Norfh Council

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Planning Applications for consideration of the Planning and Environment Committee

Committee Date: 12 May 2004

AGENDA ITEM NO. L

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 MAY, 2004

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

6 N/04/00048/OUT Fiona McCashin Formation of Four Plots - Grant Land to the Rear of 40 Main Road Condorrat

13 N/04/00286/FUL Gary Halcrow Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 67A High Craigends G65 ONS

17 N/04/00302/0UT Mr Owen McGarry Construction of a Dwellinghouse - Refuse Land South West of 6 Lochview Terrace

22 N1041003461FUL Mr & Mrs Marchetti Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 21 Cumbernauld Road

27 N/04/00347/FUL John McKellar Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 54 Baldorran Crescent Balloch Cumbernauld G68 9BL

31 N/04/00364/FU L Mr Shaun Boyle Alterations and Extension to a Grant Dwellinghouse - 4 Whithorn Crescent

36 N1041003661FUL Mr Mark Johnston Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 17 Moray Place

41 N/04/00380/0UT Mr Peter Moretti Construction of a Dwellinghouse - Refuse 10 Lane Stepps G33 6BD

46 N/04/00406/FUL Orange PCS Ltd Installation of Grant Telecommunications Equipment - Balcastle Farm Balcastle Road Kilsyth G65 9LA

49 N/04/00509/FUL Mr & Mrs J MacDonald Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 10 Drumpellier Grove Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4NU

54 N/04/00513/FUL Mr & Mrs Slavin Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 33 Southfield Road Balloch Cum bernauld G68 9DZ

59 N/04/00527/FUL Mr & Mrs J MacDonald Extension to a Dwellinghouse - Grant 4 Lochwood Loan Moodiesburn

64 N/04/00570/FUL Agnes Nash Siting of a Snack Van - Grant Site at Old Quarry Road Westfield Cum bernauld

66 C/02/0151 I/MIN G M Mining Ltd Extension of Opencast Coal Refuse (P) Mining Operations - Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site (North of Ballochney Road, Plains)

85 C/03/01680/FUL Avon Park Homes Erection of 14 Flatted Refuse Dwellinghouses - 3 Palacecraig Street,

2 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 MAY, 2004

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

90 C/04/00187/FUL Elaine Henderson Formation of Driveway Grant (Retrospective) - 109 Burnbank Street Coatbridge

95 C/04/00249/FU L Link Group Limited Erection of 27 Dwellinghouses, 4 Grant Flats and Associated Access Roads - Phase 38 Mull Petersburn Airdrie

101 C/04/00285/0UT Paterson Builders Ltd Erection of Industrial Unit, Grant External Storage Area and Associated Parking to Form Building Premises - Land West of 1 Moncrieffe Rd

107 C/04/00291/FUL Nicolson Construction Erection of 24 Flatted Grant Ltd Dwellinghouses - Land Incorporating Former Social Club Site, 105 Main Street Plains

114 C/04/00352/FUL Mr John Purves Single Storey Front Extension and Grant Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse - 1 Hillside Crescent Coatbridge

118 C/04/00353/FUL Mrs I Green Partial Demolition, Alteration and Grant Extension to Nursing Home, and Formation of New Access - 107 Aitchison Street Airdrie

125 C/04/00394/FUL West Erection of 17 Dwellinghouses Grant with Associated Works - George Wimpey Phase 5 (East of 159-169 Main Street), Lancaster Avenue Chapelhall

131 C/04/00439/FUL Mr Alistair Tinto Conversion of Byre to Grant Dwellinghouse - Drum Park Farm, Coatbridge Road

137 C/04/00492/FUL Mrs D Tennent Part Change of Use of General Refuse Store to Hot Food Take-away - 37 Main Street

143 C/04/00528/F UL Mr. Matthew Parks Erection of Temporary Mobile Grant Home - 2 East Lodge Cottage Woodhall Estate Calderbank

3 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 MAY, 2004

Page No. Application No. Ap plican t DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

147 S/03/01336/OUT Park Mixed Use Development Refuse (P) Ahead Ltd Comprising Leisure and Residential - Land North of A725 Lanarkshire

157 S/03/01682/FUL Mr & Mrs B Jackson Erection of 2 Metre Fence for Refuse Closure of Public Footpath 18- 20 Heather Avenue Lanarkshire

162 S/03/01900/FUL Airbles Builders Ltd. Change of Use of Former Co-op Refuse Workshop to Offices and Associated Physical Alterations - Land at Former Co-op Building 5 Dalziel Street Motherwell Lanarkshire

167 S/04/00204/OUT Mrs C Holmes Erection of 1 Dwellinghouse (in Refuse outline)l83 Cam busnethan Street Lanarkshire ML2 8PW

172 S1041002421FUL Mr & Mrs C Grierson Two Storey Side Extension to Grant Dwellinghouse - 10 Robert Burns Quadrant Bellshill Lanarkshire ML4 3DF

177 S/04/00271/FUL Central Scotland Construction of New Cycleway & Grant Forest Trust Footpaths Linking Adjacent Communities to Strathclyde Park & Motherwell/ - Land at South Calder Valley Motherwell Lanarkshire

186 '04/00281I, h Sh Construction Amendment To Planning Grant Approval S/02/0152O/FUL for the Erection of 3 Dwellings and Landscape Area - Land East of Cedar Wynd Lanarkshire

192 S/04/0029O/FUL Mr & Mrs J Burns Single-Storey Rear Extension to Grant Dwellinghouse - 37 Newlands Road, G71 5QU

196 S/04/0036O/FUL Lisa Murray Change of Use of Shop (Class 1) Grant to Cafe (Class 3) - 52 High Street Motherwell

20 1 S/04/00426/FUL North Motherwell Proposed Alterations & Extension Grant Pavilion Project to Sports Pavilion & Partial Change of Use From Class 11 (Assembly & Leisure) to Class I0 (Non-Residential) & Class 3 (Food & Drink) - Sports Pavilion Watling Street Motherwell Lanarkshire

4 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 12 MAY, 2004 Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

206 S1041004371AMD Mr I More Amendment to Alter Monoblock Grant Parking Area to Front of House - 149 Waverley Drive Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 7DW

212 S/04/0044O/FUL Mr 8, Mrs R Gray Erection of 1 1/2 Storey Dwelling - Refuse 364 Hamilton Road Motherwell Lanarkshire MLI 3EG

(P) : C/02/01511/MIN If granted, refer to the Scottish Ministers (Notification of Applications), Section 75 and Bond of Caution required (P) : S/03/01336/OUT If granted refer to Scottish Ministers

5 Application No: N/04/00048/OUT

Date Registered: 16th January 2004

Ap pI i ca nt : Fiona McCashin 40 Main Road Condorrat, Cumbernauld

Agent lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell

Development: Formation of Four House Plots

Location: Land to the rear of 40 Main Road, Condorrat

Ward: 63: Condorrat North and Westfield Councillor Balwant Singh Chadha

Grid Reference: 273301 673148

File Reference: N/04/00048/0UT

Site History: CN/89/32 - Residential development (in outline) approved 5th June 1989 91/85/PL - Erection of Car Showroom and Workshop withdrawn 30th January 1992 N/03/00456/FUL - Formation of 6 House Plots and an Access Road withdrawn 7th August 2003

Development Plan: The site is covered by Housing Policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) of The Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Comments) S.E.P.A.(West) (Comments) Scottish Water (No objection) British Gas Transco (No objection) (No objection) The Coal Authority (No objection)

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This outline planning application proposes the formation of 4 residential plots within the garden ground of 40 Main Road, Condorrat. To the west, the application site is bounded by 42 Main Road, to the east by McCashin's Garage, to the north by the on Kirk Place and Main Road to the south (on the opposite side of which are further houses). The existing house sits on ground which is some 1.5 - 2.0 metres higher than the level of Main Road, and to its north the slope breaks quite sharply with the result that the northern part of the site has similar ground levels to those of the adjoining houses on Kirk Place.

6 N/04/00048/OUT Fiona McCashin Land to rear of 40 Main Road Condorrat 00 Formation of 4 House Plots * Representations

7 The site is zoned in the Cumbernauld Local Plan as being within an established residential area and is covered by policy HG4 which seeks to protect such areas from inappropriate and incompatible forms of development. The use of the land for residential purposes accords with this policy.

As a result of discussions with the applicant's agent, the access point to the site has been amended. Access will now be taken directly from the mini roundabout on Main Road and this is considered to be the most satisfactory solution in roads terms.

Two letters of objection have been received and the points contained therein are discussed in the accompanying report. Despite the points made by the objectors, it is considered that 4 plots can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site whilst not having a significant adverse effect on the existing house or those which surround the site. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That before development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:-

(a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (e) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (d) above; (f) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (9) the provision of drainage works; (h) the disposal of sewage; (i) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (j)details of existing and proposed site levels.

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

2. That, including the existing dwelling, the maximum number of dwellinghouses within the site shall be not more than 5 and, for the avoidance of doubt, the site layout plan submitted with the application is viewed as being for illustrative purposes only and this planning permission does not confer any approval to these details.

Reason: To define the scope of this outline planning permission.

3. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 1 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

4. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within five years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the date on which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

5. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, and the details shown on the approved plans, the site will be accessed from the mini roundabout on Main Road and the

8 access shall be to adoptable standards in accordance with the requirements of the Council as Roads Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a safe pedestrian and vehicular access is provided to the site.

6. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, full details of the existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels for each of the plots along with full details of the existing and proposed levels in relation to the proposed access road will be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that, given the ground levels within the site, and in the interests of the amenity of the surrounding dwellings, that these matters are given full consideration

7. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, the proposed development will accord with the following:

a) the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 shall properly front the proposed access road, shall have a minimum back garden depth of 10 metres and will be no greater than a storey and a half in height b) the proposed dwelling on Plot 2 shall properly front the proposed access road, shall have a minimum back garden depth of 10 metres and will be no greater than a storey and a half in height. Where a dwelling of a storey and a half is proposed no bed rooms on the upper floor will have windows which face on to 22 Kirk Place c) the proposed dwelling on Plot 3 shall have a minimum back garden depth of 12 metres, shall properly relate to the proposed access road and shall only be single storey in height. So long as the ground levels of this plot are not increased by infilling, a dwelling of one and a half storeys may be considered in circumstances where there are no bed rooms on the upper floor with windows facing on to 24 Kirk Place and where the distance between the 2 properties exceeds 25 metres. d) the proposed dwelling on Plot 4 shall front on to Main Road, will respect the building line established by the existing dwelling on the site (40 Main Road) and the proposed dwelling will be no greater than a storey and a half in height.

Reason: To control the nature of the development in the interests of the residential amenity of the existing adjoining dwellings.

8. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, before any work commences of the construction of dwellings on any of the plots, the new access road shall be formed to a minimum of base course level and, as soon as the new access road is formed, it shall be used by all traffic accessing the site and the existing access from Main Road shall be closed off. For the avoidance of doubt, before the last of the new dwellings is occupied, the road shall be constructed to wearing course level.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and road safety.

9. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, and except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before any of the new dwellings are occupied, the existing wall and hedge along the Main Road frontage shall be extended to close off the existing access and, as part of the works to form the new access road, the wall on either side of the access road shall be altered on to form an entrance feature. The exact details of these works will have been included in a scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

9 Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area given the strong visual impact of the existing wall and hedge.

10. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, particular attention should be paid to the boundary treatments for the shared boundaries of Plots 1 and 4 and the adjacent filling station and car wash.

Reason: Given the location of these plots in relation to the filling station and car wash.

11. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 1 above, prior to the construction of any dwellinghouses, full details of the location, design and maintenance of the surface water drainage regime to be installed within the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme requires to be approved by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in terms of their principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. For the avoidance of doubt, details shall be included on the management and maintenance of the existing stream to the rear of proposed plots 1, 2 and 3.

Reason: In the interests of the environment, and to prevent contamination of ground and surface water.

12. That before the occupation of any of the new dwellings within this site, the surface water drainage regime approved by the Planning Authority shall be installed and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the environment, and to prevent contamination of ground and surface water.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th January 2004

Memo from Traffic & Transportation Team Leader received 4th February 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 20th February 2004 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 25th February 2004 Letters from Scottish Water received 10th & 12th February 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 26th January 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 27th January 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 27th January 2004

Letter from Mr And Mrs Welsh,24 Kirk Place, Condorrat, Cumbernauld, G67 4EE received 26th January 2004. Letter from John & Shelagh McCarthy,22 Kirk Place, Condorrat, Cumbernauld, G67 4EE received 2nd February 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Graeme Lee at 01236 616474.

10 APPLICATION NO. N/04/00048/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This outline application proposes the formation of a new access road and 4 residential plots within the garden ground of 40 Main Road Condorrat. Access will be taken direct from the existing mini roundabout on Main Road. One plot will be formed between the existing dwelling and the filling station. The remaining plots will back on to the existing dwellings on Kirk Place.

1.2 To the west, the application site is bounded by 42 Main Road, to the east by McCashin's Garage, to the north by the dwellings on Kirk Place and Main Road to the south (on the opposite side of which are further dwellings). The existing dwelling sits on ground which is some 1.5 - 2 metres higher than the level of Main Road. To the north of the existing dwelling, the slope breaks quite sharply with the result that the northern part of the site has similar ground levels to those of the adjoining dwellings on Kirk Place. There is an outbuilding to the rear of the existing dwelling and within the site there are the foundations of numerous other outbuildings. Large parts of the existing site are overgrown and untended.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by Housing Policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) of The Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993. This policy seeks to protect existing residential areas from inappropriate and incompatible forms of development. The use of the land for residential purposes accords with this policy.

3. Planning History

3.1 The site was granted outline planning permission for residential development by Cumbernauld and Kilsyth District Council in 1989. A follow up detailed application was not submitted. A more recent outline application for 6 dwellings was withdrawn when it was made clear to the applicant that it would likely be refused (insufficient information had been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development would work in planning terms).

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 The proposal has been revised to take access direct from the mini roundabout on Main Road. This has addressed the road safety issues in relation to the proposed development. The only matter of significance raised by any of the consultees was raised by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). It is their recommendation that the surface water arising within this site is treated in accordance with the principles of sustainable urban drainage (SUDS). This and other matters can be covered satisfactorily by the imposition of the usual standard planning conditions.

4.2 Letters of representation have been received from the residents of 22 and 24 Kirk Place. The matters raised (and my comments) are detailed below:

0 Drainage in the area immediately to the rear of Kirk Place is poor; the existing has changed course and is eroding ground from these properties; further properties andlor a change in ground levels could cause floodinglfurther erosion and the owners of plots 1,2 and 3 should be made aware of their obligations with regard to the burn.

Comment: The matter of surface water drainage has also been raised by SEPA and can be covered by planning conditions.

11 0 A 2 metre high wooden boundary fence should be erected along the boundary of the site and the properties on Kirk Place; no housing to be within 10 metres of this fence; the houses should be single storey in height and the houses should be positioned to ensure that they do not overlook rear gardens or bedrooms of existing properties on Kirk Place.

Comment: The layout of the dwellings on the plots can be covered by planning conditions and the layout will need to comply with the Council’s policy on open space around new dwellings. This will ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed and existing dwellings. In planning terms, it is the levels of privacy within the dwellings that take precedence, and the minimum distance of 20 metres between directly facing public rooms can be safeguarded by planning conditions. The planning conditions restrict the maximum height of any dwelling on the site to one and a half storeys - on the plots to the rear of 22 and 24 Kirk Place, such a dwelling will only be permissible where the upper floor bed rooms have no rear facing windows (in certain circumstances velux windows may be considered)

0 Environmental health will need to monitor the site to ensure that rodents and the like are not scattered from the site into the surrounding area - dialysis medication is stored in the garage at 22 Kirk Place.

Comment: If such a situation were to arise then it should be brought to the attention of the Environmental Health Section.

5. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issues are the impact of the proposed four houses on the amenity and privacy currently enjoyed by surrounding properties.

5.2 It is true that the development will alter the character of the area, but not so significantly as would justify refusing planning permission. The development of the site will have some effect on the amenity of existing residents around the site, but again, not to such an extent as would justify refusing planning permission. In addition, planning conditions can be imposed to ensure a satisfactory relationship between existing and proposed dwellings and this in turn will ensure that residential amenity is protected. Notwithstanding the points made by two of the adjacent neighbours, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

12 Application No: N/04/00286/FUL

Date Registered: 23rd March 2004

Applicant: Gary Halcrow 67A High Craigends Kilsyth G65 ONS

Agent M Rae 24 Kennedy Way The Meadows Airth FK2 8GB

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 67A High, Craigends, Kilsyth

Ward: 66: Banton and Kilsyth East Councillor Tom Barrie

Grid Reference: 272074.677871

File Reference: N/04/00286/FU L

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by the residential policies in the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant seeks permission for an extension to a dwellinghouse at 67A High Craigends, Kilsyth. One letter of representation has been received from the adjoining neighbour at 67 High Craigends, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objection, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

13 U*l.l~(,~nnDlnaOll.,r..RUn *Representation I* r.nl,rman ‘n.m”**tw.l, s rei 012$~118210 rax 01230811232 O.*onrRO(b. .c,c.n~,,m, This copy has been produced specifically forthe Map Rsturn Scheme purposes onh, -=“*a ,.ImUc*nl*..‘l,lm<9I*Vhl ....I*.< ,.,l,lwm01 *l”*<...h. 35 Liienoa 100023310 2004 NO further copies may be mads

14 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity,

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th February 2004 Letter from Douglas Bankier, Clo S Bankier, Cir Mhor, 91 Arden Grove, Kilsyth, G65 9LZ received 31st March 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Lavery at 01236 616464.

15 APPLICATION NO. N1041002861FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is located within a cul-de-sac at High Craigends and the property in question is a 2 storey semi-detached dwellinghouse. There is a shared access in front of the building and an area allocated for 2 garages to the south-east of the property, however only one garage exists and this belongs to the applicant.

1.2 The applicant proposes to construct a single storey extension on to the side of his property, providing an additional bedroom and en-suite. The footprint of the extension will be 4 metres x 5.5 metres, with a height of 4.5 metres at the front and 5.5 metres at the rear. The extension will be 1 metre from the existing boundary and 2 metres from the neighbour’s parking area.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by the Residential Policies of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999. The development is in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 One letter of objection was received from the neighbouring proprietor at 67 High Craigends. The main points of objection are as follows:-

. The plans submitted are different to the objector’s deed plans. . The objector is concerned about possible damage to the shared access and wishes to know who will be responsible for any repairs required.

Comment :While appreciating the concerns of the objector, the above two points are legal issues which cannot be considered material in the determination of this planning application.

1 The objector is concerned about the disruption within the shared access during construction.

Comment : It is conceded that as with any development, there may be disruption during the construction of the extension, however, this would be temporary and should not be considered material in deciding the acceptability of the proposed extension.

4. PIan ni nR Assessment and Co nc I usi o ns

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue in the determination of the application is the impact of the proposed side extension on the neighbouring proprietor.

4.2 The design and scale of the proposed extension are considered to be acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour at 67 High Craigends, and discussed in section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

16 Application No: N/04/00302/OUT

Date Registered: 3rd March 2004

Applicant: Mr Owen McGarry 6 Lochview Terrace Gartcosh G69 8BA

Development : Construction of a Dwellinghouse

Location: Land South West of 6 Lochview Terrace, Gartcosh

Ward: 68: Moodiesburn West and Gartcosh Councillor Joseph Shaw

Grid Reference: 269775668429

File Reference: N/04/00302/0UT

Site History: 84/493 : Alteration of one dwellinghouse to form 3 flatted properties - Refused 04/02/1987 911147 : Erection of double garage - Approved 24/04/1991 93/583 : Alteration and extension to double garage to form children’s nursery - Refused 28/04/1994 94/429 : Extension to double garage to include study area - Approved 11 /I 1/I 994

Development Plan: The site is covered by Greenbelt policies in the Adopted , Southern Area Local Plan 1983 and the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft), 2000. It is also covered by a Tree Preservation Order in the Northern Corridor Local Plan.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: S.E. P.A.(W est) (No Response) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (Comments) Scottish Power (Comments) The Coal Authority (Comments)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 10 March 2004

Comments:

The applicant seeks outline planning permission for the construction of a dwellinghouse at land to the west of 6 Lochview Terrace, Gartcosh. The application site is bounded in part by the shore of Johnston Loch. There are no material considerations that outweigh the local plan policy presumption against new- build residential development in the Greenbelt. It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

17

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. In the interests of the proper planning of the area in that a new dwellinghouse would constitute inappropriate new development in the Greenbelt and would be contrary to the adopted Strathkelvin, Southern Area Local Plan, 1983, the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft), 2000 and SDD Circular 24/1985 ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belts’.

2. That should planning permission be granted for this development, a precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other similar applications.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 3rd March 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 16th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 15th March 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 12th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 10th March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 18th March 2004 Letter from Gartcosh Community Council received received 1gth April 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Devlin at 01236 616463.

19 APPLICATION NO. N/04/00302/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The applicant seeks outline permission for the onstruction of a dwellinghouse at land to the west of 6 Lochview Terrace, Gartcosh. The site area extends over 0.23 hectares and is bounded by Johnston Loch and fields to the south of the site. There are a number of sheds, garages and outbuildings already situated on the site.

1.2 An indicative plan has been submitted showing the proposed dwellinghouse facing on to an existing access lane behind Lochview Terrace that the residents utilise to gain access to their rear garages.

2. Develop ment Plan

2.1 While the application site lies within the designated Greenbelt, the proposed development is not regarded as one of strategic significance in light of the thresholds set within the and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan. The application requires to be assessed in terms of the Local Plan and Circular 24/1985 - ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belts’.

2.2 The application site lies within the Greenbelt as defined in the Adopted Strathkelvin, Southern Area Local Plan, 1983 and the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000. Furthermore, the site is covered by a Tree Preservation order in terms of the Northern Corridor Local Plan.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal subject to a number of conditions.

3.2 None of the statutory consultees offered any objection to the proposal.

3.3 One letter of objection has been received from Gartcosh Community Council, their statement being as follows :-

+ There should be no further development around Johnston Loch.

Comment: The Community Council give no reason for their statement, so comments are not appropriate.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Determination of this application has to be made having regard to the development plan as required by Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 As stated above, there are no strategic issues in this case. In terms of the Local Plan, the proposal is contrary to established Greenbelt policy and no justification has been submitted to support a departure from this policy.

20 4.3 While Circular 24/1985 is almost 20 years old, the underlying presumption against unjustified development within designated Greenbelts remains Government policy. Permission should only be granted for the construction of new buildings in very special circumstances. The terms of the Circular support the policies contained within the adopted Local Plan.

4.4 Given that there are no material considerations or very special circumstances in this case which justify a grant of planning permission, it is recommended that permission be refused.

21 Application No: N/04/00346/FUL

Date Registered: 15th March 2004

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Marchetti 21 Cumbernauld Road Stepps Glasgow G33 6LR

Agent David Jarvie 27 Aytoun Road Pollockshields Glasgow G41 5HW

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 21 Cumbernauld Road, Stepps

Ward: 70: Stepps Councillor Brian Wallace

Grid Reference: 265185.668051.

File Reference: N/04/00346/FU L

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: I Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the construction of an extension to the rear of the property at 21 Cumbernauld Road, Stepps. One letter of representation has been received from the immediate neighbour, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

22 MrN/04/00346/FU & ME Mardlett L 4fj‘&pe- 21 Curnbernauld Road Stepps

Extension to a Dwellinghouse UY~UU311,DI”10,.10MI,r.,~n .m 8% *n,,Unan nmnldrrrmlllwb 8 *Representation -“*met .rlancl”*ll Thlscopy has been ploduced specincap fortne Map Return Scheme purwoses onlv nrr~,i,I,n*ul~nm.’clorn.9”1,.1 ...**. Il~,l...~ulm~M*.‘.tlni NO iurtnel copies may be made

23 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 15th March 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 5th April 2004 Letter from Mr & Mrs M Laird, 23 Cumbernauld Road, Stepps, G33 6LR received 25th March 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Devlin at 01236 616463.

24 APPLICATION NO. N1041003461FUL

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

1.1 This application is for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear of the property at 21 Cumbernauld Road, Stepps. The property is a two-storey semi-detached house set within an existing residential area. The extension will result in a further lounge being provided.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site is covered by residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.2 One letter of objection has been received from the neighbour at 23 Cumbernauld Road, the main points of which are summarised as follows:-

+ The height and length of the extension will result in overshadowing of structures to the rear of the property and will have a detrimental effect on daylight levels in the dining room, kitchen and rear bedroom.

Comment : It is considered that both the height and length of the extension are acceptable, especially considering the extensive rear garden the plot benefits from. Having carried out the Building Research Establishment sunlight and daylight tests, it is concluded that the sunlight levels at the rear of the property and daylight levels in the rear rooms will be well within the limits of acceptability.

+ An extensive part of the garden will be overshadowed for a significant portion of the day, thus preventing the neighbour from erecting decking or a conservatory.

Comment :As previously mentioned, the effect on daylight levels is acceptable. It also worth pointing out that proposed extension would only have a minimal effect on a small portion of the garden later on in the day.

+ As the proposed extension is to be used as a living room and it will have large windows, this will result in a severe incursion into the privacy the neighbour expects to enjoy.

Comment : It is considered that while windows are proposed on the elevation adjacent to the common boundary, they are not overly large and will be far enough from the neighbouring property in order to have a minimal effect on privacy.

+ The proposal will have an adverse impact on the market value of the neighbouring property.

Comment : The purported impact on the value of the adjacent property is not a material planning consideration.

25 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbouring proprietor.

4.2 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour, and discussed in section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

26 Application No: N/04/00347/FUL

Date Registered: 15th March 2004

Applicant : John McKellar 54 Baldorran Crescent Balloch Cumbernauld G68 9BL

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 54 Baldorran Crescent, Balloch, Cumbernauld

Ward: 56: Balloch W, Blackwood E and Craigmarloch Councillor Barry McCulloch

Grid Reference: 273925.6751 59.

File Reference: N/04/00347/FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by the residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant seeks consent for the construction of a 2 storey side extension to a dwellinghouse at 54 Baldorran Crescent, Balloch, Cumbernauld. One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 52 Baldorran Crescent, the grounds of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

27 28 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the extension hereby permitted is brought into use 3 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 15th March 2004 Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 2ndApril 2004. Letter from W S T Watson,52 Baldorran Crescent, Cumbernauld, G68 9BL received 7th April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Lavery at 01236 616464.

29 APPLICATION NO. N1041003471FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application is for the construction of a 2-storey side extension at the semi-detached house at 54 Baldorran Crescent, Balloch, Cumbernauld. The extension will provide a dining room and study on the ground floor and 2 additional bedrooms and en-suite on the first floor.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by the residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal, subject to the provision of additional; parking.

3.2 One letter of representation was received from the neighbour at 52 Baldorran Crescent. The main points of objection are as follows:- . When purchasing the property in 1986 it was understood that the only permissions likely to be granted would be for the construction of a garage.

Comment : While this may have been the objector’s understanding in 1986, it is not a material planning consideration. . The extension will alter the appearance of the present semi-detached properties and would give the property a “Tenement Type Appearance”. This will reduce the value of both properties.

Commnet : The design and scale of the extension is acceptable in planning terms. Any impact on the value of the properties is not a material planning consideration. . The extension will block daylight to the rear of No.16 Baldorran Crescent. Comment : The proprietors of No.16 Baldorran Crescent have a substantial garden area. The proposed extension will bound only a small part of their north-facing garden. No objections have been received from the occupiers of No.16.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the extension on the neighbouring proprietors.

4.2 I am satisfied that the design and scale of the proposed extension are acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour at 52 Baldorran Crescent, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

30 Application No: N1041003641FUL

Date Registered: 17th March 2004

Applicant: Mr Shaun Boyle 4 Whithorn Crescent Moodiesburn Glasgow G69 OHR

Agent George Walker Building Design Services 41 Woodlands Bank Dalgety Bay KYI 1 9SX

Development: Alterations and Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 4 Whithorn Crescent, Moodiesburn

Ward: 67: Moodiesburn East and Blackwood West Councillor William Hogg

Grid Reference: 269987.67131 1.

File Reference: N/04/00364/FUL

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by the residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant seeks consent for the construction of a 2 storey side extension to a dwellinghouse at 4 Whithorn Crescent, Balloch, Cumbernauld. One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 2 Whithorn Crescent, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objection, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:.

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

31 'reduced by N/04/003C4/FULMr Shaun Boyie ’Imninp and Envionmed Dspaltrnant lsming House 1 Trysl Read Whithorn Crescent Moodiesburn XIMBERNAULD 4 x71Jw Alterations and Extenslon to a Dwellinghouse ,.*mu*+& ,c. I* OM”- 01”W n.*n .tn Representation n *.nnnan OmIMm.lY.I.rl’ rei 01236 818210 FIX 01236 616232 * A il-RIma .Ilon-)llWIL This copy has been produced SPecifitaIIY 101 Ihe Map Return Scheme purposes only uunn’,,n,a*nmnn*l..CI-DIsVll n.I .* w,lo,.Cum m e’lr.DP*ml 1s Licence 100023368 2004 No further copies may be made

32 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: That the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the extension hereby permitted is brought into use 2 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th March 2004 Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 30 March 2004. Letter from Mr Walter Hughes, 2 Whithorn Crescent, Moodiesburn, G69 OHR received 23rd March 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Lavery at 01236 616464.

33 APPLICATION NO. N1041003641FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I The application is for the construction of a 2-storey side extension at 4 Whithorn Crescent, Moodiesburn. The property is a detached house set within an existing residential area. The extension will provide a garage, kitchen and toilet on the ground floor and 2 additional bedrooms and en-suite on the first floor.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area covered by the residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000. The proposal is in accordance with the development plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal, subject to the provision of additional parking.

3.2 One letter of representation was received from the neighbour at 2 Whithorn Crescent. The main points of objection are as follows: - . The extension will block light to the stairway, upper hall and kitchen area of the objector’s house and on opening his side door he will be faced with a brick wall only 2 metres away.

Comment : It is conceded that there may be a slight reduction in daylight to the upper hall and kitchen area of the objector’s property, however these areas are not considered to be habitable rooms and the impact will be minimal. With regard to the close proximity of the extension to the objector’s door, the 2 metre distance is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. . The security of the objector’s house will be compromised by the extension partially concealing the side entrance.

Comment : While appreciating the concerns of the objector, this issue is not a material planning consideration. . A similar extension by the objector would make the houses appear semi-detached rather than detached.

Comment : The proposed extension should be assessed on its own merits. The fact that the objector may submit a planning application for an extension in the future, cannot be considered in assessing this proposal. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with semi- detached houses.

The value of the objector‘s property would be reduced due to the close proximity of the extension.

Comment : The above point is noted, however any likely impact on the value of the property is not a material planning consideration.

34 4. Plann inu Assess ment and Co ncl u s io ns

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbouring proprietor.

4.2 The design and scale of the proposed extension are acceptable from a planning perspective. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour at 2 Whithorn Crescent, and discussed in ection 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

35 Application No: N1041003661FUL

Date Registered: 22nd March 2004

Applicant: Mr Mark Johnston 17 Moray Place C hryston Glasgow G69 9LZ

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 17 Moray Place, Chryston

Ward: 69: Chryston and Councillor Charles Gray

Grid Reference: 268693.669827.

File Reference: N1041003661FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the construction of a two-storey side extension at 17 Moray Place, Chryston. One letter of representation has been received from a neighbour, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

36 37 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, curtilage parking for at least 3 vehicles shall be provided within the whole of the front garden area, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking provision.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking provision for the development hereby approved.

4. That the existing dropped kerb shall be extended to a maximum of 5 metres to the specification of the Roads Authority, and that the parking area shall be fully paved with a drainage facility provided.

Reason: To permit access to the driveway and to prevent deleterious material being carried on to the highway.

5. That any gates, if erected, shall not open on to the public roadlfootway.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th March 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 7th April 2004

Letter from The Occupier,l5 Moray Place, Chryston, G69 9LZ received 29th March 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Devlin at 01236 616463.

38 APPLICATION NO. N1041003661FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application is for the construction of a two-storey side extension at 17 Moray Place, Chryston. The property is situated at the end of a terraced row within an existing residential area. The extension will result in the provision of a further lounge, utility room and WC at ground floor level, and bedroom with en-suite at the first floor level.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal subject to the provision of additional car parking.

3.2 One letter of objection has been received from the neighbours at 15 Moray Place, the main points of which are summarised as follows:-

+ Concern has been expressed about the overall size of the extension and the fact that it will cause an obstruction to their own property.

Comment .- The proposed extension is large in floor area terms (34m2 on each level), however, the garden area is more than sufficient to accommodate this. It is considered that the extension will not cause an obstruction, as it will be approximately 4 metres from No.15 at the closest point.

+ The proposal will mean that the neighbours will be unable to use their driveway. This will cause problems in an area where parking provision is deficient.

Comment : The applicant confirmed that the driveway referred to is not used and is shared between the two neighbours. At one stage a fence existed separating the front garden area of the two properties. This matter is essentially a legal issue between both parties

+ The proposal will result in overshadowing of the garden for most of the day. Comment .- The proposed extension will have an impact on the levels of sunlight currently enjoyed in the garden of No.15. However, the impact will be minimal and will only occur in the early part of the day on a small section of the garden area.

+ The proposal will invade the neighbours’ privacy, as their garden will be overlooked by windows, as will the entrance to their house.

Comment .- New windows are proposed on the front elevation, however they will cause no privacy issues, as they will look directly out on to Moray Place. No windows are proposed on the side elevation of the proposed extension. The windows on the rear elevation (ground floor utility room and upper floor bedroom) will look directly into the applicant‘s own garden area. There will of course be the ability to look obliquely into a section of the neighbours’ rear garden, however this situation already exists from two upper bedroom windows and is a common feature in all housing estates.

39 + The scale of the extension may affect the value of the neighbour’s property.

Comment : This above point is noted, however the purported impact on the value of the property is not a material planning consideration.

4. PIann in a Assessment and Co ncl us io ns

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring proprietor.

4.2 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed two storey extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour at 15 Moray Place, and discussed in section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

40 Application No: N/04/00380/0UT

Date Registered: 17th March 2004

Applicant: Mr Peter Moretti 10 Garnkirk Lane Stepps G33 6BD

Development: Construction of a Dwellinghouse

Location: 10 Garnkirk Lane, Stepps

Ward: 70: Stepps Councillor Brian Wallace

Grid Reference: 266839 668551

File Reference: N/04/00380/0 UT

Site History: TP/89/598 : Outline planning application for the construction of 2 dwellinghouses refused in December 1989. TP/90/462: Outline planning application for the construction of 2 dwellinghouses refused in March 1991. TP/92/500: Temporary planning permissions for the siting of a mobile dwellinghouse granted in February 1993 and November 1994.

Development Plan: The site is covered in part by an “Existing Development in the Greenbelt” policy and in part by Greenbelt policies in the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983, and by Greenbelt policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Modifications to Finalised Draft), 2003.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Water (Comments) The Coal Authority (Comments)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised 24‘h March 2004

Comments:

This outline application is in respect of the construction of a dwellinghouse within an existing contractor’s yard at 10 Garnkirk Lane, Stepps. It is proposed that the house will be occupied by a full- time worker at the yard and that it will help provide security. The application site was originally a brickworks and is one of the longest established industrial areas in Stepps. It is identified as an ‘existing development‘ in the Greenbelt in the Development Plan. The emerging Local Plan identified the site until recently within an industrial zoning, but this has recently been modified to a Greenbelt zoning.

41

Given the development plan position, the fact that there already is a house within the control of the operators of the contractor's yard and the substandard nature of the access road, it is considered that there are no exceptional circumstances which would justify a grant of planning permission in this case. It is therefore recommended that permission be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons :-

I. The proposed dwellinghouse constitutes inappropriate development in the Greenbelt as defined in the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983 and the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Modifications to Finalised Draft), 2003

2. The applicant has not provided a sufficient case to justify a departure from established Greenbe1 t policy.

3. The means of vehicular access to the application site, namely Garnkirk Lane, is substandard in terms of its construction, public lighting and pedestrian facilities.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th March 2004

Memo from Traffic & Transportation Team Leader dated 2ndApril 2004 Memo from Pollution Control Manager dated April 2004. Letter from Scottish Water received 30th March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 30th March 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Dean at 01236 616459.

43 APPLICATION NO. N/04/00380/0UT

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

This outline application is in respect of the construction of a house within the existing contractor’s yard at 10 Garnkirk Lane, Stepps. It is proposed that the house be occupied by a full-time worker at the yard and that it will help provide security. The application site was originally a brickworks and is one of the longest established industrial areas in Stepps. It is identified as an ‘existing development‘ in the Greenbelt in the Development Plan. The emerging local plan identified the site until recently within an industrial zoning, but this has recently been modified to a Greenbelt zoning.

It is proposed that the house be located on the rear (northern) section of the contractor’s yard There is an existing house on the site and an adjacent cottage (known as Cottage), which is outwith the ownership of the applicant‘s family. The existing house is the ‘temporary’ house granted in 1994, and it clearly has some value in the running of the contractor’s yard, although it is currently occupied by a semi-retried employee and there is no planning condition tying its occupancy to a full-time employee of the yard.

Development Plan

The site is zoned as follows in the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983:

E.PR02/3 (part site): Existing development within the Greenbelt where further development will be considered to be acceptable provided that local plan criteria can be satisfied and that the proposed development is consistent and in scale with the existing land use and development. E.PR02 (part site): Greenbelt whereby there is an absolute prohibition of all new development or changes of use unless shown to be in the interest of agriculture, forestry or outdoor recreation and providing that no damage to rural amenities results. E.IMP6 (part site): Agricultural improvement through infill.

Under the terms of the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Modifications to Finalised Draft) 2003, the site is covered by the following policies:-

0 ENV2: The site is within the Greenbelt. 0 ENV3: The Council along with other bodies will encourage and support urban fringe planting. 0 ENV4: There will be a presumption against new development in the Greenbelt. ENV5: There will be a presumption against new residential developments in the Greenbelt unless it is shown to be necessary in the direct interest of agriculture, forestry and horticulture or other uses appropriate only to a rural area. 0 ENV6: Replacement housing in the Greenbelt. ENV7: The rehabilitationlconversion of buildings in the Greenbelt. 0 ENV8: Extending existing developments in the Greenbelt.

It should be noted that prior to the latest modifications, the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000 had the site and adjacent land covered by Policy ECON5 : ‘The Council will pursue development of sites for new industrial/business opportunities.’

44 3. Planning History

3.1 Previous relevant planning applications on the site are as follows:-

* TP/89/698: Construction of Two Dwellinghouses - Refused December 1989 for reasons relating to the Greenbelt zoning, not being required for agriculture, low level of residential amenity, sub-standard road and precedent. TP/90/464: Erection of Two Dwellinghouses - Refused March 1991 for reasons relating to the Greenbelt zoning, not being required for agriculture, low level of residential amenity, sub-standard road and precedent. TP92/500: Siting of Portable Dwellinghouse - Temporary permissions granted in February 1993 and November 1994. This house has all the appearance of a permanent structure.

4. Consultations and Rewesentations

4.1 Summaries of consultation responses are as follows :-

e The Coal Authority : In view of possible shallow fireclay workings and the presence of a localised mine entry, a prudent developer would seek appropriate technical advice before works are undertaken on site.

Scottish Water : Contact should be made with Scottish Water to discuss how the proposed development would be best served with a public water supply. There are no known sewers to which a connection may be made. Drainage will require to be treated by septic tank or other suitable treatment system to the satisfaction of SEPA.

My Pollution Control Section point out that the proposed development is on the site of a closed landfill. A full site investigation survey would be required if outline consent is granted.

My Transportation Section have expressed concerns at the condition of Garnkirk Lane which is in poor condition, is sub-standard, is unlit, has no pedestrian facilities and which already serves a number of private houses at its western end.

4.2 No public representations have been received.

5. PIann i nQ Assessment and Co nc Iu s io ns

5.1 In the determination of this planning application, regard must be taken of the Development Plan and other material considerations, including the previous planning history of the site. In coming to a recommendation, it has to be assessed whether or not there are exceptional circumstances which would support a departure from established Local Plan, particularly Greenbelt, policies.

5.2 While the area within which the house is proposed is an established contractor’s yard, and it is unlikely that anyone not associated with the operation of the yard would wish to live in this location, it has to be remembered that there already is a house on the site which could be occupied by a full time employee.

5.3 The only material considerations in favour of the proposal are the fact that the contractor’s yard is an established ‘industrial’ activity in the Greenbelt and that the applicant wishes to have a full time employee on site, whose presence could improve the security position.

5.4 Notwithstanding the applicant‘s case, it is concluded that there are insufficient grounds to justify a grant of permission for the construction of another house at Garnkirk Lane, Stepps, It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

45 Application No: N/04/00406/FUL

Date Registered: 24th March 2004

Applicant : Orange PCS Ltd St James Court Great Park Road Almondsbury Park Bradley Stoke Bristol, BSI2 4QJ

Agent Templemans Chartered Surveyors Hobart House East Brougham Street Stanley Perthshire, PHI 4NJ

Development: Installation of Telecommunications Equipment

Location: Balcastle Farm, Balcastle Road, Kilsyth

Ward: 65: and Kilsyth West Councillor Jean Jones

Grid Reference: 270255.678386

File Reference: N/04/00406/FUL

Site History: The existing mast is permitted development.

Development Plan: This application site is covered by Green Belt policies in the Kilsyth Local Plan, 1999.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks permission for the installation of 3 additional antennas and ancillary works, including a new equipment cabin, at the existing telecommunications mast at Balcastle Farm, Kilsyth. The upgrade of the mast is required to meet the needs of an incoming mast sharing operator.

The applicant has confirmed that the equipment will comply with ICNIRP guidelines for exposure to electromagnetic fields. As the mast already exists and the applicant is proposing mast sharing, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

46 u*avI. 1- .I OIIIIIDY“IO*ll .n R *.IIIMlll. ‘Onlllltbhl”*

47 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 24th March 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Kirsten Devlin at 01236 616463.

48 Application No: N/04/00509/FUL

Date Registered: 5th April 2004

Applicant : Mr & Mrs J MacDonald 10 Drumpellier Grove Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4NU

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 10 Drumpellier Grove, Condorrat

Ward: 62: Condorrat Central Councillor Gerard McElroy

Grid Reference: 274358.673001.

File Reference: N/04/00509/FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the construction of a two-storey extension and single storey garage at 10 Drumpellier Grove, Condorrat. Three letters of representation have been received, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

49 50 3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed a total of three car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision for a four-bedroom dwellinghouse.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 5th April 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 26'h April 2004

Letter from Mr & Mrs R Dobbie,8 Drumpellier Grove, Condorrat, G67 4NU received 8th April 2004. Letter from A McClymont,20 Drumpellier Place, Condorrat, G67 4NX received 20th April 2004. Letter from Susan & Alex Miller,l2 Drumpellier Grove, Condorrat, G67 4NU received 20th April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Devlin at 01236 616463.

51 APPLICATION NO. N/04/00509/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application is for the construction of a two-storey extension to the side and rear of the property at 10 Drumpellier Grove, as well as a single storey garage extension on the north elevation. The property is detached and is set within an existing residential area. The extension will result in a new kitchen and breakfast area at ground floor level, while a further bedroom with en-suite is proposed on the first floor.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Three letters of objection have been received from the neighbours at 8 and 12 Drumpellier Grove and 20 Drumpellier Place, the main points of which are summarised as follows:-

+ The proposal would overshadow No. 8 and would be extremely intrusive.

Comment : Having carried out the Building Research Establishment tests, it is concluded that the sunlight and daylight levels will be well within the limits of acceptability. While the proposal is extensive it is considered that it will not be overly intrusive to the neighbours.

+ As the garage is proposed on the common boundary the next door neighbours will have difficulty entering and exiting their cars due to the narrow width of their driveway. Furthermore, their refuse bin would have to be taken through their house prior to and after collection.

Comment .- As there is over 2.5 metres from the side of No. 8 to the common boundary it is considered that there is sufficient space. The above points of objection imply that the neighbours have been entering the applicant’s land to enterlexit their vehicles and to take their refuse bin for collection. The fact they may find it more difficult to do so is not a reason in itself to justify refusal of this application.

+ The proprietors at No. 12 are concerned that scaffolding would have to be erected on their land to construct the extension, and any maintenance to the side elevation of the extension would require access on to their land.

Comment: The above points are not material planning considerations and are essentially legal matters between both parties.

+ There is limited space within the garden ground of No. 10, the proposal would be too close to No. 12 and the proprietors do not welcome looking on to a brick wall.

52 Comment .- It is considered that there is sufficient space for the proposal as it will be 0.5 metres from the common boundary with No. 12. and will be approximately 3 metres from the actual building. Currently the kitchen and hallway windows look on to the existing side elevation of No. 10; the only difference being that part of the gable would be just over 1 metre closer, which is acceptable from a planning viewpoint.

+ The proprietors of 20 Drumpellier Place are concerned that the proposal will restrict light into their property and will result in privacy issues. They question the window to window distances and are also concerned that the garage window will look directly into their downstairs bathroom and utility room.

Comment ;The proposal is sufficiently far from No. 20 not to have an impact on the daylight levels in the rooms to the rear of the property. The bedroom window to window distance will be 19 metres, which is acceptable, although there will be some reduction in the privacy of the rear garden of No. 20. The relationship of the garage window to No. 20’s bathroom and utility room windows is of little importance as these are not habitable rooms.

+ The submitted plans do not show No. 20’s extension and conservatory, which require to be taken into consideration for calculating the distance between the properties.

Comment : The above situation was taken into consideration, and it was found that the extension would be an acceptable distance from the extended No. 20.

+ The proprietors have raised concern about removal of the boundary wall and access to do so.

Comment : The above points are legal issues between the parties concerned.

+ The point has been raised about exiting the property in an emergency situation should there be a fire.

Comment .- The above is not a material planning consideration and is a matter for the Department‘s Building Control Team.

+ If approved a precedent could be set.

Comment; The above point is noted, however each application is decided on its own merits.

4. Plan n i ng Assess ment and Co nclus ions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on three neighbouring properties.

4.2 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed extension, while somewhat larger than the norm, is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised, and discussed in section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

53 Application No: N104/00513/FUL

Date Registered: 6th April 2004

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Slavin 33 Southfield Road Balloch Cumbernauld G68 9DZ

Agent BDA Design 38 Wellpark Crescent FK7 9HF

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 33 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld

Ward: 55: Balloch East and Ravenswood Councillor Elizabeth Gemmell

Grid Reference: 274472.674428.

File Reference: N1041005131FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the construction of a two-storey side extension at 33 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld. Three letters of representation have been received from neighbours, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

54 ~roduccdby rlannlng'laming House and EnvlOMCM Depaltment MrN/04/00513'FUL & Mrs Slavin +$:&sk: 2 Try* Rood 33 Southfield Road Balloch Cumbemauld CUMBERNAULD 3671 JW Extension to a Dwellinghouse r.nrlatrI*~*"nrOYI.,".*..I" Representat'ons I. ,.rnhCb*" cm,a"*~1YuI,I le1 01236 816210 FIX 01236 616232 * DM."Om, .C,~.nCWUI, Thiscopy has baen produced specIficalh/ for the Map Return Scheme purposes only -I", ,.,au,mnnrr*, r,on~,,WII n .m *" *.~'.WD1~ w"*oo1e.tm. 35 LICCIICP 100023369 2004 No further copies may be made

55 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed a total of 3 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and outwith the public road or footway, and shall thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision for a four-bedroom dwellinghouse.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th April 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 26'h April 2004

Letter from W J Adair & B Burns,31 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld, G68 9DQ received 19th April 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs D Quigley,29 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld, G68 9DQ received 20th April 2004. Letter from Mr Frank Bonini & Mrs Katherine Bonini,27 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld, G68 9DQ received 20th April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Devlin at 01236 616463.

56 AP P LICAT I0N N0. N/04/005 1 3/F U L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I This application is for the construction of a two-storey extension to the side of the property at 33 Southfield Road, Balloch, Cumbernauld. The property is set within an existing residential area. The extension will provide a new dining area and kitchen extension at ground floor level and a further bedroom with en-suite at first floor level.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by residential policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Three letters of objection have been received from the neighbours at Nos. 27, 29 and 31 Southfield Road, the main points of which are summarised as follows:-

+ All three objectors consider that the proposal will affect daylight levels in their rear gardens and also within the kitchen, dining room and master bedroom of No. 27 Southfield Road.

Comment: The proposed extension will have a minimal effect on the daylight levels in the rear gardens and due to the positioning of No.27 there will be no impact in the rear rooms of the property.

+ All of the objectors are concerned that the proposal will have a detrimental effect on the desirability and value of their properties.

Comment: The above point is noted, however the purported impact on the desirability and value of surrounding properties is not a material planning consideration.

+ The rear rooms of Nos. 27 and 29 will face a brick wall, which wasn’t the case beforehand.

Comment: It is considered that the above point is not a matter of concern as their windows are a sufficient enough distance away from the proposed extension, the gable wall of which will be just over 3.3 metres closer to their properties than the existing building at No. 33.

+ The proprietors at No. 31 are concerned that the extension will be close to the common boundary fence, and will have a detrimental impact on the natural environment by reducing the green space between the 2 properties.

Comment: It is agreed that the proposal will reduce the space between the houses, however, it is considered that the distance is acceptable and will not have a significant effect on the natural environment, as only a small portion of garden ground will be lost.

+ Noise during the construction of the extension may have a detrimental effect on one of the proprietors who has a study that overlooks the application site.

57 Comment: There will be a certain level of disruption caused by the building works, these however will be temporary in nature and are no justification for a refusal of planning permission.

+ If any windows are proposed they will affect the privacy currently enjoyed by the proprietors at No. 27.

Comment: No windows are proposed on the side elevation. The kitchen window and en-suite will have little impact on the privacy of No.27 as they face out into the applicant's own rear garden.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on three of the neighbouring proprietors.

4.2 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours, and discussed in section 3 above, it4s recommended that planning permission be granted.

58 Application No: N/04/00527/FUL

Date Registered: 7th April 2004

Applicant : Mr & Mrs J MacDonald 4 Lochwood Loan Moodiesburn Glasgow G69 OHP

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 4 Lochwood Loan, Moodiesburn

Ward: 67: Moodiesburn East and Blackwood West Councillor William Hogg

Grid Reference: 270199.671235.

File Reference: N/04/00527/FUL

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the construction of a two-storey extension to the side of the property at 4 Lochwood Loan, Moodiesburn. Two letters of representation have been received from neighbours, the points of which are outlined in the accompanying background report. Notwithstanding the objections, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

59 'rodw.d by 'Iannng and Enuronm*nt D*prrlmlnt N/04'00527'FUL kmlno House Mr 8 ME J MacDonald Tryit R~id 4 Lochwood Loan, Moodiesbum 47!+4%!5 UMBERNAULD )e7 I JW Extension to a Dwellinghouse 8tLd.Y.4 t-9. arm- M.tl.*N .m *Representations ,.I *m,,raan 'mnldlh*nlY*et, ' ,I 0120e@10210F.~ 012~~0232 -"OR" .r,an~,rM, ThlScow has been produced speclflcalwforthe Map Return Scheme purposes onw nYllli.I,(*loU*nI".'~,~n~g~VII l.,~.~l~~~*~U*", 15 Lkinoa '100023~0 2004 NO further copies may be made .,...**

60 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, a total of 3 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision for a four-bedroom dwellinghouse.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 7th April 2004

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 26'h April 2004

Letter from Mr & Mrs Joseph Martin,6 Lochwood Loan, Moodiesburn, Glasgow, G69 OHP received 13th April 2004. Letter from Mr J Weir,28 Brady Crescent, Hawthorn Grove, Moodiesburn, G69 OHL received 22nd April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Devlin at 01236 616463.

61 APPLICATION NO. N1041005271FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application is for the construction of a two-storey extension to the side of the property at 4 Lochwood Loan, Moodiesburn. The property is semi-detached and set within an existing residential area. The extension will result in a lounge and dining room at ground floor level and a further bedroom and en-suite at the first floor.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by residential policies in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Two letters of representation have been received from the neighbours at 28 Brady Crescent and 6 Lochwood Loan, the main points of which are summarised as follows:-

+ The extension would be built on the common boundary with 6 Lochwood Loan, which is too close.

Comment .- The extension is proposed 400 millimetres form the boundary and will be approximately 3 metres from the building at No. 6, which is acceptable from a planning viewpoint.

+ If approved, the extension would overshadow the front of 6 Lochwood Loan.

Comment :As the proposed extension would sit north of No. 6 there would be no impact on existing sunlight levels.

+ The parking provision for No. 6 would be affected as vehicle doors would be opening on to the side of the extension. This would result in the proprietors having to park at the beginning of the driveway which in turn could be problematic for other neighbours exiting their own driveways.

Comment :The proposed extension will not affect the neighbour’s parking as it will be situated 400 millimetres from the common boundary, therefore providing sufficient room for the opening of vehicle doors.

+ The proposal is contrary to the planning of the estate and could make No.6 look like a semi- detached property instead of detached.

Comment :The proposal is not contrary to the planning of the estate and will not give No.6 the appearance of a semi-detached property as there would be approximately 3 metres from the extension to the building at No. 6.

62 + The close position of the extension to the neighbouring property and driveway causes concern as falling roof tiles etc. could cause damage to their property and vehicles.

Comment .- The above comment is not a material planning consideration. Should anything such as the incident described happen it would be a legal issue between the neighbbours.

+ There would be no access to the rear of the property from outside the dwellinghouse. Comment .- There will be a 0.4 metre gap between the extension and the common boundary, thus access can be achieved. In any event there would be no objection in planning terms if the extension were built on the common boundary.

+ The neighbour at 28 Brady Crescent is concerned that the proposal will block natural light and over shadow the rear of the property.

Comment .- The proposed extension is no closer to No.28 than the existing dwelling , therefore it will have no impact on daylight levels currently enjoyed. + The privacy currently enjoyed in the garden and conservatory of No.28 will be affected. Comment .- It is considered that the privacy will not be affected as the proposed extension would sit flush with the rear building line, therefore it will be no closer to No.28 than the existing house, albeit there will be another upper level bedroom window.

+ The proposal will visually impact on surrounding properties. Comment .- It is considered that the proposal will not detrimentally impact on surrounding properties.

+ The proposal would eradicate the current view from the rear of No.28 Brady Crescent. Comment .- It is agreed there will be a certain level of impact on the view currently enjoyed, however, there is no entitlement to a view under the planning regulations.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to the development plan and the main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on two of the neighbouring proprietors.

4.2 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours, and discussed in section 3 above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

63 Application No: N1041005701FUL

Date Registered: 15th April 2004

Applicant: Agnes Nash 4 Old Mill View Croy

Development: Siting of a Snack Van

Location: Site at Old Quarry Road, Westfield I E, Cumbernauld

Ward: 67: Moodiesburn East and Blackwood West Councillor William Hogg

Grid Reference: 271620672290

File Reference: N/04/00570/FUL

Site History: N/01/00849/FUL - Siting of Mobile Snack Van Granted 13/08/01

Development Plan: The site is covered by existing industrial/business area policies in the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 2ls'April20O4

Comments:

The applicant proposes to site a snack van adjacent to the public roadway at Old Quarry Road in the Westfield Industrial Estate (see location plan). A previous permission was granted in August 2001 for a temporary period until 10th October 2003. Within that time the business operated well and posed no traffic or amenity problems. The snack van provides a useful service in a busy industrial area and it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Condition:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1!jth April 2004 Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader received 26'h April 2004 Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs.Devlin at 01236 616463.

64 65 Application No: C/02/0151 l/MIN

Date Registered: 11th November 2002

Applicant : G M Mining Ltd Drumshangie OCCS Road Green gai rs Airdrie

Agent J W H Ross & CO 10 Annfield Place Glasgow G31 2XN

Developmen t: Extension of Opencast Coal Mining Operations at Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site (North of Ballochney Road, PIa ins)

Location: Drumshangie OCCS Greengairs Road Greengairs Airdrie Lanarkshire

Ward: 46: Plains and Councillor Thomas Morgan

Grid Reference: 278050668467

File Reference: C/PL/GW G9001LKILR

Site History: Application Site: M/81/454: Opencast operations granted 1981 M/84/264: Extension of timescale of opencast operations granted 1984 M/86/228: lnfill of Void with Waste Material Granted at Appeal 1987. Drumshangie Opencast Site: M/91/571: Opencast Operation Granted 1993. This permission has been since been the basis of several planning permissions to alter or extend the nature or extent of the opencast operations.

Development Plan: The site is covered partly by Policy GBI (Greenbelt) and Policy GB2 (Restrict Developments within Countryside Around Towns) within the 1991 District Local Plan

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: S. E. P.A. (Comments) Scottish Water (No comments) Scottish Power (No objections) The Coal Authority (Comments) British Telecom (No response Scottish Executive Environment Group (No comments) Historic Scotland (No comments) West of Scotland Archaeology Service (Comments) Central Scotland Forest Trust (Commen ts) Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) NLC Community Services (Comments) NLC Housing and Property Services (Comments)

66 Planning Application No. 02/0151 IlMlN Extension of Opencast Coal Mining Operations at Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site (North of Ballochney Road, Plains) rl@hire Roduscd by Rinnlng and Ervironmml Ccuncll HeadqYarleis Drumshangie OCCS Greengairs Road suiieso~.Fleming Hour- 2TrystRoad Greengairs , Airdrie CUMBERN)\ULC R.p~~dhomlh.Oidlnu6unr/mqplqrlh a7 IN h. p.rmlula dh. Catrdkrd krU.l"ly. 01236 516210 Fu 0123661832 i+,t to *ab tf.Lian mu QCrwn sowrlohl Representations UnMhod..dr.pmdunion lnhiq- Crwn OWWL * admay I-db pnirvlaI cw1l wdlw C6 License LA OSQ41L 3 Representations outwith Map Area

67 Representations: 11 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: 20th November 2002

Comments:

Planning permission is sought by GM Mining Ltd to extend their Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site into an area known as the "Lands of Ballochney". The proposed operations would remove coal left untouched following previous opencast operations in the mid 1980's and is also designed to stay clear of the landfill site which operated in the late 1980's. The operations would last 1 year and would yield 300,000 tonnes of coal. The site would be restored to a combination of amenity planting and woodland with public access. The operator has promised the local community a sum of money to compensate for any inconvenience. The village of Plains lies immediately to the south and the nearest houses would be up be a minimum of 30 meters from the excavation area.

There have been 10 letters of objection including those from the local member, the local MSP and the local Community Council, as well as a letter of support from the Plains Country Park.

The development would offer some benefits relating to site restoration, including improvements to the way that the landfill gas and leachate is managed (although GM Mining as landowner already has some responsibility for controlling these matters under the Environmental Protection Act). I believe that any benefits offered by the proposal are outweighed by other factors. Firstly, the proposal is contrary to the terms of the adopted local plan (which presumes against opencast operations within 250 metres of built up areas) and national policy guidance on opencast mining (NPPG16) which presumes against opencast operations within 500m of local communities. Secondly, the potential for disturbing the adjoining former landfill is a serious concern as is accidental damage to Ballochney Road. Finally, there is also an issue of the local community having to endure the accumulation of different impacts from the proposed development (such as noise, dust and vibration).

On the basis of the above, I would recommend that planning permission should be refused for the reasons noted below.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed opencast operations are contrary to the terms of policy MlNl of the 1991 Monklands District Local Plan in that: (a) The workings do not lie entirely within the "Devastated Landscape" (b) The workings are within 250 metres of the village of Plains (c) The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would significantly improve the area's amenity, environment andlor safety.

2. That the proposed opencast operations are contrary to the aims of NPPG16 (Opencast Coal and Related Minerals) in that: (a) The workings are too close to Plains (i.e. the working faces would be within 500 metres and the landscaping mounds would be within 100 metres) all without sufficient mitigating factors to justify a reduction in these distances. (b) The proposal is not environmentally acceptable and there are insufficient local and/or community benefits to outweigh the material risk of disturbance or environmental damage.

3. That the proposed opencast operations may disturb the adjoining former landfill site thus causing the escape of contaminated material and/or landfill gas, all to the detriment of the health, safety and amenity of the local environment community.

68 4. That the proposed opencast operations, in their current form, may cause the slippage of land in and around Ballochney Road which could in turn result in its partial or total closure, which would be to the severe detriment of the safety and convenience of current road users.

5. That the proposed opencast operations combined with similar operations in the area would result in levels of noise, dust and vibration, the cumulative impact of which would detract from the amenity of local residents.

Notes to Committee:

1. If granted, this application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Amendment (No.2) Direction 1998 because -

a) The excavation area boundary falls within 500 metres of an existing community or sensitive establishment.

b) A soil mound area falls within 100 metres of an existing community or sensitive establishment.

2. If granted, the application should not be issued until an Agreement under Section 75 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act has been concluded with the applicant in respect of site restoration.

3. If granted, the application should not be issued until a Bond of Caution has been concluded with the applicant in respect of site restoration and the remediation of pollution caused by landfill gas andlor leachate escape.

Background Papers:

Application form, plans and Environmental Statement received 11th November 2002 Letters and additional information from Ross and Co. (on behalf of GM Mining Ltd.) received 1lth April 2003, 16'h July 2003 and 23rdOctober 2003. Memos from the Transportation Section received 17'h January 2003, 1gth September 2003 & 8'h December 2003. Memos from Protective Services Section received gth December 2002, 16th May 2003 & 5'h December 2003. Letters from SEPA received 1Oth January 2003 & 1Oth October 2003 Letter from Central Scotland Forest Trust re~eived'z2"~November 2002. Letters from Scottish Natural Heritage received 16 December 2002 and 8'h September 2003. Memos from NLC Community Services received gthJanuary 2003 & 16th September 2003 Memo from NLC Housing and Property received 27th November 2002 Letter from the Coal Authority received 26th December 2002 Letter from Scottish Water received 6'h December 2002 Letter from Scottish Executive Environment Group received 1lth December 2002. Letter from Historic Scotland received 13'h December 2002. Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 12'h December 2002. Letter from Friends of the Earth, Bonnington Mill, 72 Newhaven Road, , EH6 5QG received 25th November 2002. Letter from Karen Whitefield MSP, Constituency Office, 135 Station Road, Shotts, ML7 4BS received 29th November 2002.

69 Letter from Springbank Residents Association, clo Barbara Boyd - Secretary, 54 Springbank View, Plains, Airdrie, ML6 7JD received 11th December 2002. Letter from John Eyre (Secretary), Plains Community Council, 20 Ballochnie Drive, Plains received 16th December 2002. Letter from Councillor Thomas Morgan, 6C Kirkness Street, Airdrie, ML6 6ER received 18th December 2002. Letter from Mr & Mrs A Grier, Lochalsh, 56 Springbank View, Plains, Airdrie, ML6 received 16th December 2002. Letter from Robert Boyd, 54 Springbank View, Plains, Airdrie, ML6 7JD received 12th December 2002. Letter from John Eyre, 20 Ballochnie Drive, Plains, Airdrie, ML6 7NA received 16th December 2002. Letter from James MacHugh, Chairman, Plains Country Park, 171 Main Street, Plains, ML6 7JQ, received 10th June 2003. Letter from Shanks Waste Solutions, Dunedin House, Auckland Park, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK1 1BU received 27th October 2003.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lindsay Kellock at 01236 812379.

70 APPLICATION NO. C/02/01511/MIN

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Surroundinas

1.I GM Mining has submitted a planning application (accompanied by a full Environmental Statement) to extend the workings of the Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site. The site comprises a field at the south-east corner of the Drumshangie site which extends to 21 hectares (approximately 750 metres x 208 metres). The site is comprised mostly of poor quality grassland with several areas of standing water. There is a small area of coppice in the western half of the site but vegetation within parts of the eastern half of the site is sparse. Along the southern boundary is a hawthorn hedge. The site gently undulates with a slight slope down towards the north-east. At present the site is not being put to any productive use.

1.2 Surrounding the site is the void of the Drumshangie Opencast Workings to the north, a restored section of the opencast site to the west, woodland to the east and the village of Plains immediately to the south. The field to the south-east of the application site has planning permission (reference no.C/01/0001O/AMD) for 250 houses. This permission expires in March 2004 and 1 am not aware of any developer interest to indicate that a site start may be imminent. This site was also the basis of opencast operations in the mid-1990's. To the south-west is the recently completed residential development known as Springbank and immediately to the south is a grassed area which adjoins an established housing area.

2. Descriotion of Proposals

2.1 This proposal would allow for 300,000 tonnes of coal to be removed by opencast methods as an integral part of the Drumshangie Opencast operations. Accordingly, the site would be accessed and serviced from the existing workings. Although the application site extends to 21 hectares, the maximum area of excavation would be around 12 hectares. Hours of operation would be 700hrs to 1900hrs (Monday to Friday) 700hrs to 1600hrs Saturdays with no working on Sundays or national Public Holidays. A small area of the site (outwith 300 metres of Plains) would be worked until 2100hrs Monday to Friday. Preparatory works (such as soil and overburden removal) would take 2 months with coal extraction and restoration taking a further 12 months. Blasting may be utilised, although this would be dependent on ground conditions. If works started before October 2004 then site restoration works would be complete by 31'' December 2005 (the date at which the Drumshangie site is due to be restored). Overburden material from the excavations would be used to infill other parts of the workings within Drumshangie and therefore would not be stored above ground level within the application site. Along the southern edge of the site would be a protective soil mound. This would be 4 metres in height for 150 metres (at the part closest to the nearby houses) with the remainder varying from 3 to 4 metres. Following completion of the works, the site would be restored to similar ground levels to those at present. The north-most third of the site would be planted to a broad-leaved woodland with the remainder going to a wildflower meadow incorporating amenity planting and footpaths, one of which would link into the network of paths proposed as part of the larger Drumshangie restoration scheme. The restored site would be the basis of a 5-year aftercare scheme. The restoration scheme would also allow for improvements to the management of the former landfill facility including the creation of an engineered clay cap and a new gas venting system.

3. Background and Context

3.1 In terms of the planning history of the application site, opencast operations took place in the mid-1980's. Thereafter, planning permission was granted at appeal in 1987 to Shanks & McEwan for the infill of the opencast void with 600,000 tonnes of mixed industrial, commercial and household waste). The site was then restored to agricultural afteruse in the early 1990's.

71 3.2 The Drumshangie opencast coal site was granted planning permission in 1993 (ref. No M/91/951) has been operating since 1996 and is due to be fully restored by the end of 2005. The entire site extends to 512 hectares and it is estimated that it will yield something in the region of 14 million tonnes of coal. At the time of submitting this current application 120 people were directly employed at the site, although it is understood that since then reduced coal output has been matched by reduced hours of operation and some staff lay-offs. Access to the site is taken from a junction on the 6803 some 450 metres to the east of the roundabout at the junction with the A73 Stirling Road. The coal processing yard and administrative offices are located at the north-west corner of the site. Current extraction operations are at phase 7 (the last of the phases) immediately to the north of the application site.

3.3 The site has been the basis of 15 amendment planning permissions ranging in size and complexity and these have altered the terms, conditions and extent of the working area of the site although none (until now) have sought to extend the application site boundary.

3.4 Members will recall that on 2 separate occasions in the past (Darngavil Road in 1998 and Stanrigg Road, also known as Arbuckle Road, in 2002) public roads which adjoined opencast excavation areas have collapsed causing the roads to be closed. In the case of Darngavil Road, the closure was followed by planning permission to extend the workings followed by the re-instatement and re-opening of the road in 2001. With Stanrigg Road, planning permission was granted in August of this year to remove a 750 metre section of road on condition that GM Mining create replacement footpath connections and improve the setting of the nearby Stanrigg Memorial. This matter is now the subject of a “Stopping Up Order” procedure.

3.5 Members will also note that another planning application report relating to Drumshangie appears on this agenda (application reference C/03/01672/AMD: Creation of Road Crossing Point) but this is of no particular relevance to the consideration of this planning application.

3.6 Earlier operations at the Drumshangie site were the basis of Planning Enforcement action to remedy various matters such as the failure to abide by the agreed phasing plan and failing to supply a restoration plan. Subsequently these matters were regularised by the company and in more recent years breaches of planning control have tended to be less frequent and less problematic. Recently, concern was expressed at the failure of the company to restore two parts of the site within the approved timescale (The “Park Pit” area and part of phase 4, both at the north-east corner of the site) but this delay is due to be addressed by the company by January 2004.

3.7 Within the wider area, there are (or have been) a large number of disruptive type land uses either in operation, recently completed or proposed and the key ones are summarised as follows:

0 the Greengairs (Shanks) landfill site lies a minimum of 1000 metres to the north of the application site. This is the basis of planning applications to re-phase the operations and provide waste recycling facilities. Eden Waste (a sister company of GM Mining) proposes a combined landfill/recycling facility at Dalmacoulter 800 metres to the west. This was the basis of a Local Public Inquiry in 2003 and the outcome is expected soon. The proposed landfill void forms part of the Drumshangie opencast site and adjoins the now closed Dalmacoulter landfill site which closed in 2001. In the mid to late 1990’s the Council also had plans to create a landfill void in this location (twice as large as that proposed by Eden) but this was later shelved despite it having the benefit of a valid permission. Airdriehill Quarry lies 800 metres to the west of the site. Operations by Tarmac ceased in 2000 and the site is now in the final phases of restoration. 0 As noted above, the field to the south-east of the application site was the basis of opencast operations in the mid-1980’s.

72 4. Development Plan

4.1 The site is covered by the 1991 Monklands District Local Plan. The western half of the site is within the greenbelt and Policy GBI (Restrict Development in Greenbelt) states that no development will be permitted except for (amongst other things) uses requiring a rural location. This part of the site is also identified as having a “Good Quality Landscape” within the local plan and policy Landscape Improvement 1/2 states that each planning application submitted will be seen as an opportunity to effect improvements to the landscape. The remainder of the site is zoned as “Restrict Development in Countryside Around Towns”, and Policy GB2 states that isolated developments shall not generally accord with the Local Plan unless there is specific locational need, and that proposals for development within this area shall require to be justified against criteria of economic benefit, specific locational need, infrastructure implications and environmental impact. Within the local plan, this half of the site is considered to be a “devastated landscape” and policy Landscape Improvement 1/5 states that “recognising the landscape improvements that mineral extraction and subsequent restoration could make in this area, and in view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature and appearance of the areas at the present time, the District Council will encourage applications for the extraction of minerals by treating this area as the “preferred zone” for extraction operations. The District Council will treat each application submitted for this area as an opportunity to effect improvements to the landscape and quite apart from considering normal development control criteria, may insist on schemes of tree planting not necessarily contained within the boundary of the application site but within any surrounding land in the control or ownership of the applicant‘:

4.2 In terms of policies specifically related to mineral extraction, Policy MlNl states that the Council will limit the extraction of minerals to sites: (a) lying within the landscape zone of “Devastated Landscape” (b) at least 250 metres from the settlements of Plains, , Greengairs, Caldercruix and Stand (c) where adequate provision can be made for services, screening, transport of materials, phased development, rehabilitation and after-use.

4.3 Exceptions to this general Policy are: (a) Sites covered by Policy ENV5 which gives encouragement of owners of areas of ground which are in a potentially dangerous condition but containing valuable mineral deposits adjacent to built up areas to speedily remove the materials and restore the land immediately on completion of working. (b) where mineral extraction would significantly improve an area’s amenity, environment and/or safety.

4.4 Policy MIN6 “Applications for Mineral Extraction” states that prior to submission of a planning application the Council will encourage operators to: (a) combine with their proposed site existing adjoining worked out areas which can be restored as part of their overall proposals (b) design and implement proposals for advanced landscapinghee planting to screen the workings. (c) secure an agreement for the provision of any necessary road or rail improvements.

4.5 In addition, in assessing applications for mineral extraction the Council will: (a) have regard to the applicants past record on site restoration measures, compliance with planning conditions and co-operation on the routes to be followed by traffic. (b) require the applicant to agree to a Phasing Scheme. (c) require the applicant to enter into a Legal Agreement to cover the restoration of the site and provide a Restoration Bond.

73 4.6 The policy goes on to say that planning permission will normally contain conditions governing the siting of plant and buildings and their subsequent removal, site access and wheel cleaning requirements, retention of trees, fencing of sites, drainage of site and adjoining areas, treatment of water before discharge into water courses, protection of top soil and sub soil, blasting, dust and fume emission, noise, hours of working, restoration levels, de-stoning of restored areas, cultivation and fertilisation, ditches and field drains and licences from British Coal, where appropriate.

4.7 The entire site is covered by policy CU1/5 (Safety Restraint Area: Landfill Gas) which states that no development shall be permitted within 250 metres of operational or completed landfill sites unless it can be demonstrated by way of suitable scientific investigation that the site is not producing any potentially dangerous gases.

4.8 Within the Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, Strategic Policy 8 (Sustainable Development of Natural Resources) states that The Metropolitan Development Strategy supports developments which extend the supply of minerals at existing operational sites or any of the locations identified in Local Plans in the search areas identified within the Structure Plan. It is noted that a general area known as The North East of Airdrie is identified as such a search area. This will in turn be reflected within the forthcoming consultative draft NLC Local Plan which will be produced early in 2004. Schedule 9 of the Structure Plan identifies scales of development likely to be significant. This states that only mineral extraction proposals over 2 hectares or 50,000 tons are significant where they lie outwith the areas outlined above. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is not of strategic importance and therefore need not be assessed against the criteria stated within Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals).

4.9 National policy guidance on opencast coal extraction is contained within NPGGl6 (Opencast Coal and Related Minerals). The following is a short summary of the key points within this guidance relevant to the proposal: where a proposal would cause demonstrable and material harm, the guidance is clear that permission should not be granted except where the benefits of the development proposal to the community would outweigh the potential harm. the Policy principle is to safeguard local communities from the significant adverse effects of opencast extraction and also to protect the local environment from irreversible damage in the interests of protecting communities and the local environment from the unacceptable adverse consequences of opencast working the following tests should be applied: (1) Is the proposal environmentally acceptable taking into account the use of planning conditions and/or agreements to offset or mitigate any adverse impacts? (2) If not, are there any local or community benefits related to the proposal, which sufficiently outweigh any material risk of disturbance or environmental damage? As a general rule working faces within 500 metres are likely to pose a threat to the amenity of a community and are likely to be unacceptable. However the topography, the nature of the landscape, the respective location of the site and nearest community in relation to the prevailing wind direction and the visibility may justify the distance being tailored to local circumstances and a greater or lesser distance may be justified.

4.101 Further advice is given in documents PAN50 (Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings) and PAN64 (Reclamation of Surface Mineral Workings).

74 5. Remesentations

5.1 A total of 10 letters of representation have been received in respect of the proposal, including letters of objection from the local Councillor, the local MSP, the local Community Council, a local Residents’ Association, 2 local residents, Friends of the Earth and the former operator of the landfill site. One letter of support has also been submitted from the Plains Country Park. The following is a summary of the points raised in the letters.

5.2 Councillor Morgan lists 3 reasons why he believes the application should be refused:

(1) The Environmental Statement concludes that operations have the potential to affect the landfill site. This potential or perceived risk is too high for local people to accept. (2) G M Mining is notorious for paying scant regard to any stipulations laid down by the Council and the Council must therefore take into consideration the cavalierian attitude of the firm. Presently the access road to the west of the Stanrigg Memorial is closed due to G M Mining’s operations. With this track record it is reasonable to assume that a similar fate would await Ballochney Road. (3) The Environmental Statement states that dust and noise will be problematic. 5.3 Karen Whitefield MSP states that she finds it unreasonable that opencast operators apply for planning permission that is far less that their true requirements and then choose to apply for an extension at a later date.

5.4 Plains Community Council have produced a comprehensive and lengthy objection to the proposal which they themselves summarise as follows. (1) the impact on the health and quality of life of the villagers is an extreme concern with significant and adverse affects likely to affect children, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses in particular. In addition, those who live in closest proximity to the site will be further affected by noise and dust pollution and the impact on their houses of blasting on the site. (2) overall the village will be significantly and adversely affected in the longer term should the proposal by G M Mining to work in close proximity to the former landfill site result in contamination of the environment (3) the Community Council records the concerns of the community in relation to G M Mining’s non-compliance with previous and current planning conditions and specifically note the collapse of 2 public roads in proximity to the opencast mining operations and recent concerns of blasting operations in an unlicensed area.

5.5 The Springbank Residents Association (acting on behalf of the residents of the recently built houses to the south-west of the application site) objects on 2 counts

(1) G M Mining do not appear to have a contingency plan to cover anything untoward happening. (2) GM Mining is not prepared to accept responsibility for any damage caused to properties in the vicinity.

5.6 Friends of the Earth (Scotland) has made the following comments:

(1) the footprint on the previous landfill site does not accord with details held in the archives of Shanks the original operator of the site. Accordingly, it is questioned how the 10 metres stand off from the boundary of the landfill can be carried out with any degree of certainty. (2) the previous landfill site had sidewalls which were clay and the site was only ever capped with agricultural cover and not by an engineered clay cap. Accordingly, water is still penetrating the site today. Water and leachate could be anywhere below the site and this could also render the sidewalls of the landfill unstable.

75 (3) blasting within 60 metres of nearby houses in unacceptable and this contradicts the advice given in NPGG16. (4) local communities have been severely degraded by opencast and landfilling operations over a long period of years. There is no justification in Friends of the Earth's view why this application which could have serious consequences for local communities should be granted. It is speculated that G M Mining may wish to eventually remove the contents of the landfill site and thereafter remove the coal from beneath that area at some time in the future.

5.7 The previous operator of the landfill site, Shanks Waste Solutions, is concerned that submitted plans indicate opencast operations which encroach upon the old landfill site. It also asks that no development should take place within at least 250 metres of the closed landfill site. This stand-off zone should protect the landfill from any surface disturbance which could cause a leachate or landfill gas breakout from the site. The overall stability of the landfill may be compromised by a development of the depth and proximity proposed and any blasting could also jeopardise the integrity of the landfill liner. Shanks at present has no ongoing responsibilities for the site under the Waste Licensing Regime but should the integrity of the site be damaged then this may expose Shanks to action under the Contaminated Land Regime. It should be noted that the applicant has since submitted revised plans showing what is now considered to be a more accurate representation of the position of the old landfill site (although the differences were not sufficient to merit re-notification of neighbours or re-consultation.

5.8 3 householders from Plains have objected to the proposal and the main points are summarised as follows: (1) Workings are too close to houses (2) dust noise and pollution impacts (3) the safety of Ballochney Road will be in question (4) the affect of blasting on local houses, the old landfill and Ballochney Road (5) the impact of gas migration from landfill site (6) the impact on health of local people.

5.9 Plains Country Park has submitted a letter in support of the proposal on the understanding that the impact of the proposal on the village of Plains will be minimal, as the coal will be removed through the existing site and that the programme for restoration will be contained within the existing programme of works. G M Mining has made a significant offer of f100,OOO to be set aside for community projects and this would include f25,OOO to be provided for the Plains Country Park for new projects and park improvements. The Country Park body is firmly of the view that these funds will be used to improve the amenity and environment for the people of Plains. To this end the Country Park would wish to record their support for this application.

6. Consultations

6.1 The Central Scotland Forest Trust does not object to the proposal in principle but makes the following comments (a) the proposed extension has already been worked and the CSFT is concerned as to whether adequate volumes of soil can be recovered to successfully complete the restoration works. (b) soil handling techniques are important where previously disturbed material is being re- stripped and it is imperative that loose tipping techniques are employed otherwise the restoration design seems to fit adequately with the remainder of the site.

6.2 In its initial response, SNH concluded that the proposals are unlikely to have any significant adverse impacts on natural heritage in the long term, however it was concerned that the Environmental Statement lacked sufficient information with regard to protected species. In the first instance therefore SNH objected to the proposal pending the submission of an amphibian survey to cover the areas of standing water within the site. Following the submission of such a

76 survey, SNH withdrew its objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the retention and protection of 3 of the standing areas of water.

6.3 NLC Community Services made similar recommendations as SNH and also made other detailed recommendations regarding site restoration.

6.4 Historic Scotland inspected the Environmental Statement and it confirmed that the development raised no issues for statutory historic environment interests.

6.5 The West of Scotland Archaeology Service notes that there may be the remains of miners’ cottages at the south-west corner of the site. However it does not believe that these features are of particular archaeological or historical significance.

6.6 The Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department (Environment Group) has examined the proposal in relation to the Scottish Ministers’ responsibilities for water supply, water protection, sewerage, flood protection, waste disposal, air quality, and countryside and natural heritage. On the basis of the information available, the Environment Group has no comments to offer on the Environmental Statement.

6.7 Scottish Water has no objections to the proposal.

6.8 In initial consultations, SEPA made the following comments: (a) no data is provided on the condition and quantity of leachate present in the former landfill site. In particular SEPA was concerned that the potential for migration of leachate into the planned area of extension would exist. If leachate from the closed landfill site gained access to the opencast coal site it could cause the discharge of pollution into the local watercourses. (b) no assessment of the potential risks with regard to the proposed blasting operations in proximity of the landfill site has been made. SEPA is concerned that this operation may be a detrimental affect on the stability of the landfill waste and could lead to gas and leachate migration from the site. No justification has been provided on the proposal to manage these risks by the provision of a 10 metre wide strip between the opencast void and landfill site.

Following the submission of additional information, SEPA confirmed that it is now satisfied with the proposal.

6.9 In terms of impacts on the local road network, the Transportation Section is satisfied that the proposal raises no issues in respect of road safety. However, in terms of his responsibilities on geotechnical matters he expressed concerns relating to the following: (a) slope stability of excavation areas with severe consequences for adjacent public roads.

(b) Initial effect on the stability of the underlying old mine workings due to blast vibration may also cause disruption of the landfill area.

6.10 The Protective Services Section is satisfied that the existing planning conditions which apply to the Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site in respect of noise and dust can also apply to the new extended site.

7. Planning Assessment

7.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. My assessment will therefore begin with an assessment of how the proposal fits in with the development plan.

77 Development Plan 7.2 Around half of the site is within the greenbelt with the remainder identified as “Countryside Around Towns”. It is accepted (see NPPG16 page 8) that opencast proposals which (for example) allow for the removal of dereliction, improve land stability, and which are restored to an appropriate greenbelt use, and which do not impact on good quality environments and avoid prominent locations can be compatible with green belt objectives. Based upon the general criteria noted above and the merits of the proposal, I would conclude that it does not conflict with the aims of the greenbelt or with local plan policies GBI or GB2.

7.3 The crux of the primary mineral local planning policy (Min 1 Mineral Extraction) is that mineral developments within the “devastated landscape” are likely to be acceptable when they are at least 250 metres from nearby settlements and where they are otherwise environmentally acceptable. It is noted that the excavations will be up to 30 metres from the boundary of the nearest house, that almost half of the site is outwith the “devastated landscape” and that (for reasons given below) the development would not be environmentally acceptable. Accordingly, the proposal fails to meet all 3 criteria of this policy.

7.4 Policy Env5 (Exploit Minerals on Potentially Dangerous Sites) allows for exceptions to be made to policy MINI. The applicant outlines potential future problems with regards to landfill gas generation and leachate, should the proposal not go ahead, and the proposal may therefore comply with this policy. However, this must be tempered by the potential dangers should the development proceed (these are outlined later within this report) and accordingly I am not convinced that this policy is wholly supportive of the proposal. It is also noted that GM Mining already has responsibilities in respect of pollution control at the former landfill site under the terms of the Environmental Protection Act as landowners.

7.5 Policy MIN6 outlines, in general terms, the standards expected in terms of planning conditions and other matters of detail, and in this respect the proposal meets those aspects relevant to it.

7.6 Policy CU1/5 (Landfill Gas) requires aspects of landfill gas to be properly assessed and this requirement has been met.

7.7 On balance therefore, having weighed up the above noted polices, I find the key policy in terms of mineral extraction (Minl) weighs heavily against the proposal and that there are no other policies which weigh sufficiently in its favour (other than policy Env5 which is tempered by other factors). Accordingly, I must conclude that the proposal is contrary to the terms of the Development Plan, and that planning permission should be refused unless there are other material considerations which weigh sufficiently in its favour. A summary of those considerations are discussed below.

NPPG16 7.8 The general principal of NPPG16 is that opencast proposals which pose an unacceptable risk to the amenity of local communities or the environment are unacceptable. Proposals which are not environmentally acceptable must therefore be refused unless there are any local or community benefits which sufficiently outweigh any material risk of disturbance or environmental damage.

7.9 NPPG 16 outlines a method of weighing up the benefits and dis-benefits associated with opencast proposals. This assessment is noted below. In particular, the guidance suggests that proposals are likely to cause difficulty and may be unacceptable where they:

(a) Are too close to communities (i.e. within 500 where there are no mitigating factors or storage mounds and landscaping mounds within 1 OOm) Comment: NPPG16 was produced much more recently than the adopted local plan,

78 and contains stricter guidelines (reflecting the growing concern and awareness of the potential impacts of opencast operations on local communities). In this instance, it presumes against workings within workings within 500m of communities (the proposal allows for 30m) and storagellandscaping mounds within 100 metres (the proposal allows 15 metres). Around 80% of the proposed working area is within 500 metres of Plains. I am not satisfied that there are any mitigating factors of sufficient magnitude which would allow the above requirements to be for reduced by such a margin.

Involve a significant area of extraction over an extended extraction period (i.e. more than 10 years). Comment: The period of workings itself is only 12 months, although the overall working period of Drumshangie will extend to 10 years.

Are likely to be the subject of repeated extensions, perpetuating disturbance to local communities for a period substantially longer than 5 years. Comment: This application does represent one of several applications to extend the working area of Drumshangie over the years, although these have been achieved through no extension to the overall timescale. This application would, however, inevitably add to the disturbance experienced by local communities.

Are in an area already subject to nearby opencasting where the cumulative impact would be unacceptable. Comment: The impacts from this development will be over and above impacts from the on-going opencasting operations at Drumshangie. In addition, the local community has also experienced disturbance from other disruptive industries both now and in the past.

Rely solely on road haulage which passes directly through communities particularly if rail based transportation is a viable option. Comment: Rail based transportation is not deemed to be a viable option, and the additional traffic levels are not considered to be significant.

Affect adversely any natural or built heritage designation or site. Comment: There are no significant impacts in this respect. In weighing up the above criteria, I find that (a) presumes very strongly against the proposal, as does (d) although perhaps to a lesser degree. Accordingly, I consider that the guidance within NPPG presumes quite strongly against the proposal.

Landfill Site 7.10 The potential impact of the workings on the adjoining landfill site is a key concern of many objectors. It is accepted by the applicant that the proposals will have the potential to effect the integrity of the former landfill site. However, it also claims that amongst other things, the provision of a 10 metre set back distance between the workings and landfill, grading the side slopes in accordance with the relevant Quarry regulations and a regime of regular monitoring (to assess possible escapes of landfill gas and leachate) will protect the health, safety and amenity of the local community of Plains. In addition, the applicant claims that the operations will also allow for works which will prevent water incursion into the old workings and a proper gas management regime (the lack of which at present may be the cause of the build-up and escape of landfill gas).

7.1 1 Whilst SEPA did not object to the proposal, it is noted that the Transportation Section expressed concerns about the possible impact of blasting on old underground workings thus causing disturbance to the landfill. This potential risk is clearly a major concern for local objectors and I too share this concern. Whether it be through accidental incursion into the fill area, the collapse of its side wall (from blasting, unexpected weakness in the side walls or ground movement caused by the collapse of old underground workings) or migration of gas or

79 leachate through the side walls and into the wider environment, there is a risk (however small) that contaminated landfill material, leachate or landfill gas could escape into the opencast workings with the potential for significant and adverse local problems relating to health, safety and pollution. The fact that such a risk exists in such close proximity to Plains leads me to conclude that in this element of the proposal must surely weigh heavily against it. It is also noted that these risks of pollution already exist in and around the site and that the applicant has undertaken to carry out works to remedy this situation. However, GM Mining as landowner already has a responsibility under the Environmental Protection Act (as enforced by the Council as Environmental Health Authority) to carry out similar remediation measures thus reducing any arguments put forward by the applicant in this respect.

Ballochney Road 7.12 The proposed excavation area would be within 22 meters of Ballochney Road. The potential for ground collapse at this location causing the road to be closed is a real one, as demonstrated by the two other total closures of public within the Drumshangie site. Whilst this aspect of the proposal must comply with the relevant Quarry regulations, they have clearly not prevented problems in the past. Based on the concerns of the Transportation Manager it would appear that the prospect for further road collapse due to the proposed workings would be remain significant. If planning permission were to be granted, it is possible that this concern could be addressed by attaching suitably worded conditions to a planning permission, but otherwise this aspect of the application must weigh against it.

Noise 7.13 The same noise mitigation regime used at Drumshangie will be used in this site, and accordingly the applicant suggests that the same noise related conditions be attached to the extension site. These conditions stipulate maximum absolute noise levels which vary depending on the hours and the type of operation in question. The Head of Protective Services has confirmed that in this respect, the proposal is generally acceptable and that it will be capable of meeting the same conditions which already apply to the remainder of the site. In some respects, however, these conditions do not accord with the recommended levels suggested in government advice (PAN 50: Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings) which was published after Drumshangie was granted planning permission. For excavations within the first 8.0 metres in depth, noise levels in houses at the north end of Plains may be subject to noise levels of up to 59dBa. Whilst this is below the 6OdBa allowed for in the current Drumshangie conditions, it would exceed the 55dBa suggested in PAN50. Given the relatively short timescale involved with such workings, I would not suggest that this in itself would merit the refusal of planning permission, but nevertheless the fact that recommended noise levels would be exceeded would weigh against the proposal albeit slightly.

Dust 7.14 It is accepted by the Applicant that the proposal will be the cause in a small decrease in local air quality, but that best practice will allow the site to operate without causing dust nuisance, any increased risk to health of local people or cause any breach of current air quality standards. It is noted that the 2 key consultees in this respect (SEPA and the Protective Services Section) have offered no objections to the proposal. It is also noted that should planning permission be granted, SEPA would be responsible for the issue and enforcement of a permit which seeks to control dust generation from the site. Nevertheless, I am also aware that dust generation (and its impact on amenity and health) is the cause of concern for local objectors and that in the past SEPA has received complaints about dust generation from the site. It is also noted that PAN 50 (Controlling the Environmental Effects of Surface Mineral Workings) suggests that continual or severe concerns about dust sources are most likely to be experienced within 100m of dust sources, and that the proposal under consideration will allow for soil moving operations within 15 metres of the nearest properties.

Blasting 7.15 Current blasting activity at Drumshangie is subject to the following restrictions:

80 Blasting only between 1000hrs to 1200hrs and 1400hrs to 1600hrs Monday to Friday Ground vibration at nearest property limited to 10-mms-1 No blasting within a temperature inversion No blasting within 300 metres of houses without the prior written approval of the Council. Blasts to be monitored to ensure that the level of ground vibration is note exceeded.

-16 The normal programme of blasting at Drumshangie at present involves a number of blasts within a period of a few days followed by a gap of several weeks before the following phase of blasting. The proposal would follow the same programme as above. It is estimated that the nearest house would experience blast measuring an average of 8mms-1 which is within the limits stipulated within current planning conditions and also within PAN 50. The applicant has also has argued that the conditions relating to the temperature inversion and the need to receive written consent for each blast within 30 metres of houses is not necessary if best practice is used. The Head of Protective Services has no objections to these measures.

7.17 However, it should be noted that there are many factors which will influence how a blast may be felt or perceived by local residents, and in the past local residents have made complaints to the Department about the impacts of blasting (mostly in relation to blasts at phase 5 around 100 metres from the nearest house) even although the above noted planning condition were being complied with.

Nature Conservation 7.18 The site is of relatively low nature conservation value although the areas of standing water (which contain no protected species) are deemed in part to be worthy of protection. SNH have asked that 3 ponds in particular be protected and retained and that the contents of other ponds be transferred to the retained ponds. This will impact on the applicant’s ability to provide an entire new cap on the former landfill, although clearly the fact that the ponds retain water suggests that the surface is relatively impermeable at these locations. The restoration scheme, incorporating the retained ponds, will result in a long-term enhancement to the nature conservation value of the site.

Hydrology and Hydrogeology 7.19 The site contains 2 ditches which both flow eventually towards the . One of the ditches is contaminated by what appears to be localised unrecorded infill (i.e. not from the landfill site). The loss of flow from these features as a result of these new workings will have negligible impact on the flow of the burn down stream as it already receives water from the opencast settlement lagoons, which will in fact be increased as a result of the development. Further survey work and remediation work may be required down stream to prevent localised flooding as a result of this increased flow. The removal of the localised contamination and the treatment of the water through the lagoons is likely to increase water quality down stream for most of the time.

7.20 It is accepted that the workings may expose leachate (the landfill site is known to be subject to water penetration) which cannot be treated through the lagoons. Water quality would be monitored and any adverse increases resulting in remediation works (possibly chemical). Again, the applicant argues that the retention of a 10 metre stand-off and application of best practice in terms of slope stability will reduce the possibility of this being found.

Cumulative Impact 7.21 Although the consultees have agreed that in theory at least, anticipated levels of noise, dust and vibration may be within acceptable levels, I am concerned that taken together they may act to detract from the level of amenity which local residents should commonly come to expect. It could also be argued that these same residents have also had to suffer the accumulation of impacts (over many years) from the other nearby disruptive industries noted earlier within this report.

81 Landscape1Visual Impacts 7.22 The proposals would have the potential to make a significant impact on the landscape of the site, its setting and the visual amenity of local residents and users of Ballochney Road. However, the proposed soil mounds would screen most if not all of the additional workings, and may also reduce existing long distance views of the existing workings from Ballochney Road. Whilst the soil mounds would in themselves create an impact, this is not considered significant or unacceptable over a relatively short time period. Views from further afield are not likely to create negative visual impacts of a magnitude to cause concern. It is also accepted that the appearance of the site at present is not attractive, and that in the longer term the restoration scheme would greatly enhance the appearance of the site and its setting.

Restoration and Aftercare 7.23 The planned restoration to a mixture of woodland and amenity planting with public access would integrate well into the local landscape and into the existing approved restoration scheme for Drumshangie. The scheme would be subject to 5 years aftercare which is standard for such schemes.

Transportation Issues 7.24 Coal will continue to be transported from Drumshangie by road primarily to Longannet and the rail terminal. The application site will be an integral part of the on-going operations at Drumshangie and the levels of traffic generation on a day to day basis will not alter significantly. The existing access and local road network is considered capable of accommodating this traffic comfortably, and the Transportation Section has no objections to this aspect of the proposals.

Financial Contribution to Local Community 7.25 It is noted that the applicant has undertaken to make a financial contribution to the local community of something in the region off100,000, of which f25,000 would be earmarked to the Plains Community Park. It is noted that the Community Park has made a representation in support of the proposal. Whilst, such monies would no doubt benefit the local community, it is not directly related to the proposed development and this offer therefore does not comply with the government advice on Planning Gain. Accordingly, this proposed donation is not a material consideration and should not influence the Council in assessing this application.

8. Conclusions

8.1 Through the submission of this planning application and full Environmental Statement, the applicant has sought to argue that the proposed development could proceed within a relatively small timescale, with no adverse impacts on the amenity of local residents, and in particular without any significant risk to the integrity of the adjoining former landfill or public road. In addition, there would be benefits to the local environment from the installation of a new gas management regime to the landfill, measures to prevent further water from entering the landfill site and also an attractive restored site with public access. All of these benefits would allow for a relaxation of the normal stand-off distances recommended within the development plan and national policy guidance.

8.2 However, I would argue that the applicant has not (and possibly could not) address the key concern associated with the proposal; which is that it has the potential to disturb the former landfill with consequences for the health, safety and amenity of local people. The fact that the village of Plains lies only 30 metres away only heightens what I consider to be an unacceptable risk. The existing potential problems for pollution from landfill gas and leachate are already the responsibility of the landowner (GM Mining Limited) under the Environmental Protection Act. In other respects, whilst individual impacts may not have been the cause of objection from consultees, the accumulation of these impacts, in addition to other impacts (both past and present) also acts against the proposal. I also find that there is insufficient argument in the applicant’s case to support the reduction in the recommended stand-off distances of such a

82 margin, and therefore conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan and to national guidance.

8.3 I would therefore recommend that planning permission be refused for the reasons noted above. Should the Committee be of a mind to grant planning permission, the application must be referred to the Scottish Ministers. Also, before any permission is issued, it should be subject to a Section 75 Agreement and Bond of Caution to ensure future restoration, and I would go further to suggest that the bond figure should incorporate a sum designed to address (if necessary) the aftermath of any breach of the landfill site.

83 COUNCIL

REPORT

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE Subject: Planning Application 02/0151 I/MIN, Extension of Opencast Coal Mining Operations at Drumshangie Opencast Coal Site (North o Ballochney Road, Plains). 1 Date: 12'h May 2004 1 Ref: C/PL/O2/0151I/MIN/LK (Su p p I e me n ta ry Report) .

1. Purpose of Report

1 .I To update the Committee on planning application 0210151 11MIN regarding the above subject which was continued at the meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee at its meeting of 17'h December 2003.

2. Background

2.1 An application report (as attached) was presented to Committee on 17'h December 2003 for the above development. At the request of the applicant, consideration of the planning application was deferred pending the submission of additional and/or revised information from the applicant

3. Sustainability Implications

3.1 These are addressed within the application report.

4. ProposalslConsiderations

4.1 I have now been advised by the applicant that they no longer wish to submit any further information to accompany the planning application, and that they wish the matter to be determined in accordance with the information already submitted.

5. Corporate Considerations

5.1 These are addressed within the application report.

6. Recommendation

That planning application C/02/0151 11MIN is disposed of in accordance with the recommendation in the attached report.

G David M. Porch DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Access to Information Act: for further information about this report, please contact Lindsay Kellock on Ext 2379.

Background Papers Planning Application C/ 02/0151 IIMIN Letters from JW Ross and Co. dated 26'h January 2004 and 2gth March 2004.

C:\TEMP\0201511 supp.doc 84 Application No: C/03/01680/FUL

Date Registered: 12th November 2003

Applicant : Avon Park Homes 27 Finlas Street Glasgow

Agent S McQuiston 50 MacPhail Drive Kilmarnock KA3 7EX

Development: Erection of 14 Flatted Dwellinghouses

Location: 3 Palacecraig Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 4RY

Ward: 38: Kirkshaws Councillor John Gordon

Grid Reference: 273371 663142

File Reference: C/PL/CTP070003000/1J/EL

Site History: C/98/00664/0UT Conversion of outbuilding and erection of 2 dwellinghouses Approved Nov.1998 C/00/00049/AMD Formation of vehicular access off Street Refused April 2000

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S. E.P.A.(West) (No objections) Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas Transco (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections) The Coal Authority (No objections)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Permission is being sought for the erection of 14 flatted dwellinghouses on ground at Palacecraig Street, Coatbridge. The application site is located on the west side of Whifflet Street to the rear of a row of terraced dwellinghouses (nos. 246-254 Whifflet Street) and directly east of Palacecraig Industrial Estate. The site is accessed off Palacecraig Street from an elongated narrow private driveway and currently accommodates two small semi-detached dwellings, a group of disused outbuildings and a yard area. While in terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area identified (under Policy HG9:Existing Residential Areas) for residential purposes, the proposals as submitted fail to reach the required standard of vehicle access

85 Planning Application C/03/0168O/Ful

Erection of 14 Flatted Dwellinghouses

3 Palacecraig Street, Coatbridge Site Area .01 HA

86 as highlighted by the Transportation Manager. Having regard to this I consider the proposals to be contrary to the approved Design Guidance on "lnfill Housing" contained within the Local Plan and therefore I recommend that planning permission be refused for the reasons stated below.

Recommendation: Refuse for the following Reasons:.

1. That the flatted development does not incorporate an acceptable standard of vehicle access at the junction with Palacecraig Street and as such is contrary to the terms of the Design Guidance on "lnfill Housing" as contained within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2. That the flatted development is unacceptable in terms of lack of satisfactory connecting footway provision, substandard parking bay aisles and access to parking bays (nos.1-7) and inadequate width of carriageway at the northern gable of the proposed flats. It is, therefore, contrary to the terms of the Design Guidance on "lnfill Housing" as contained within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Application form and plans received 12th November 2003 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 4th December 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 25th November 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 24th November 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 26th November 2003 Letter from Scottish Water received 4'h December 2003 Memo from Transportation Manager received 19th January 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

87 APPLICATION NO. C1031016801FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is located on the west side of Whifflet Street to the rear of a row of terraced dwellinghouses (nos. 246-254 Whifflet Street) and directly east of Palacecraig Industrial Estate. The site is accessed off Palacecraig Street from an elongated narrow private driveway and currently accommodates two small semi-detached dwellings, a group of disused outbuildings and a yard area which is untidy and overgrown. The dwellinghouses themselves were formerly offices associated with a former business on the site which included the yard area.

1.2 The proposal seeks to demolish and remove all existing structures from site and redevelop it comprehensively to accommodate 14 flatted dwellinghouses within a two storey pitched roof building which will be positioned at the northernmost part of the site adjacent to the site access road. 12, two bedroom and 2, one bedroom flats are proposed. The site will also accommodate 28 dedicated parking bays and all parking/manoeuvring areas within the site will be hard surfaced. The existing private access driveway will be hard surfaced and upgraded to 5.5 metres wide along its entire length. Provision has been made within the proposed layout for vehicular access through the application site into the rear garden areas of the existing five residential properties that front onto Whifflet Street (nos.246-254).

2. Develop ment Plan

2.1 In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is covered by Policy HG9: Existing Residential Areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 As a result of the standard neighbour notification procedures no representations were received against this proposal.

3.2 None of the statutory consultees offered any objection to the proposal while SEPA recommended that surface water from the site be treated in accordance with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

3.3 The Transportation Manager has recommended against the proposal for the following reasons: access is taken onto the public road via a turning head at the termination of Palacecraig Street. Access is taken off Palacecraig Street which is a sub-standard conventional carriageway with no footway along its west kerbline and only a partial footway along its east kerbline. The proposed transition between the new shared surface access road and Palacecraig Street is unacceptable in the absence of a dropped kerb vehicular access. Visibility splay of 4.5 metres x 60 metres required to the left onto Palacecraig Street. The existing footway network at the junction with Palacecraig Street is sub-standard with no scope for improvement. The required 5.5 metre wide access road cannot be achieved at the point of contact with the northern gable of the proposed flats. A continuous 2 metre wide footpath connection is required from the existing footway network on Palacecraig Street to the point of pedestrian access to the flats. The layout does not permit the provision of an acceptable turning head. The parking bays should be 5 metres long x 2.5 metres wide with parking aisles 6 metres wide. No means of access has been shown to access bays nos.1-7.

88 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Consideration of this application requires to be based primarily on its acceptability against the development plan unless other material considerations determine otherwise. At present the site is in part occupied by two residential properties (formerly offices) while the predominant use within the surrounding area is industrial with Palacecraig Industrial Estate forming the north and western boundaries of the application site. In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is considered appropriate in principle for residential purposes being within a Policy HG9: Existing Residential Area.

Through the Local Plan the Council seeks to encourage developers to adopt standards of design and layout most beneficial to the surrounding environment and which satisfy road safety infrastructure requirements. The approved Design Guidance on “lnfill Housing” specifically requires that new development should not adversely affect the character or amenity of an established area or surrounding properties and it should have satisfactory vehicle access and parking arrangements.

4.2 The design of the proposed new build, being of traditional two storey pitched roof construction with render/facing brick external surfaces and concrete roof tiles is seen as acceptable to this particular area. The site layout, although requiring alterations to take account of the Transportation Managers comments on turning head, parking aisles and width of access road at the northern gable of building, is generally acceptable. Also one benefit is that the layout provides the opportunity for rear access to the residential properties on Whifflet Street. No objections were received following the neighbour notification procedures in respect of the scale of the proposed building. Taking these matters into consideration, generally in design and site layout terms the proposal, with modifications, could to be brought to an acceptable standard.

4.3 However, a significant and material consideration that is relevant to this application are the proposed vehicularlpedestrian access arrangements into the site off Palacecraig Street. The present access into the site which serves the existing 2 residential properties is taken from Palacecraig Street via an elongated narrow private driveway with no footways. Taken that Palacecraig Street itself is an industrial access road and sub-standard at the point of access to the development site then the Transportation Manager has concluded that the proposed access arrangements into the site are unacceptable.

4.4 Other matters of concern raised by the Transportation Manager in respect of the detailed layout of the site include sub-standard parking bay aisles, absence of a continuous 2 metre wide footpath connection from footway on Palacecraig Street to the point of pedestrian access to the flats, no provision for turning head within the development site and lack of adequate access to several parking bays (nos. 1-7).

4.5 Having taken all the foregoing into consideration I consider firstly that the proposal could be made acceptable both in site layout and design terms. However, taken the difficulties highlighted above by the Transportation Manager then in policy terms the proposal is clearly contrary to the Local Plan which, through the approved Design Guidance on “lnfill Housing”, requires new developments to achieve satisfactory vehicle access and parking arrangements. Protracted discussions between this department and the applicant have failed to overcome the significant shortfalls in the proposals as highlighted by the Transportation Manager and in view of this I recommend that the application be refused for the reasons stated.

89 Application No: C/04/00187/FUL

Date Registered: 17th February 2004

Applicant : Elaine Henderson 109 Burnbank Street Coatbridge ML5 2AT

Development: Formation of Driveway (Retrospective)

Location: 109 Burnbank Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 2AT

Ward: 33: North Central And Councillor Mary Clark

Grid Reference: 273740.665889.

File Reference: C/PL/CTB8461OSILMILR

Site History:

Development Plan: The property is covered by residential policies in the Monklands District Local Plan.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Housing and Property Services (No response)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Planning permission is sought for the formation of a driveway (in retrospect) at 109 Burnbank Street, Coatbridge, which is a flat within a block of four. One letter of representation was received from a neighbouring property. The points raised have been considered in the attached report. Following assessment of the proposals against the development plan and all other material considerations, including effects on neighbouring properties, it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Recommendation: Grant.

90 Gas Works

Planning Application No. C1041001871FUL

Rodused by Formation of Driveway (Retrospective) Ranning and Emironman1 *ad uanori sm%oi,~~~~n(i muse 2 Tryst Rcad 109 Burnbank Street, Coatbridge CUMBERNAUW R.*odY.d h*rn,h. Ordnnc. surr.y mlppnl Wlh m7 ljvy 01236616210 Fsx 0121663832 Not to Scale ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~' Un.utkd8.d r.padurmn lnhlnir Crwn rwrlghl 05LIsnceLAOQO41L Representation * and m~yl.adtopms~u@nor01111 poc&lgi

91 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th February 2004

Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Memo from Transportation Section received 16th March 2004 Memo from NLC Housing and Property Services - E-mail response 14'h April 2004.

Letter from Gary & Linda Welsh, 11 1 Burnbank Street, Coatbridge, ML5 2AT received 25th February 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Leigh Menzies at 01236 812375.

92 APPLICATION NO. C/04/00187/FUL

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

1.I The development for which planning permission is sought is the formation of off-street parking in the side garden of 109 Burnbank Street, Coatbridge. The parking area is approximately 10 metres long, varying from 2.3 to 4 metres wide.

1.2 The dwellinghouse is located within an established residential area, and fronts onto Burnbank Street. The driveway is surfaced with tarmac and has been in place for approx. 3 years.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site is designated within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991, as a residential area where amenity is to be protected (Policy HG9). As the application rises no strategic issues, it can be assessed in terms of the local plan policy.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The transportation section was consulted. The response stated that access should be via a dropped kerb, the driveway should be paved for the first 2 metres and a visibility of 2.5 x 120 metres provided. In terms of the first requirement, this can be dealt with separately through Roads legislation. The visibility requirement and the paved first 2 metres is currently met by the development.

3.2 NLC Housing and Property Services were consulted and subsequently pursued the submission of a superior’s consent for the driveway, to date this has not been progressed.

3.3 One letter of representation was received from the neighbouring property of 111 Burnbank Street. The objections are on the following grounds: -

0) Flooding due to the fall of the driveway towards the building (ii) No drainage provision (iii) The driveway should be porous (iv) Existing utilities access points have been covered (VI Ability to access own property past two parked cars (vi) Erection of fence restricting length of proposed driveway by 2 metres (vii) Removal of communal path and the subsequent need for reinstatement of a path with appropriate fence and gateways

4. PIa nn i n FI Assessment and Co nclu si o ns

4.1 Local plan policy HG9 is the relevant policy in assessing the proposals. This seeks to safeguard against development that adversely affects the amenity of established housing areas. The proposals are considered to be acceptable in terms of the appearance and scale and would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse, without causing any adverse amenity effects in relation to day light, privacy and residual garden ground.

93 4.2 In relation to the grounds of objection, these are addressed as follows:

(i) As regards any changes that the proposal may make to garden drainage it is not realistic for the planning process to consider householder developments at this level of detail. The driveway naturally slopes towards the building and the householder should ensure that appropriate measures are taken to protect their own property interests by adequate garden drainage. (ii) This matter is of a technical nature that requires to be addressed in the normal manner by the applicant to ensure no neighbouring properties are compromised by the proposals. (iii) In terms of planning legislation there is no provision to condition the type of material used except where it may cause an issue in terms of road safety (iv) This matter cannot be addressed as part of a planning application and would be consideration of the relevant utilities body (v) The proposed driveway meets the minimum recommended length to accommodate two cars, i.e. 10 metres. (vi) While there is no separate communal path, there is sufficient tarmac area provided to allow access to the lower flat at No. 11 1, even when cars are parked in the driveway. In any event, the effect on access rights to the neighbour’s property is a legal issue which the applicant would be required to observe.

4.3 In conclusion, having considered all of the points of objection raised, no reason is found to uphold them. It is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to appropriate conditions.

94 Application No: C/04/00249/FUL

Date Registered: 23rd February 2004

Applicant : Link Group Limited 45 Albany Street Edinburgh EH1 3QY

Agent Fraser Brown Newman 48 Speirs Wharf Glasgow G4 9TH

Development : Erection of 27 Dwellinghouses, 4 Flats and Associated Access Roads

Location: New Build Phase 3B Mull Petersburn Airdrie Lanarkshire

Ward: 52: Councillor David Fagan

Grid Reference: 277809664371

File Reference: C/PL/Al M930/CM/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is located within an area covered by policy HG 9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Com ments) Scottish Water (No objection) Scottish Water (No objection) British Gas Transco (No objection) Scottish Power (No objection) The Coal Authority (No objection) British Telecom (No objection)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Planning permission is being sought for the erection of 27 dwellinghouses and 4 flats, at phase 3B of the Mull redevelopment site at Petersburn, Airdrie. The layout and proposed house types are considered satisfactory. Although there was objection to the proposal this was not considered to be material to the consideration of the proposals. Further details are noted in the main report. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

95 NWlh Roduoid by Planning Application C/04/00249/FUL Lanarkshire Amniqmd Ewlmnmenl Erection of Dwellinghouses, 4 Flats and Associated Access Roads p *' Councll Head mlterli 27 SU b!01 Fleming House 2Twrt Rwd CUM087 IJWBERNAU Lt New Built Phase 3B Mull, Petersburn, Airdrie Rspcdwd h~mthroidl-svrreym~ppqwlh A )Lapenn,..imdheCm~,tdlsrdhrMs/~l/. 01238816210 FIX 01236616232 Representation * hbt to Scale ~~~~z~~~~~r,~~~tCrammpyIICf C6 L1canoeLAOQ041L Site Area 1.9HA edmayl~dtop~~~ubm c~ciYilpl~cBBdl~

96 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. 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 enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That before any dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied, the relevant fences or walls approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

4. 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.

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

5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, 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 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) details of the phasing of these works (e) details of a management and maintenance scheme for these works.

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

6. That before completion of the landscaping scheme approved under the terms of condition 5 above the management and maintenance scheme also approved shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory implementation and future maintenance of the landscaping scheme.

7. That within one year of the occupation of the fourth last dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

97 8. That no dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be occupied until the road and footpath adjacent to it have been constructed to basecourse standard and the road and footpath shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the construction phase.

Reason: To ensure continuity in the development of the Estate.

9. That before any of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied, dropped kerb vehicular accesses shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the said Roads Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

10. That the development hereby approved shall not commence until the necessary roads and footpath closures have been confirmed and the statutory procedures required by schedule 16 of the Town and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 are fully completed.

Reason: To allow the necessary statutory procedures to be carried out.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 23rd February 2004 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Memo from Transportation Section received Memo from Protective Services Section received 19th March 2004 Memo from Community Services received 25th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 12th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 12th March 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 4th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 8th March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 9th March 2004 Letter from British Telecom received 15th March 2004

Letter from R McGuigan, 275 Calderglen Court, Airdrie, ML6 received 18th March 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Colin Marshall at 01236 812376.

98 APPLICATION NO. C1041002491FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for the erection of 27 dwellinghouses and 4 flats at a redevelopment site located at Mull, Petersburn, Airdrie. The development relates to phase 3B of the ongoing redevelopment scheme for the Petersburn area. The scheme originally proposed 37 houses but 10 were omitted due to difficulties with ground conditions.

1.2 The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing terraced houses and these replaced with a mix of two storey flats, semi-detached and terraced houses of similar design to those already provided in earlier phases. All units would have double-pitched tiled roofs and would be finished in a mix of facing brick and render to external walls. New roads and footpaths would be provided with access continued from the phase 3A area. Two existing access roads from Minch Way would be closed off. No play areas are proposed within the site. As play facilities will be provided in one large communal area serving all phases, an area of landscaping will be provided along the southern edge of the housing area where ground conditions precluded further building.

2. Development Plan

2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is located within an area covered by Policy HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas). The proposals raise no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 There were no adverse comments received from the above noted consultees.

3.2 A letter of objection was received from the ownerloccupier of 275 Calderglen Court who has objected on the basis that this existing dwellinghouse has not been included within the proposed layout.

4. PIann i nR Assessment and Co nc I usi o ns

4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The redevelopment proposals are consistent with policy HG9 of the local plan. There are no strategic planning issues.

4.2 The proposed housing layout and dwellinghouse design are considered to be acceptable under the terms of the Councils Design Guidance on New Housing Areas and Developer’s Guide to Open Space. There were no adverse comments from external consultees and the Transportation Section had no objection subject to conditions. The Director of Community Services had no objections as play area provision is being provided within the open space area situated to the north of the development site.

99 4.3 Turning to the letter of objection the following comments can be made. The proposals as submitted, indicate that the end-terraced property at 275 Calderglen Court would be demolished to make way for the proposed redevelopment scheme. The developer has advised that negotiations are currently underway with this property owner and the matter will be resolved before this part of the site is developed. This is essentially a legal issue over ground and property ownership and the developer would need to legally acquire development rights to the site before development proceeds. As such this legal matter is not material to the consideration of the planning application.

4.4 Following consideration of the above matters I would conclude that the proposals are acceptable and recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

100 Application No: C/04/00285/OUT

Date Registered: 19th March 2004

Applicant : Paterson Builders Ltd. IBo'ness Road

Agent Eddie Hawke Associates 3 Lochinver Crescent Blantyre G72 OGT

Development: Erection of Industrial Unit, External Storage Area and Associated Parking to Form Building Premises

Location: Land West Of 1 Moncrieffe Road Chapelhall Industrial Estate Chapelhall Airdrie Lanarkshire

Ward: 51 : Chapelhall Councillor Thomas Curley

Grid Reference: 27781 5 663648

File Reference: C/PL/CHM65500/1J/EL

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy ECON 2/4 (Existing General Industrial Areas) in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments: Permission is being sought in outline for the erection of an Industrial Unit with associated storage area, parking and vehicular access on an area of open grassed land within Chapelhall Industrial Estate. The site measures 0.17 hectares, is rectangular in shape and is located to the northwest of the junction of Moncrieffe Road and Stirling Road. The surrounding area is predominantly industrial in nature.

Being in outline there have been no details submitted as any details would be considered at a subsequent "reserved matters" application stage should this present submission be approved. It has been indicated that the building would be positioned facing Carlisle Road and the existing hammer head at the entrance to the site would be adapted to provide a 5.5 metre wide access road into the application site. Included will be a 1.2 metre wide footway which will allow for maintenance access into the adjacent Vodaphone mast site.

Having regard to the Local Plan designation, the proposal is in accordance with Policy ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial Areas) and it is considered acceptable in policy terms. Although a number of objections were received against the proposal, the details of which will be commented on in the

101 Planning Application C/04/00285/OUT RDduced by rhshire Rannlnland E~~~~~~~ Erection of Industrial Unit, External Storage Area and Associated Parking CWWH Headiuners %lt.Ml n-m~~s~Y.. to Form Building Premises ZTryitRold CUMBWNAULD R.wwtmm or*- 9m.I m*)p14 rln 037 INI A In

102 accompanying report, these do not raise any issues that would merit the refusal of this application. Taking all of the foregoing into consideration I recommend that permission is granted subject to the proposed conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. That before development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:- (a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the details of the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (e) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (f) the provision of drainage works; (9) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (h) details of existing and proposed site levels.

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

3. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 2 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

4. That before development hereby permitted starts, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the site is free from contamination.

5. That no part of the development hereby permitted shall exceed one storey in height.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

103 6. That before the development hereby approved starts, details of a scheme, which provides sufficient space within the curtilage of the application site for:-

a) the parking and manoeuvring of all cars; b) the loading and unloading of all vehicles, and c) the provision of turning areas so that all vehicles enter and leave the site in forward gear

shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

7. That before the development hereby approved, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment for the part of the site fronting Carlisle Road, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

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

8. That provision shall be made within the detailed layout of the site to retain access to the adjacent Vod afon e mast site.

Reason: To protect the interests of the adjacent land users.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th February 2004 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Memo from Transportation Section dated Letter from Pyramind Windows,Block 1, Chapelhall Industrial Estate, Airdrie, ML6 8QH received 19th March 2004. Letter from Vodafone,Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 2FN received 22nd March 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

104 APPLICATION NO. C10410028510UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site measures 0.17 hectares and comprises of a rectangular area of flat, open grassed land that is located north west of the junction of Stirling Road and Moncrieffe Road within Chapelhall Industrial Estate. Similar open grassed lands bound the site to the south, a wooded area forms the northern boundary, Industrial premises form the eastern boundary and Carlisle Road forms the sites western boundary. The surrounding area is predominantly Industrial in nature.

1.2 The proposal, in outline at this stage, seeks to erect an Industrial building on site with accompanying open storage and parking area. No details have been submitted as any details would be considered at a subsequent “reserved matters” application stage should this present proposal be approved. Access to the site will be taken off the existing hammer head at the Stirling RoadlMoncrieffe Road junction and this new access will incorporate a link into the adjacent Vodaphone mast site.

2. Development Plan

2.1 In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is located within an area covered by Policy ECON 2: Existing General Industrial Areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures two letters of representation were received against this proposal. The points of objection raised in these letters are as follows : a) The existing estate roads are suffering from lack of maintenance with large potholes throughout and this proposal would only make the problem worse. b) The accepted building line along Stirling Road would be compromised and if permitted this may encourage further similar proposals that would result in the loss of existing amenity space within the estate. c) The estate currently suffers from a severe parking problem especially on the roads and the estate cannot sustain further cars and traffic.

A holding objection was also received from Vodaphone pending their inspection of the site layout drawings to ensure the provision of an acceptable access route to their adjacent base station.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications of this nature require to be considered against the relevant development plan unless other material considerations dictate otherwise. Firstly, in relation to the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, the application site is located within an area where the Council will support the retention of the predominantly industrial character (Policy ECON 2). In principle therefore this proposal is compliant with the terms of the Local Plan.

105 4.2 Having regard to the concerns raised in response to the neighbour notification procedures it should firstly be stated that the condition and maintenance responsibility for the internal estate roads is outwith the control of the applicant and it is unlikely that the limited level of additional vehicle movement created by this proposal will have any quantifiable effect on the condition of those estate roads. There is a problem of adhoc parking on the roads throughout the Industrial Estate. However, this proposal seeks to provide a sufficient level of off-street parking within the application site to cater for the envisaged numbers of stafflcustomer vehicles and therefore approval of this proposal should not adversely impact on the existing parking problems within the estate.

4.3 The application site currently forms the northernmost part of a linear stretch of amenity grassed land that forms a physical boundary between the existing industrial premises and the A73 Carlisle Road. The application site is however set apart from the adjoining grassed land (to the south) in that it is screened from the A73 by a large hedgerow and as such its development would not unduly impact on the visually important role that the retained open environmental corridor plays nor would it create a precedent which would make it difficult for the Council to resist any further loss of this linear stretch of amenity grassed land.

4.4 Through direct communication between the applicant and Vodaphone the holding objection initially submitted by that company to this proposal has now been withdrawn as, having now viewed the proposal details, they are satisfied that access to their installation will not be adversely affected by the proposals under consideration.

4.5 Having taken into account all the foregoing I consider the proposal to be acceptable in policy grounds and I do not consider that the points of concern raised through objection to the application merit its refusal. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

106 Application No: C/O4/00291/FUL

Date Registered: 1st March 2004

Ap pl icant : Nicolson Construction Ltd Boydstone House 775 Boydstone Road Thornliebank G46 8LD

Agent Design Management Id Firhill House 55 - 65 Firhill Road Glasgow G20 7BE

Development: Erection of 24 Flatted Dwellinghouse

Location: Land Incorporating Former Social Club Site, 105 Main Street Plains Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 7JG

Ward: 46: Plains And Caldercruix Councillor Thomas Morgan

Grid Reference: 279569666801

File Reference: C/PL/PLM030105/CM/LR

Site History: C/OO/O1479/0UT Erection of Flatted Residential Development (In Outline) Granted March 2001

Development Plan: Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policies Econ 8 (General Urban Area) and HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: British Gas Transco (No objection) Scottish Power (No objection) The Coal Authority (No objection) British Telecom (No objection) Scottish Water (Commen ts) NLC Community Services (No objection)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Planning permission is being sought for the erection of 24 two-storey 2 bedroom flats at a redevelopment site located at 105 Main Street, Plains, Airdrie. The proposed layout, house types, access and parking arrangements are considered acceptable under the terms of the Monklands District Local Plan and the Council’s current design guidance. There were no adverse comments from

107 Planning Application No C/04/00291/Ful rkshlre Ccuncll Erection of 24 Flatted Dwellinghouses

105 Main Street, Plains Airdrie Site Area .05HA

108 consultees and there were no representations. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

2. 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 enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That before any of the flatted dwellinghouses hereby permitted, situated on a site upon which a fence or wall is to be erected, are occupied, the fence, or wall, as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

4. 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.

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

5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, 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 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) details of the phasing of these works; (e) details of a management and maintenance scheme for the works

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

6. That within one year of the occupation of the fourth last flatted dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

109 7. That before completion of the approved landscape scheme, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 5 shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

8. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped, felled, or otherwise affected, without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

9. That 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, as shown on the approved plans, and shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the existing trees on the site are protected during construction works

10. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

11. That a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 120 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the 2 vehicular access points from Main Street.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

12. That a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 60 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the parking area on Jarvie Avenue.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

13. That no flat shall be occupied unless the access roads and footways leading thereto from the public road have been constructed to base course level

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

14. That before the last of the flats hereby permitted is occupied, all roads and footways shall be completed to final wearing course.

Reason: To ensure continuity in the development of the Estate.

110 15. That before development starts, the existing bus stop shelter indicated in blue on the approved plans shall be relocated out-with the visibility splay area along Main Street in accordance with the requirements and written agreement of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

16. That before the development starts, further details of the proposed off-street car parking scheme for the development site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities

17. That the access roads shall be finished in a tarmac finish and all parking bays shall have a pavior finish.

Reason: To ensure that the access roads and parking areas are finished in an appropriate surfacing material and in the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1st March 2004

Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Letter from British Gas Transco received 5th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 11th March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 10th March 2004 Letter from British Telecom received 16th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 12th March 2004 Memo from Transportation Section received 7th April 2004 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 26th March 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 18 March 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Colin Marshall at 01236 812376.

111 APPLICATION NO. C/04/00291/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for the erection of 24 flats located at a vacant site situated between Main Street and Jarvie Avenue, Plains.

1.2 A Social Club Hall formerly occupied the development site, however this was demolished and the site cleared some time ago. The open site extends to some 0.05 ha. and is bounded to the south by Main Street and to the north by Jarvie Avenue where there is a slight fall in ground level. The site is located within a predominantly residential area however to the west of the site there is a local grocer’s shop which faces onto Main Street.

1.3 The proposal would involve the erection of 24 two storey 2-bedroom flats accessed from both Main Street and Jarvie Avenue. Two vehicular accesses would be taken from Main Street via dropped kerbs and two private parking courts would be formed to the front and side of the respective blocks of flats. A terraced row of 6 flats would face onto Jarvie Avenue and 10 no. off-street parking spaces would be provided along the frontage of this part of the site. A total of 39 parking spaces would be provided within the site. This includes 15 visitor-parking spaces. The proposals also include provision for the continuation of a public footpath link that would be upgraded and re-graded to cater for disabled pedestrians.

1.4 The flats would be accommodated within 5 separate two-storey buildings, and communal private amenity space areas would be located to the rear of the buildings. These areas would be screened off from the parking and public areas. The flats would have double pitched tiled roofs with external walls finished in a mix of facing brick and render. Internally they would have two bedrooms, loungeldining areas, kitchen and bathroom. Indicative tree planting proposals are also shown although no details of the type or species are provided. Three existing mature trees would be retained.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policies Econ 8 (General Urban Area) and HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas). There are no strategic planning issues relating to the proposals.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 There were no adverse comments received from the external consultees. However it was noted that Scottish Water would require the developer to bear the costs of increasing the capacity of the existing infrastructure and promote a scheme that would not compromise the quality or quantity of discharge from the sewerage system. The developer is aware of these requirements and would be discussing the issue with Scottish Water directly.

3.2 The Transportation Section had no objections subject to conditions and some minor revisions the proposed car-parking scheme. It has been agreed with the developer that the car parking revisions will be subject of a planning condition.

3.3 There were no representations.

112 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The redevelopment proposals are consistent with policies Econ 8 and HG9 of the local plan. There are no strategic planning issues. 4.2 The proposed housing layout and design of the flats are considered to be acceptable under the terms of the Councils Design Guidance on New Housing Areas and Developer’s Guide to Open Space. There were no adverse comments from external consultees. Although Scottish Water offered comments, it is considered that the developer would be able to reach agreement with Scottish Water over an appropriate drainage system. The Transportation Section had no objection subject to conditions.

4.3 Following consideration of the above matters I would conclude that the proposals are acceptable and recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

113 Application No: C/04/00352/F UL

Date Registered: 26th March 2004

Applicant: John Purves 1 Hillside Crescent Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 5HJ

Development : Single Storey Front Extension and Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 1 Hillside Crescent Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 5HJ

Ward: 40: Old Monkland Councillor Thomas Maginnis

Grid Reference: 272832.663707

File Reference: CIPLICTH504ILWIEL

Site History:

Development Plan: The property is covered by residential policies in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application relates to a two-storey side extension and single-storey front extension to a semi- detached dwellinghouse at 1 Hillside Crescent, Coatbridge. One letter of representation was received from a neighbouring property, the points raised have been detailed in the attached report. Following assessment of the proposals against the development plan and all other material considerations, including effects on neighbouring properties, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

114 Planning Application No. C/04/00352/FU L I roduced by Single Storey Front Extension and Two Storey lcnnlns and Environmenl ecdqumleri Sid e Exte n s ion to Dwellinghou se N uits 501. Fleming House A

115 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

3. That before the development hereby permitted is occupied, 2 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

Background Papers:

Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Application form and plans received 15'h March 2004

Letter from A M Rankin,l07 Ailsa Road, Coatbridge, received lgthMarch 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lesley Ward at 01236 812374.

116 APPLICATION NO. C1041003521FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The proposed development is a single storey front extension joined with a two-storey side extension in a wrap-around style to the west side of a semi-detached dwellinghouse at 1 Hillside Crescent, Coatbridge. The front extension will project approximately 1.5 metres from the front of the existing house and will be approximately 7.3 metres wide and approximately 4.5 metres in height. The proposed two-storey element will be approximately 3.6 metres wide, 8.3 metres long, and 8 metres in height. Since the existing dwellinghouse is not parallel to its side boundary with neighbouring properties, the rear of the extension will be approximately 1.5 metres from the side boundary and the front of the extension will be 6.2 metres from the side boundary. The two-storey element will be tied in to the existing roof and the single storey extension will have the same roof pitch as the existing dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The development is in accordance with the Development Plan and raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 One letter of representation has been received from a neighbour at 107 Ailsa Road, situated to the west of the application site. The main grounds of objection are as follows:

(i) Excavation may destabilise the ground and perimeter fence (ii) Excavation work will be carried out near a gas main

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The site is situated within a residential area. In assessing this application the local plan policy for existing residential areas is relevant. This seeks to protect such areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity of the established housing. In assessing the proposals in detail it is considered to be acceptable in terms of the design and scale, would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse and would cause no adverse amenity effects in relation to privacy, parking and residual garden ground.

4.2 In relation to the grounds of objection, these are addressed as follows:

(i)&(ii) The safety of all excavation work near existing structures or utilities is the responsibility of the developer and as such is not a material planning consideration therefore cannot be addressed as part of a planning application.

4.3 In conclusion, the points of representation have been considered and no reason found to uphold the points raised or to request amendments to the proposals. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is in keeping with the surrounding residential area. The application raises no strategic issues and accords with the policies of the local plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the appropriate conditions.

I17 Application No: C/04/00353/FUL

Date Registered: 16th March 2004

Ap piican t: Mrs I Green Ferguson House Aitchison Street Ai rd rie

Agent Robertson Design, Nethermill Netherton Road Langbank PA14 6YG

Development: Partial Demolition, Alteration and Extension to Nursing Home, and Formation of New Access.

Location: 107 Aitchison Street Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 ODB

Ward: 47: North Cairnhill And Coatdyke Councillor Peter Sullivan

Grid Reference: 275497.665398.

File Reference: C/PL/AIA3OO/DB/LR

Site History: The Nursing Home operates under planning permission 86/343

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential, educational and conservation policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (No Objection) Scottish Water (Comments) British Gas Transco (Com men ts) Scottish Power (No Objection) The Coal Authority (Comments)

Representations: 7 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments: This application is for a partial demolition, alteration and extension to Ferguson House Nursing Home 107 Aitchison Street, Airdrie. The nursing home currently has 24 residents and it is proposed to increase this to 53. Part of the site includes land that forms part of the Victoria Primary School playground which was declared surplus in February 1999. The site is within the Victoria and Airdrie Town Centre Conservation Area and zoned for both residential and educational uses in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Following neighbour notification 7 letters were received details of which and comments thereon are included in the attached report. There were no objections from consultees subject to the provision of appropriate access, parking and manoeuvring areas and water supply. In view of the Department's concerns over visual impact of the initial proposals, also expressed by adjacent residents the plans were revised following discussion with the applicant to reduce the visual impact, increase the level of amenity open space surrounding the building and address comments made by the Transportation Section. I now consider that subject to the proposed conditions the development would

118 61 I not have a significant impact on amenity or traffic safety within the area and therefore recommend that planing permission is granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt these details should comply with the Design Guidance Conservation contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991,

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

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works.

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

4. That prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, 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 the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately landscaped in the interest the amenity of the Nursing Home and the Conservation Area.

5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed internal footpaths shown on the approved plans; (b) the proposed parking areas shown on the approved plans; (c) the proposed external lighting within the curtilage of the site (d) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas as agreed under the terms of condition 3 above; and (e) the proposed fenceslwalls along the boundaries of the site.

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

120 6. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance schemed approved under the terms of condition 5 shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure suitable maintenance of the access, parking and manoeuvring areas, lighting, landscaped areas and boundary treatments in the interest of traffic safety and amenity of the building and Conservation Area.

7. That before the development hereby permitted is occupied, all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

8. That before the development hereby permitted is occupied, the means of vehicular and pedestrian access shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the nursing home in the interest of traffic safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th March 2004 and

Memo from Transportation Section received 29th March 2004 Memo from Protective Services Section received 5th April 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 23rd March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received 29th March 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 24th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 24th March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 29th March 2004

Letter from J Carr,"Jay-Mar", 107 Aitchison Street, Airdrie, ML6 ODB received 23rd March 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs A Robertson, 109 Aitchison Street, Airdrie, ML6 ODB received 29th March 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs A Robertson, 109 Aitchison Street, Airdrie, ML6 ODB received 29th March 2004. Letter from J & C McLean,"Roselle", 23 George Street, Airdrie, ML6 received 1st April 2004. Letter from J McCormack, 21 George Street, Airdrie, ML6 ODJ received 26th March 2004. Letter from William & Josephine Liston, 29 George Street, Airdrie, ML6 ODJ received 25th March 2004. Letter from G.C. McCracken, 111 Aitchison Street, Airdrie, ML6 ODB received 5th April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact David Baxter at 01236 812372.

121 APPLICATION NO. C/04/00353/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application is for a partial demolition, alteration and extension to Ferguson House Nursing Home 107 Aitchison Street, Airdrie. The home currently operates from two buildings: a traditional 2 storey stone villa and a modern sin le storey bungalow. The proposal is to demolish the modern bungalow and construct a 2, 29 /* and 3 storey extension onto the rear of the villa. Initially a full three storey was proposed backing onto George Street. This was amended following discussion to reduce the visual impact of the development and now has 3 storey on the northern elevation, with 2 storey with two dormers on the south elevation and a 3 storey tower on the south-east corner. The extension incorporates design features from the existing villa including eaves detail, windows with vertical emphasis and hipped roofs.

1.2 The home currently has 24 beds and this will now be increased to 53 following the amended submission. The building is designed to comply with the current Care Commission standards.

1.3 The applicant also proposes to improve the current means of vehicular access and increase the area available for visitor and staff parking. The proposal was amended following consultation to meet the Transportation Sections requirements.

1.4 The development will extend the rear boundary into an area that is presently used by Victoria Primary School as a playground. This land was however declared surplus at the (Resources) Sub-Committee on 25 February 1999.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by policies HG9 Housing policy for existing residential areas, ENV15 Conservation Areas and EDUCI Protect and Improve Schools in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has indicated no objection subject to condition related to access, sight lines, and parking and manoeuvring areas.

3.2 The Protective Services Section indicated that construction noise and dust should not result in a nuisance to adjoining residents and any air conditioning or ventilation equipment to be installed should not exceed Noise Rating Curve 35. The applicant will be made aware of these requirements.

3.3 Scottish Power indicated no objection to the proposal. Transco has indicated no objection subject to appropriate measures being take to protect plant that crosses part of the site. The applicant will be advised of these comments. Scottish Water has requested that Developer Services should be contacted to ascertain whether the existing water supply requires upgrading. They also indicated that a separate drainage system for foul and surface water sewers be provided. The applicant will also be advised of these comments. The Coal Authority indicated that appropriate technical advice should be sought prior to works being undertaken and again this will be forwarded to the applicant.

3.4 NLC Community Services has requested further information in respect to landscape design. This is covered by proposed conditions.

122 3.5 Following neighbour notification 7 letters were received that made reference to the following points: a) loss of amenity due to size and appearance of proposed extension; b) overlooking; c) overshadowing; d) noise nuisance; e) adverse effect on drainage; f) infrastructure problems; g) traffic congestion, parking and access problems; h) loss of trees i) contrary to development plan j) the existence of a mine entry in the garden of 111 Aitchison Street that may be affected by the development; k) adverse effect on value of property

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The modern bungalow to be demolished is not considered to be of any architectural merit. The amended proposal is designed in keeping with the existing traditional villa and although substantially bigger is not considered to significantly affect the character of the conservation area. The building will meet current requirements in terms of privacy by way of window to window separation and should not affect the daylight or sunlight enjoyed within adjoining properties.

4.2 The development will not result in noise nuisance when the construction works are carried out in accordance with BS5228 and any air conditioning or ventilation equipment complies with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

4.3 As more of the application site will connect to the surface water drainage system I do not consider that the development will have an adverse impact on drainage. Similarly if the requirements of the utility companies is adhered to there will be no adverse impact on the areas infrastructure.

4.4 The amended proposal will provide an improved vehicular and pedestrian access and adequate parking and manoeuvring facilities for a nursing home of the proposed size.

4.5 The revised proposal also enables more landscaping area to be provided including planting of replacement trees that will be lost as a result of the development.

4.6 Although there will be a line of mature trees removed to enable the development to proceed the amended proposal allows for additional trees to be planted along the site boundaries. This will reduce the visual impact of the development.

4.7 The site is partly zoned for residential purposes. The additional land to the rear within the school playground is identified for the protection and improvement of schools. This area was however declared surplus by the education department and is not therefore required for the current zoning. The proposed extension contains many of the features of the existing villa and with the use of appropriate materials will not affect the character of the Conservation Area. I do not therefore consider that the proposal is contrary to the development plan.

4.8 Although one of the objection letter refers to a mine entry near by the Coal Authority has indicated that there are no mine entries within 20m of the site boundary. The applicant is however advised to take appropriate technical advice prior to starting site works.

123 4.9 The final point raised by the letters of objection in respect to property values is not a material consideration.

4.10 In conclusion I consider that the revised plans meet the requirements of the Transportation Section and should not therefore significantly affect traffic safety. The proposal is now more appropriate in terms of scale of development and the design and mass of the building is more appropriate for the conservation area and should not therefore significantly affect its amenity. I therefore recommend approval subject to the attached conditions.

124 Application No: C/04/00394/FU L

Date Registered: 19th March 2004

Applicant : George Wimpey West Scotland Trident House Renfrew Road Paisley PA3 4EF

Development: Erection of 17 Dwellinghouses with Associated Works

Location: George Wimpey Phase 5 (East Of 159-169 Main Street) Lancaster Avenue Chapelhall Airdrie Lanarkshire

Ward: 52: Salsburgh Councillor David Fagan

Grid Reference: 278402 662749

File Reference: C/PL/CHLI 80/DB/LR

Site History: The site is part of the Dunalistair Strategic Land release that was granted permission in outline on 8 May 1989 for Residential Development of approximately 800 houses.

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: West of Scotland Archaeology Service(No Objection) The Coal Authority (Comm ents) Scottish Water (Commen ts)

Representations: 7 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application is for the erection of 17 dwellinghouses on land to the north of Lancaster Avenue, Chapelhall. This development represents phase 5 of a development by George Wimpey. The site is zoned HG4 Strategic Housing Site in the Monklands District Local Plan. This development forms part of the reserved matters to planning permission 891089, which was granted on 8 May 1989. Following neighbour notification 7 letters of objection were received details of which are contained in the attached report. It should be noted that one objector has requested a site visit and hearing. No objections have been received following normal consultations only conditions requested. The developer has amended the development in the course of consideration of the application and it is accordance with the terms of the outline consent. The development should not result in a significant loss of amenity and approval is recommended subject to the conditions stated.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

125 Planning Application No. C/04/003941FUL Erection of 17 Dwellinghouses with Associated Works 'mduced by &shire 'lanning and Emironrent ceuncu kadquaters George Wimpey Phase 5 (East of 159-169 Main Street) ,ute 501, Fkming House Tryst Rod Lancaster Avenue, Chapelhall, Airdrie :UMBERNAULD i67 1JW Rpcdwd hornlh~bln;.SunymqpwwIh h. pnnilliadh.Conrdl*dhrM.)rfy. 1236 616210 Fax 01'233616'232 Representations NOttoSca,e s~~i~~rn~.mclavnscpyli,w * lhuthmaedrgmduda lntlw- Crwn wbhl )S Licmce LA 09041L Site Area 1.10 HA rdmq Ird lopnusuba m dlil poudmp

126 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

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

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, including any modifications as may be required.

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

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works.

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

5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed footpaths shown on the approved plans; (b) the proposed parking areas shown on the approved plans; (c) the proposed external lighting to be provided for the site; (d) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas agreed under the terms of condition 4 above; and (e) the proposed fences to be erected as agreed under the terms of condition 3 above.

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

6. That within one year of the occupation of the sixth last dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 4 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

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

127 7. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 5 shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure ongoing maintenance in the interest of traffic safety and amenity.

8. That no dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be occupied until the road and footpath adjacent to it have been constructed to basecourse standard and the road and footpath shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the construction phase.

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

9. That before the last of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all roads and footways shall be completed to final wearing course.

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

10 That no boundary fence or wall greater than lm high should be erected along the boundary marked green on the approved plans without the written permission of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority retain control and protect the level of daylight available to the habitable rooms at 171 Main Street, Chapelhall facing that boundary.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 19th March 2004, 27th April 2004, 28th April 2004 and 29th April 2004 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Memo from Transportation Section received 27th April 2004 Memo from Protective Services Section received 5th April 2004 Letter from West Of Scotland Archaeology Service received 5th April 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 30th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water received on 28th April 2004

Letter from J Hunter,l63 Main Street, Chapelhall, ML6 8SF received 19th April 2004. Letter from George & Margaret Rogan,l71A Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie , ML6 8SF received 19th April 2004. Letter from M Hamilton,The Meadows, 9 Bellside Road, Chapelhall, ML6 8SD received 19th April 2004. Letter from W. W Robertson,l69 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SF received 20th April 2004. Letter from J.S. Robertson,l67 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SF received 20th April 2004. Letter from M Tobin,l71 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, received 23rd April 2004. Letter from K Caldwell,l61 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8SA received 23rd April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact David Baxter at 01236 812372.

128 APPLICATION NO. C1041003941FUL

REPORT

1. DescriPtion of Site and ProDosal

1.I This application is for the erection of 17 dwellinghouses on land to the north of Lancaster Avenue, Chapelhall. This development represents phase 5 of a development by George Wimpey and is located to the north east of phase 4 and to the rear of 163-171 Main Street.

1.2 This development forms part of the reserved matters to planning permission 891089 that was granted on 8 May 1989. The applicant proposes to access the site from a road that services the phase 4 development. The site has a water main that dissects the site and the undeveloped land will be left as woodland/open space.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned HG4 Strategic Housing Site in the Monklands District Local Plan.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 No objections have been received following normal consultation procedure. The proposal has been revised to address comments made by the Transportation Section.

3.2 Following neighbour notification 7 letters of objection were received that refer to the following points: a) The two storey buildings near to the boundary could result in overshadowing; b) The erection of a 6ft boundary fence will result in loss of daylight to a sitting room and bathroom. c) The development will result in loss of privacy due to close proximity of building to windows and garden area. d) Is it safe to construct a road over the water main?; e) Building on ground higher than existing property may result in drainage problems; f) The height of the land and buildings will affect the character of the landscape and dominate the existing property: g) The buildings due to height and close proximity to existing house will create a sense of enclosure; h) Could the number of houses be reduced to provide greater gaps between them?; i) Is the proposal contrary to the outline planning permission?; j) The development will remove young trees that were planted a few years ago; k) Would the CounciVbuilder bear the cost of damage or remedial works that may be required?;

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The assessment of this application is based on the conditions attached to the outline planning permission 89/089, which was granted in accordance with the Development Plan and other material considerations. There are no strategic issues. It is considered that the proposals as amended meet the terms of the outline consent. The points raised by the letters of objection are addressed below.

129 4.2 Following the amendment of the proposal all buildings will be sufficiently far away from existing properties to ensure that there will be little impact from shadowing of habitable rooms. Similarly there is a proposed condition to ensure that no boundary fence is erected adjacent to the side windows at 171 Main Street that will affect the levels of daylight currently enjoyed. The buildings are also positioned a minimum of 18m apart and in such a way as to ensure that appropriate levels of privacy within garden areas are retained.

4.3 The applicant has shown a turning area to be built over the water main. Subject to appropriate protection measures the pipeline should remain unaffected.

4.4 The development should reduce any drainage problems as more of the water that falls onto the site will be managed through the required surface drainage system.

4.5 I agree that the development of the site will affect the currently open landscape of the site. I do not however consider that the dwelling houses will dominate or result in a “prison wall” effect as suggested since they will be at least 18metres distance away from adjacent properties.

4.6 Although not a material consideration the applicant has indicated that the development requires the 17 houses in order to make an appropriate return on the development costs. As the development meets the terms of the outline consent in terms of density there is no further means of restricting the number of houses that can be developed.

4.7 The development will result in the removal of tree whips that were planted 18-24months ago. This is not considered to have a significant impact on the environment as the remainder of the undeveloped land will be retained as woodland and managed landscaped open space.

4.8 Finally any cost of damage or remedial works required as a result of construction works on site would be a civil matter between the applicant and existing property owners.

4.9 In conclusion, it is considered that the development as amended is in accordance with the terms of the outline consent and should not significantly impact on either road safety or amenity. As such, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the proposed conditions.

130 Application No: CIO4IOO439IFU L

Date Registered: 26th March 2004

Applicant: Mr Alistair Tinto West House 700 Coatbridge Road Bargeddie G69 7TW

Agent Norris Hamilton Architect Parkland Design Studio 14 Meadow View Cumbernauld G67 2BY

Development: Conversion of Byre to Dwellinghouse

Location: Drum Park Farm Coatbridge Road Bargeddie Glasgow G69 7TW

Ward: 36: Bargeddie And Langloan Councillor Andrew Burns

Grid Reference: 270490664530

File Reference: CIPLIBAC520ICMILR

Site History:

Development Plan: Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policy GBI (Restrict Development in Green Belt) Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Planning permission is being sought for the conversion of a byre to a dwellinghouse at Drumpark Farm, Coatbridge Road, Bargeddie.

The byre forms part of the Drumpark Farm steading, which is located 100 metres to the south of Coatbridge Road. The byre measures 16m x 7.5m and is single storey in height with a double pitched tiled roof. It is of a traditional scale and design with extended skew features to its gable ends. It backs onto a similar designed building that is currently used as garages associated with the farm. The proposed dwellinghouse is not required to support the operation of the farm.

Despite an objection from the Transportation Section, I am satisfied that the development could operate without any adverse impacts on road safety. Further details of the proposal, and details of the objection, can be found within the attached report.

131 Pr0duc.d by Planning Application No C/04/00439/FUL hnnlni and Ewironnunt Haad Y~WS s,n.b Fi.rn,"O HO".. IT,y.IRo.d Conversion of Byre to Dwellinghouse CUMBERYAULO 087 IN o~m816m FU OIZB~1~132 Drurnpark Farm Coatbridge Road, Bargeddie OJ Li~nreLAOSOl~L

132 Following consideration of the application details it is considered that the proposals meet the terms of the Council’s design guidance on New Houses in the Countryside as the building is capable an acceptable sympathetic conversion. As such it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. 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 enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is brought into use. the relevant fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in the conversion, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

5. That before the development hereby starts, further details of a landscaping scheme for the area hatched green on the approved plans 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) details of any shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of shrubs to be planted, and (c) details of a management and maintenance scheme for the proposed landscaping works

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

6. That before completion of the development hereby permitted the management and maintenance schemed approved under the terms of condition 5 shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity of the property

7. That before the dwellinghouse conversion hereby permitted is brought into use, 2 off-street parking spaces shall be provided within the site, as described on the approved plans and shall, thereafter, be maintained as car parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

133 8. That before the dwellinghouse conversion hereby approved is brought into use, the adjacent farm office window (shaded blue on approved drawings 368-1 and 368-2) shall be fitted with obscure glazing.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the approved dwellinghouse

9. That a visibility splay of 4.5 x 120 metres, measured from the road channel be provided to the east of the vehicular access and everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas, and thereafter nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, erected, or allowed to grow, within this sight line area.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety

10. That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied 2 side by side car parking spaces, measuring 6 x 5 metres shall be provided within the curtilage of the plot and thereafter shall be maintained as parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities at the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th March 2004

Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Memo from Transportation Section received 28th April 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Colin Marshall at 01236 812376.

134 APPLICATION NO. C1041004391FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for the conversion of a byre to a dwellinghouse at Drumpark Farm, Coatbridge Road, Bargeddie.

1.2 The byre forms part of the Drumpark Farm steading, which is located 100 metres to the south of Coatbridge Road. The byre measures 16m x 7.5m and is single storey in height with a double pitched tiled roof. It is of a traditional scale and design with extended skew features to its gable ends. It backs onto a similar designed building that is currently used as garages associated with the farmhouse. The byre, traditionally used for livestock is currently used as a storage area.

1.3 The conversion works would involve external and internal works to provide a single storey 2- bedroom dwellinghouse. External walls would be rendered to match the existing adjacent farm buildings. A new entrance porch and 5 new window openings with traditional vertical emphasis and banding features would be provided on the east elevation of the building. There would be no alteration to the existing roof finish however 3 velux windows would be provided. Internally, the dwellinghouse would have two bedrooms, lounge/dining area, study, kitchen, and bathroom. A patio area would be provided to the north elevation and a front garden and parking area provided to the east elevation. An existing adjacent farm office window would be provided with obscure glazing to maintain privacy to the proposed dwellinghouse and patio area.

1.4 The proposed dwellinghouse is not required to support the operation of the farm and planning permission is sought on the basis of the proposed conversion works.

2. Development Plan

2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Local Plan the site is located within the Green Belt which restricts new residential development not associated with either farming or forestry operations. However under the terms of the Council's Design Guidance on New Houses in the Countryside, where there is no operational need, a rural house may be considered favourably where there is an existing building capable of sympathetic conversion.

2.2 The guidance suggests the following criteria should be met.

The building should be substantially complete, up to wallhead level. The existing structure should form the main part of the new building with any increase in floor area not increased by more than 50%. The proposed house should generally be of traditional design and should have adequate vehicular access and drainage. The proposed renovations/enlargements should be sympathetic for a countryside location. Traditional design features should be included. Externally buildings should be finished in stone or a whitelcream harl and the roof should have a slate or appropriate slate alternative. Detailed design should include such features as sash windows with vertical emphasis and may also include chimney features. Extensions and renovations of existing buildings should match materials and features of that building where possible and where appropriate.

2.3 There are no strategic planning issues.

135 3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section recommended that the application be refused planning permission as the proposals would result in a third dwellinghouse taking access from a private road. However they also advised that should the Council be minded to grant planning permission that the following conditions be imposed in the interests of traffic safety.

0 That a visibility splay of 4.5 x 120 metres, measured from the road channel be provided to the east of the vehicular access and everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level should be removed from the sight line areas, and thereafter nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, erected, or allowed to grow, within this sight line area. 0 That before the dwellinghouse is occupied 2 car parking spaces be provided within the curtilage of the plot and thereafter shall be maintained as parking spaces. 0 The 2 parking spaces should measure 6 metres in length and 5 metres wide.

3.2 There were no representations.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. There are no strategic planning issues.

4.2 Although the site is located within the designated green belt, the proposed dwellinghouse is not required for farming or forestry purposes. As such the proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the Council’s current design guidance on New Houses in the Countryside which allows for the sympathetic conversion of buildings of vernacular interest.

4.3 The submitted proposals demonstrate that the traditionally designed byre is worthy of preservation and is capable of sympathetic conversion with no harm to the amenity of the building or surrounding area. The above noted design criteria can be met and the proposed dwellinghouse would integrate well with the existing farm steading. Adequate parking facilities and amenity space can be provided within the cartilage of the site and the building would introduce traditional design elements in keeping with the main steading.

4.4 The Transportation Section’s concerns can been noted. However, in mitigation the private road is 10 metres wide which is wide enough for traffic to enter and leave farm entrance at the same time. Traffic approaching the access is generally travelling slower that the 40 mph speed limit due to a new roundabout located 150 m to the east of the access. In addition the private road is currently used as a farm access and it also serves two other dwelling houses associated with the farm. It is considered that an additional dwelling house would not result in a significant increase in the number of vehicles using the private roadway or lead to significant traffic safety concerns at this part of Glasgow Road. As such it is considered appropriate and reasonable to apply the conditions suggested by the Transportation Section.

4.5 Following consideration of the above material considerations the proposals are considered to be in line with the Council’s design guidance on such proposals. There would be no harm to amenity of the building or the adjacent farm steading and the impact on traffic safety would be minimal. As such the proposals are considered to be acceptable and it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

136 Application No: C/04/00492/FUL

Date Registered: 30th March 2004

Applicant: Mrs D Tennent 37 Main Street Calderban k Airdrie ML6 9SG

Agent W Simpson 25 The Glebe Dalmeney South Queensferry EH30 9TX

Develop ment: Part Change of Use of General Store to Hot Food Take-away

Location: 37 Main Street Calderbank Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 9SG

Ward: 50: Calderbank Councillor Patrick Donnelly

Grid Reference: 277021.663054.

File Reference: C/PL/CAM03037/CM/EL

Site History: 90069 Subdivision of Upper Floor Flat to Form Two Self-contained Flats and Extension to Public House Granted May 1990.

Development Plan: Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by Policy HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) Policy COM 10 (Hot Food Shops/Restaurants also applies

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: None

Representations: 7 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 7th April 2004

Comments:

Planning permission is being sought for the part change of use of a general store to Hot Food Take- Away at 37 Main Street, Calderbank, Airdrie. The existing shop premises are located next to a public house on a part of Main Street where forward visibility is poor. The site is also opposite a road junction. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. The Transportation Section have recommended that planning permission be refused on road safety grounds as there are no customer parking facilities at the locus. The Protective Services Section have advised the flue would be inadequate, that food safety regulations would not be met and there would be no suitable refuse storage or collection facilities. There are 7 letters of objection to the proposals.

137 138 Following consideration of the above it is concluded in the main report that the proposal is unacceptable as it is considered to be an inappropriate development within a residential area. There would be significant harm to the residential amenity of the area due to cooking smells, increased activity and noise levels late at night. Inadequate parking arrangements would also result in a reduction in traffic and pedestrian safety at the locus. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:-

1. That the hot food take away shop would be detrimental to residential amenity due to cooking smells from a low level extractor flue. As such the proposal would be contrary to the terms of policies HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) and COM 10 (Hot Food Shops/Restaurants) of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2. That the hot food takeaway shop would adversely affect residential amenity due to increased activity and noise levels from customers during late opening hours. As such the proposal would be contrary to the terms of policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

3. That the hot food take away shop would have no off street parking provision to support the additional business activity and this would be detrimental to traffic and pedestrian safety at the locus. As a result residential amenity would be reduced and this would be contrary to the terms of policy HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 30th March 2004

Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Memo from Transportation Section received 27 April 2004 Memo from Protective Services Section received 26th April 2004

Letter from lain N R Johnston,l59 Park Road, Calderbank, Airdrie, ML6 9TD received 6th April 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs King,31 Main Street, Calderbank, ML6 9SG received 15th April 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier,The Railway Inn, 35 Main Street, Calderbank, ML6 9SG received 15th April 2004. Letter from Councillor Patrick Donnelly,59 Fir View, Calderbank, ML6 9SW received 15th April 2004. Letter from Calderbank Conservation Society,lO3 Park Road, Calderbank, Airdrie, ML6 9TD received 19th April 2004. Letter from Richard Hope, Brim Cottage, 39 Main Street, Calderbank, Airdrie ML6 9SG received 27 April 2004. Letter from Mrs T Carr, 44 Main Street, Calderbank, Airdrie ML6 9SG received 27'h April 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Colin Marshall at 01236 812376.

139 APPLICATION N0. C/04/00492/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for the part change of use of a general store to Hot Food Take-Away at 37 Main Street, Calderbank, Airdrie.

1.2 The existing single storey shop premises are located next to a two storey public house/flats on a part of Main Street where forward visibility is poor. The site is also opposite a road junction. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature. An existing dwellinghouse at 39 Main Street is situated to the rear of the shop.

1.3 The proposals would involve the sub-division of an existing class 1 shop to form a Hot Food Take-Away. A separate entrance doorway would be provided and internally a public waiting area, servery, food preparation area and w.c would be provided. The proposals indicate that an external flue would be erected and this would terminate 2.0 metres above the ridge line of the roof of the single storey shop.

2. Development Plan

2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by Policy HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas). Policy COM 10 (Hot Food Shops/Restaurants also applies. There are no strategic issues.

3. Co nsuI tat ions and Re Dresentations

3.1 The Transportation Section have recommended that planning permission be refused on road safety grounds as there are no customer parking facilities at the locus and as such traffic and pedestrian safety would be compromised.

3.2 The Protective Services Section (Pollution Control) advised that the internal arrangements for the proposed Hot Food Take-Away would not meet current Food Safety Regulations as there is insufficient space to separate food preparation and cooking areas. They also noted that the premises has no refuse storage area, and should planning permission be granted additional arrangements would be necessary to allow for the storage and removal of waste. They further advised that the property is located in close proximity to residential properties and regard should be given to the likelihood of smell complaints arising from the proposed hot food business. It was recommended that the catering operation be provided with an extract filtration system and external flue, which should terminate at least 1 metre above the eaves of any neighbouring property liable to be affected by smells generated from the proposed site.

3.3 There were 7 letters of objection to the proposals including a letter of objection from the local member, Cllr P Donnelly. The material terms of objection can be fairly summarised as follows. That the proposals would be detrimental to road safety as the site is located on a busy road bend and there are no off street parking facilities. That the proposals would exacerbate concerns over road safety at the locus, which has poor visibility due to a dangerous bend in the main road. That the proposals would result in increased activity and noise levels during late opening hours, which would be detrimental to residential amenity. The proposals would lead to increased litter in and around this area of Calderbank. The proposal would lead to smell nuisance to adjacent residential properties. The premises are not large enough to accommodate a chip shop and a grocery store.

140 4. PIann in a Assessment and Co ncI usi o ns

4.1 The proposal requires to be assessed under the terms of the policies of the current development plan and any other material considerations. There are no strategic issues relating to the proposals.

4.2 As noted above the application site is located within an area covered by policy HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas). Under this policy there is a presumption against development that is likely to adversely affect the amenity of a housing area or where the development is not clearly of a nature ancillary to housing. Developments of an ancillary nature would include nursery schools, corner shops and local health facilities. Whilst corner shops (Class 1 uses) are considered acceptable in principle, hot food take-away shops (Sui Generis use) are not ancillary and as such the proposal does not accord with policy HG9.

4.3 Under Policy Com 10 hot food shops require to be adequately ventilated to ensure there would be no smell nuisance from cooking odours. The consultation response from the Protective Services Section has noted that the proposed hot food shop flue would need to be 1.0 metre higher than the roof eaves of the adjacent houses. The proposed flue, although 2 metres in height above the single storey shop roof is not high enough to prevent smells from affecting the surrounding dwellinghouses and flats some of which are two storeys in height. As such residential amenity would be adversely affected. Protective Services also advised there is no refuse storage or collection area.

4.4 The Transportation Section has recommended that the application be refused on traffic safety grounds. This type of use would require 5 no. off-street car parking spaces and there is no scope within the vicinity to provide additional spaces. The existing parking arrangements are already deficient and forward visibility on Main Street is restricted. The existing shop closes at 10 pm and the on street parking problem would be exacerbated when both shops would be open at the same time. Hot food shops are generally open between 4.30 p.m. and midnight. It is therefore concurred that the proposed use would lead to additional parking problems that would be detrimental to traffic and pedestrian safety.

4.5 Turning to the issues raised by the objectors, the following comments can be made.

0 As noted above it is agreed the proposal would cause traffic safety problems at the locus due to the lack of off-street parking facilities 0 The proposals are also likely to exacerbate the current road safety concerns at the area. It is noted that forward visibility splays are poor along this section of Main Street. 0 It is agreed that the later opening hours of a hot food shop would result in increased activity in the area, over and above the current activity levels generated by the existing shop. As such residential amenity would be reduced. 0 Protective Services have advised there are no refuse storage or collection areas in the vicinity and as such the proposed use may lead to increased litter in this area. 0 Protective Services have stated that the proposed flue extractor vent should be higher than the eaves of the adjacent houses. The proposed flue is not high enough to prevent cooking smells from affecting adjacent dwellinghouses. As such it is agreed the proposed use would create a cooking smell nuisance to the detriment of residential amenity. 0 Protective Services have noted that the interior layout of the proposed hot food use is not large enough to separate food storage from food preparation areas and the proposed arrangements would not meet current food safety regulations. It should be noted that this particular public health issue would be dealt with by Protective Services under the terms of the Public Health regulations and are not material to the assessment.

141 4.6 Following consideration of the above it is concluded that the proposal is unacceptable as it is considered to be an inappropriate development within a residential area. There would be significant harm to the residential amenity of the area due to cooking smells, increased activity and noise levels late at night, inadequate parking arrangements which would result in a reduction in traffic and pedestrian traffic safety at the locus. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

142 Application No: C/04/00528/FUL

Date Registered: 6th April 2004

Applicant: Mr Matthew Parks Woodhall Kennels 2 East Lodge Cottage Woodhall Estate Calderban k Airdrie ML6 8RS

Development: Erection of Temporary Mobile Home

Location: Woodhall Kennels 2 East Lodge Cottage Woodhall Estate Calderbank Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 8RS

Ward: 50: Calderbank Councillor Patrick Donnelly

Grid Reference: 276877.662097

File Reference: C/PL/CHW735000/1J/EL

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy GB1:Restrict Development in the Green Belt in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

Consent is being sought for the erection of a Temporary Mobile Home on land within the curtilage of Woodhall Kennels, Woodhall Estate, Calderbank, Airdrie. The application site is located within a semi- rural location to the south of Calderbank and on the west side of Woodhall Mill Road. The site has operated as commercial kennels for a large number of years and contains both a permanent residential property and purpose built kennels with adjacent exercise yard.

The proposal under consideration is for the erection of a temporary mobile home for use specifically by a person to be employed with the kennelling business. The structure, which will comprise of a mobile caravan measuring 3.7 metres x 11.3 metres, will be positioned to the east of the dwellinghouse on part of the existing dedicated exercise area and adjacent to the kennel buildings.

In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within the designated Green Belt where, under Policy GB1 (Restrict Development in the Green Belt), there is a presumption against any new residential development except for full time workers in connection with

143 144 forestry or agriculture; where the proposal is supported by operational need; where there is no other house, plot etc. available nearby; where the applicant is willing to enter into a Section 75 Agreement to restrict future occupancy; and where the development conforms with the Council's Design Guidance.

The current permitted use on site i.e. boarding kennels has long been established at this location and is an acceptable Green Belt use in terms of Policy GBl(c)(i) Uses requiring a rural location to avoid nuisance to neighbours (e.g. animal boarding kennels). In support of this proposal a "planning justification report" has been prepared by the Scottish Agricultural College to confirm the viability and continual increase in business demand throughout the year for this facility. The report confirms that full time presence is required on site to supervise the animals (a condition on the license) and that currently the full time management of the business is overseen by Mr & Mrs Parks who live in the dwellinghouse on site. The report concludes that due to business expansion assistance is required on site especially during peak business periods i.e. April to November to allow effective management.

The proposal as submitted seeks to provide on site accommodation for staff required at specific periods throughout the year. Based on the short term nature of this employment then a form of temporary accommodation is seen as the most appropriate means of providing the additional residential presence on site. The imposition of a Section 75 Agreement to restrict the occupancy of the mobile home is not seen as necessary in this instance as a temporary permission, limiting both the use of the structure to a person employed in the business and also limiting the time period for the structure to be present on site would give the Council sufficient control. No other house or structure suitable for conversion is available on site to provide alternative accommodation for temporary staff. It is essential that the kennels have on-site supervision at all times.

Taking all the foregoing into consideration the proposal satisfies the terms of the Green Belt policy in that sufficient justification has been put forward for the presence of additional residential accommodation on site in direct association with an accepted Green Belt use (i.e. Dog Kennels), there is no alternative house, plot or building available for conversion. Sufficient control can be imposed on this temporary building and its use restricted through appropriate planning conditions. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1, That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire on the 31st May 2007.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the mobile home to be sited in the location indicated on the plan hereby approved shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

3. That the use of the mobile home hereby permitted shall be restricted to a person employed in the dog kennelling operations at Woodhall Kennels, Woodhall Estate, Calderbank.

Reason: To define the permission.

145 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th April 2004 Supporting Planning Statement SAC March 2004 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

146 Application No: S/03/01336/OUT

Date Registered: 9th September 2003

Applicant : Strathclyde Park Ahead Ltd 15 Hope Street Lanark ML11 7NL

Agent Seven Design The Square 95 Morrison Street Glasgow G5 8BE

Development: Mixed Use Development Comprising Leisure and Residential

Location: Land North Of Strathclyde Country Park A725 Bellshill

Ward: 25: Orbiston Councillor Richard Lyle

Grid Reference: 272105658894

File Reference: SIPLIBI7Il 00 (I03)

Site History: Planning application S/01/00180/0UT for Mixed Use Development comprising commercial, office and residential uses, refused December 2001.

Development Plan: Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan.

ENV6 Green Belt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Community Services (Objection) SE-TRNMD (0bjection) Scottish Natural Heritage (Objection) West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objection) Health And Safety Executive (No Objection) British Gas Transco (Comments) Scottish Power (No Objection) The Coal Authority (Comments) Scottish Wildlife Trust (No Reply) SportScotland (Comments) Central Scotland Forest Trust (Comments) The Woodland Trust Scotland (No Objection) Strathclyde Fire Brigade (No Reply) Strathclyde Passenger Transport (Cornmen ts) Network Rail (Comments) Council (Objection) S.E.P.A.(West) (Comments) Scottish Water (Objection) Strathclyde Police (Comments)

147 PLANNING APPLICATION NO-S/03/01336/OUT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING LEISURE AND RESIDENTIAL LAND NORTH OF STRATHCLYDE COUNTRY A PARK, A725 BELLSHILL * Representation

148 Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: 8th September 2003

Comments:

This application seeks outline planning permission for a mixed-use development including housing, a nursing home, sheltered housing, a market garden/commercial and retail opportunity and an indoor riding schoollpony trekking centre, on a site immediately to the north of Strathclyde Park. Initially, a dry ski-slop was also included but this has been deleted from the application by the applicant.

The site lies within the Green Belt, and the proposal is contrary to both the Structure Plan and the emerging Local Plan, as well as Scottish Executive Policy and guidance. In addition, the site lies adjacent to the A725 Bellshill Bypass trunk road, and concerns have been expressed about the traffic impacts; however the applicants have failed to submit a Transport Assessment and it has therefore not be possible to give this aspect full consideration.

As the proposal is contrary to the development plan, and because the applicants have failed to provide crucial information regarding Transportation and other issues, this application is recommended for refusal. Further details are contained in the accompanying report.

One representation was received, objecting to the proposal and requesting a hearing.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, in that it proposes Residential Development within the Green Belt with no evidence of a shortfall of housing land in the Housing Market Area, and has failed to demonstrate specific locational need or Economic Benefit.

2. The proposed development is contrary to Policy ENV6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) in that it proposes development within the Green Belt which is not directly associated with, and required for agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewable resources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications and other appropriate rural uses.

3. The proposed development is contrary to Policy RTLI of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) in that it proposes retail development outwith a town centre or a village, neighbourhood or secondary commercial area.

4. The proposed development is contrary to National Policy, as expressed in SPPl ‘The Planning System’ and SPP3 ‘Land for Housing’ in that it proposes development on a Greenfield site.

5. The proposed development is contrary to National Policy, as expressed in Circular 2411985 ‘Development in the Countryside and the Green Belt’ in that there is insufficient justification in terms of exceptional circumstances to support development of this Green Belt site.

6. There is insufficient information to determine the impact of the proposed development on the Trunk Road Network, as advised by the Scottish Executive Trunk Road Network Management Division.

7. There is insufficient information to determine the visual impact of the proposal development, on a prominent site in the Green Belt adjacent to a Country Park.

149 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2nd September 2003 Letter from Seven Design received 8 October 2003 Letter from Seven Design received 18 November 2003 Letter from Seven Design received 4 February 2004 Letter from Seven Design received 6 April 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation received 17 September 2003 Memo from NLC Protective Services received 24 October 2003 Memo from NLC Community Services received 22 October 2003 Letter from SE-TRNMD received 24 March 2004 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 6 October 2003 Letter from West Of Scotland Archaeology Service received 17 September 2003 Letter from Health and Safety Executive received 31 October 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 25 September 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 7 October 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 19 September 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 25 September 2003 Letter from SportScotland received 3 October 2003 Letter from Central Scotland Forest Trust received 29 September 2003 Letter from The Woodland Trust Scotland received 13 October 2003 Letter from Strathclyde Passenger Transport received 3 November 2003 Letter from Network Rail received 18 September 2003 Letter from South Lanarkshire Council received 6 October 2003 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 23 October 2003 Letter from Scottish Water received 2 October 2003 Letter from Strathclyde Police received 8 October 2003 Letter from Health And Safety Executive received 31 October 2003 Letter from JMP Consultants received 17 October 2003 Letter from JMP Consultants received 18 November 2003 Letter from JMP Consultants received 13 February 2004

Letter from Mr Henry Skillin, 37 Bankhead Avenue, Bellshill, ML4 2JG received 29th October 2003.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Les Stevenson at 01698 302088.

150 APPLICATION NO. S/03/01336/0UT

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site extends to 15.2 hectares (37.5 acres) and mainly comprises open, sloping grassland, with some scrub woodland. It is located to the north and west of Strathclyde Park and east of the A 725 Bellshill By-Pass, and is also bounded by a railway line to the north. One existing house, with stables, lies within the site.

1.2 The application seeks outline permission for a mixed leisure and residential development. Although in outline, the applicants have indicated that the proposal would include 250 houses, a 100 bed nursing home, 35 sheltered housing units, a market garden, and an indoor riding school/pony trekking base. The application plans show the residential element occupying the central and northern parts of the site, with the ski slopes and market gardenlcommercial and retail opportunity to the west (adjacent to the A 725) and the other leisure uses in the southern portion. The application also proposes an upgrading of the Strathclyde Park campsite (which lies outwith the application site) and links into the existing park path network for cycling, cross- country and equestrian purposes. Initially, a dry ski slope was included but the applicants later considered that this was no longer feasible.

1.3 The applicants suggested four options for taking access to the site. These were (1) linking in to the existing Strathclyde Park road network to the south; (2) creating a link over the railway to the north into the Strathview estate; (3) forming a new roundabout on the A 725 dual carriageway, and (4) linking in to an existing track to the west of the site. It would not be their intention to form all four of the options.

1.4 The applicants noted that the proposal was “to establish a strategically private funded development which can progress in partnership with the public sector. Development and infrastructure costs can be offset against the residential housing element of the proposal. The residential units proposed.. .create a fund raising opportunity external to the council’s resources which facilitates this improvement of leisure facilities with the park locale.” They also noted that the proposal “consolidates the park boundaries in this area.”

1.5 The application plan also provided an indication of the proposed phasing, with the first phase of development commencing in 2004, road improvements in 2004-05, phase 2 in 2005, and a railway station in 2006.

1.6 The applicants have also stated that they would ring fence profit for community gain and infrastructure proposals, indicating that they propose to remove and redevelop Orbiston Bing in Bellshill.

1.7 A previous planning application on the same site, for a mixed use development, comprising Commercial, Office and Residential, was refused permission in December 2001 on the grounds that it was contrary to Structure Plan, Local Plan and National Planning policies, would have a detrimental effect on the local and strategic road networks and would have an unacceptable visual impact in a prominent greenbelt location.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Green Belt in both the current adopted Local Plan (the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964) and in the emerging Local Plan, the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). Given the age of the adopted Local Plan, the policies of the emerging Local Plan should be accorded significant weight in the determination of a planning application.

151 2.2 The site’s inclusion in the Green Belt in the emerging Local Plan requires the terms of Policy ENV 6 to be satisfied; this policy contains a presumption against development in the Green Belt other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewable resources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. In addition, the Plan’s Housing Strategy Policy HSG 1 seeks to direct new housing development to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations.

2.3 Policy ENV 5 ‘Assessment of Environmental Impact‘ sets out criteria to be used in assessing applications, including their suitability to the character of the area, the landscape and visual impact, the extent of traffic generation, and the loss of natural habitats. Policy HSG 12 ‘Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside’ also provides assessment criteria, which include ‘proven operational need’ and the visual impact of the site.

2.4 Policy RTL 1 ‘Retail Development’ directs retail development to town centres or village, neighbourhood and secondary commercial areas.

2.5 The emerging Local Plan Policy L2 ‘Leisure Development’ seeks to encourage and support the provision of a suitable quality and range of leisure development in the plan area, while Policy L 5 ‘Tourist Development‘ seeks to encourage the development of tourist facilities in appropriate locations. Policy TR 13 ‘Assessing the Transport Implications of Development‘ notes that in appropriate circumstances a Transport Assessment will be required.

2.6 The scale, nature and location of the proposal mean that it is of strategic significance and requires to be considered in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. The Structure Plan’s Strategic Policy 1 has a presumption against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Scottish Executive Trunk Roads Network Management Division advised that permission should be refused because there is insufficient information to determine the effect on the trunk road network. They had requested that the applicants undertook a Transport Assessment in relation to the application, but this has not been done.

3.2 The NLC Transportation Team recommended refusal, noting that none of the four road access options were likely to be acceptable, and that a Transport Assessment was required.

3.3 Strathclyde Police noted concerns regarding the proposed access routes and their suitability to carry extra traffic, in particular routes leading to Raith which is operating near capacity at present.

3.4 Network Rail had no objection in principle, but would require detailed discussions should any of the access options involve a railway crossing. The Health & Safety Executive, Power Systems, The Woodland Trust and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service had no objections.

3.5 Strathclyde Passenger Transport noted that a Transport Assessment would be required, and commented that, if permission was granted, they would expect to see appropriate provision for public transport. They also suggested that the proposed phasing, with the railway station following two years after commencement of development, should be reviewed.

3.6 Scottish Water objected due to the cost of providing infrastructure to serve the development, but indicated that they would withdraw the objection if the applicants would either bear the cost of the increase in infrastructure, or promote a scheme that would not compromise the quality

152 and quantity of discharge from the existing sewerage system.

3.7 SEPA had no objections in principle, but requested that surface water drainage should be treated in accordance with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, and noted the need to make particular provision for drainage from the proposed stables.

3.8 South Lanarkshire Council objected, noting that the proposal was contrary to Structure and Local Plan Green Belt policies, and that the development of this strategically important Green Belt wedge would have implications in terms of the coalescence of Bellshill with BothwelllHamilton, affecting the setting of these settlements. They also noted that the Structure Plan did not identify any need for additions to the housing land supply in this sub-market area, and that the additional traffic would place stress on Raith Interchange.

3.9 Scottish Natural Heritage objected on the grounds that there would be an inappropriate positioning of a mixed housing and business development in an area where the landscape character assessment has identified landscape sensitivities, and which is covered by Policy ENV 6 Green Belt in the Southern Area Local Plan (Finalised Draft Modified 2001). They also noted that the proposed development is likely to have a negative impact on local wildlife, especially badgers, and may have a detrimental effect on Strathclyde Country Park.

3.10 NLC Community Services Department replied from a number of aspects. The Country Parks Manager considered that the green belt buffer should be kept free from built development; that the proposal would worsen traffic on the A725; that the proposed link into a minor park road would be unacceptable and noted that there was a badger sett on the site boundary. The Landscape Services Manager objected, noting that housing within the site would be clearly visible from Strathclyde Park, creating a contrasting urban edge supplanting the present rural aspect; the loss of greenbelt would lead to the visual erosion of the edge of the park; the road linking into the park would lead to increased through traffic not associated with Park activities, and the development would lead to increased pressures on other parts of the Park boundary and within the Park. The Conservation and Greening Manager noted that the site had conservation significance, as it bounded and complemented wildlife corridors. It gives a protective edge to an area occupied by badgers, and provides forage for them; in addition, it provides a rural edge to Strathclyde Park.

3.1 1 Central Scotland Forest Trust had no objections in principle, but made specific comments on particular aspects of the proposals.

3.12 Transco noted the existence of a high pressure pipeline in the vicinity of the site with a ‘proximity distance’ of 16 metres.

3.13 The Coal Authority noted that the site had previously been undermined, but that any associated ground movement should by now have ceased, and that there were no shafts within the site.

3.14 SportScotland noted that they did not have a role as a statutory consultee in this case, as there were no playing fields affected by the proposed development, but made specific comment regarding some of the leisure facilities proposed.

3.1 5 The application was advertised in the local press as a ‘bad neighbour’ development and as a development contrary to the development plan. One letter of representation was received, from a resident of Bellshill, objecting to the proposal. The objector made the following points :

(a) the proposal would not bring any prosperity or jobs to the area

(b) the development would be an eyesore in a beautiful part of the countryside

(c) the develoDment would cause traffic congestion

153 (d) the development would be ‘sprawl’ and would waste an area used by walkers and cyclists

(e) the site is in the green belt, and there is adequate brownfield land available elsewhere for development.

The objector also requested a hearing by the Committee.

4. PIan n inca Assessment and Co nclus io n s

4.1 The development plan in this case comprises the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan and the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan; however, in view of the age of the former County Council plan, the emerging Southern Area Local Plan (Finalised Draft) is a significant material consideration.

4.2 In terms of the Structure Plan, Strategic Policy 9 ‘Assessment of Development Proposals’ provides criteria to determine if a proposal accords with the Plan; assessed against this Policy, the application is contrary to the Plan as it involves development in the Green Belt. As it is contrary to the Structure Plan, the proposal then requires to be assessed against Strategic Policy 10 ‘Departures from the Structure Plan’ which assesses the appropriateness of such developments. In terms of that Policy, there is no identified shortfall in housing land in the Housing Market Area that would justify a greenfield release.

4.3 The emerging Local Plan Policy ENV 6 ‘Green Belt‘ contains a presumption against development in the Green Belt other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewable resources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. Although some of the leisure uses contained within the application could be considered to be appropriate for a Green Belt location, the housing element of the proposal is contrary to the Plan’s Green Belt Policy. In addition, Policy HSG 1 ‘Housing Strategy’ seeks to direct new housing development to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations, and so the application is also contrary to this Policy.

4.4 The proposal includes a ‘market garden’, but It is unclear from the planning application whether this would be a horticultural activity, or a garden centre; the applicants were asked for clarification on several occasions, but only responded that the proposal “is to provide a commercial and retail opportunity within this mixed use development”. It is therefore taken that the proposal is for a retail-type activity, which would therefore raise the issue of its suitability in terms of Policy RTL 1 ‘Retail Development‘ which directs retail development to town centres or neighbourhood and secondary commercial areas. It may be suggested that ‘garden centres’ are appropriate in rural locations, and there are examples of such centres being located in the Green Belt, but the applicants have not provided any elaboration of the proposed use, or justification for its development at this location, other than “the opportunity exists to create a viable and profitable business which enhances the immediate locale and forms a further attraction adjacent to Strathclyde Country Park. I therefore consider that the retail element of the proposal to be contrary to the emerging Local Plan.

4.5 Policy TR 13 ‘Assessing the Transport Implications of Development‘ states that in certain circumstances a Transport Assessment (TA) will be required; in this case, a TA was requested several times, but the applicants have failed to provide one. Similarly, ENV 5 ‘Assessment of Environmental Impact’ includes visual impact and loss if habitats; a Visual and Landscape Impact Assessment and a Habitat Survey were also requested, but not received.

154 4.6 In terms of Leisure Policies L2 ‘Leisure Development’ and L5 ‘Tourist Development‘ which seek to encourage the provision of leisure and tourist developments in the area, there are elements of the application that would be supported by these Policies.

4.7 Government Policy and guidance also require to be taken into consideration. SPP 1 ‘The Planning System’ has the promotion of sustainable development as one of its primary objectives, including minimising greenfield development. SPP 3 ‘Land for Housing’ states that planning authorities should promote the re-use of previously developed land in preference to greenfield land. It also notes that proposals which would involve a new or altered access from a trunk road require careful consideration.

4.8 Circular 24/1985 ‘Development in the Countryside and Green Belts’ states that there should be a general presumption against any intrusion into designated green belts, and that approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings for purposes other than agriculture, horticulture, woodland management and recreation, or other uses appropriate to the rural area.

4.9 NPPG 17 ‘Transport and Planning’ states that direct access onto Trunk Roads should be avoided as far as practicable. PAN 57 ‘Transport and Planning’ notes that developers are required to produce a Transport Assessment for significant travel generating developments. In terms of such advice, therefore the failure of the applicants to provide a TA, and the option of access onto the A725, are contrary to the Government’s advice and policy. The NPPG promotes a choice of transport mode and supports more use of public transport; in that respect, the proposal for a rail station meets government policy, but the applicants have failed to demonstrate how this would be provided.

4.10 NPPG 8 ‘Town Centres and Retailing’ states that town centres are the most appropriate location for retailing. The retail element of the proposal, as represented by the ‘garden centre’, is therefore contrary to the principles set out in NPPG 8.

4.11 Consultee responses and objections are also material considerations. As a result of the consultation and notification process, two particular issues have arisen, namely the prominent Green Belt location of the site, and transportation impacts. A number of consultees and the objector referred to the site’s location in the Green Belt, adjacent to a Country Park, and the impact that such a proposal would have on the area. The site lies in a prominent position adjacent to a busy road, and built development there would be likely to have a significant visual impact; the applicants were asked to undertake a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to try to address this issue, but did not do so. It is accepted that some of the elements of the application (specifically the stables) may be appropriate in the Green Belt, but the predominant part of the proposal involved housing and retail, for which no justification has been made. I am therefore of the opinion that this development has no Green Belt justification, and would be detrimental to the amenity of the area in that it would result in a large area of urbanisation on the edge of a country Park.

4.12 The concerns regarding Transportation arise principally from the site’s location adjacent to a very busy Trunk Road. A development of this scale would be likely to generate a significant level of traffic, and the applicants were asked on a number of occasions for a Transport Assessment, but did not submit one. The four options for access arrangements all appeared to pose significant problems, and in the absence of suitable detailed assessment it is not possible to accept any of the arrangements. In relation to the proposed Railway Station, no details were provided as to how this could be delivered. In the absence of an assessment to demonstrate that the transport implications of the proposal would be acceptable, and in the light of the advice from the Trunk Roads Authority to refuse permission, I consider that the transportation concerns are also sufficient to justify refusal.

155 4.13 At a late stage in the processing of this application (29 April 2004) a letter from the applicants’ agents was received, linking the proposed development to the removal of Orbiston Bing in Bellshill. No details of how this would be achieved were contained in that letter, other than the suggestion that profit from the Strathclyde Park development would be ‘ring fenced’ for community gain and infrastructure, It is acknowledged that concerns have been expressed by the community regarding Orbiston Bing, but the nature and scale of any works there will require extensive and detailed consideration and consultation. Any such linkage between this application and works at Orbiston Bing would involve a Section 75 Agreement and in that respect the works would have to relate in scale and kind to the proposed development. I do not consider that the suggested works at Orbiston Bing (1 km from the site) meet that criterion.

4.14 In conclusion, there are major planning policy issues (Scottish Executive, Structure Plan and Local Plan) that this proposal fails to satisfy, and the applicants have failed to provide a satisfactory justification for their development in the Green Belt, including the suggested removal of Orbiston Bing. In addition, they have failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the transportation issues can be satisfactorily addressed. It is therefore recommended that permission be refused.

156 Application No: S/03/01682/FUL

Date Registered: 10th December 2003

Applicant: Mr & Mrs B Jackson 20 Heather Avenue Motherwell Lanarkshire MLI 4XX

Develop ment : Erection of 2 Metre Fence for Closure of Public Footpath

Location: 18- 20 Heather Avenue Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 27: Holytown Councillor James Coyle

Grid Reference: 276213660139

File Reference: S/B5/34/RT

Site History: No relevant site history

The site is covered by residential policies within the Northern Area Development Plan: Local Plan. It is also covered by policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Strathclyde Police (comments)

Representations: 4 representations received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant is seeking planning permission for the erection of a 2 metre high fence and closure of a footpath on land adjacent to 18/20 Heather Avenue, Holytown. 3 letters of support for the proposal have been received and 1 letter of objection.

Following detailed assessment of the application, taking into account all material considerations it is consider that the closure of this footpath which is designed to facilitate access into the estate would be undesirable. I therefore recommend that permission is refused in this particular instance.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. In the interest of pedestrian safety as the closure of this footpath which is designed to facilitate access into the adjoining housing estate would be contrary to both good design practice in safeguarding such routes and to Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

157 158 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11th November 2003 E-mail from Mr & Mrs Quate, 16 Heather Avenue received 14 March 2004 Letter from Mr & Mrs Peat, 24 Heather Avenue received 23 March 2004 Letter from Mr & Mrs Jackson, 20 Heather Avenue received 17 March 2004 Letter from Mrs Mary Logan, 14 Heather Avenue received 15 March 2004 Letter from Strathclyde Police Crime Prevention Officer received 03 March 2004 Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 08 March 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 15 January 2004

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Rosaleen Toal at 01698 302104.

159 APPLICATION NO. S1031016821FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This planning application seeks permission to close a well used existing footpath which links the Thankerton residential estate to Stevenston Street, Holytown. At present this part of the estate enjoys the benefit of an open plan aspect with ancillary landscaping which is highly visible from Stevenston Street.

1.2 The applicant is proposing to erect a 2 metre high close boarded timer fence across land at 18 and 20 Heather Avenue which would result in the closure of the footpath. The applicant has indicated that the application has been lodged due to anti-social behaviour of people using the footpaths and three letter of support for the proposal have been recently submitted which outline some of the anti-social behaviour experienced by the residents.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This planning application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) the site lies within an area zoned as policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas). Within this policy the Council will seek to protect the established character of the existing housing areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 NLC Community Services have advised that this footpath is a well used footpath, which is a convenient link from Heather Avenue and the adjoining roads to Lomond Way on the East side of Stevenston Street and beyond. Furthermore from an access point of view, good pedestrian link between major areas of housing are highly desirable and as there were no obvious signs of anti-social behaviour at the time of visiting, they would not be in favour of restricting access by closing existing paths.

3.2 NLC Transportation Section have no objections to the proposal

3.3 Strathclyde Police have provided a crime pattern analysis for the overall area around Heather Avenue for a 6 month period which indicates that no incidents of crime have been recorded at this particular point in Heather Avenue. Furthermore the Police have advised that the footpath on Heather Avenue is on the periphery of a Hot Spot and is considered to be low to medium risk of future crimes and incidents. Closure of the footpath is not seen as a reducer of crimelincidents in the area.

3.4 Four letters of representation have been received in connection with the proposal, one letter against the development and three in support of the development. The main concerns detailed in the letter of objection are that the closure of this lane would cause greater inconvenience, especially to non car users; and that they do not consider there is a problem with anti-social behaviour at this location.

3.5 Three letter of support have been received in connection with the proposal, which outline incidents that have occurred in the area. The main points detailed are children walkinglrunning straight out onto the roadway at Heather Avenue as there are no pavement, vandalism to the dwellinghouses and vehicles, lack of privacy to the residents from people using the lane, dog

160 fouling, attempted home breaking, vandalism to trees, fights and trail bikes using the footpath and rubbish being left in the front gardens.

4. P la n n in Q Assess ment and Co nc Iu si o n s

4.1 In considering this application account must be taken of the relevant Development Plan policies together with any other material consideration pertinent to the site and application. With respect to the Development Plan the site is zoned as policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) with the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). This policy seeks to protect the established character of the existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affect the amenity of the Established Housing Areas.

4.2 Although some local residents have submitted details of the anti-social behaviour and issues taking place within this area, it is considered that the closure of the footpath would not guarantee the removal of the vandalism, lack of privacy from people passing or the dog fouling. With regard to the pathway being a danger to children at the Heather Avenue side of the footpath, it should be noted that this estate was designed in this particular way to ensure that vehicles negotiate the road in a safer manner. It is therefore considered that the closure of this lane would not necessary remove this issue.

4.3 It is considered that the closure of this footpath would remove a well used footpath which is considered to be not only a good pedestrian link but a safer route into this estate. Furthermore, the closure would create an inconvenience to residents living adjacent to and close by this footpath who at present enjoy pedestrian passage to Stevenson Street. The closure would result in pedestrians having to use a longer and less convenient route to Stevenson Street. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

4.4 Furthermore I consider the views of the Conservation and Greening Section and Strathclyde Police to be a material consideration in accessing this application. As such I consider that the closure of this lane cannot be justified in this case. Accordingly I recommend the application for refusal.

161 Application No: S/O3/01900/FUL

Date Registered: 8th January 2004

Applicant: Airbles Builders Ltd. 1 Prentice Road Greenacre Motherwell

Agent Alcad Services 90 Brownlee Road Law Carluke

Development : Change of Use of Former Co-op Workshop to Offices and Associated Physical Alterations

Location: Land At Former Co-op Building 5 Dalziel Street Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 2: Calder Valley Councillor Annita McAuley

Grid Reference: 275561 675274

File Reference: S/PL/B/12/13/PW

Site History: Planning Application 336/85 - Change of Use to Health Club, Gymnasium Bar and Diner Approved 10.09.85.

Development Plan: Policy RTL 6 (Secondary Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Area) and Policy ENV 16 (Urban Renewal) are relevant both in The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Housing & Property Services (No Objection) S.E.P.A.(W est) (No Objection) British Gas Transco (No Objection) Scottish Power (No Objection) NLC Administration (Corn ment)

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks consent for the Change of Use of the former Co-op workshop at 5 Dalziel Street, Motherwell into office suites with associated physical alterations including carparking provision. The building in question is brick built with a traditional dual-pitched hipped roof and is 3 storeys high. The site is zoned within Policy RTL 6 (Secondary Commercial Area) in the emerging local plan although it is bounded to the south and north by residential uses. The applicant intends to access the site via an existing pend which abuts the site of the burnt down 'Faces' disco for both vehicular and pedestrian access. This pend is currently used for access to a communal residents parking area within the back courtyard of the flatted dwellings at 37-59 Dalziel Street. Two letters of objection have been received,

162 I PLANNING APPLICATION NO:S/03/01SOO/FUL CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER CO-OP WORKSHOP TO OFFICES AND ASSOCIATED PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS LAND AT FORMER CO-OP BUILDING 5 DALZIEL STREET, MOTHERWELL A * Representauons

163 one from an adjacent resident on the grounds of inappropriate access and parking and the other from the proprietors of 'Faces' disco on the grounds that the proposal could compromise the redevelopment of the derelict ex-disc site. The principle of the proposed use is acceptable in terms of the zoning in the emerging local plan, however, the applicant has failed to demonstrate control over the access pend and rear courtyard area in order to provide access and parking. Furthermore, the proposed access is unsatisfactory as it would lead to a residential access being shared with a commercial use as well as shared pedestrian access with no footpath. There is also inadequate and sub-standard parking provision proposed for the development. This application is therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds that the proposal would be detrimental to vehicular and pedestrian safety and residential amenity.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons-

1. That the proposal would lead to a sub-standard pend access being shared by residential and commercial traffic and pedestrians, with no dedicated footway to the detriment of vehicular and pedestrian road safety and residential amenity.

2. That the proposal would lead to sub-standard parking provision for the development with manoeuvring areas being shared with the existing residents parking to the detriment of vehicular and pedestrian road safety and residential amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th December 2003 Letters from Agent, Alcad Services dated 19th January and 1st March 2004

The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Letter from Dominic Charles Blaney, 59 Dalziel Street, Motherwell, MLI 1PJ received 30th December 2003. Letter from Francis O'Connor, 48 Belhaven Terrace, Wishaw, ML2 7AY received 7th January 2004.

Memo from NLC Housing & Property Services received 26th January 2004 Letter from S.E.P.A. (West) received 16th February 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 15th January 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 14th January 2004 Memo from NLC Administration received 27th April 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams at 01 698 302091.

164 APPLICATION NO. S/O3/01900/FUL

REPORT

DescriPtion of Site and Proposal

This application seeks consent for the Change of Use of the former Co-op workshop at 5 Dalziel Street, Motherwell, to office suites and associated physical alterations, including the formation of a dedicated staff carpark.

The building in question is a 3-storey brick building with a traditional dual-pitched, hipped roof and was formally used as workshops for the once adjoining Co-op, which was converted into ‘Faces’ disco and is now partially burnt down.

The site lies within a mixed commercial and residential area and is bounded to the north and south by residential uses and to the east by the site of the fire damaged disco with a commercial use of ‘Enterprise House’ office units to the west. The building in question is accessed from Dalziel Street via a pend and rear courtyard area, which is also the access and communal parking area for the flatted dwellings to the south of the application site at 37-59 Dalziel Street.

The applicant proposes to form 2 office suites on the ground floor, 3 on the first floor and one large suite on the upper floor with all suites having dedicated toilets and storage areas.

DeveloDment Plan

The site is zoned within Policy RTL 6 in the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). This identifies the site as being within a Secondary Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Area. This policy supports retail, office, food and drink and Assembly and Leisure uses.

The policy also seeks to improve the environment in line with Policy ENV 16 relating to environmental improvement and urban renewal.

Consultations and Remesentations

No objections have been received from SEPA, Transco and Scottish Power. However, NLC Transportation Section has recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of sub-standard access and parking provision.

The Head of Legal Services has also provided comment on the legal documentation provided by the applicant regarding access rights through the pend including use of the courtyard. The conclusion reached is that the submitted documentation does not appear to confirm access rights for the application site and building in question.

Two letters of objection have been received, one from a resident adjoining the application site on the grounds that :-

e the access is inappropriate as it would be shared be residents of 37-59 Dalziel Street both in terms of cars and by pedestrians the workshop has no access rights through the pend e the proposed staff car park is on land communally owned by the residents of 37-59 Dalziel Street noise, disturbance and inconvenience of construction traffic, which would have to go through the pend and the other objection from the proprietors of the adjacent ‘Faces’ disco on the grounds that :-

165 0 the proposal would prejudice the redevelopment of the disco site as it would impinge on fire escape provision for the disco 0 the proposal would undermine the security of a redeveloped disco

4. Pla n n i nq Assess ment and Co nc Iusio ns

4.1 It is considered that the principle of the proposed office use is acceptable in the context of the RTL 6 policy zoning in the emerging local plan as this policy supports Class 2 office development. Furthermore, the urban renewal and environmental improvement aims of Policy ENV 16 are directly relevant in this case due to the semi-derelict nature of the building in question and the adjacent fire damaged disc site. However, the proximity of the site to existing residential uses and in particular 37-59 Dalziel Street to the south is a strong material consideration. From this point of view, the compatibility of the proposed use with the existing flatted dwellings at 37-59 Dalziel Street has to be assessed.

4.2 In terms of access, my Transportation Section has recommended that the application be refused as the proposal would lead to residential and commercial traffic sharing a sub-standard pend access as well as pedestrians with no dedicated footpath and as such, would be detrimental to vehicular and pedestrian road safety.

4.3 The applicant has indicated that the proposed office suites would have a maximum workforce capacity of 42 people. This is based on the premise of a 6 person capacity in each of the 5 smaller suites and 12 in the large suite. Furthermore, the applicant has also indicated that the offices would have no public interface and would therefore not generate additional vehicular traffic and pedestrian movement. It is however considered that this is an unrealistic premise and also difficult to enforce.

4.4 The Transportation Team Section has indicated that a development of this nature would require a minimum of 7 dedicated parking spaces including one for disabled use. The applicant has shown a layout with 7 spaces only 6 of which would be usable. Furthermore, it was also noted that the courtyard area is not big enough to provide the correct dimension of parking spaces and manoeuvring areas. Additionally, no internal turning facility can be provided.

4.5 Additionally, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated how the relationship between the existing communal car park serving the flatted dwellings at 37-59 Dalziel Street and the proposed office car park will work. Furthermore, in this regard, the applicant has failed to demonstrate a right of access through the pend and also control over that part of the courtyard area required for the proposed staff parking. The grounds of objection relating to access, right of access and carparking are therefore considered to be valid. With regard to the other points of objection, construction noise would have to be controlled via pollution control in the usual way and any effect on the disco site would appear to be a private legal matter.

4.6 It is therefore considered, for the above reasons, that the proposed access and parking provision including manoeuvring areas is unsatisfactory, and if approved would be detriment to the vehicular and pedestrian road safety as well as the residential amenity of the residents of 37-59 Dalziel Street.

166 Application No: S/04/00204/0UT

Date Registered: 17th February 2004

Applicant: Mrs C Holmes 183 Cambusnethan Street Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 8PW

Agent Mr. lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell MLI 3JL

Development: Erection of 1 Dwellinghouse (In Outline)

Location: 183 Cambusnethan Street Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 8PW

Ward: 9: Cambusnethan Councillor Thomas Selfridge

Grid Reference: 281 105.655560.

File Reference: S/PL/B/3/3/M WMAW

Site History: None relevant

Development Plan: The site is zoned as an Established Housing Area in the of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan and as an Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S.E.P.A.(West) (No Objection) Scottish Water (Com m ents) British Gas Transco (No Objection) Scottish Power (No Objection) The Coal Authority (Comments)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks outline planning consent for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at 183 Cambusnethan Street, Wishaw. The site lies within a residential area and is zoned accordingly in the relevant local plan. The plot covers a total area of 0.032 hectares and measures 22 metres by 14 metres. No objections have been received as a result of both the consultation and neighbour notification processes. It is considered that although the site could potentially accommodate a small house, the position of the site in relation to the established land pattern of the residential estate, results in a proposal which would have a setting that would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the area. I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused. 168 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to policy HSGl1 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) by virtue of its setting as it will detrimentally affect the character and appearance of Lockhart Place and the wider established residential estate which is defined by its open and spacious aspects.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th February 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 11th March 2004 Memo from NLC Protective Services received dated 12th March 2004 Letter from NLC Property Services received 5th March 2004 and 19th March 2004 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 17th March 2004 Letter from Scottish Water (West) received 27th February 2004 Letter from British Gas Transco received 24th February 2004 Letter from Scottish Power received 3rd March 2004 Letter from The Coal Authority received 1st March 2004

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001 ) Developer's Guide to Open Space Guidelines

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

169 APPLICATION NO. S/04/00204/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The applicant seeks outline planning consent for the erection of a dwellinghouse at 183 Cambusnethan Street, Wishaw on land to the north of the existing dwellinghouse. The site lies within a residential area and is zoned accordingly in the relevant local plan.

1.2 The application site forms part of the garden ground of the dwellinghouse at 183 Cambusnethan Street, Wishaw. The house concerned is a single storey end terrace with a reasonably sized rear garden. The site for the proposed house is located within the rear garden of 183 Cambusnethan Street and is bounded to the north by the single storey residential properties at Lockhart Place, to the south by the residential properties that front onto Cambusnethan Street and to the east and west by the rear gardens of the adjacent residential properties on Cambusnethan Street. It should also be noted that the adjacent residential property of 181 Cambusnethan Street has a large garage located in the rear of the garden that was granted planning consent on 19th December 2000.

1.3 No details of design and siting are included within this outline application. With regard to access the applicant proposes that this will be taken from Lockhart Place.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This application raises no issues of strategic nature and therefore can be assessed in terms of the relevant local plan policies. The site is zoned within an Established Housing Area, Policy HSG 8 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) applies. This policy seeks to protect existing levels of residential amenity within residential areas by ensuring that any proposed development is compatible in terms of use, siting and design. Policy HSGll of the same local plan is also relevant in assessing this application as it seeks to enhance the quality of the built environment by discouraging over-development of sites and defines the criteria against which proposals will be assessed. Furthermore, the Council’s approved Open Space policy provides guidance on requirements for garden ground and overall plot ratios to garden areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No objections were received following consultations with S.E.P.A, Transco, Scottish Power and The Coal Authority. Scottish Water has commented that a totally separate drainage system of foul and surface water sewers will be required.

3.2 My Transportation Section would require suitable access and driveway arrangements and comment that the applicant should ensure gates to the driveway open inwards.

3.3 NLC Property Section has commented that there are no records of acquired access rights either through ownership or servitude over the said strip of land where the proposed access is located. If it transpires that the proprietor of 183 Cambusnethan Street has no existing property right giving access to Lockhart Place, there is no assurance or guarantee that the Council would grant such a consent.

170 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore can be assessed in terms of the local plan policies.

4.2 Policy HSGll (Infill Housing Development) lists the criteria upon which proposals for infill housing developments should be assessed, namely:- (i) The overall impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

(ii) Dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated private garden ground.

(iii) Effect of infill on the garden space, privacy, sunlight received by surrounding properties.

(iv) Consideration given to scale, materials, roof heighvpitch and window patterns.

(v) Provision of vehicular access and parking arrangements.

4.3 With regard to the character and amenity of the area, the proposal does raise significant concern which in my view warrant refusal of this application. Firstly, whilst the site dimensions can accommodate a dwelling and meet the Council’s minimum open space standards, the location of the proposed dwelling is contrary to the land pattern of this residential area and would invade and remove the open aspects which currently provide the surrounding residential area with such a pleasing visual amenity and which defines its character. The proposed dwelling would be clearly visible and intrude on the outlook from the residential properties of Lockhart Place and given the existing land pattern and open space aspects it is considered that it would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area. Furthermore, the occupant of the proposed house would receive very little residential amenity themselves as potentially they would be looking onto other residential properties.

4.4 Criterion (iii) and (iv) are considerations that would be addressed by a reserve matters application.

4.5 In terms of vehicular access proposed from Lockhart Place there is no assurance that the applicant could create an access here as discussed in paragraph 3.3 above, although it must be acknowledged that my Transportation Section has no objections in principle to the construction of a vehicular access at this point.

4.6 In conclusion, it is considered that the construction of an additional house within the grounds of 183 Cambusnethan Street, would lead to a development which would have a setting which would be detrimental to the spacious character and amenity of this residential area. I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused.

171 Application No: S/04/00242/FU L

Date Registered: 19th March 2004

Applicant : Mr & Mrs C Grierson 10 Robert Burns Quadrant Bellshill Lanarkshire ML4 3DF

Development: Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 10 Robert Burns Quadrant Bellshill Lanarkshire ML4 3DF

Ward: 24: Bellshill North Councillor Harry McGuigan

Grid Reference: 272796.6601 60.

File Reference: SIPLI71171RT

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 5 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension to a terraced dwellinghouse. Five letters of objection have been received from surrounding neighbours in relation to this application and my comments are detailed in my accompanying report. For reasons contained in my report it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the materials match the existing dwellinghouse.

I72 PLANNING APPLICATION NO:- .Y04/00242/FUL

TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO DWELLINGHOUSE

10 ROBERT BURNS QUADRANT BELLSHILL P.Fdm hrnlh **- e"** mgp;rs*lh A y. c.",Y,"d y. C"*d*d h, u.,.,". sIIp.*I- .Crp("iW'1*, UIUID"..l.glO*Nm ,*,m.cm"wmt * RFnrRwntatiMc d m*I..IIoom.NU" mew mdlrm

I73 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th February 2004

Memo from Transportation Section received 7th April 2004

Letter from Mr & Mrs G Devine, 12 Robert Burns Quadrant, Bellshill, ML4 3DF received 20th February 2004. Letter from Mrs Margaret McCormack, 7 Robert Burns Quadrant, Bellshill, ML4 3DF received 20th February 2004. Letter from Mr & Mrs L Halliday, 14 Robert Burn Quadrant, Bellshill, ML4 3DF received 20th February 2004. Letter from Mrs A Crines, 12 Robert Burns Quadrant, Bellshill, received 1st March 2004. Letter from J Clacher, 13 Robert Burns Quad, Bellshill received 1st March 2004.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Rosaleen Toal at 01698 302104.

I74 APPLICATION NO. S1041002421FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is an end terrace dwellinghouse bounded by dwellinghouses to the side and front, with an area of open space to the rear.

1.2 The applicant is seeking planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension to the dwellinghouse. The extension will run the full length of the side of the home and will measure approximately 9.8 metres x 2.2 metres. The proposal will provide a small utility room, shower with toilet and family room on the ground floor, with an additional bedroom and games room on the upper floor. The extension will be finished in materials to match the existing dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local Plan the site is within an established Housing Area and is covered by Policy HSG 8 which seeks to protect the character of the existing housing areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal.

3.2 Five letter of objection have been received from the surrounding neighbours in relation to this application. The main grounds of objection are:-

(0 Parking will be a problem during the construction of the extension and neighbours will be unable to access their parking space at all times.

(ii) The construction of the extension will inconvenience everyone, be hazardous and dangerous to children and will curtail the play space of the children.

(iii) Restrictions should be placed on the times for building the extension.

(iv) Due care and attention should be given to the placement of plant and materials due to the restricted ground space.

(4 The development will affect the existing public footpath and drainage system which are not adopted by the Council.

(vi) The development will devalue the surrounding properties.

(vii) The extension will affect the adjacent neighbouring properties view as they will be looking out onto a large wall.

(viii) If the path surrounding the site is affected and then reinstated, it will reduce the width of the access road which would cause parking problems.

I75 (ix) Concerns if the extension will affect the common ground or pavement.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposed development is within a residential area and therefore the principle of an extension to a residential property is generally acceptable. Following the representations received amended plans were submitted reducing the width of the extension by 0.025 metres so that it is not affecting the adjoining footpath.

4.2 On the grounds of the objection received, the following response is made:-

(0 Nuisance during the construction of the works are generally short lived and inherent in the development process, however they are do not justify refusal of an application.

(ii) This is not a material consideration of the planning application and the responsibility of the site management would be down to the applicant.

(iii) The construction hours are not a material consideration of the planning application, however Protective Services can deal with any issues relating to construction outwith normal working hours.

The placement of plant and machinery during construction is not a material consideration of the planning application.

The amended plans submitted with the application clearly show that the extension and associated foundations are within the applicant’s land.

(vi) This is not a material consideration of the planning application.

(vii) At present the dwellinghouses in question look onto the existing gable elevation dwellinghouse which has one small upper hall window. The extension will project just over 2 metres from this existing gable. It is therefore considered that the development will not affect the amenity of the adjacent dwellinghouses.

(viii) The proposal is fully within the applicant’s garden ground and does not show any alterations to either the footpath or access road.

The amended plans submitted with the application clearly show that the extension and associated foundations are within the applicant‘s land.

4.3 While the concerns of the neighbours relating to the potential disruption during construction work is understandable these concerns do not merit refusing the application. The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of design, scale and materials and I consider will fit in with the existing character of the area. It therefore accords with the Local Plan policies for the area and I recommend that permission be granted.

I76 Application No: S/04/00271lFUL

Date Registered: 5th March 2004

Ap p Ii ca nt : Central Scotland Forest Trust Hillhouse Ridge Shotts ML7 4JS

Agent lronside Farrar Ltd. Mark Steele 52 Grovewood Business Centre Strathclyde Business Park ML4 3NQ

Development : Construction of New Cycleway & Footpaths Linking Adjacent Communities to Strathclyde Park & MothetwelllRavenscraig

Location: Land At South Calder Valley Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 2: Calder Valley Councillor Annita McAuley 3: Forgewood Councillor Patrick Connelly 4: North Motherwell Councillor Bill Martin 25: Orbiston Councillor Richard Lyle

Grid Reference: 274885658787

File Reference:

Site History: No relevant site history

The main policies covered by the application site are Green Belt Development Plan: (ENV 6), Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (ENV 14), Strathclyde Country Park (L8) and Protected Open Space (L3) policies all with the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Strathclyde Police, Traffic (comments) Strathclyde Police, Community Police (comments)

Representations: 6 Representation Letters and one petition signed by 15 residents

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks planning permission for the construction and up-grading of footpaths to create a cycleway and footpath linking adjacent communities to Strathclyde Park and Ravenscraig. This proposal aims to create a direct and sustainable means for the residents of North Motherwell, Orbiston, Forgewood, Calder Valley and the wider area to access to the employment, retail and leisure opportunities at Ravescraig as well as the leisure opportunities at Strathclyde Country Park. Following detailed assessment of the proposal taking into account all material consideration, including 6 letters of representation and one petition I recommend that permission is granted subject to the attached

I77 PLANNING APPLICATION No. AS / 04 / 00271 / FUL CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CYCLEWAY AND FOOTPATHS LINKING ADJACENT COMMUNITIES TO STRATHCLYDE PARK AND MOTHERWELL ( RAVENSCRAIG ).

LAND AT SOUTH CALDER VALEY, MOTHERWELL IcpOlw.4 lnnin 8ul*rnWll~WIh A n Crn"1.lon ##. Con,dkd h,U.,.K. 1.1300 -av- .cllm-~e~ m"b*.d,w**don lnm. Slar"~, * Representations Total Length = 5.08 Km. .+my *.dlOP~-i""(n~UlilCOillrgl

178 conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That prior to the cyclewaylfootpath coming into operation a Toucan crossing shall be installed to the specifications of the Roads Authority, on Bellshill Road at the point where the cyclewaylfootpath crosses the road, details of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works begin on site.

Reason: In the interest of road and pedestrian safety.

3. That details of the cyclewayslfootpaths to be constructed to adoptable standard shall be to the specifications of the Roads Authority and should be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: To ensure that the cyclewaylfootpaths are constructed to an appropriate standard.

4. That where the cyclewaylfootpath joins the public carriageway, dropped kerbs shall be provided and the upstand of the heel kerbs shall be reduced where necessary to allow access to the footwaylcarriageway, details of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works begin on site.

Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety.

5. That the location and specification of all drainage provisions proposed shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: In the interests of the pedestrian safety.

6. That details of all access barriers, safety barriers and signage requirements proposed shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

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

7. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the path at the access point at Nethan Street car park shall run immediately adjacent to the fence along the grassed area and adjoin the main tarmac track adjacent to Bellshill Road.

Reason: To protect biodiversity on the site and limit damage to the SlNC area.

8. That a site survey, in consultation with North Lanarkshire Council's Ecologist, shall be carried

I79 out and details of all trees to be removed from the site shall submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: To safeguard the biodiversity of the site.

9. That details of all woodland clearance and areas to be managed within the site shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

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

10. That where possible all path edges shall be haunched with turfs extracted to create paths, details of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: To retain as much habitat as possible on the site.

11. That details of all species mix to be used to seed the verge areas and woodland sections shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: To protect the biodiveristy on the site.

12. That the cyclewaylfootpath proposed shall be detoured around the mature trees along the length of the route and care shall be taken to minimise root damage. Details of measures proposed to acheive this shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: To retain the woodland ambience of the path and minimise habitat loss.

13. That the metal railing fence under the railway viaduct shall be replaced and extended along both sides of the path as a safety barrier and shrubs shall be planted on the slope side of the fence to stabilise the slope, detail of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works start on site.

Reason: In the interest of public safety.

14. That all details relating to the drainage system at the railway viaduct shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works begin on site.

Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety.

15. That nothwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the link to the path system at Watling Street shall be constructed as a 'T' junction and not as a 'Y' junction.

Reason: To limit damage to existing woodland habitats.

16. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority,

180 and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works.

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

17. That within one year of the cyclewaylfootpaths being implemented all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

18. That before the development hereby permitted starts details of the location and type of all lighting columns shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for their approval in writing before any works begin on site.

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

19. That notwithstanding Condition 8 above any mature trees along the line of the path shall be retained unless the specific permission of the Planning Authority for their removal is obtained.

Reason: To retain the woodland ambience of the path and minimise habitat loss.

20. That no work shall commence on any part of the site that contains, or is adjacent to, any Japanese Knotweed until a scheme for its removal and disposal has been approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the spread of Japanese Knotweed.

21. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the line of the path marked 6 does not form part of this approval. Further details of a revised line shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and approved in writing before any works begin on site.

Reason: To protect biodiversity on the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th February 2004 Amended plans received 20tj April 2004

Memo from Transportation Section received 26th April 2004 Memo from NLC Community Services received 19th April 2004

181 Letter from Strathclyde Police (Roads) received 24th March 2004 Letters from Strathclyde Police Community Safety Architectural Liaison Officer received 1st April and 22nd April 2004

Letter from Mr And Mrs Craig Longmuir, 25 Appian Place, Roman Gardens, Motherwell, ML1 3FT received 8th March 2004. Letter from Mr Henry Skillin, 37 Bankhead Avenue, Bellshill, ML4 2JL received 10th March 2004. Letter from Philip McMahon, 31 Appian Place, Roman Gardens, Motherwell, ML1 3FT received 11th March 2004. Letter from Mrs C Chatham, Woodville Rise, 166 Dalriada Crescent, Motherwell, Lanarkshire ML1 3XS received 17th March 2004. Letter from David & Caroline Kilgour, 6 Forbes Drive, Motherwell, MLI 3UP, received 18th March 2004. Letter from W & K Sharp, 9 Forbes Drive, Motherwell received 18th March 2004. Letter from E Boyle, 15 Caldergrove, Motherwell received 28 April 2004.

One petition from residents in Forbes Drive containing 15 names.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Rosaleen Toal at 01698 302104.

182 APPLICATION NO. S/04/00271/FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This project which is termed the Green Link Project, seeks planning permission for the construction and up-grading of footpaths to create a cycleway and footpath linking adjacent communities to Strathclyde Park and Ravenscraig.

1.2 The aim of the Green Link Project is to address social deprivation within this area by creating a direct and sustainable means for the residents of North Motherwell, Orbiston, Forgewood, Calder Valley and the wider area to gain access to the employment, retail and leisure opportunities at Ravescraig as well as the leisure opportunities at Strathclyde Country Park. Employment opportunities will also be created during the construction and management of the cycleway and footpath link.

1.3 The first section of this link will mainly consist of the up-grading of the existing footpath at the west side of Watling Street, Motherwell through Strathclyde Park in an eastwards direction with the creating of an area of cyclewayl footpath linking the existing pathway system to the accesslsafety point at Nathan Street car park. The route will then continue to Bellshill Road. It should be noted that this section of the proposal is considered as the secondary route and will have no street lightling.

1.4 The primary route which will take the form of a formal surface and street lighting will connect to the secondary route that this point. One leg of this route will continue through Strathclyde Park and terminate below Bellshill Golf Club, with the second leg of the primary route crossing Bellshill Road through an area of woodland and linking into an existing footpath to the rear of the housing in Forgewood and on to Braidhirst Street. A new section of cycleway would then be installed which would link into existing paths adjacent to Caldergrove with the termination at Roman Road. An on road marking system would then be used for cyclists from this point in to Ravenscraig.

1.5 A project officer and two site rangers will be employed as part of this project.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Drafted (Modified 2001) the site is covered by ENV 6 Green Belt, ENV 14 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, L8 Strathclyde Country Park and L3 Protected Open Space policies.

2.3 Within these policies the Council will seeks to safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt, protect and enhance the nature resources of the area, continue to maintain and further enhance facilities at Strathclyde Council Park and protect open space.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section have no objections to the proposal however they have recommended that various alterations are made to the route of the cyclewaylfootpath.

183 3.2 The Conservation and Greening Manager has no objections to the proposal provided details of various aspects of the works are agreed prior to the commencement of the project on site. Conditions have been attached to this permission to reflect this.

3,.3 Strathclyde Police (Traffic) have no adverse comments to the proposal however they have requested that consideration be given to the placing of a crossing point where the cycle route crosses Bellshill Road.

3.4 Strathclyde Police Community SafetylArchitect Liaison Officer has no objections to the proposal but raised concerns regarding surveillance, youth congregation, street drinking and the possible lack of illumination; however he feels that the problems can be addressed by the proper implementation of a dedicated community safety programme.

3.5 6 Letters of representation and one petition have been received in connection with the proposal. The main points of representation received are:

(i) Some local residents are concerned that the upgrading of the existing footways which are presently being used by motorbikes and quad bikes may intensify this problem and lead to more noise.

(ii) The development may have noise and safety implications.

(iii) The development will only encourage more illegal traffic especially during the summer months.

(iv) There is no need for this development and noise will be created by the construction.

(v) Loose strata from the existing paths is presently being thrown at flatted dwellinghouses causing damage to the properties, a new track is likely to extend this problem to all flats within the area.

(vi) Careful consideration should be given to the materialsldrainage.

(vii) Can the cyclewaylfootpath be adequately policed?

(viii) One neighbour notified feels that the proposed path to the rear of Bankhead Avenue, Bellshill it too close to the rear gardens.

(ix) Residents in Forbes Drive are concerned that the accesslsafety point proposed at Forbes Drive will cause an increase of parking within the cul-de-sac, increase and encourage strangers who will be accessing the footpath at this point, increase noise and encourage house break-ins and theft from gardens.

(x) One resident in Caldergrove, Motherwell strongly objects to a cyclewaylfootpath at their front window.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In considering this application account must be taken of the relevant Development Plan policies together with any other material consideration pertinent to the site and application. With respect to the Development Plan the site is zoned as policies ENV 6 Green Belt, ENV 14 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, L8 Strathclyde Country Park and L3 Protected Open Space. Within these policies the Council will seek to safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt, protect and enhance the nature resources of the area, continue to maintain and

184 further enhance facilities at Strathclyde Council Park and protect open space. When assessing the development against these policies it is considered that the upgrading and installation of new cyclewayslfootpath is acceptable, particularly as conditions can be used to ensure the protection and enhancement of sensitive environmental areas.

4.2 In response to the objections received I would make the following comments in respect of the points made in paragraph 3.5 above:

It is considered that the upgrading of the existing paths to hot rolled asphalt and tree planting proposed as part of this project, may discourage some users of the motorbikes and quad bikes from the new cyclewaylfootway as some motorbike and quad bike users prefer rougher surfaces.

It is considered that the new wider cyclewaylfootpaths proposed will create an wider open area with longer sightlines which may help to discourage some anti-social issues as the groups may be less likely to congregate in this area.

This point is noted but it is hoped that the appointment of a Project Officer and two rangers will tackle this issue.

It is considered that this development will encourage more people to use this facility. Furthermore, nuisance during the construction of the works are generally short lived and inherent in the development process, however they are do not justify refusal.

The existing footway surface comprises of loose chip stones and hard core which easily moves where as the new surface will be a solid surface and should not give rise to the cycleway/footpath material being used to damage surrounding properties.

Careful consideration is being given to both the materials and drainage issues relating to the development.

(vii) Part of the proposal involves the employment of a project officer and two rangers working within this area, however the operational aspect of the Police cannot be covered by the Planning system.

(viii) The proposal is being amended to move this particular section of the footpath away from the rear gardens in Bankhead Avenue.

(ix) The accesslsafety point proposed at Forbes Drive has been removed from the proposal.

(x) Two existing footpaths cross the area in front of the dwellinghouses at this point on Caldergrove. One footpath runs directly in front of the objector’s dwellinghouse. However the route of the cyclewaylfootpath will run along the other footpath which is approximately 20 metres way from the front of the objectors dwellinghouse.

4.3 As noted in paragraph 1.2 the aim of this project is to address social deprivation by creating a direct and sustainable means for local residents to access employment, retail and leisure opportunities at Ravenscraig as well as the leisure facilities at Strathclyde Park. Furthermore this project will create the opportunity to access funding which will help to address social exclusion through the regeneration of this area as well as attempt to address the fly tipping and anti-social activities which are evident within the area.

4.4 Therefore taking the above into account I would recommend that the Committee grant the proposal subject to the attached conditions.

185 Application No: S/04/00281/AMD

Date Registered: 26th February 2004

Applicant: SMS Construction Quarry Road Shotts ML7 4 AF

Agent Dalziel Design Partnership 136 Coursington Road MLI 1

Development: Amendment To Planning Approval S1021015201FUL For The Erection of 3 Dwellings and Landscape Area

Location: Land East Of Cedar Wynd Shotts Lanarkshire

Ward: 17: Stane Councillor Frank Gormill

Grid Reference: 288762660067

File Reference: SIPLII 7/53/MR/MAW

Site History: S/97/00039/FUL Erection of Residential Development granted 31st March 1997

S/02/00098/AMD Erection of 3 Detached Dwellinghouses refused 5th June 2002

S/02/0152O/FUL Erection of 3 No. Dwellinghouses & Relocation of Kick-About PitchlPublic Open Space granted 1st April 2003 following a site visit to the site and a Hearing

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None Received

Representations: 5 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This amended planning application seeks consent for the erection of 3 detached dwellinghouses and landscape area on land east of Cedar Wynd, Torbothie Road, Shotts. The proposed development is presently under construction. Five letters of representation have been received from the same household on behalf of notified neighbours and these are detailed in the attached report together with my observations on them. Having taken all concerns into account, it is considered that the amended plans are acceptable in terms of the impact on neighbouring properties and I therefore recommend that consent be granted subject to the attached conditions. It should be noted that one of the objectors has requested a site visit and a hearing.

186 Torbothie A

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING APPROVAL S / 02 / 01520 I FUL FOR THE ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS AND LANDSCAPE AREA

LAND EAST OF CEDAR WYND. SHO'ITS. *wro.lmm,n c?*rae"**m*#q.ln A n. c."m..,old n Col*dWd t.rUl,.ar. ?liolrfa*..crpnrwmt LbULII.d rga*Oiol t*hlm- Com"Rrim * Rwresentatims .d w I"dlopa.c"Yol -nu wooulirol

187 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That before any of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted, situated on a site upon which a fence or wall is to be erected, are occupied, the fence or wall shall be erected.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of future residents.

2. 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 enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

3. That notwithstanding the requirements of conditions (1) and (2) above before the dwellinghouse on Plot C is occupied a 2 metres high, close boarded, dark brown stained timber screen fence shall be erected along the boundary marked GREEN on the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of that property.

4. That within one month of the date of this permission, a scheme of landscaping, for the hatched area on the approved plans, 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 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.

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

5. That within one year of the occupation of the last dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition (4) above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining residential area.

6. That within two months of the date of this permission, 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 the hatched area detailed in condition number (5) above.

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

7. That before completion of the last dwellinghouse hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition (6) shall be in operation.

188 Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining residential area.

8. That the garage shall not be altered for use as a habitable room without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

9. That notwithstanding the provisions of Class 7 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no gates, fences, walls, or other means of enclosure, shall be erected between the front of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted and the adjoining road.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the surrounding area.

10. That before the first dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th February 2004 Amended plans received 17th March 2004

Southern area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Letter from Mrs Margaret Brennan, 17 Rowan Crescent, Shotts, ML7 5NJ received 8th March 2004 Letter from Mr Thomas Brennan, 17 Rowan Crescent, Shotts, ML7 5NJ received 8th March 2004 Letter from Mr Thomas Brennan, 17 Rowan Crescent, Shotts, ML7 5NJ received 9th March 2004 Letter from Mr Thomas Brennan, 17 Rowan Crescent, Shotts, ML7 5NJ received 16th March 2004 Letter from Mr Thomas Brennan, 17 Rowan Crescent, Shotts, ML7 5NJ received 13th April 2004

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

189 AP PLI CAT I0N N0. S/04/0028 1/AM D

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

1.I This planning application seeks an amendment to planning approval S/02/00281/AMD for the erection of 3 dwellings and landscape area on land east of Cedar Wynd, Torbothie Road, Shotts. The proposed amendment that is presently under construction involves changes both to the site layout and to the design of the houses.

1.2 With regard to the site layout, Plot A is proposed to be located approximately 0.9 metres to the east of the western boundary fence hence the cumulative effect of Plots B & C moving them approximately 0.9 metres east of their original site. In terms of the site area, each plot will have a marginal decrease in size with Plot A decreasing from 41 1 to 407 square metres, Plot B decreasing from 395 to 376.7 square metres and Plot C decreasing from 389.5 to 388.75 square metres.

1.3 With regard to the design of the houses, the most significant amendment is that for each of the 3 plots the double garages will be reduced to a single garage and an additional public room and cupboard will be built in that area. There are also small internal modifications to the house type and resultant amendments to the fenestration.

1.4 The Fairways residential development received detailed planning permission for 44 dwellinghouse and outline planning permission for 5 dwellinghouses on 26 March 1997 (planning reference no: S/97/00039/FUL). The approved plans for the development detailed a landscaping and kick-about pitch to the north of the site and a play area on the site of plot 30. The applicant successfully appealed the condition relating to the play area as Plot 30 fell short of the Councils minimum size for a play area and required distance from the nearest dwellinghouse, leaving the kick-about pitch as the only play provision within the development.

1.5 A planning application was granted planning permission for the erection of three dwellinghouses on 1 April 2003 (planning reference no: S/02/0152O/FUL.) and therefore the principle of residential development in the area has been established.

2. Develo Dment Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local plan the site is zoned as an Established Housing Area and is covered by Policy HGS 8 which seeks to protect the established character of the existing housing areas.

3. Consu Itat ions and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required in respect of this amended application.

3.2 Five letters of objection were received from the neighbouring property at 17 Rowan Crescent, Shotts. The points of objection may be summarised as follows:-

(i) The alteration from a double to a single garage will exacerbate the access and ultimately compromise the safety of the site.

190 (ii) The original plans submitted by SMS have been changed substantially with each of the houses being removed and the layout altered.

(iii) The applicant's continuing work on site without the necessary permission for the relocation of the dwellings and the amendments to the design, and the Planning Department's failure to respond satisfactorily to this situation. As a result the residents feel they have been lied to and rules and regulations both broken and ignored,

3.3 The objector has also asked for a site visit and hearing.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposed development is in accordance with the Development Plan therefore there are no objections to the principle of this development in land-use terms. The application raises no strategic issues. The site is covered by Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Area) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) which seeks to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. On assessing this proposal it is considered that given the location and changes involved to the amended housing (as discussed in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 above), the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential properties.

4.2 In response to the points of objection listed in paragraph 3.2 above I would comment as follows:-

(i) It is not considered that the alteration from a double to a single garage will exacerbate the access and compromise the safety of the site to a degree that merits refusal of the application given the previous planning history and status of the application site.

(ii) It is common practice for house builders to alter their development as they progress a site and it is not considered a material planning consideration in the assessment of this application.

(iii) It is unfortunate that the developer moved the proposed house plots and amended the house types without first seeking the necessary consents. Likewise it is understandable that objectors feel they are being ignored when the developer continues to work on the site despite being asked to stop work and submit the relevant application. I did draw to the company's attention that the continuing work was entirely at their own risk. I have not, however, sought enforcement proceedings against the applicant pending a decision on this amended application.

4.3 In conclusion I have considered the points of representation but find no reason to uphold the points raised or request amendments to the proposals. The application raises no strategic issues and does accord with the policies of the local plan. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

191 Application No: SlO41002901FUL

Date Registered: 25th February 2004

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Burns 37 Newlands Road Uddingston Glasgow G715QU

Agent Mr J Anderson 7 Gateside Street Hamilton ML3 7HT

Development: Single-Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 37 Newlands Road Uddingston Glasgow G71 5QU

Ward: 21 : Councillor David Saunders

Grid Reference: 269928.661998.

File Reference: SIPLIBl91841LR

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: The site lies within an area covered by residential policies in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to a semi-detached dwellinghouse. One letter of representation has been received from the adjoining neighbour in connection with the proposal, details of which are outlined in my report. Having taken into account all material considerations including the letter of representation, I recommend that consent be granted subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

192 193 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure the materials match the existing dwellinghouse.

3. That the existing screen wall projecting from and between the rear of numbers 37 and 39 Newlands Road, as indicated in BLUE on the approved plans shall be retained and if removed shall be replaced with a wall or screen fence of the same height and length.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the adjoining property’s privacy.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th February 2004

Letter from Richard J Moss, Project Management And Design, 150 Ailsa Road, Coatbridge, ML5 5HZ received 9th March 2004.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Lorna Ramsey at 01698 302136.

194 APPLICATION NO. S/04/0029O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I The application site is a semi-detached dwellinghouse bounded by dwellinghouses to the side and front with an area of open space to the rear.

1.2 The applicant is seeking planning permission for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to the dwellinghouse. The extension as proposed will project 6.3 metres from the rear building line, and will measure 7.6 metres in width and 4.5 metres in height. The extension will be finished with grey concrete roof tiles, and wet dash roughcast on the walls with a brown facing brick base course.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local Plan the site is within an Established Housing Area and is covered by Policy HSG 8 which seeks to protect the established character of the existing housing areas.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 One letter of representation has been received from the adjoining neighbour in relation to this application. The representation is on the following grounds:

a) The proposed extension has a window facing onto the boundary with the adjoining property which would remove the privacy of the neighbouring property.

b) That the window referred to in point a) above is within 1 metre of the boundary between the two properties and therefore may not conform to The Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations.

c) That the height of the extension will greatly affect the natural sunlight received on the rear patio area.

4. PIann i nQ Assessment and Co nc I usi o ns

4.1 On detailed assessment of the application it is considered that the proposed extension is acceptable in principle on the site in terms of its design, scale and materials. The extension will also leave adequate rear garden ground.

4.2 On the grounds of the objection received, it should be noted that the maximum height of the window facing onto the neighbouring property is 2.5 metres, but that between the 2 properties there is an existing 2 metre wall. Due to the angle between the two windows and the height of the wall, it is considered that there will be no problems with privacy for the adjoining property. The issue of whether this window conforms to Building Regulations is not a consideration and will be dealt with through the Building Warrant application. With respect to the issue of sunlight it is the case that the neighbouring property will suffer some over-shadowing to their back garden but this is not considered to be sufficient to justify refusing this application.

4.3 Taking the above into account it is recommended that permission is granted subject to the attached conditions.

195 Application No: S/04/0036O/FUL

Date Registered: 25th March 2004

Applicant: Lisa Murray 14 Spalehall Drive Newarthill MLI 5JB

Development: Change of Use of Shop (Class 1) to Cafe (Class 3)

Location: 52 High Street Newarthill Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 29: Newarthill Councillor John Lafferty

Grid Reference: 278356659544

File Reference: S/PL/B/5/47(145)

Site History: Planning granted in September 2001 for a small complex of shops with flats above.

Development Plan: The site lies within an area zoned as Established Community Facilities within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 6 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: 1st April 2004

Comments:

This planning application seeks planning permission to change the use of a Class 1 Retail Shop to cafe (Class 3), within a row of shop units at High Street, Newarthill. Six letters of objection have been received in connection with the proposal and my comments on the application are detailed in the accompanying report. For reasons contained in my report it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:.

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

2. That the cafe hereby permitted shall operated from 8 am to 5pm Monday to Saturday only.

Reason: To define the hours of operation in the interests of safeguarding the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

196 JC 6 REPRESENTATIONSIN TOTAL, ALL OUTWlTH PLANNING AREA

PLANNING APPLICATION NO:- S/04/0036O/FUL

USE OF SHOP ( CLASS 1 ) AS CAFE ( CLASS 3 ) 52 HIGH STREET, NEWARTHILL ii * Representatims

I97 3. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use the proposed means of ventilation of the premises shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the adjoining premises.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 8th March 2004

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 26 April 2004 Memo from NLC Protective Services Section received 28 April 2004

Letter from Tahir Mahmood, Chanda Cottage, Tandori Takeaway, 3 Woodlee Road, Newarthill, ML1 5BJ received 13th April 2004. Letter from T F Wong, 7 Woodilee Road, Newarthill, ML1 5BJ received 13th April 2004. Letter from Robert S Rankin, 5 Woodilee Road, Newarthill, ML1 5BJ received 13th April 2004. Letter from Owner/Occupier, Sals Fast Food, 62 Road, Newarthill, ML1 5AG received 13th April 2004. Letter from A McDonald, 6 Glenfarm Road, Newarthill, ML1 5 BN received 13th April 2004. Letter from Mr McCarthy, c/o 30 Doune Terrace, Townhead, Coatbridge received 14th April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Rosaleen Toal at 01698 3021 04.

198 APPLICATION NO. S/04/0036O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I The application site is part of a mixed development comprising of shops on ground level with flats above. The applicant is seeking planning permission to change the use of the shop to a cafe.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 The application site is located in an area covered by policy CS 2 (Established Community Facilities) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). In addition policy RTLll (Bad Neighbour Developments) also sets out the criteria for assessing such applications as cafes.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 NLC Transportation Section has concerns regarding parking at the site.

3.2 NLC Protective Services have no objections to the proposal, however suggest that the premises open at 8 am to minimise the potential noise complaints from residents above the site.

3.3 Six letters of representation have been received in connection with the proposal. The main points of objection are on the following grounds:

0) The area is already saturated with food outlets and the objector’s are concerned that the proposed regeneration of the Ravenscraig site will mean existing businesses in the area will suffer greatly.

(ii) The positioning of the cafe between a vet and dental surgery and beneath flats will result in food smells, litter and increase of pedestrians and vehicles which will disturb the quality of life for people in the area.

(iii) The cafe will be opened at 7 am seven days a week.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In considering this application account must be taken of the relevant Development Plan policies together with any other material consideration pertinent to the site and application. With respect to the local plan policies the site in zoned as CS 2 (Established Community Facilities) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). In addition policy RTLll (Bad Neighbour Developments) also sets out the criteria for assessing such applications as cafes. In assessing this particular proposal it is considered that the relevant determining factors are whether the cafe is acceptable in terms of location, traffic safety and effect on adjoining neighbours.

199 4.2 With regard to the siting of the proposed development it is considered that the proposed use is acceptable at this location and although the applicant is proposing an ancillary take away element with the cafe, it is anticipated that the main trade for this element would be around lunchtime. In addition the hours of operation will be restricted from 8 am to 5 pm which is practically normal shopping hours and it is anticipated that most of the trade will be “walk-in”. As such the road safety concerns are no longer applicable, especially when the servicing to the property can take place from the rear. The absence of late hours opening should also reduce any potential impact on the amenity of the nearby residential properties.

4.3 Finally with regard to the remaining objections it should be noted that commercial competition is not an issue for the Planning Authority. Concerns in relation to the impact of food smells are understandable, however it is not anticipated that the food smells from the cafe would merit a refusal of the application.

4.4 In conclusion I consider that permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

200 Application No: S/04/00426/FUL

Date Registered: 24th March 2004

Applicant: North Motherwell Pavilion Project Watling Street Motherwell Lanarkshire

Agent Mr. lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell MLI 3JL

Development: Proposed Alterations & Extension to Sports Pavilion & Partial Change of Use From Class 11 (Assembly & Leisure) to Class 10 (Non-Residential) & Class 3 (Food & Drink)

Location: Sports Pavilion Watling Street Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 4: North Motherwell Councillor William Martin

Grid Reference: 273693 657915

File Reference: SIPLIB11 3112lMAT

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: The site is covered by greenbelt policies in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (No response)

Representations: 1 Petition

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1st April 2004

Comments:

This application is for the alteration, extension and part change of use of a Sports Pavilion at Watling Street, North Motherwell. The building currently provides changing facilities for the adjacent football pitches and it is proposed to provide music, arts, and computing facilities and a cafeteria. A new entrance feature with a reception and office is proposed for the front elevation of the pavilion.

One letter of objection has been received from Roman Gardens Neighbourhood Watch and Residents Association, details of which can be found in the attached report. Despite the objectors concerns, it is considered that that proposal is in accordance with the policies of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001), that the design of the front extension is acceptable and that the proposed new uses are appropriate at this location.

201 PLANNING APPLICATION NO:-S/04/W426ff UL

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS 8 EXTENSION TO SPORTS PAVILION B PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE FROM CLASS 11 (ASSEMBLY & LEISURE) R3uc.dZ TO CLASS 10 Rlnnlnpmd Ewirmmnl *.adqun*n 911.m2TvdR-d hrn"~l+sUs. SPORTS PAVILION, WATLING STREET, DJMBWWUW A P.woludtnrn,t. Or*ruSu**m*plm 111 MOTHERWELL n F."u.i.., d n COnYII* d hrLC1.q. onm2Mmb2iP 1J.V fU olzulsla32 -*n*1- .c-nwr*DII W*(*Y.d,*.*- imim-cram ai*rim\ .n .n m*I-(l~pa.rutonirr*,,C~ullrD c6 Lbnr.UwIL *Representations

202 Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

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

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 24th March 2004

Letter from Mrs Jane Croughan, 306 Watling Street, Motherwell, received 14th April 2004.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mark Thomson at 01689 302136.

203 APPLICATION NO. S1041004261FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application is for the alteration, extension, and partial change of use of a sports pavilion from Class 11 (assembly and leisure) to Class 10 (non-residential) and class 3 (food and drink). The building in question is a single storey flat roofed building located at the end of Watling Street on the edge of the settlement of North Motherwell. The building dates from the 1970s and is in need of some renovation. To the north and east of the site are residential areas, whilst to the south and west are football pitches and beyond that is Strathclyde Country Park.

1.2 The building currently provides changing facilities for the adjacent grass football pitches, and there is also an assembly area with vending machines. The proposal is to convert one of the existing changing rooms into a music and arts room, to convert the existing office into a computer room and to change the assembly and vending area into a cafeteria and food preparation area. It should be noted that it is not the applicant’s intention to prepare hot food and drink for sale, though this would be feasible given the proposed layout. A new disabled toilet will also be provided.

1.3 A new entrance measuring 12 metres wide by 2.5 metres deep by 3.5 metres tall is proposed for the front elevation of the building.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is covered by greenbelt policies in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Finalised Draft 2001).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section does not oppose the application, but recommends that an additional 22 spaces should be provided, 6 of which should be suitable for use by the mobility impaired.

Comment: The car parking area is used mainly at the weekend and in the evenings. It is conceded that at these times it can be close to or exceeding its capacity depending on the number of people playing and spectating. It is my opinion that the proposed changes will not lead to a dramatic increase in the number of car parking spaces required. The cafeteria facility will be used mainly by people playing or watching football; it is unlikely that people will travel in their car solely to use the cafeteria. The arts, music and computing facilities are most likely to be used by local residents and are unlikely to generate a significant amount of additional traffic.

3.2 A petition with 10 signatories from the Roman Gardens Neighbourhood Watch and Residents Association objecting to the application has been received. The main points of objection are as follows:

The sports pavilion is already a place where youths congregate and anti-social behaviour takes place, Residential amenity will be impaired by any further increase of activity at the pavilion.

Comment: The control of anti-social behaviour is a matter for the Police to enforce. It is my opinion that as this application is for the upgrading of an existing facility, there is no evidence to suggest that it will result in an increase in anti social behaviour

There are already proposals for a f3 million pound upgrade of the local Pat Cullinan Community Centre. This facility is more centrally located, is better lit and has CCTV

204 cameras. It would be a much better location for the arts and music, computer training and cafeteria facilities.

Comment: The planning system is not the correct mechanism for determining where the best provision of leisure and community facilities should be located. This is a matter for the Council’s Community Services Department to consider. The two facilities are quite different in the amenities that they provide. The Pat Cullinan Community Centre provides meeting and assembly space for the local community, whilst the sports pavilion provides outdoor leisure space with changing rooms and other associated facilities. The uses proposed in this centre are, from a planning point of view, acceptable.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The main considerations in assessing this application are (a) whether or not it accords with local plan policy, (b) whether or not the design of the proposed extension is acceptable, and (c) whether or not the new facilities proposed are acceptable at this location.

4.2 It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with policy ENV6 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001). The changes proposed to the design and use of the existing sports building will in no way compromise the character of the greenbelt area within which it is located and the outdoor leisure uses that it provides for the community.

4.3 The design of the proposed front porch is considered to be acceptable and an improvement on the existing front faGade of the building.

4.4 The existing facility provides changing rooms for the adjacent football pitches and an assembly area with vending machines for snacks and drinks. The new cafeteria area will provide an upgraded facility for those using the sports pavilion.

4.5 Whilst the arts, music and computing uses may at first seem incongruous with the outdoor recreation facility, they are considered acceptable as they will provide extra facilities for the local community and help to ensure the viability of the facility.

4.6 It is my opinion that the design of the proposed extension is acceptable, and that the changes of use are appropriate at this location. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the objectors, it is my recommendation that planning permission be granted.

205 Application No: S/04/00437/AMD

Date Registered: 26th March 2004

Applicant : Mr I More 149 Waverley Drive Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 7DW

Development: Amendment To Alter Monoblock Parking Area To Front Of House

Location: 149 Waverley Drive Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 7DW

Ward: 7: Belhaven Councillor Samuel Love

Grid Reference: 280310.655574.

File Reference: SIPLIBII 0/3/MR

Site History: 1. April 2003 - Permission granted for erection of garage for the parking of a commercial vehicle, ref S/02/00905/FUL

2. December 2003 - Appeal granted by Scottish Executive for removal of condition 3 which required the reinstatement of a 1 metre high boundary wall adjacent to Waverley Drive, planning consent S/02/00905/FUL, ref P/PPA/320/158

Development Plan: The application site is covered by residential policies within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None Received

Representations: 3 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks planning permission for an amendment to alter the monoblock parking area to the front of the flatted dwellinghouse at 149 Waverley Drive, Wishaw. This application was submitted as an amendment to a previous planning application in order to regularise the existing unauthorised driveway/parking space and to provide access and egress in such a manner that vehicles are always moving in forward gear. Three letters of representation have been received from adjoining neighbours in relation to the application proposal, the details of which are discussed in my attached report. For reasons contained in my report it is recommended that planning consent be granted subject to the attached conditions. It should be noted that both objectors have requested a site visit.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

206 aWV / LEPOO / PO /SON NOllV3llddV 9NINNVld 1. That within two months from the date of this permission to proposed development should be completed and brought into use.

Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety.

2. That before development starts, details of the surface finishes to all parking and manoeuvring areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

3. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, a dropped kerb vehicular access shall be constructed in the position shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the Roads Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 24th March 2004

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 6th April 2004

Letter from Mr And Mrs Watson, 4 Abbotsford Road, Wishaw, ML2 7DW received 1st April 2004. Letter from Mr Patrick McMonagle, 151 Waverley Drive, Wishaw, ML2 7DW received 1st April 2004. Letter from McMonagle and Mr and Mrs Watson, addressed 151 Waverley Drive, Wishaw ML2 7DW, received 6th April 2004

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Murray Reid at 01698 302102.

208 APPLICATION NO. S1041004371AMD

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

1.I The applicant seeks planning permission to alter the monoblock parking area to the front of the flatted dwellinghouse at 149 Waverley Drive, Wishaw. This application was submitted as an amendment to a previous planning application Ref. No S/02/00905/FUL in order to regularise the existing unauthorised drivewaylparking space. The proposal is to create an extension to the existing driveway to facilitate a second access from the site onto Waverley Drive in order that a car can enter and exit the application site without having to use reverse gear. The site fronts onto a crossroad where Abbotsford Road and Woodstock Road meet Waverley Drive and is surrounded by residential properties.

1.2 It should be noted that in April 2003 retrospective planning consent was granted for the erection of a garage for the parking of a commercial vehicle (ref. S/02/00905/FUL.) Prior to this application an unauthorised garage and driveway were built at the application site and although that planning application did not include the formation of the unauthorised driveway in the title, this issue was discussed as part of the Committee Report that was granted consent at the Planning Committee. Condition 3 of this consent related to a wall being constructed across the existing entrance to the driveway to prevent the parking of a vehicle at any time in the interests of road and pedestrian safety.

1.3 Committee’s attention is also drawn to the fact that in December 2003 an appeal was granted by the Scottish Executive (Ref.No. P/PPA/320/158) for the removal of condition 3 of the planning consent ref. S.O2/00905/FUL as discussed above in paragraph 1.2. The Scottish Executive considered that the use of the condition failed to satisfy the test of relevance to the development permitted and was consequently ultra virus. It should also be noted that the reporter stated that the decision ‘does not prevent the Council from dealing with the formation of the drivewaylparking space as a separate issue.’

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 This planning application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 The site is zoned as an ‘Established Housing Area’ within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001). Policy HSG8 is the relevant policy that seeks to protect the established character of the existing housing areas.

3. Consu Ita tions and Re Dresentat ion s

3.1 The Transportation Section have recommended that permission be refused, as the existing driveway to the front of the property is unacceptable as it is situated on the radii of a junction. Any manoeuvring to and from this driveway could be detrimental to road safety.

3.2 Three letters of representation were received from the neighbouring properties at 4 Abbotsford Road and 151 Waverley Drive, Wishaw. The main points of which are as follows:-

(0 Invasion of privacy in that the car is parking close to bedroom windows. (ii) Impact on amenity as a result of the noise of the car.

209 Impact on pedestrian and road safety at a dangerous location where the car reverses over a pavement on Abbotsford Road leading to a four way junction that has heavy traffic.

As a result of the dangerous location and 3 crashes into the garden of the application site in the last year, there is a constant fear of a vehicle crashing into the garden especially at night and a need for compulsory crash barriers at the four corners of Abbotsford Road, Woodstock Drive and Waverley Drive.

Breach of tenancy agreement - in that our tenancy agreement states plainly that no vehicle belonging to you or anyone visiting, may be parked on our land unless that land is set aside for parking or permission has been granted and that it causes no nuisance or annoyance to your neighbours.

The applicant's non-compliance with the original condition and the duration of this dispute dating back to the original planning consent that was granted in April 2003.

The More's have a large garage which has never been used to store their van or car. The garage has ample room for the van and more than enough space for the car to be parked on the tarmac area in front of the garage.

3.3 Both objectors have asked the Committee to visit the site before making a decision on the application.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 As noted above, the site lies within a residential area and therefore the principle in land use terms of the proposal is acceptable. Thus the application raises no strategic issues. In assessing this application local plan policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) is the relevant policy in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) which seeks to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas.

4.2 In assessing this particular application it is considered that the relevant determining factors are whether the proposal is in accordance with Policy HSG8 and also the impact of the proposal on pedestrian and vehicular safety.

4.3 The existing driveway and associated landscaping are complementary to the existing house and surrounding residential properties in terms of the scale, design and materials used. The proposal to extend the existing driveway by monoblocking the relevant area and removing the appropriate part of the fence would be in keeping with the current development. With regard to Policy HSG8 the proposal is considered to be acceptable both in terms of its residential setting and its impact on the amenity of the property and surrounding residential area.

4.4 It is clearly evident that there are concerns with regards to pedestrian and road safety for both the existing development and the proposed development, a view that is supported by my Transportation Section who have recommended refusal of this application because of the dangers of manoeuvring from such an access. This view was supported by the Planning Department in relation to the existing unauthorised development which required any car using the parking space to take access over the radius of the cross road junction of Waverley Drive, Woodstock Road and Abbotsford Road as any manoeuvring to and from the parking space would be detrimental to road safety. However in cognisance of this current application that involves the formation of a second access to the application site enabling vehicles to always enter and exit the site in forward gear, it is considered that this proposal provides a better

210 solution to both the present scenario and the alternative solution of closing of the driveway and parking a car on the road at a busy and dangerous junction.

4.5 In response to the points of representation listed in paragraph 3.2 above I would comment as follows:-

(i) With regard to point (i) the existing driveway that forms a part of this application is located approximately three metres back from the bedroom windows and is partly blocked by the existing landscaped area. It is common practice for driveways to be built facing onto properties and taking all concerns into account it is not considered that the proposal will result in an invasion of privacy that merits refusal of this application.

(ii) With regard to the possible negative impact on the amenity of the area as a result of the noise from the car it should be noted that the application site is located next to a crossroad and adjacent to Waverley Drive which has heavy traffic and therefore the impact of the noise of the car is not considered a valid reason for refusal of this application.

(iii) Point (iii) has been discussed above in paragraph 4.4 and whilst it is considered that the proposal is not an ideal solution with regards to the impact on pedestrian and road safety it is however considered the best possible solution for the application site.

(iv) Whilst the concerns raised over vehicles crashing into the application site and the related history to this is recognised, this aspect and the possible solution of a compulsory crash barrier is a separate issue to the consideration of this application and therefore does not constitute a material consideration. The possible pedestrian and vehicular implications of this point that tie in with point (iii) have been discussed in paragraph 4.4 above.

With regard to the tenancy agreement this is an issue for the Housing and Property Services Department and does not constitute a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

The applicant did not comply with condition 3 of the original planning consent that was granted on 23rd April 2003 however they exercised their right to submit an appeal against the planning decision within 6 months of the date of the consent and consequently won their appeal to have condition 3 removed as discussed above in paragraph 1.3. The duration of this procedure that reference is made to is a consequence of the current National Planning System procedures and does not constitute a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

(vii) The large garage that is referred to formed the basis of the retrospective planning application that was granted consent in April 2003 as discussed above in paragraph 1.2. The consent had a condition that the use of the garage shall be restricted to the parking of the commercial vehicle only, Again this issue does not constitute a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

4.6 It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with Policy HSG8 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). In view of the above and given the proposed improvements to the existing site in terms of access it is considered that my Transportation section’s comments do not on balance justify refusal of this application as the alternative of having vehicles either reversing out onto the junction or parking at the junction are even more unacceptable. I have considered the points of representation but find no reason to uphold the points or request amendments to the proposals. The application raises no strategic issues and does accord with the policies of the local plan. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

21 1 Application No: S/04/0044O/FU L

Date Registered: 25th March 2004

Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Gray 364 Hamilton Road Motherwell MLI 3EG

Development: Erection Of 1 112 Storey Dwelling

Location: 364 Hamilton Road Motherwell Lanarkshire ML1 3EG

Ward: 1: Ladywell Councillor Michael Ross

Grid Reference: 273978.65651 2.

File Reference: SIPL/BI13/23/PW

Site History: S/03100002/FUL Erection of two-storey dwellinghouse and garages Refused 19th March 2003, Appeal dismissed 3rd November 2003

Development Plan: Policies HSG 8 Established Residential Area and Policy HSG 11 lnfill Housing Development, both in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: The Coal Authority (Comment)

Representations: 7 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks consent for the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling within the rear garden area of 364 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, a semi-detached one and a half storey dwelling. The site lies within the established residential area of Braedale and is identified as such in both the adopted and emerging local plans. The area is characterised by single, and one and a half storey dwellings dating from the 1930s.

Members may recall that a previous application for a two-storey dwelling on the site was refused on the 19th of March 2003. The application was refused for reasons of overdevelopment and effect on residential amenity. A subsequent appeal for the same proposal was dismissed on the 3rd of November 2003. A total of 7 letters of objection have been received from surrounding residents on the grounds of overdevelopment out of character with the area and loss of residential amenity. A request for a site visit and hearing has also been made by the adjoining neighbour at 362 Hamilton Road. This revised proposal is for a one and a half storey dwelling based on the height and style of 364 Hamilton Road, which is therefore considered to be in-keeping in terms of elevational architecture and height. However, it is considered that the plot size and rear garden of the proposed dwelling and the resultant plot size and garden depth of 364 Hamilton Road would still be significantly below the Council's minimum space standards. The proposal is also considered to be out of keeping with surrounding plot densities in an area characterised with relatively large plots and rear gardens by modern standards.

212 213 This application is therefore recommended for refusal for the following reasons. It should be noted that an objector has requested a site visit and hearing while the applicant has requested a site visit if the Committee are minded to refusal the proposal.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposal is contrary to Policy HSG8 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001), which seeks to protect established character and residential amenity, as the curtilage of 364 Hamilton Road is too small to satisfactorily accommodate both the proposed dwelling and existing dwelling and as such, would result in inappropriate overdevelopment of an incongruous density out of keeping with the lower density which characterises the area, to the detriment of residential amenity.

2. That the proposal is contrary to policy HSG 11 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001), which assesses infill housing development in terms of the size of the site, its effect on garden space and the overall impact of a proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, as it would result in inappropriate over-development and the unacceptable loss of private garden ground for 364 Hamilton Road.

3. If approved, this application could set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments to the detriment of residential amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th March 2004 Accompanying letter from applicants Mr and Mrs Gray, 364 Hamilton Road dated 12th March 2004

Letter from The Coal Authority received 3rd March 2004

Letter from Miss Alexandria H Fraser, 362 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, ML1 3EG received 17th March 2004 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 15 Parkside Road, Motherwell, MLI 3DY received 23rd March 2004. Letter from L.F. Odber, 356 Hamilton Road, Motherwell received 24th March 2004. Additional letter from Miss Alexandria H. Fraser, 362 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, MLI 3EG received 2nd April 2004. Letter from J S Clarke, 358 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, MLI 3EG received 7th April 2004. Letter from James Mays, 360 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, ML1 3EG received 14th April 2004. Letter from Mrs J Baird, 17 Parkside Road, Motherwell, ML1 3DY received 14th April 2004.

The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams at 01698 302091.

214 APPLICATION NO. S1041004401FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks consent for the erection of a one and a half storey dwelling in the rear garden of 364 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, a one and a half storey semi-detached dwelling. The northwestern half of the application site, which bounds the gardens of 362 Hamilton Road and 6 Strathclyde Road is currently occupied by a large brick built garageloutbuilding which appears to be contemporary with the dwelling and was originally built to accommodate a commercial vehicle. The remainder of the site forms part of the rear garden of 364 Hamilton Road including vehicular access.

1.2 The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garageloutbuilding and form a house plot approximately 15.5 metres wide and construct a one and a half storey dwelling based in terms of elevational treatment, style and height on the applicants’ existing dwelling at 364 Hamilton Road. The proposed dwelling has roof ridge height of 6.5 metres and has two traditionally styled dormer windows to the front and one to the back. The proposed dwelling fronts onto Strathclyde Road in a traditional manner with separate vehicular access from the same road. The applicant proposes to provide 2 replacement parking spaces within that part of the sidelfront garden of 364 Hamilton road which fronts onto Strathclyde Road.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned for residential purposes in both the adopted Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan and in the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). Policy HSG 8 in the emerging Local Plan identifies the site as being within an Established Residential Area. This policy seeks to protect the character and residential amenity of the areas identified. Policy HSG 11, regarding infill housing development in the same local plan is also central to the assessment of the proposal. It has the same aims as Policy HSG 8 and assesses the detail of the proposed design in terms of scale, plot size and the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No objections were received as a result of the consultation process. 3.2 The Transportation Section of my department has expressed no objections to the proposal as both the proposed house plot and the resultant plot at 364 Hamilton Road will be capable of providing the required driveways in order to accommodate two cars. This is subject to the proviso that the existing 1.8 metre high wall and 2.1 metre gateposts are partially demolished to no more than 1.05 metres in order to ensure the required pedestrianlvehicular intervisibility.

3.3 A total of 7 letters of objection have been received from adjacent residents. The grounds of objection are as follows:-

0 Incongruous overdevelopment out of character with area to the detriment of residential amenity 0 The rear dormer of the proposed dwelling will overlook the gardens of 360 and 362 Hamilton Road 0 The proposed house will overshadow 360 and 362 Hamilton Road 0 The proposed dwelling will result in a loss of view of mature beech trees in Strathclyde park for some of the adjacent dwellings 0 The proposal would result in substandard car parking provision

215 3.4 It should be noted that an objector has requested a site visit and hearing while the applicant has requested a site visit if the Committee are minded to refuse the proposal.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Policies HSG 8, HSG 11 and the Council's minimum space standards for residential development are considered to be central to the assessment of this revised proposal. In particular, the effect on existing levels of residential amenity, the nature and design of the proposed dwelling and the resultant size of the proposed house plot and the reduced size of the rear garden of 364 Hamilton Road should be determining factors.

4.2 It is recognised that this revised proposal is an improvement in terms of the height and style of the proposed dwelling, which is based architecturally on the applicants' dwelling. Therefore in terms of elevational architecture and height, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. As a consequence of this, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would sit quite comfortably along the Strathclyde Road frontage.

4.3 The applicants have made the point that the demolition of the existing garage and outbuildings would be beneficial to surrounding residential amenity. This may be the case but it is not considered to be material to the consideration of this proposal as the outbuildings in question could be demolished and the ground returned to garden use at any time.

4.4 In terms of the points of objection, it is considered that the rear dormer on the proposed dwelling will not significantly affect the privacy of 360 and 362 Hamilton Road. Similarly, it is considered that both the aforementioned dwellings will not be significantly overshadowed by the proposed dwelling. This is because the proposed dwelling has a height of 6.5 metres, there is a distance of at least 8 metres from the proposed dwelling to the garden of no 362 and 12 metres minimum distance from the dwelling at 362 Hamilton Road. This allows for an adequate degree of separation and for neither privacy or overshadowing to be significant issues.

4.5 Furthermore, loss of view is not a material planning consideration and the proposed parking provision for both the proposed dwelling and the reduced plot of 364 Hamilton Road comply with council standards.

4.6 However in terms of garden sizes and resultant plot density, the proposed dwelling will have a rear garden depth of 8 metres, 2 metres below the minimum standard of 10 metres and more significantly, the resultant rear garden of 364 Hamilton Road would have a 6 metre depth. The current rear garden depth of 364 Hamilton road and all other similar dwellings that front in a northwesterly direction along Hamilton Road is approximately 22 metres. It is considered that the resultant garden depths and plot density for both dwellings would be sub-standard and significantly out of keeping in terms of the relatively large rear gardens which characterise the area.

4.7 For this reason, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the terms of Policy HSG8, as it would result in the over-development of the site, the loss of private garden ground for 364 Hamilton Road and a high density plot development out of keeping with the densities in the surrounding residential area. It is considered that the combined effect of the above would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding established residential area.

4.8 The proposal is also considered to be contrary to the aims of policy HSGI 1, which seeks to protect the established character of residential areas from inappropriate infill development. This is because it is considered that it would result in an inappropriate over-development of a site that is too small and also result in the unacceptable loss of private garden ground relating to 364 Hamilton Road. It is therefore considered that the objections on the grounds of overdevelopment incongruous to the character of the area to the detriment of residential amenity are valid.

216 4.9 The applicants have provided information regarding the resultant areas of rear garden that would be achieved and it is recognised that they comply with the Council’s standards, both achieving over the minimum of 100 square metres required for plots of this size. However, the resultant rear garden depths and plot densities would be out of keeping with the surrounding area to the detriment of the character and amenity of the area. This was a point made by Scottish Executive Inquiry reporter when dismissing the appeal for the previous proposal, which had larger rear garden depths than this revised proposal :- ‘I further consider that the size of the plots formed, as a result of the sub-division of the existing garden area, would be significantly smaller than those adjacent, and that this combined with the dwellinghouse would materially and detrimentally affect the prevailing feeling of space which is characteristic of the vicinity’.

4.10 Therefore, for the above reasons, this application is recommended for refusal. The applicants have requested a site visit if the Committee is minded to refuse the application.

217