AGENDA ITEM NO.-...... CO

Application No: Proposed Development:

12/01194/PPP Construction of 12 Dwellinghouses (In Principle) Site Address:

Stirling Road Cum bernauld North G67 4AA

Date Registered:

16th November 2012

Applicant: Agent: Luggiebank LLP N/A Keepers Longfords Minchinhampton Stroud GL6 9AN Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 004 , and The Village 5 letters of representation received. Stephen Grant, Elizabeth Irvine, Tom Johnston,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification: The proposal is contrary to policies DSP 1, DSP 2 and NBE 3A in the Local Plan in that the proposed development will lead to the loss of an important area of open space/Green Belt with no justification in terms of the required criteria. If granted, the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for other similar inappropriate development.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to development strategy policies DSP 1 and 2 in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as it would involve the provision of more than 10 units on Greenfield land without justification in terms of housing supply/demand and would not meet the criteria as set out in policy DSP 2B, namely, maintaining the clearly defined urban and rural boundaries in the context of the Green Belt. Insufficient justification has been provided to argue that the site would be suitable for housing taking into account the above assessment factors.

2. The proposal is contrary to policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would significantly alter the character and amenity of the Green Belt and the existing settlement of Luggiebank, furthermore, no justification has been provided in terms of the required criteria for development within the Green Belt. Backaround PaDers:

Proposed Site Plan drawing numbered 1816:Olt,E dated 27'h April 2012 Planning Statement from applicant received 14 December Site Investigation Report dated 15'h May 2012 Protected Species Survey and Phase 1 Habitat Survey prepared by Dunnock Environmental Services Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Kaya Consulting Ltd dated 4'h April 2012

Representation Letters Letter from Mr Stephen J Beales, 660 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, received 6th December 2012 Letter from lrene Halliday, 658 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 11th December 2012 Letter from Mr S G Sorooshian, Tower House, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 10th December 2012 Letter from Mr David Morrow, 656 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 6th December 2012 Letter from Mr R A Gallacher, 654 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 6th December 2012

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation received 13'h December 201 2 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 23'd November 2012 The Coal Authority received 22ndNovember 201 2 Scottish Water (Glasgow) received 23rdNovember 2012 NLC Greenspace received 7'h December 2012 Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 27'h November 201 2 Scottish Natural Heritage received 21 '' November 2012

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Paul Williams at 01236 632519

Report Date:

14th December 2012

Note to Committee : If granted, the Decision Notice should not be issued until legal agreements required in connection with nature conservation, affordable housing and developer contributions (Education) have been completed and further protected species and nature conservation studies have been completed. APPLICATION NO. 12/01194/PPP

REPORT

Site Description

The site lies to the east of Luggiebank village on the site of a former clay quarry. It is bounded to the north and west by the rear gardens of bungalows and cottages on the eastern side of Stirling Road and to the east by an area which bounds a tributary of the and some spoil heaps which date back to the previous uses of the site. The site is bounded to the south by Glenhove Road. The development site has an area of approximately 1.8 Hectares.

The site is relatively flat, with the exception of the spoil heaps on its eastern side. Although having a former clay pit use, the site has a green leafy rural character. There are mature trees and shrubs within site as well as along boundaries. The existing vehicular access on Glenhove Road has a locked gate. The site is covered by grass in central area and is relatively flat with water course running (a tributary of the Luggie Water) running along eastern boundary. The site dips down into a gully on the eastern side which accommodates this burn. The site is covered by woodland to the north and also at its southern end. The eastern half of the site lies within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).

Proposed Develooment

The applicant seeks Planning Permission in Principle for a residential development of 12 one and a half / two storey detached dwellings, and the applicant has provided a proposed illustrative layout drawing as well as typical house type drawing for information purposes. The applicant proposes to use the existing access albeit upgraded for access into the proposed development with a width of 5.5 metres and a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 90 metres. The applicant has also agreed to provide a 2 metre pedestrian footway on the southern side of Glenhove Road as the land required to provide it is within the ownership of the applicant. The applicant proposes to develop approximately half of the overall site on the western half of the site closest to the village keeping the eastern half of the site which lies within the SlNC undeveloped.

As the eastern half of the site forms part of a larger site designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), the applicant has agreed in consultation with the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT), to gift SWT a pocket of land to the east of the site to form part of a managed ‘Green Corridor’ as well as a commuted sum of f28,000to go towards its management. This would in effect be an extension of the existing Luggiebank Wood Reserve, an area of 26.7 Hectares of grassland, scrub and riverside woodland along the Luggie Water currently managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust.

Applicant’s Suwortina Information

The applicant has submitted a planning statement in which he argues that the site should be considered as an exception to Green Belt policy due to its unique and specific circumstances in terms of locational need in that it would be enabling development in relation to the proposed extension of Luggiebank Wood nature reserve and the proposed commuted sum of f28,000to go The Scottish Wildlife Trust for its future management. The applicant further argues that the proposal complies with the other criteria set out in Policy NBE 3 in that it would have a positive economic benefit, it minimises adverse environmental impact as the site is brownfield and the SlNC part would remain undeveloped. Furthermore that it is of a suitable scale in terms of the context of Luggiebank village and all infrastructure implication can be met with regard to sewage connections and site drainage in terms of SUDS. The applicant further argues that the landscape setting of the site and village will be further enhanced with the proposed buffer planting along the eastern boundary. The applicant has also agreed in principle to paying a commuted sum in lieu of provision of affordable housing within the site. The applicant concludes that the proposal constitutes a minor incursion into the Green Belt and the number of units proposed only marginally exceeds the threshold of 10 set out in Policy DSP 1 and that the proposals will rationalise the village boundary at this location and that no precedent would be set due to the unique enabling nature of the proposal with the SlNC to the east.

4. Site Historv

4.1 A similar previous application for a residential development in principle for 14 detached dwellings and six flatted dwellings was refused Planning Permission on the 281h June 201 2 as the proposal was contrary to Green Belt policy and had no justification in terms of housing demand and would be detrimental to nature conservation. This proposal involved constructing dwellings on the eastern SlNC part of the site as well as the western half nearest to Luggiebank village.

5. DeveloDment Plan

5.1 The application site lies within the Green Belt as designated by policy NBE 3A in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The eastern half of the site is within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), policy NBEI A4a and there is a Tree Preservation Order along the southern boundary of the site (Policy NBEI A3d).

6. Consultations

6.1 SEPA has no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds provided that the council undertakes its responsibility as Flood Prevention Authority. Based on the information provided the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has confirmed that the proposed development is outwith the 200 year flood outline, at relatively low potential flood risk and therefore compliant with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Sustainable Flood Management (SFM).

6.2 Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application and has provided advice for the applicant in terms of connections to their network.

6.3 The Coal Authority has confirmed that the application site does not fall within the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area. The site is located instead within the defined Standing Advice Area, meaning that there is no requirement to specifically consider coal mining issues as part of the planning application. If the application was successful, issues relating to coal mining can be dealt with as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.

6.4 Scottish Natural Heritage has responded by saying that they are content to offer no advice or comment on the proposal and are confident that the council will identify any natural heritage impacts and address them without further reference to Scottish Natural Heritage.

6.5 Scottish Power has previously indicated that a connection to the power supply network is available.

6.6 NLC Transportation section has expressed no objections to the proposal provided that a 2 metre wide pedestrian footway can be provided on the north side of Glenhove Road connecting the site with Luggiebank village and that Glenhove road should be widened to 5.5 metre width and visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 90 metres should be provided at the access point. It was also noted that the layout drawing submitted by the applicant does not comply with council standards. However, it is for illustrative purposes only and, as such, these matters can be dealt with if and when a detailed application is submitted.

6.7 NLC Greenspace has no objections to the proposal provided that their recommendations regarding protected species are carried out.

6.8 NLC Pollution Control has confirmed that the Phase 1 Site Investigation submitted is satisfactory.

6.9 NLC Education has previously advised that an education contribution may be required but that further capacity study and implications on local schools would have to be carried out to ascertain this. Although this was based on the previous proposal for 20 residential units as apposed to this current proposal for 12 units, it is considered that the issue of educational provision requires to be addressed

7.

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure and an advertisement within the local press five letters of representation were received in total, all of which were objecting to the application. The letters of representation can be summarised as follows: a. The site was a clay quarry not a brickworks as described by the applicant which is misleading and makes the site sound ‘brownfield’ in nature. b. Similar proposal was refused Planning Permission in June 2012. C. Road safety issues regarding traffic generation, sub-standards access and road as well as no pedestrian footway link from site to village. d. There are ground stability issues. e. Layout has inadequate parking and does not comply with council standards. f. Loss of amenity through noise light and smell. 9. 658 Stirling Road will be overshadowed by proposed tree planting. h. The proposal would detract from character of village and the proposed housing layout is of a much higher density than that of the village and that of the previously approved scheme. i. Applicant does not control land required for access road upgrades. j. The proposal is contrary to Policy Policy NBE 3A (Greenbelt) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The zoning clearly defines the existing settlement boundary and the proposal would lead to a loss of Green Belt land. a. Plannina Assessment

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

8.2 The application site is designated by policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP). This policy seeks to protect the character and promote development in the Green Belt through restricting development to acceptable types and impacts. The proposed residential development, albeit reduced in size from 20 units to 12 units is not considered to be an acceptable development within the Green Belt, with no justification in terms of the required criteria, subsequently the proposed development is contrary to policy NBE 3A of the NLLP.

8.3 It is recognised that the applicant proposes the transfer of land to the Scottish Wildlife Trust as well as a sum of money (f28,OOO) for management costs in order to provide a nature conservation corridor which would link into the Luggie burn and an adjacent tract of land currently owned and managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The applicant has documented that SWT has been positive to the principle of the proposed land transfer. This could be facilitated through a Section 75 Legal agreement. However, approximately half of the application site falls within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and in terms of the policy NBEl A4a. The consideration is whether this proposed residential development will enhance nature conservation and landscape protection.

8.4 It is recognised that the applicant has halved the proposed build area in terms of what was previously proposed, reducing the number of proposed housing units from 20 to 12 and leaving the eastern designated SlNC area of the site undeveloped. Although, the applicant proposes mitigation measures in terms of tree planting on land adjoining to the east of the site. NLC Greenspace has expressed no objection to the proposal provided that their recommendations regarding protected species are carried out.

8.5 NBEl A - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment (Policies NBEI A3(a) and NBEl A3(d)) is also relevant to the consideration of the proposal. Policy ‘NBEI A’ safeguards identified sites of importance for natural heritage and biodiversity from development. The subject site is affected by two designated local sites, NBEI A3(a) which protects Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and NBEI A3(d) which protects Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). A significant proportion (approximately half) of the subject site falls within the Luggiebank - Glenhove SlNC site which is protected by policy NBEI A3(a). Policy NBE 1A states that where proposals potentially affect a protected site, planning permission will only be granted ‘if the applicant demonstrates to the Council’s satisfaction that there will be no adverse impact, or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact’. It is recognised that this revised proposal is diminished in scale and that the applicant no longer proposes to build on the eastern SlNC designated half of the site. In addition, the subject site contains a small area along its southern boundary which is covered by a TPO. Land adjacent to the western boundary of the site is also covered by a TPO. Subsequently, the suitability of the development under Policy NBE 1A3(a) and NBEl A3(d) cannot be determined until the applicant can demonstrate what impact it will have on the SlNC site and areas covered by a TPO. At this ‘in principle stage’ it is considered that the revised proposal is unlikely to impact on the SINC, subject to the submission of satisfactory details at the detailed planning stage. Similarly, in terms of the TPO designation, it is considered that mitigating replacement planting along the southern boundary is achievable.

8.6 The NLLP requires all proposed developments to be assessed against Policies DSP 1 - DSP 4. The proposed development exceeds the threshold for housing on a Greenfieldhon-urban brownfield location provided by DSP 1 and therefore the proposal requires to be justified in terms of supply and demand. The proposed development also requires to be justified against the locational criteria set out in Policy DSP 2. Particular attention should be given to maintaining clearly defined urban and rural boundaries in terms of the Green Belt designation as well as establishing how the proposal contributes to urban renewal, is linked to sustainable modes of transport and local facilities. In this case, there is no justification in terms of supply and demand as this has been met by other allocations in the Local Plan and by the identification of the nearby Community Growth Area. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DSP 2 in terms of not maintaining the clearly defined urban and rural boundary in the context of the Green Belt designation as well as local demand. In relation to DSP3 and DSP4 an assessment requires to be made as part of any future full detailed application.

8.7 In terms of consultation responses, the comments of SEPA, Scottish Water, The Coal Authoritv. Scottish Natural Heritaae and Scottish Power are dullv noted. 8.8 NLC Transportation has also noted that more details will be required with any subsequent application in terms of in plot parking, visitor parking and traffic calming. Transportation has also confirmed that a footway on the southern side of Glenhove Road would not be acceptable and that the only acceptable access solution would be the realignment of Glenhove road to the south, utilising land owned by the applicant to provide the additional land required to form the required 2 metre wide footpath on the northern side of Glenhove Road. These are issues that can be addressed at any subsequent detailed panning stage.

8.9 NLC Greenspace has no objections to the revised proposals provided that their recommendations regarding protected species are carried out. However, should the development be pursued, further study will be required at the detailed planning stage, as the Phase 1 Habitat Survey submitted was carried out outwith the main period of peak activity to ascertain impact on certain species and the following would be required :-

0 Management Plan requirement - Although Luggiebank Wood reserve may have a long-term management they have to presume (as no copy of this plan has been submitted) that this plan does not include the 2.07ha of land to be donated to SWT. In order to ascertain that the proposal affecting this SlNC can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact Greenspace development requires an agreed Management Plan for the 2.07ha of land to be donated to SWT. Breeding bird survey of site and 100 metre buffer around it. Bat Survey. 0 Phase 1 habitat survey in the period June to August with target notes for key species or NVC (National Vegetation Count) survey of the site. 0 Survey of current badger use on site.

8.10 NLC Protective services has confirmed that the Phase 1 Site Investigation submitted is satisfactory with enough data supplied to allow the application to be processed and that site investigation submitted identifies enough detail regarding potential pollutants for any subsequent investigation and mitigation work to be conditioned.

8.1 1 In terms of a possible education contribution being required as outlined in paragraph 6.9 above, further study would be required to see if this is required and also what level of contribution would be applicable. The applicant has agreed in principle to a contribution as well as to a contribution in lieu of on site affordable housing.

8.12 The applicant has argued that the proposal should be considered as an exception to Green Belt policy as it provides enabling development in terms of the proposed extension to Luggiebank Wood Nature Reserve, in terms of the applicant proposing to donate land and a sum of f28,000 to the Scottish Wildlife Trust for management purposes. However, it is considered that the benefit that this may bring is outweighed by the detrimental impact that the proposed residential development would have at this location.

8.13 In response to the letters of objection I would comment as follows:

0 The site was a clay quarry not a brickworks. Comment : Agreed. It is considered that this description is perhaps misleading as it infers a more ‘brownfield’ site. However, it is understood that there has been historical infilling with housebuilders waste. Initial site investigations have determined that this would not prevent the site from being developed.

Similar proposal was refused Planning Permission in June 2012 Comment : Agreed.

Road safety issues regarding traffic generation, sub-standard access and road as well as no pedestrian footway link from site to village. Comment : Issues relating to road safety and access could be addressed as per the comments of Transportation by providing the visibility splay and 2 metre wide footpath on the northern side of Glenhove Road by realigning it as described in paragraph 6.6.

There are ground stability issues. Comment : The Ground Investigation report as submitted concludes that the site is developable.

0 Layout has inadequate parking and does not comply with council standards. Comment : Whilst it is recognised that there are deficiencies in terms of the layout plan provided, the layout is for indicative purposes only. It is considered that these issues could be addressed at the detailed application stage.

0 Loss of amenity through noise, light and smell. Comment : These issues are controlled by separate environmental health legislation.

0 658 Stirling Road will be overshadowed by proposed tree planting. Comment : It is considered that this would not be the case given the significant distance from 658 Stirling Road to the nearest proposed tree planting. Again this would be assessed at the detailed application stage.

0 Detract from character of village and the proposed housing layout is of a much higher density than that of the village and that of the previously proposed scheme. Comment : It is considered that the proposal would certainly alter the character of the village and that the proposed density in terms of plot sizes is higher than that of the village.

0 Applicant does not control land required for access road upgrades. Comment : It is understood that the applicant can achieve the upgraded visibility splay as required and owns the land on the southern side of Glenhove Road required to re-align Glenhove Road and provide a 3 metre wide footway on the northern side of Glenhove Road.

0 Contrary to Policy Policy NBE 3A (Greenbelt) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The zoning clearly defines the existing settlement boundary and the proposal would lead to a loss of Green Belt land. Comment : Agreed.

9. Conclusions

9.1 Although it is recognised that the applicant has made efforts to mitigate against the proposed residential development in terms of reducing the scale of the development and keeping the eastern SlNC designated half of the site outwith the development area. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant local plan policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) as there is no justification in terms of the required criteria, subsequently the proposed development is contrary to policy NBE 3A of the NLLP. It is further considered that the proposal does not constitute an exception to Green Belt policy in terms of enabling development. The proposal is also considered to be contrary to policies DSP1 and 2 as no local housing need or demand has been identified through the local plan process. The site, although a former clay quarry is of significant amenity value and habitat in terms of the mature trees and vegetation on it. It is considered that the site as existing has more amenity value for the village of Luggiebank than it would have developed as a housing site. Also, similarly, it is considered that the impact on existing levels of nature conservation value in terms of habitat on the site will be significantly affected by the proposal even taking into account the proposed mitigation measures.

9.2 It is therefore recommended that this application is refused.