CIN-RFS-001+Report+To+Scottish+Ministers.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Report to the Scottish Ministers TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 Report by David Buylla and Robert Seaton, reporters appointed by the Scottish Ministers Case references: CIN-GLW-001; CIN-RFS-001; and CIN-WDS-001 Site address: site to the west of Greenlaw Court, Glasgow, Meadowside Street, Renfrew, and Dock Street, Clydebank Applications by Renfrewshire City Deal Team Applications for planning permission, refs: 17/01667/DC; 17/0486/PP and DC/17/177, called-in by notice dated 6 October 2017 The development proposed: the Clyde Waterfront and Renfrew Riverside Project (CWRR) for the construction of an opening bridge across the River Clyde, the construction of the Renfrew North Development Road, new and improved cycling and walking infrastructure and associated landscaping and ancillary infrastructure, and the stopping-up of consequential redundant sections of roads, footpaths and accesses Date of site visit: 12 January 2018 Date of this report and recommendation: 19 September 2018 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division 4 The Courtyard, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR DX 557005 Falkirk www.gov.scot/Topics/Planning/Appeals CONTENTS Summary Report 2 Preamble 9 Chapters 1. Background 10 2. Consultations and representations 15 3. Policy 27 33 4. Townscape 5. Socio-economic effects 36 6. Traffic and transport effects 43 7. Noise and vibration 46 8. Effects on natural and cultural heritage 51 9. Effects on the water environment 54 10. Cumulative effects 56 11. Other matters 58 12. Overall conclusions and recommendations 61 Appendices Appendix 1: List of application plans Appendix 2: List of conditions to be applied if planning permission is granted CIN-RFS-001 CIN-GLW-001 CIN-WDS-001 1 Planning and Environmental Appeals Division Summary of Report into Called-In Planning Applications The Clyde Waterfront and Renfrew Riverside Project (CWRR) for the construction of an opening bridge across the River Clyde, the construction of the Renfrew North Development Road, new and improved cycling and walking infrastructure and associated landscaping and ancillary infrastructure, and the stopping-up of consequential redundant sections of roads, footpaths and accesses Case references CIN-GLW-001; CIN-RFS-001 and CIN-WDS-001 Case type Called in planning applications Reporters David Buylla and Robert Seaton Applicant Renfrewshire City Deal Team Planning authorities Glasgow City Council; Renfrewshire Council; West Dunbartonshire Council Other parties Turnberry Commercial Limited, The Clyde Shopping Centre Date of applications 4 July 2017 Date cases received by DPEA 16 October 2017 Method of consideration and Written submissions and unaccompanied site date inspection on 12 January 2018. Further written submissions sought on 22 January 2018 in respect of all three applications and on a second matter on the same date, in respect of CIN-GLW-001 Date of report 19 September 2018 Reporter’s recommendation Grant planning permission in respect of all three applications. Background This report deals with the proposal for the Clyde Waterfront and Renfrew Riverside Project (CWRR). The project would comprise construction of an opening bridge across the River Clyde and the Renfrew North Development Road (RNDR), and incorporate new and improved cycling and walking infrastructure. It was called in because of its significance for the Glasgow City Region City Deal, nationally important in terms of employment and economic development. Three separate planning applications have been made to the three planning authorities within whose areas the proposed development lies: Renfrewshire, Glasgow City and West Dunbartonshire. All three have been called in. The bridge would connect Renfrew with Yoker and Clydebank. Associated infrastructure includes plant and control buildings and berths for waiting vessels. North of the Clyde, the bridge would connect to an extension of Dock Street. Cycle connections are included to Yoker Station and extending along the RNDR and Inchinnan Road to the White Cart bridge. Those parts of the proposed development below mean high water springs require a marine CIN-RFS-001 CIN-GLW-001 CIN-WDS-001 2 licence, for which a separate application has been made. This report does not address that application. The proposal would be funded from the Glasgow City Region Deal with the aim of regeneration of the Renfrew waterfront area. Benefits predicted by the applicant include reduction in journey times, reduced traffic through Renfrew town centre, improved cycle and pedestrian infrastructure, an initial reduction in carbon emissions, and provision of a new leisure area by the Clyde. It is also predicted to be a catalyst for private investment, additional jobs, remediation of contaminated land, development of vacant or underused land for new homes, offices and public realm. The applicant also predicts creation of new jobs, a higher level of skills and wages, cross-river access to jobs, housing and services, and a visitor attraction in the landmark bridge. The proposal is environmental impact assessment (EIA) development and the application is accompanied by an environmental statement (ES). Consultations and representations Glasgow City Council accepted that the CWRR proposal found support in Clydeplan, the strategic development plan, and was consistent with the aims and objectives of its local development plan. It recognised the improvement in transport connectivity. It raised concerns about diversion of retail spending from town centres and the city centre to the Braehead shopping centre as a consequence of the new bridge and about compatibility between the proposed development and the residential development site east of Dock Street. It argued that the proposal should incorporate bus stops at the bridge heads and also pedestrian and cycle waiting facilities, that a variable messaging system was required to inform road traffic of bridge closures, that Dock Street’s junction with the A814 should be compatible with the proposed North Clydeside Development Route (NCDR), and that consideration should be given to reducing predicted end-user carbon emissions. Renfrewshire Council’s City Deal Team is the applicant. The council also commented on the application as planning authority. It noted as benefits the delivery of the RNDR, regeneration of the Clyde waterfront, release of land for housing and business, the reduction of traffic flow in Renfrew town centre, the improvement of road connectivity to the airport and waterfront and of access to cycling, pedestrian and public transport networks, the reduction in air pollution on Inchinnan Road, and the high quality design of the bridge and associated works. It considered that the proposals were consistent with the National Planning Framework (NPF3), Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and with strategic and local development plans. West Dunbartonshire Council objected to the proposed development. It accepted that the proposal was supported in principle by Clydeplan. It argued that the unsuitability of an opening bridge for timetabled public transport meant it would not provide sustainable transport or minimise its carbon footprint and so did not comply with the spatial strategy. It also meant the opportunities would not be maximised for Clydebank residents since car ownership there was lower. It also argued that the opening of the bridge would cause harm to Clydebank town centre owing to the reduction in journey time to the Braehead shopping centre, and that there would be a consequent adverse effect on the Clydebank Riverside Regeneration Area. It had with Renfrewshire Council commissioned a retail and economic impact assessment (REIA) which showed economic benefits for Clydebank. It acknowledged some economic benefits but argued that the study did not give a reliable picture of retail since CIN-RFS-001 CIN-GLW-001 CIN-WDS-001 3 it took no account of qualitative factors in its assessment. Finally it expressed concern about the predicted increase in traffic, particularly upon Yoker Mill Road. Yoker and Whiteinch Community Councils expressed support for the project. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) did not object, subject to imposition of environmental management conditions, but expressed significant concern about the proposed road drainage system which it did not consider to be a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS). Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Transport Scotland, the Health and Safety Executive, the Northern Lighthouse Board, Glasgow Airport, the West of Scotland Archaeological Service and the Coal Authority did not object. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) did not object, though considered the bridge likely to be unsuitable for timetabled bus services. It recommended provision of shelters for pedestrians and cyclists waiting to cross the bridge and suggested a requirement to provide a sustainable transport strategy. Scotways sought better integration of the proposed development with existing paths. Turnberry Commercial Limited (TCL) the owner of a residential development site east of Dock Street originally objected that the proposals took inadequate account of their proposals for their site’s development, but has since withdrawn its objection. The Inchinnan Cruising Club objected to the impact of a new cycle way upon their premises. The Clyde Shopping Centre objected in respect of the effect it considered the proposed development would have upon Clydebank