a concern in this case. It is acknowledged that competition between businesses does not constitute a material planning concern.

9. Conclusions

9.1 The proposed development is considered contrary to policies HCF1A, RTC 3B and DSP4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the proposed development is considered unacceptable and likely to result in a detrimental impact on surrounding residential amenity sufficient to warrant refusal of the application in this instance.

9.2 The proposed development will not integrate successfully into the local area or avoid harm to the neighbouring amenity as it will not relate well to the existing context which is that of a quiet residential area and would introduce noise and disturbance and loss of amenity to the detriment of the surrounding residential properties. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons noted above.

Page 33 of 49

Application No: Proposed Development:

19/01155/FUL Twenty single storey and two storey dwellinghouses and cottage flats with associated access and landscaping

Site Address:

Site At Mossburn Street Waterloo Wishaw

Date Registered:

20th September 2019

Applicant: Agent: Enterprise and Housing New Supply Coltart Earley Architecture Fleming House 559 Sauchiehall Street 2 Tryst Road Glasgow Cumbernauld United Kingdom United Kingdom G3 7PQ G67 1JW

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 21 Wishaw 0 letter(s) of representation received. Bob Burgess, Angela Feeney, Fiona Fotheringham, Jim Hume,

Recommendation:

Grant Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

Although the proposal is contrary to the development plan in that it represents proposed housing development in the greenbelt, there are material considerations that justify an approval on this occasion in view of the site’s former brownfield use and current gap-site status which, when implemented, will round off the urban envelope and create a more meaningful and defensible greenbelt boundary at this location.

Page 34 of 49

Reproduced by permission of Planning Application: 19/01155/FUL the Ordnance Survey on Name (of applicant): Enterprise and behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right Housing New Supply 2009. All rights reserved. Site Address: Site At Ordnance Survey Licence Mossburn Street number 100023396. Waterloo Wishaw North Lanarkshire Development: Twenty single storey and two storey dwellinghouses and cottage flats with associated access and landscaping

Page 35 of 49

Proposed Conditions:-

1. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved drawings

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

2. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

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

3. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

4. That prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit a scheme of intrusive site investigation works for approval in relation to shallow coal mine workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed application site. The applicant shall thereafter implement the approved scheme of intrusive site investigations and provide a report of the findings.

Reason: To ensure the mineral stability of the site.

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

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

6. Before any house is occupied a certificate (signed by a suitably qualified Geotechnical 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 any necessary works are carried out in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents of the site.

7. No development shall take place within the development area until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation, which would include: 1) a photographic record of the current site conditions; 2) 5% ground breaking evaluation of that portion of the development area not previously developed; 3) If this exercise identifies sites or objects of merit there should be proposals for further works potentially including excavation, post-excavation, publication and archiving), which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the local Archaeological Service and approved by the Planning Authority.

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

8. 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;

Page 36 of 49 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: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.

9. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 8 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 interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.

10. That the recommendations of report titled ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat & Invasive Species Survey’ by WSP dated December 2018 shall be implemented in full to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, pre-start survey checks shall be made on those trees identified in the report as exhibiting bat roost features (BRF) to determine the presence of bats, and should any bats be evident, mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with a species protection plan submitted to, and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

11. Where 12 months or more has elapsed between the timing of the ecological survey hereby approved dated December 2018, and development commencing, a further updated survey shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, the said survey shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the study, should any mitigation measures be required for any protected species, this shall be implemented in accordance with a species protection plan agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

12. That the drainage scheme as shown on approved drawing no. L(90)SK9 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following implementation, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the first dwellinghouse hereby approved confirming that these works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

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

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

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory drainage arrangements.

Page 37 of 49

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

Archaeology Service received on 1st October 2019 Traffic & Transportation received on 1st November 2019 Pollution Control Services received on 1st October 2019 The Coal Authority received on 3rd October 2019 Scottish Water received on 25th September 2019 Education received 9th October 2019

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Shahida Bashir at 01236 632500

Report Date:

4th November 2019

Page 38 of 49 APPLICATION NO. 19/01155/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1.1 The site was previously developed for social housing circa 1955, (these buildings had been demolished by 1972), and currently forms an area of open space/kick about area, adjacent to an established children’s play park on the eastern boundary. To the north of the site lies Greenhead Moss Nature Reserve and Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The SINC forms the northern and north eastern boundary of the site. To the west of the site and further to the east lies an established neighbourhood formed of local authority housing, predominantly “4 in a block” type quarter villas. This housing is finished predominantly in render and natural slate roofs. The site is bounded to the south by the A721, Wishaw Road which is the main arterial thoroughfare through the village.

1.2 There is presently a pylon located outwith the application site towards its north east, a sports pitch, and also mature and semi mature trees on site. The site can be considered as the main south access point leading up to the nature reserve. There are two footpaths on site (leading from Wishaw Road to Mossburn Street), the western foot path will be realigned to cater for this proposal. The existing play area is to remain unaffected. The site is maintained, and seems to be used as a through route by locals to the nature reserve.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 20 new dwellings are proposed to be constructed on site by North Lanarkshire Council Enterprise and Housing. This is in recognition of housing demand within the area, a range of house types are proposed from one to two bedroom cottage flats, to four and five person wheelchair amenity bungalows and two and three bedroom 2 storey houses.

2.2 Trees on site will also be required to be removed in order to cater for this development. An improved vehicle turning area at the end of Burnhall Place is also proposed, as well as 43 new car parking spaces.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information

3.1 The proposal is to address a housing demand within the area, it is to be located on a brownfield site neighbouring the existing and remaining play area. The preferred site development option together with sample floor plans and elevations were locally presented at a Public Consultation Event held on 24th July 2019. An ecology report was also submitted.

4. Site History

4.1 Previously sited social housing – now cleared.

5. Development Plan

5.1 The application site is designated as Green Belt NBE 3A within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

5.2 The proposal will also be considered against Policies: HCF1 B2 - Community Park within the Green Belt, DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development on community facilities and infrastructure) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development).

6. Consultations

6.1 Archaeology Service: No objections subject to condition i.e. the implementation of a programme of archaeological work. Traffic & Transportation: No objections subject to conditions, which can be addressed at road construction consent stage. Pollution Control Services: No objections subject to condition i.e. SI The Coal Authority: No objections subject to condition i.e. further details of coal mining risk. Scottish Water: No objections – However, if permitted will then review capacity. Landscape: No objections subject to conditions i.e. landscaping. Education: No financial contribution required in this instance.

Page 39 of 49

7. Representations

7.1 No letter(s) of representation have been received.

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues; it can therefore be assessed in terms of the adopted North Lanarkshire Council local plan policies.

8.2 The site is designated as Green Belt and as a Community Park within the green belt in the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan under Policy NBE 3A. The proposal also requires to be considered against Policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development on community facilities and infrastructure) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development).

8.3 Policy NBE 3A – green belt seeks to protect the character and promote development in the Green Belt and the Rural Investment Area by restricting development to acceptable types and operating assessment criteria. This specific site is also zoned as being part of the “Community Park within the Greenbelt”. Therefore, the proposal will also be assessed against Policy HCF 1 B2, which seeks to protect residential amenity and community facilities i.e. parks, in order to maintain community well – being.

8.4 It should be noted that this proposal does not comply with any of the “Types of acceptable development” listed under policy NBE 3A. Any departure from the plan is usually resisted unless materials considerations indicate otherwise.

8.5 As for material considerations, it has already been established that the site history shows that the site was previously developed for housing before being demolished some years ago. Since then, the site has been landscaped. On assessing the characteristics of the site in detail, it is clear that it functions mainly as an open space wedge between the built up housing and is bounded by the public road to the south. This site is an obvious gap site within the urban envelope and functions more so in that way than as part of the surrounding greenbelt area. As a result, its development would not harm the integrity of the greenbelt area and, on the contrary, it would act to provide a stronger urban envelope and more robust greenbelt boundary at this location: - Therefore, for these site specific reasons, although the development is contrary to greenbelt policy, there are material considerations that can justify it on this occasion.

8.6 As regards policy HCF1 B2, the site represents a specific area not considered to be a fundamental part of the nature reserve or a main part of the park / it is recognised more as a through route taken by locals to the nature reserve. In these circumstances it is not considered that the development would be contrary to this policy as it would not affect the integrity of community facilities such as the nature reserve or the park.

8.7 With reference to policy DSP1 the proposal is required to address an affordable housing demand within this area confirmed by Enterprise and Housing New Supply – North Lanarkshire Council. The proposal by way of its siting (i.e. located next to a play area, residential properties and a nature reserve) will enhance social inclusion and integration by improving access to community facilities for locals presently deprived of such opportunities. As such the proposal complies with policy DSP2. The proposal again due to its nature and small scale is considered not to place additional demands on community facilities or infrastructure (that would initiate improving existing provision as such), no consultee has objected and therefore the development complies with policy DSP3. With regard to policy DSP4, the design, proposed materials and site layout including parking requirements are considered to be acceptable subject to safeguarding conditions (e.g. materials, landscaping etc.) and as such the proposal as a whole will comply with this policy.

8.8 The ecology survey submitted with the application noted the potential for bat roosts in some trees within the site and immediately adjoining the site. Planning conditions will ensure that further studies will be carried out to ensure that proper protection and mitigation is carried out before and during construction works.

Page 40 of 49 9. Conclusions

9.1 Despite greenbelt and community open space zoning, taking into account that the site’s urban area characteristics, and weighing up the wider social benefits of this housing scheme; the proposed development in this specific case is considered to be an acceptable departure from the development plan.

Page 41 of 49

Page 42 of 49 AGENDA ITEM 3

North Lanarkshire Council Report PLANNING COMMITTEE

Agenda item ______approval  noting Ref PH/SW Date 14/11/2019

PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEALS LODGED

From HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION Email [email protected] Telephone 01236 632500

Executive Summary 1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report is to advise the Committee of the undernoted planning appeal recently lodged with the Scottish Ministers.

Recommendations It is recommended that the Committee notes the position.

Background

Application No. Applicant & Site Date of Council Form of Note & Proposal Decision Appeal

19/00937/ADV Insite Poster 17/09/2019 Written Replacement of an Properties Ltd Submission Existing Illuminated 67 Jerviston Street 48-sheet New Stevenston

Advertisement Display Motherwell with an Illuminated North Lanarkshire 48-sheet Digital ML1 4JJ Advertisement Display

19/00909/FUL Ogilvie Homes Ltd 04/10/2019 Written Construction of 9 Site To The East & Submission Dwellinghouses West Of King's Drive & North of

Dullatur Road Westerwood Cumbernauld North Lanarkshire

Page 43 of 49

PAMELA HUMPHRIES HEAD OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION (22 August 2019)

Page 44 of 49 AGENDA ITEM 4

North Lanarkshire Council Report Planning Committee

☐approval ☒noting Ref LB Date 14/11/19

Summary of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019

From Head of Planning & Regeneration Lorna Bowden, Planning and Email [email protected] Telephone Place Manager: Tel. 01236 632638

Executive Summary

This report seeks to update the Committee on the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 which was passed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 June 2019 and received Royal Assent on 29 July 2019. The Act presents a package of measures intended to strengthen the planning system’s contribution to promoting inclusive growth and empowering communities. It sets out high level changes to the planning system. The details of how the new provisions will work in practice will be contained in secondary legislation and guidance which will be developed by the Scottish Government over the next two to three years.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee notes the content of this report.

The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our communities Ambition statement (19) Improve engagement with communities and develop their capacity to help themselves

1. Background

1.1 In September 2015 the Scottish Government established an independent panel to review the planning system with a view to improving the system of development planning, giving people a greater say in the future of their places and supporting delivery of planned development. The panel published its report, which contained 48 recommendations in May 2016.

Page 45 of 49 1.2 In January 2017, a consultation document on the future of the Planning System in Scotland, ‘Places, People and Planning’ was issued by the Scottish Government. North Lanarkshire Council provided its response to this consultation in April 2017. The views of all the contributors to this consultation were taken into account and in June 2017 the Scottish Government published a Position Statement. The Statement proposed both legislative and non-legislative changes to the Planning System.

1.3 The Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in December 2017 and on 20 June 2019 the Bill completed Stage 3 and received Royal Assent on 25 July.

1.4 The Scottish Government views the Act as central to its package of measures which will strengthen the planning system’s contribution to inclusive growth and empowering communities. The Act sets out high level changes to how the planning framework in Scotland operates, by amending the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning Etc. (Scotland) Act 2006, the new Act will be known as the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, however, the detail of how the new provisions will work in practice will be contained within secondary legislation and guidance. This report sets out the key provisions and changes that will be brought about by the Act and highlights any perceived issues that these may raise for the council as Planning Authority.

2. Report

The key provisions of the Act are as follows:

2.1 Development Plans

2.1.1 The Act introduces a “Purpose for Planning” which makes provisions for the Development Plan to manage the development and use of land in the long term public interest, contributing to sustainable development and achieving national outcomes.

2.1.2 The Act changes the current hierarchy of plans by enhancing the status of the National Planning Framework (NPF) merging it with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) to produce a high level plan for Scotland which, amongst other things, sets out how the Scottish Ministers consider development will contribute to achieving the National Outcomes, sets out targets for housing and identifies national developments. This statutory document is to be prepared by the Scottish Ministers and reviewed every 10 years, rather than every 5 years which is the current requirement.

2.1.3 The requirement for the preparation of strategic development plans (SDPs) is removed and instead introduces the requirement for planning authorities, working alone, or in partnership with two or more planning authorities to form strategic partnerships, to prepare and adopt a Regional Spatial Strategy. A planning authority must adopt a regional spatial strategy as soon as practicable after this part of the Act comes into force and the Government has the power to direct planning authorities to prepare and adopt such strategies. It is the view of the Scottish Government that greater collaboration at this scale will be achieved by moving from the current focus on preparing statutory plans to actively co-ordinating infrastructure investment and development delivery at this scale.

Page 46 of 49 2.1.4 Regional Spatial Strategies will inform the NPF and Local Development Plans (LDPs). The NPF and Local Development Plans are to be prepared at least every 10 years rather than every 5 years.

2.1.5 The requirement for the production of a Main Issues Report (MIR) for Local Development Plans is removed and replaced with an Evidence Report. The Evidence Report will require to be examined by an independent Reporter at the start of the plan process who will then decide if the information in the report is sufficient for the Planning Authority to start preparation of the Local Development Plan.

2.1.6 Perhaps the most significant change is the introduction of the right for communities to come together and prepare Local Place Plans (LPPs). It is, as yet, unclear how these will be prepared, on what scale they will operate and how communities are to be supported through the process. Before preparing a Local Development Plan, a Planning Authority must invite local communities in their district to prepare LPPs, stating the date by which they must be prepared and details of the assistance available for local communities to prepare LPPs.

2.1.7 It is stated that the Government believe that a flexible approach is needed and that communities should not be unduly burdened with complexity and procedure. In preparing its LDP the planning authority must have regard to LPPs.

2.1.8 After a period of seven years the Scottish Ministers, assisted by the local planning authorities, must undertake a review LPPs and produce a report assessing the impact of LPPs on the planning process.

2.2 Development Management

2.2.1 Simplified Planning Zones are replaced with Masterplan Consent Area Schemes which should be less resource intensive to prepare with more powers to alter once the zones are in place.

2.2.2 Introduction of the “Agent of Change”, which is about encouraging proposed noise-sensitive uses to include sufficient measures to mitigate against noise from existing cultural venues or facilities.

2.2.3 Applications for National and Major developments will require to consider the likely health effects of the proposed development.

2.2.4 Planning permission for certain large developments can include a condition that the development includes at least one accessible toilet facility.

2.2.5 Scope for Planning Authorities to extend their Section 43A Scheme of Delegation to allow the appointed person to determine a wider range of application types.

2.2.6 Notice of Major applications to be given to each local councillor, MSP and MP.

Page 47 of 49 2.3 Other Provisions

2.3.1 There is to be specified compulsory training requirements for elected members involved in exercising planning functions.

2.3.2 Each Planning Authority must appoint a Chief Planning Officer.

2.3.3 Annual reporting of performance by Planning Authorities will become mandatory and the Scottish Ministers will have the power to appoint a national planning improvement co-ordinator.

2.4 Implications

2.4.1 As the details relating to the new duties and procedures introduced by the Act are implemented and secondary legislation and guidance is developed there will be a period of change, learning and uncertainty. It is envisaged that implementation of all aspects of the Act will not come into force until 2021. There will be further reports to Committee as more detail on the delivery and timetable of transitional arrangements emerge.

2.4.2 It is not clear at this stage how the new and amended duties will be funded and resourced.

3. Equality and Diversity

3.1 Fairer Scotland Duty:

3.1.1 The origins of The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 pre-dates the Fairer Scotland Requirements.

3.2 Equality Impact Assessment:

3.2.1 The recommendations of the Act have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified.

4. Implications

4.1 Financial Impact:

4.1.1 The implementation of the recommendations in the Act are unknown at this stage, Once the Scottish Government publishes the regulations it will be clearer if additional financial resources will be required for the new and amended duties the Act introduces.

4.2 HR/Policy/Legislative Impact:

4.2.1 As above there are possible resource implications which cannot be identified at this stage.

4.3 Environmental Impact:

4.3.1 No adverse impact.

Page 48 of 49

4.4 Risk Impact:

4.4.1 None.

5. Measures of success

5.1 The implementation of the measures introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 will strengthen the planning system’s contribution to promoting inclusive growth and empowering communities.

6. Supporting documents

6.1 Link to the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/13/contents/enacted

Pamela Humphries Head of Planning and Regeneration

Page 49 of 49