A AGENDA ITEM No. ---.-L

North Lanarkshire Council

PIan n ing A ppl icat ion s for cons iderat ion of Planning and Transportation Committee

Committee Date : 1 May 2008

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

1 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 1 May 2008

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

4 N/08/00033/FUL Craigendmuir Ltd Amendment to Caravan Grant Layout and Occupancy Conditions Caravan Park Campsie View Cardowan Stepps

11 N/08/00112/FUL Housing and Social Change of Use of Grant Work Services House to Community Request for Site Room Visit and Hearing 12 Rannoch Court Condorrat, Cumbernauld

16 N/08/00367/FUL Kevin Coyle Construction of a Refuse Dwellinghouse Land Adjacent 2 Ebroch Park Kilsyth

22 C/07/00172/FUL lnfinis Ltd Construction of Wind Grant (P) Farm Comprising of 9 Request for Site Turbines (maximum Visit 80m Hub Height & 45m Blades) with Ancillary and Other Infrastructure & Access Roads at Greengairs Landfill Site Meikle Drumgray Road Greengairs

52 C/08/00237/FUL Murlin Residential Erection of 27 Flats and Grant (P) 11 Terraced Dwellinghouses at 64 Main Street, Caldercruix

59 S/07/01863/FUL Christine Kelly Installation of Access Refuse Driveway 6 Main Street, Holytown, Motherwell

64 S/08/00201/OUT Ms M Donald Construction of Refuse (P) Dwellinghouse (In Outl i ne) Land at Greenhill Farm, Greenhill Road, Hareshaw

2 69 S/08/00251/FUL Mr & Mrs Penman Erection of a Single Grant Storey Extension to Site Visit and Side and Rear of Hearing Dwellinghouse 38 Emily Drive, Motherwell

74 S/08/00291/FUL Bankmachine Ltd Installation of ATM Grant 10 - 12 New Stevenston Road, Carfin, Motherwell

79 S/08/00299/AMD Morrison Non-Compliance with Grant Supermarket Plc Conditions 2 and 3 of Planning Consent of S/05/00220/OUT Morrison Supermarkets Plc, John Street, Bellshill

84 S/08/00304/FUL A G Grant Installation of ATM Grant Construction Ltd 224 - 226 Main Street, Bellshill

89 S/O8/0034O/FUL Mr & Mrs J Erection of Two Storey Grant MacMillan Extension to Side and Request for Site Rear of Dwellinghouse Visit & Hearing 24 Stirling Street, Motherwell

C/07/00172/FUL If granted, Section 75 Agreement and Bond of Caution required C/08/00237/FUL If granted, Section 69 Agreement required S/08/00201/OUT If granted, refer to Scottish Ministers as Development in the Greenbelt

3 Application No: N/08/00033/FUL

Date Registered: 11th January 2008

Applicant: Craig endm uir Limited Craigendmuir Park Business Centre Stepps Glasgow G33 6AF

Agent Montgomery Forgan Associates Eden Park House Cupar Fife KY 15 4HS

Development: Amendment to Caravan Site Layout

Location: Caravan Park Reception Campsie View Cardowan Stepps G33 6BE

Ward: 5 - Strathkelvin. Councillors Hogg, McGlinchey, Shaw & Wallace

Grid Reference: 266009 667863

File Reference: N/08/00033/FUL

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 10 letters of representation and a petition with 31 signatures received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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 except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers Fe-718-101, Fe-718-102, Fe-718- 103, Fe-718-104 and Fe-718-105.

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

3. That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the phasing and decanting schemes detailed on the approved plans.

4 9.- jzfdr- EQ- N~~~~3~UL *-*..--..,e-,.. -*- * Craigendmus Ltd Caravan Park Camasis View Cardowan 5teRDS amendment to Caravan Layout &Occupanc;k .k. Repre sent ations

5 Reason: To ensure the satisfactory planning of the site and in the interest of the existing residents of the site.

4. That the pitches shall be laid out as detailed on the approved plans and, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the maximum size of caravan on each pitch shall be that detailed on the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the proper planning for the site and in the interests of the site residents and the residents of neighbouring dwellings.

5. That except may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, only garages of the design detailed on the approved plans shall be erected within the site.

Reason: To ensure the proper planning for the site.

6. That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the garages shall only be erected on the pitches where garages are illustrated on the approved plans. The garages shall be of the size detailed on the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure the proper planning of the site.

7. That before the start of the development hereby permitted, details of all boundary treatment around the entire perimeter of the site shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, a timber close boarded screen fence measuring 2 metres in height from ground level shall be erected along the boundaries highlighted in yellow on the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard residential amenity.

8. That before phase 1 of the development hereby permitted is completed; the boundary treatment approved under the terms of Condition 7 above shall be implemented and completed.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

9. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (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 hedgegrows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of the development (d) a detailed timetable of all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneouslywith the development of the site.

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

10. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of Condition 9 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

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

11. 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:-

6 (a) the internal site roads, footpaths, parking areas and lighting; (b) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas hatched illustrated on the approved plans; (c) the proposed fences to be erected along the boundaries marked yellow on the approved plans.

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

12. That upon the completion of phase 1 of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 11 shall be in operation. Thereafter, the scheme shall be expanded to include each subsequent phase of the development as it is completed.

Reason: To ensure the proper management and maintenance of the site in order to safeguard residential amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11th January 2008

Memo from Traffic and Transportation Section received 11 February 2008

Letter from Craigendmuir Park Residents' Association, 1 Lomond Place, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, Glasgow, G33 6AF received 25th February 2008.

Letter from Craigendmuir Park Residents' Association, 1 Lomond Place, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, Glasgow, G33 6AF received 4th March 2008.

Letter from Mrs M Trotman, 7A Uist Crescent, Stepps, G33 6BG received 4th March 2008.

Letter from Ms Catherine Stevenson, 10 Lomond Place, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, Glasgow, G33 6AF received 5th March 2008.

Letter from Lorraine & Billy Morris, 8 Lomond Place, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, G33 6AF received 10th March 2008.

Letter from Mr James Henderson, 6 Uist Crescent, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, G33 6BG received 10th March 2008.

Letter from Morris Dickson-Moore, 2 Lomond Place, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, G33 6AF received 10th March 2008.

Letter from Mr Samuel Kearns, 4 Uist Crescent, Cardowan, Stepps, G33 6BG received 10th March 2008.

Letter from May Clocherty, 13 Campsie View, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, G33 6BE received 10th March 2008.

Letter from Owner/Occupier, 10 Lomond Place, Craigendmuir Park, Stepps, G33 6AF received 1 1th March 2008.

Petition containing 31 letters from residents of Craigendmuir Caravan Park, stepps, G33 6AF received 2 April 2008.

Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 616464.

Date: 15 April 2008

7 APPLICATION NO. N/08/00033/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is an established caravan and chalet park that consists of residential units, a holiday site area and a touring site area, The site is bounded on the north and west by permanent residential homes. Further north of the site is the approved Frankfield Loch residential development site. To the east and south of the site is open Green Belt.

1.2 The proposal is to regularise the planning status of the site through obtaining planning consent. The site is under new ownership and they are aware that there is no record of having ever secured planning consent for the use. The proposal also consists of the regeneration and redesign of the layout of the site by means of increasing the numbers of residential chalet style homes and removing the holiday and touring elements from the site. Associated garages are proposed for a number of the units. The total number of proposed chalet units is in order of 186. The existing number of units is 152.

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 Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005, the site lies within a defined residential area where policy HG3 (Retention of ResidentialAmenity) applies.

Extract from HG3: “There will be a presumption against the loss of housing to other uses. The Council will seek to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of established housing areas”

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Section, Protective Services Section and Housing and Property Section were consulted. A response was received by my Traffic and Transportation Section and can be summarised as follows:

“Given that the access road would remain the same, the road within fhe site would not be adopted, and the proposal does not involve permanent structures, this section would not usually provide comments however Iwould suggest that adequate parking provision be provided for the site in order of 1 parking space per unit. ”

3.2 There has been 10 letters of representation and a petition containing 31 signatures submitted with regard to this application. The nature of the representations can be summarised as follows:

The proposed additional residential chalet style homes would put an extra strain on existing amenities and would cause electrical fluctuations, sewerage blockages, and reduced water pressure which is already an existing problem.

Comment: The required drainage, sanitation, water facilities and electrical installation for each unit are covered under the Caravan Site Licence issued in accordance with the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 which does not form part of the Planning Legislation and therefore should not be a consideration of this application. Nevertheless I am not aware of any infrastructure constraints in this area.

The road infrastructurewithin the site is clearly inadequate for the number of units proposed and therefore must be inadequate for emergency vehicles.

8 Comment: Road, gateways and footpath requirements are covered under the Caravan Site License and therefore should not be considered as part of this application. As indicated above, the internal site roads will remain private.

We are concerned about the lack of open space and gardens between units as a result of the new development.

Comment: The required distances between caravans is controlled under the Caravan Site License. The Council has open space standards for permanent residential housing developments but these standards do not apply for a residential caravankhalet park. Communal landscaped areas have been demonstrated on the approved plan and a condition has been attached requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme for the site.

We consider that a preservation order should be placed on existing trees and gardens.

Comment: There are no Tree Preservation Orders on the any trees within the site. The established tree belt to the south east of the site does not form part of the proposed development area and therefore should not be affected. As the entire site is proposed to be regenerated and the site layout redesigned, it is consider unreasonable to attach a condition requiring retention of existing garden areas.

0 This site is used extensively by foreign visitors to the Glasgow area. The loss of touring and holiday pitches will result in the loss of tourists utilising the site.

Comment: The loss of touring pitches is unfortunate but is not a sufficient justification for recommending refusal of planning permission.

0 It is proposed that Craigendmuir will only allow people 50 years or older to reside on the site. I consider this a breach of human rights.

Comment: The restriction referred to is an operational matter and as such is not a material planning consideration.

There are no facilities for elderly people and the population of the park will inevitably become very old and eventually require special needs.

Comment: Health care and related facilities are provided in the wider community,

The existing residents are being persuaded by various means to relinquish their units. They have been threatened with court action and in some cases being offered small amounts of compensation for their unit. This is being done so that the applicant can bring in new homes and new residents.

Comment: If this is indeed the case then I concede that it is very unfortunate for the existing residents of the site. It should be noted however that the applicant has stated that he intends to offer existing residents the opportunity to be decanted into temporary on site accommodation until the phasing of the regeneration works is complete. Following this, it is the intention to re- site and re-connect their original homes to all mains services.

There are no facilities for residents to buy groceries.

Comment: This type of facility does not exist at present however they do exist in the wider community. As such, it would be unreasonable to require this type of facility on the site.

The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on quality of life.

Comment: There are no grounds to suggest that such a development would have an impact on quality of life for existing or prospective residents of the caravankhalet units. Undoubtedly existing residents will experience some inconvenience throughout the regeneration of the site however this can be expected by any home owner where development is ongoing in close proximity to their property. 9 0 The existing residents of the site were not formally notified as part of this application.

Comment: When the application was submitted, it was stated that the existing residents were not notified. The agent was quickly advised that the residents would be required to be notified and I was advised that this would be done. Confirmation was received of the formal notification. Although several residents dispute being notified, all representations that I have received are from existing residents so I can assume that they are aware of the proposal.

0 Apparently some of the existing units do not comply with the Site Licence. The applicant is using this as a lever to throw out the existing residents.

Comment: Non compliance with the Site License is not a material planning consideration and does not form part of the planning legislation and should therefore not be given weight in determining this application.

A petition supporting the proposal and containing 31 signatures of existing residents of the site has been submitted by the applicant. The statement provided can be summarised as follows:

“As a resident of Craigendmuir Caravan Park, I would confirm that I am in agreement with the planning proposals and I feel it would be of great benefit to all residents on the park. I have no

objections to these plans. ”

4. Planning 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 considered contrary to policy HG3 as it is an existing residential caravankhalet park.

4.2 It should be made clear that the purpose of this application is to regularise the planning status of the site as the original consent cannot be located by either the owner of the site of the Planning Authority. The site is considered lawful as it had been in use as a residential caravan park for over ten years. The application also involves an increase in numbers of residential caravans and chalets within the site. It is considered that the site is large enough to accommodate 186 units.

4.3 Many of the units within the site are in a dilapidated condition and are in need of upgrading. Many boundary fences are in a similar condition and as such the site itself has an unsightly appearance. I consider that the proposal to regenerate and upgrade the site would be to the betterment of the surrounding area.

4.4 Although many residents have stated that the regeneration of the site would result in them being forced to leave their homes and the site, this is a legal issue between the residents and the site owner. As such, it is unfortunately not a material planning consideration and should therefore not be given any weight in the determination of this application.

4.5 At least one car parking space has been provided per unit. This provision is considered satisfactory by my Traffic and Transportation Section. Visitor parking has been illustrated on the proposed plan however this Section have not commented upon this element of the proposal. I consider the provision of visitor parking to be a positive contribution to this proposal as it may reduce on street parking.

4.6 Having considered the proposed development against the development plan; the petition of support and the merits of this case from a planning perspective, I recommend that planning consent be granted subject to conditions.

4.7 A request for the Committee to visit the site and conduct a hearing prior to the determination of this application has been requested.

10 Application No: N/08/00112/FUL

Date Registered: 29th January 2008

Applicant: Housing And Social Work Services 73-77 Merry Street Motherwell MLI IJE

Agent NLC Design Services Philip Murray Road Bellshill ML4 3PA

Development: Change of Use from a House to a Community Room

Location: 12 Rannoch Court Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4LS

Ward: 3 -Cumbernauld South.Councillors:Carrigan,Goldie,Homer,McElroy

Grid Reference: 273608672773

File Reference: N/08/00112/FUL

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. Policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) applies.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: I letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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.

11 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th January 2008

E-mail from Councillor Murray, Member Services, Civic Centre Windmillhill Street, Motherwell, MLI IAB received 8th February 2008.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 616464.

Date: 14 April 2008

12 12 Ranvnoch Coutl Condonat Cumbernauld Change of Use of House to Community Room

13 APPLICATION NO. N/08/00112/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application property is a mid terrace located within a social housing complex. It is a former warden’s house and is currently utilised by the warden as an office for social housing related matters. Attached to south of the property is the North Lanarkshire Council MacAuley Community Hall. Attached and to the north is a social housing dwelling. To the west of the site are the Condorrat Bowling Green and associated club.

1.2 The proposal is for the conversion of the former warden’s house to form a community room and office for the occupants of the social housing complex. The proposal includes a kitchen and toilet facilities. It is not proposed to be utilised by other community groups. Proposed operation would be standard working hours with the possible exception of being utilised on an evening to host a bingo or tea and coffee night.

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 site lies within a defined residential area where policy HG4 (ResidentialAmenity) applies.

Policy HG4: “There will be a presumption against the loss of houses to other uses, and development which could be detrimental to residential amenity. There will be, however, a presumption in favour of developmenfs of an ancillary nature which enhance the provision of

local community facilities and services.”

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required for this application.

3.2 1 representation was received via e-mail from Councillor Murray. The objection statement is as follows:

“I am not satisfied that this matter has been thoroughly investigated I wish to object because of its implications to my ward and the whole treatment of the warden service”

Comment: Notwithstanding the Councillors statement, each planning application must be considered on its own merits. I consider that there has been sufficient information provided in order to carry out a proper assessment of the proposal and to determine the application.

4. Planning 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.

4.2 Relevant local plan policy HG4 supports the loss of houses where the proposed use is of an ancillary nature which will enhance local community facilities and services. I consider the proposal to comply with this policy. The proposed community room would provide a safe, accessible location for the social housing residents and would be a place where people could interact and socialise on a low key level.

14 4.3 The existing office facility for the warden would remain. It should also be noted that only part of the building will be utilised for community use.

4.4 The property is attached to residential property No. 10 Rannoch Court. The hours of intended operation are standard working hours and anything beyond these hours would be low key and for the purpose of the residents themselves. As such I have no concerns regarding impact on No.10 as a result of intensity of the use or noise.

4.5 I consider it unlikely that additional traffic would be generated as a result of the proposed change of use. The community room is for the use of the residents of the surrounding social housing.

4.6 There are similar uses in the vicinity. Attached to the application property is No.14 Rannoch Court which is the North Lanarkshire Council MacAuley Community Hall. West of the property is the Condorrat Bowling Club. As such, the proposed use is not considered to be out of keeping with the area.

4.7 Having assessed the merits of this case, I consider that planning permission should be granted.

4.8 Councillor Murray has requested that the Committee visit the site and conduct a hearing.

15 Application No: Date Registered: 25th March 2008

Applicant: Kevin Coyle 57 High Craigends Kilsyth G65 ONS

Agent JSK Designs 'Edgemount' Parkburn Road Kilsyth G65 9DG

Development: Construction of a Dwellinghouse

Location: Land Adjacent 2 Ebroch Park Kilsyth North Lanarkshire G65 OPQ

Ward: 1 Kilsyth: Councillors Griffin, Jones and Key

Grid Reference: 272250677868

File Reference: N/08/00367/OUT

Site History: None

Development Plan: Policy HG3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Rep resentat io ns : I letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed dwelling is contrary to Policy HG3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan, in that the proposed plot is not in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding residential area and is too narrow tu allow for adequate side garden provision, as set out in the Council's Minimum Space Standards. The narrowness of the plot combined with the difference in levels will lead to an overbearing development which will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the residents at nos. 8 and 10 Ebroch Drive.

16 Lank Adjacent 2 Ebroch Park Kikyth Construction of a ~wellingh~~~

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th March 2008

Letter from Mr Gary Currie, 10 Ebroch Drive, Kilsyth, G65 OPG received 20th March 2008.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Kilsyth Local Plan 1999

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

DATE: 14'h APRIL 2008

18 APPLICATION NO. N10810036710UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1 .I This outline application is for the construction of a detached 1 ?4 storey house on land west of 2 Ebroch Park, Kilsyth. The application site is sandwiched between the rear of nos. 8 and 10 Ebroch Drive and the side of no. 2 Ebroch Park.

1.2 The site is incongruous with the rest of the plots in the surrounding area as it is considerably smaller; whilst it has a reasonable depth; it has a very narrow width of 8.5 - 9 metres. It should be noted that the width is smaller than adjacent semi-detached plots, the smallest of which has a width of 11.5 metres.

1.3 The site also sits approximately 1.7 metres higher than the adjacent semi-detached properties at nos. 8 and 10 Ebroch Drive.

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 in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 In terms of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, the site lies within a defined residential area where Policy HG3 (New Residential Development) applies. This policy states new residential development requires to be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. In particular it states the site must provide a satisfactory living environment by accommodating a reasonable size dwellinghouse with acceptable garden ground. Furthermore, there should be no detrimental effect on existing residential amenity and the proposal should comply with the Council’s policy on open space for private housing development.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 One letter of representation has been received from the neighbours at 10 Ebroch Drive. The objections raised and my comments thereon are as follows:-

* As the application site sits higher than the objector’s property and rear garden ground a house will overlook the garden and have a detrimental affect on their privacy.

Comment: It is accepted that the relationship between the application site and the objector’s land would result in a house having an overbearing impact, although there is less of an issue with privacy as the house would be located side on to the objector’s rear garden.

Anyone using the rear garden would be in an elevated position and would be able to look down into the rear garden and directly into their lounge and bedroom windows.

Comment: It is accepted that there would be an impact on the privacy currently enjoyed, however adequate screen fencing would largely mitigate against any such concerns.

0 The narrowness of the plot will likely place the majority of the windows on the elevation facing their house, at approximately the same height as their first floor bedroom window.

Comment: As it is an outline application there is no information on the position of the window

19 openings. It is however accepted that windows on the side elevation adjacent to the objector’s site, or any dormer windows on this elevation may have an unacceptable impact on their privacy. However, there is nothing to suggest that any windows would be placed on this side of the house. In any event, ground floor windows could be adequately dealt with by screen fencing and velux windows in the roof would have much less of an impact than dormer windows.

0 The proposal will result in a reduction of light in the objector’s rear garden and rooms at the rear of their house.

Comment: There will be an impact on the daylight levels as the proposed house will sit east of the rear garden and in an elevated position. However, any impact will be in the early stages of the day and will be lessened as the sun moves west throughout the course of the day. Even though indicative plans have been submitted it is difficult to assess the impact as the proposal is in outline.

The objectors state their will be a loss of view as they would look directly onto a house, fence and potentially a retaining wall.

Comment: Whilst there is no entitlementp a view under the planning legislation it is accepted that there will be a loss of outlook due to Fedifference in levels and closeness of the proposed ; house to their property. 8 & There is further concern that the closeness of the proposed house would result in noise disturbance from the future residents.

Comment: The above is not considered to be an issue as it is an existing residential area, and the objector’s property is semi-detached, thus being more likely to hear day to day noise from their adjacent neighbour than any new house.

There is concern that given the difference in levels any groundworks required may damage their property.

Comment: The above is not a material consideration. In the event of any damage it would be a legal matter between the applicant and the objectors.

Concerns were also raised over the lack of time to comment after being neighbour notified due to a public holiday and the fact there is no right of appeal. Questions were also asked regarding the likely timescale of the process.

Comment: The above concerns were addressed in e-mail correspondence with the case officer prior to validation of the planning application.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, policy HG3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 is of relevance. It states that new residential development should be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. The site must also comply with the Council’s policy on open space for private housing development.

4.2 It is considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area, as the application site is much smaller and in particular much narrower than the properties in Ebroch Park and Ebroch Drive. The site also sits considerably higher than the adjacent properties at 8 and 10 Ebroch Drive and the proposed house would be located close to

20 the common boundaries, thus having an overbearing impact and leading to a loss of outlook.

4.3 The proposal does not comply with the Councils Minimum Space Standards. Furthermore, it would have a detrimental affect on the outlook of properties at nos. 8 and 10 Ebroch Drive. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

21 Application No: C/07/00172/FUL

Date Registered: 7th February 2007

Applicant: lnfinis Ltd First Floor 500 Pavilion Drive Northampton Business Park Northampton NN4 7YJ

Agent Entec UK Ltd 6/7 Newton Terrace Glasgow G3 7PJ

Development: Construction of Wind Farm Comprising of 9 Turbines (maximum 80m Hub Height & 45m Blades) with Ancillary and Other Infrastructure & Access Roads

Location: Greengairs Landfill Site Meikle Drumgray Road Greengairs North Lanarkshire

Ward: 07 Airdrie North Councillors S. Coyle, Cameron, McGuigan and Morgan Grid Reference: 278850669842

File Reference: C/PL/GWM400/CM/LR

Site History: 00/01164/MIN Extraction of Clay and Peat for the Engineering and Restoration of Adjacent Landfill Operation (Granted 22.10.07) 01/00462/AMD Variation of Condition One of Planning Permission C/96/00076/FUL to Extend Time Limit for the Start of Erection of Waste Recycling and Recovery Facility (Granted 20.3.02) 02/00194/AMD Proposals to Vary Phasing Operations and Restoration Details for Reclamation and Waste Land Filling (Submitted in Accordance with Condition 2 of Planning Permission M86/458) (Granted 20.02.07) 03/00455/FUL Integrated Waste Management Facility with Associated Access and Landscaping (Grant Subject to Section 75 Agreement, not yet concluded) 06/0061O/AMD Alteration to Phasing of Existing Landfill Site (Phases 7D, 8A, 88, 8C, 8D) (Amendment to Planning Permission C/02/00 194/AM D) (Granted 27.2.07) 06/00839/FUL Erection of 60M High Anemometry Mast (Mast Site No.2) (Granted 19.07.06) 06/0084O/FUL Erection of 60M High Anemometry Mast (Mast Site Nol) (Granted 19.07.06) 06/02097/AMD Variation of Condition One of Planning Permission 04/00316/AMD to Extend Time Limit for the Start of

22 Erection of Waste Recycling and Recovery Facility (Granted 31.12.07 07/00924/MIN Continued Reclamation and Restoration Operations by the Importation of Non-Hazardous Waste Materials (Under Consideration) 07/01638/AMD Replacement Two Storey Office Building (Amendment to C/04/01832/FUL) (Granted 13.11.07)

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Executive Development Dept. (No Objection) Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No Objection) Scottish Water (Comments) Health and Safety Executive (No Comment) British Gas (No Objection) Scottish Power (No Response) Central Scotland Forest Trust (No Response) British Telecom (No Response) OFCOMS (Scotland) (Objection) Civil Aviation Authority (Objection) Defence Estate (Safeguarding) (No Objection) Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds (No Objection) National Air Traffic Services (Safeguarding) (Objection) Greengairs Community Council (Objection) West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objection) Forestry Commission Scotland (No Objection) Cumbernauld Airport Ltd (No Response) Plains Community Council (No Objection) BAA (Objection) Scottish Wi Idlife Trust (No Response) Scottish Rights of Way Society (No Objection) Association/Protection/Rural Scotland (No Response) West Of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objection) BEAR (No Objection)

Representations: 105 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 14th February 2007

23 Banning Application No C/O7KlO 172ffUt Construction of Wnd Farm Comprising of 9 Turbines L.r)%Pr*.cu.elLI”a & I.* N*tnr*rna4Paacl frnaxrmurn 80m Hub Height 45m Hades) C.*ln#h&1IWMIIU *mau wth Ancillay and Mher Infrastructure &Access Roads L&IILCWUH .,*u*l*.I#ll ~~~T~~-cpus*lyu)tu,*+* 5”””’*””“”‘ Site, Meikle Road, Airdne LI.(cX”“*.”** Greengairs Landhll Drumgray Greengairs, *,*Ns-*lirr.*.*)* VnUM ~~&y~~~D&**ut mrte6Eo*( UI*d.,*.YI T**a)IIYUII1 IU. 102 Representations

24 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

That the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 5 years of the date of the permission, which shall subsist for a period of 25 years from the first date of generation of electricity from the development to the grid, Written confirmation of the first date of electricity generation shall be confirmed in writing to the Planning Authority. Within twelve months of the end of the permission, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a restoration and after-care scheme to be submitted for the approval of the planning authority no later than 2 year prior to the expiry of the 25 years period, referred to above.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of section 58 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997, to allow the planning authority to review the circumstances of the temporary permission in the interests of the amenity of the area in the longer term, beyond the 25 year period covered by the permission.

That prior to their erection, details of the precise positioning of each turbine shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The turbines shall be positioned no more than 50 metres in any direction from the location of each turbine as shown on Figure 2.1. This provision shall not apply to turbines 2, 4, 7 and 8 which will be subject to the micro-siting provisions set out in Paragraph 2.7.7 of the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying the planning application. Any such micro-siting shall maintain a 20m buffer zone to water courses as shown on plan reference Figure 2.3 of the ES, unless agreed with the planning authority in consultation with SEPA and SNH. The number of turbines shall not exceed 9 and the blade tip height of turbines shall not exceed 125m in height. The final specification of the turbines, including colour and finish, to be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to their erection on site. Reason: To allow limited flexibility in positioning turbines and to ensure that amenity and environmental assets are protected.

That all turbines and components hereby approved shall be installed to meet the safety standards set by British Standard BS EN 61400-1: 2004 “Wind turbine generator systems. Safety requirements” or International Electro-technicalCommission IEC 16400.

Reason: In the interests of public safety

That no turbine shall be erected on the site in connection with this permission until a Ground Investigation Report has been submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Report shall assess whether the proposed development is at risk of mineral instability due to old mine workings and mine entries, should consider potential risks resulting from opencast and landfill activities including long term settlementkompression of the opencast backfill and landfill, adequate bearing characteristics, contamination and soil gas generation. Reason: In the interest of public safety.

That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 4 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remedial site stability works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the agreed remedial strategy.

25 Reason: To ensure that the proposed development is not at risk of mineral instability in the interests of public safety.

6. That prior to the erection or installation of any ancillary equipment or buildings, the design, colour and finish of the equipment and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area

7. That all turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area

8. That prior to their erection on site, the specification of the turbines with regard to noise predictions, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for assessment and confirmation that the noise criteria in this approval will be met. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area

9. That prior to the installation of any turbines, a programme of noise monitoring arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any such programme shall be implemented on receipt of a noise complaint from the proprietor of any noise sensitive property existing at the date of this consent and any monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with ETSU-R-97. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area 10. That noise levels inclusive of any necessary tonal correction at any noise sensitive property existing at the date of this consent from the combined effect of the wind turbines where the proprietor or the occupier of the property has no financial interest in the development shall not exceed an external free-field level LA90,10minof the greater of 35dB or 5dB above the prevailing background noise level at any 1Om height wind speed up to 12m/s during 07:OO- 23:OO and the greater of 43dB or 5dB above the agreed prevailing background noise level at any 10m height wind speed up to 12m/s during 23:OO-07:OO. The data provided in the noise assessment presented in the Environmental Statement provides information on measured background noise at various wind speeds and the methodology used within that document should be the basis for assessment of future investigations. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area

11. That construction and decommissioning work, which is audible from the boundary of any noise sensitive receptor, shall only take place between the hours of 07.00-19.00 on Monday to Friday inclusive and 07.00-13.00 on Saturdays, with no working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Prior to construction work commencing, the developer shall agree dates for local and national public holidays with the Council. Outwith these said hours, development at the site shall be limited to turbine commissioning, emergency works, dust suppression and the testing of plant and equipment, or construction work that is not audible from any noise sensitive property outwith the site. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the construction of the site, by track, other than turbine blades, nacelles and towers, is not allowed outwith the said hours, unless otherwise agreed by the council having been given a minimum of two working days notice of the occurrence of the proposed event. Reason: to minimise disturbance and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.

26 12. That wind speed data must be maintained for a period of no less than 12 months from the date of the first output of electricity (as confirmed under the terms of condition 1) to the grid network from the wind farm,), and for each 12 month period of operation of the wind farm and be made available to the Planning Authority on request. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to provide the baseline data necessary for investigation of noise complaints.

13. That prior to commencement of development a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH and SEPA. Such Construction Method Statement shall cover: Detailed and scaled map to include the anticipated layout and width of temporary and permanent tracks, cable routeing, turbine bases, crane standings, site storage compound, substation, on site switch gear and equipment store and any ancillary buildings. Details of any change to the layout shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority; Details of all on-site construction, and construction of access tracks (to be of floating construction where constructed over peat of a depth greater than 1 m), including drainage (incorporate SUDS where appropriate), pollution prevention, mitigation, post-construction restoration, and reinstatementwork, as well as the timetables for such work. Details of construction practices in terms of minimisation of the use of raw materials and the reuse or recycling of waste materials; Peat and soil stripping, storage, use and replacement; Specification of watercourse crossings; Details of surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run off from internal access roads; Details of welfare facilities Details of concrete and vehicle washdown areas; A dust management plan during the construction period: Details of the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil; Details of the working and re-instatement of borrow pits; Details of the method, frequency and duration of watercourse monitoring, prior to and during the construction period of the wind farm development. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area, to ensure that necessary contingencies are in place, to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities, and to ensure the site is satisfactorily restored.

14. That no symbols, signs or logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines nor any other building or structures without the written consent of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.

15. That prior to the commencement of development a scheme for mitigating aviation safeguarding issues related to Glasgow Airport radar system and the Lowther Hill radar

27 installation, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with BAA and NATS. Reason: To ensure that the safety of air traffic is not compromised by the development.

16. That in the event that mitigation pursuant to the agreed scheme required under condition 15 above is required to be carried out, no turbine shall be erected without prior written confirmation from BAA and NATS that the scheme is satisfactory and the scheme so approved shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the planning authority in consultation with BAA and NATS. Reason: To ensure that the safety of air traffic is not compromised by the development.

17. That no turbines shall be erected on site until the applicant has provided the Ministry of Defence and NATS with the following information: Construction start and end dates The position of the turbine towers in latitude and longitude; The height of the turbines in metres above ordnance datum and above ground level; and The proposed methodology for lighting turbines if required. Reason: To enable military aircrew to avoid overflight of the site.

18. That all electricity and control cables between the turbines and the substation and within the site shall be laid underground alongside existing tracks or tracks authorised by this permission, unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to minimise localised ecological impacts.

19. That prior to development commencing, the developer shall carry out surveys for water voles and otters based on a methodology approved by the planning authority in consultation with SNH. Based on the findings of this survey, the developer shall submit a management plan incorporating appropriate measures for the protection of these species, the methodologies of which shall be detailed in the habitat management plan required under condition 22. This plan shall include mitigation measures designed to safeguard the protected habitat within and adjacent to the operational areas of the site. Thereafter the measures in the approved Habitat Management Plan shall be implemented as approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the ecological interest of the site.

20. That existing trees/woodland to be safeguarded during the construction process in line with British Standard BS5837:2005). Reason: In the interest of safeguarding ecological interests

21. That prior to development commencing on site, the applicant will submit a detailed habitat management plan for approval in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH and SEPA. The habitat management plan will set out the long-term management of an area to be agreed with the planning authority and should cover the following matters: Details of management and mitigation measures in particular blanket bog, water voles, long-eared owl (provision of minimum 2 nestboxes), short-eared owl and breeding birds, in particular grasshopper warbler and reed bunting:

28 Details of monitoring of breeding birds; Details of the relationshipkompatibility between the landfill restoration work and the windfarm. The measures in the approved Habitat Management Plan shall be implemented as approved. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the ecological interest of the site.

22. That prior to the development commencing on site, the applicant shall submit a scheme of enhancements to foreground landscape areas as viewed from Greengairs, Wattson and Dargavil Road. This shall include a scheme of maintenance, additional planting and a package of measures to remove visual clutter such as overhead power lines, improvements to the surface of Darngavil Road and the removal of tipped materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity

NOTE TO COMMITTEE

Section 75 Agreement: If granted, the planning permission will not be issued until an Agreement under Section 75 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been concluded with the applicant in respect of site restoration, aftercare, traffic management, alleviation of any electromagnetic or telecommunication interference caused the turbines, television and radio reception assessment and mitigation and shadow flicker mitigation.

Bond of Caution: If granted, the planning permission will not be issued until a Bond of Caution has been concluded with the applicant in respect of site restoration and aftercare.

Referral to Scottish Ministers If granted, the application details along with the ES would need to be referred to Scottish Ministers as the proposals would constitute an EIA development as defined by regulation 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 31st January 2007 Environmental Statement received 31St January 2007 Supplementary Environmental Information-Ornithologyreceived 20 June 2007 Supplementary Environmental Information received 17th September 2007 Statement of Community Consultation received 17'h September 2007. Letter from Entec UK Ltd received 17thSeptember 2007

Letter from Scottish Executive Development Dept. received 8th March 2007 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 10th March 2008, 11 December and 8thMay 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 9th July 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 22nd February 2007

29 Letter from Health and Safety Executive received 14th March 2007 Letter from British Telecom received 22nd February 2007 Letter from OFCOMS (Scotland) received 20th February 2008 Letter from Civil Aviation Authority received 21st January 2008 Letter from Defence Estate (Safeguarding) received 12th April 2007 Letter from Royal Soc. for the Protection of Birds received 9th July 2007 Letter from National Air Traffic Services (Safeguarding) Mailbox 27, 400 received 23rd February 2007 Letter from Greengairs Community Council received 16th April 2007 Letter from Forestry Commission Scotland received 27th March 2007 Letter from Plains Community Council received 26th February 2007 Letter from Glenmavis Community Council received 26'h June 2007 Letter from BMreceived 18th January 2008 Letter from Scottish Rights of Way Society received 22nd February 2007 Letter from Amey (BEAR) received 6th July 2007

Memo from Transportation received 30th April 2007 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 30th July 2007 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 9th July 2007 Memo from Countryside and Landscape Manager received 13th December 2007,

Letter from S Wightman, 413 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Near Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 12th March 2007. Letter from J & E Marshall, 41 1 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 2nd March 2007. Letter from James Barr, 226 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 2LN received 2nd March 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs S Wightman, 8 Roadside Place, Greengairs , Near Airdrie, ML6 7UF, received 5th March 2007. Letter from Greengairs Community Council, 429 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, ML6 7TE received 13th April 2007. Letter from Glenmavis Community Council, J Comrie Chairman, 76 Balmoral Avenue, Glenmavis, Airdrie , ML6 OPY received 20th June 2007. Letter from A Dougall, 450 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 1st October 2007. Letter from P Downie, 6 Annandale , Greengairs , By Airdrie, ML6 7UB received 2nd October 2007. Letter from Mr George And Mrs Margaret Peden, 26 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs, By Airdrie received 16th October 2007. Letter from Mr And Mrs S Ferguson, 34 Main Street, Longriggend,Airdrie, ML6 7RS received 16th October 2007. Letter from Christopher Clezy, Secretary, Upperton Residents Association, 3 Avon Avenue, Upperton, Airdrie, ML6 7TP received 24th December 2007. Letter from P Marshall, 4 Aberfeldy Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NP received 7th February 2008. Letter from H Crawford, 20 Livingston Drive, Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from J McKay, 18 Arden Street, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LB received 7th February 2008. Letter from F Paterson, 5 East Avenue , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from lan Morgan, 2 Abbycicle Place , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from J Small, 12 Meadow View, Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008.

Letter from B Nash, 53 Jarvie Avenue ~ Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from J Thomson, 8 East Avenue , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from J Morris, 27 Ballochnie Place , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from A McCormack, 46 Ballochnie Drive, Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from M Boyle, 3 Elgin Place , Cairngrove , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from E Donaldson, 51 Jarvie Avenue , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008.

30 Letter from E G Boyle, 23 East Avenue , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from A Clifford, 66 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 7th February 2008. Letter from M Duffy, 39 Killearn Crescent, Plains, Airdrie, , received 7th February 2008. Letter from G Gorman, 43 Livingston Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from A P Kane, 38 Jarvie Avenue , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from M Shaw, 3 Meadow View , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from W Sturrock, 13 Jarvie Avenue, Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from C Mitchell, 6 Livingston Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LR received 7th February 2008. Letter from L Higgins, 6 East Avenue , Plains, Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from A Traynor, 42 Chruch Street , Coatbridge received 7th February 2008. Letter from C Morris, 27 Ballochnie Drive , Plains, Airdrie , received 7th February 2008. Letter from C Doris, 26 Ballochnie Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from A McCutcheon, 26 Killearn Crescent , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from A Somers, 11 Livingston Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from J Eadie, 14 Livingston Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from L Thompson, 22 Livingston Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from L Allison, 32 Ballochnie Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 7th February 2008. Letter from J Patterson, 16 Orchill Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from P Tobin, 59 Jarvie Avenue , Plains , Airdrie , ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from A Brown, 48 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from J Eyre, 20 Ballochnie Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NA received 8th February 2008. Letter from B Smith, 15 Orchill Drive, Plains, Airdrie, , received 8th February 2008. Letter from S Gault, 40 Ballochnie Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NB received 8th February 2008. Letter from J Marshall, 4 Aberfeldy Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NP received 8th February 2008. Letter from R Hammack, 4 Cromlix Grove, Plains, Airdrie, , received 8th February 2008. Letter from S Creaney, 12 Cromlix Grove, Plains, Airdrie, , received 8th February 2008. Letter from H Jaap, 1 Cromlix Grove, Plains, Airdrie, , received 8th February 2008. Letter from E Morrow, 37 Moffat View , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Brophy, 31 Livingston Drive , Plains, Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Traynor, 29 Livingston Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LR received 8th February 2008. Letter from J Travers, 64 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from B Small, 12 Meadow View, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LS received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Ferguson, 44 Livingston Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LU received 8th February 2008. Letter from J McGuigan, 4 Meadow View , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from F Cherrie, 6 Meadow View, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LS received 8th February 2008. Letter from G Rogierson, 40 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Gilmour, 69 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from Mr McGuigan, 52 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from Mrs Blackett, 12 Springbank Terrace, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LD received 8th February 2008. Letter from B McKenzie, 11 Arkaig Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NR received 8th February 2008.

31 Letter from A Duffy, 39 Clearin Crescent , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from E Smith, 18 East Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LT received 8th February 2008. Letter from G Graham, 27 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JN received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Brown, 37 Ballochnie Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NB received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Wallace, 5 McLelland Drive , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from J Sturrock, 13 Jarvie Avenue , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from M Cherrie, 72 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 8th February 2008. Letter from A Burke, 17 Ballochnie Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7NB received 8th February 2008. Letter from S Khan, 3 Orchil View , Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from G Blair, 3 Killearn Crescent, Plains, Airdrie, , received 8th February 2008. Letter from Y Tobin, 10 Killearn Crescent, Plains, Airdrie, , received 8th February 2008. Letter from C Allison, 20 Killearn Crescent, Plains , Airdrie received 8th February 2008. Letter from J Brynes, 173 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 11 th February 2008. Letter from H Laird, 429 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 11 th February 2008. Letter from S Walker, Drumgray Farm , Drumgray Lane , Wattston , Greengairs , Airdrie received 11 th February 2008. Letter from K Rae, 13 Livingston Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LR received 12th February 2008. Letter from K Moreland, 15 Livingston Drive, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7LR received 12th February 2008. Letter from L Shevlin, 146 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 12th February 2008. Letter from R McCall, 28 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TF received 12th February 2008. Letter from A Gray, 191 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SZ received 12th February 2008. Letter from G Peden, 26 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TF received 12th February 2008. Letter from J Lever, 102 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 12th February 2008. Letter from I Linden, 138 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 12th February 2008. Letter from C Colligan, 224 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 12th February 2008. Letter from A Houston, 99 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 12th February 2008. Letter from A O'Hare, 180 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 12th February 2008. Letter from E Donovan, 101 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 12th February 2008. Letter from M Walsh, 159 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 12th February 2008. Letter from J Houston, 99 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 12th February 2008. Letter from S Symon, 12 Killearn Crescent, Plains, Airdrie, , received 12th February 2008. Letter from G Bathgate, 54 Jarvie Avenue, Plains, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7JW received 12th February 2008. Letter from R Bell, 14 Cromlix Grove, Plains, Airdrie, , received 12th February 2008. Letter from D Donovan, 102 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 12th February 2008. Letter from J Booth, 174 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA

32 received 12th February 2008. Letter from E Shaw, 13 Killearn Crescent , Beverly Park, Plains , Airdrie , ML6 7UN received 13th February 2008. Letter from T Beck, 166 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie , ML6 7TA received 15th February 2008. Letter from P Houston, 160 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 14th February 2008. Letter from E Clark, 90 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 14th February 2008. Letter from S Robertson, 166 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie , ML6 7TA received 14th February 2008. Letter from M Ferguson, 96 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 22nd February 2008. Letter from I Ferguson, 96 Greengairs Road , Greegairs , Airdrie , received 25th February 2008.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 The Third Alteration 2006 to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Consultative Draft of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2007 SPP6 Renewable Energy 2007 PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies 2002

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

14'h April 2008

33 APPLICATION NO. C1071001721FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is being sought for the construction and operation of a wind farm within Greengairs Landfill Site, Greengairs. The existing landfill site covers an area extending to some 2.7kmz (270ha) and is located to the south of the village of Greengairs some 5km north east of Airdrie. (Refer to location plan). The proposed wind farm would encompass an area of approximately 5.8ha of the landfill site area with the turbines generally placed on the periphery of the landfill site.

1.2 The proposed wind farm would include 9 turbines, associated access tracks, meteorological mast, transformers, extension to the existing onsite substation, control building, temporary construction compound and underground connections between the proposed turbines and the electricity distribution network. Each turbine would have a maximum power output of 3.0 Megawatts (MW) and may offer a combined maximum output of up to 27 MW of electrical power, which would be the equivalent to the average annual electrical power needs of 13,889 houses.

1.3 The turbines would have a hub height of approximately 80m, a rotor diameter of approximately 90m and a maximum height to blade tip of 125m. The final commercial choice of turbine size would not exceed this maximum height.

1.4 The wind farm would be designed with an operational life of 25 years and at the end of this period the developer would decommission the wind farm at which time the above ground infrastructure would be removed, though roads and sub-surface elements would generally be left in situ as an option with least environmental impact. The developer has agreed to enter into a Section 75 Agreement with the Council to ensure a suitable bond is in place to ensure any obsolete infrastructure is removed and the site effectively restored.

1.5 The proposed turbines would generally be situated on the periphery of the current and future landfill areas although some of the development (turbine 3) is proposed within areas set aside for future landfill activities. However, the wind farm would have no effect upon ongoing landfill activities and the subsequent restoration of the landfill void.

1.6 Access to the site would be via the existing landfill site entrance at the junction of the Meikle Drumgray and Darngavil Roads. Construction materials would be brought to the site via the A73, B803 and private road which passes to the south of Wattston. An indicative construction programme suggests works would be completed within a 12 month period. Construction works would take place between 07:OO hours to 19:OO hours Monday to Sundays. Construction material delivery periods would be between 8:OO hours to 18:OO hours Monday to Friday and 8:OO to 13:OO Saturday to minimise effects of the roads network. Only under exceptional circumstances would site work or deliveries fall outside these hours of operation. Construction phases may be postponed to accord with mitigation measures aimed to minimise environmental impacts. An estimate of 6.3 km of new track would be required within the site to provide links to the turbines, meteorological mast and substation, whilst upgrades to existing tracks would also be proposed.

1.7 An Environmental Statement (ES), Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) and Supplementary Environmental Information-Ornithology (SEI-0) with associated volumes of figures and appendices together with a non-technical summary accompanied the planning application details. The ES and SE1 reports on the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the environmental effects of a wind farm. The EIA process

34 has a number of key characteristics which allows for a systematic, analytical and impartial assessment of potential environmental effects. This includes a consultation process involving interested parties including local authorities and statutory agencies. The process also allows for opportunities for any environmental concerns to be addressed during the planning and design of a project which may result in a proposal to be progressively refined to mitigate potential effects. In addition the EIA is used to evaluate the significance of the environmental effects that have been assessed. These are then presented in the ES. The submitted ES that accompanies this application includes assessments on the following topics: socio-economics and public attitude; landscape and visual impacts; noise; ecology and nature conservation; ornithology; traffic and transport; cultural heritage; hydrology and hydrogeology; infrastructure, telecommunications, television, aviation and public safety; shadow flicker.

DeveloPrnent Plan and other Relevant Guidance

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan (Approved 2002)

Under the terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, the proposals would need to be assessed under the terms of Strategic Policies 7, 8 and 9 and 10.

The Structure Plan contains one policy directly relating to wind energy proposals. Strategic Policy 8 promotes preferred areas for wind farm development in areas identified in the south and west of the Structure Plan area. This area is identified in key diagram inset G where such development would be supported and this does not cover the application site. However the Structure Plan also states that where wind energy proposals fall out with the preferred areas they shall accord with the Structure Plan where they are consistent with Strategic Policies 7 and 9 and can be accommodated in a manner consistent with the amenity of nearby communities.

Strategic Policy 7 states that in order to achieve the sustainable development of the structure plan area, particular regard must be paid to the safeguarding and managing of noted international, national and strategic environmental resources which should to be protected against harmful development. The application site is located within the area designated under SP7 as the Central Scotland Forest, which is considered as a national resource with the status of a National Government Initiative. This initiative sets out to encourage further afforestation of such designated areas. The strategy also requires the protection and enhancement of strategic environmental resources listed in Schedule 7. These include: a. Ecological resources: SAC’S, SPAS, NNRs, RSPB and SWT reserves, and species or habitats protected by national of international legislation. b. Landscapes: NSAs, RSAs and AGLVs and the landscape character of the Green Belt. C. Existing and Potential Recreational Resources: National, Regional, Country and Major Urban Parks and the Green Belt, long distance walkways and cycling routes. d. Built Heritage: Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other archaeological sites and landscapes, Listed Buildings, World Heritage Sites, ConservationAreas, the locations identified in the Inventory of Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes. e. Agricultural Land: ESAs Grades 3.2 of higher (10ha+) as identified in the key diagram inset E. f. Mineral Reserves: Specialised mineral resources defined in local plans (eg brick making clays and barytes). 9. Underdeveloped Flood Plain Areas: As advised by SEPA and confirmed by the local planning authority.

35 2.4 Strategic Policy 9 makes cross reference to the environmental features protected through Strategic Policy 7 and Schedule 7 and in addition highlights the need to prevent isolated and sporadic development in the wider countryside and green belt and the need to avoid negative impacts on health and safety. If proposals are considered not to meet the terms of either SP7 or SP9, they would need to be assessed against Policy SPlO which deals with departures from the Structure Plan. The proposals would then only be approved if they met the tests of economic, social and environmental benefit.

Monklands District Local Plan 1991 (Adopted 1995)

2.5 Whilst wind energy developments are not mentioned specifically within the 1991 Monklands District Local Plan, it contains several polices relevant to the assessment of this planning application.

2.6 The site is within an area zoned as ‘Restrict Development within Countryside Around Towns’ (Policy GB2). This states that isolated developments will generally not be permitted unless they can be justified against criteria of economic benefit, specific locational need, infrastructure implications and environmental impact.

2.7 The Local Plan classifies rural areas into 5 different landscape qualities ranging from ‘high quality’ to ‘devastated’. The site is identified as ‘Devastated Landscape’, this being the lowest designation. Accordingly, policy L11/5 (Landscape Improvement) states that the Council will treat each application as an opportunity to effect improvements to the landscape, not only within the application site but may insist on schemes of tree planting on any surrounding land in the control or ownership of the applicant. Policy ‘RE1’ (Support Rural Economy) is also relevant where it encourages improvements to the rural landscape.

2.8 Bearing in mind the site’s proximity to West Fannyside Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Longriggend Moss SSSI, both designated for their bog habitat) and the Slammanan Plateau potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and SSSI (protected for its bean geese interest, policies ‘NAT1’ (Protect SSSls) ‘NAT 2’ (Protect Key Nature Conservation Sites) and ‘NAT 4’ (Encourage Nature Conservation) would be relevant. This states that the Council will not allow development within or adjacent to SSSls that would threaten their integrity or character.

2.9 The site is also covered by Policy CU1/5 Landfill Gas where no development shall be permitted within 250 m of either operational or completed landfill sites unless it can be demonstrated by way of suitable scientific investigation that the site is not producing, and is unlikely to produce any potentially dangerous gases.

2.10 The site is also covered by policy LR7 Develop Network of Long Distance Paths (specifically in respect of the Greengairs Railway Path) where the Council would protect former railway lines from inappropriate development that may prevent the development of long distance path networks.

National Guidance

2.11 At a national level, guidance on wind farms is now contained within SPP 6: Renewable Energy. SPP 6 outlines the Scottish Governments’ commitment to increase renewable energy production as a means of addressing the causes of climate change and has set a target of generating 40% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and confirmed that this target should not be considered as a cap. The SPP sets out how the

36 planning system should manage the process of encouraging, approving and implementing renewable energy proposals when preparing development plans and determining planning applications. SPP 6 suggests that development plans should set out a spatial approach for considering wind farm proposals over 20MW although these should not be used to restrict development where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and other impacts can be addressed. Spatial policies should be used to afford significant protection to areas designated for their national or international natural heritage value; green belts and those areas where further development would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts. Planning Authorities are asked to revise their development plans to take account of the SPP but need to determine applications that are, or come, before them ahead of revised local policies being put in place. Where there is no up-to-date development plan in place, the SPP should be considered as important material consideration.

2.12 In terms of Development Management, SPP 6 suggests the following considerations be taken into account:

That developers undertake pre-application discussions with the planning authority and where appropriate with the local communities. Where required, the EIA process should be used to demonstrate the appropriateness of a chosen location and size of a development, particularly where this is outwith the broad areas of search identified in development plans. Proposals should be designed to minimise soil disturbance, particularly peat bogs, to prevent the release of greenhouse gas emissions which would reduce the carbon balanced savings of the intended development. Where relevant geotechnical and hydrological information should be provided in support of applications, identifying the presence of peat and include the risk of landslide connected with any development work. Cumulative impacts should be taken into account and adequately addressed by applicants. Planning Authorities need to take into account those projects in the vicinity which have been built, those that have permissions and those that are currently the subject of valid but undetermined applications. Applications should include details of the environmental, social and economic benefits that will arise from the proposals both nationally and locally including the overall number of jobs and economic activity associated with the development. Information on the likely connection to the national grid should be provided. Available capacity on the grid to accommodate the project would be a material factor but not the sole determining factor particularly where upgrade or installation of the grid is required to enable development where potential wind resources exist. Planning Authorities need to consider the significance of any adverse impacts on renewable generation proposals against the projected benefits of the proposal in terms of its scale of contribution to the Scottish Government‘s targets for renewable energy. Smaller projects should not be dismissed as of little benefit as they have the potential to make a significant contribution cumulatively provided unacceptable impacts should be satisfactorily mitigated. Developers need to demonstrate how valid concerns over detrimental environmental impacts can be overcome through mitigation or through the advancing of material arguments that may outweigh objections. Planning Authorities should include appropriate conditions or Section 75 planning agreements to allow for the decommissioning of renewable energy developments and ensure that sufficient finance is set aside to enable operators to meet their restoration obligations.

2.13 In addition to SPP 6, Planning Advice Note (PAN) 45 ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’

37 provides more detailed advice on the impacts likely from wind farm developments and possible means of mitigation.

The Emerging Development Plan

2.14 Structure Plan: The Third Alteration 2006 to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 is under consideration by Scottish Ministers and would be considered material to the consideration of this planning application. The alterations do not fundamentally change the advice on wind farm development but the emphasis in the policy tests have changed from the concept of “preferred areas” for wind farms to “potential areas” of search for wind farms. The Alteration has identified: 0 the continued importance of protecting existing areas of sensitivity including environmental resources of international and national importance, Regional Parks and the immediate environment of communities, where significant impact would arise from the introduction of significant scale wind farm development: that there are areas capable of accommodating wind farms outwith these areas of sensitivity, subject to further evaluation of the strategic sensitivities and detailing through the local planning process. These potential areas of search should be the focus for investment in significant wind farm developments; 0 that it would be more appropriate for the areas of search to be identified as Potential Areas rather than Preferred Areas as shown in the 2000 Plan. This reflects the changed context for wind energy proposals by the full evaluation of potential areas through the local planning process eg in terms of their scale, cumulative impact and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) requirements; 0 out-with these Potential Areas of Search, significant wind farm developments could raise strategic planning issues and priority should be given to the protection of the strategic environmental resources and the amenity of local communities, particularly Green Belt sensitivities: 0 smaller scale wind farms could be accommodated satisfactorily in locations which would be inappropriate for larger commercially based operations, but require to be determined through local planning and in accordance with Strategic Policies 9 and 10 and; a scale of significance set in Schedule 9 of 20MW.

2.15 Under the terms of the Alteration, the proposed 27MW wind farm would be considered as a development of a scale of significance that would exceed the revised criteria set out in Schedule 9. The proposed site would also fall out-with the potential areas of search and priority would need to be given to the protection of strategic environmental resources and the amenity of local communities, particularly Green Belt sensitivities. As such the proposals would need to be assessed against the criteria set out in SP9 with cross reference to the criteria in SP7.

2.16 Local Plan: The Council has now published the Consultative Draft of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and is under consideration. Policy EDI 9 generally supports the production of energy by renewable means including wind energy but stipulates a presumption against large scale development located out-with its areas of search for wind farm development. The designated areas of search reflect the potential areas of search noted in the 2006 Structure Plan as discussed above.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Following receipt of additional support information, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) withdrew their objections to the proposals on landscape grounds and impact on ornithology interests and recommended that the following mitigation measures be adopted:

38 0 The reduction in height of the turbines to lessen the visual effects on settlements. 0 Improve the turbine layout to avoid overlapping and obvious gaps from key views to present a more cohesive grouping and ensure visual compatibility with the Greendykeside Windfarm. 0 Enhancements to foreground landscape areas as viewed from Greengairs, Wattson and Dargavil Road areas should be considered. This could include improved landscape maintenance, additional planting and a package of measures to remove visual clutter such as overhead power lines, resurfacing of Darngavil Road and the removal of tipped materials. 0 A Habitat Management Plan (HMP) should be agreed with the Planning Authority.

3.2 NLC Countryside and Landscape Manager had no objection subject to conditions requiring a 50 metre development stand-off from watercourses and that a habitat management plan is agreed with the Council’s Ecologist.

3.3 The RSPB withdrew its initial objection to the proposal following submission of the supplementary environmental information and accepted that the impacts on ornithological interests can be appropriately mitigated against. This should include the provision of additional nesting boxes.

3.4 Central Scotland Forest Trust (CSFT) had no objection to the proposals provided the opportunities to improve public access via the progressive landfill restoration proposals are not compromised.

3.5 Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) had no objection to the proposals but noted that within the site boundary there are: two National Monument Records for Scotland; an area of lowland raise bog and peatland; an area of existing woodland covered by FCS grant and an area of semi-natural broad leaf woodland.

3.6 There was no objection to the wind farm proposals from either Historic Scotland or West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS).

3.7 NATS (En Route) Ltd (NERL) have objected to the proposals on air traffic safety grounds as the proposed turbines would be visible to Air Traffic Control radar at Glasgow Airport and would clutter signals on the Lowther Hills radar some 32 miles south of the site

3.8 Defence Estates (DE) have no objections to the proposals but if permission is granted they have requested information on: the date construction starts and ends; the maximum height of construction equipment; confirmation if the turbines would be lit; and the latitude and longitude of every turbine.

3.9 BAA objected to the proposals as it was considered that the turbines would be visible to radar at Glasgow Airport and the signal returns would adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of the airport. Due to the number of wind farms proposed in the area the cumulative impact of the development is also potentially significant.

3.10 Ofcom (Office of Communications) objected to the proposals as it was considered that the wind farm would cause interference to existing communication systems between Outstations and a Scanning Base Station.

3.1 1 The BBC advised the proposals were likely to affect the TV signal from local transmitters. This may affect 222 homes where there is no alternative off-air service and 9567 homes where there is an alternative off-air service.

3.12 BT had no comments to make on the proposals.

39 3.13 Transport Scotland had no objection and Amey Infrastructure Services had no comments.

3.14 NLC Transportation Section had no objections to the proposals but advised that the main impact of the development on the roads network would be during the optimum construction phases whilst concrete is delivered to the site (2nd to 6'h month of construction) with a rise in HGV trips by some 60%. The Transportation Section recommended that any grant of permission should be conditioned that a Traffic Management Plan be submitted and agreed by the Planning Authority before any construction works commenced.

3.15 NLC Geotechnical Section had no objection to the proposals subject to a ground investigation report being carried out to establish whether the proposed development is at risk of mineral instability due to old mine workings and mine entries. In addition, geotechnical and geo-environmental investigations would be needed in order to address potential risks from both the former open cast works and current landfill operations including risk associated with long term settlementlcompression of the opencast backfill and landfill, adequate bearing characteristics, contamination and soil gas generation.

3.16 NLC Protective Services had no objection to the proposals

3.17 SEPA had no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions which would seek additional information on a Construction Management Plan and Construction Method Statement and for a suitable drainage strategy for the whole site including details of any foul drainage arrangements for any proposed compounds.

3.18 Scottish Water had no objections to the proposals provided their assets would be protected from the risk of contamination and damage.

3.19 The Scottish Government (formerly Scottish Executive) had no comments on the ES.

3.20 The Health and Safety Executive offered no comment on the ES and according to their records there are no pipelines or hazardous installations within the area of the proposed development.

3.21 Scotways confirmed there were no rights of way that pass through the site and had no objections to the proposals.

3.22 Plains Community Council have advised they support the proposals but requested that the Committee visit the site to ensure the development would have minimal impact and that appropriate conditions are applied. The Community Council noted the potential positive impacts on landscape character from the proposed wind farm and high lights that the wind farm must take recognition of the landfill restorations by not compromising the proposed improvements to the biodiversity of the surrounding land. The Community Council notes the proposed minimal distances to existing residential properties, however would only raise concerns should this be reduced further. It is also requested that all materials delivered to the site should be via the A89/A73 and not via minor roads within the village. Finally they advised the turbine colour should minimise visual impacts.

3.23 Glenmavis Community Council objected to the proposals on the grounds of insufficient ornithological information, location out with preferred areas of search, visual impact particularly upon local communities and insufficient information on construction routes. It was suggested that the number of turbines should be reduced to minimise visual impact and that a legally binding agreement be concluded to secure the restoration of the site. The Community Council also suggested the developer set up a local communities fund based on annual contributions linked to a shared profit scheme rather than a single

40 contribution arrangement.

3.24 Greengairs Community Council forwarded a list of comments made by members of the public who attended a public meeting where the wind farm application was discussed. Concerns were expressed over yet another large scale development near the village. There is no restoration plan for the landfill site. Noise levels will affect village residents. The proposals will be detrimental to wildlife habitats. The turbines will cause huge shadows. The turbines will be too close to the village.

3.25 There were a total of 105 letters of representation received in regards to the proposals. Of these, 100 were positive letters of support for the proposed wind farm and there were 5 letters of objection. The terms of objection can be fairly summarised as follows:

The proposed 27MW wind farm is considered to be of strategic significance and as it does not fall within the defined potential areas of search. As such the proposals should be considered contrary to the finalised Structure Plan and should be treated a departure from Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) and assessed under the terms of Strategic Policy 10 (Departures from the Structure Plan). The proposal is premature and the Council should refuse to determine the application until such time as the emerging Local Plan has formed a suitable policy that would allow a more robust basis for assessing the proposal. It is likely that the existing landfill operation would continue subject to a renewal of its planning permission. The ground conditions may not be suitable for the construction of a wind farm and this may have a detrimental impact on landfill gas and leachate collection systems to the detriment of the environment. The stability of the turbines may also be at risk if they are sited on or close to “moving ground”. That the proposed wind farm would create adverse cumulative visual, noise and landscape impacts with the current and proposed waste management activities at the site. The Environmental Statement (ES) is incomplete and there is a need for further information on ornithology issues and outstanding resolution of the air traffic radar problems as noted by NATS. As such, the ES is inadequate and the planning application should not have been validated. The Landscape Character Type (LCT) is not of a type that has the capacity to accommodate a large commercial wind farm as proposed. The ES incorrectly justifies this by referring to the Greendykeside Wind Farm, which has only two turbines. The ES acknowledges that the proposed wind farm would give rise to significant adverse visual effects from Greengairs and Wattston and from a number of other locations close to the site and from several viewpoints more than 3km away which are valued for walking and recreation. The acknowledged visual impact of the scheme are contrary to the requirements of the emerging Structure Plan, which states, “Out-with these potential areas of search, wind farm developments could raise strategic planning issues and priority should be given to the protection of the strategic environmental resources and the amenity of local communities, particularly Green Belt sensitivities.” That the proposed development is contrary to greenbelt policy. 0 The proposed turbines would be located too close to the village and would only be 832m from the local school where noise levels may affect the health and safety of children. The Greendykeside wind farm development caused disturbance and delays on the public roads around Upperton during its construction phase. This proposal would be similar. The village of Upperton would be surrounded by turbines and there would be no community benefits to its residents.

41 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard has to be had to the development plan. In particular, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As the proposed wind farm would have an output capacity of up to 27 megawatts (MW), the proposals are of strategic importance and require to be assessed under the terms of the both the Approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (approved 2002) and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 (adopted 1995).

4.2 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (approved 2002): In order to accord with the Structure Plan, development proposals will require to satisfy the criteria set out under Strategic Policy 9 (Assessing the Development Proposals). Any proposals, which fail to meet these criteria will be regarded as a departure from the Development Plan and would then require to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10 (Departures from the Structure Plan).

4.3 Firstly, it is noted in Strategic Policy 7, that the site falls within the area designated as Central Scotland Forest which is considered to be a National Environmental Resource where there is a long term national government initiative to encourage afforestation of this area. Strategic Policy 8a requires that new planting proposals should have regards to the sensitivities of the interim Indicative Forestry Strategy (IFS). In regard to this, the proposed wind farm would be located within an operational landfill site at Greengairs which shall subject to comprehensive restoration proposals which would include substantial tree planting works and include provision for public access. It is therefore considered that the proposals would not directly affect the aims of this strategic initiative and is in accordance with the aims of policy SP8 in this respect.

4.4 As noted above, the Structure Plan contains one policy directly relating to wind energy proposals. Strategic Policy 8 promotes preferred areas for wind farm development to the south and west of the Structure Plan area as shown on the key diagram. Whilst the application site clearly does not fall within this designated area, the Structure Plan states that it may also support wind energy proposals out-with the preferred areas, provided the proposals accord with SP 7(Strategic Environmental Resources) and SP 9. An assessment of the potential impacts on the identified environmental resources in Schedule 7affected also would be required to determine if the proposals are in accordance with the structure plan. As noted above an Environmental Statement was submitted with the application details. The ES reported on the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposed wind farm and is essential to the consideration of the proposals.

4.5 The terms of the proposals impact on the resources identified in Schedule 7 the following comments can be made:

a. In terms of ecological resources, it is noted that those features closest to the wind farm protected by Strategic Policy 7 are, West Fannyside Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Longriggend Moss SSSI, (both designated for their bog habitat) and the Slamannan Plateau potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and SSSI (protected for its bean geese interest). The potential impact on these resources requires assessment. In addition the wind farm has the potential to affect not only such land designations but also wildlife species

42 and habitat protected by national and international legislation. The ES has included a detailed assessment of the potential impacts and concludes that by virtue of the distance and hydrological separation of the proposed development on those features protected for their bog habitat, there would not be a significant adverse effect on their integrity or the reason for their designation. It was also concluded that in respect of the pSPA, the respective wildlife species that use this habitat would not come within the envelope of the turbine operational area or within a distance of the wind farm which may cause an adverse effect on the viability of wildlife species populations. The integrity of the pSPA is not considered to be adversely affected. Following the submission of Supplementary Environmental Information, SNH had no objections to the proposals in respect to the wind farms potential to affect these strategic environmental resources. The conclusions of the ES are considered acceptable and it is agreed there would be no significant impacts as a result of the wind farm. b. In terms of strategic landscapes it is agreed that there are no National Scenic Areas, Regional Scenic Areas or Areas of Great Landscape Value covering the site. The site is not located within the designated Green Belt and therefore would not have an impact on its landscape character. c. There are no National, Regional, Country and Major Urban Parks that would be affected by the proposals. It is noted in the local plan that there is support to develop a long distance footpath over a disused railway line that passes though the site. However the proposals would not restrict the eventual implement this potential strategic recreational resource. d. In terms of built heritage resources it is accepted that there would be no direct effect on any cultural heritage feature as most of the site lies within areas previously disturbed by former open cast workings. The ES advised that there would be no significant indirect effect on the setting of designated cultural heritage features or those of potential national importance recorded on the Non-statutory Register (NSR) and this is also accepted. Although there are two scheduled monuments situated some 0.46km to 1.06km to the east of the site, relating to the former Avonhead Colliery, their setting is already defined by the surrounding agricultural and industrial landscape, and on balance it is agreed that these would not be adversely affected by the construction of a wind farm which is a relatively temporary development in comparison with the age of most cultural heritage resources. The turbines would be visible from other designated features in the surrounding area, for example from the Antonine Wall which is about 8.5 km to the north of the site. However it is accepted that given factors such as the current setting of these resources, screening from topography and vegetation and the operational landfill within the site, that there would be no significant effect. There was also no objection from either Historic Scotland or West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS). e. The site is not used for intensive agricultural purposes but is in use form landfill purposes and was formerly used for extraction of coal by open cast methods. Even if the site was eventually used for grazing purposes, perhaps through the progressive restoration of the landfill site the wind farm infrastructure would take up only a small proportion of the site and would have no adverse affect in any case. f. The site area has been subject to historical mining and there are no additional mineral resources to be won. The site is not within an area designated for potential mineral extraction in the current local plan. g. The site is not within a flood plain

4.6 In respect of the respective national and strategic designations as noted in policy SP7 and Schedule 7 it is considered that the proposals would not have an adverse impact on these resources and as such would accord with policies SP7, SP8 and SP9 of the structure plan.

4.7 Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 (adopted 1995): The principal local plan policy (Policy GB2: Restrict Development within Countryside Around Towns) requires

43 new development to be assessed against criteria of economic benefit, specific locational need, infrastructure implications and environmental impact. On the first point, the applicant has stated that the development would have a positive socio-economic impact. The proposed development constitutes a large investment in the area and as such provides an opportunity for indirect positive economic investment. It is likely that much of the construction work would be sub-contracted to local companies employing local people. Local businesses in turn may benefit from increased spend by the construction workforce during the period of construction. The development is not expected to have any significant adverse economic impacts. On the second point, it is clear that wind farms will (normally) demonstrate a specific locational need to be sited within an exposed rural location where wind resources are acknowledged, close to the electricity grid for the export of electricity and be accessible from the trunk road network with little impact on existing residential properties. On the third point, the applicant has demonstrated that all reasonable infrastructure requirements can be met. On the final point the only potential impact on the ecological and nature conservation interests as reported by the ES would occur as the result of blanket bog due to the construction of the wind farm infrastructure. The areas of blanket bog within the site all show evidence of modification and degradation due to drainage and physical disturbance as a result of previous opencast and peat cutting works together with adjacent land filling activities. Nevertheless active peat forming species are present although these are more prevalent to the south and south east of the site. It is accepted that the loss of a small area of modified blanket bog from the edge of an extensive area of bog extending to the east of the site is unlikely to have an effect upon the integrity of the wider bog habitat in the area. As such it is considered that there would not be an unacceptable effect on the nature conservation interest of the site. The applicant has offered to undertake the management of the larger area of blanket bog habitat (24ha in area as noted in Figure 82 of the SE1 Sept 2007) that falls within the north east part of the site to compensate for any loss. Such an undertaking could be covered by a planning condition if planning permission is granted and would be in accordance with policy NAT4 (Encourage Nature Conservation). Overall it is considered that any adverse environmental impacts can be restricted to within acceptable limits as noted in the ES which offers a valid and acceptable assessment on the impact of the development. A more detailed assessment of these impacts can be found later within this report. Accordingly, the development could be seen to be in accordance with policy GB2.

4.8 Policy L11/5 (Devastated Landscape) seeks to improve the landscape of application sites and outlying areas. As discussed in paragraph 4.9 below, it is held that the local landscape can accommodate the proposed turbines without any undue additional harm, and would be subject to progressive restoration works through the landfill site operations. Therefore the development can be seen to be in accordance with this policy.

4.9 Given that the development would not threaten the integrity or character of the nearby SSSl or pSPA (see paragraph 4.16 below) the development would accord with policy ‘NAT1’ (Protect SSSls).

4.10 The current landfill operation currently operates a landfill gas collection system that also powers generators that feeds into the national grid. The wind farm development is a benign form of development and would be engineered in such a way that it would not affect the existing and continued landfill gas collection system. The proposals are not considered contrary to CU 1/5

4.11 Based upon the above assessment, it is clear that the proposal accords with relevant policies within the Local Plan and there are no pokes which presume against it. Also, the proposal whilst considered to be of strategic significance raises no significant environmental impacts of strategic environmental resources and is therefore in accordance with the terms of strategic policies 7,8 and 9. Therefore the proposal is

44 considered to be in accordance with the terms of the development plan. Accordingly, planning permission must be granted unless there are any material considerations which suggest otherwise. Within the context of wind farms, these considerations are many-fold and complex and are outlined and discussed in details below however firstly there is a need to consider recent material factors relating to the emerging development plan which includes both the draft GCVJSP 2006 and consultative draft of the NLLP 2007.

4.12 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration): Under the terms of Third Alteration 2006 the proposed 27 MW wind farm would be considered to be of a scale of significance that would exceed the thresholds noted in Schedule 9 (as altered).The proposed wind farm would be located out-with the potential area of search and priority should be given to the protection of the strategic environmental resources and the amenity of local communities, particularly Green Belt sensitivities. The proposals should therefore be assessed against the criteria set out in Strategic Policy 9 which again cross-refers to the strategic environmental resources listed in Schedule 7. The criteria set out in the draft structure plan are consistent with the criteria set out in approved structure plan with respect to wind farms, including the criteria in Strategic Policy 7. It is also considered that there would be no significant harm to the amenities of local communities as concluded later in this report. The site is not in the Green Belt. As considered in the assessment of the approved structure plan, the proposals meet the terms of these requirements and would also meet with the terms of the draft structure plan in this regard. The proposals therefore are in accordance with this part of the draft structure plan.

4.13 The Consulatative Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2007: Policy EDI 9 generally supports the production of energy by renewable means including wind energy but stipulates a presumption against large scale development located outwith its areas of search for wind farm development. The designated areas of search reflect the potential areas of search noted in the 2006 Structure Plan as discussed above. The emphasis on a presumption against however diverges from national guidance SPP 6 and from the approved and emerging structure plan. This contrasting stance can be noted however as the consultative draft NLLP may offer an indication of the Council's future policy on wind farms, this has not yet been agreed and policy EDI 9 cannot carry sufficient weight to warrant consideration as a departure from the development plan in respect of the proposed location out-with the identified areas of search.

4.14 In the midst of on-going studies into windfarm policy, particularly at the local plan level, it is important that that any decisions prior to the publication and consideration by the Council of the Finalised Draft Local Plan do not damage the integrity of those emerging policies. Proposals which argue if favour of a departure from the Development Plan in such circumstances will normally be considered premature, but the on-going studies should not (at this stage) prevent applications from being considered in accordance with the Development Plan. In this instance, the proposals have been found to accord with the Development Plan and therefore any suggestion that the planning application is premature is considered unfounded.

4.14 National Guidance: The proposals are considered to be consistent with aims of SPP6. Whilst the current local plan has no specific policy on wind farm development, an assessment of the proposals may be considered against the terms of Structure Plan and any other material considerations.

4.15 Landscape and Visual Impacts: Clearly, these are the most noticeable and often most contentious impacts of wind farm developments. In visual terms, the turbines, (being a maximum of 125m to the tip of the blade) would be seen over a very wide area particularly as the site sits on a plateau moorland, which offers long views over the Glasgow conurbation areas to the north and west. The existing landscape has been influenced by open cast coal mining, bings and tips, areas of derelict land and associated

45 infrastructure including disused railway embankments. As noted above the former extraction sites are now used for the current landfilling operations which add to the industrial character of the landscape. The ES includes a detailed assessment of the visual impact of the proposed turbines up to 50km away, in particular focussing on settlements within 3km and ‘sensitive’ receptors such as country parks and landscapes/sites with special designations. The ES demonstrated the visual impact by providing a wire-frame diagrams and photomontages from various local and distant viewpoints. In this assessment, individual properties situated relatively close to the site, would have a clear view of the turbines and the ES recognises that the visual impact on these properties would be significant. In addition, the development would have a significant impact on the villages of Greengairs and Wattston due to the scale of the turbines situated at a slightly elevated position and the close proximity of the turbines to these villages. From Plains the assessment concluded that the turbines would only significantly affect the visual amenity of those properties to the north of the village. There would be a slight impact on the overall village of Plains. The visual impact on the hamlet of Upperton and the village of Longriggend would be moderate with only west facing residential properties of Upperton having a significant impact. In the outlying villages of Caldercruix and Stand the visual impact would be moderate due to the orientation of the houses and the level of screening towards the wind farm. The turbines would also be seen from key viewpoints in the north, including Cumbernauld, Palacerigg Country Park, from local roads and footpaths and from further afield. Overall the visual impact of the proposed wind farm would range from significant through moderate to slight and the varying levels dependant on distance, topography and screening. Clearly the turbines would have an impact on the landscape of the site and the surrounding area. However what needs to be determined is whether this impact would be acceptable in terms of visual amenity of the identified sensitive receptors noted above. The ES considers that due to the historical changes to the landscape type, (which is classed as devastated in the local plan) it would be capable of accommodating further change with no further detriment to its current status. The site is designated as a devastated landscape in the local plan and does include industrial characteristics such as the current operational landfill, overhead pylons, TV and radio masts and buildings all within the vicinity of the site. As such it is agreed that, whilst the proposed turbines would be visible, their impact on the landscape character of the area would not be unacceptable. SNH had no objection in terms of visual impact grounds but suggested various mitigation measures to minimise the impact of the proposals. These included a possible reduction in height of the turbines, improve turbine layout to avoid overlapping and form a more cohesive grouping to ensure visual compatibility with the Greendykeside wind farm. SNH also suggested improvements to the landfill site itself and the removal of industrial clutter from the surrounding area. In response to the suggestion to reduce the height of the turbines, the developer advised the reduction in height would not strike the right balance between the opportunity to contribute to the demands for renewable energy and visual impact. In this regard it is considered that even with a reduction in height, the turbines would still be visible from the immediate and distant viewpoints with no clear advantage in terms of visual amenity. The repositioning of the proposed turbines may result in a reduction in overlapping from some viewpoints, yet in achieving this, may as a result re-create overlapping of turbines from other viewpoints. It is considered that the current proposed positioning is acceptable. In mitigation the ES (and as recommended by SNH in their consulation response), suggests that the progressive restoration of the landfill site (which is subject to a separate application process separate from this development) would assist in achieving improvements that would integrate with the surrounding plateau moorland landscape. The restoration plan is designed to provide environmental protection of existing habitats and allows for ecological improvements to the site. The restoration plan also offers an opportunity to improve the conservation value of the site, through the formation of a village park to the north of the site, provide additional footpath links to the surrounding settlements. In addition there would be other improvements to grazing areas, areas of peat would be maintained and there would be the establishment of hedgerows

46 along field boundaries and footpath routes. The restoration plan also sets out to establish permanent water bodies where water collects on site all to the benefit of improving the landscape of the site and its bio-diversity. It is therefore agreed with SNH that the progressive landfill restoration scheme may be considered as an effective mitigation measure as the wind farm would be constructed within a site that is undergoing gradual improvements that would offer significant improvements over time. The developer has agreed to consider a package of measures to improve the settlement boundary landscape enhancement as recommended by SNH in their comments. The developer would also submit a habitat Management Plan for the agreement of the Planning Authority and only following consultation with SNH and SEPA.

4.16 Cumulative Visual Impact: Finally, the cumulative visual impact of this development in combination with other existing and proposed wind farms has been assessed in the ES. SNH raised concerns over the inter-relationship between Greendykeside Wind Farm and Greengairs as being potentially significant and asked that this be carefully considered in accordance with SPP6 and PAN 45 which would be material considerations. The ES considered the cumulative impacts of all existing and proposed wind farms located up to 54km from the application site. The ES concluded that the potential for significant sequential (moving view along road routes) and static cumulative visual effects would be restricted to a radius of 3km of the site, i.e. between the proposed site and the then approved but now operational Greendykeside wind farm (two turbines). The two sites would be 3km apart and the ES demonstrated via the photo montages and wireframe models (Refer figure 6.50 of the ES) that there would be a cumulative impact where it would appear the two sites were linked. However views over this particular landscape vary in terms of viewing distance due to topography and existing screening and the identified cumulative impact is not unacceptable in terms of impact on the visual amenity of this landscape. Overall the potential cumulative impact would not be significant. The ES advised that other wind farms may also be inter-visible but the visual impact would not be significant as they are located far enough apart. There are several other sites which are currently at the planning application or ‘scoping’ stage, but any weight given to the potential impact of these sites must be limited given their current progress through the planning process. It is accepted that any significant cumulative impact would therefore be limited to particular views however it is considered this would not be detrimental to the overall visual amenity of this landscape type. In is therefore concluded that the proposal would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact with Greendykeside and is acceptable on this basis.

4.17 Shadow Flicker: The passing of turbine blades in front of the sun can cause disturbance to the observer. The extent of any problem will be dependant on the time of day and year, weather conditions, the relationship of properties to the development and the size and orientation of windows. In particular, this problem only tends to occur within buildings, when the sun is low in the sky and where it appears through a narrow window opening. The ES has assessed the likelihood of this phenomenon becoming a problem (using the worst case scenario i.e. maximum sunlight, turbines always turning, turbines blades always at right angles to affected properties, all properties with habitable rooms orientated towards the turbines and there being no screening by treedfences etc between the turbine and the property). The ES concludes that shadow flicker may occur at two properties located north of the site and advocates the application of varous measures to mitigate the effect. Should objections be received subsequent to the turbines being erected, there are measures which the developer can take to minimise the problem, namely the erection of screen fencing, or window screens, additional tree planting (clearly a longer term answer) or the use of sensors which will switch off the offending turbine as and when shadow flicker is likely to be an problem. These measures, whilst acceptable, are not suited to control by planning condition (because of the uncertainty of the extent of the problem and the eventual solution) therefore this

47 matter should be part of a Section 75 legal agreement.

4.18 Aviation: Whilst the MOD had no objections, the other main consultees with an interest in aviation (i.e. BAA, and NATS) objected to the proposal. BAA and NATS considered that the turbines may cause clutter signals on radar screens, which may be a danger to air traffic heading to and from Glasgow Airport. The ES identifies this as a technical issue that can be resolved with the radar operators. The ES suggests that this may be covered by a planning condition that would require the developer to confirm to the Council that BAA and NATS have agreed to the necessary radar upgrading works before works start on the development. Such a condition would be acceptable.

4.19 TVlRadio Reception: As noted from the consultation responses from the BBC it appears that the development will have an adverse impact on TV reception within the area to the north of the site. This is expected as a side effect of most wind farm developments. The number of households affected is noted. In order to resolve this problem, the ES has suggested that the developer would need to carry out an assessment of lV reception before and after the turbines are constructed and thereafter carry out works designed to remedy the problem. This may include providing set top digital boxes, updating the aerial or re-orientating the aerial to another transmitter. This would be addressed as part of the Section 75 Agreement. This approach has been previously acceptable to NTL (acting on behalf of Ofcom) and the BBC. The BBC has also confirmed that the development is also likely to affect local or national radio reception. Such provisions could also be covered by either a condition of any planning permission or subject to inclusion in a Section 75 Agreement.

4.20 Radio Waves: Most telecomm operators with microwave links within the area were consulted and there were no objections. However not all operators offered a response, particularly BT. It has been agreed with the developer that should interference occur it should be a condition of the planning permission that the turbine causing the problem be shut down until such time as the link is diverted.

4.21 Noise: Wind farms generate two types of noise; aerodynamic noise (the noise produced by the movement of the blades moving through the air) and mechanical noise (from the generators and gearboxes). It is accepted that recent advancements in technology have resulted in significant reductions in noise levels from turbines, most notably from mechanical noise. The ES states that the proposed turbines would comply with the noise criterion proposed by the Working Group on Noise from Wind Turbines ETSU-R-97 and that the operator would be contractually required to guarantee that noise criterion levels which have been established for this site are complied with. The Protective Services Section had no objection to the proposals in this regard and it is agreed that it would be a condition of any planning permission that the turbines comply with the criterion proposed with the ETSU-R-97 standards.

4.22 Cultural Heritage: The ES has undertaken a thorough assessment of the impacts of the development upon the cultural heritage of the site and the wider area. The development is unlikely to disturb any items of significant interest. It is noted that the applicant has carried out an assessment of the impact of the development upon the setting of items of cultural heritage which are remote from the site. This includes items of archaeological interest, listed buildings and scheduled monuments (including the remains of Avonhead Colliery and its associated miners’ cottages which are sited some 0.46km from the nearest turbine. The ES concludes that any adverse impacts are not expected to be significant.

4.23 Ecology: For the most part, the ES identifies that the proposals would have minimal impact of the ecology of the site (including the construction of the access road and the road widening) although it is accepted that a small proportion of blanket bog would be

48 removed due to the infrastructure works. However the developer has agreed to undertake a habitat management scheme to improve the remaining blanlet bog area found to the south and east of the site. This agreement is considered to offfer an acceptable mitigation over the loss part of the blanket bog area. The ES also considered the potential off-site impacts, most notably on the West Fannyside Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Longriggend Moss SSSI, (both designated for their bog habitat) and the Slamannan Plateau potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and SSSI (protected for its bean geese interest). Both SNH and NLC Community Services agree with the ES assertion that the development will have little adverse impact on the above noted features and also on the local bird population. In addition, the developer has agreed with the request by NLC Community Services to provide an Outline Habitat Management Scheme to allow for the ecological enhancement within the site.

4.24 Hydrology/Hydrogeology: The ES has identified a number of potential impacts of the development on ground stability, surface and ground water within the area, most of which are as a result of the construction process (i.e. construction of turbine foundations and the construction and widening of access roads) which could, if carried out incorrectly, contaminate local water courses and the on site area of peat. The ES recommends that a 20 metre high risk buffer zone around all water course and functioning drains be used as a development constraint and the proposed infrastructure has avoided these areas as directed. It is noted that SEPA has no objections in principle of the development subject to the provision of a surface water drainage scheme. The Council’s Ecologist advised that it would be preferable to request a 50m buffer zone, however as neither SNH or SEPA considered this essential it is considered the 20 m buffer zone is acceptable.

4.25 Transportation: Once erected, the turbines would only be visited around 2-4 visits per month by maintenance staff using a light commercial vehicles and occasional visit by a HGV if required. The main impacts would occur during he construction phase when around 3000 deliveries would be made over a 12 month period. This would comprise primarily of deliveries of road stone with additional trips for deliveries of concrete, steel and cabling. Larger loads, comprising articulated lorries and mobile cranes, would be used to deliver and erect the turbines and blades. The larger vehicles would be accompanied by police escort and would be routed from the trunk road network via Greengairs. In order to accommodate the volume and size of additional traffic, the Transportation Section has asked for a traffic management scheme to address potential over use of the roads network during the contruction phase. This may also be covered by planning condition. Given the numbers and duration of the traffic movements during the construction phase, any adverse impact on the amenity of residents living close to the access routes would be short term in nature.

4.26 Grid Connection: The ES states that the wind farm would be connected to an existing substation at the landfill site that currently is used to feed electricity supply from the landfill gas generators to the national grid. Cables would be placed underground from the turbines to the substation.

4.27 Community Benefit: The applicant has argued that several economic benefits would accrue as a result of the development as noted in paragraph 4.5 above. It is noted that wind farm operators will often make a financial contribution to local communities and/or charities as a good will gesture. In this instance, the developer intends to offer contributions to the local communities of Greengairs, Plains and Airdrie. Whilst this is to be welcomed, it must be noted that this is an entirely voluntary gesture on behalf of the developer. It does not meet the requirements of government policy in respect of planning agreements and therefore cannot be taken as a material consideration in the assessment of the planning application.

4.28 Decommissioning: As with all wind energy developments, the turbines have an

49 economic shelf life of around 25 years. Whilst the developer would be free at that time to submit a further application for a new wind farm development, this current application makes provision for the removal of the turbines and the restoration of the site back to its former condition. In order to ensure this restoration, the developer has agreed to enter into a Section 75 agreement and to provide a Bond of Caution of suitable amount to ensure that the site is restored should the developer go out of business or should the site be abandoned.

4.29 Representations: It is noted there are 100 letters of support received from members of the public in respect of the proposals. Most were encouraged by the introduction of a renewable energy resource in the area as it would make a positive contribution in tackling global climate change. There were 5 letters of objection and the terms of objection are summarised above. In response to these the following comments can be considered:

The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the current development plan and consistent with the terms of the draft structure plan as noted above. This would be contrary to the terms of SSP 6 which advises that planning authorities should continue to determine those applications that are, or come before them ahead of revised local plan policies being put into place. The ES advises that the foundation design and micro siting of the turbine foundations shall be subject to a ground investigation report that would be required as a condition of planning permission if granted. This would ensure the stability of the ground in respect of its ability to support such structures. Increases in noise levels over and above the current site operational levels are not considered to be significant and would be kept to an acceptable level under current environmental regulations. Although there would be a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area, this is considered to be acceptable as the landscape form is of a type that could absorb the additional infrastructure. The ES notes there would be a cumulative visual impact with another wind farm located within 3km of the Greengairs site, however this is not considered unacceptable. A Supplementary Environmental Information SE1 was submitted and covered the outstanding study on Ornithology issues. The SE1 was advertised and appropriate time given to interested parties to comment. The continued objection from NATS would be addressed via condition. The site is located within a landscape type which has been subject to industrial-type impacts over a number of years but would be improved via the restoration scheme for the landfill. The current landscape would not be significantly harmed as a result of the proposed wind farm and as such is considered acceptable. It is clear the turbines would be visible from various locations but there visual impact whilst significant is not unacceptable. As noted above the proposals accord with the terms of the development plan and following a detailed assessment it can be concluded there are no material considerations that would require the proposals to be considered as a departure. The proposed site is not located within the green belt. The Greengairs Landfill Site is not located within the green belt. Increases in noise levels are not considered to be significant and unlikely to affect the local school. NLC Protective Services had no objeciton, 0 The ES notes that increases in traffic would be significant during the construction phase and has agreed to provide a traffic management scheme which would aim to minimise the impact of construction traffic on the roads network. Whilst there are currently 2 turbines on site at Greendykeside Farm, which is adjacent to Upperton, the Greengairs application site is located approximately 3km to the west. Upperton would not be “surrounded” by wind turbines. The ES advises that only those houses in Upperton which face west would be able to view the turbines, and it is agreed that even though they would be visible over long views, a significant

50 cumulative impact caused by views of both wind farms at the same time would be unlikely. As noted in the report the developer has decided to offer community benefit payments to the surrounding villages. This cannot be considered as material to the consideration of the application.

4.30 The terms of objection noted above cannot be sustained in this instance.

5. Conclusions and Recommendation

5.1 As noted above, the proposed development of nine wind energy turbines with ancillary works is considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan. In addition, national guidance is strongly in favour of such developments subject to a detailed analysis in each case. In assessing the detail of this particular application, it has been found that the development will be largely acceptable (subject to planning conditions, a Section 75 agreement and Bond of Caution) with no significant areas of concern and it is recommended that planning permission is granted on this basis.

5.2 As noted above, Plains Community Council has advised they support the proposals but requested that the Committee visit the site to ensure the proposed development would have minimal impact and that appropriate conditions are applied.

51 Application No: C/08/00237/FUL

Date Registered: 20th February 2008

Applicant: Murlin Residential Unit 12 Larkhall Industrial Estate Larkhall ML9 2PA

Development: Erection of 27 Flats and 11 Terraced Dwellinghouses

Location: 64 Main Street Caldercruix Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7RA

Ward: 007 Airdrie North: Councillors Cameron, Sophia Coyle, McGuigan & Morgan

Grid Reference: 282181 667741

File Reference: C/PL/CCM0300064/1J/LR

Site History: 0 C/05/00816/FUL Erection of Two Storey Building with 2No Shops on Ground Floor (1 No. Hot Food Ta$eaway) and 2No Dwellinghouses on First Floor Granted 16 Sept. 2005 0 C/06/01656/FUL Erection of 12 Flats Withdrawn 0 C/07/00672/FUL Construction of Three and a Half Storey Block of 14 Flats Withdrawn

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG9:Existing Residential Areas

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: SEPA (No objections) Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections)

Representations: No letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

52 53 Recommendation: Approve 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, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing reference "Proposed Site Layout Rev. R" dated 17'h April 2008.

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

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

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

4. That prior to any works of any description being commenced on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled 'Drainage Assessment : A Guide for Scotland and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater that the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall be provided even when discharge is proposed to the public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the proposed drainage system complies with the latest SEPA guidance.

5. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of condition 4 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) 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.

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

6. Notwithstanding the terms of Condition 4 above, a Flood Risk Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Flood Risk Assessment must take account of Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP 7): Planning & Flooding and Planning Advice Note 69 (PAN 69): Planning & Building Standards Advice on Flooding.

Reason: In order that the Planning Authority might be satisfied that the proposed development will not give rise to flooding within the application site and will not increase the flood risk elsewhere.

54 7. That any flood mitigation works identified in the Flood Risk Assessment approved in terms of Condition 6 above shall be implemented contemporaneouslywith the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Following the construction of all the flood mitigation works, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in flood mitigation) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the flood mitigation works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that the development site and adjacent land and property will not be subjected to unacceptable flooding in the interests of public safety and amenity.

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

Reason: To ensure the site is free of contamination.

9. That on completion of any remedial works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 8, a certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any such remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason: To ensure the site is free of contamination

10. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, for the areas shown 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, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development, (d) details of the phasing of these works.

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

11. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 10 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

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

12. 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 proposed footpaths shown on the approved plans; (b) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas shown on the approved plans; (c) the proposed fences to be erected along the boundaries marked shown on the approved plans.

55 Reason: To define the use of the land.

13. That BEFORE completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 12 shall be in operation.

Reason: To define the permission.

14. That a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 90 metres, measured from the heel of the footway, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access on Main Street and before the development hereby permitted is completed, or brought into use, everything exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the footway level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the footway level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

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

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

Notes to Committee

If the Committee are minded to grant planning permission the decision notice will not be issued until a Section 69 Agreement is signed between the Council and the developer with regard to a financial contribution of f 12,250 for the upgrading of the existing recreational facilities in Caldercruix.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th February 2008

Letter from Scottish Power received 27th February 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 1Oth March 2008 Letter from British Gas received 11th March 2008

Memo from Protective Services Section received 29th February 2008 Memo from Head of Property Services received 1lth March 2008

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

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

Date: 18 April 2008

56 APPLICATION NO. C1081002371FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is roughly triangular in shape, has a 90 metre wide frontage on Main Street, Caldercruix and is 70m in depth providing an overall site area of 0.63 hectares. The site, now vacant, until recently contained a public house at the road frontage and a number of tenemental properties which were demolished a number of years ago. The site is flat and open while the rear of the site is heavily overgrown. On the north side of Main Street, opposite the application site, another public house and a dwellinghouse are located. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of uses, predominantly residential in nature.

1.2 The proposal is for the erection of a two and a half storey flatted property of traditional double pitched construction along the frontage of the site and 11 two and a half storey terraced dwellings at the eastern part of the site. The flatted building will accommodate 27 individual flatted units each with a Living Room, Kitchen, Bathroom, Study and 2/3 Bedrooms. The terraced units will accommodate a Living/Dining Room, Kitchen, WC on the ground floor and 3 Bedrooms and a Bathroom on the upper floors. Externally the buildings will be finished in render with concrete roof tiles. Vehicular access from Main Street incorporating a turning circle will be provided at the central part of the site.

1.3 Due to the physical constraints of the site the applicant proposes to make a financial contribution to the Council as opposed to the provision of any in-site amenity play provision. Those monies would be directed to the upgrading of existing facilities within the village.

2. Development Plan

2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policy HG9 (Housing policy for Existing Residential Area). The proposal raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section offers no objection to this proposal as the required number of parking spaces have been provided within the site and the visibility splay requirements at the site access on Main Street have been achieved. The Protective Services Section has recommended that a Site Investigation Survey be carried out.

3.2 SEPA had initially objected to any development on this site for the reason that there was limited capacity within the existing sewerage network and treatment system and SEPA was concerned that additional residential units would increase the pollutant loading discharged to the receiving watercourse. SEPA's position has now changed in that in that there is now a commitment by Scottish Water to upgrade Plains Sewage Treatment works and this will accommodate additional development pressures at Caldercruix. Accordingly, SEPA are willing to remove their objection to this and any similar development proposal given that the timing of the development is linked to the completion of the sewerage works upgrading. Scottish Water has no objections to the proposal.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The proposed development requires to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The site falls within an area covered by policy HG 9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) where there is a presumption against

57 development which may adversely affect the amenity of the area or is not ancillary to housing. The proposed residential development of the site is considered appropriate to this particular location and is therefore, in principle, compliant with policy. The proposal also raises no strategic issues.

4.2 This proposal requires to be assessed against the appropriate Design Guidance on “New Housing Areas” and the “Developer’s Guide to Open Space”. In this respect the proposal is seen as acceptable in terms of both site access and level of in site parking and the design and external finish of the new build is traditional and complementary to surrounding building styles. The height of the proposed structure, being 2 storey with dormers in the roof area is considered acceptable at this specific location taken that the adjacent lands are undeveloped and such a prominent structure would represent a gateway feature at this part of Main Street. In respect of general amenity space within the site the terraced properties comply generally with the Design Guidance on front and rear garden distances and there is sufficient amenity space around the flatted properties. Notwithstanding this, in the absence of any in-site play area provision, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Council for the upgrading of existing amenity facilities within the village. The Play Services Section is agreeable to this option based on a figure of f250 per flat and f500 per house, totalling f12,250. A section 69 Agreement will require to be concluded between the Council and the applicant in respect of this financial contribution. The planning permission notice would not be issued until the Section 69 Agreement is concluded.

4.3 A large part of the application site is currently held in the ownership of North Lanarkshire Council and the Policy and Resources (Property) Sub-Committee recently approved the sale of the ground to Murlin Residential Development on the basis that it would be merged with land already in their ownership to create a more comprehensive residential development opportunity. Conclusion of that sale is dependant on all statutory consents (including planning permission) being achieved by the developer.

4.4 The current proposal is a re-submission of two previous planning applications (ref:C/06/01656/FUL & C/07/00672/AMD) by the same applicant for the erection of 12 flats and subsequently 14 flats within a smaller site, wholly within the applicant’s ownership. Those applications were withdrawn prior to determination due to the position taken at that time by SEPA. As noted in paragraph 3.2 above, these concerns have now been allayed.

4.5 Having regard to the above the proposal, as amended within an enlarged site, is now considered acceptable both in policy and design terms. No objections have been submitted against this application and SEPA have withdrawn their previous objection due to the programmed upgrading of the Plains Sewage Treatment Works. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions. Despite Council interest in this site it will not be necessary to notify the Scottish Ministers of this application as the development is in accordance with the Development Plan and no objections have been received against the proposal.

58 Application No: S1071018631FUL

Date Registered: 14th December 2007

Applicant: Christine Kelly 6 Main Street Holytown Motherwell ML1 4TA

Development: Installation of Access Driveway

Location: 6 Main Street Holytown Motherwel I ML1 4TA

Ward: 15 Mossend and Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

Grid Reference: 276059660401

File Reference: S1PL10710 1863lF ULIGSMIG F

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to Policy TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The proposed creation of an access driveway is considered to represent an unacceptable form of development as it fails to meet the council’s minimum standards for parking and that it would force the vehicle accessing the site to manoeuvre on the pavement and a busy road and it is likely that a section of the car would protrude from the site obstructing the footway and road due to the substandard parking dimensions. The proposal is therefore considered to adversely affect road safety at this location and the application is recommended for refusal.

59 60 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 151h November 2007

3 Letters from Christine Kelly, received 14thDecember 2007, 4'h March and 18'h March 2008

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 274104.

Date: 18 April 2008

61 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01863/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the formation of a domestic driveway at 6 Main Street, Holytown. The proposal involves creating a parking bay to the front aligned parallel to Main Street and measuring 6 metres in width and 3 metres in length. The application property is a single storey dwellinghouse and is bounded by dwellings to the east, south and west with an area of open space to the north west and dwellings to the north east.

1.2 The proposed driveway would access onto a classified road therefore it requires planning permission.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Team Leader recommended refusal of the application as the parking dimensions proposed are substandard and there appears no scope within the site to achieve the minimum required driveway dimensions.

3.2 No letters of representation have been received.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. The application raises no strategic issues and must be assessed against the development plan and any other material considerations. In the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) policy TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implicationsof Development) is relevant.

4.2 Policy TR13 requires that the council will take account of various criteria including the impact of the development on road traffic circulationhoad safety and the provision made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The applicant proposes to form an access to a single parking space within their front garden. The dimensions of the proposed parking space are substandard and also its location in relation to the road and land within the application site is such that it is unusable. Furthermore the restrictive size of available garden area is such that the minimum parking dimensions cannot be achieved. This is considered to be unacceptable for road safety reasons, given that the car would be forced to manoeuvre on the pavement and a busy road to access the restricted driveway. It is also likely that a section of the car would protrude form the site obstructing the footway or road. This proposal would have an adverse impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety and is therefore considered to be contrary to TR13.

4.3 Three letters were received from the applicant. Their points in support of the proposal can be summarised as follows:

i. Since making the application, while the car has been parked on the road, three wing mirrors have been broken off by passing lorries.

62 ii. There is a risk to the safety of the applicant when having to enter/exit their vehicle and scrape ice off the windows when the car is parked on the road. iii. The front of the house was previously used to park cars and the access was taken from the neighbour’s front access. iv. This property is the only dwelling that does not have a private driveway or shared access on the street and there are numerous examples in the area of houses that have incorporated similar access arrangements (some of which are smaller than that proposed) at Stevenston Street, Clydesdale Road and Station Road. v. This proposal would reduce on street parking and increase safety for those using the road and the applicant.

4.4 In response to the points of support, I would comment as follows:

i, ii, v Damage and safety issues caused by the applicant parking on the road is acknowledged to be a problem however, as indicated above in paragraph 4.4 the proposed parking bay is considered to be unusable and also unsafe. iii. The previous use of the front garden area as a parking area was in association with the use of the neighbouring access, this is no longer available. Without such additional space the proposed accesdparking space is unusable. v. With regards to other examples quoted, each application is on its own individual merits. In this particular case precedent is not considered relevant as the proposed parking bay is considered to be unusable and unsafe.

4.5 In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policy TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the proposed creation of an access driveway represents an unacceptable form of development and is therefore considered to adversely affect road safety at this location. It is therefore recommended that permission be refused.

63 Application No: S/08/00201/OUT

Date Registered: 7th March 2008

Applicant: Ms M Donald Greenhill Country Estate Greenhill Road Hareshaw Cleland MLI 5NF

Agent D Stewart Toy Chartered Architect 29 High Street Lanark MLll 7LU

Development: Construction of Dwellinghouse (In Outline)

Location: Land at Greenhill Farm Greenhill Road Hareshaw MLI 5NF

Ward: 12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson

Grid Reference: 281339660260

File Reference: S/PL/08/00201/OUT/KDI/GF

Site History: None relevant to application site

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Water (No Response) Scottish Gas Network (No Response) Scottish Power (No Response)

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 2nd April 2008

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to Policy ENV 6 and HSG 12 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), the national planning policy contained in SPP 3 Planning and Housing and Circular 24/1985 in that it constitutes an additional dwellinghouse in the Green Belt where there is no justification in terms of agriculture, forestry, outdoor leisure or recreation. Furthermore, an approval of the new dwelling would set an undesirable precedent for other developments within the Green Belt.

64 Roduced by Ncfth Lanarkshm Council Flanning and EnvironmentDepartment

PLOT 4,GREENHILL FARM, GREENHILL ROAD, HARESHAW, MOTHERWELL.

Site area = 0.16 ha. BI 01698 27427 tax 01 698 403053

65 NOTE TO COMMITTEE

If approved this application requires to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with circular 512007, as development falling within the Green Belt that is Contrary to the Development Plan.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 8th February 2008

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 15th April 2008 Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 7th April 2008

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

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01698 274107.

Date: 23 April 2008

66 APPLICATION NO. S/08/00201/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of one detached dwellinghouse at land to the west of Greenhill Farm, Greenhill Road, Hareshaw. The site comprises of grassland and vegetation, with a private access road running diagonal through the site from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. There are two mature trees running along the frontage onto Greenhill Road located at either side of the access road. A residential dwelling bounds the site to the west, with agricultural land located to the south, north and east.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is within an area designated as Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 There have been no consultation responses from Scottish Water, Scottish Gas Network and Scottish Power.

3.2 Protective Services commented that a comprehensive site investigation should be undertaken to assess any potential risks arising from previous site uses. They advised that a note should be placed on any consent restricting the production of noise during construction periods and that as the site lies in close proximity to residential housing a noise assessment should be carried out. They advised that best practicable means shall be adopted to control site generated dust and prevent dust emission beyond the site boundary.

3.3 My Transportation Team Leader has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to parking and vehicular access.

3.4 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure, no representations were received.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Structure Plan and can therefore be assessed in terms of local plan policies. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as ENV 6 (Green Belt). Policies HSG 12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implication of Development) are also relevant.

4.1 The main issue in the determination of this application is the location of the proposed development within the Green Belt. The application site is within land zoned as and Green Belt Policy ENV 6 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policy ENV 6 presumes against any development that will affect the character and function of the Green Belt and Policy HSG 12 only permits new houses in the Green Belt where there is a proven operational need in association with an acceptable rural use.

4.2 The applicant has not provided justification that the proposed dwelling is for the purpose of agricultural, forestry, the generation of power from renewable sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. Taking this into account, the

67 proposed dwellings would be considered as new housing within the Green Belt. Policy ENV 6 has the presumption against any development that will affect the character and function of the Green Belt, and in this instance it is considered that the proposed development would be significantly detrimental to the Green Belt as it would lead to ribbon development along Greenhill Road and would set an undesirable precedent for further development on the outskirts of the village. The proposed development for a new dwelling located within the Green Belt is therefore considered contrary to this local plan policies ENV 6 and HSG 12.

4.3 Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) sets out criteria relating to matters 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. As indicated in paragraph 3.3 my Transportation Section has no objection to the proposed dwellinghouse subject to conditions relating to vehicular access and parking. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the criteria set out in Policy TR 13 Assessing Transport Implications of Development.

4.4 With regards to Circular 24/1985 Development in the Countryside and Greenbelts, it states that urban sprawl and ribbon development should be avoided and isolated development in the countryside should be discouraged. As stated in 4.2 above, the proposal is located outwith the defined Hareshaw settlement boundary, between Greenhill Farm and Hareshaw village and there is no justification for the development as required by policy ENV 6 and ENV 12. It is considered that the proposed housing would therefore create a ribbon development and affect the boundary of the settlement. It is considered that in this instance the proposal is likely to set a precedent for other residential developments outwith the settlement boundary.

4.5 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 4.4 above, the dwellings along Greenhill Road will be impact on the Hareshaw settlement boundary and may set a precedent for other developments, which may lead to sprawl.

4.6 In conclusion, the applicant has not provided any justification or need for the dwellings within the Green Belt and as such, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to local plan policy (ENV 6 and HSG 10) and national planning guidance (Circular 2411985 and SPP 3). Taking the above reasons into consideration, it is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

68 Application No: S/08/00251/FUL

Date Registered: 20th February 2008

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Penman 38 Emily Drive Motherwel I MLI 2SQ

Development: Erection of a Single Storey Extension to Side and Rear of Dwellinghouse

Location: 38 Emily Drive Motherwell MLI 2SQ

Ward: 18 Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig: Councillors Harmon, Lunny, McKay and Valentine

Grid Reference: 275386655555

File Reference: S/PL/08/00251/FUL/GSM/GF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 2 letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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 dwelling house.

Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.

69 PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I08 I FUL Produced by I00251 North Lanarkshire Council Planning and Environment Department ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO SIDE AND REAR OF DWELLINGHOUSE *hire 38 EMILY DRIVE, MOTHERWELL. collaa

Representation tel01698 27427 * tax Of698 403053

70 3. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the plans stamped approved as part of this permission.

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20thFebruary 2008

2 Letters from Elizabeth Ross, 36 Emily Drive, Motherwell, ML1 2SQ received !jthand 27'h March 2008

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 274104.

Date: 18 April 2008

71 APPLICATION NO. S/08/00251/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey extension at 38 Emily Drive, Motherwell. The extension would be “L” shaped, wrapping around the side and rear of the house. It would be set back 4.3 metres from the front building line and would project 2.1 metres from the side and 3.5 metres from the back of the building. The roof would slope downwards from the wall and would be 4.8 metres in height at the highest point.

1.2 The application property is an end terraced dwellinghouse and is bounded by dwellings on all sides.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required.

3.2 Two letters of representation were received from the owners of number 36 Emily Drive. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

i. A considerable area of land that the extension is planned on is owned by the objector. The objector will not allow the applicant to build on this land. ii. The extension would overshadow the property at 36 Emily Drive. iii. The property at 36 Emily Drive has a right of access across the application site and the extension obstructs this and access to the garage in their rear garden. If the extension is approved the objector has a considerable distance to access the rear of their house. The property at 38 Emily Drive has previously used their rear garden to store boats motorbikes and cars and should the extension be approved they would be no longer able to do so. IV. This type of extension is not suitable for a mid terrace four in a block property with shared access. The size, scale and design are not suitable for the building. V. The applicant has erected a fence that encroaches on the objector’s property and therefore the extension will also encroach reducing the amount of private garden ground at 36 Emily Drive. vi. The extension will detract from the objector’s privacy and amenity. vii. The objector has been unable to view the detailed plans despite requesting access to these.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).

4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (Established Housing Areas).

72 4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extension, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the street scene, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight and parking provision.

4.4 The size and scale of the single storey extension is considered to be acceptable as it would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse and would not dominate it.

4.5 The application property has an adequate garden area and overall plot size with a rear garden length of 13 metres remaining after the proposed extension and retaining approximately 143 square metres of private garden ground. It is considered that there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained.

4.6 With regards to the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties the proposal does not contain any overlooking windows to either side or to the front and the windows at the rear would not raise any adverse overlooking issues due to the distance to the houses at the back of the property and the close boarded boundary fence that provides adequate screening. The extension passes the sunlightldaylighttests with regard to its effect on the adjacent house at 36 Emily Drive. Although there will be some overshadowing, the levels of sunlight and daylight received by this neighbouring property will still be acceptable.

4.7 In relation to the impact on access and parking provision the extension is set back considerably from the front building line therefore the property retains a driveway at the side and gravel area at the front for parking.

4.8 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

i. The applicant has confirmed that they own all the land involved. Any dispute over ownership is not a material planning consideration. ii. The extension passes the sunlight and daylight tests with regard to the impact on the dwellinghouse at 36 Emily Drive. The impact of the extension in relation to the overshadowing of neighbouring houses is therefore considered to be acceptable. iii. With respect to the extension obstructing a shared access, the applicant has proposed an alternative access for the residents of 36 Emily Drive at the back garden. While I acknowledge that accessing 36 Emily Drive from the rear will be less convenient for the occupant this is not a material planning consideration. Neither is the ability store items in their garden. iv. As discussed in paragraph 4.4 this extension is considered acceptable in relation size and scale as it would integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling. v. As indicated above land ownership, and therefore the available amount of garden ground, is not a material planning consideration. vi. As indicated at paragraph 4.6 I do not consider this extension to result in a loss of privacy and the extension is not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. vii. The objector visited the planning department and obtained photocopies of the full plans.

4.9 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.10 It should be noted that the objector has requested that a site visit be conducted prior to a decision being made on the application and that they be given a hearing at the committee.

73 Application No: SlO8/00291IFU L

Date Registered: 13 March 2008

Applicant: Bank Machine LTD CIO Agent

Development: installation of External ATM Machine

Location: 10-12 New Stevenston Road Motherwell MLI 4EQ

Ward: 17 Motherwell North: Councillors McAuley, McKenna, Nolan and Stewart

Grid Reference: 277094 658554

File Reference: S/PL/O8/00291IFULICCAIGF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 Established Housing Areas in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations required

Representations: 1 letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: No

Recommendation: Approve 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, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing number E003478.

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

74 75 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13'h March 2008

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 18'h March 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 4'h April 2008

Letter from local resident, Mrs Leslie of 49 Ardgour Parade, Carfin, MLI 4HL, received on 7'h March 2008

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 8,2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Campbell at 01698 2741 18.

Date: 23 April 2008

76 APPLICATION NO. S/08/00291/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of an external ATM machine at 10-12 New Stevenston Road, Carfin, Motherwell. The application site is located within a row of existing single storey retail units located within a predominantly residential area. To the north of the property is a car park and a Gospel Hall.

1.2 The proposed ATM machine will measure 0.8 metres in length by 0.9 metre in height and be located 1.7 metres above ground level.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is within an area covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader had no objections to this proposal.

3.2 My Protective Services had no objections to the proposal.

3.3 1 letter of objection has been received following neighbour notification procedures. The letter of objection can be summarised as follows:

(a) Inconsiderate parking by shop customers already blocks off access to objector’s driveway. The proposal would worsen this. The access was created specifically as the objector has health issues.

(b) As the proposed cash line is open 24 hours there will be no peace.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 This application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies. Policies HSG 8 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) apply.

4.2 Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) seeks to protect the character and amenity of residential areas. The installation of an ATM machine is considered to be compatible within established housing areas as a facility which serves the needs of residents. As the ATM is located in an existing row of shops with no housing above or dwellings adjacent it would not result in a detrimental impact on residential amenity. Therefore, this proposal is in accordance with policies HSG 8.

4.3 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including, traffic generation and its impact on road traffic circulation and road safety. The Transportation Team Leader has advised that there are no transportation issues with regard to the ATM machine being located at this site. The proposal has a public car park directly at the rear and on-street parking to the front of the proposed site and it is likely that there will be no detrimental effect on car parking or congestion within the area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the transportation requirements of Policy TR13.

4.4 In relation to the points of objection I would comment as follows:

(a) My Transportation Team Leader raised no objections to the proposal.

77 (b) In relation to the aspect of noise my Protective Services Team Leader raised no objections to the proposal. As indicated at paragraph 4.2 the proposed ATM is unlikely to significantly affect the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

4.5 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal is not likely to cause any detrimental effect on the residential area and the ATM machine will form a complementary addition to the area. The proposal complies with Policies HSG 8 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.

78 Application No: S/08/00299/AMD

Date Registered: 29th February 2008

Applicant: Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc Clo Agent

Agent GVA Grimley Ltd 149 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5NW

Development: Non-Compliancewith Conditions 2 and 3 of Planning Consent of S105100220/0UT (Extension to Time Periods Stated)

Location: Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc John Street Bellshill ML4 1RJ

Ward: 15 Mossend and Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

Grid Reference: 273498660117

File Reference: S/PL/08/00299/AMD/AMCL/GF

Site History: 0 SI97110366lFUL Redevelopmentof Existing Petrol Filling Station Including Kiosk and Car Wash - granted 13 August 1997 0 S/05/00220/OUT Proposed Extension to Existing Foodstore, Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements - granted 14 September 2005 0 S/05/00317/FUL Erection of Gates & Fence to Service Yard & Installation of Trolley Shelters to Existing Car Park - granted 27 April 2005

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

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 2 letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

79 ThismapIsreproducedtrom PLANNING APPLICATION NO S I08 I00299 I AMD Produced by Ordnance Survey materla1 North Lanarkshire Council wth the prmisvon of Planning and Environment Department Ordnance SUNBY on &hi# NON - COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS 2, AND 3 Dalziel Building, Stat,aneryddieContm'lerdHarMP~s~s onre 0 crown OF PLANNING CONSENT S/08/00220lOUT mpyrght Unsutharirsd nproduCtlOn mfnnges Crow MLl 1SX mpyrlght and myI@& to MORRISON SUPERMARKETS, 12 JOHN STREET, W prmnubn or CNI~Prcceedinps BELLSHILL Nom Lan;likshire Council le101698 274274v lDM25396 m * Representation fau 01698 403053

80 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within 5 years of the date of this permission, or within 2 years of the date of which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.

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

2. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 1 of Planning Consent ref. S/05/00220/0UT, shall be made to the Planning Authority.

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

3. That, for the avoidance of doubt, all conditions imposed on Planning Permission ref. S/05/00220/OUT still apply other than conditions 2 and 3.

Background Papers:

Application form, plans and accompanying letter from GVA Grimley received 2gth February 2008

Letter from Scottish Power, St Vincent Crescent, Glasgow G3 8LT received 6th March 2008 Letter from John Street Surgery, John Street, Bellshill, ML4 1RJ received lothMarch 2008

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

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alistair Maclean at 01698 274105.

Date: 18 April 2008

81 APPLICATION NO. S/08/00299/AMD

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1. Site and Proposal @

1.I This application is for the non-compliance with conditions 2 and 3 of planning consent ref S/05/00220/OUT which was granted on 14 September 2005. These conditions were standard conditions limiting the time within which the development could be commenced (condition 2) and within which reserved matters could be submitted (condition 3). This application seeks to renew the previous permission via the imposition of fresh time periods.

1.2 The S/05/00220/OUT application was for the extension of the Morrison supermarket in John Street, Bellshill which proposed to virtually double the size of the existing store by extending to the north (towards John Street) and the west. The existing petrol filling station, car wash and kiosk would be demolished to increase car parking and it was also proposed to incorporate properties in Hunter Street to accommodate additional car parking. The site of the doctors’ surgery on John Street was also included within the site plan although no changes were shown for this part of the site.

1.3 It is proposed to extend the store from 3,808 sq. m. to 7,060 sq. m. gross resulting in a retail sales area of 3,360 sq. m. from 1,908 sq. m. at present. The car park would increase from 215 spaces to 356 spaces which would be a small reduction in the ratio of spaces to floorspace. The extension will enable Morrison’s preferred trading format to be accommodated at the store.

2. Development Plan

2.1 As the proposal relates to a development within a convenience floorspace increase of just over 1,000 square metres (net) then the application is considered as strategic in Structure Plan terms. However, this application is for an amendment to an existing permission therefore it need not be assessed under Strategic Policy 9 of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan.

2.2 The site is within an area covered by Policy RTL5 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Given this is simply an extension of time within which to submit full detailed plans and to commence the development, no consultations were undertaken.

3.2 Two representations were received. The doctors at John Street Surgery objected as the site contains land on which their surgery is located and understand that the proposal would involve demolition of the surgery. Scottish Power objected, following neighbour notification, as there is an operational sub-station within the vicinity of the proposed development.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The principle of planning permission for an extension to this supermarket & the associated works has already been established at this site by virtue of outline planning permission (S/05/00220/OUT) and the only considerations, therefore, relate to extending the timescales

82 within which the applicant can apply for the approval of reserved matters and for the implementationof the development.

4.2 I would respond to the objection letters as follows:

a) With regard to the concern expressed by the Surgery doctors, paragraph 1.3 above states that the car park would increase from 215 spaces to 356 spaces. In order to provide these additional parking spaces a number of options are being sought. Firstly, it is proposed to close the petrol filling station and extend the car park into that area. This, however, would be insufficient and, in addition, either the site in Hunter Street, containing Council and private premises, or the site of the surgery would be required for the remaining additional parking. The land on which the surgery sits is leased from NLC. It will be necessary for Morrisons to acquire one of these sites prior to any extension of the store being constructed. This would require to be done with the legal approval of all parties concerned. b) The Scottish Power objection, is not a material planning consideration and is a legal matter between the applicant and the utility provider.

4.3 Having regard to the foregoing I consider that as this site has been considered appropriate for this form of development as a result of the previous planning permission then in order to allow preparation of the necessary detailed proposals for submission of a “reserved matters” application it is reasonable to allow the applicant additional time as requested. While the points of objection are noted these will be fully considered at any subsequent “reserved matters” submission and as such I do not consider that those points of objection merit refusal of the application. I therefore recommend that the application to extend the timescales be granted subject to the same conditions as those imposed upon the previous consent.

83 Application No:

Date Registered: 4th March 2008

Applicant: A G Grant Construction LTD 48 Arrotshole Road East Kilbride G74

Development: Installation of External ATM Machine

Location: 224-226 Main Street Be1Ish i I I ML4 IAB

Ward: 15 Mossend and Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

Grid Reference: 273361 660236

File Reference: SIPL/O8/00304/FUL/CCAlGF

Site History: S/97/10140/FUL- Construction of Post Office and Shop Granted 5th June 1997

Development Plan: The site is zoned as RTL 5 Town Centre Areas in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations required

Representations: 1 letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: No

Recommendation: Approve 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, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing number 07-194-1 001.

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

84 85 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 4'h March 2008

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 2!jth March 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 4'h April 2008

Letter from local resident, Mr Gerard Rodgers of 218 c Main Street, Bellshill, ML4 IAB, received on 13'h March 2008

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

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Campbell at 01698 2741 18.

Date: 15 April 2008

86 APPLICATION NO. S1081003041FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of an external ATM machine at 224-226 Main Street, Bellshill. The application site is located within Bellshill Town Centre, an existing commercial/retail area and is a single storey retail unit. Various commercial/retail outlets exist including hot food takeaway outlets, betting shops, banks and cafes. To the south of the application site is a large car park.

1.2 The proposed ATM machine will measure 0.7 metres in length and I metre in height.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is within an area covered by Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader had no objections to this proposal given the town centre location and large parking area to the rear.

3.2 My Protective Services had no objections to the proposal given its town centre location

3.3 1 letter of objection has been received following neighbour notification procedures. The letter of objection can be summarised as follows:

(a) At present there are 5 external ATM machines in total as well as various internal machines in various shops around the Town Centre. The view is that each ATM brings with it parking problems and noise (especially at weekends and bank holidays).

(b) The proposed ATM at the Post Office would present a security risk as it is right beside the resident’s main front door. The ATM at this site would attract unwanted attention, unwanted traffic and crowds queuing outside the main front door at all hours in the evening and night.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 This application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies. Policies RTLS and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) apply.

4.2 Policy RTL 5 (Town Centre Areas) seeks to protect and enhance the retail function of Town Centre Areas. The proposed ATM machine would provide a supporting service within the Town Centre area. There are several similar ATM machines currently within the Town Centre and they are located sporadically along the Main Street and interspersed predominantly by retail units and commercial outlets of mainly Class 2 financiaVprofessiona1 businesses. As such, the Main Street is still visually perceived by the consumer as a primarily retail centre, where ATM machines become absorbed into the backdrop. An opportunity therefore exists for the further inclusion of an additional ATM machine without detriment to the character or amenity of the centre. I therefore consider the proposal to be in accord with policy RTL 5.

4.3 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including, traffic generation and its impact on road traffic circulation and road safety. The Transportation Team Leader has advised that there are no transportation issues with regard to the ATM machine being located at this site. The proposal has a large public car park directly at the rear and it is likely that there will be no detrimental effect on car

87 parking or congestion within the area. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the transportation requirements of Policy TR13.

4.4 In relation to the points of objection and the petition I would comment as follows.

(a) As indicated above my Transportation Team Leader raised no objections to the proposal. In addition, Main Street is a four lane road, such that even where on-street parking occurs, traffic will still flow freely on the outside lane. In relation to the aspect of noise my Protective Services Team Leader raised no objections to the proposal.

(b) In relation to the potential increased security risk resulting from the ATM this is not a material planning consideration. However, as indicated above the proposed site is within a Town Centre area and ATM machines are a normal feature of such areas.

4.5 I consider that the proposed external ATM machine complies with Policies RTL5 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted. Application No: S1081003401FU L

Date Registered: 5th March 2008

Applicant: Mr & Mrs J MacMillan 24 Stirling Street Motherwel I ML1 1AT

Agent Alcad Services 90 Brownlee Road Law Carluke ML8 5JD

Development: Erection of Two Storey Extension to Side and Rear of Dwelling house

Location: 24 Stirling Street Motherwell ML1 1AT

Ward: 18 Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig: Councillors Harmon, Lunny, McKay and Valentine

Grid Reference: 276687655884

File Reference: S1PL1081003401FU LIGSMIGF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

ConsuItations: None

Representations: 2 letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve 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 dwellinghouse.

89 Depot

Thl*map~srepmdu-dfmm PLANNINGAPPLICATION No S/08/0034O/FUL Produced by Ordnance Suwey mtensl Norlh Lanarkshire Council wh the wrmsson of Pknning and Environment Department, Oidnance SUNW on tmhan ERECTION OF Two STOREY EXTENSION TO SIDE d the Contmikr of Her MeWs sstloMry onice o crown AND REAR OF DWELLINGHOUSE mpyrght Um!$hor#& reptcducbonintnngss CrOvm mpyrght and may ledto 24 STIRLING STREET MOTHERWELL pT-ubOn OlCNli prceedngs North Lsoilrirshire Council Representation tel 01698 27427 100023396 m)8 * 1:1*250 feu 01696403O53

90 Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.

3. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the plans stamped approved as part of this permission.

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 5'h March 2008

Amended plans received 21 April 2008

2 Letters from M Mathieson & F Thompson, 26 Stirling Street, Motherwell, MLI IAT received lothand 31 st March 2008

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 274104.

Date: 23 April 2008

91 A PPLlCATlO N N0. S/08/00340/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two storey extension to the side and rear of 24 Stirling Street, Motherwell. The extension would project 4.3 metres from the back of the house, 1.9 metres from the side and would be set back 9 metres from the front building line. The roof would be pitched and would tie in with the roof of the existing building. The proposal also involves erecting a decking area to the rear of approximately 14 square metres floorspace and raised 400 mm from ground level.

1.2 The application property is a one and a half storey detached dwellinghouse and is bound by dwellings to the north, east and west with an area of open space to the south.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required.

3.2 Two letters of representation were received from the owners of number 26 Stirling Street. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

i. The extension is overdevelopment by virtue of its size and design in relation to the existing house and garden and the surrounding dwellinghouses. The dominant and irregular design is not in keeping with the look and feel of the street. This is contrary to the Local Plan. ii. The garden ground will be almost halved post development creating a garden area that is much reduced in relation to surrounding properties. iii. The proposal raises serious road safety problems as the applicants park two large vehicles in the existing driveway. The remaining driveway will not be adequate post development to accommodate these and will increase on street parking and access problems on what is an already congested CUIde sac. IV. The extension would be excessively close to the shared boundary at 26 Stirling Street this would cause adverse overshadowing of the neighbouring dwellinghouse. V. The design is considered to be intrusive and invasive in that it would significantly reduce the privacy of the dwellinghouse at 26 Stirling Street due to the overlooking windows. vi. The garden shed is not included in the plans. This would reduce the garden ground post development further. vii. It is understood that there are building warrant issues with the proposed side windows. viii. The reduction in garden ground may lead to drainage problems.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. This application is not of strategic importance. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).

92 4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (Established Housing Areas).

4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight is also considered as is parking provision and access.

4.4 With regards to the size and scale of the original proposal this was considered to be large in relation to the existing dwellinghouse. The extension has since been reduced in size and the revised proposal is considered to integrate satisfactorily with the house and not dominate it. The scale of the extension therefore is in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential area.

4.5 The application property has an adequate garden area and overall plot size with a rear garden length of approximately 7.5 metres remaining after the proposed extension and retaining approximately 54 square metres of private garden ground. It is considered that there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained.

4.6 With regards to the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties the proposal contains three windows on the gable end facing the neighbouring dwellinghouse at 26 Stirling Street. One window on the upper floor is an En-Suite and the other is a bedroom overlooking a blank gable. The window on the lower floor is a kitchen. There is an existing screen fence at this boundary. Any overlooking will therefore be minimal. In relation to the decking area at the rear this will be 400 mm above ground level and therefore it would be largely screened by the existing 2 metre high screen fence and any overlooking from the decking would only affect the bottom of the adjacent gardens. The extension passes the daylight and sunlight tests with regards to the impact on the neighbouring dwellinghouses at 22 and 26 Stirling Street. Although there would be some overshadowing, the levels of sunlight and daylight received by these neighbouring properties will still be acceptable.

4.7 There are no restrictions on the site in relation to parking however the applicant has retained the driveway to the side which is long enough to accommodate two parking spaces therefore the impact of this development on parking provision and access is acceptable.

4.8 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

I. In relation to the size and scale of the extension as indicated in paragraph 4.4 I consider the revised proposal to be acceptable. ii. With regards to the amount of rear garden ground retained post development, as covered above in paragraph 4.5 this is considered to be acceptable. iii. The driveway to the side of the dwelling would be retained in the revised proposal therefore there would not be an impact on the parking provision or the access. IV. The extension is considered to be an acceptable distance from the neighbouring boundary and it passes the sunlight and daylight test. V. As indicated at paragraph 4.6 above privacy will not be significantly affected by the proposals. vi. With regards to the garden shed I acknowledge that the applicant has omitted this from the plans however having visited the site this is not considered to be large and is therefore not significant to the determination of the application. vii. Any issues with the Building Warrant are not material to the planning considerations. However the revised plans appear to address any potential problems. viii. The reduction in garden ground is unlikely to affect drainage. It should be noted that this is not a material consideration in this case.

93 4.9 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.10 It should be noted that the objectors have requested that a site visit be conducted prior to a decision being made on the application and that they have advised that they would be willing to attend a hearing at the committee if required.

94