North Lanarkshire Council

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

Plann i ng Ap pl icat ions for cons iderat ion of Planning and Environment Committee

Committee Date : 29th November 2006

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

44 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 2gth November 2006

Page Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation No 48 N/06/00655/REM David Gordon Development of Grant Roadside Facilities (Incorporating Hotel, Drive Through Restaurant Pub/Restaurant & 24 Hour Petrol Filling Station) and Replacement Sports Provision Gartcosh / M73 Link Road Gartcosh

60 N/06/01707/FUL Chris Conner Siting of a Snack Van Grant (in retrospect) Tryst Car Park Tryst Road Town Centre Cumbernauld

65 N/06/01725/AMD Mr Ralph Kelly Erection of Two Radio Grant Antenna (in retrospect) Request for 16 St Ives Road Site Visit Moodiesburn and Hearing

71 N/06/01727/FUL British Waterways Change of Use from Grant Scotland Commercial/Leisure Moorings to Four Residential Moorings Auchinstarry Basin Kilsyth

75 C/05/01864/OUT Mr John McDonald Residential Refuse Development (In Request for Site Outline) at 13 Old Visit and Hearing Mon kland Road Coatbridge

82 C/06/01357/FUL Mr Hughes Two Storey Side Grant Extension to Request for Site Dwellinghouse at Visit and Hearing 2 Locher Walk Coatbridge

45 87 C/06/01551/FU L Mr & Mrs Kelly Erection of Single Grant Storey Extension to Request for Site Rear of Dwellinghouse Visit at 17 Brandon Way Coatbridge

93 C/06/01567/FUL Peter and Ellen Erection of Pitched Grant Fancourt Roof Garage to Side of Dwellinghouse at 21 Dundrennan Drive Chapelhall

98 C/06/01770/FUL Gary McFaulds Erection of Decking (In Grant Retrospect) to the Rear Request for Site of 91 Sherdale Avenue Visit and Hearing Chapelhall Airdrie

103 C/06/01170/FUL Mr G Graham Part Use of Repair Refuse Garage (7 Woodhall Street) for Car Sales and the Change of Use of Domestic Garden (1 1 Woodhall Street Chapelhall) (In Retrospect) and Public Open Space to Car Parking for Repair Garage

108 S/06/00136/FUL M&D Leisure Erection of Extension to Grant Hotel Comprising 42 No. Bedrooms, 3 No. Suites, Ballroom, Offices and Staff Accommodation Hotel at Scotlands Theme Park Strathclyde Park Hamilton Road MotherwelI

118 S/06/01116/FUL Mr F Coleman Proposed Conversion Grant and Extension of Existing Outbuilding to Form one Detached Dwelling Penty Farm, Muiredge and Jersey Road, Murdostoun By Cleland

126 S/06/01191/OUT Mr S Wightman Erection of Two Refuse Dwellinghouses (in Outline) Land at 77 Kirklee Road, Bellshill

46 133 S/06/01574/FUL John Gallacher Integral Garage Refuse Conversion 59 Saffron Crescent Netherton, Wishaw

138 S/06/01584/FUL Saveco Properties Change of Use from Refuse Betting Shop to Hot Request for Food Takeaway Hearing 199 Main Street Wishaw

144 S/06/01642/FUL C & G Homes Erection of One and a Refuse (Scotland Ltd) Half Storey Dwellinghouse Land To South of 51 Cameron Street, Motherwell

150 S/06/01649/FUL Marinos Demetriou Erection of Domestic Grant Wind Turbine 18 Dalveen Drive Uddingston

155 S/06/01670/FUL Pars Properties Ltd Change of Use From Grant Class 1 to Class 2 or Class 3 or Hot Food Take Away 269 Main Street Bellshill

160 S/06/01676/FUL Salvatore Fileccia Sub-division of Existing Grant Hot-Food Takeaway to Create Two Hot-Food Takeaway Units 62 Carfin Road Newarthill

166 S/06/0 17 17/F UL Mrs Patricia Hardie Siting of a Snack Van Grant (Renewal of Consent S/03/0 1289/F UL) Land to West of 53 Waverley Drive Wishaw

47 Application No: N/06/00655/REM

Date Registered: 12th April 2006

Applicant: David Gordon C/o Windsave Ltd 10 Lambhill Quadrant Milnbank Trading Estate Glasgow G41 1SB

Agent Capita Percy Thomas Skypark Elliot Place Glasgow G3 8EP

Development: Development of Roadside Facilities (Incorporating Hotel, Drive Through Restaurant, Pub/Restaurant & 24 Hour Petrol Filling Station) and Replacement Sports Provision.

Location: Sites to the North and South of Woodneuk Avenue / M73 Link Road Gartcosh

Ward: 68 Moodiesburn West and Gartcosh Councillor Joseph Shaw

Grid Reference: 2701 93 668490

File Reference: N/06/00655/REM

Site History: 0 TP/92/363: Residential development (in outline), granted 22nd March 1993 0 NVTP/95/105: Construction of 62 dwellings, granted 22nd August 1995 0 N/00/00292/FUL: Change of use of vacant land to landscaped extension to bowling club, granted 11th April 2000 0 N/00/01382/OUT: Roadside Services, withdrawn 25th September 2001 0 N/01/01679/OUT: Development of Roadside Facilities, granted 8'h August 2002. 0 N/05/00851/FUL: Renewal of consent for Roadside Facilities, granted 17'h August 2005

Development Plan: In terms of the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005, the roadside services part of the site is zoned for leisure and recreation (Policy LRl), part of the site to the rear of the Social Club is zoned for housing (Policy HG1/9) and the remainder of the site is zoned as being within an established residential area (Policy HG3)

Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, Strategic Policy 4, Strategic Policy 5, Strategic Policy 9 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000

48

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (No objection) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Objection) Transport Scotland (No response) Scottish Water (No Objection) British Gas (No objection) Scottish Power (No objection) sportscot Iand (No objection)

Representations: 6 letters of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 3rdMay 2006

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started not later than two years from the date of this permission.

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

2. That prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Management Plan shall include the following elements:-

1. Details of the measures to be taken to suppress noise, mud, dust and vibration during the construction process. 2. Details of the measures to be taken on site to control surface water run off during the construction works. 3. Details of the working days and hours to be adopted at the site 4. Details of the delivery times to be adopted at the site 5. Details of the location of soil storage mounds 6. Details of the location of the site compound and storage areas 7. Details of the location of staff car parking a. Measures to protect watercourses adjacent to the site from pollution and subsidence. These measures should take account of SEPAs Pollution Prevention Guideline 6 on ‘Working at Construction and Demolition Sites’ which is available from SEPAs website.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in a manner that minimises the impact on road users, neighbouring residents and the natural environment, and in the general interests of road safety.

3. That upon commencement of works on site, the plan approved under the terms of Condition 2 above shall be implemented and thereafter the unloading of all vehicles and materials and storage of materials shall take place within the application site.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in a manner that minimises the impact on road users, neighbouring residents and the natural environment, and in the general interests of road safety

50 4. That prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, written confirmation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority from Scottish Water confirming that the site can be provided with an acceptable foul sewerage and water supply system.

Reason: Given known constraint issues in Scottish Water’s network and to satisfy the Planning Authority that the proposed development can be provided with an acceptable sewerage and water supply system.

5. That notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a revised surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. For the avoidance of doubt, the revised scheme will address SEPAs concerns as detailed in their letter of 19 July 2006 to the applicant’s consulting engineers McLay Collier and include full details on the maintenance of the SUDS system.

Reason: To ensure that the surface water is dealt with in accordance with the principles of sustainable urban drainage and in the interests of the environment.

6. That the revised SUDS scheme as approved under the terms of Condition 5 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans and thereafter the system shall be maintained in accordance with the details agreed under the terms of Condition 5 above.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity.

7. That notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans a detailed landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall include the following elements:

1. Details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; 2. A scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; 3. 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 4. Details of the phasing of these works 5. Details of all fences and walls to be erected within and along the boundaries of the site 6. Details of any entrance feature to the roadside services part of the site

In addition to the above, the scheme shall also detail the following:

7. The planting to be carried out to replace that planting which will be lost when the new pitch is formed 8. The planting and any earthworks within the 20 metre buffer zone to be formed adjacent to the existing housing 9. The planting to be carried out within the roadside services part of the site 10. The planting to be carried out along the eastern boundary of the roadside services part of the site 11. The planting to be carried out alongside the footpath along the eastern boundary of the social club part of the site 12. All planting shall be carried out using native tree and plant species which are characteristic to the local area

51 13. Screening should be designed to provide extensions to existing wooded areas, rather than isolated blocks of vegetation. 14. That for every tree felled two new trees shall be planted

Reason: To ensure that appropriate landscaping is carried out to minimise the impact of the proposed development

8. That within one year of the implementation of the planning permission, all fencing, walls, planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of Condition 7 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 appropriate landscaping is carried out to minimise the impact of the proposed development

9. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:-

(a) the footpaths detailed on the approved plans; (b) the parking areas detailed on the approved plans; (c) the grassed, planted and landscaped areas shown on the approved plans; (d) all fences to be erected within, and along the boundaries of the application site (including any acoustic fences that may be required).

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to ensure that all private landscaped areas, footpaths, parking areas and fencing are properly maintained.

10. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of Condition 9 shall be in operation.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to ensure that all private landscaped areas, footpaths, parking areas and fencing are properly maintained

11. That before the development hereby permitted starts revised details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in relation to the following:

a) details of the phasing of the works to form the pitches b) details of the timescales within which the pitches will be fully playable c) details of the aftercare management regimes to be adopted to ensure that both pitches become established.

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

12. That before a start is made on the construction of the access, internal roads and parking areas or any of the buildings within the roadside service part of the site, the pitch and the multi-purpose training pitch shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans (including the erection of the fences) and thereafter maintained in accordance with the details approved under the terms of Condition 11 above.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed pitches are in place prior to a start being made on the construction of the service area

52 13. That before the development hereby permitted starts, the mitigation measures detailed in section 5 of the badger and bat survey report prepared by WSP Environmental UK shall be implemented including the reassessment of the site for the presence of badgers.

Reason: To minimise the risk to any protected species

14. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority detailing the noise mitigation measures that are to be adopted in relation to the external plant, delivery yards and noise from the buildings and associated outdoor areas. The measures shall be based on the findings identified in Section 6 of the report by WSP Acoustics or as may otherwise be agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with NLC Protective Services.

Reason: To minimise the noise impact of the proposed development on adjacent residential properties

15. That none of the buildings hereby permitted shall be brought into use until the noise mitigation measures agreed under the terms of Condition 14 above have been implemented.

Reason: To minimise the noise impact of the proposed development on adjacent residential properties

16. That before any of the buildings within the development hereby permitted are brought into use all the footpaths (including the external foot path links and improvements), 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. The parking areas shall be clearly marked out and thereafter, the parking the manoeuvring areas shall be maintained as such. Similarly, and internal footpaths and external footpath links shall be retained.

Reason: To ensure that in the interests of pedestrian and road safety that the development has suitable parking, manoeuvring areas and footpaths

17. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority detailing the proposed lighting scheme for the roadside services part of the development and, for the avoidance of doubt, this scheme shall cover the numbers, location and heights any lighting poles, any lighting schemes associated with the buildings and the proposed degree of illumination.

Reason: To allow consideration of these matters in detail

18. That any lighting installed at the site shall comply with the scheme approved under the terms of Condition 17 above.

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

19. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, no free standing signs, fascia signs, adverts or projecting signs shall be erected within the site or on any of the buildings.

Reason: To allow detailed consideration of the manner in which the site and buildings within the site are signed

20. That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the fast food outlet shall be used solely as such and no changes to Class 1 or 2 shall be permissible without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

53 Reason: To retain control over future changes in use

21. That, notwithstanding the provisions of Class 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997, the restaurant shall be used solely as such and no changes to Class 1 or 2 shall be permissible without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To retain control over future changes in use

22. That the hotel hereby permitted shall be used as a hotel and for no other purposes (including any other purpose in Class 7 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.

Reason: To retain control over future changes in use

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th April 2006

Memo from NLC Local Plans Section received 27th April 2006 Memo from NLC Traffic and Transportation (Northern Area) received 9th May 2006 Memos from NLC Protective Services received 5th May & 17th May 2006 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 5th May 2006 Letters from Scottish Water received 27th April and 16th November 2006 Letter from British Gas received 2nd May 2006 Letter from Scottish Power received 17th May 2006 Letter from SportScotland received 9th May 2006 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 26 May 2006

Letter from Mr Patrick Giblin, 1 Beech Grove, Gartcosh, G69 8JB received 24th April 2006. Letter from James McAlonan MCMl MMS, 19 Beard Crescent, Gartcosh, Glasgow, G69 8AU received 24th April 2006. Letter from Elizabeth J Wilson & lan Wilson, 9 Croftfoot Place, Gartcosh, Glasgow, G69 8EG received 16th May 2006. Letter from Mr P Giblin, 5 Beech Grove, Gartcosh, G69 8JB received 10th October 2006. Letter from James McAlonan MCMl MMS, 19 Beard Crescent, Gartcosh, Glasgow, G69 8AU received 12th October 2006. Letter from Ms J Gardner, 44 Kirkhill Road, Gartcosh, G69 8AJ received 16th October 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graeme Lee at 01236 61 6474.

DATE : 20thNovember 2006

54 APPLICATION NO. N/06/00655/REM

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application site lies on the eastern edge of the village of Gartcosh and is in two parts : to the north and south of Woodneuk Avenue. To the north, the site relates to the existing Social Club Football Pitch, and to the south, the land to the side and rear of the Social Club Pavilion. Existing residential properties are located along the western boundary of the application site. There are further residential properties to the north of the site i.e. beyond the existing football pitch. These properties are separated from the site by Johnston Road and an area of open agricultural ground. The M73 junction slip roads and roundabout define the western boundary of the Social Club part of the site and the southern boundary of the roadside services part of the site. Agricultural land lies to the east and north of the proposed service area part of the site.

1.2 This is a reserved matters application and includes information specified by the outline planning consent in relation to the formation of a roadside service area and the replacement and upgrade of the Social Club's football pitches. A new pitch and a training pitch will be provided on ground to the rear and side of the Social Club Building. The service area, to the north of Woodneuk Avenue, will contain :- 0 A 50 bed Hotel, 0 A Drive Through Restaurant, 0 A Pub / Restaurant, 0 A 24 Hour Petrol Filling Station, and 0 An area for lorry parking. To minimise the impact of the proposed service area on the residential properties on Lochside and Blades Court, a landscape buffer of 20 metres minimum depth is proposed. Access to the roadside services will be direct from the roundabout of the M73 junction.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The Development Plan is comprised of the Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005 and The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan, 2000.

2.2 The Structure Plan identifies the former Gartcosh steel works site as a strategic development priority, an urban renewal area, a core economic development area, a national safeguarded investment location and a strategic industrial and business location. In addition, Gartcosh is also identified as being a location which presents an opportunity for a motorway services area on the M73 (Strategic Polices 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10).

2.3 In the Local Plan, the existing football pitch is zoned for leisure and recreation and as such is covered by (Policy LRl). The outline planning consent approved the use of this part of the site for roadside services. To reflect a 1995 planning permission for housing to the rear of the Social Club, the plan identifies a small housing site (for 16 houses) and this is covered by Policy HG1/9. The M73 junction reduced the size of the potential site for housing and the outline consent approved the use of this land to provide a full sized replacement football pitch. The remainder of the site is zoned as being within an established residential area and is covered by Policy HG3. The outline consent approved the use of this part of the site for a training pitch.

3. Plannina Historv

3.1 In 1995 planning permission (now lapsed) was granted for the erection of 62 houses on land to the rear of the Social Club. The permission was not implemented and as a result of M73

55 junction the site was reduced in size. Nevertheless, this smaller site (for 16 houses) remains a housing allocation in the local plan.

3.2 In November 2000, a roadside services development was proposed, although this application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. The application site had only a small amount of overlap with the current application site (the eastern end of the existing football pitch).

3.3 In August 2002 outline planning consent was granted for the Development of Roadside Facilities (Incorporating Hotel, Drive Through Restaurant, Pub / Restaurant and 24 Hour Petrol Filling Station) and Replacement Sports Provision.

3.4 In August 2005 the outline consent was effectively renewed, and required that the reserved matters be submitted by 18‘h May 2006. The reserved matters submission was registered on 12‘h April 2006.

4. Consultations and Rewesentations

4.1 Scottish Water initially advised that they formally objected to the proposed development because of known constraint issues in this area related to both the water supply and sewer networks. However, in a follow up letter of 16 November 2006, Scottish Water advise that as a result of their current investment programme to increase capacity in their Water and Waste Water Treatment Works they no longer object. They do however advise that they cannot guarantee the applicant connection to their network. Sustainable Urban Drainage is recommended for the treatment of surface water.

Comment : Even although Scottish Water is no longer objecting to this planning application a condition will be attached to this permission stating that no works can commence on site unless and until Scottish Water has indicated that it is satisfied that the development could be accommodated.

4.2 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency also object to the development on the basis of the constraint issues connected with Scottish Water’s network unless the applicant can demonstrate that the development can be accommodated. SEPA also offer comments related to the SUDS scheme, pollution prevention and waste.

Comment : As indicated above, the constraint issues can be addressed by a planning condition. Conditions can also be attached in relation to pollution control and prevention during the construction works and revising the SUDS scheme.

4.3 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has no objections to the proposed development and provide detailed comments in relation to the applicant’s habitat survey, the design of the SUDS pond and landscaping proposals. SNH also advise that the applicant should still be required to comply with the planning conditions and mitigation measures required at the outline application stage.

Comment : SNH’s interests will be covered by planning conditions.

4.4 sporlscotland has no objections to the proposed development on the basis that the replacement sports provision will result in improved provision provided that the replacement pitches are formed before the development of the roadside facilities.

Comment : The replacement pitches will be created in advance of any works to form the roadside facilities and this was covered in the outline planning permission.

4.5 My Traffic and Transportation Section has no objections but recommended changes to the layout and improved footpath links between the site and the existing housing.

56 Comment: Changes have been made to the layout and improved foot path links secured. The improvement to the footpath links resulted in a change to the submitted plans (a new footpath link is to be created between the site and the top end of Blades Court) and this was adjudged to be significant enough to warrant a further period of public consultation - neighbour notification was carried out on 3" October 2006.

4.6 My Protective Services Section request that a site investigation and noise assessment be carried out.

Comment: There was no requirement at the outline planning stage for a site investigation so it is not possible to ask for one to be carried out at the reserved matters stage. There was a noise assessment carried out at the outline stage based on an indicative layout. There are some differences between that layout and the layout now being proposed, so a revised noise assessment has been provided at my request. This concludes that noise will not be an issue so long as certain mitigation measures are taken. These can be covered by the imposition of a planning condition. Protective Services has confirmed that the conclusions of the report are acceptable and proposed mitigation to be satisfactory.

4.7 NLC Community Services has no objection and advises that the landscape scheme should be extended to include the eastern boundary of the roadside services site: that full landscape details are required; that the landscaping scheme should be devised to encourage biodiversity and that the replacement pitches are to an acceptable standard.

Comment : A planning condition will be imposed to require the submission of full landscaping details

4.8 Six letters of representation have been received (three of which were received following a further notification on 3rdOctober 2006 arising from a change to the layout to improve footpath links between the site and the existing houses) the points made are summarised below, along with my comments:

0 The proposed development is contrary to the Local Plan. 0 There is no need for a development of this type at Gartcosh. 0 The proposed replacement pitches are on land currently allocated for housing. 0 Adverse impact of the development on the village.

Comment : This is a reserved matters application. The outline consent established the principle of the development.

0 Traffic and unsuitable local road network

Comment : As indicated above, this is a reserved matters application. At the outline application stage, the implications of the development on the local roads network was fully considered and the issuing of the outline consent established the principle of the development.

0 In view of the width of local roads and problems with on street parking the access to the social club should be repositioned and access taken from the main road close to the new junction.

Comment : This was not considered to be necessary. In any event, it would not be possible to locate an access in this position. Firstly, any access on the eastern side of the Social Club building would be too close to the new roundabout. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to take such a direct access from a distributor road. Finally, the outline planning permission requires the

57 upgrading of the football facilities and a new training pitch is to be formed to the side of Social Club building.

0 The applicant should have distributed plans to all of the surrounding houses as not everyone reads the Kirkintilloch Herald. The fact that the applicant was not able to notify all owners of land around the site is questioned.

Comment : The objector lives in Croftfoot Place and as this street does not bound the application site he was not required to be notified of the application. I can confirm that the applicant attempted to notify all those required by legislation. However, in this case the applicant was not able to able to identify the owners of the field immediately to the north of the roadside services part of the application site. In accordance with the legislation, this fact was advertised in the local press. In addition, the application was advertised as a potential ‘bad neighbour’ because a public house is included as part of the development. The Kirkintilloch Herald is always used for adverts for developments in Gartcosh.

0 When the Social Club next runs out of money the new pitches will be sold for housing and this would be allowed in the Local Plan.

Comment : If the development proceeds and the football pitches are formed to the rear of the social club then it would be against national policy to build on these pitches, unless suitable alternative provision can be made. It is not clear that the Social Club would be able to provide suitable replacement pitches.

0 The construction work will have an adverse impact on the village.

Comment; It is likely that during the construction phase local residents could experience a loss of amenity, but this would be temporary. A planning condition will be imposed to require the developer to submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan that will address the construction phase of the development.

6. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

6.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. When the outline application was considered, I was satisfied that the proposed development justified a departure from with the policies contained in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005. As a significant departure, the application was referred to the Scottish Ministers who did not call in the application, but advised that the Council could issue the planning permission. The outline consent therefore establishes the principle of the development. Accordingly, my considerations are now limited to whether or not the submitted ‘reserved matters’ comply with the conditions imposed on the outline planning consent.

6.2 The proposed development is for a layout that is similar to that detailed on the indicative layout considered in connection with the outline planning application. The design that has been produced for each of the buildings is acceptable and combined with the landscaping should result in an attractive development. The development will result in a change to the outlook of the existing residents on Lochside and Blades Court, but the intervening 20 metre wide landscape buffer zone should ensure that any loss of amenity is minimised. It is proposed that within this zone, the ground levels will be altered to form a bund approximately 2.5 metre high, the planting will then be carried out on top.

6.3 There are still some matters that require to be addressed by the applicant and these can be addressed by planning conditions, namely :-

58 0 The submission of a detailed landscape scheme, 0 Details of fencing within the roadside services part of the site, 0 Verification , from the applicant that Scottish Water and SEPA are satisfied that the site can be connected to the water and waste water networks, 0 Revisions to the SUDS scheme, 0 Revised details in relation to the phasing of the works to form the pitches, timescales as to when the pitches will be playable and details of the aftercare scheme, 0 Details of all external lighting to be used within the services area and details of all external plant to be installed on the buildings within the roadside services part of the site.

6.4 Notwithstanding the objections received, I am satisfied the reserved matters submission complies with the terms of the outline planning consent and it is recommended that they be approved.

59 Application No: N/06/01707/FUL

Date Registered: 12th October 2006

Applicant: Chris Conner 80 Glenhove Road Cum bernauld G67 252

Development: Siting of a Snack Van (in retrospect)

Location: Tryst Car Park Tryst Road Town Centre Cumbernauld

Ward: 60 Carbrain East Councillor William Homer

Grid Reference: 276343 67131 8

File Reference: N/06/01707/FUL

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993: Policy SH1 (Shopping Centres) applies.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: One letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised as a potential bad neighbour development on 25 October 2006 in the Cumbernald News

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire on 1 May 2007.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to re-assess the permission once construction is complete on the Town Centre extension and it is open to the public.

That the snack van hereby permitted and associated vehicles shall not utilise more than 2 parking spaces.

Reason: To ensure that the permission does not result in the use of more parking spaces than necessary, in the interests of the other users of the car park.

That there shall be no remote signage advertising the snack van.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area by preventing obtrusive detached signage.

60 61 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th October 2006 Verbal response from Traffic & Transportation (Northern Area) on 6 November 2006.

Letter from Arron Barnes, Business Development Manager, Honeywell Gent Service received 1 November 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 61 6464.

DATE : 20thNovember 2006

62 APPLICATION NO. N/06/01707/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This is a retrospective application for a mobile snack van in the Tryst Road car park. The snack van was originally positioned at the north side of the car park, east of Fleming House and in close proximity to the roundabout.

1.2 In view of the ongoing refurbishment of the town centre car parks associated with the Antonine Centre, the position of the snack van could vary depending on the contractor’s schedule.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against local plan policies.

2.2 In the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the application site lies within a defined Shopping Centre area where policy SH1 (Shopping Centres) applies.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Section have been consulted on this application and have no objections.

3.2 As a result of the press advertisement, one letter of representation have been received. The following issues were raised:

The van uses up several parking spaces in a car park which is already at full capacity.

Comment: My Traffic and Transportation Section have not objected to the snack van and have no concerns regarding the temporary loss of two parking spaces. It should be noted that the car park is in private ownership.

The snack van is taking business away from surrounding eatery establishments such as the Tryst cafe and Asda’s cafe.

Comment: It is not the role of the Planning Authority to prevent competition, as such this should not be taken into consideration when determining this application.

The smell of stale grease emanates from the snack van

Comment: Unavoidably there will be some cooking odours, especially if in close proximity to the snack van. However, the closest public buildings to the snack van are the Tryst Sports Centre where the entrance is approximately 116 metres away and Fleming House where the entrance is approximately 86 metres away. It is not considered that cooking odours would justify refusing planning permission.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning applications must be determined In accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal is not contrary to policy SH1 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 2005.

63 4.2 Snack vans are a common feature in areas where major developments are taking place such as the extension to the town centre as they provide a service for workers in the area. It is considered that the snack van is acceptable in its existing location.

4.3 Notwithstanding the letters of representations received, It has been concluded that, in this case, there are no road safety or amenity issues surrounding the application. Accordingly, I recommend that planning permission be granted temporarily, this will allow the Planning Authority to reassess the suitability of a snack van in this location once the development of the town centre is complete.

64 Application No: N/06/01725/AMD

Date Registered: 17th October 2006

Applicant: Mr Ralph Kelly 16 St Ives Road Moodiesburn

Development: Modified Radio Mast/ Antenna and Pole Antenna (in retrospect)

Location: 16 St Ives Road Mood iesburn

Ward: 68 Moodiesburn West and Gartcosh : Councillor Joseph Shaw

Grid Reference: 269580 671035

File Reference: N/06/01725/AMD

Site History: N/05/00002/FUL : Erection of Two Amateur Radio Antennas (In Retrospect) - Granted in March 2005

Development Plan: The site is covered by a Retention of Residential Amenity policy in the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: One petition with 24 names and addresses and 2 representation letters Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That this permission is for a maximum of two radio ground mounted masts / antennas consisting of a retractable mast / antenna and a vertical pole antenna with the following maximum dimensions:

a) Retractable Mast/ Antenna Maximum height in raised position: 14 metres, Maximum height in lowered position: 7.5 metres, Maximum antenna width: 5.5 metres.

b) Vertical Pole Antenna Maximum height: 10 metres

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a balance between respecting the local residential environment and allowing enjoyment of amateur radio activities.

65 * Representations

66 2. That the retractable mast and antenna shall be kept in the lowered position when not in use; in any event the retractable mast and antenna shall not be left in the raised position for more than three days at any one time.

Reason: To ensure a balance between respecting the local residential environment and allowing enjoyment of amateur radio activities.

3. That in the event that either the retractable mast and antenna or the ground mounted vertical pole antenna becomes redundant it must be removed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of becoming redundant.

Reason: To ensure a balance between respecting the local residential environment and allowing enjoyment of amateur radio activities.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th October 2006

Petition received on 26'h October 2006, signed by :- M Poggi, C. Poggie, G. Poggie & G. Poggie, 39 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, G69 OPD M Shaw, 24 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn S Moreland & M. Thomson, 44 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn Mrs Smith, 42 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn Miss S Hughan & Mr. E Coupland, 35 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn E Dixon & D Dixon, 31 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn C Keith, 14 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn M Doolan, 8 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn M Marinovic, 10 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn J Kennedy, 37 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn R Hughan, 35 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn C Loudon & D Loudon, 41 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn A McMeechan & W McMeechan, 43 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn Owner/Occupier, 40 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn

Letter from Margaret Poggi, 39 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, G69 OPD received 2nd November 2006. Letter from C Keith, 14 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, G69 OPE received 2nd November 2006.

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

DATE : 20thNovember 2006

67 APPLICATION NO. N/06/01725/AMD

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application (in retrospect) is for an amendment to the existing permission for an amateur radio mastlantenna and secondary antenna at 16 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn.

1.2 Planning permission was granted in March 2005 for a 12 metres high fixed mast and antenna and for an 8.5 metres high single pole antenna. The current application is to cover existing changes to the main mastlantenna and to allow for future limited changes. It has been requested that any planning permission allow for future minor experimental changes.

1.3 The main mast with antenna is now a retractable type, which is 13 metres high in the raised position and 6.5 metres high in the lowered position. The antenna has 5.5 metres wide elements. A secondary 10 metres high ground-mounted vertical pole antenna is attached to a garden tree. Both the main mastlantenna and the secondary antenna are within the rear garden of the applicant’s semi-detached dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposed development is not significant enough to be considered under the terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, and can be assessed under Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005 identifies the site as follows:

0 HG3: Retention of residential amenity. This policy seeks to protect the residential character of existing housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were necessary for consideration of this application.

3.2 A petition with 24 names and addresses has been submitted objecting to the application. In addition, 2 objectors have written separately seeking a site visit and hearing and amplifying the areas of concern.

3.3 Points of objection and comments are as follows:

0 The mast and antennas are unsightly and adversely affect the local residential amenity. The main mast is over-high and over-large and adversely affects views of the countryside and the Campsies.

Comments: The main mastlantenna is large and somewhat obtrusive. It is not, however, so detrimental to the local residential amenity to warrant the refusal of planning permission. The mast and antennas are seen in the context of a large number of raised television roof mounted aerials and of dwellinghouses on raised land to the rear of the application site.

The current main mastlantenna has advantages and disadvantages over that approved in March 2005. The antenna’s horizontal elements are wider than that previously approved and, when raised, the main mastlantenna is 1 metre higher than the previous approval. The

68 applicant seeks approval for a maximum height 2 metres greater than that previously approved in order to allow for future experimentation. It is noted that although this maximum elevation is significantly higher than the roof ridge of the applicant’s dwellinghouse, it is roughly level with the ridge level of the rear houses at Penzance Way. The current masvantenna has the advantage of mainly being in the down position, such that it is 5.5 metres lower (4.5 metres lower with the potential larger antenna) than the previously approved apparatus. At this lowered height the masvantenna is no higher than the roof ridge levels of the St Ives Road dwellinghouses. The applicant has stated that the main masvantenna will remain in the down position except when in use or on standby during occasional amateur radio competitions. This is backed by a recommended planning condition.

The secondary vertical pole antenna is 2 metres higher than that previously approved. It has, however, no significant effect on the residential environment as it is largely masked by an existing tree. Its slim profile means that it has no greater visual effect than the many protruding roof television aerials.

0 Radio activity causes interference with neighbours’ radios and electrical devices.

Comments: This is not a planning matter. OFCOM (Office of Communications) is the regulatory body for ensuring that there is no interference from radio activities to other equipment. The applicant has confirmed that he has a radio communications licence from OFCOM and that this requires him to solve any interference problems that are brought to his attention. He states that no such problems have been notified to him.

0 There are health and safety implications for neighbours. The mast may topple over in high winds and there may be health risks from radio waves.

Comments: This is not a planning matter. There is no reason to believe that related radio waves have any adverse effect on human health. It was not obvious from the site visit that there is any danger of the main mastlantenna and from the secondary antenna falling over and causing damage or injury to adjacent property and neighbours. If this was, however, to happen, it would be a legal matter between the relevant parties.

0 The radio masvantennas reduce the value of local houses.

Comments: Property values are not a planning matter, although underlying causes may be. Relevant issues are covered above.

There should be a Committee site visit and hearing prior to a decision being reached.

Comments: This request will be considered by the Committee in the usual way.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 All planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Local Plan presumes against developments that are incompatible with the established residential environment. For reasons detailed in this report it is not considered that the radio apparatus is contrary to the terms of the Local Plan.

4.2 The key issues are :-

a) whether the change from the previously approved masvantennas create an increased adverse effect on the local residential environment and b) if so, whether this renders the apparatus unacceptable.

69 4.3 Although the main masvantenna is significantly different from that previously approved, it is considered that there is no overall worsening of the local residential environment. The greater obtrusiveness when in the raised position is balanced by the lesser impact when in the default lowered position. When raised, the main masvantenna is clearly noticeable, but is seen against a proliferation of extended television roof aerials and against a background of dwellinghouses on raised ground at Penzance Way to the rear of the application site.

4.4 Taking account of the above, it is considered that the amended masvantenna and secondary antenna are an acceptable corollary of the applicant’s radio telecommunications leisure pursuit. This is notwithstanding the concerns of local residents.

4.5 It is recommended that planning permission be granted for the amended radio telecommunications apparatus, with a small degree of flexibility built in to allow for future experimentation.

4.6 Note that two of the neighbours (M. Poggie of 39 Penzance Way and C. Keith of 14 St. Ives Road) have requested that the Committee carry out a site visit and hearing prior to determining this planning application.

70 Application No: N/06/0 1727/F UL

Date Registered: 16th October 2006

Ap pI i can t : British Waterways Scotland Applecross House Applecross Street Glasgow G4 9SP

Development: Change of Use from CommerciaVLeisure Moorings to Four Residential Moorings

Location: Auchinstarry Basin Auchinstarry Road Kilsyth G65 9SG

Ward: 64 Croy and Kilsyth South and Smithstc : Councillor Francis Griffin

Grid Reference: 2721 50 676764

File Reference: N/06/01727/FUL

Site History: N/02/01607/FUL : Construction of Access Road, Footpath and Car Parking - granted January 2003. N/04/00880/FUL : Part Change of Use of Canal Basin to Residential Moorings - granted July 2004 N/05/02072/FUL : Construction of a Public House/Restaurantand Travel Lodge - granted March 2006

Development Plan: The site is covered by Green Belt Policies in the adopted Kilsyth Local Plan 1999

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Water (No Objection) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No Response) Representations: One representation letter.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 2!jth October 2006

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.

71 Residential Moorings

72 2. That drainage arrangements for the four residential moorings shall be to the full satisfaction of Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and public health.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 16th October 2006 Letter from British Waterways Scotland dated lothOctober 2006

Memo from Traffic & Transportation Team Leader (Northern Area) received 2nd November 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 24th October 2006

E-mail from Councillor G. Murray dated 26'h October 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alan Graham at 01 236 616394.

Date: 20thNovember 2006

73 APP LICAT1 ON NO. N/06/01727/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application seeks consent for change of use from comrnerciaVleisure moorings to four residential moorings at Auchinstarry Basin, Kilsyth. The site is situated in the Forth and Clyde Canal, east of Auchinstarry Basin adjacent to a modern boardwalk and public footpath.

1.2 Planning permission was granted in July 2004 for a similar application for part change of use of canal basin to 4 residential moorings at Auchinstarry Basin. 2. Development Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues in terms of The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 Within the adopted Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, the application site is located within an area covered by Green Belt Policies 1-4 and 6. Policy GB1 states that the Green Belt will be maintained. Policy GB2 states there will be presumption against new development in the Green Belt unless required for appropriate countryside recreation and tourism dependent upon a country side location. Policy GB3 states there will be a presumption against residential development in the Green Belt. Policy GB4 states there will be a presumption in favour of the restoration and renovation of existing redundant buildings and Policy GB6 states that proposals for the extension of existing residential, industrial or commercial premises shall only be given favourable consideration when the proposals are small in scale.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 Scottish Water and my Transportation Section have no objections to the proposed change of use. The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency did not respond.

3.2 Councillor Gordon Murray has requested that the application be determined by the Planning & Environment Committee.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 Whilst it is accepted that the proposal is contrary to Green Belt Policy GB3, the specific nature of the application must be taken into consideration. This includes the fact that the application does not propose additional moorings at the basin but a change of use of water space from existing commercial/leisure moorings to four residential moorings. The application aims to make a contribution towards encouraging and facilitating public access to the Canal network and increasing the number of boaters whilst achieving a balanced mix of uses at Auchinstarry Basin. This mix of residential and leisure craft will result in continuous activity, which will help invigorate the Basin area and will provide additional security.

4.3 Having taken account of all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for a change of use from commerciaVleisure moorings to four residential moorings at Auchinstarry Basin, Kilsyth.

74 Application No: C/05/01864/0UT

Date Registered: 17th November 2005

Applicant: Mr John McDonald Torr Hall Torr Road Bridge Of Weir PA11 3RU

Agent Mr James Gallagher 67 Wick Avenue Airdrie ML6 9TY

Development: Residential Development (In Outline) (12 Flatted Properties Comprising 4 Storeys)

Location: 13 Old Monkland Road Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 5EA

Ward: 38 Kirkshaws Councillor John Higgins

Grid Reference: 272760663570 / File Reference: C/PL/CT0495013/LM/LR

Site History: C/88/433 Alterations and Extension To Dwellinghouse Granted 28 October 1988 C/92/247 Erection of Single Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse (In Retrospect) Granted 25 June 1992 C/Ol/OOO87/FUL Erection of Side Extension to Dwellinghouse Granted 13 March 2001 C/01/00913/AMD Re-roofing of Property (1st Amendment to Planning Permission C/01/00087/FUL) Granted 24 August 2001

Development Plan: This site is located within an area covered by policy HG9 (Existing Housing Areas) in he Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Education (Comments) Scottish Water (Objection) Scottish Power (No objection)

Representations: 3 Letters of Representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to the terms of the development plan in that it would not have the required standard of amenity garden ground within the site and would therefore be

21/11/06 11:12 75 Planning Application No. C/05/01864/OUT

Residential Development (In Outline)

13 Old Monkland Road, Coatbridge N

Representations A * Not to Scale Site Area 0.10 HA

76 contrary to the Design Guidance on ‘Infill Housing’ contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and the Council’s Design Guidance on ‘Open Space - Space Around Dwellings’.

2. That the proposed development would result in an adverse visual impact on the amenity of local residents and surrounding area and therefore is contrary in terms of the development plan in that it would not be of a scale and height that would conserve the character of the surrounding area and would therefore be contrary to he Council’s Design Guidance on ‘Infill Housing’ and ‘New Housing Areas’ and policy HG9 (Existing Housing Areas) contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 14th November 2005

Memo from Transportation Section received 7th February 2006 Memo from NLC Education received 2nd May 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 28th November 2005 Letter from Scottish Power received 25th November 2005 Letter from Protective Services Section received 19th January 2006

Letter from Mr & Mrs Kennedy & Signatories, 19 Old Monkland Road, Coatbridge, ML5 5EA received 21 st November 2005. Letter from Mr And Mrs Simpson, 17 Old Monkland Road, Coatbridge, Lanarkshire, ML5 5EE received 24th November 2005. Letter from E. Gordon, 21 Old Monkland Road, Coatbridge, ML5 5EE received 1st December 2005.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Leigh Menzies at 01 236 812372.

Dated: 21 November 2006

21/11/06 11:12

77 APPLICATION NO. C/05/01864/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application is for a residential development (in outline), of 12 flatted properties over 4 storeys, with associated parking and open space. The application site comprises of 2 semi- detached dwellinghouses with their associated gardens, which are currently unoccupied. The site is level and is bounded by 2 storey residential properties to the north and west. To the east is located the newly constructed St. Timothy’s Primary and further to the south Coatbridge RC Secondary.

1.2 It is proposed that the existing semi-detached property would be demolished and a flatted block constructed on the site. As the application is in outline no detailed proposals have been submitted in terms of the site layout, house types etc. as these matters would be considered at the reserved matters stage, should this application be successful. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has submitted plans and supporting statement specifically indicating that the development would consist of 12 flatted properties contained over 4 storeys. The plans also indicate that the proposal would be to locate the building at the south east corner of the site and that access would be off Old Monkland Road.

1.3 Prior to the submission of the application the applicant approached the Department, in writing, regarding a possible proposal of this nature. In response the Department indicated that any proposal should be in keeping with the adjacent primary school and that any proposal should conform to the guidance on open space around residential properties.

1.4 The applicant, in support of the application, has submitted the following information that they wish to be considered:

i) That the height of the adjacent Primary School is greater than 9.8 metres and the ground level of the application site is below street level. ii) The defining feature of Old Monkland Road is the school complex and the proposed development would not dilute the essence of the area’s character in both layout and scale. In addition a variety of scale has now been established. iii) Despite the proposed garden space being below the recommended 20 metres square per bedroom it is not at an unacceptable low level, and there are many examples of this within the Coatbridge area. iv) The applicant has endeavoured to meet all of the relevant policies, principally regarding off street parking which is viewed as being paramount despite Old Monkland Road being identified as a principal public transport corridor. A reduction on the number of parking spaces would enable an increase in the level of open space. v) An appraisal undertaken by the applicant has shown that the development of 12 quality flatted dwellings is marginal and to facilitate a reduction of in the number to 9 dwellings considerable savings would have to be introduced with regard to finishing materials and landscaping which would have considerable effect on the quality of the proposed development. As the local authority has invested a considerable amount of investment in the new schools the quality of developments should be maintained. vi) The transportation requirements could be met through the placing of conditions on the development and the provision of amended plans.

2. Development Plan

21/11/06 11:12

78 2.1 The site is designated as HG9 (Existing Housing Area) within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. As the application raises no strategic issues, it can be assessed in terms of the local plan polices.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the standard consultation process Scottish Power has put forward no objection to the development whilst indicating in the normal manner various equipment and underground services either in or adjacent to the site which would require to be protected. The applicant would be advised of this should the application be approved.

3.2 Scottish Water submitted an objection to the application due to the cost of providing infrastructure to serve the development. However their objection could be removed should the applicant comply with certain conditions, which included the issues of cost and design. To address this, an appropriate condition could been placed on any development requiring that before any work starts, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Planning Authority that Scottish Water has no objection to the connection of the development to the public sewer and water system. In addition scheme of Sustainable Urban Drainage should also be considered.

3.3 NLC Education have indicated that there are reservations in respect of the development due to its scale and its proximity to the new St Timothy’s Primary School building. Additional comments also supplied indicated that there was insufficient accommodation within the surrounding schools.

3.4 Protective Services Section have requested that an investigation be carried out regarding the possible contamination of the site, as this site has been in residential use for some time the applicant would be informed of this should planning permission be granted.

3.5 The Transportation Section have indicated no objection to the development subject to conditions. The issues raised concern the relocation and type of access, provision and maintenance of required visibility splays, retention of the public footpath and paving of the parking court. It is considered that all of the above could be resolved through amended plans and conditions placed on any approval.

3.6 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure 3 letters of representation were received, the main points raised are as follows:

Height of the proposed building Loss of daylight Loss of privacy looking into existing properties Noise nuisance Smell of bins due to location Increase in traffic and road safety aspect Headlights shining into existing windows due to location of parking bays Previous 4 storey flats within area were demolished in favour of 2 storey properties

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 As indicated above, the site is contained within a residential area. In assessing this application the local plan policy and guidance for infill developments is relevant. These seek to protect such areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity of established housing. In assessing this proposal in detail it is considered that, in its current form, the proposal is not in keeping with the scale of the surrounding properties and the provisions for open space are unacceptably low. However the provision of parking is acceptable.

21/11/06 11:12 79 4.2 NLC Education comments, who area a notifiable neighbour, expressing concern at the scale of the development in relation to the proximity of the new school, have been addressed below in this report. In connection with the comments regarding the availability of accommodation within the surrounding schools, in this instance, this is not a significant consideration due to the proposed size of the development being below the threshold of 20 units which is the level at which Education would be consulted on an application.

4.3 In response to the supporting statement provided by the applicant the following comments are made:

i) With regard to the height of the adjacent primary school it should be noted that its design incorporates a number of levels with the highest element being 9.9 metres, shown on the submitted application plans, with large sections at only 6.6 metres in height. The applicant has also highlighted the difference in ground level between the application site and Old Monkland Road, however irrespective of any difference in ground level the proposed development would be 2.3 metres above the highest point of the primary school. It is considered therefore that the overall impact of the proposed flatted development would be considerable due to its higher level to the adjacent school and the considerable mass presented over 4 storeys. ii) It is agreed that the new school complex may have provided a variety of scale to the area, however it is not considered that this in itself make a 4 storey property adjacent acceptable. iii) In terms of garden space, based on the number of proposed bedrooms, the recommends requires 400 metres square be provided, however the provision contained within the indicative plans shows approx. 50 metres square which is considered to be unacceptably IOW. In relation to the various other examples within Coatbridge that the applicant refers to each individual applications is assessed on its owns merits, in this instance it is considered that the development should reflect the densities of the surrounding area and in this respect the application under consideration is not within a town centre location where a reduction of amenity garden ground may be justifiable. iv) In terms of the balance of provision of parking and open space, while there may be some merit in the argument that a reduction in parking would provide additional open space, and it is considered that any reduction would not provide adequate open space for the number of units proposed. In addition, it should be noted that this matter alone would not address the overall concerns of the development in this location. v) The applicant has indicated that the overall quality of the development would be affected should there be a requirement for a reduction in the number of units, however it is considered that the scale and density of the development would also have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. vi) With regard to the issues raised by the Transportation Section it is accepted that these have the potential to be addressed through condition and the submission of amended plans.

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

a) In terms of the height of the proposed development it is considered that the height of the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons outlined above. b) With regard to the loss of daylight the relevant Building Research Establishment assesses this issue. The appropriate test has been undertaken, using the indicative plans provided, this showed that development of the site would be possible without affecting the adjoining properties in this way. c) With reference to privacy the relevant policy recommends that a minimum of 18 metres is achievable between facing windows. The indicative plans provided showed that development of the site would be possible without affecting the privacy of the adjoining properties. d) In terms of the level of noise produced it is considered that this would not cause such a detrimental impact on the surrounding area and warrant refusal of the application.

21/11/06 11:12

80 In relation to the location of the bins, the plans submitted are only indicative and this would be a matter that could be addressed on submission of a detailed application. With regard to road safety and increased traffic levels, the Transportation Section has offered no objection to this proposal subject to the provision of a suitable access and in-site parking provision. In relation to the possible shining of car headlights into the windows of existing properties, as the plans submitted are only indicative this is a matter that would be addressed at the submission of a detailed application that could look at the provision of appropriate screening. With reference to previous 4 storey flats that were demolished and replaced with 2 storey properties within the surrounding area, this lends some weight to the argument that a 4 storey block is out of character with the surrounding properties due to the overall lowering I height of the residential properties in the area.

4.5 Although the submission is only in outline at this stage the principle of this form of housing on this site is not acceptable. The applicant was advised, on receipt of the planning application, that a development of this scale and density might warrant a recommendation for refusal. In addition that a reduction in height may have the effect of reducing the overall detrimental impact of the site both visually and in terms of the recommended standards of garden ground. It was envisaged that a reduction to a 3-storey building would have been at the outer margin of acceptability. In response to this letter the applicant requested that the development be considered as per the original submission and supplied the supporting statement outlined above.

4.6 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable in terms of detriment to the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area in that it does not satisfy the required criteria set down in the appropriate design guidance in respect of the available level of amenity garden ground, overall height and density. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.

4.7 Committee is asked to note that a request has been made, by an objector, that a site visit and hearing be undertaken prior to any decision being made on this application.

21/11/06 11:12 81 Application No: C/06/01357/FUL

Date Registered: 10th August 2006

Applicant: Mr Hughes 2 Locher Walk Coatbridge ML5 4AP

Agent J McGoldrick 115 Earlston Crescent Coatbridge ML5 4UJ

Development: Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 2 Locher Walk Carn broe Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 4AP

Ward: 35 Sikeside And Carnbroe Councillor John Cassidy

Grid Reference: 274538663220

File Reference:

Site History: 99/016361AMD Erection Of 40 No Dwellinghouses - Amendment To Planning Consent 95028

Development Plan: Policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Letter of Representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

82 Planning Application No. C/06/01357/FUL

Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse

2 Locher Walk, Coatbridge * Representation

83 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 safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Application form and plans received 10th August 2006

Letter from K McGoldrick,81 Drummore Avenue, Carnbroe, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 4AW received 23rd October 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01236 812375.

Date: 15 November 2006

84 APPLICATION NO. C/06/01357/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I The application site is 2 Locher Walk Coatbridge which is bounded to the sides by 4 Locher Walk and 81 Drummore Avenue and to the rear by houses on Leonard’s Walk. The property is a two storey semi detached dwelling house. This application seeks permission for a two storey side extension to the dwelling which will incorporate extended bedrooms on the upper floor and larger public rooms on the ground floor.

2. Development Plan

2.1 In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and its associated design guidance on domestic extensions. There are no strategic implications.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 One letter of representation was received from neighbouring residents at No.81 Drummore Avenue and can be summarised as follows;

(a) Loss of sunlight to rear garden area at certain times of the day.

(b) Loss of light to property.

(c) Extension will overbear neighbouring property.

(d) Loss of light to rear conservatory.

(e) Loss of house type definition.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and design guidance domestic extensions. The principle of extending this property is acceptable. The acceptability or otherwise is therefore related to scale, design, materials, parking and impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.

4.2 In response to the points of objection raised;

(a,b,d) In the determination of this application sunlight daylight tests were carried out in accordance with the guidance in considering harmful loss of sunlight/ daylight. The guide indicated that the development did not fail either test and would therefore not give rise to harmful loss of daylight.

(c) The property is not being increased in height nor does it extend to the boundary with the objector’s property. Due its orientation towards Lochaber Walk the extension impacts only marginally on no.81and is not assessed as being overbearing.

(e) It is an accepted fact that as housing estates develop the original house types will be

85 altered by residents wishing to customise the original accommodation provided. If the alteration is otherwise acceptable, this is not a reason to recommend refusal of planning permission.

4.3 It is considered that the plot can comfortably accommodate a development of this scale. External access to the rear garden is not affected . While the side extension extends close to the common property boundary with No.81 at a single point the property is angled away from No. 81 reducing the impact of the development on the neighbouring property. In terms of design the proposals are considered acceptable. The design generally complements the original dwellinghouse and it is a recommended condition that matching materials are used on the extension. There is no unreasonable adverse impact on the objector’s property or surrounding dwellinghouses. The garden area can still accommodate two car parking spaces. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the recommended conditions.

4.4 The committee is requested to note that the resident at Number 81 Drummore Avenue, Coatbridge has requested a site visit and hearing.

86 Application No: C/06/01551/FUL

Date Registered: 25th October 2006

Applicant: Mr And Mrs Kelly 17 Brandon Way Ki rkwood Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 5QT

Agent Coatbridge Glass Unit 21/23 Coatbank Street Coatbridge ML5 3SP

Development: Erection of Single Storey Extension to Rear of Dwellinghouse

Location: 17 Brandon Way Kirkwood Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 5QT

Ward: 37 Kirkwood Councillor James Smith JP

Grid Reference: 27161 4 663503

File Reference: C/PL/CTB/675/0 17/G D/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Policy HG9 (Policy for Existing Housing) would apply.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Letter of Representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

87 Planning Application No. C/06/01551/FUL

Erection of Single Storey Extension to Rear of Dwellinghouse

Not to Scale 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 safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 18th September 2006

Letter from M. Brown,l8 Brandon Way, Kirkwood, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 5QT received 27th September 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Grant Douglas at 01236 812231.

Date: 21 November 2006

89 APPLICATION NO. C/06/01551/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of No. 17 Brandon Way, Coatbridge. The application site is a semi-detached dwellinghouse set within an existing residential area. The proposed extension would project 4.5 metres across the existing rear elevation and would accommodate a sunroom of 19.5 sq. metres.

1.2 The application site has an existing rear garden of approximately 12 metres in length, however this lies on a significant downhill gradient with a steep slope towards the rear of the garden. Beyond the rear garden which is bounded by palisade fencing is a public footpath, grass verge and Viewfield Road. Such proposals would be generally considered a permitted development in terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, however due to the position of the proposed extension in relation to Viewfield Road a planning permission was required.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application is assessed against policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. This policy seeks to protect residential areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity of established housing. There are no strategic considerations.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations have been carried out due to the nature of the proposal.

3.2 One letter of objection has been received from the resident at the adjoining property, No. 18 Brandon Way. The material grounds of objection have been summarised as follows:-

a) Loss of daylight and sunlight to property and garden ground

b) The existing Patio door of No. 18 would be adjacent to the gable wall of the proposed extension; this along with the possibility of a loss of light from streetlighting would lead to a loss of security.

c) Loss of view from kitchen and living room windows.

d) Impact of proposed extension on house price.

e) The proposed extension may cause structural damage and or drainage issues.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be considered in line with policy HGS(C) (Existing Housing) of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, along with the relevant design guidance on house extensions and open space.

90 4.2 Such policy maintains that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with approved Design Guidance. That guidance, entitled “House Extensions” maintains that such development should be assessed in terms of size, position and materials. The size of the proposed extension at under 20 sq. metres, even on a relatively small property such as the application site, would not be considered overly large, In fact semi-detached properties, such as the application site, have a permitted development right of up to 24 sq. metres where no planning permission would be required. The position of the proposed extension has in this case led to the requirement for a planning application. The proposed development fronts a public road, in this instance, Viewfield Road. The extension itself would have no impact upon visibility on that road and due to the position of several other similar extensions along Brandon Way would not impact upon the established building line. The proposed materials as shown on the submitted plans would be acceptable in a residential setting. In addition a recommended condition maintains that proposed materials should match the existing property.

4.3 In terms of amenity and the material points of objection these are addressed as follows.

a) The relevant sunlight/daylight tests have been carried out and the “45” approach” has shown that the proposed extension would be acceptable. This test maintains that a significant amount of light is likely to be blocked if the centre of a window lies within a 45” line, taken from the mid point of the proposed roof on both plan and elevation. In this case when measured across the elevation the impact has been shown to be acceptable. Additionally the proposed extension is single storey, being only 3.9 metres in height, and is south facing. Such orientation would allow direct sunlight to both property and garden ground at 18 Brandon Way for most of the day.

b) The proposed development would be typical of many residential extensions. The structure would be located within the curtilage of No. 17 Brandon Way and would therefore have no impact upon the security of the adjoining property. In regard to the issue of streetlighting the primary function of such lighting would be to illuminate the public road and footpath, the proposed extension would have no impact upon the ability of the existing streetlighting to perform this function. Therefore any representation pertaining to loss of streetlighting to garden ground would not be considered a material point of objection.

c) The occupant of No. 18 Brandon way while maintaining the right to a view over her own garden ground does not have the same rights in terms of a view over the neighbouring property. As such the loss of view is not significant or material in this case as the objector’s view over her own garden and beyond would be maintained.

d) The impact of the proposed extension on house prices would not be considered material in this case as objection on these grounds represents merely a subjective viewpoint.

e) Concerns over the structural integrity of the development and its impact upon existing drainage would be considered more appropriately as part of the necessary application for a Building Warrant.

4.4 In conclusion it can be seen that the proposed extension to the rear of 17 Brandon Way would be considered an acceptable development in terms of its impact upon sunlight/daylight. In terms of size and scale the development would be considered not only acceptable but within the perimeters of Permitted Development. Additionally it should be noted that a number of other properties within Brandon Way and along Viewfield Road currently have similar extensions to that being proposed, this includes Nos. 15 and 16 Brandon Way. Subsequently the proposed development would integrate satisfactorily with the surrounding area. Due consideration has been given to the material terms of objection and in light of the above it is recommended that permission be granted subject to the attached conditions.

91 4.5 The Committee is asked to note that the representation from the resident at No. 18 Brandon Way requests that the Committee visits the site in view of the matters raised in the submitted objections.

92 Application No: C/06/01567/FUL

Date Registered: 21 st September 2006

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Fancourt 21 Dundrennan Drive Chapelhall Airdrie

Agent Mr Steven Melia 14 Lanton Path Chapelhall ML6 8GY

Development: Erection of Pitched Roof Garage to Side of Dwellinghouse

Location: 21 Dundrennan Drive Chapelhall Ai rdrie

Ward: 52 Salsburgh Councillor David Fagan

Grid Reference: 278410 662656

File Reference: C/PL/CTD665021000/CMN/LR

Site History:

The site is designated as HG4-E (Strategic Housing Site) in the Development Plan: adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, and is regarded as an established residential area designated as HG9 (Existing Housing) for this application.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Letter of Representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

93 1:I ,250

94 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: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.

3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed 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.

4. The driveway, hereby permitted, shall be located a minimum of 1 metre from the adjacent speed bend, in the position marked red on the plan hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 19th September 2006

Memo from Transportation received 14'h November 2006

Letter from N M Grant BA CMIOSH, 28 Dundrennan Drive, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 8GT received 27th September 2006.

Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236 812375.

Date: 20th November 2006

95 APPLICATION NO. C/06/01567/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I Planning permission is sought for the erection of a pitched roof garage to the side of the dwellinghouse at 21 Dundrennan Drive, Chapelhall. The dwelling is a two storey semi-detached property and is located in an established residential area. The site is situated on a corner. Neighbouring properties at 30, 32, 34 & 36 Dundrennan Drive share a drive and access it from the opposite side of the corner from 21.

1.2 The proposed garage would project 3.3 metres from the side elevation and would be 8.43 metres long, staggered 1 metre back from the frontage of the house and aligned with the rear. It would be a maximum height of 4.2 metres sloping down to 2.5 metres at either side. It would cover 27.82m2 and would have a garage door to the front and a standard door to the rear, the side would be blank.

1.3 It is also worth noting that the proposal to convert the existing integral garage to a habitable room is permitted development and so does not form part of the application.

2. Developmen t Plan

2.1 The site is designated as HG4-E (Strategic Housing Site) in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, and is regarded as an established residential area designated as HG9 (Existing Housing) for this application. There are no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section was consulted and had no objections subject to the following recommendations; 0 The 5m wide drop kerb at existing driveway to be reinstated to standard footway arrangement, at applicant’s expense 0 A new 3m wide drop kerb footway should be provided to serve new driveway location, at applicant‘s expense 0 the driveway must be located a minimum of 1 metre from the adjacent speed bend two parking spaces must be maintained, within the curtilage of the site 0 the first 2 metres of the driveway must be paved 0 the foundations of the extension must be a minimum 0.5 metres from the footway 0 any gates erected should open inwards

3.2 The Transportation Section note that the length of Dundrennan Drive affected by this application has not been adopted by the Department, and as such any changes to the road including points of access, should be agreed with George Wimpey Homes, as this may affect the road’s future adoption

3.3 One letter of representation has been received from 28 Dundrennan Drive, the property onto which the 21 Dundrennan Drive fronts. The concerns can be summarised as follows: 0 Increased traffic problems on tight bend, and lack of traffic calming measures 0 Reduction in visibility splay 0 Proximity of garage to corner, and accessibility of shared drive opposite 0 View would be blocked and shadowed

96 4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application is located within an area regarded as HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas. In this area alterations and extensions to dwellinghouses, including the erection of garages are considered acceptable in principle. In accessing the impact of such development there is separate design guidance on house extensions, which is relevant.

4.2 In response to the above points of representation; 0 The Transportation Section has raised no concerns over increased traffic problems, lack of calming measures, reduction of the visibility splay, or accessibility to the shared drive opposite 0 With reference to the proximity of the garage to the corner, Transportation has recommended a 0.5 metre buffer between the development foundations and the footway and they have recommended that the driveway be 1 metre from the speed bend. 0 The view from No.28 will not be significantly affected, and is not a material consideration. It is also too far from the development to be affected by shadowing.

4.3 It is considered that the garage extension would not cause any overshadowing and the remaining garden area would be acceptable for the site. The local plan design guidance on house extensions states that side extensions should be set off the boundary by 900mm, this development allows adequate space to the boundary (1.5m at rear - 5.5m at front). It is considered that the position of the garage is acceptable with regard to the design guidance, which states that garages must be set back 6 metres from the footway.

4.4 It is recognised that the road junction adjacent to the proposal is not ideal, in that it also serves a shared drive. The objections highlighted above are not supported by the comments made by the Transportation Section and the concerns of the objector are not accepted, except with reference to the proximity of the drive to the corner, and this has been dealt with through conditioning of the position of the drive. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the recommended conditions.

97 Application No: C106101770IFUL

Date Registered: 26th October 2006

Applicant: Gary W McFaulds 91 Sherdale Avenue Chapelhall Aicdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8UE

Development: Erection of Decking to Rear of Dwellinghouse (in Retrospect)

Location: 91 Sherdale Avenue Chapelhall Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8UE

Ward: 51 Chapelhall Councillor Thomas Curley

Grid Reference: 27761 5 662986

File Reference: CIPLICHS2211091IGDlLR

Site History: 061006491FUL Erection of Raised Decking Area and Screen Fence to Rear Garden (partially completed) Permission Refused 23rdJune 2006.

Development Plan: The Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Policy HG9 (Policy for Existing Housing) would apply.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 1 Letter of Representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Grant.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th October 2006 Letter from H. Shields, 89 Sherdale Avenue, Chapelhall, Airdrie, ML6 received 6th November 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Grant Douglas at 01236 812231.

Date: 21 November 2006

98 Planning Application No. C/06/01770/FUL

Erection of Decking to Rear of Dwellinghouse 91 Sherdale Avenue, Chapelhall, Airdrie * Representation

99 APPLICATION NO. C/06/01770/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks permission, in retrospect, for the erection of raised decking to the rear of a dwellinghouse at 91 Sherdale Avenue, Chapelhall. The application site, accommodating a two-storey, terraced dwelling, lies within an established residential area and is bound by similar properties to all aspects of the rear boundary. The terraced housing at Sherdale Avenue lies on a slight gradient with the application site partially overlooking lower lying properties to the North and East. As an indication of this gradient the adjoining property at No. 89 Sherdale Avenue lies approximately 0.5 metres lower than the application site, as measured from the ridge of the roof.

1.2 A previous application for the same development was refused permission in June 2006 for the following reasons.

0 The decking and associated screen fencing by reason of their elevated height above the adjacent garden ground will result in significant overshadowing of garden ground and an unacceptable impact on the amenity of that garden area. As such the proposals are considered to be contrary to the terms of Local Plan Policy HG9 (Policy for development that would adversely affect the amenity of established housing areas)

0 The proposed area of raised decking, when complete, would result in significant overlooking of lower lying properties within the vicinity of the application site to the overall detriment of residential amenity within the affected area.

Since this time significant alterations have been made on site in order to address the Departments concerns. Previously the structure rose to a maximum height of approximately 1.2 metres at its highest point with proposed 1.8 metre fencing starting at this point. This would have lead to a boundary of up to almost 3 metres in height, a point reflected in the reasons for refusal. The amended design extends to approximately 42 sq. metres as before however this time at a height of between 0.3 and 0.6 metres. The 1.8 metre screen fencing now begins at the existing ground level.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is located within an area designated as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas). This policy aims to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas from development that is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing. There are no strategic considerations.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Owing to the nature of the development no consultations were required in the consideration of this application.

3.2 One letter of objection has been received on behalf of the resident at No. 89 Sherdale Avenue. The material terms of objection have been summarised as follows.

a) There has been no variance from the original development, other than slight cosmetic changes, therefore there should be no reason to overturn the original refusal as these reasons remain.

b) The submitted plans are inaccurate and do not represent the position on site.

100 c) The decking has been constructed on an area raised ground, which has been raised some 0.7 metres.

d) The decking and fence are poorly constructed and as a result of various safety issues no use of the garden area has been available.

e) The structure encroaches onto land not owned by the applicant.

f) The development has resulted in significant water ingress and flooding to garden ground of the adjacent property.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered in line with the development plan and any other material considerations. In assessing the current development in this manner Policy HG9 (Existing Housing) of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991; which aims to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas; maintains that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the relevant Development Control Advice.

4.2 The nature of the development dictates that the main issue for consideration would be the privacy of surrounding residential property. At this stage it should be noted that due to the topography of the general area there exists some degree of overlooking from the application site to the lower lying properties on Sherdale Avenue and beyond. Additionally prior to the development of the decking and associated 1.8 metre high screen fencing the common boundary between the application site and No. 89 Sherdale Avenue consisted only of 1.2 metre high boundary treatment which would clearly facilitate some degree of overlooking between the two adjoining properties.

4.3 In terms of amenity and the material points of objection, these have been addressed as follows.

a) The Department maintains that there have been significant physical alterations to the decking at 91 Sherdale Avenue. As noted from the previous application the deck itself reached the existing floor level of the dwellinghouse and the doorsills at the rear of the property. There has now been an overall reduction of 0.6 metres a shown by the introduction of steps from the rear of the property down to the surface of the deck. In addition the fencing now runs the length of the common boundary at a uniform height of 1.8 metres. These changes not only eliminate the degree of overshadowing to No. 89 Sherdale Avenue but prevent any significant increase in overlooking to the lower lying Sherdale Avenue area.

b) The Department does concede that the submitted plans do not accurately portray the development on site. However, several site visits have now been conducted where a series of measurements taken by the Department have allowed a full and fair consideration of the physical development.

c) Further measurements taken from within the rear garden of No. 89 Sherdale Avenue have shown the ground level at No 91 to be between 0.4 metres and 0.2 metres higher than the objector’s property. While there is evidence of previous hard standing beneath the decking which has caused some degree of re-grading to the levels of garden ground this is not considered to be of a level to require Planning Permission and it is unclear as to the extent of the natural gradient between the two properties. It should however be noted that the ground between Nos. 91 and 93 Sherdale Avenue rises again by up to 0.2 metres, which would seem to be indicative of the natural gradient of the land.

101 The construction and finish of both the decking and fence are considered to be of a reasonable quality. Concerns over the structural integrity of the development and its impact upon exiting drainage would be considered more appropriately under the terms of the Building Standards for Scotland.

The physical position of any boundary between the two properties is not a material planning consideration and requires to be resolved by the proprietors by establishing the correct mutual boundary.

The purpose of this application is to consider the development of decking to the rear of 91 Sherdale Avenue. Having carried out a site visit during a period of rain there was no evidence to suggest that the decking itself would or has caused any flooding to garden ground at 89 Sherdale Avenue.

4.4 Development to the rear of 91 Sherdale Avenue, having been amended since a previous refusal of permission in June 2006, now stands at a maximum height of 0.6 metres. The development does not increase the possibility of overlooking to lower lying properties from the application site and to a certain extent the associated screen fencing adds to the privacy of surrounding properties. In conclusion the development is considered acceptable in that it has no impact upon residential amenity. Therefore it is recommended that permission be granted for this retrospective development.

4.5 The committee is asked to note that the representation from the resident at No. 89 Sherdale Avenue requests a site visit and hearing.

102 Application No: C/06/01170/FUL

Date Registered: 9th August 2006

Applicant: Gordon Graham 7 &I1Woodhall Street Chapelhall Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8SQ

Development: Part use of repair garage (7 Woodhall St ) for car sales and the change of use of domestic garden (11 Woodhall St) (In Retrospect) and public open space to car parking for repair garage

Location: 7 & 11 Woodhall Street Chapelhall Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8SQ

Ward: Councillor Thomas Curley 51 Chapelhall

Grid Reference: 277976662668

File Reference: C/PL/CHW7800007/GA/LR

Site History:

The site is covered by policy Econ 8 (General Urban Area) in the Development Plan: Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: Not contrary to general zoning.

Consultations:

Representations: Two letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation:

Refuse for the following reasons:

1. That the part use of the repair garage for car sales at 7 Woodhall St, Chapelhall represents an overdevelopment of the site resulting in cars displayed for sale being parked on the footway, the road side and land adjoining the premises resulting in an adverse visual impact on the amenity of the immediate area.

103 Planning Application No. C/06/01170/FUL

Part Use of Repair Garage (7 Woodhall St) for Car Sales wnnOmdumdDy LBnsYPhreCoYnC, and the Change of Use of Domestic Garden (1 1 Woodhall St) "Ismn~sndEnvanmsntDepsrQnent ieming HOYIB 2 TVSt Roe0 Cvmtemauld 081 iM, (In Retrospect) and Public Open Space to Car Parking le1 01236615210 161 0 1i36 6 16232 For Repair Garage

Not to Scde

104 2. That the use of the rear garden of 11 Woodhall St for garage car parking is unacceptable as it impacts on the amenity of the dwellinghouse and garden at 13 Woodhall St due to the disturbance caused by the close proximity of the car parking associated with a busy commercial operation.

3. That the proposed use of the area of public open space for car parking is unacceptable as the visual impact of the proposal cannot be adequately assessed due to the insufficient detail on the submitted plans.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th July 2006

Letter from W McLoughlin,l3 Woodhall Street, Chapelhalll, Airdrie , ML6 8SQ received 12th July2006.

Letter from Mr Jim Hornel5 Woodhall Street , Chapelhalll, Airdrie , ML6 8SQ received via Councillor Tom Curley 5'h October 2006.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01 236 812375.

Date: 21 November 2006

105 APPLICATION NO. C/06/0117O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application site is located at number 7 Woodhall Street, Chapelhall (established vehicle repair workshop). The areas currently under consideration for additional parking are a small triangular area (75 square metres) of open space land to the north of the garage and an area to the south of the garage which previously formed part of the rear garden area of 11 Woodhall Street. The car parking in the garden ground is already established and this element of the application is therefore in retrospect. The proposal also seeks permission for the use of the existing repair garage to include car sales. Again this aspect of the application is in retrospect.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is currently designated (Econ 8) (General Urban Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. There are no strategic implications.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following the statutory notification process two letters of representation were received from 13 and 15 Woodhall Street.The main points are summarised as follows:

(a) The development will restrict visibility entering and leaving the driveway of No. 13 Woodhall Street.

(b) There is an increase in pollution from cars currently being stored and exhibited.

(c) The proximity of the development will inhibit the future sale of No.13 Woodhall Street.

(d) There are a number of cars for sale parked out with the site boundary and on the public road causing congestion.

(e) Vehicles do not display tax discs.

(f) Residents were not consulted on this development.

(9) There is insufficient parking for the sales element of the site.

3.2 Both Transportation and Pollution Control have been consulted and have not commented.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 development proposals require to be considered under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The application site is in a general urban area zoned Econ 8 in the Monklands District Local Plan which supports the principle of mixed uses including light industrial and commercial, which will be encouraged to remain. However, this position is subject to no change in the intensification of activities likely cause adverse environmental affects. Where requirements for access, plot size, built form and amenity can be met there will be a presumption in favour of applications including light industry, business use and the erection of houses with workshops. The impact of the proposal must be assessed in terms of the requirements of this policy.

4.2 The following comments are made in respect of the objections received:

106 (a) The existing access to N0.7 Woodhall Street remains unaltered.

(b) It is accepted that there will be exhaust fumes generated by the movement of cars close to the objector’s garden boundary. The loss of amenity to the rear garden area is also significant.

(c) This is not a material consideration.

(d/f) The intensification of the use of the site by the introduction of cars for sale is considered to have a significant impact on the amenity to the surrounding residents.

(e) This is not a material planning consideration.

(f) The required neighbour notification was undertaken at the time of the submission of the planning application but the development was carried out prior to this.

4.3 The proposed extension of car parking facilities at a long established car repair business, such as the application site would normally be supported by development plan policy. However, the extension of the car parking area has been carried out without planning permission into the rear garden of the adjoining dwellinghouse at 11 Woodhall St and is being used for car parking associated with the repair garage and also for the unauthorised car sales. This impacts on the garden ground of the dwellinghouse at No.13 as it brings the commercial activity hard against the side fencing. While the applicant has agreed to undertake boundary landscaping to ameliorate this affect, it is considered that this is insufficient to protect the amenity of No. 13. With regard to the proposed use for car parking of the small area of open space to the north of the garage which is in the applicant’s ownership, this is also considered unacceptable. The applicant‘s plans lack sufficient detail to be able to assess the visual impact of this proposed use.

4.4 This application also seeks to regularise the car sales currently ongoing at the site which are operated by a lessee and not the owner of the car repair business. This ongoing unauthorised activity has been assessed in operation, It is clear that that the site is insufficient in size to meet customer and sales parking and that the intensification of activities on the site has caused a significant loss of amenity to the surrounding area and in particular to adjacent residents. This manifests itself in the parking of cars on the street, on the footway and occasionally on the grassed area of the adjoining open space. Both the level of activity and the visual impact are unacceptable. This is contrary to the aims of the development plan policy for the area which is only supportive of the expansion of business uses where there is no adverse environmental effect. which is not the case in this instance.

4.5 It is therefore recommended that all elements of this application, proposed and existing are refused due to the adverse impact on the surrounding area.

I07 Application No: S/06/00136/FUL

Date Registered: 8th February 2006

Applicant : M&D Leisure Alona Hotel Scotland's Theme Park Strathclyde Park Hamilton Road Motherwell Lanarkshire

Agent Mr. Alastair MacFarlane RlBA 84 Buchanan Drive Cam buslang Glasgow G72 8BA

Development: Erection of Extension to Hotel Comprising 42 No. Bedrooms, 3 No. Suites, Ballroom, Offices and Staff Accommodation

Location: Alona Hotel Scotlands Theme Park Strathclyde Park Hamilton Road Motherwell

Ward: 25 Orbiston Councillor Richard Lyle

Grid Reference: 272226 658170

File Reference: SIPLIBFI711 OO/GL/MM

Site History: S/02/00296/FUL Erection of 51 Bed Hotel with Lounge Bar, New Connection to Existing Bowling Alley, Formation of New Access and Associated Car Parking Approved 11th November 2002

259/94 Relocation of Existing Funpark Approved 7th September 1994

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

Within the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964 the site zoned as within the Greenbelt but is shown as a colliery site.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) West of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objection) Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (No Objection) Scottish Water (0bjection) British Gas (No Objection) Scottish Power (Objection) Strathclyde Police (No Objection) Health and Safety Executive (No Objection)

108 60 I Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 16th February 2006

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 hotel in the interests of amenity.

3. 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.

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

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, for the area hatched BLUE 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: To enable these matters to be fully assessed in the interests of amenity.

5. That within one year of the development hereby permitted being brought into use, all planting, seeding and 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 satisfactory implementation of the scheme as approved under condition 4 above.

6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, 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 proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas agreed under the terms of condition 4 above.

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

7. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 6 shall be in operation.

110 Reason: To ensure proper maintenance of the area.

8. That before any development commences on site written confirmation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority that drainage works are able to be carried out to the satisfaction of Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and shall comply with appropriate good practice and design guidance in respect of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and before the development is brought into use that the written confirmation shall be submitted to the Planning authority that these works have been completed to the satisfaction of Scottish Water and SEPA.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and public health in relation to the drainage of the parking area.

9. That before the development starts, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water, have been fully met in respect of providing the necessary site drainage infrastructure to serve the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory site drainage arrangements.

10. 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 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 that the site is free of contamination.

11. That the use of the proposed offices shall be ancillary to the existing hotel and no other commercial activity shall be carried out from these offices without prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

12. That the development hereby approved shall not come into use until all of the associated parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, including the amended parking layout and the extended parking area, are 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. Furthermore, the development hereby approved shall not come into use until the dedicated parking area, associated purely with the hotel is fenced in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site in the interests of amenity and road safety.

13. That the development hereby approved shall not come into use until a pedestrian link directly from the rear car park into the funfair at the approximate position shaded ORANGE on the approved plans is provided, details of which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, once implemented, this pedestrian link shall be retained to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the relocated parking provision associated with the funfair retains close links with the park and to discourage on-street parking in the interest of traffic safety.

111 Background Papers:

Aprlication form and plans received 23rd January 2006 and amended plans received 8'h February and 30' August 2006. Memo from Local Plans Section received 21 '' April 2006 Memo from Transportation Section received 6'h April 2006. Memo from Protective Services received 9th March 2006. Memo from Leisure Services received 1Oth April 2006 Letters from Scottish Natural Heritage received 2nd March and 4'h April 2006 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 20th February 2006 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 17th March 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 20th February 2006 Letter from British Gas received 17th February 2006 Letter from Scottish Power received 27th February 2006 Letter from Strathclyde Police received 6th March 2006 Letter from Health and Safety Executive received 8'h May and 14'h August 2006

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Gordon Liddell at 01698 302128.

Date: 15 November 2006

112 APPLICATION NO. S/06/00136/FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application relates to the extension of the Alona hotel at Strathclyde Country Park. The proposal comprises the construction of 42 no. additional bedrooms, 3 no. suites, a ballroom, offices and staff accommodation. The hotel lies to the northwest of the existing bowling alley and funfair within Strathclyde Park and the extension will be constructed in two wings to the rear of the existing buildings.

1.2 The new bedroom wing of the proposed extension is three storeys high with a dual pitched and hipped roof and will be finished in facing brick to match the existing hotel. There will also be a further section to the rear of the hotel which will be a 1% storeys high building with a pitched roof and velux windows. This comprises a ballroom, bar, kitchen, swimming pool and changing rooms on the ground floor with a kitchen, gym, offices and staff accommodation on the first floor.

1.3 The proposed extension displaces existing areas of parking associated with both the hotel and the adjacent theme park. In order to offset this loss it is proposed to amend the existing layout and extend the car park by formalising an area of informal overflow car parking at the north end of the site. An area of car parking would then be dedicated to the hotel (and fenced off), while the remainder of the wider car park would be allocated to the theme park.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site is within Strathclyde Park which is identified as Greenbelt (Policy SP1 - Strategic Development Locations) and as a Strategic Environmental Resource (Policy SP7) in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. It is also identified as a Tourism Development Area (Policy SP5 Competitive Economic Framework).

I. 2.2 The site is covered by polices L8 (Strathclyde Country Park) and ENV 6 (Greenbelt) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

2.3 Within the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan the site is zoned as within the Greenbelt but is shown as a colliery.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Section has no objection to the proposal following submission of a revised and extended parking layout.

3.2 My Protective Services Section has recommended that a site investigation report be undertaken to ensure the site is free from contamination. They have also made comments relating to health and safety measures on site.

3.3 NLC Community Services Landscape Section have recommended tree planting within the car park. They recommend that the trees be planted in a random fashion to capture the character of a hotel in a country park. Further comments were provided regarding the design of the hotel with particular reference to the gable wall and the need for additional landscaping to soften the impact of the development.

113 3.4 Scottish Natural Heritage originally requested that a bat survey be undertaken to assess the presence or absence of bats and bat roosts over parts of the existing building impacted by the proposed extension. Earlier comments were withdrawn regarding concerns over further development within the park, given the location of the extension.

3.5 Scottish Water have objected to the proposal on the grounds that there are currently capacity issues at Daldowie Wastewater Treatment Works. Scottish Water highlight that their objection can be deemed to be withdrawn if a condition is attached to any consent ensuring agreement is reached between themselves and the applicant on a suitable drainage scheme, prior to any development taking place. It is noted that a separate system for the discharge of surface water will be required and that Scottish Water support the principle of SUDS.

3.6 SEPA raise no objections to the proposal. They do however note that all foul drainage from the site should be connected to the public sewer and that additional flow arising from the development should not cause or contribute to the premature operation of consented storm overflows. It is also highlighted that if surface water is to be excluded from the public sewerage system, any planning consent should include a condition to ensure surface water is treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland. i.e. SUDS. SEPA also raise issues in respect to domestic waste storage and construction works.

3.7 West of Scotland Archaeology Service and Strathclyde Police were consulted and have offered no objections to the proposal.

3.8 With regard to the utility bodies, Scottish Power have objected on the grounds that their existing apparatus may be damaged by the development. Due to the proximity of the proposed car park extension to a high pressure gas pipeline, the Health and Safety Executive have been consulted, although have offered no objections to the application. It is advised that the pipeline operator is consulted. Scotland Gas Networks have been consulted and also highlight the presence of the high pressure gas pipeline. No objection has been raised however it is highlighted that no invasive works or crossing of the pipeline is permitted without prior on-site consultation.

3.9 No letters of representation were received as a result of the neighbour notification procedure or advertisement of the application.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. By way of background, as detailed in paragraph 2.1, Strathclyde Park is identified as Green Belt (SPI - Strategic Development Locations) and as a ‘Strategic Environmental Resource’ (SP7) in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. It is also identified as a Tourism Development Area (Policy SP5). Notwithstanding this structure plan position, the proposal is an extension to an existing hotel complex within the grounds of the established Theme Park at this location. Although, located within an area zoned as Green Belt and as a Strategic Environmental Resource, the principle of the hotel on the site has already been established. The proposed works remain within the confines of the existing hotel and associated parking with no encroachment into the wider environmental resources of Strathclyde Park. The application is not therefore considered to be of strategic significance and does not require further assessment against structure plan policies and reference is therefore given primarily to relevant local plan policies.

4.2 In this instance, the adopted Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964 is significantly out of date and the primary material consideration, insofar as development plan policy is

114 concerned, is the emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

4.3 Within the finalised draft of the Southern Area Local Plan, the site is covered primarily by policies L8 (Strathclyde Country Park) and ENVG (Green Belt). Policy L8 states that the Council will seek to further enhance facilities consistent with the Strathclyde Park Development Strategy, giving due regard to policies ENVG (Green Belt), L2 (Leisure Development Opportunities), ENVl3 (Biodiversity) and ENVl4 (Nature Conservation Sites). These policies can be summarised as follows:

Policy ENVG (Green Belt) presumes against any development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, fishery, the generation of power from renewable sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses.

Policy L2 (Leisure Development Opportunities) seeks to encourage and support the provision of a suitable quality and range of leisure development, subject to various criteria. When assessing such applications, consideration should be given to any shortfall of facilities in the area, contribution to meeting the aims of the Council’s Leisure Plan, contribution to economic regeneration, accessibility, impact on the environment and surrounding properties, visual impact and availability of suitable alternative sites.

Policy ENVl3 (Biodiversity) seeks to protect existing habitats and species.

Policy ENV14 (Nature Conservation Sites) seeks to protect Sites of Importance to Nature Conservation or Local Nature Reserves from development. Part of Strathclyde Park is a designated SINC.

Policy TRI 3 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) is also relevant and seeks to assure that new developments are served by adequate access, parking, servicing and manoeuvring facilities and do not have an unacceptable impact on the public road network.

Other related policies include:

Policy L5 (Tourism) seeks to encourage development in appropriate locations by giving favourable consideration to suitable tourism related proposals where they will not have a detrimental effect on the landscape, nature conservation value or on local communities.

Policy L6 (Visitor Accommodation) seeks to encourage the development of visitor accommodation in appropriate locations.

4.4 In terms of the primary policy, L8, it is accepted that the proposed hotel extension would enhance facilities at the park in broad terms. However, policy L8 also gives reference to the park’s location within the Green Belt and this has separate policy implications. It is accepted that the proposal is not directly required for outdoor leisure and recreation, although the principle of the hotel on the site has already been established. The extension does however support the tourism and leisure uses of the park in general terms as the existing hotel is associated with and within the confines of the wider funfair site, which itself is predominately outdoor leisure and recreation. Policy ENVG further states that proposals to extend existing businesses in the Green Belt will sometimes be accepted where the development would not adversely affect the character and function of the Green Belt. As detailed in paragraph 4.2 above, the application site lies within the confines of the existing hotel and funfair and the proposed extension does not extend into greenfield land. Furthermore, as will be explained more fully in paragraph 4.5 below, the setting and design of the extension is also considered acceptable. In this respect there are no Green Belt policy implications and I consider that the

115 proposal will have no undue impact on the function and character of the Green Belt within which it lies.

4.5 With no new Green Belt implications, in line with Policy L8 reference is given to Policy L2. The proposed hotel extension does not specifically meet an identified shortfall, nor is it specifically part of the Council’s Leisure Plan or any regeneration programme. It is however in broad compliance with the general aims of policy L2 in supporting the provision of a suitable quality and range of leisure development. Appropriate development in suitable locations also contributes to the local economy. The site is however afforded satisfactory physical access and the hotel location is well established. Policy L2 also seeks to keep any visual impact in landscape terms to within acceptable limits. The bedroom wing will be the most prominent part of the extension being 3 storeys high. Set behind the hotel, this section will still be visible if entering the park from the west. The extension is however in line with the current building height and is designed to blend in with the existing building, finished in materials to match. The impact of the extension can also be reduced by tree planting along the western boundary of the site. On balance, the proposed extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and satisfactory in visual terms when taken in context of the existing hotel and adjoining funfair.

4.6 Policies L2, ENV13 and ENV14 all refer to the proposals impact on biodiversity and nature conservation and it is noted that part of Strathclyde Park is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The application site does not however encroach anywhere close to this designation. Contained entirely within the existing hotel and funfair complex, the proposed extension will not impact on adjacent environmentally sensitive habitats or result in an unreasonable loss of biodiversity. I would note that neither Scottish Natural Heritage or NLC Community Services have objected to the proposals.

4.7 It is considered that the proposal complies with policies L8, ENV6, L2, ENV13 and ENV14. I also consider that the acceptability of the proposal under these policies renders it broadly acceptable under Policy L5 (Tourism) and Policy L6 (Visitor Accommodation).

4.8 Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) is also relevant to this proposal. The existing access is utilised and in order to offset displaced parking provision an area of informal overspill parking is to be formalised and surfaced. The overall parking layout is also to be amended with designated parking for the hotel delineated by fencing. In order to encourage people visiting the funfair to use the new car parking I propose a condition requiring the re-instatement of a pedestrian link from the rear car park directly into the funfair. My Transportation Section have no objections to the proposals and the details of parking and access can be secured via planning conditions. On balance the proposals comply with policy TR13.

4.9 Turning to other consultation responses I would advise as follows. Comments from my Protective Services Section in relation to site investigation can be addressed by a condition. Other points raised can be addressed via advisory notes.

4.10 Recommendations of NLC Community Services Landscape Services Section on tree planting can be addressed by conditions. SNH’s request for a bat survey to be carried out has already been satisfied through the course of the application and SNH have no further comment. No bats are affected by the proposal. The recommendations of that report that contractors be aware of relevant legislation can be brought to the attention of the applicant via an advisory note.

4.11 The requirements of Scottish Water and SEPA in relation to drainage can be secured via conditions, although it should be stressed that no development should commence until these matters have been resolved.

4.12 With regard to the responses from the utility bodies, these matters can be satisfactorily addressed by advisory notes to the applicant.

116 4.13 In conclusion, the proposal is an extension to an existing hotel, constructed within the confines of the existing hotel site and linked to the adjacent M&D’s funfair. It is therefore considered to comply with the relevant Structure Plan Policies and is appropriate in terms of Local Plan policies L8 (Strathclyde Park) (and it’s related policies), ENV6 (Greenbelt) and TRI 3 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development). The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the application of appropriate conditions.

I17 Application No: S/06/01116/FUL

Date Registered: 7th August 2006

Applicant: Mr F Coleman 174 Airdrie Road Caldercruix

Agent H R Cartwright 39 Craigson Place Airdrie ML6 8AY

Development: Proposed Conversion and Extension of Existing Outbuilding to Form one Detached Dwelling.

Location: Penty Farm Muiredge And Jersey Road Murdostoun By Cleland Motherwell

Ward: 18 Dykehead Councillor James Robertson

Grid Reference: 283026658933

File Reference: SIP LIBF/4/42/E M/M M

Site History: P/69/549 - Erection of dwellinghouse Penty Farm, agricultural occupancy restriction attached to consent. Approved 2gthApril 1969.

304/88 - Removal of the agricultural occupancy condition from consent no. P/69/549 for dwellinghouse at Penty Farm, Cleland. Approved 1tjth July 1988.

546/90 - Erection of dwellinghouse at Penty Farm, Cleland. Refused 5'h June 1991.

S/05/01639/0UT - Erection of dwellinghouse at Penty Farm, Cleland. Refused 15th December 2005.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as land forming part of the Green Belt in the adopted Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964.

The site is zoned as Countryside Around Towns in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005), to which Policies ENV8 and HSG 12 apply.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No Objections) British Gas (No Objections) Scottish Power (No Objections)

Representations: None

118 Hoolet Cleugh

119 Newspaper Advertisement: 24'h August 2006

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.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

3. That prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the repairheinstatement of the stonework on the existing cottage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the existing cottage to be renovated shall not be finished in render and any works or repairs to the existing stone walls shall utilise surplus stone from the existing building or appropriately sourced stone matching the stone of the existing cottage.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in order to retain the character of the original building.

4. That the existing cottage roof shall be reinstated using the existing slate and appropriately sourced slate matching the slate of the existing cottage, full details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and to retain the character of the original building.

5. The roof of the extension hereby approved shall be finished in slate or synthetic slate, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: In order that the extensions are sympathetic to the existing building.

6. That the external walls of the extensions shall be finished in stone, wet-dash or a smooth render finish with raised banding around the windows, colours and details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in order that the extensions are sympathetic to the existing building.

7. That the windows shall be timber sash and case or sash and case style, colours and details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To conform with the terms of the application and to enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

8. That visibility splays of 2.5 metres by 60 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be

120 provided on both sides of the access onto Muiredge and Jersey Road, and before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, 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 the road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: To ensure adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 27th June 2006 and amended plans received dhSeptember 2006.

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 6thSeptember 2006 Memo from Protective Services Section received 6th September 2006. Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 17th August 2006 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 6'h September 2006 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 6'h September 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 25thAugust 2006 Letter from British Gas received 16th August 2006 Letter from Scottish Power received 17th August 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005 Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964 SPP3 Planning For Housing, February 2003 SPPl5 Planning for Rural Development, February 2005

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 698 3021 37.

Date: 13 November 2006

121 APPLICATION NO. S/06/01116/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I This application seeks planning consent for the conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding to form one detached dwelling at Penty Farm, Muiredge and Jersey Road Murdostoun, Cleland

1.2 The application site is located within an existing farm steading and adjoins other farm buildings, situated at the northeast end of an existing access track from Muiredge and Jersey Road. The site is surrounded by a mix of open Green Belt and woodland.

1.3 The proposal is for the conversion of an existing stone built, slate roof derelict out building that was originally the farm cottage. The building measures approximately 100 square metres in area. The proposed conversion will refurbish the existing outbuilding by extending its footprint to approximately 270 square metres in a traditional courtyard arrangement. The roof ridge of the cottage will be raised 0.4 metres to 4.5 metres in height, and the cottage will be finished in traditional materials including smooth cement render, slate effect roof, traditional timber sash and case windows and raised banding around the windows.

1.4 It should be noted that consent was granted in 1969 (Planning Ref: P/69/549) for the erection of Penty Farm Cottage subject to a condition that the occupation of the house was restricted to agricultural occupancy. On the 14'h July 1988 an application was approved (Planning Ref: 304/88) for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition associated with Penty Farm Cottage. The application was granted as the applicant annexed 5 acres from the main farm to provide a smallholding and cottage bringing an existing building and land into occupancy without increasing new residential development in the Green Belt. In addition planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land at Penty Farm, was refused on the 5'h June 1991 as the development constituted sporadic residential development within the countryside contrary to Local Plan Policy, (Planning Reference: 546/90). Planning consent (Planning Reference S/05/01639/0UT) for the erection of a dwellinghouse on land south of Penty Farm Cottage, was refused 22"d December 2005 as it constituted an additional dwellinghouse in the countryside for which there was no appropriate justification.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposed development raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is zoned as land forming part of the Green Belt in the adopted Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan.

2.3 In the up to date Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) the site is covered by policy ENV 8 (Countryside Around Towns). Policy ENV 8 indicates that the Council will seek to protect the countryside, within which there will be a presumption against development or change of use other than that directly associated with specific rural uses.

2.4 Policy HSG12 details criteria against which housing proposals in the Green Belt and Countryside will be assessed. In particular it details specific criteria to be taken into account for conversion proposals, namely whether the building is worthy of preservation, substantially complete and whether the proposal does not result in a significant increase in floorspace.

122 2.5 Policy TR13 (Transportation Implications of Development) is also relevant.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader recommends refusal of the proposed development for the following reasons:-

(i) Muiredge and Jersey Road is substandard in terms of geometry and width measuring only 3.5 metres in width for most of its length. It has no lighting or footway provision over its entire length and is subject to derestricted speed limit. The granting of this application may provoke future demands for improvements to the public road network in terms of lighting and footway provision. (ii) A visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 120 metres in both directions from the proposed access onto Muiredge and Jersey Road is required. However, splays of only 2.5 metres by 60 metres to the left are achievable due to the vertical geometry of the road and dense trees and vegetation.

3.2 The Geotechnical Team Leader has commented he is unaware of any incidences of flooding in the vicinity and that, as there are no adjacent properties it is unlikely that the outflow from a single residential property will pose any significant flooding problem.

3.3 My Protective Services Section has no objections to the proposed development.

3.4 SNH have no objections to the proposed development.

3.5 Scottish Water, Transco and Scottish Power have been consulted as part of this application and have offered no objections to the proposal.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 It is considered that the determining issues in this case are as follows: -

(i) whether the developmelit complies with development plan policy and national planning policies and guidance; (ii) the acceptability of the impact of the development on the site and the surrounding area; (iii) the design of the conversion (iv) the access and transportation implications of the proposal.

4.3 The up to date development plan policies relevant to this application are contained in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). These policies are:-

ENV8 ‘Countryside Around Towns’ HSG12 ‘Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside’ TRI 3 ‘Assessing the Transport Implications of Development’

4.4 Policy ENV8 states that the Council will not normally permit development other than that directly associated with an appropriate rural use. In this case as the proposal relates to alterations and extension to an existing property the more detailed policy relevant to the consideration of this application is Policy HSGl2. This states that the conversion of existing buildings to residential use in the countryside will be considered favourably where they are worthy of preservation, are

123 substantially complete, and do not result in a significant increase in floorspace. It is considered that the proposed conversion meets the first two criterion as the building is both substantially complete and worthy of preservation. The application fails the third criterion regarding a significant increase in floor area as the proposals do result in a significant increase in floor area of the dwelling. It is considered that the proposed conversion although not in accordance with the third criterion can be accommodated without detriment to the character of the existing building or the surrounding area. The proposed design is compatible for the rural location and incorporates many traditional design features and external finishes including a slate effect roof, timber sash and case windows, smooth cement render and raised banding around the windows. The present application is considered acceptable as opposed to previous refusals outlined in section 1.4 above as it constitutes the restoration and extension of an existing outbuilding (which was formerly used as a cottage) within the site. The previous applications have been refused as they constituted new dwellings in the countryside without sufficient justification in terms of Development Plan Policy. I consider that the site also benefits from adequate access and drainage although the transportation issues will be assessed more fully in section 4.5 below. The application is therefore considered to accord with the relevant countryside policies in the Southern Area Local Plan.

4.5 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against the following criteria; the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses, the scope to integrate development proposals with existing public transport facilities, impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety, and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. My Transportation Section has recommended refusal of the proposed application for the reasons, which have been highlighted in section 3.1 above. However the derelict cottage would have been serviced by the existing access onto Muiredge and Jersey Road and it is considered that the conversion and reinstatement of this dwelling will have a minimal impact on the transport implications and level of traffic generated in the area. The access, parking and manoeuvring facilities within the site are considered acceptable subject to suitable conditions.

4.6 Relevant national planning policy is contained firstly in Scottish Planning Policy 15 (Planning for Rural Development) which states (paragraph 23) that opportunities to replace run down housing and steadings should be embraced. Planning Authorities should not unreasonably constrain such modernisation and steading conversion within the original footprint or height limit unless there are compelling design or conservation reasons for doing so. Scottish Planning Policy 3 (Planning for Housing) states (paragraph 56) that buildings in the countryside no longer required for their original purpose can offer opportunities for conversion to dwellings. Residential conversions are a way of retaining buildings, which contribute to local character and can result in distinctive assets to the local environment. Planning authorities should look sympathetically at proposals for the sensitive re-use, conversion or rehabilitation of buildings, which can be accessed and readily serviced. The proposed development does meet the criteria set out in both SPPl5 and SPP3 and as such is considered to accord with this national planning policy.

4.7 With regards the consultation responses received, Transportation's recommendation for refusal is noted, however it is considered that subject to a condition regarding the visibility splay the proposal is acceptable as the dwelling would have a minimal impact in terms of transport implications and level of traffic generated in the area. This proposal accords with the thrust of both national and the relevant development plan guidance, as discussed above. It is therefore considered that notwithstanding the comments of Transportation the conversion of the building is acceptable. None of the other consultees raised any matters that require to be addressed.

4.8 It is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of local plan and national planning policy in that the impact of the conversion on the site and surrounding area, as well as the access and transportation implications, can be accommodated without significant detriment to the surrounding countryside area. Therefore, taking into account the local plan, national planning policy and other material considerations, I recommend that this application be

124 approved subject to conditions.

125 Application No: S/06/01191/0UT

Date Registered: 10th July 2006

Applicant: Mr S Wightman 77 Kirklee Road Bellshill North Lanarkshire ML4 2RU

Agent Stanley C Cook 12 Beveridge Terrace Mossend Bellshill ML4 2RJ

Development: Erection of Two Dwellinghouses (in Outline)

Location: Land At 77 Kirklee Road Bellshill North Lanarkshire ML4 2RU

Ward: 28: Mossend East And New Stevenston North Councillor Kevin McKeown

Grid Reference: 275061 659457

File Reference:

Site History: Site of the former Kirklee Cottage (now demolished) 1985 - Outline Consent granted for 3 dwellinghouses. One was built. S/98/01556/OUT- Construction of Dwellinghouse. Granted August 1999 S/98/01557/0UT - Construction of Dwellinghouse. Granted August 1999

Development Plan: The site is zoned in the Adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan as E2 - Greenbelt. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) zones the site as ENV 6 - Green belt.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Health and Safety Executive (Com ments) British Gas (Objections) Scottish Power (No objections)

Representations: None received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 20th July 2006

126 Produced by Nonh LanarkshireCouncil Planning and Environment Dept Flerning House 2 Tryst Road Curnbernauld G67 1 JW te 01236 616210 fax 01236 e16232

This map IS reproduced horn Ordnance Survey Planning Application No S / 06 / 01191 /OUT material wrth the permwon of Ordnance Swey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesh/s Erection of Two Dwellinghouses (in Outline) Stationery OwlCC 0 Crwn copyright UnauthoriSBd rbhlre reproducLion infringer Cmwn mpyrlght and may couna lead to prosecution 0, civil proceedings North Lanarkshire Counc~I100023396 2004 Land At 77 Kirklee Road Bellshill

127 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to policies ENV6 (Green Belt) and HSG12 (Housing in the Green Belt) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) and Scottish Planning Policy 21 Green Belts in that there is no proven justification for additional dwellings at this location, and therefore could set a precedent for similar applications within the Green Belt, to the detriment of its character and function.

2. The proposal is contrary to policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as the access for the site, coupled with the lack of footways and streetlighting on this section of private road, would be unsuitable to accommodate additional vehicular traffic on this section of private road in an acceptable and safe manner and would be to the detriment of road and pedestrian safety

3. That the development would pose an unacceptable risk to future residents due to the close proximity of the High Pressure Gas Pipeline, as advised by Scottish Gas Networks.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 10th July 2006

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 14'h August 2006 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 24th July 2006 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 24th July 2006 Letter from Health and Safety Executive received 12'h October 2006 Letter from British Gas received 19th July 2006 and 7'h November 2006 Letter from Scottish Power received 20th July 2006

Adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) SPP 3 Planning for Housing SPP 21 Green Belts

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs Lesley Carus at 01698 302142.

Date: 20 November 2006

128 APPLICATION NO. S10610119110UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks to renew permission for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses in outline. The application site is located within the garden ground of the existing Kirklee Cottage, some 205 metres from the built-up area of Mossend. Within the site boundary (approximately 4 metres to the east of the indicative location of the proposed houses) lies the Bellshill to Motherwell High Pressure Gas Pipeline, and beyond is the Motherwell to Cumbernauld train line. The site is gently undulating throughout and comprises mainly of grassland and vegetation, with mature trees running along the north, east and southern boundaries.

1.2 The site is accessed via a private road leading from Kirklee Road that is owned by the applicant. The road is unadopted and is currently in poor condition.

1.3 Since this application has been submitted in outline, no elevational details have been submitted at this time.

1.4 In 1985, outline planning permission was granted for 3 houses on this site, but only one house was constructed. The outline consent for the other two houses lapsed, and subsequent applications S/98/01556/0UT and S/98/01557/OUT sought permission for the erection of 2 dwellinghouses. These applications were granted at the Planning and Environment Committee in August 1999 but reserved matters applications were never submitted. Thus, these consents also lapsed, necessitating the submission of this current application to renew consent.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The site is zoned as E2 - Greenbelt in the Adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985. More contemporary is the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) which also zones the site as ENV 6 - Greenbelt. In addition, Policies HSG 12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant to the consideration of this proposal.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 NLC Transportation Section have objected to the proposal and have commented that Kirklee Road is private beyond the junction with Lee Place. The final 250 metres of Kirklee Road up to the driveway of the application site is single track, with no passing places, footways or streetlighting. There are significant potholes along its unsurfaced length, and there are no turning facilities at the end. As the private road currently serves 2 dwellings and a business, and given the aforementioned shortcomings, it is concluded that the majority of this private length of Kirklee Road is unsuitable to accommodate additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

3.2 The Protective Services Section have commented that a site investigation survey should be submitted prior to the commencement of any works to confirm that the site is free of any harmful contaminants. In addition, since the site is adjacent to a railway line, a noise and vibration impact assessment should be submitted to assess any possible adverse effects that rail traffic may have on the development when completed. Additional comments were added in

129 relation to construction noise and it is suggested that best practicable means be adopted to control site generated dust and prevent dust emission beyond the site boundary.

3.3 My Geotechnical Section commented that they were unaware of any flooding incidences in the vicinity, however the absence of flood reports should not be interpreted as an absence in flood risk. No information has been provided in respect of foul and surface water drainage, but any systems should be designed in accordance with Planning Advice Note 61 and SPP 7 - Planning and Flooding. In addition, the site lies within an area where abandoned shallow mine workings may be present. Therefore the applicant should seek the advice of an appropriately qualified engineering geologist or mining engineer to ensure the development is not at risk.

3.4 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) did not advise against the granting of this permission, however as the proposed development is within consulting distance of a major hazard pipeline, the pipeline operator should be contacted.

3.5 The pipeline operator, Scotland Gas Networks, advised that the building proximity distance to this Bellshill to Motherwell pipeline is 16 metres. As such, Scottish Gas Networks stated that they would not support the application for new development to be constructed within 4 metres of the High Pressure Pipeline. Despite the consent of the previous applications, where a stand-off distance of 6 metres was acceptable, Scottish Gas Networks confirmed that current procedures would no longer support this.

3.6 No objections were received from Scottish Power, and there have been no consultation responses from Scottish Water and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

3.7 Following the press advertisement and neighbour notification procedure, no letters of representation have been received in relation to this application.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The application site is within land zoned as Greenbelt in the adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985 and Greenbelt Policy ENV 6 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policies HSG 12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant.

4.3 Policy E2 of the Adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan states that within areas defined as Green Belt, there will be a presumption against any development which is not clearly required in connection with agriculture, forestry, sport or other open space uses. In assessing this proposal against policy E2, the applicant has indicated that the proposed dwellinghouses are not required for agriculture, forestry, sport or other appropriate use, and therefore since there is no justification for the provision of two houses at this location, the proposal is contrary to policy E2.

4.4 In addition, the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) zones the site as ENV6 - Green Belt, and states that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt within which there is a presumption against any development other than that associated with agricultural or other appropriate rural uses. As indicated above, no such justification exists in this case. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV 6.

4.5 Policy HSG 12 states that in determining applications for new housing in the Green Belt and Countryside, a number of criteria should be taken into account. This policy states that new houses, which do not form replacement dwellings, will only be permitted where there is a proven

130 operational need in accordance with policies ENV 6 Green Belt. Other criteria include the visual prominence of the site; the compatibility of the design to the rural location; the incorporation of traditional design features and external finishing materials; the provision made for vehicular access and site drainage. In assessing this proposal against the criteria of HSG 12, it is clear that there is no proven operational need for new houses at this Green Belt location. Apart from the views from the adjacent railway line, the site is not a visually prominent location within the Green Belt as it is screened by a number of mature trees, and the railway line to the east and industrial area to the north act as a buffer between the site and adjoining Green Belt and existing residential areas beyond. Since the proposal is applied for in outline only, no details have been submitted regarding the finishing materials or design features of the development. Similarly, drainage details would form part of a reserved matters application if this application was granted. In relation to the vehicular access, this is addressed in the following paragraphs and is examined under policy TR 13. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to HSG12.

4.6 Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) sets out criteria to consider including the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; the impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety and; the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The aim of this policy is to ensure that developments which generate traffic have suitable access, parking and manoeuvring, and this is important in the assessment of this application. As indicated in paragraph 3.1, the Transportation Section have expressed concerns over the proposals. It is considered that the plots afford adequate space for parking and turning facilities. However, the poor condition of the single track access to the site, the lack of footways and streetlighting mean that the access is not suitable for increased vehicular or pedestrian use. This section of private road could not be used in an acceptable and safe manner. Whilst the applicant could possibly upgrade the road (subject to agreement with other communal owners), the costs of doing so are likely to prove prohibitive-for such a small development and it is more realistic that the road would require to remain in its current sub-standard condition. As currently proposed, the development does not comply with Policy TR 13.

4.7 Scottish Planning Policy 21 (Green Belts) was published by the Scottish Executive in April 2006 and replaces the previous Circular 2411985 (Development in the Countryside and Green Belt). This policy states that there should continue to be a strong presumption against inappropriate development in green belts. SPP 21 identifies several appropriate uses in the Green Belt, namely; agricultural uses, including the re-use of historic agricultural buildings in keeping with their surroundings; Woodland and forestry, including community woodlands; horticulture, including market gardening (but not retailing unconnected with or out-of-scale with this purpose); and recreational uses that are compatible with an agricultural or natural setting. The proposal does not fall within any of these acceptable exceptions. Urban sprawl and ribbon development should be avoided and isolated development in the countryside should be discouraged. This proposal is outwith the BellshilVMossend settlement boundary and although the application site is located within the garden ground of an existing property, it is considered that the proposed housing would create an undesirable form of development at this location. It is considered that in this instance the proposal is likely to set a precedent for similar residential developments within the Green Belt.

4.8 Further planning policy which is relevant to this application is SPP 3 Planning for Housing which states housing requirements should be met within the existing towns and villages, in order to prevent sprawl and coalescence of settlements. As stated in paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 above, the proposed dwellings represent a sporadic development within the Green Belt that cannot be justified, and this may set a precedent for other developments, to the detriment of the character and function of the Green Belt.

4.9 In addition, the presence of the High Pressure Gas Pipeline within close proximity of the site represents a constraint to the development that cannot be overcome by the applicants, as the required 16 metres building proximity distance cannot be achieved. Although HSE raised no

131 objections, Scottish Gas Networks have recommended refusal of this application for health and safety reasons in that the proposed dwellings would be situated within dangerously close proximity to the Motherwell to Bellshill High Pressure Gas Pipeline. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) identifies that there is a restriction on development within close proximity to High Pressure Gas Pipelines where development is constrained.

4.10 With regard to the other consultation responses, the requirements of NLC Protective Services and NLC Geotechnical could be adequately dealt with by the imposition of suspensive conditions if planning permission is granted.

4.11 The site history is also a relevant material consideration that requires to be taken into account when assessing this application. It is noted that the previous application, granted in 1985 for three houses in outline, was not fully implemented and therefore this permission has lapsed. The subsequent approvals in 1998 have also lapsed. However, since that time, SPP 21 has been published, and this places a stronger presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Although SPP 21 lists examples of where appropriate Green Belt development may apply, this proposal does not meet those terms. The Council has been commended in the past on appeal for more rigorously applying the protection of Green Belt areas on sites which have benefited from approval in the past but to which consents have subsequently lapsed.

4.12 In conclusion, the applicant has not provided an appropriate justification for the dwellings within the Green Belt and as such, the proposed development is contrary to local plan policies ENV 6 and HSG 12, and national planning guidance. Access to the site is substandard and cannot accommodate additional traffic without being of detriment to highway safety. As such, the proposal is also contrary to policy TR 13. Furthermore, the site is within close proximity to a High Pressure Gas Pipeline and Scottish Gas Network recommend that this application be refused. Taking into account all of the above, it is recommended that Planning Permission be refused.

132 Application No: S/06/01574/FUL

Date Registered: 4th October 2006

Applicant: John Gallacher 59 Saffron Crescent Netherton Wishaw ML2 OFA

Development: Integral Garage Conversion

Location: 59 Saffron Crescent Netherton Wishaw ML2 OFA

Ward: 13 Muirhouse And Netherton Councillor Gerard McLaughlin

Grid Reference: 278084654330

File Reference: S/PL/BF/2/6/LM/MM

Site History: S/97/00789/FUL Construction of 224 Dwellinghouses with Associated Roadworks and Landscaping granted 6 May 1998

S/04/02084/FUL Conversion of Integral Garage to Habitable Room at 33 Saffron Crescent refused 22 March 2005

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Policy HSG 2 Private Housing Development Opportunities in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposal would be contrary to Policies HSG 13 and TRI 3 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as the proposed parking layout will not meet the minimum requirement of two off-street parking spaces, which is likely to lead to increased on-street parking to the detriment of vehicular and pedestrian road safety.

133 Produced by North Lanarkshire Council Planning and EnvironmentDept Fleming House 2 Tryst Road Cumbernauld G67 1JW telO1236 616210 fax 01 236 61 6232 This map 1s reproduced fromordnance Survey 'lannlng App"cat'on No ' O6 ' ' FUL material vnth the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Ma~estys Stationery Office OCrwn copyright Unauthorised Integra' Garage Convers'on reprodudion infringes Crcmm mpyiight and may lead to prosscutton or civil proceedings Noith Caunc,l ,ooo23396 2o04 59 Saffron Crescent Netherton Wishaw ML2 OFA

134 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 19th September 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Laura Murray at 01698 302134.

Date: 13 November 2006

135 APPLICATION NO. S1061015741FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning permission for an integral garage conversion at 59 Saffron Crescent, Netherton, Wishaw. The dwellinghouse is a two-storey detached property situated on a flat site and is bounded by dwellings on all sides.

1.2 The proposed garage conversion is to form a sitting room. It is proposed to replace the existing garage door with a UPVC window in keeping in style with the existing windows and brick up the remaining space below in facing brick to match the existing dwelling.

1.3 The applicant proposes to provide off-street parking provision for two cars. One parking space is to be located in front of the proposed garage conversion in the existing driveway and one to be located outwith the curtilage of the applicant’s property on a mono-blocked splay forming part of a visitor parking area.

2. Site History

2.1 The original consent for this estate is of relevance to this application and must be taken into account in the determination of this application. The application for these houses (S/97/00789/FUL) granted consent on 6‘h May 1998 is subject to a condition requiring that 2 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of each plot and outwith the public road or footway. In view of this it was requested that a block plan showing that two off-street parking spaces would be maintained within the site be submitted.

3. Development Plan

3.1 The application raises no strategic issues and the site lies within an area covered by Policy HSG 2 (Private Housing Development Opportunities) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). HSG 2 seeks to promote the release of sites identified for private sector housing development. Policies HSG 13 (House Extensions) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also of relevance in this case.

4. Consultations and Representations

4.1 The Transportation Section did comment on the application, confirming that the proposed parking arrangement would not be acceptable due to one proposed space being located outwith the applicant’s boundary in the splay of the visitor parking bay.

4.2 No external consultations were issued for this application and there were no letters of representation received.

5. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore only needs to be assessed against Local Plan policies and other material considerations.

136 5.2 In terms of the Local Plan, Policy HSG 2 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), seeks to promote the release of sites identified for private sector housing development. Policy HSG 13 of the Local Plan, sets out the criteria for the assessment of applications for extensions and conversions to dwellings including: - the size, proportion and positioning of any extensions or conversions and its effect on parking provision, access and road safety. The design of the proposed conversion in terms of the replacement window and bricked up surrounding frontage is considered to be acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding area. However the garage conversion would have an adverse effect on parking, access and road and pedestrian safety as will be discussed further below.

5.3 Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) sets out the criteria for the assessment of applications where transport issues must be considered including:- the level of traffic generated from the proposal; the impact a development will have on road traffic circulation and road safety and the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. Presently, the site has two off-street parking spaces - one inside the garage and one in front formed by a 5.5 metre length driveway. The proposed garage conversion would result in one space being removed from the application site. It is proposed that a second space be created outwith the curtilage of the existing dwelling across a public footpath on a splay forming part of a visitor parking area. The proposal to provide only one parking space within the curtilage of the property is unacceptable and does not comply with the terms of the planning permission for the housing development. The proposed parking space outwith the applicant’s site could not be considered as a private parking space. Furthermore, the proposed location and layout would not be practical or feasible and would additionally be a detriment to road and pedestrian safety. This has been confirmed by the Transportation Section. Alternative options were discussed with the applicant including extending to the rear of the property to maintain both off-street parking spaces however the applicant wished the application to be determined as submitted. Any alterations to create a second space in the front garden are not possible because of the physical layout of the site. If the garage were to be converted this would leave only one useable car parking space, which is inadequate for a three bedroom dwellinghouse.

5.4 In March 2005 the Council refused a similar type of application at 33 Saffron Crescent where there is a parking bay in front of the house. Similarly, the parking bay is part of the public visitor parking facilities and cannot be viewed as an additional parking space for the applicant’s house.

5.5 In conclusion it is considered that this proposal is unacceptable in that the proposed development would result in the loss of an existing car parking space within this plot, leaving the level of provision below that required. This would consequently result in on-street parking which would have a detrimental affect on road safety within the residential estate contrary to Policies TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) and HSG 13 (House Extensions). On this basis I recommend that planning permission is refused for this application.

137 Application No: S/06/01584/FUL

Date Registered: 5th October 2006

Applicant: Saveco Properties 95 Forrest Street Airdrie ML6 7AE

Development: Change of Use from Betting Shop to Hot Food Takeaway

Location: 199 Main Street Wishaw ML2 7NE

Ward: 7 Belhaven Councillor Sam Love

Grid Reference: 279408655267

File Reference: SIPLIBFII 0/31

Site History: 15/81 Change of use of shop to Licensed Betting Office approved 1st April 1981

Other related applications of relevance in the surrounding area are:

S/06/01003/FUL Part Change of use from Bank to Cafe at 84 Main Street. Approved 2gthAugust 2006.

S/03/01223/FUL Change of use to cafelbistro 153 Main Street. Approved 22"d October 2003.

S/03/01212/FUL at 286 Main Street change use to hot food takeaway. Refused 22"d October 2003.

S/01/00009/FUL Change of use to hot food takeaway at 257 Main Street. Refused 14'h February 2001.

S/01/00372/FUL Change of use to restaurant with ancillary hot food takeaway at 257 Main Street. Refused 20thJuly 2001 and Granted on Appeal 18'h December 2001. S/00/00213/FUL Change of use of shop to San?iich Bar with hot food takeaway at 155 Main Street. Approved 11 May 2000.

S/OO/O112O/FUL Change of use from shop to hot food takeaway at 179 Main Street. Approved 6thDecember 2000.

203/83 Change of use to coffee shop at 163 Main Street. Approved 17th May 1983.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as a Secondary Commercial Area in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). Policies, RTL6, RTLI 1 and TR13 apply.

138 139 Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations required.

Representations: 4 letters of representation.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 18th October 2006

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:-

1. The proposed development would encourage on-street parking on the approach to the already congested traffic signals at the junction of Main StreetlDryburgh Road, and would result in increased congestion at a busy location to the detriment of traffic and pedestrian safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy RTL6, RTLI 1 and TRI 3 of the Southern Area Local Plan Modified (2001, 2004 & 2005).

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th September 2006

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 13'h October 2006 Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 1gth October 2006

Letter from Mrs K Lau, Chopstix, 179 Main Street, Wishaw, ML2 7NE, received 2nd October 2006. Letter from Jilane Stodart, Newkeylets, 21 0 Main Street, Wishaw, ML2 7LU received 28th September 2006. Letter from Daniel Yuen, Super Kitchen, 21 7 Main Street, Wishaw, ML2 7NE received 4th October 2006. Letter from Elizabeth Bruce, 195 Main Street, Wishaw, ML2 7NE received 4th and 23'' October 2006.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005).

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 698 302137.

Date: 20 November 2006

140 APPLICATION NO. S/06/01584/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is sought for the change of use of a former betting shop (Class 2) to a hot food takeaway at 199 Main Street, Wishaw. The shop unit is located within the centre of Wishaw Town Centre on the ground floor of a two and a half storey tenement style building with residential properties on the upper stories. The application site is bounded by various retail units on this section of Main Street, comprising a number of retail outlets, a betting shop, a cafe, 2 hot food takeaways, government buildings and a public house.

1.2 The application proposes no alterations to the ground floor internal layout, front elevation or rear elevation of the building. Any future alterations to the external appearance of the building will be the subject to a separate further planning application.

1.3 There have been various applications for Hot Food Takeaways and cafes within the surrounding area of Main Street, Wishaw and these are outlined in the site history section above. The three applications at 286 Main St and 257 Main St, were refused by Committee on the grounds that there was concern regarding increased on-street parking and road safety issues. The decision to overturn the refusal of application S/01/00372/FUL at 257 Main Street was taken by SEIRU on 18'h December 2001. Application S/OO/O1120/FUL at 179 Main Street was recommended for approval contrary to the recommendation of the Transportation Section who highlighted concern regarding increased on-street parking. However in this case the applicant proposed a rear car park accessed from Belhaven Terrace. This application was approved on condition that three off street parking places would be created. It should be noted that in the cases of the application approved on appeal and the application approved for a takeaway at 155 Main Street, the takeaway element was ancillary to use as a restaurantlsandwich bar respectively.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The site is covered by Policy RTL 6 (Secondary, Village & Neighbourhood Commercial) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). Policy RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) and Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant.

3. Consultations and Renresentations

3.1 The Transportation Section have recommended refusal of the application as the proposal is likely to cause increased parking on the approach to the already congested traffic signals at the junction of Main StreetlDryburgh Road. Under the current traffic management arrangements in Wishaw town centre Transportation do not think that it would be appropriate to permit any development between Dryburgh Road and Belhaven Terrace which is likely to give rise to increased levels of parking on this stretch of Main Street. Hot Food takeaways are particularly prone to encouraging significant numbers of short-term parking. If and when the further phases of the Wishaw Town Centre Action Plan are implemented conditions may be more conducive to this type of development being permitted, in traffic and road safety terms. Similarly, if the hours of opening could be limited to avoid busy times for traffic during the day, prior to 6pm, Transportation would be prepared to reconsider their recommendation.

141 3.2 My Protective Services Section has no objections to this application subject to conditions regarding noise emanating from any air conditioninghentilation or any other plant associated with the development, and to control cooking odours.

3.3 Four letters of objection have been received following the press advertisement and neighbour notification procedures, with one letter from a residential property, one letter from a letting agent, and the two from commercial properties in the area. The objections relate to the following grounds:

(i) Health and Safety concerns i.e vermin control, waste disposal, fire risks, odours, increase of water wastage, noise pollution and the lack of a fire exit. (ii) Concerns regarding the lack of parking within the area. (iii) The issue of people loitering around the proposed premises. (iv) There is over provision of hot food takeaways and cafe’slrestaurants within the area and there are concerns over the impact that a new business would have on the trade received by the existing surrounding hot food takeaway businesses.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The first local plan policy relevant in the determination of this application is Policy RTL6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). This policy seeks to encourage the expansion of Class 1 retail floorspace, but also supports other types of commercial activities including Class 2 Offices, Class 3 Food and Drink and Class 11 Assembly and Leisure, where the development does not adversely affect the character and amenity of the Commercial Area and accords with the provisions of Policy RTL 11 (Bad Neighbour Developments). The application site is in a town centre location and given the mix of uses in the surrounding area it is considered that the impact of an additional hot food takeaway would not be to the detriment of the amenity of this location.

4.3 Policy RTLll makes clear that the preferred locations for hot food takeaways include Secondary Commercial Areas such as the current proposed site. This policy also requires assessment of the resulting retailhon-retail mix of design and transportation issues. The proposed development will have no impact on the resulting mix of retail and non-retail uses given the previous Class 2 use of the premises. In terms of design, there are no proposed alterations to the external appearance of the shop unit and any future alterations to the external appearance of the building will be the subject of a separate further planning application. The implications for access, servicing and parking are assessed in paragraph 4.4 below.

4.4 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including, the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses, impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety, and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. My Transportation Section has recommended refusal of the application as the proposal is likely to cause increased parking on the approach to the already congested traffic signals at the junction of Main StreeVDryburgh Road and there is no dedicated off-street parking. This would be to the detriment of road safety. Traffic congestion in the Main Street is already exacerbated by the on-street servicing of shops, by the existence of bus stops and by the shortage of suitably located car parks. It is recognised that a considerable amount of on-street parking already takes place on Main Street, particularly during the evenings when

142 customers use existing hot food take-away shops in the area. Due to the nature of the business, the majority of customers park on the street another point which has been highlighted by my Transportation Section. It is therefore considered that the proposal would exacerbate the problem of on-street parking in this area by increasing the use on this side of the road which encourages on street parking, thereby potentially narrowing the width of the road and causing a further obstruction to the flow of traffic and endangering the safety of pedestrians at this busy location. The traffic safety implications that may arise from this proposal as discussed above, are considered on balance to have sufficient merit to recommend refusal of this application. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the transportation requirements of Policy TRI 3 and RTLI 1. It should be noted that previous planning consents for cafes and hot food takeaways granted at this section of Main Street have either provided some form of off street parking, been approved contrary to the recommendation of Transportation or have had the hot food takeaway element as ancillary.

4.5 As indicated at paragraph 4.4 above the Transportation Team Leader has objected to this proposal. The comments of my Protective Services Section refer to noise and odours created by the development and conditions could be imposed in relation to these matters if permission were to be granted.

4.6 In relation to the points of objection, I would comment as follows:-

In respect of health and safety concerns regarding vermin control, waste disposal, fire risks, increase of water wastage, and lack of a fire exit. I can advise that this is controlled primarily by Environmental Health legislation and as discussed in paragraph 3.2 above my Protective Services Section has not objected to the application. With regard to potential odours, and noise, I have recommended conditions to control noise including from any ventilation equipment, and also odours, in the interests of amenity. The Transportation Section have confirmed that they object to the proposal and have highlighted their concerns regarding the parking situation on Main Street. (see paragraph 3.1 and 4.4 above). Transportation therefore concur with the concerns raised by the objector’s. Anti social behaviour and loitering is a matter for the police and cannot be viewed as a material consideration in this case. It is considered that a further takeaway will not significantly alter the amenity of the area. The mix of uses that would result from the proposal is one of the factors to be assessed under Policy RTLI 1. As indicated at paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 above I do not consider that another hot food takeaway at this location would have a significant impact on the mix of uses or amenity of the area. The effect of an additional hot food takeaway on the trade of the surrounding businesses is not a material planning consideration.

4.7 In conclusion, the proposed development would encourage on-street parking on the Main Street resulting in increased congestion at a busy location to the detriment of road safety, I consider that the proposed change of use therefore fails to comply with Policies RTL6, RTLI 1 and TRI 3 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

4.9 It should be noted that one objector from 195 Main Street, Wishaw has requested that a hearing be held to allow their case to be presented to the Committee in person.

143 Application No: S/06/01642/FUL

Date Registered: 3rd October 2006

Applicant: C 8, G Homes (Scotland Ltd) Clo Agent

Agent W.H.Dickie Architects 77 Hamilton Road Motherwell MLI 3DG

Development: Erection of One and a Half Storey Dwellinghouse

Location: Land to South of 51 Cameron Street Motherwell North Lanarkshire MLI 3AH

Ward: 1 Ladywell Councillor Michael Ross

Grid Reference: 27501 1 656606

File Reference: SIPLIBFII 3/6/GL/M M

Site History: S/03/01161/FUL Erection of Detached Two Storey Dwellinghouse Refused 22 October 2003. Subsequent appeal dismissed 17 May 2004.

Development Plan: The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and ENV19 (Hamilton Road Conservation Area) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 L? 2005). Policies HSGI 1 (Infill Housing) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) also apply.

The site is zoned as Residential in the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Part Development Plan 1953.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water No objection British Gas No objection

Representations: None received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 12th October 2006

144 145 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. That the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to the aims of Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) policies HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas), HSG 11 (Infill Housing Development) and ENV 19 (Hamilton Road Conservation Area) as due to its footprint, and inadequate plot size, would constitute over-development and be out of keeping with the area, and would, as a result have a detrimental impact on the existing character of the Conservation Area and the visual amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 3rd October 2006

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 1Ith August 2003 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 19th October 2006 Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 23rd October 2006 Letter from Scottish Water received 11th October 2006 Letter from British Gas received 17th October 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) The Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Part Development Plan 1953.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Liddell at 01698 302128.

Date: 1 November 2006

146 APPLICATION NO. S/06/01642/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I The application site consists of the side garden of number 51 Cameron Street, adjacent to Saint Mary’s church, located within the Hamilton Road Conservation Area, in an established residential area. The area is characterised by single and two storey dwellings of various architectural styles and size, set within large garden grounds.

1.2 The proposal is for a 1% storey detached dwelling house, measuring approximately 9.8 metres in width, approximately 7.4 metres in depth with a bay window projecting a further 1 metre, and approximately 7 metres in height.

1.3 This application follows a previous refusal of planning permission for a 2 storey dwellinghouse on the same site (Members may recall planning application S/03/01161/FUL). A subsequent appeal to the Scottish Ministers on this application was dismissed.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The site is zoned for residential purposes in the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Part Development Plan 1953.

2.3 The site is covered by policies HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and ENV19 (Hamilton Road Conservation Area) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Also relevant are policies HSGI 1 (Infill Housing Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Section raised no objection but recommend that conditions be attached to any consent granted requiring appropriate access geometry and visibility as well as an internal turning facility. These are comments from the previous application but remain valid.

3.2 My Pollution Control Team Leader requires a Site Investigation to be carried out. Also, highlighted is that both noise and dust should be controlled during construction, should planning permission be granted.

3.3 While raising no objection, my Geotechnical Team Leader has requested further information on the proposed drainage infrastructure.

3.4 Scottish Water raise no objection to the proposals.

3.5 Scotland Gas Networks indicate the location of their apparatus in relation to the application site, but raise no objection.

3.6 No letters of representation were received following neighbour notification procedures and advertisement of the application in the local press.

147 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The site is covered primarily by Policies HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) and ENVIS (Hamilton Road Conservation Area) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). Policy HSG8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with the residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of the area. Policy ENVIS specifically highlights the quality of the Hamilton Road Conservation Area within which the application site is located. Through this policy the Council is seeking to prohibit development harmful to the area’s character.

4.3 When assessed against the primary HSG8 local plan zoning, as this proposal is for a dwellinghouse within an existing residential area, it is considered to be acceptable ‘in principle’. Located within the Hamilton Road Conservation Area, particular attention must however be given to the specific character and amenity of the surrounding area.

4.4 In assessing the finer details of applications for infill housing development, consideration is given to policy HSGI 1 (Infill Housing Development). This details criteria against which such proposals will be assessed. This includes (1) impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, (2) dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated garden ground, (3) effect of the infill on the garden space, privacy and sunlight of neighbouring properties, (4) consideration given to scale, materials, roof height/ pitch etc, and (5) provisions for parking and access. In the supporting text to the policy it is stated that within designated Conservation Area’s a higher standard of design will be encouraged.

4.5 In relation to the first criterion, as already highlighted, the site is located within the Hamilton Road Conservation Area. The wider area, and in particular Cameron Street, is characterised by large plots with substantial garden ground and generous open space between buildings, which significantly contributes to defining the area as low density. Furthermore, the presence of well- established trees, hedges, boundary walls and landscaping also makes an extremely positive contribution to the overall attractiveness of the immediate vicinity, and thereafter the Conservation Area as a whole.

4.6 This proposal would greatly reduce the space between the building at no. 51 Cameron Street and St Mary’s Church and have a serious impact on the established density and streetscape. While the proposed house-type allows current minimum open-space standards to be achieved in the main, this does not pay due respect to the wider qualities and character of the area, particularly the well established low density. Taking into account the height and massing of the adjacent church, a dwellinghouse “shoehorned” into this plot would also create a visual impression of a substantially built up area, which will result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area and Conservation Area. I would highlight that the Reporter in his findings on the previous appeal considered that the dwellinghouse “would fill the existing gap and detract from the setting of the church and create a cramped appearance at the end of Cameron Street.” While the dwellinghouse proposed in this application is not as high as the previous proposal, the spacing provided between the church and no. 51 Cameron Street is less, worsening further the ‘cramming’ effect. Finally, there are several mature trees, which would need to be felled in order to facilitate the development, as well as a section of the boundary hedge and sandstone wall to provide an acceptable access. This too is considered to have an unreasonable impact on the established character of the area when considered as a cumulative effect, in addition to the other issues already highlighted.

4.7 The proposal provides a level of garden area (and attributes a level of garden ground to the

148 existing dwelling at no.51 Cameron Street) that little more than meets current minimum standards. While in a modern housing development, this plot ratio would normally be considered acceptable, this is a long established Conservation Area which has large garden sizes as a characteristic. This is an attribute that adds to the residential quality and one which should not be eroded, particularly taking into account the higher standard of proposal expected within Conservation Areas through Policy HSGI 1 and it’s supporting text. This level of garden ground is not therefore considered to be acceptable in this instance. I note that the Reporter in his conclusions on the previous application states that he “agrees with the Council that any proposed dwellinghouse in the Conservation Area should substantially exceed the minimum standards and be more in keeping with the garden sizes, and spaces between buildings in this part of the Conservation Area”. In this respect, the proposals have not changed significantly from the earlier application and remain contrary to criteria 2 and 3 of Policy HSGI 1. In regard to the remaining points in criterion 3 with regard to privacy and sunlight, there are no undue concerns.

4.8 In regard to criterion 4, the scale, design, height and proposed materials are considered to be generally acceptable for a new house in the Conservation Area, albeit for the reasons highlighted above, the overall size and characteristics of the site and the relationship that the proposed house would have with the wider area remains inappropriate.

4.9 Relevant to transportation issues is criterion 5 and Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development). Subject to conditions, my Traffic and Transportation Section have no objections and the proposals are considered to be acceptable in respect to highway and pedestrian safety. Notwithstanding this technical assessment, in order to provide access to the site, the existing sandstone boundary wall and hedge would need to be partially removed and this is considered to amount to a further deterioration in the quality and character of the environment at this location, in addition to those already discussed.

4.10 It is worth noting that other infill sites do exist within the Hamilton Road Conservation Area, although I would stress that these are set in adequate plot sizes, while some were approved prior to conservation area status being applied.

4.11 In conclusion, given the site lies within the Conservation Area which is characterised by large gardens and a low density on Cameron Street, the proposal is considered contrary to policies ENV19, HSG8 and HSGI 1, as it constitutes over development of the site and would be out of keeping with the prevailing density and character of the surrounding built form. Whilst the massing and style of dwellinghouse is more in keeping with the Conservation Area than the previously refused application, the proposal still represents an unreasonable over development of the site. This would result in an incongruous plot density and a concentrated built mass, out of character with and detrimental to the visual amenity of the Conservation Area. I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused.

149 Application No: S/06/01649/FUL

Date Registered: 10th October 2006

Ap p Iican t : Marinos Demetriou 18 Dalveen Drive Uddingston G71 6BX

Development: Erection of Domestic Wind Turbine

Location: 18 Dalveen Drive Uddingston G71 6BX

Ward: 21 Tannochside Councillor David Saunders

Grid Reference: 269552 66161 8

File Reference: S/PL/BF/9/75 (5)

Site History: 83/83 Extension to dwellinghouse - granted 1Oth March 1983 227/88 Extension to dwellinghouse - granted 14'h July 19E8 S/03/00818/FUL Erection of a Conservatory - granted 30 June 2003

Development Plan: This site is zoned as HSG 8 Established Housing Areas in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001 and 2004 and 2005). Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations

Representations: 2 letters of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

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 this consent gives permission for the installation of one wind turbine only on the gable end of the dwellinghouse at the location shown as option 1 on the approved plans.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact in the interests of amenity.

150 N Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 10th October 2006

Memo from Head of Protective Services received 23'' October 2006

Letter from Peter Kerr, 118 Calderbraes Avenue, Uddingston received 16th October 2006. Letter from George Thomson, 116 Calderbraes Avenue, Uddingston received 1st November 2006.

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302099.

Date: 13 November 2006

152 APPLICATION NO. S/06/01649/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

4.1 The application site is a dwellinghouse located in an established residential area at 18 Dalveen Drive, Uddingston. The property is surrounded by dwellings on all sides and is situated on a slope running downwards from the rear (north to south). There are no similar developments in close proximity but there are several television aerials protruding from the roofline of dwellinghouses near the site.

4.2 This application seeks planning permission for the installation of a domestic wind turbine on the roof of 18 Dalveen Drive, Uddingston. Three options are shown, one of which proposes that the wind turbine be situated on the gable end of the house. The other options propose that the turbine will be located on the rear wall of the house. In all options the turbine will protrude 1 metre above the roofline of the dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

4.3 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

4.4 The site is covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policy HSG 13 (House Extensions) is also relevant to the consideration of this application.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Protective Services expressed concern regarding vibration through the structure which may affect the adjoining property. They were also concerned that option 3 may result in noise problems to the neighbouring property and recommended against this location.

3.2 Two letters of objection have been received from the occupants at 116 and 118 Calderbraes Avenue, Uddingston. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

(i.) A two-storey extension and one-storey conservatory have been erected already which cut down views and daylight. The proposal could be considered as over-development of the site. (ii.) The roof already contains multiple antennas, which detract from the visual amenity of the area. This latest development will further detract from the restricted views available. (iii.) The wind turbine is not small and will have to be situated 2 metres above the ridge of the house. The applicant’s house is already 1 metre higher than the neighbour to the west. (iv.) The noise of the spinning blades will be heard during the quiet of the night and become a noise nuisance to immediate neighbours. (v.) The visual appearance of this turbine and its dominant factor in views will have an adverse affect on the amenity of the area, including several nearby gardens. (vi.) The house is situated on a slope and the wind turbine will be visible from the surrounding area. A development of this nature will damage the wider visual amenity of Uddingston. (vii.) Approval would set a precedent for others. (viii.) Solar panels would be a more acceptable alternative.

153 -4 Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore can be assessed in terms of the Local Plan Policies. Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) and Policy HSG 13 (House Extensions) are relevant to the consideration of this application. Also relevant is government guidance and advice provided in SPP6: Renewable Energy, Consultation Draft July 2006 and the Annex to Planning Advice Note 45: Planning for Micro Renewables 2006.

4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. Policy HSG 13 lists a number of criteria to be taken into consideration when determining applications for extensions to dwellinghouses including impact on the street scene and design details. It is considered that the proposed domestic wind turbine is small scale in nature and will not significantly add to the ‘clutter’ of television aerials and satellite dishes prevalent in the area. There would be no significant impact on the character or amenity of the area.

4.3 With regards to the consultation with Protective Services, the technical specification for the proposed wind turbine states that vibration from the turbine will be minimal and insulation pads can be used where necessary. I recommend that option 1 be conditioned as the best location for the turbine, in the interests of the amenity of the area.

4.4 On the grounds of the objections received, the following response is made:

(i.) I do not consider that granting consent for the proposed wind turbine would cause over- development of this site. (ii.) There is currently one satellite dish on the front side of the roof and one television aerial on the property. There is a satellite dish on the roof of the adjacent house to the west and several television aerials on surrounding dwellinghouses. I do not consider that the addition of the proposed wind turbine would significantly add to ‘clutter’ or detract from the visual amenity of the area. (iii, v, vi). Following the advice of my Protective Services section, I consider that the location of the proposed turbine at option 1 will not cause any amenity problem of noise. Protective Services only expressed concern over noise if option 3 was adopted. I recommend that option 1 be conditioned as the location for the turbine. (iii.) It is considered that the visual impact of the wind turbine will be minimised by its location towards the rear of the roof and that the amenity of the area will not be significantly affected. (iv.) Although each application must be determined on it‘s own merits in view of the above comments I am not concerned about the potential for a precedent to be set. (v.) As indicated the application should be considered on its own merits and I do not consider that there is any justification to require the applicant to alter the proposals to solar panels.

4.3 In conclusion the proposal is acceptable and accords with Local Plan Policy. I am satisfied that the design, scale and impact of the proposed domestic wind turbine is acceptable. The proposal also meets the guidelines set in SPP 6: Renewal Energy, Consultation Draft July 2006 and the Annex to PAN 45: Planning for Micro Renewables 2006. Therefore, notwithstanding the objections raised and for the reasons stated above, taking all matters into consideration, I recommend that permission be granted.

154 Application No: S/06/01670/FUL

Date Registered: 5th October 2006

Applicant : PARS Properties 8-12 Glentanar Road Glasgow G22 7XS

Development: Change of use from Class 1 to Class 2 or Class 3 or Hot Food Take Away

Location: 269 Main Street Bellshill Lanarkshire ML4 IAJ

Ward: 30 Hattonrigg Councillor Harry Curran

Grid Reference: 273458 660283

File Reference: S/PL/B/7/61(99)/SM/MM

Site History: None Relevant

Development Plan: The site is zoned as B3 Established Town Centre Area in the Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985 and RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001,2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations required.

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: 1gth October 2006

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 5th October 2006

155 9SI .- Memo from Transportation Team Leader received gth November 2006 Memo from Pollution Control Team Leader received 13'h November 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698 302085.

Date: 20 November 2006

157 APPLICATION NO. S1061016701FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application seeks permission for a change of use from an existing shop (Class 1) to Class 2, Class 3 or as a Hot Food Takeaway at 269 Main Street, Bellshill. Class 2 uses include financial, professional & other services such as a bank, building society. To the south of the shop is a health centre and to the west and east are commercial premises within the Town Centre of Bellshill. Located to the north of the site is an existing industrial site that has consent, subject to legal agreement, for the development of a superstore (Tesco).

1.2 The existing unit is located at the end of a row of modern commercial premises at 269-277 Main Street, Bellshill. The property was formerly occupied by Kirkwood Fashions, which closed some months ago. Attempts to re-let the property for Class 1 retail use have not been successful, thus consent is being sought for alternative uses. The applicants have indicated that the request for a change of use to the alternatives stated is to encourage interest from the widest range of potential occupiers.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of The Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is zoned as an established Town Centre Area in the Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan. The site is covered by Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) and Policy RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) are also relevant to the consideration of this application.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section have no objections to this proposal. The Pollution Control Section commented that a noise limit should be installed on any ventilation system installed on the premises.

3.2 No representations were received.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues and therefore can be assessed in terms of the Local Plan Policies. Policy B3 of the Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan encourages the concentration of retail facilities within the Town Centre. More contemporary is the Southern Area Local Plan (Finalised Draft 2001, 2004 and 2005) within which Policies RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas), RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are relevant to the consideration of this application.

4.2 In assessing this particular proposal in terms of Policies RTL 5 and RTL 11, it is considered that the relevant determining factors are whether the proposed Class 2 use, Class 3 use and the Hot

158 Food Takeaway use are acceptable in terms of the criteria listed in the Policies. Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) gives support to changes of use to non-retail town centre uses where they do not adversely affect the character and amenity of the area and assist the vitality of the Town Centre. Policy RTL 5 identifies that it supports changes of use to non-retail town centre uses particularly to those included under Class 2, Financial, Professional and Other Services and to Class 3 Food and Drink, provided that they do not adversely affect the character and amenity of the area. There are already existing Class 1, 2 & Class 3 uses located within Main Street, Bellshill and the proposed change to either Class 2 or Class 3 or a hot food takeaway is not considered to adversely alter the mix of uses within or vitality of this area. With regard to the Hot Food Takeaway proposed change of use this is assessed against Policy RTL 11 which makes it clear that the preferred locations for hot food takeaways include town centre locations such as the currently proposed site. The area is within the established Town Centre of Bellshill, which contains a mixture of retail and commercial units and also has existing hot food takeaways located within the Main Street. Given the presence of existing hot food takeaways in the surrounding area it is considered that any impact on the area would be minimal. The proposal is a use which would be in line with Policy RTL 11 as it is a Bad Neighbour Development, which is located within a Town Centre area as preferred. The proposal site also has access from the existing pavement on Main Street with regard to access for disabled people. The proposal is considered to comply with Policies RTL 5 & RTL 11.

4.3 Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications on Development) is a material consideration and requires the impact of the development on road safety to be assessed. The Policy indicates that in determining applications for new development a number of criteria will be taken into consideration including impact on traffic generation, provision for access and parking and the scope for integration with public transport. My Transportation Section were consulted and have no objections to this application. The parking situation on Main Street should not change as a result of this application, as there are presently double yellow lines on Main Street to forbid parking on this area of Main Street, Bellshill. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy TR 13. With regard to the comments by my Pollution Control Section, the proposal site is located amongst a row of commercial premises and there are no immediate residential properties that would be affected.. by any ventilation system installed. 4.4 In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposed range of uses are acceptable at this location and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

159 Application No: S/06/01676/FUL

Date Registered: 11th October 2006

App Iican t : Salvatore Fileccia 27 Fergus Gardens Hamilton ML3 7DF

Agent Ryden 130 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5HF

Development: Sub-division of Existing Hot Food Takeaway to Create Two Hot-Food Takeaway Units

Location: 62 Carfin Road Newarthill Motherwell North Lanarkshire MLI 5AG

Ward: 29 Newarthill Councillor John Lafferty

Grid Reference: 277887 6591 22

File Reference:

Site History:

Development Plan : The adopted Northern Area Local Plan zones the site as DCI (Mixed Use Areas). On the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) the site is zoned as RTL6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) and policies RTLl1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are relevant to this development.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 19th October 2006

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.

160 161 2. That noise associated with the air conditioninglventilation system or any other plant and any other noise associated with the development shall not give rise to a noise level within any nearby dwelling (assessed with windows open) or other noise sensitive building in excess of the equivalent to Noise Rating Curve, NRC 35, between 0700 hours and 2000 hours and Noise Rating Curve NRC 25 at all other times.

Reason: To ensure that the noise associated with the development will be within acceptable limits in the interests of residential amenity.

3. That prior to the commencement of operations on site, the applicant must provide further details of the proposed external extraction flue, including details of the colour and finish, and these must be approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the flue is installed.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

4. That the extractor flue as shown on the approved plans and as detailed under condition 3 above shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the opening of the takeaway.

Reason: To ensure that the premises are provided with an adequate ventilationlextraction system, as required in the interests of residential amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th October 2006

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 6'h November 2006 Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 23rd October 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) Northern Area Local Plan 1986

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss Charmaine Mills at 01698 302136.

Date: 13 November 2006

162 APPLICATION NO. S/06/01676/FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I This application seeks permission for the sub-division of Sals Fast Food Takeaway to create two smaller hot food takeaway units at 62 Carfin Road, Newarthill. The existing hot food takeaway unit has been established for many years. The building is single storey and rectangular in shape with a slate pitched roof. This site is located within a mixed use area albeit residential use predominates within the locale. The site faces onto Carfin Road with a public car park to the north of the site and large expanse of open space to the east. There is a gap site immediately to the south of the site, which is overgrown and untidy in appearance with a 1.8m high mesh fence to the front. To the west, lies an established residential estate.

1.2 A vehicular access is located to the north of the hot food takeaway leading to the rear yard area which has a 1 metre high wooden panel fence. The yard is slightly uneven and plays host to sporadic perimeter planting in the form of shrubdbushes on all sides. Whilst the yard has the potential to accommodate parking in association with the hot food takeaway, it is rarely used given the substandard access arrangements and informal parking layout. Thus, patrons tend to use the public car park to the north of the unit for parking purposes. As a result of under-usage the rear yard area has enabled the self-regeneration of grass and weeds along the building’s edge and yard perimeter, thereby presenting a slightly unkempt appearance.

1.3 The application proposes to divide the existing unit to allow for two hot food takeaways with one unit having a ground floor area of 54 square metres and the other unit measuring 39 square metres. At present there are four windows with a door in the centre of the front elevation. External alterations include removing two of the windows and replacing with two smaller windows and an entrance door to the proposed second unit. The external flues shown on the proposed plans are indicative only and an exact location is to be agreed. A separate planning application will be submitted for the proposed external signage.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The adopted Northern Area Local Plan zones the site as DCI (Mixed Use Areas).

2.3 On the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) the site is zoned as RTL6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) and policies RTLI 1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and TRI 3 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are relevant to this development.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section have no objections to the proposal.

3.2 The Protective Services Section have no objections subject to cooking odours from the . premises being controlled and that noise levels associated with the completed development are within recommended guidelines.

163 3.3 Following standard neighbour notification and newspaper advertisement procedures there have been no letters of objection received.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other relevant material considerations. In terms of The Northern Area Local Plan the site is within an area covered by Mixed Use Policy DCI which seeks to encourage a mixture of residential and commercial uses in such areas. The existing use of a Hot Food Takeaway is not detrimental to the area and therefore the subdivision of this unit to create two smaller units accords with this policy.

4.2 The proposal also requires to be in accordance with Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). The site is zoned as RTLG (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) and policies RTLI 1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant to this development.

4.3 Policy RTLG seeks to encourage the expansion of Class 1 retail floorspace, but also supports other types of commercial activities including Class 2 Offices, Class 3 Food and Drink and Class 11 Assembly and Leisure, where the development does not adversely affect the character and amenity of the Commercial Area and accords with the provisions of Policy RTL 11 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and supports the retention and provision of other uses which complement the role and function of Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial areas. The relevant determining factors are whether the hot food take away is acceptable in terms of its location, design, and effect on the adjoining properties. Although the application site is located in close proximity to residential properties, given that the existing hot food takeaway has been in existence for many years, and as the unit will be subdivided resulting in no additional floor space, it is considered that any impact on residential amenity would be marginal as there would be no significant increase in fumes, litter, noise or general disturbance to the detriment of surrounding properties. In terms of residential amenity all customer activity would be at the front of the site, there would only be a small increase in activity in the rear service yard and the hours of operation will be similar to that of the operating hours of the existing premises. As such it is considered that the design,and location of the proposal would not adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the neighbouring properties, subject to a condition to submit further details regarding the proposed external flues on the side elevations of the building. The proposal therefore accords with policy RTL6.

4.4 Policy RTLII seeks to locate developments such as public houses and other bad neighbour developments within Town Centres andlor Secondary Village or Neighbourhood Commercial Areas. Proposals are assessed on their potential impact on the character of the surrounding environment. Those which conflict with the surrounding environment causing nuisance through noise, smells or litter; are visually intrusive, result in traffic congestion, create a road safety hazard, have unsociable hours of operation, or do not satisfy parking requirements will generally be opposed. In relation to Policy RTLII, given that the proposed site is within the Council’s preferred location namely a neighbourhood commercial area, and that the existing unit is a well established hot food takeaway within the setting of the area, it is considered that the proposed sub division of the existing unit will not have a detrimental effect on the character of the surrounding environment. In terms of its effect on neighbours, noise, fumes, litter and residential amenity have been covered in paragraph 4.3 above. The traffic issues relating to the proposal will be considered under assessment of the application against policy TR13. Thus, the proposal is held to comply with policy RTLII.

164 4.5 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including, the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses, impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety, and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. My Transportation Section has no objections to the proposed development and given that there is a public car park adjacent to the site and a yard area to the rear with vehicular access it is therefore considered that sufficient parking provision is available in the surrounding area. With regards to the level of traffic generated, it is considered that there will not be a significant increase in traffic resulting from sub-division of the existing unit. The existing service arrangements will remain whereby service vehicles will utilise the rear yard and existing access. Pedestrian and disabled access arrangements are considered to be acceptable. It is considered that there will not be any adverse impact on road safety. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy TRI 3.

4.6 As indicated at paragraph 4.5 above the Transportation Team Leader has no objections to this proposal. The comments of my Protective Services Section on noise and odours are reflected in recommended conditions.

4.7 In conclusion, I consider that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and that the proposed change of use complies with policies RTLG (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas), RTLl1 (Bad Neighbour Developments) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft. It is considered that the impact of the development on surrounding neighbours will be of marginal significance given the current use of the site as a hot food takeaway. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

165 Application No: S/06/01717/FUL

Date Registered: 13'h October, 2006

Applicant: Mrs Patricia Hardie 68 Kenilworth Avenue Wishaw ML2 7EN

Development: Siting of a Snack Van (Renewal of Consent S/03/01289/FUL)

Location: Land to west of 53 Waverley Drive, Wishaw, ML2 7JW

Ward: 7 Belhaven Councillor Sam Love

Grid Reference: 27981 5 65561 7

File Reference: SIP LIB F/10/2MW/M M

Site History: Temporary planning permission was granted for a snack van at this location on 4 occasions since 1995.

Development Plan: The site lies within an area zoned primarily for Residential Use within the burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan and as an Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 & 2005).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations required.

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: 1st November 2006

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire five years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

166 Produced bv North Lana;kshire Council Planning and Environment Oept Fleming House, 2 Tryst Road Cumberoauld, 087 1JW telO1236616210 fau 01236 616232 Planning Application No. S / 06 I01717 / FUL

This map 16 reprodmad from Ordnance survey mafeiialvnththepetmissionoiordnancesurvey Siting of a Snack Van (Renewal of Consent S/03/01289/FUL) on behalf of the Controller d Her Majesh/s Stationery Office Q Crown Oopyright Unauthorised reprodudion lnfrlnge~cr~~mpyrightand may Land To West Of 53 Waverley Drive Wishaw ML2 7JW lead to prosecution or civil proceedings North Lanarkshire Council 100023396 2004 M

I67 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13'h October, 2006

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 2ndNovember, 2006

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005) Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan 1953

Any person wishing to inspect these d,ocuments should contact Mr Mick Welsh at 01698 302099.

Date: 13 November 2006

168 APPLICATION NO. S/06/01717/FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the continued siting of a snack van on an area of ground to the west of 53 Waverley Drive, Wishaw. The application is for a renewal of the temporary planning consent which expired on 22"d October, 2006. The applicant has indicated that trading will be from 9.30am to 2.00pm, Monday to Friday. Temporary planning permission has been granted on 4 occasions since 1995 for a snack van at this location.

The proposed site is bounded by residential properties to the east and west with an area of amenity landscaping to the south. The snack van is located outwith the public footpath on ground surfaced with gravel adjacent to the entrance to St. Aidan's High School.

DeveloPment Plan

The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies.

The site lies within an area zoned primarily for Residential Use within the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan and as an Established Housing Area in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 & 2005).

Consultations and Representations

My Transportation Team Leader has no objections subject to the site being accessed via a dropped kerb footway and that the snack van should not be serviced or taken onto the site during school hours. Existing visibility splays should be maintained and the existing footway should remain unobstructed and the snack van located three metres behind the heel of the footway.

In response to the statutory advertisement of this application and neighbour notification no objections have been received.

Planning Assessment and Conclusions

The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies. The policies relevant to this case are HSG8 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 & 2005).

Policy HSG8 relates to the protection of the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting. This application meets the requirements of this policy as the siting of the snack van at this location can be viewed as a local shop and, therefore, is not viewed as incompatible within an Established Housing Area, and would cause no significant harm to the character or amenity of the area. A snack van has been sited at this location since 1995 with no adverse effects, and no objections received.

.. 169 4.3 Policy TR13 requires consideration of the impact of the development on the level of traffic generated and on road safety. My Transportation Section have no objections to the continued siting of the snack van at this location subject to conditions. Given that planning permission has been granted since 1995, and there have been no traffic concerns, it is considered that the development is satisfactory in terms of Policy TRI 3. I do not however consider the request for a more formal access arrangement to replace the existing footway ramp to be warranted by the proposed renewal of an existing temporary consent.

4.4 In conclusion, the snack van has been operating from this site for many years without a record of any complaints, and I consider that the proposed snack van complies with the relevant development plan policies contained in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted for a further temporary period of five years.

170