North Lanarkshire Council
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Environment Committee
Committee Date : 14fhNovember 2001
AGENDA ITEM NO.; ...--- I
Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with the permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 14'h NOVEMBER 2001
Page No. Application No. Applicant Development/Locus Recommendation
.5 "01 '00938iFUL Frances Ferrie Erection of Stables - Grant Site adjacent to Arnbrae Steadings, Glasgow Road, Kilsyth.
7 N/O 110 10 13/FUL Steven Gauld Extension to Dwellinghouse - Grant 12 Baronhill, The Village, Cumbernauld.
12 N/O1/01074/FUL Mr James Allison Change of Use f?om Shop to Hot Food Grant Take-Away- 97 Main Street, Kilsyth.
16 N/O 1/O 075/FUL Mr and Mrs B N Gogna Extension to Dwelling - Grant 15 Birkdale Crescent, Westerwood, Cumbemauld.
19 N/O 1/0 080/OUT Mr E Taylor Erection of Three Dwellings (Outline), Grant Old Manse - 44 Main Street, Chryston.
25 N/O 1/O 11 12FUL John McGregor Conversion of Integral Garage to Living Grant Accommodation and Extension to Dwelling - 4 Cawder Way, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld.
29 N/O 110 1 12 1 /FUL Peter Hamilton Extension to Dwelling - Grant 23 The Wynd, The Village, Cumbernauld.
34 NI0 1/01 156/FUL One 2 One Personal Erection of 15m Telecommunications Tree Grant Communications Mast, Associated Equipment Cabin, Compound and Access - Site to the east of Greenside Farm, Waterhead Road, Palacerigg, Cumbernauld.
39 N/O 1/O 1 17 1/OUT Mr James Stewart Erection of Dwelling (Outline) - Refuse Scrap yard west of Mosside Cottage, Station Road, Muirhead.
43 N/O1/01200/FUL The Castlecary Community Erection of Community Pavilion - Grant Residents Association Land adjacent to Memorial Garden, Castlecary Road, Castlecary, Cumbernauld.
49 N/O1/01208/ADV Maiden Outdoor Advertising Erection of Advertising Hoarding - Rehse North west Railway Embankment, A73, Cumbernauld.
52 N/O 1/O 1258/FUL Mr&MrsW&E Extension to Dwelling - Grant Convey 2 Kelso Gardens Moodiesbum
56 C!O 1100557IOUT Mrs Linda McNab Change of Use of Factory Unit to Rehse Nursery/Care Unit - 260 Main Street, Coatbridge. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 14'h NOVEMBER 2001
Page No. Application No. Applicant Development/Locus Recommendation
62 C/O 1/00637/OUT McDonald Estates PLC Construction of 9,29 1sq.m. Non-food Grant (P) Single User Retail Building selling DIY, Home Improvement and Associated Products with Ancillary Garden Centre, Bulk Goods Yard, Access, Parking and Landscaping - Former Tennent's Foundry site, Coatbank Street, Coatbridge.
79 C/01/00730/OUT MacCorns Ltd Conversion of Barn to Food Production Refuse (P) Unit, Conversion of Dwellinghouse to GifVCoffee Shop, Erection of Dwellinghouse and Installation of Wind Turbine Generator (in Outline) - Raiziehill Farm. Airdrie Road, by Blackridge
87 C/O1/0082 1/FUL Lochside Housing Closure of 2 No. Lanes - lane running Refuse Association from (between 17 1/169) Lomond Road South to (between 88/90) Leven Road via Tantallon Drive, Coatbridge.
90 C/O1/00846/OUT A Cunningham Erection of 5 No. Dwellinghouses and Grant Formation of Access (Outline) - Stonedyke, Gowan Brae, Caldercruix.
95 C/O 1/00955iFUL Hutchison 3G UK Limited Installation of Telecommunications Grant Apparatus - Land on north east side of Langmuir Road, B argeddie.
100 C/O 1/0097 1/OUT Mrs C McAlistair Erection of Dwellinghouse (Outline) and Refuse (P) Siting of Temporary Accommodation during Construction - Site south of Ramoan House, west of 37-39 Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig.
105 C/01/00985/FUL A Bartlett and Sons Formation of Temporary Access and Grant (Airdrie) Limited Hardstanding - Land at the corner of Raebog Road, Glenmavis, Airdrie.
110 C/01/01015/FUL Saveco Properties Ltd Change of Use of Shop to Hot Food Refise Take-Away, including Erection of Rear Ventilation Duct - 16 Willow Drive, Airdrie.
115 C/Ol/01041/FUL T.O.M. Airdrie Ltd Erection of Paint Booth (in retrospect) - Grant T.O.M. Airdrie Ltd., 52 Southburn Road, Airdrie.
120 C/Ol/Ol145/ADV Apple Outdoor Erection of 1 x 48 sheet Externally Refise Illuminated Advertisement Sign, - 29 Flowerhill Street, Airdrie.
123 C/O U0 1159/FUL Alison Rabone Change of Use of Office (Class 2) to Grant Internet Caf4 - 86 Whifflet Street, Coatbridge.
127 C/01/01161/FUL Mr and Mrs Sweeney Erection of Rear Extension - Grant 82 Cromarty Road, Airdrie. I:DATA\COMM2\WORDW'LANNING\l4-nov.doc APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 14‘h NOVEMBER 2001
Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmenNLocus Recommendation
131 C/O 110 1 186/FUL Safeway Stores PLC Erection of Side Extension comprising Grant 1,081.2 sq.m. of additional floorspace to Shop - Safeway Stores PLC, Gartlea Road, Airdrie.
136 c/o /o 1 89/AMD Safeway Stores PLC Non-Compliance of Planning Condition 12 Grant of Planning Permission P/PPA/SS/256 - Safeway Stores PLC, Gartlea Road, Airdrie.
140 c ’0 ‘01 99!FU L Mr and Mrs D McDonald Erection of2 Storey Rear Extension - Grant 28 Invervale Avenue. Airdrie.
143 C/01/01232/FUL Hutchison 3G UK Ltd Installation of 15m high Grant Telecommunications Mast and Associated Equipment Cabinet (Mast Site) - Land adjacent to Unit 6, Chapelhall Industrial Estate, Chapelhall, Airdrie.
148 S/O 1/00662/HSC Transco Continuation of Planning Hazardous Grant Substances Consent - Gas Holder Station, Netherton Street, Wishaw.
151 Si0 1/01072/FUL Iain J Close Change of Use fiom Builders Yard to Refuse Funeral Parlour - 129 Holytown Road, Bellshill.
154 S/01/01077/FUL Orange PCS Limited Erection of Mast and Telecommunications Grant Equipment - Centrelink 5, Calderhead Road, Shotts.
157 S/01/01134/FUL Marion Dyet Change of Use to Sandwich Bar/Hot Food Refuse Take-Away - 1 Hillcrest Avenue, Wishaw.
I62 SO110 I 176iFUL Gilchrist and Lynn Erection of 40 Dwellings, Grant Land north west of 228-240 Liberty Road, Bellshill.
168 S/01/0128O/FUL GEHE UK PLC New Group Practice Surgery & Pharmacy - Grant Land South West of junction of Pollock Street with Main Street Bellshill
(P) C/O1/00637/OUT If approved, refer to Scottish Ministers (P) C/O1/0073O/OUT If approved, refer to Scottish Ministers (P) C/O1/00971/OUT If approved, refer to Scottish Ministers
I \DATA\COMM?\WORD’PLA”ING\14-novdoc Application No: N/01/0093 UFUL
Date Registered: 1It” September 2001
APPLICANT: FRANCES FEREUE, 38 KILSYTH ROAD, QUEENZIEBURN, G65 9EB Agent:
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF STABLES
LOCATION: ARNBRAE STEADINGS, KILSYTH
Ward No: 65 Grid: 270068 677840 File Reference: N/O1/00938/FUL Site History: None
Development Plan: Green Belt in Kilsyth Local Plan 1999
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS: Objection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: No response Newspaper Advert: Not required
COMMENTS: This application seeks consent for the erection of a 30rn2timber stable for two horses in a field to the west of Arnbrae Steadings, Kilsyth. The site will be accessed from an existing agricultural field gate off the existing access road to the steadings. The applicant does not live at Arnbrae Steadings, but intends to lease the field in question from the landowner. The proposal is compatible with the Green Belt Policies in the Local Plan, and the design and proposed location of the stables is acceptable. This proposal is regarded as minor in nature, but does not currently fall within the scheme of delegation, hence its reference to Committee. It is recommended that permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following condition:
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
List of Background Papers: Application form and plans dated 11” September 2001 Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr.Williams on 01236-616464
Application No.: N/O 110 10 13IFUL
Date Registered: 17th August 2001
APPLICANT: STEVEN GAULD, 12 BARONHILL, THE VILLAGE, CUMBERNAULD, G67 2SB
Agent: William Dempsey, 1E Clouden Road, Kildrum, Cumbernauld, G67 2JG
DEVELOPMENT: EXTENSION TO DWELLING
LOCATION: 12 BARONHILL THE VILLAGE CUMBERNAULD G67 2SB
Ward: 54
Grid Reference: 276598. 676062.
File Reference: N/O 1/0 10 13/FUL
Site History: N/00/01129/FUL Extension to Dwelling to Provide Kitchen for Commercial Food Preparation Withdrawn 03/04/2001
N/99/00468/FUL Replacement Slates, Flashing, Guttering and Downpipes Approved 23/06/1999
Development Plan Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 & Cumbernauld Village Plan 1993
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland Conditions: No Reply:
REPRESENTATIONS: Neighbours: 2 Letters of Objection from Neighbours Newspaper Advertisement: Letters of Objection from the Village Community Council and one other adjacent owner.
COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to extend this traditional property within the Cumbernauld Village Conservation Area to provide an attached double garage and additional bedroom accommodation. The extension is appropriate to the character of the area in terms of both the design and materials. Three letters of objection were received from individuals, in addition to a letter of objection from the Village Community Council. No adverse consultation responses were received. I I kduced by N/01/01013/FUL Jepartment of Planning and Enwronment Uwthern Division Steven Gauld %on Way 12 Baronhill
XMBERNAULD ~ The Village Cumbernauld S67 ID2 Extension to belling A Telephone 01236 616400 Fax. 01236 616420 * Objectors This copy has kenproduced specfically for Planning and Building Control purposes only. 3s Licence !A 09041L No further copies may be made RECOMMENDATION:
Grant, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That the use of the garage hereby permitted shall be restricted to private use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse on the site and no commercial activity shall be carried out, in, or from, the garage.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.
3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of the building and the Conservation Area.
4. That all windows and doors shall be of timber construction, the final paintwork colours of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of the building and the Conservation Area.
5 That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, all deliveries of materials and construction activities on the site shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:OO a.m. and 8:OO p.m. Monday to Friday and 8:OO a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no such activities on Sundays or bank holidays.
Reason: In the interests of public health and safety, and the amenity of adjacent residents.
List of Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 17th August 200 1 Amended plans received 26th October 200 1
Memo received 5t’1 September 200 1 from the Area Transportation Manager Letter received 14‘” September 200 1 from Architectural Heritage Society Of Scotland
Letter received 3rd September 2001 from E L Stewart, 14-16 Baronhill, The Village, Cumbernauld Letter received 1 It’’ September 2001 from I McGhee, 27 Kirkwall, The Village, Cumbernauld Letter received 26th September 2001 from A McEwan, 2 Baronhill, The Village, Cumbernauld Letter received 12t”October 200 1 from the Village Community Council, 25 Roadside, The Village, Cumbernauld
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mary Stewart at 01236 616473 APPLICATION NO. N/O 1/0 10 13/FUL
REPORT
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 The property is a traditional semi-detached dwelling which is single storey and dormers. It occupies a prominent position within the Village Conservation Area, fronting directly on to the pavement. The site is bounded by public footpaths to one side and along part of the rear boundary. The applicant proposes to extend the dwelling to provide additional bedroom accommodation and a double garage. The majority of the extension is to the rear of the existing property, although a small part will extend down the side.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2.1 The Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 is the adopted Local Plan for this area. Within the Village Conservation Area, the relevant Policy states that, ‘the design of all proposed development must respect the character of the Conservation Area and special attention must be paid to its scale, massing, proportion, colour and materials.’
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Planning permission for refurbishment works was granted in June 1999. An application for an extension to provide a kitchen for commercial food preparation was withdrawn as a result of objection to the proposals in April 2001.
4. REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
4.1 No objections were made by either the Architectural Heritage Society for Scotland or the Area Transportation Manager.
4.2 The owner of the adjoining property has objected on the grounds that the applicant enjoys no right of access to his property by means of the existing pend which separates the two dwellings at ground floor level. He further considers that his neighbour’s proposal to erect a garage is at variance with his own proposals to erect a boundary fence and that the construction of the extension would be problematic given the applicant’s need to gain access by alternative means.
4.3 The three further objections submitted were on the grounds that the proposals were not in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area in terms of their scale and design and that there was no means of access to the proposed double garage. In all three letters, concerns relating to the possible future use of the extension for business purposes were also expressed.
5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The granting of planning permission in relation to this proposal would not give the applicant the right to take access over land where he would not otherwise be legally entitled to do so. It is obvious from this and the application recently approved in relation to a fence at the adjoining property at 16 Baronhill that the rights to use of the pend is the subject of dispute between the two owners, This is a legal matter which requires to be resolved, but has no direct bearing in the planning consideration of either application. 5.2 This applies equally to the issue of use of the pend for access to construct the proposed extension. However, in order to restrict potential disturbance to nearby residents should the use of the pend not be an option, a planning condition can be imposed to restrict the hours of construction.
5.3 The originally submitted design proposed a significant area of flat roofed extension, whilst a steep pitch on the garage roof resulted in a relatively high ridge level. The applicant has submitted amended plans with a pitched slate roof over the entire extension. The overall height is also significantly reduced by the reduction in the degree of roof pitch. The resultant amended design relates to the scale of the original dwelling and complies with approved Council Policy for Design in the Conservation Area in terms of the overall design and materials.
5.4 The concerns expressed in relation to the possibility of future business activities cannot form part of the consideration of this application, which relates only to the extension of a dwelling. A planning condition can be imposed to restrict the use of the garage to domestic use and any future change to allow business use within the property would require a further planning permission.
5.5 I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted. Application No: N/O 1/O 1074/FUL
Date Registered: 3rdSeptember 200 1
APPLICANT: MR J ALLISON, 28 JOHN WILSON DRIVE, KILSYTH, G65 9AU
Agent: None
DEVELOPMENT: CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY
LOCATION: 97 MAIN STREET, KILSYTH, G65 OHN
Ward No: 66 Grid: 271706678011 File Reference: N/O 1/O 1074/FUL Site History: None
Development Plan: Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 policies SC1 and 4: Shopping Area and Presumption in favour of Change of Use from retail to other appropriate uses outwith core area.
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions :
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: No Response Newspaper Advert: No Response
COMMENTS: This application seeks consent for the change of use of the former baker’s shop at 97 Main Street, Kilsyth, to a hot food takeaway. The proposal is acceptable in terms of Local Plan policy and location, and it is recommended that permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following conditions :-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason : To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That before the operation of the premises as a hot food takeaway commences, details of the proposed method of the mechanical extraction of fumes and the ventilation of the premises, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason : To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control of these aspects in the interests of surrounding residential amenity.
3. That before the operation of the premises as a hot food takeaway commences, the extraction and ventilation systems as approved under condition 2 above shall be installed and in operation.
Reason : In the interests of the amenity of the shop and surrounding area.
List of Background Papers:
Application form and plans dated 9.10.01 Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 Consultation response from NLC Environmental Services (Pollution Control) dated gthSeptember 200 1.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr.Williams on 01236-616464 APPLICATION NO : N/01/01074/FUL
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application seeks consent for the change of use of the former baker’s shop at 97 Main Street, Kilsyth to a hot food takeaway. The premises have been vacant for at least three months and lie at the southern end of the Main Street, outwith the Conservation Area, Central Area and the Retail Core Area as identified in the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999.
1.2 The applicant proposes to operate a ‘hot food takeaway’ catering for most styles of cuisine and has applied for the appropriate operator’s licence. Two flatted properties are situated above the premises, with an area of derelict ground to the north, the Post Office to the east, the West Burnside Street car park to the west and a shop to the south.
2. CONSULTATIONS
2.1 The Environmental Control Manager has no objections to the proposal subject to the installation of the appropriate extraction and ventilation systems.
2.2 Furthermore, no objections have been received from any adjacent or conterminous dwellings as a result of neighbour notification, including the flatted properties immediately above the vacant shop unit.
2.3 The application was advertised in the Kilsyth Chronicle on the 12“ of September 2001as a potential ‘bad neighbour’ development. No objections have been received.
3. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
3.1 The proposal is acceptable in terms of relevant Local Plan policy. Policy SC4 states that the council will favour the re-use of vacant shop units outwith the Core Retail Area of the town. Policy SC5 presumes against hot food shops within the Central Area. However, the application site lies outwith the Central Area and falls within Policy HG 3-5. In this context, the proposal must be assessed in terms of its potential impact on residential amenity and its appropriateness to the character of the area.
3.2 Provided the appropriate cooking fume extraction system is installed, the proposal will not detrimentally affect residential amenity. In this regard, no objections have been received from the residents of the flatted properties above, who potentially could be most affected by the proposal and indeed are the only residences within significant proximity to the shop unit.
3.3 The proposal is acceptable in terms of location. There is an existing car park to the west and, although outwith the Retail Core Area and Central Area as defined in the Local Plan, the location is reasonably central and not particularly residential in character.
3.4 In conclusion, this application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions. Application No: N/O 1/O 1075/FUL
Date Registered: 3'd September 200 1
APPLICANT : MR AND MRS B. N. GOGNA, 15 BIRKDALE CRESCENT, WESTERWOOD, CUMBERNAULD
Agent: Sondh Associates 5 St Vincent Place Glasgow G12DH
DEVELOPMENT: EXTENSION TO DWELLING
LOCATION: 15 BIRKDALE CRESCENT, WESTERWOOD, CUMBERNAULD
Ward No: 57 Grid: 275937 676717 File Reference: N/O 1/O 1075/FUL Site History: N/97/00 197FUL - Erection of 29 Dwellings, Approved 3.9.97
Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 : Policy HGSF, Residential Development Site
Contrary to Development Plan: No
COYSI'LT 4TTONS:
0b j ection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: Two letters of objection. Newspaper Advert: Not required.
COMMENTS: This application seeks consent for the erection of a two-storey extension to the side and rear of 15 Birkdale Crescent, Westerwood, Cumbernauld, a detached two-storey house. The proposal also seeks permission for the conversion of the existing double integral garage into a lounge. The proposed extension (as amended by the applicant to take account of his neighbours' concerns as far as possible), comprises a garage on the ground floor and a bedroom on the first floor, built on to the northern gable of the house. The original proposal was for a larger extension coming within 1 metre of the heel of the adjacent footway. The amended proposal represents a smaller extension with a more satisfactory roof arrangement, with a minimum 4 metres clearance from the heel of the footway. Golf Course Two letters of objection were received from adjacent neighbours on the grounds that the proposed extension was too large with an awkward roof design; would lead to overlooking and that it was too close to the heel of the footway. These objections are considered to be largely overcome by the amended design of the extension, although they have not been withdrawn. It is considered that the amended proposal is of an acceptable scale and design. Furthermore, there are no overlooking issues as the proposed windows at the rear are obscured glass for bathrooms, and the side window is for the garage. Finally, the proposed extension is a minimum distance of 4 metres from the heel of the footway, which is consistent with the other houses in Birkdale Crescent.
Notwithstanding the concerns raised by two neighbouring proprietors, it is recommended that that planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
2. That the materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwelling.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed extension blends harmoniously with the existing and surrounding dwellings, in the interests of residential amenity.
3. That the use of the garage hereby permitted shall be restricted to the private use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse on the site and no commercial activity shall be carried out, in, or from, the garage.
Reason: To ensure that no anti-social activity incompatible with a residential area is carried out within the garage in the interests of residential amenity.
4. That the integral garage hereby permitted shall not be altered for use as a habitable room without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control in the interests of residential amenity.
List of Background Papers:
Application form dated 1st September and amended plans dated 17th October, 200 1. Letter of objection dated 4'h September 2001 from Mr. Healey, 42 Birkdale Crescent, Cumbemauld Letter of objection dated 18" September 2001 from Mr. Birnie, 1 Birkdale Crescent, Cumbernauld.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr.Williams on 0 1236-616464 Application No:
Date Registered: 3'd September 2001
APPLICANT: MR E TAYLOR, OLD MANSE, 44 MAIN STREET, CHRYSTON, GLASGOW, G69 9DH
Agent:
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF 3 DWELLINGS
LOCATION: OLD MANSE, 44 MAIN STREET, CHRYSTON
Ward No: 69 Grid: 268664-670028 File Reference: MD Site History: TP/92/542: Erection of Dwelling (Outline) - Refused February 1993
Development Plan: Strathkelvin (Southern Area) Local Plan 1983 - No Specific Proposals (E.PR06) and General Residential Area (E.PR07) Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000 - General Residential Area (HG3)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Obj ec tio n : No Objection: The Coal Authority, West of Scotland Water No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: Seven letters of objection, including Chryston Community Council Newspaper Advert: Not Required
COMMENTS: This outline application is for the erection of three dwellings in the grounds of the Old Manse, 44 Main Street, Chryston. Two of the proposed dwellings will be in the existing large front garden area and one in a currently detached side area.
Through negotiation the development has been reduced from the originally proposed five to three dwellings, two of which front on to Main Street.
There is some concern that the proposed development will place the existing impressive Old Manse dwelling in a backland position. Care has, however, been taken to ensure that there is a clear view of the majority of the original dwelling down the new private road serving the new development. The proposed dwellings will be lower (maximum 1% storey) than the two storey Old Manse thus helping ensure the continuing dominance of the original building.
Notwithstanding the objections received, it is recommended that outline planning permission be granted. Prcduced by NlOllOl080IOUT Department of Planning and Environment Northern Division EAMONN TAYLOR won way OLD MANSE 44 MAIN ST CHRYSTON CUMEERNAULD G67 IDZ ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS *OBJECTORS A Telephone 01236 616400 Fax. 01236 616420 This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Control purposes only. OS Licence LAO9041L NO further copies may be made RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That before development starts a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:-
a) the siting, design and external appearance of all building and other structures; b) the means of access to the site; c) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; d) the disposal of sewage; e> details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; 0 details of existing and proposed site levels. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
2. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in Condition 1 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.
Reason: To accord with the provision of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
3. That the development hereby permitted shall be started either within five years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the date on which the last of the reserved matters are approved.
Reason: To accord with the provision of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
4. That the development proposals to be submitted through the necessary detailedheserved matters application shall be based on the proposals reflected on the approved sketch plan or such other scheme as may be to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity by ensuring that dwellinghouses are appropriate for this central Chryston site.
5. That none of the three dwellinghouses hereby permitted shall exceed 1% storeys in height.
Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that the dwellinghouses relate to the local streetscape and do not dominate the Old Manse.
6. That a 2m wide footway shall be formed along the frontage to the standard and satisfaction of North Lanarkshire Council as Roads and Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety by forming a proper width footpath.
7. That the existing low front stone wall shall be rebuilt to a height of lm behind the footway required under Condition 6 above, except for access points.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and road safety by ensuring the rebuilding of the attractive wall at an appropriate location and height.
8. That the access details and parking provision shall be to the satisfaction of North Lanarkshire Council as Roads and Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
9. That either :- a> a methane gas site survey, including any necessary remedial measures, shall be submitted with the detailedheserved matters application or; b) it shall be assumed that naturally occurring methane gas is present at the site and full details of precautionary measures shall be submitted with the detailedheserved matters application.
Reason: In the interest of public safety due to the possible presence of naturally occurring methane gas at the site.
List of Background Papers:
Application Form, Plans and Amended Plan dated 3rdSeptember 2001 Strathkelvin (Southern Area) Local Plan 1983. Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000. Consultation letters from The Coal Authority and West of Scotland Water. Letters of objection from Chryston Community Council, c/o Miss R Anderson, 1 Neuk Avenue, Muirhead, Chryston, G69 9EX; Mr P Wood, 36 Main Street, Chryston, G69 9DH; Mrs M Percival, Bowstead Cottage, 42 Main Street, Chryston G69 9PH; Mr J McKie, 48 Main Street, Chryston, G69 9JS; I&J Biggam, 49 Main Street, Chryston, G69 9DH, Mrs R McKie, 50 Main Street, Chryston, G69 9JV; Mr R G Ban, 5 1 Main Street, Chryston, G69 9DH
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Dean on 01236-616459. APPLICATION NO: N/01/01080/OUT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This outline application is for the construction of three houses in the grounds of the Old Manse, 44 Main Street, Chryston. Two of the proposed houses will be in the front garden area and front on to Main Street, with the third being on a fenced-off side section. A private internal road will serve two of the proposed houses plus the Old Manse. These proposals are as a result of negotiated amendments to the original submission for five houses.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2.1 Under the Strathkelvin (Southern Area) Local Plan 1983 the site is covered by the following policies :-
0 E.PRO6: No Specific Proposals. 0 E.PR07: General Residential Area.
2.2 The site is covered by the following policy under the Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000 :-
0 HG3 : General Residential Area.
3. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Summaries of consultee-responses are as follows:-
0 The Coal Authority: No adverse comments. 0 West of Scotland Water: The site can be serviced.
3.2 There are no objections from the Transportation Manager, subject to a 2m wide front footway being formed and the internal access road serving no more than three dwellings.
3.3 Letters of objection have been submitted by Chryston Community Council and six local residents. The points of objection are as follows :-
0 The Old Manse is a very important part of Chryston’s heritage. New dwellings will be out of keeping and will adversely affect the Old Manse. There will unattractive views of a gable from Main Street. Any in-fill in connection with the proposed development will increase the height of the proposed dwellings and cause overshadowing. The development may adversely affect the roots of trees in adjacent gardens. 0 There are existing access and traffic problems with Main Street being busy, with fast traffic and a bad bend; Main Street is becoming increasingly busy and is crossed by school children and elderly pedestrians going to the post office; the proposed houses will adversely affect driver visibility; cars associated with the development may park on Main Street thus adversely affecting road safety; the pavement is too narrow; there has been a previous refusal of planning permission for a dwelling on the site due to road safety. The post officeishop could suffer if parking restrictions are introduced due to parking problems associated both with the proposed development and the recently approved residential development on the opposite of Main Street. 0 The applicant has previously caused local nuisance by felling mature trees and by demolishing the front boundary wall and causing part of the site to pond. 4. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
4.1 It is considered that the main issues are as follows :-
a) The amenity of the site and of the existing building: The site is currently an undistinguished (since trees were previously removed) large front garden plus an overgrown fenced off side area. The main potential problem is that, if care is not taken over the layout, the attractive Old Manse may be reduced to an unattractive backland location. This potential problem is, however, lessened by the position of the two proposed front houses allowing a view of the Old Manse from Main Street. Furthermore the Old Manse will front on to the internal private road system and will dominate the proposed houses due to its extra height (2 storeys as opposed to a proposed maximum 1'/z storeys).
The amenity of the general area: The development, as amended after negotiation, has two houses fronting on to Main Street. These houses will fully contribute towards the local streetscape. As mentioned above, the Old Manse will still be an important element in the local streetscape due to it still being visible from Main Street and because of its extra height.
It is possible that adjacent trees may be affected if their roots encroach onto the application site. The proposed houses will however be a minimum of lmetre away from boundaries. Although at certain times of the day there may be some overshadowing of adjacent properties, this is not considered to be a significant problem.
Road safety: There are no objections to the proposal from the Transportation Manager. It is accepted that Main Street is often busy and that visibility is curtailed by a bend and building position immediately to the east of the application site. It is a requirement that the existing front stone wall be moved back to allow a 2 metre wide footway and that it be rebuilt no more than 1 metre in height. No access positions are proposed in the more difficult eastern part of the frontage.
With respect to car parking, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be no occasional associated parking on Main Street. The availability of driveways and the internal road will, however, offer safer parking positions. There is no reason to believe that there will be future parking restrictions on Main Street resulting from the proposed development.
Other matters: Outline Planning Application (TP/92/542) was refused for a house on the site in February 1993. The refusal was based on reasons relating to backland development and adverse effect on the amenity of the site, on the existing building and on the general area. It is considered that the current development, as amended, reasonably overcomes the above potential problems.
The earlier felling of trees and the lowering of the height of the front stone wall by the applicant did not breach planning regulations. They are not considered to be relevant to the consideration of current application.
4.2 In conclusion it is considered that the proposed development will be compatible with the amenity of both the existing Old Manse and the high quality general environment. It is recommended that outline planning permission be granted for 3 dwellings based on the approved plan. Application No: N/O 1/O 11 12/FUL
Date Registered: 6thSeptember 200 1
APPLICANT: JOHN MCGREGOR, 4 CAWDER WAY, CARRICKSTONE, CUMBERNAULD
Agent:
DEVELOPMENT: CONVERSION OF INTEGRAL GARAGE TO LIVING ACCOMMODATION AND EXTENSION TO DWELLING
LOCATION: 4 CAWDER WAY, CARRICKSTONE, CUMBERNAULD
Ward No: 57 Grid: 275 104-676094 File Reference: MD Site History:
Development Plan: Cumbemauld Local Plan 1993: New Housing Development (HG5)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: One letter of objection. Newspaper Advert: Not required
COMMENTS: This application is for the conversion of an integral garage to a habitable room and the erection of a side extension at 4 Cawder Way, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld.
There are no objections to the proposed alterations, although it should be noted that the neighbouring proprietor has concerns over building works, amenity and potential nuisance.
It is recommended that planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant subject to the following conditions :-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within 5 years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.
Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that the alterations and extension suitably match the existing building.
3. That, as shown on the approved plan, the existing driveway shall be widened to 5 metres (with correspondingly widened drop kerb access) to provide two parking spaces.
Reason: In the interests of road safety by ensuring that there is off-street parking provision.
4. That the first 2 metres of the driveway behind the heel of the footway shall be paved across its entire width.
Reason: In the interest of road safety by preventing loose materials being carried onto the road.
List of Background Papers:
Application Form and Plan dated 6" September 200 1 Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 Letter of objection dated 1st October 200 1 from Brian and Elizabeth Lofnes, 2 Cawder Way, Cumbernauld
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Dean on 01236-616459 APPLICATION NO: N/01/01112/FUL
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application is for the conversion of an integral garage to a habitable room and erection of a single storey side extension on the two storey detached dwelling at 4 Cawder Way, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld.
1.2 It is proposed that the integral garage be converted into a dining room and that the extension accommodate a study and store. External materials will match the existing. The driveway will be widened to allow two off street parking spaces.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2.1 Under the terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 the site is identified for New Housing Development (HG5).
3. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 There are no objections from the Transportation Manager subject to the driveway being widened to form two off street parking spaces.
3.2 One letter of objection has been submitted with the following points being raised :-
0 Building works and future maintenance will require temporary use of part of the objector’s property thus blocking access, compromising security and causing potential danger to children. 0 The proposed extension will adversely affect the appearance of the area by reducing the distance between the two properties. This could decrease the value of the objector’s property. 0 Potential nuisance may be caused by living space within the extension being immediately adjacent to garden activity ie. children’s games.
4. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
4.1 One issue in this case is the likely effect on amenity through additional front garden parking as a result of the residential conversion of the integral garage. Some residents might regard cars parked in the front garden as an obtrusive feature which detracts from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape.
4.2 There are no objections to the proposed side extension, which is considered to be reasonably designed in relation to the building and to the general area. The concerns of the objectors over the use of part of their property during building works is a legal rather than a planning matter. There is no reason to believe that there will be any undue nuisance created.
4.3 Notwithstanding the concerns of the neighbours, and the parking implications of converting the garage to a habitable room, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. Application No: N/01/01121/FUL
Date Registered: loth September 2001
APPLICANT: MR P HAMILTON, 23 THE WYND, CUMBERNAULD VILLAGE, G67 3ST
Agent: William Dempsey, 1E Clouden Road, Cumbemauld, G67 2JG
DEVELOPMENT: EXTENSION TO DWELLING
LOCATION: 23 THE WYND, CUMBERNAULD VILLAGE, G67 3ST
Ward No: 54 Grid: 276792 676193 File Reference: N/01/01121/FUL Site History: None
Development Plan: Within the Conservation Area as defined in the Cumbernauld Village Plan 1993
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: 3 letters of objections Newspaper Advert: Not required.
COMMENTS: This application seeks consent for the erection of a single storey rear extension and rear dormer extension at 23 The Wynd, a traditional terraced property within Cumbemauld Village Conservation Area. The proposed extension work is intended to provide a rear porch and enlarged kitchen area on the ground floor and two additional bedrooms in the roofspace. Notwithstanding the objections received, including one from Councillor McCallum, it is recommended that permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following conditions :-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwelling.
Reason: To ensure that the extension works blend harmoniously with the existing dwelling and adjoining dwellings in the interests of residential amenity.
3 That the ‘velux’ windows as proposed and any new roof vents shall be recessed into the plane of the roof on which they are to be positioned, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the building and the Conservation Area.
List of Background Papers:
Application form and drawings dated 25t” September Letters of objection from Mr and Mrs Park, 27 The Wynd, dated the loth& 17thSeptember, and lgth & lst October, 2001. Letter of objection from Councillor Neil McCallum dated gth October 2001 Letter of objection from Community Council dated lothOctober 2001
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Williams on 01236-616464 APPLICATION NO: N/01/01121/FUL
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application seeks consent for the erection of a rear porch extension and the installation of a rear dormer extension at 23 The Wynd, Cumbernauld Village. The dwelling in question is mid-terraced and was built by Cumbernauld Development Corporation as a sympathetic infill development as part of village redevelopment works circa 1970.
1.2 The dwelling lies within Cumbernauld Village Conservation Area as identified in the Cumbernauld Village Plan 1993. The proposed rear extension has a floor area of approximately 10 square metres and is intended to provide a rear porch area and an enlarged kitchen area. The rear roof dormer and two ‘velux’ windows to the rear are proposed in order to accommodate the two bedrooms proposed in the existing roofspace.
1.3 Amended plans showing a dual pitched hipped roof on the rear extension have been submitted.
2. OBJECTIONS
2.1 Four objection letters have been received from the neighbouring householders at 27 The Wynd, and they can be summarised as follows :-
0 Resultant loss of natural light caused by the rear extension e The attic conversion will compromise the structural integrity of the roof structure of the terrace e The alleged noisy nature of the applicants e The proposal, if granted, will contravene the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to private and family life and the protection of property.
2.2 A letter of objection has also been received from the Community Council on the grounds that the proposed dormer would detract from the roofline of the terrace, which is within the Conservation Area.. Finally, an objection has been received from Councillor McCallum on the grounds that the proposal is inappropriate for the Conservation area.
3. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
3.1 An amended design for the rear extension was received on the 25”’ of September 2001. The amended scheme has a traditionally styled, dual pitched, hipped gabled roof. The amended roof is 0.7 metres lower in height than the originally proposed roof.
3.2 The neighbouring proprietors were informed of the changes to the proposed rear extension, but, after inspection, decided to maintain their objection. However, it is my opinion that the rear extension, as amended, will not unacceptably reduce natural daylighting for the neighbouring property to a significant degree.
3.3 The neighbours also make reference to the ‘Law of Ancient Lights’, which, as the name suggests is an old law which was used to protect windows being all but totally obscured by new development. This situation was a common problem in 19* century during the rapid expansion of towns, especially those with medieval layouts, where rigs or burgage plots would be extended to their fullest potential. In a contemporary context, this law would only be appropriate if a window would be almost completely blocked off as a result of a proposal. As such, this objection is not considered to be valid. 3.4 A Building Warrant is currently being sought for the proposed works. The effect or otherwise on the structural integrity of the roof structure will therefore be assessed in this context; it is not a planning consideration.
3.5 The objection on the alleged noisiness of the applicant is not a planning consideration and has no bearing on the application. Such an allegation is a matter for Pollution Control or the Police.
3.6 The Human Rights Act 1998 seeks to protect the rights of the individual and the enjoyment of domestic life. This principle is equally applicable both to the applicant and the objector and surrounding neighbours. It is considered that the proposed extension and roof dormer do not have any implications for residential amenity through loss of privacy or, as previously mentioned, will not significantly reduce natural daylighting. In this context, as the proposal is considered to be acceptable from a planning point of view, the human rights of the applicant must be respected as well as those of the objector.
3.7 Since the designs of the proposed extensions are acceptable in the context of the Conservation Area, I do not accept that the objections from the Community Council and the Local Member justify a refusal of permission.
3.8 Notwithstanding the objections to this proposed extension to 23 The Wynd, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. Application No.: N/01/01156/FUL
Date Registered: 1Ot” OCTOBER 200 1
APPLICANT: ONE 2 ONE COMMUNICATIONS, IMPERIAL PLACE, MAXWELL ROAD, BOREHAMWOOD, WD6 1EA
Agent: APT, 1 Houston Street, Kinning Park, Glasgow, G5 8RS
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF A 15 METRE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TREE MAST, ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABIN, COMPOUND AND ACCESS
LOCATION: SITE TO THE EAST OF GREENSIDE FARM, WATERHEAD ROAD, PALACERIGG, CUMBERNAULD
Ward: 66
Grid Reference: 276802673400
File Reference: MT
Site History:
Development Plan Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 : Significant Areas of Open Space - Limited Development Allowed.
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: West of Scotland Archaeology Service Conditions: No Reply:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: None Newspaper Advertisement: None
COMMENTS: This application seeks permission for the erection of a 15 metre high telecommunications tree mast with an equipment cabin and compound at a site to the east of Greenside Farm, Palacerigg, Cumbernauld.
There are no planning objections and it is recommended that planning permission be granted. n /IF
Department Planning and Envlronrnent NORTH of N/01/01156/FUL N LA.. - - .--...- - Nathern Dmrion NARKSHIRE &on Way - PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS A m 067 1DZ SITE TO THE EAST GREENSIDE FARM suryey mspplng wnn Of her MqoWr nm Unauhonsedrepmdudlon inmngss Cmwn COPPQhf OS Licence LA 04091L TREE MAST end may lead to pmseCUt10n OTSIVIIpmceSdlnQ5 RECOMMENDATION:
Grant subject to the following conditions: -
1 That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
2 That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the final colour to be used on the telecommunication mast, compound, associated equipment and fences 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 this aspect in the interests of visual amenity of the site and surrounding area.
3 That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the surface finish of the access road within the area shown in blue on the approved plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To allow consideration of these details and to ensure that the materials maintain the quality of the Green Belt.
List of Background Papers:
Application forms and plans received 1Oth October 200 1 Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 Planning Application N/OO/O 11561FUL
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Thomson on 01236 616466. APPLICATION NUMBER: N/01/01156/FUL
REPORT
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application seeks permission for the erection of a 15 metre telecommunications tree mast with associated equipment cabin and infrastructure at a site to the east of Greenside Farm, Palacerigg, Cumbernauld.
The location of the mast and equipment is to the east of farm along the Waterhead Road, near Palacerigg in Cumbernauld. The structure would be located at the end of a field adjacent to the farm buildings in front of a belt of mature trees. The nearest dwellings to the west are located over 75 metres away from the proposed structure.
BACKGROUND
APT, acting as agent for the applicant, One 2 One PCS, initially wrote to the Council on the 4‘h of September 2000 intimating their intention to install at 14.7 metre high slim-line pole at Greenside Farm. On that occasion the Council confirmed that One 2 One, using their permitted development rights as a telecom code system operator, could erect the installation. Further correspondence was received from APT on the 3 1St of May 200 1 indicating that their client now planned instead to install a tree mast in an alternative position on the same site. Again the Council advised that their proposal was permitted development and consequently planning permission was not required.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The adopted Local Plan covering the application site is the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. The site is located within an area designated as ‘Significant Areas of Open Space where limited development will be allowed’.
The Local Plan also recognises that, in accordance with Circular 25/85, there will be a presumption in favour of development required in connection with telecommunications in Green Belt areas.
Recently the Scottish Executive has published a new NPPG (National Planning Policy Guidelines) on Radio Telecommunications, which is of particular relevance to this application. The Scottish Executive’s policy is to enable the telecommunications industry to expand so that Scotland is served by the best radio telecommunications infrastructure. The expansion must however be undertaken in a manner that keeps the environmental impact of telecommunications equipment to a minimum. It goes on to say that Planning Authorities should not, however, question whether the service to be provided is needed nor seek to prevent competition between operators, but must determine applications on planning grounds.
The NPPG also stresses that, in rural areas, telecommunications infrastructure has to be sited carefully and the best approach to finding the optimum solution may include disguising the antennas, sharing a site or existing infrastructure, minimising the size of the mast, and only using a hill-top or skyline site as a last resort.
To demonstrate to planning authorities that the known health effects have been properly addressed, applications for planning permission involving antennas must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation is designed to be in full compliance with the appropriate ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to decide what measures are required to protect public health. 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
4.1 No objections have been received from Consultees, notified neighbours or from members of the public following an advertisement in the local newspaper.
5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and it is concluded that the proposal under consideration is in accordance with Local Plan policy.
5.2 In this case the applicant has demonstrated that alternative sites were considered and found to be unsuitable. Furthermore, there are no other buildings or structures within the vicinity suitable for the installation of telecommunications equipment.
5.3 On initial inspection, the application site appears to be in a prominent location on the brow of a hill overlooking Cumbernauld. Closer inspection reveals that the applicant has chosen a site that is fully screened by a substantial group of mature trees. The screening provided by these trees will soften the impact that the mast will have on the surrounding landscape, making it unlikely that the mast will be easily observed from any distance. Furthermore, by choosing a ‘tree mast’ the applicant has further attempted to minimise the visual intrusion usually created by telecommunications equipment in rural areas.
5.4 The application site is located in a rural area and the nearest buildings are located over 75 metres away to the west, and the nearest public road is over 175 metres to the south. No objections were received from members of the public or from any of the agencies consulted. The applicant has also submitted a statement that the tower will meet the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non- Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure to electromagnetic fields.
5.6 Given that the proposal is in accordance with Local Plan policy, is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of the area, and that there have been no objections submitted, it is recommend that planning permission be granted. Application No: N/01/01171/OUT
Date Registered: 16th September 200 1
APPLICANT: MR JAMES STEWART, 115 STATION ROAD CHRYSTON, G69 9EZ
Agent: Novaside Timber Systems Castlecary, Cumbernauld, G68 ODT
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF DWELLING IN OUTLINE
LOCATION: VEHICLE DISMANTLING YARD TO WEST OF MOSSIDE COTTAGE, STATION ROAD, MUIRHEAD
Ward No: 69 Grid: 268167668709 File Reference: N/O1/01171/FUL Site History: None
Development Plan: Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983 - Policies E.PR02 Greenbelt Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000 - ECON2 Established Industrial Area
Contrary to Development Plan: Yes
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: None Newspaper Advert: None
COMMENTS: This application seeks consent for the erection of a dwelling in outline on a site within the existing scrap yard at Station Road, immediately to the south of 114 Station Road, Muirhead. The applicant resides at 114 Station Road and was the former operator of the scrap yard. He has recently passed the scrap business to his son, who has taken over its operation. This application therefore seeks consent for a dwelling in outline, for the son, in order to facilitate the effective operation of the scrap yard premises from within the site. The site is zoned for Industry in the emerging Local Plan and lies within the Green Belt in the adopted 1983 Local Plan. It is considered that there is insufficient justification for the proposed dwelling, in the context of the Industrial zoning for the site, for the reasons outlined in the accompanying report. This application is therefore recommended for refusal. \
Department of Planning and Ennrmment Nuthern Divlsim EmWay CUMBERNAULD 067 1DZ I RECOMMENDATION: Refuse, for the following reasons :-
1. That the proposal is contrary to Policies GBlA of The Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995, E.PR02 in the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983 and ECON2 in the Northern Corridor Local Plan (Finalised Draft) 2000 as the applicant has failed to provide sufficient justification for the proposed dwelling at this location.
2. If approved, this application would set an undesirable precedent for other similar proposals.
List of Background Papers:
Application Form and plans dated 1 1‘I1 September 200 1 Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983 Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000 Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams on 01236-616464 APPLICATION NO: N/01/01171/OUT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application seeks consent for the erection of a house on a site directly to the south of 114 Station Road, Muirhead. The site lies within the existing scrap metal merchant’s yard, which is currently operated by Mr J Stewart, the son of the applicant Mr H Stewart, who lives at the adjacent 114 Station Road. The applicant, intends to build the house to provide on-site accommodation for his son to operate the scrap yard business.
1.2 The site lies within the Green Belt as identified in the Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983 and is zoned within an Established Industrial Area in the emerging Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000. It covers an area of approximately 400 square metres and is currently in an untidy and derelict state, covered by a mixture of undergrowth and abandoned vehicles related to the scrap business.
2. CONSULTATIONS AND OBJECTIONS
2.1 No adverse responses have been received as a result of consultation.
2.2 The application was advertised in the local press as potentially contrary to the Development Plan. No adverse responses have been received as a result of this advert or from neighbour notification
3. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
3.1 This application must be assessed in the light of both the adopted and emerging Local Plans with an emphasis on the emerging Local Plan, which has Council ratification.
3.2 The site is zoned within the Green Belt in the adopted Local Plan and as such, the applicant must demonstrate an agricultural or rural use justification or in the case of the Structure Plan, a specific locational need. No such justification has been provided. The applicant contends that the dwelling is required for his son so that he may adequately and independently operate the scrap yard business.
3.3 It is considered that it is not necessary to have a dwelling on the site of the scrap yard to ensure its successful operation. Scrap yards can be managed from a ‘portacabin’ type structure during normal hours of business, with night security and or guard dogs as is necessary at other times.
3.4 Policy ECON2 in the emerging Local Plan specifically states that the Council will consider further development within an existing industrial area to be acceptable ‘only where it is associated with the existing operations and of a consistent land use’. It is not considered that the proposed residential use is consistent with the existing scrap yard.
3.5 It is therefore concluded, for the above reasons, that the proposal does not comply with the criteria of the relevant Local Plan policies.
3.6 It should be noted that Planning Permission has been granted for three new houses on adjacent sites at Rosebank Cottage, 114 Station Road and Mosside Cottage in 1997, 1991 and 1999 respectively. However, all three sites had existing houses on site and these applications were assessed in the context of replacement houses. The site currently under consideration has never had a house on it, and this application can be assessed independently of these three previous decisions.
3.7 This application is recommended for refusal. Application No.: N/O1/01200/FUL
Date Registered: 19th September 200 1
APPLICANT: THE CASTLECARY COMMUNITY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, A MCBEATH (CHAIRPERSON), GLENSIDE COTTAGE, CASTLECARY G68 OHQ
Agent: Wilkie Moore Architects, Crofthead, 3 1 Locksley Avenue, Greenfaulds,Cumbernauld
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF COMMUNITY PAVILION
LOCATION: LAND ADJACENT TO MEMORIAL GARDEN CASTLECARY ROAD CASTLECARY CUMBERNAULD
Ward: 57
Grid Reference: 278495 677954
File Reference: GL
Site History: No Applications of Relevance
Development Plan Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993 : Residential Area Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: East Of Scotland Water, West Of Scotland Water, British Gas Transco, The Coal Authority and Historic Scotland Conditions: West of Scotland Archaeology Service No Reply:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: One letter of objection. Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
COMMENTS: This application proposes the erection of a community pavilion adjacent to the memorial garden in Castlecary. The proposed building will provide a useful facility comprising a main hall, a small kitchen and toilets. Access will be taken from Castlecary Road with five car parking spaces being formed within the site. The building has been designed and will be orientated in such a way so as to ensure that it has the minimum of impact on the adjacent dwellings.
One letter of representation has been received from a neighbour and the matters raised are discussed in the accompanying report. It is considered that the proposed pavilion will not result in a significant loss of amenity and accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That before the community pavilion hereby permitted is brought into use all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced 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
3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works.
Reason: To ensure that in the interests of visual amenity the site is landscaped following the construction of the building
4. That within one year of the occupation of the community pavilion hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 3 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure that in the interests of visual amenity the site is landscaped following the construction of the building
5. That during initial development work on the site, the developer shall secure the implementation of an archaeological watching brief, to be carried out by an archaeological organisation acceptable to the planning authority, The retained archaeological organisation shall be afforded access at all reasonable times and allowed to record and recover items of interest and finds. Terms of reference for the watching brief will be supplied by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service and the name of the archaeological organisation retained by the developer shall be given to the planning authority and the West of Scotland Archaeology Service in writing not less than 14 days before work commences on site.
Reason: The application site may affect the south-westem corner of a Roman temporary camp associated with the Antonine Wall.
List of Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 1gth September 200 1 Consultation response from the Transportation Manager dated 1'' October 200 1 Consultation response from East Of Scotland Water received 17" October 200 1 Consultation response from West Of Scotland Water received 15'h January 2001 Consultation response from British Gas Transco received 2gthSeptember 200 1 Consultation response from The Coal Authority received 4" October 200 I, Consultation response from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 24" October 200 1 Consultation response from Historic Scotland dated 18" October 2001 Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Graeme Lee at 01236 616474. APPLICATION NO. N/O 1/0 1200/FUL
REPORT
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 The proposed community pavilion will include a main hall, a small kitchen and toilets. The application site will be accessed direct from Castlecary Road with 5 car parking spaces being provided within the site. The memorial garden adjoins the application site and to the north is open ground. There are residential properties to the south and west of the site.
1.2 The application site is within an ‘existing residential area’ as defined in the adopted Cumbemauld Local Plan. Within such areas there is a presumption in favour of developments of an ancillary nature which enhance the provision of local community facilities and services providing the introduction of such uses does not result in loss of amenity.
2. REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
2.1 No objections have been received as a result of the consultation process. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service has requested that a condition be imposed requiring that an archaeological watching brief is carried out. This would ensure that if any sensitive archaeological remains or features were encountered during the site clearance and excavation works they could be recorded.
2.2 One letter of representation was received from the owner of number 7 Castleview who has objected to the proposed development for the following reasons :-
0 The proposed pavilion will devalue his property 0 Any parking spaces provided within the site will be used on a full time basis by local residents who currently do not have off street parking. 0 There would be excessive noise from people entering and leaving the site as it will be used for meetings and parties that will probably end at unsociable hours. 0 The site will be attractive to young people who will hang around the building which may lead to unsociable behaviour. 0 There are alternative sites within Castlecary for such a facility. 0 There was a community hall in Castlecary which became run down due to lack of interest. 0 Should planning permission be granted suitable boundary fencing and screening should be agreed between the objector and the Community Council.
3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1 The adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan is supportive of developments that enhance the provision of local community facilities and services within existing residential areas. The introduction of such uses will not be acceptable where it would lead to a loss of amenity. It is considered that the site is an acceptable location for such a use and that the proposed development has been designed to ensure that any impact that it may have on the surrounding residential properties is kept to a minimum.
3.2 The closest residential property is 7 Castleview and a letter of representation was received from the owner of this property. The proposed building has been designed and orientated in such a way so as to ensure that any loss of amenity is minimised. The proposed pavilion backs on to the side garden of 7 Castleview and the main entrance to the pavilion is on the opposite side of the proposed building. Other than velux windows in the roof (to provide light into the hall) there are no windows facing 7 Castleview. Therefore, the building will not overlook the garden of 7 Castleview, so privacy will not be affected. At its closest, the pavilion will be 10 metres away from the adjacent dwelling, The building is orientated in such a way that at its closest, the proposed building will be 2.5 metres away from the mutual boundary with 7 Castleview and this distance increases to 6 metres over the length of the building. It is considered that the building itself will not have an adverse effect on the level of residential amenity currently enjoyed by the adjacent property.
3.3 The site is an acceptable location for a community hall. To justify refusing planning permission, any loss of amenity which may arise through the use of the building would have to significantly outweigh the wider community benefits that will result from the construction of the pavilion. It is considered that, in this case, and given that there has only been the one objection, the likely loss of amenity is not so significant as would justify refusing planning.
3.4 The objector states that there will be excessive noise from people entering and leaving the pavilion and as the pavilion will be mainly used in the evenings, this could occur at unsociable hours especially, if the pavilion were to be used for parties. Having accepted that the proposed location is acceptable for a community pavilion it would not then be reasonable to attempt to control the manner in which the hall is used via the planning process. If, as a result of events held at the pavilion, the objector issubjected to excessive noise levels, then this would be a matter for Protective Services and or the Police. Given the moderate size of the hall (48 square metres) it is considered that the pavilion would only be suitable as a venue for small parties. As stated above, given the constraints of the application site the fact that the entrance to the pavilion is to be located on the opposite side of the building from 7 Castleview means that the source of such noise will be located as far away as is possible. Therefore, whilst there may well be an impact on the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the occupants of 7 Castleview, it is considered not to be so significant as to justify refusing planning permission.
3.5 The objector raised a number of other matters (see para. 2.2) upon which I would comment as follows :-
Property value - this is not a material planning consideration. Abuse of the parking spaces - the Transportation Manager has not objected to the proposed development. Young people causing anti-social behaviour - this would be a matter for the Police. Alternative sites within Castlecary for such a facility - I understand that the Community Council has examined the options within the village and have concluded that this is the only acceptable site. Previous community hall in Castlecary - this is not relevant to the development under consideration. Boundary fencing and screening - the applicant is not proposing to replace the existing boundary fence. However, a scheme of landscaping will be required and the area to the rear of the pavilion and the boundary of the objector’s property will be included within such a scheme.
3.6 It is considered that, given the lack of community facilities within Castlecary, the proposed community pavilion will be of benefit to the community as a whole and any resultant loss of amenity is not so significant as would justify refusing planning permission. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission is granted. Application No.: N/01/01208/ADV
Date Registered: 19th September 2001
APPLICANT: MAIDEN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, UNIT 2, CUMBERNAULD ROAD, STEPPS, GLASGOW G33 6HZ
Agent:
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF ADVERTISING HOARDING
LOCATION: NORTH WEST RAILWAY EMBANKMENT, A73, CUMBERNAULD
Ward: 62
Grid Reference: 275 126 672694
File Reference: GL
Site History: AD/91/34 refused consent, upheld at appeal 95/0095/AD refused consent, upheld at appeal 95/0096/AD refused consent, upheld at appeal
Development Plan Cumbernauld Local Plan Policy EN 10 Contrary to Development Plan: Yes
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: Scottish Executive Development Department
Conditions: No Reply:
REPRESENTATIONS: Neighbours: Not Required Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
COMMENTS: This application seeks advertisement consent for the erection of advertising hoarding adjacent to the A73. The site is located at the foot of a railway embankment adjacent to the northbound A73 where the road passes the Greenfaulds area of the Town. The orientation and position chosen for the advert means that in terms of the traffic on the A73, it will only be visible to vehicular traffic on the southbound carriageway. There have been several applications in connection with this general location which have been refused consent and these refusals have subsequently been upheld at appeal.
The site is rural in aspect and characterised by open countryside interspersed with wooded areas. In the vicinity of the application site the A73 has 2 lanes in either direction separated by a broad grassed central reservation. The verge on both sides of the road is banked and landscaped with trees and bushes. An advertising hoarding in such a location would be an unattractive and obtrusive feature which would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. +&ced by )epaNnent of Planning and Environment N/01/01208/ADV Uathfm DMsion MAIDEN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LANARKSHIRE ton WRY NMBERNAULD NORTH WEST RAILWAY EMBANKMENT A73 CUMBERNAULD 1DZ ERECTION OF ADVERTISING HORDING 17 Repmdusae mm me omnanoe smey mapplng Wth A me pi~ionof the ConmiurofnerM~est!/s relephone 01236 616400 Fax. 01236 616420 SmbonelyOMm 5Cnmn mppgM unwmonsee repmeuctmninmnge~ cmwn mpyngnt This copy has keen produced specdically for Planning and Building Control purposes only me msyieed to prosemtion or uyti pmc8senw 3s Licence LA 09041L No further copies may be made The Transportation Manager has indicated that he is concerned that the advert could prove to be a distraction to drivers on what is a main distributor road and recommends that in the interests of road safety consent be refused.
The Cumbernauld Local Plan includes a policy (EN10) which states that 'there will be a presumption against roadside hoardings/advertisements unless they serve road safety interests'. It is considered that the proposed advertising hoarding does not fulfil this criteria. If permitted, an undesirable precedent would be set which would make it difficult to refuse similar hoardings elsewhere on the A73 and A80 corridors or elsewhere within the Cumbernauld Local Plan area. Accordingly, it is recommended that advertisement consent be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse permission for the following reasons:
1. In the interests of amenity in that the proposed hoarding would be an unattractive and obtrusive feature which would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the general area which is rural in aspect and characterised by open countryside interspersed with wooded areas.
2. In the interests of road safety in that the hoarding would be a distraction to road users.
3. The proposed hoarding will not serve road safety interests and is therefore contrary to policy EN10 of the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan.
4. In the interests of amenity in that should advertisement consent be granted for this hoarding a precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse similar hoardings on the A73 and A80 corridors or elsewhere within the Cumbernauld Local Plan Area.
List of Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 19th September 200 1 Consultation response from the Scottish Executive Development Department dated gthOctober 200 1 Consultation response from the Transportation Manager dated 25" October 2001. Cumbernauld Local Plan, 1993
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Lee at 01236 616474. Application No: N/O 1/0 1258/FUL
Date Registered: 2'ld October 200 1
APPLICANT: MR AND MRS W AND E CONVEY
Agent: Michael J Bradley, 30 Stanley Drive, Bishopbriggs, G64 2LB
DEVELOPMENT: EXTENSION TO DWELLING
LOCATION: 2 KELSO GARDENS, MOODIESBURN, G69 OHT
Ward No: 67 Grid: 699447 71 1662 File Reference: N/O 1/O 1258/FUL Site History: None
Development Plan: Housing Development Site in Strathkelvin Southern Area Local Plan 1983 Policy HG3 Retention of Residential Amenity - Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000
Contrary to Development Plan: No
CONSULTATIONS:
Objection: No Objection: No Reply: Conditions:
REPRESENTATIONS:
Neighbours: Two letters of objection Newspaper Advert:
COMMENTS: This application seeks consent for the erection of a single storey side extension at 2 Kelso Gardens, Moodiesburn, which is a detached two- storey dwelling. The proposed extension is intended to provide accommodation for the applicant's wheelchair bound disabled daughter. Whilst two letters of objection have been received from adjacent dwellings at 1 and 3 Kelso Gardens, the grounds are largely not planning considerations. The proposed extension is considered to be acceptable in terms of design and the plot will be able to accommodate two off-street parking spaces. This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the application of the appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following conditions :-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason : To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.
Reason : To ensure that the proposed extension blends harmoniously with the existing and surrounding dwellings in the interests of residential amenity.
3. That the parking spaces hereby approved shall be formed and laid out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the extension hereby approved.
Reason : To ensure that adequate alternative off-street parking is provided in the interests of residential amenity and road safety.
List of Background Papers:
Application Form and drawings dated September 2001 Northern Corridor Finalised Draft Local Plan 2000 Letters of objection from 1 and 3 Kelso Gardens dated the 6thand lothof October respectively.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams on 01236-616464 APPLICATION NO: N/O 1/01 258/FUL
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application seeks consent for the erection of a single storey side extension at 2 Kelso Gardens, Moodiesbum, a detached dwelling.
1.2 The proposed extension is intended to provide a bedroom, toilet and sitting room for the applicant’s daughter who is registered disabled and wheel chair bound with multiple sclerosis. The applicant, Mrs Convey is registered as the primary carer of her daughter Mrs E MacDonald.
2. CONSULTATIONS AND OBJECTIONS
2.1 No objections have been received as a result of consultation and the Transportation Manager is satisfied with the proposed alternative parking provision within the plot.
2.2 Two letters of objection have been received from the neighbouring dwellings at 1 and 3 Kelso Gardens. Their objections are on the following grounds :-
0 The proposed extension may exceed the applicant’s legal ownership 0 Access to neighbouring garden for construction work 0 Safety of children playing in garden of 1 Kelso Gardens as part of childminding business, during construction work 0 Street lighting pole at location of alternative driveway 0 Parking problems caused by proposal 0 The proposal will block access to no 3
3. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSION
3.1 It is considered that the design, scale and external appearance of the proposed extension is acceptable. It is further considered that the proposal does not have any implications for the relevant Local Plan policy HG3, which seeks to protect residential amenity.
3.2 The proposed extension occupies the existing driveway. Two alternative spaces are provided within the plot. Whilst it is recognised that this alternative parking provision is not ideal in terms of its position, it is considered to be acceptable in the context of the exceptional circumstances of the application.
3.3 Of the reasons for objection listed in paragraph 2.3, only those relating to parking and access arrangements are material planning considerations.
3.4 With regard to concerns over possible effect on existing parking, it is considered that the applicant can acceptably provide two alternative parking spaces within the plot. In relation to concern that the proposal will block access to no 3 Kelso Gardens. It is considered unlikely that access will be impaired as these are both detached properties with individual accesses. Parking provision for the dwelling and surrounding dwellings will not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.
3.5 This application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the application of the appropriate conditions. Application No. C/O U005 57iFUL Date registered 9* July 2001 APPLICANT MRS LINDA MCNAB, 25 HILLFOOT GARDENS, GLASGOW, G716BN
Agent DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF USE OF FACTORY UNIT TO NURSERYKARE UNIT LOCATION 260 MAIN STREET, COATBRIDGE, COATBRIDGE
Ward No. 34 Grid Reference 274477664808
File Reference CTM030/260/GL/LR
Site History 01/00900/FUL Use of Vacant Factory Unit as Storage and Distribution Unit (Class 6) Including Ancillary Trade Counter & External Alterations, granted 19.09.01
01100905iFUL Display of Externally Illuminated Fascia Panel Sign, granted 19.09.01
90/0075 Erection of Extension to Factory, granted 1990
84/459 Erection of Signage, granted 18.01.85
84/04 1 Extension to Factory, granted 22.03.84
Development Plan The site is zoned Econ 2 Existing General Industrial Areas in the Monkland District Local Plan 199 1
Contrary to No Development Plan
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One
Newspaper No Response Advertisement
COMMENTS This application relates to the change of use of a vacant factory unit to a nursery/care unit at 260 Main Street, Coatbridge. The premises forms part of the former Pettigrew Printing Works. The building comprises four vacant units. Permission has recently been granted for the change of use of one of the units to storage and distribution with an ancillary trade counter. The premises are accessed off Main Street via an existing shared access with the other units and the adjacent William Lawson Distillers. William Lawson Distillers is located to the east, a landscaped area around the former canal to the south with a vacant site to the west zoned as industrial land for company expansion. The site is zoned ECON 2 Existing Industrial Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan. In this area there is general support for the retention of a predominantly industrial character, continuation of industrial use where practical or the subdivision of vacant factories to provide premises for small firms subject to appropriate parking, servicing etc. It is considered that the proposed nursery use does not accord with the general industrial zoning of the site in terms of land use and that there is no extenuating
C:\TEMP\RO100557.doc ~~ Produced by Department of Plmnirg and Environment PLANNING APPLICATION NO. C/01/00557/FUL Directorate Supprt Unt Sute 501, Fleming House CHANGE OF USE OF FACTORY UNIT TO NURSERY / CARE UNIT . LANARKSHIRE 2Tryst Rod AT 260 MAIN STREET, COATBRIDGE. .! COLNClL CUMBEFWAULD P. G67 1 J W JC LOCATION OF OBJECTOR RpcdYedfromlh WdnrrsSuNeymqprQWwlh b pnnlmo, d !h cmldlmof hrMEj~tf* Telephone 01236 616210 Fax 01233 616232 Smwwmice mcrwln mpnighl Lhab0wdr0pmbiClm ~Mir~srCrwn ccpyrighl This mpy has been produced specifically for Plannlng and Bullding Control purpcses only nd m~leadlopms~cullon~rci~ilpoced~s OS Licence LA 09041L NO further copies may be made evidence to suggest that a nursery could be safely incorporated at this location. Furthermore, the applicant has been unable to convince the department that appropriate arrangements for pedestrian and vehicular access to and from the unit can be achieved in terms of public safety in both the long and short term. One objection has been received from William Lawson Distillers relating to public safety, details of which are contained in the attached report. The Transportation Section have expressed various concerns and recommended that the application be refused. On balance, the Department of Planning and Environment is unable to support the proposal and the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION
Refuse for the following reasons:-
That the proposed nursery/care unit use conflicts with Policy ECON2 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that it does not retain the predominantly industrial character of the area, does not provide a continuation of industrial use, is not a wholesale or distribution unit and there is no extenuating evidence to support a nurseryicare unit at this location.
That the proposed access and parking arrangements, including the existing shared access provides no segregation between vehicles and pedestrians associated with the nursery/care unit to the detriment of road safety and the operation of existing businesses.
3) That the presence of a nurseryicare unit use may prejudice future general industrial development in vicinity that would otherwise be acceptable in principle under the terms of Policy ECON 2 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
List of Background Papers
- Application forms and accompanying plans received on 10" May 2001 - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Internal consultation response from the Transportation Section dated 1'' November 2001 - Internal consultation response from Environmental Control Manager dated 5" July 2001 - Internal consultation response from Early Years Service dated 11" July 2001 - Letter of objection from MacRoberts Solicitors, on behalf of William Lawson distillers Ltd., received 29' May 2001 - Letter from Murphy Young & Company Consulting Engineers received 3 lStAugust 2001
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 8 12374 and ask for Gordon Liddell.
C:\TEMP\RO100557.doc APPLICATION NO. C/01/00557/FUL
REPORT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application relates to the change of use of a vacant factory unit to a nurserylcare unit at the former Pettigrew Printing Works, 260 Main Street, Coatbridge. The existing building has recently been rehrbished to provide 4 units for leasing. Permission has recently been granted for the change of use of one of the units to storage and distribution (flat pack kitchens) with an ancillary trade counter. The remaining units are currently vacant. The site is located on the south side of Main Street opposite the district court with access taken from a shared access with William Lawson Distillers. The application site is lower than street level and the existing access is relatively steep. There are footways at the initial access however the internal layout provides no clear pedestrian or vehicular provisions.
1.2 The former Pettigrew Printing Works building is located to the south of Main Street. William Lawson Distillers is situated to the east and the former Monkland canal footpath is situated to the south. There is a vacant site to the west zoned as industrial land for company expansion. The building is enclosed by a chainlink fence and there is an area for parking around north, east and west elevations.
1.3 The applicant proposes a change of use of the southern most unit within the building. Access is to be taken via the existing shared access with the rest of the building and the adjacent William Lawson Distillers. There is no indication of parking or pedestrian arrangements although these would presumably be provided adjacent to the building. No external alterations are proposed at this time.
2. CONSULTATION
2.1 The Protective Services Division have no objection to the proposal subject to a noise assessment of the proposal on the adjacent units. This has not been requested in light of the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Environment. Further comments relate to noise and hours of operation associated with the works required to facilitate the change of use.
2.2 The Early Years Service have no objections to the proposal. Any internal works would have to meet with separate requirements of registration.
2.3 The Transportation Section expressed various concerns with the application. The presence of children and parents within an industrial area is not considered to be acceptable from a general road safety viewpoint and this situation is exacerbated hrther with the lack of segregation between vehicles and pedestrians within the gated site curtilage. Further concerns relate to parked vehicles associated with the nursery conflicting with the operational servicing of the units. It has also been identified that any overspill or inappropriately parked vehicles on the main shared access off Main Street would have an adverse impact on the operational servicing of William Lawsons Distillers.
3. OBJECTIONS
3.1 One letter of objection has been received from MacRoberts Solicitors on behalf of William Lawson Distillers Ltd. The objections are as follows:
Concern relating to complaints being made by users of the nursery facility relating to the accident hazard posed to children arising from major accidents or other hazards associated with the distillers operators. 0 The distillers currently use heavy goods vehicles to transport whiskey and other goods on the access also to be used by the nursery. This is considered to be inappropriate from a road safety viewpoint 0 Parking associated with the nursery in the vicinity of the shared drive would increase congestion leading to an increased road safety hazard (especially taking into account the gradient of the access road), increasing difficulty in achieving safe access to the distillers by HGV's and an increase in the risk of the distillers property being used for fly parking.
C:\TEMP\RO100557.doc 4. ASSESSMENT
4.1 This application should be assessed in terms of the Development Plan and other material considerations. In this instance the site is zoned ECON 2 Existing Industrial Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan. In this area there is general support for the retention of a predominantly industrial character, continuation of industrial use where practical, the subdivision of vacant factories to provide premises for small firms (subject to appropriate parking, servicing etc.) and the change of use to wholesale and distribution but not retail. The proposal should also be assessed in terms of design guidance on nurseries. In this instance however this offers little guidance for nurseries within industrial areas relating more to the adverse impact of nurseries on surrounding land uses, in particular residential areas.
4.2 In terms meeting the requirements of policy ECON 2 it is clear that the use of the premises as a nurseryicare unit does not accord with the retention of a predominantly industrial character. The continuation of an industrial use is also expected unless this is proved to be impractical due to ground stability, unsuitability of buildings, or if there are major benefits for a change in use. While the existing unit is currently vacant there is no obvious reason that the premises cannot be utilised for an industrial or wholesale and distribution use in accordance with policy with particular reference given to the recent consent for storage and distribution (with ancillary trade counter) in the adjacent unit. In addition to failing to meet an industrial use I also believe that a nurseryicare unit at this location is inappropriate due to uncertainty over possible future uses within the site. Policy ECON 2 allows for a range of potential industrial uses that could clearly be both acceptable and desirable in principle for this location, although inappropriate adjacent to a children nursery. On balance, in policy terms the Department of Planning and Environment is unable to support the proposal. In terms of the general environment for nursery provision I would also suggest that this site is inappropriate with no available play space and a generally remote enclosed industrial character. Obviously, any proposal would have also to meet with the requirements of nursery registration. Nursery provision may not necessarily be inappropriate for all industrial areas however in this instance I believe there are strong grounds for refusing the application both in principle and for specific locational factors.
4.3 Taking into account the shared access to the premises with the other units and the William Lawson Distillers the applicant has been unable to demonstrate appropriate provisions for both vehicles and pedestrians associated with the nursery. While there may be examples of nursery provision within industrial areas, in this case the shared access is considered to be unacceptable with no segregation between users of the nursery, the remaining units and the William Lawson Distillers. It is reasonable to expect a degree of conflict between the presence of children and parents and heavy goods vehicles serving the current and future adjacent uses. To this end, I would support the comments of the Transportation Section relating to the undesirability of encouraging parentsichildren within an industrial area where there is no clear arrangements for safe segregation and safe passage to and from the nursery.
4.4 With lack of detail relating to parking provision for the nursery I would also reinforce concerns of the Transportation Section relating to the potential for indiscriminately parked vehicles adversely affecting the vehicles associated with adjoining businesses. Weekly HGV movement would be associated with the recent consent for the adjacent unit and William Lawson Distillers have highlighted HGV movement associated with their operations.
4.5 The above concerns were outlined to the applicant and a preliminary alternative solution was submitted for discussion. The alternative solution involved the reinstatement of an old access to the west of the site, involving significant access improvements. The Transportation Section have advised that this option is unacceptable in that it would adversely affect the operation and servicing of the existing Imex units.
4.6 It is considered inappropriate to consider this amended access proposal as part of the application for a change in use of the vacant unit to a nurseryicare facility. The access would clearly form part of hture development on the site and this must be assessed in its entirety rather than a piecemeal approach which may ultimately prejudice future proposals through lack of proper consideration over such a vital aspect of site development (i.e. access). In essence what is being proposed here is not an access to facilitate a nursery development (although it does address concerns with the existing proposal), rather it is a major access improvement for a yet undecided future use. There could be a number of potential
C:\TEMP\RO 100557.doc hture uses therefore it would be inappropriate to determine the acceptability of the alternative access proposal at this stage.
4.7 In relation to the reasons for objection cited in paragraph 3.1 above I would acknowledge merit in all points of objection. These matters have been addressed throughout this report.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 This proposal is considered to be unacceptable in that it is for a nursery use within an industrial area and therefore conflicts with the spirit and intentions of Policy ECON 2 of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. While it is acknowledged that there could be potential for nursery provision in some industrial areas depending on surrounding landuses, parking, access and provision of open space, it is also considered that there are locational factors pertaining to this site that strengthen grounds for refusal. Firstly, there is a shared access with adjacent units and the neighbouring William Lawson Distillers. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate through proposed parking and pedestriadvehicular access arrangements that the presence of children and parents within the site will not be to the detriment of public safety or hinder the operation of existing and potential businesses in the area. There is already a heavy goods vehicle presence in vicinity (William Lawson Distillers) and the recent consent granted and possible future uses are likely to exacerbate this problem further. There is no segregation for parking and pedestrian movement within the site and as the site is zoned under the terms of policy ECON 2 potential future industrial uses for the currently vacant units should not be compromised. In addition to the above, the enclosed industrial character of the site and lack of open space are also considered to contribute to the overall unacceptability of this proposal.
C:\TEMP\RO 100557.doc Application No. CIO 1/00637/0UT Date registered 1 June 2001 APPLICANT McDONALD ESTATES PLC, 112 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH2 4LH
Agent Mappin Planning and Development, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 OLT
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OF NON-FOOD SINGLE USER RETAIL BUILDING SELLING DIY, HOME IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTS WITH ANCILLARY GARDEN CENTRE, BULK GOODS YARD, ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING LOCATION FORMER TENNENTS FOUNDRY SITE COATBANK STREET COATBRIDGE
Ward No. 39 Grid Reference 273670664339
File Reference CIPLICTC5 12001LWLR
Site History Planning application ref. no. U199615 18- Proposed 10,500sq. m non-food retail development plus restaurant with associated parking and service yards: Rehsed at appeal May 1998. Planning application ref. no. CI99/01042/FUL - Construction of 113 houses (Stuart Milne Homes) Application withdrawn July 2001.
Development Plan Zoned as Simplified Planning Zone - Monklands District Local Plan 199 1 (Policy SPZ1)
Contrary to Development Plan Yes
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Scottish Power, Transco, Railtrack, West of Scotland Water, Conditions Coal Authority, NLC Community Services No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No response
Newspaper Advertisement 1 letter of objection and 4 letters of support
COMMENTS This application relates to the construction of a large free standing DIY Store within the site of the recently demolished Tennents Works in Coatbridge. Since the application was submitted, B & Q PLC has confirmed that if planning permission is granted the company would be legally committed to implementing the development.
Although submitted in outline, the applicant has submitted details demonstrating how the development may proceed, showing the main access from Caldeen Road with service access from Tennents Street. The building, which would also incorporate a garden centre and builders’ materials yard, would occupy the eastern half of the site with the remaining area being used as a car park. The applicant has also submitted a Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) and a Retail Impact Assessment (MA) and other supporting information, all of which aims to prove the acceptability of the proposal in policy and environmental terms,
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc 'roduced by PLANNING APPLlCATlO N NO C/O1/00637/OUT Xpartment of Plmniw and Environment aredorate Supwrt Unit CONSTRUCTION OF 9,291 SQM NON-FOOD SINGLE USER RETAIL NORTH - jute 501, Fleming House BUILDING SELLING DIY, HOME IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSOCIATED -8 LANARKSHIRE 2Tlyst Rod PRODUCTS WITH ANCILLARY GARDEN CENTRE, BULK GOODS YARD, .:?.. COLNClL - ZUMBEPNAULD ACCESS__--_, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING S67 1 JW I Y\/A AT FORMER TENNENTS FOUNDARY SITE, COATBANK STREET, epdud homlh Ordnava Suweyrnappw wdh heprmr.mdheCmtdlrdhrMai~lyr Telephone01236 616210 Fax. 01236 616232 COATBRIDGE slaton~mcaocravnscpyr$l1 Lhulhm6ad repmducPm mkhi"gla Crwn csyrt@l This copy has been produced specifically for Pbnning and Building Cmrd purpcses only ad may lead 10 pm8=utlm CI c "11 poc& "a6 3s Licmce LA 03041L No further copies may be made The application has been subject to one letter of objection and four letters of support, all of which have been from or on behalf of companies with retailing interests in North Lanarkshire.
Members may recall that a previous application for a non-food retail development was refused permission by the Council and subsequently dismissed by the Scottish Office at appeal in 1998. The applicant argues that this proposal is substantively different in nature and context to that application.
I am satisfied that the applicant has been able to demonstrate that there is sufficient retail capacity within the catchment area to justify an increase in retail floorspace and also that there should be no meaningful impact upon Airdrie and Coatbridge town centres. Although currently identified in the adopted local plan for industrial purposes, I am also satisfied that it meets the various criteria for assessing new retail developments as contained within the adopted and emerging development plan.
Being a derelict and vacant site in a prominent location, the development will be responsible for a significant enhancement to the appearance of a wide area, and will provide economic benefits through the employment of around 250 people.
Clearly, the proposal will be capable of generating a great deal of traffic, but proposed road improvements (including the creation of an enlarged roundabout at the junction of Locks Street, Caldeen Road and Sikeside Road) will help prevent any adverse impacts on road capacity or highway safety.
Taking into account the above, I recommend that planning permission should be granted subject to the attached conditions. Members should note that should they be of a mind to grant planning permission, the application must be referred to the Scottish Ministers who will then have the ability if they wish of calling in the proposal. Further details can be found within the attached report.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
That before development starts, a firther planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:- (a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (e) details for management and maintenance of the areas identified in (c) and (d) above; (9 the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (g) the provision for loading and unloading of all goods vehicles; (h) the phasing of the development; (i) the provision of drainage works; 6) details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (k) details of existing and proposed site levels.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.
2 That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within five years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the date on which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 3. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition (l)above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
4. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990, and before development starts, a certificate from a recognised firm of Chartered Engineers, duly signed by a Chartered Engineer or Chartered Geologist of Geotechnical Advisor Status (ICE, SISG 1993) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming the mineral stability of the site. This certificate shall be based upon a professionally supervised and regulated rotary drilling scheme.
Reason: To ensure the mineral stability of the proposed site in the interests of prospective users of the site. (NOTE: A copy of the Certificate pro-forma is available from the Divisional Office).
5. That before development hereby permitted starts, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.
Reason: To ensure the proper treatment of the ground in the interests of health and safety.
6. That following the completion of the works required under the terms of condition number (5) above, a certificate from a suitably qualified person or body shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that all necessary works have been carried out in full and to a satisfactory standard.
Reason: To ensure the compliance of condition number (5) in the interests of health and safety.
7. That notwithstanding the provision of Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland ) Order 1997, the proposed building and ancillary garden centre and bulk goods yard shall be used solely as a 'D.1.Y' store selling goods, services and materials for constructing, maintaining, improving and furnishing houses and gardens and in particular shall not be used for the sale of food, clothes, footwear or sports goods.
Reason: To define the permission in accordance with submitted details, and to ensure the protection of nearby retail centres in accordance with the aims of the adopted structure and local plans.
8. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the proposed building shall be maintained as a single retail unit and it shall not be split or sub-divided in any way at any time in the future.
Reason: To define the permission in accordance with submitted details, and to ensure the protection of nearby retail centres in accordance with the aims of the adopted structure and local plans.
9. That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no additional floor space shall be created within the proposed building other than that expressly approved, for example through the creation of mezzanine floors or similar.
Reason: To define the permission in accordance with submitted details, to ensure the protection of nearby retail centres in accordance with the aims of the adopted structure and local plans and to ensure the provision of adequate parking and access facilities.
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc 10. That before any works commence on site, a detailed noise assessment from a suitably qualified body or person shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval. In particular, this report shall assess the potential impact of noise from the proposed development on nearby noise sensitive properties, and the proposed development shall be designed so as to acknowledge the conclusions and recommendations of the report and to minimise the potential risk of noise nuisance.
Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby noise sensitive properties.
11. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped or felled and no shrubs or hedges, shall be removed from the application site, without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect and enhance the visual amenity and character of the area.
12. That the proposed floor space of the proposed building and ancillary garden centre and bulk goods yard shall not exceed that shown on approved plan ref. no. 0080/cml(OP)OOl (28 May 2001) which forms part of this planning permission.
Reason: To define the permission in accordance with submitted details, and to ensure the protection of nearby retail centres in accordance with the aims of the adopted structure and local plans.
13. That notwithstanding the requirements of condition (1) above, before any works commence on site, a revised Transport Impact Assessment shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval, and this shall include details of the following:
a) A right turn storage facility (with necessary road widening) to be provided on Caldeen Road at the proposed access point
b) Bus lay-by to be provided at the existing site access on Whifflet Street
c) Junction improvements to be provided at the existing mini-roundabout at the junction of Locks Street/ Calder Street/ Sikeside Street, and this shall be comprised of an enlarged roundabout
Reason: To ensure the submission of all necessary off-site road improvements in the interests of highway safety and convenience.
14. That visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 60 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access points at the new access point and at the junction of Tennent Street and Caldeen Road, and before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.
Reason: To ensure proper visibility from the road junctions in the interests of road safety.
15. That the proposed access point to the car park area shall incorporate a dropped kerb design.
Reason: In order to allow for safe pedestrian movement across the access point in the interests of road safety.
16. That there shall be 4.0 parking spaces per 100 sq. m. of gross floor area.
Reason: In accordance with the Council's guidelines on parking provision, in the interests of road safety and convenience.
C:\TEMP\RO10063 7 .doc List of Background Papers
Application forms and accompanying plans received on 1'' June 2001 Planning Statement and Retail Assessment, and Transportation Impact analysis received 19 July 2001. Supplementary Retail Planning Statement (including additional capacity and impacts assessment) received 23 October 2001. Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 199 1. Adopted Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 Planning Application and Planning Appeal Decision Ref. P/320/20 dated 11 May 1998 Planning Application by Stewart Milne Homes withdrawn 3 June 200 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 NPPG8 Town Centres and Retailing Letter from Scottish Power dated 15 June 2001 Letter from Transco dated 14 June 2001 Letter from West of Scotland Water dated 13 June 2001 Letter from the Coal Authority dated 19 June 2001 Letter from Railtrack dated 20 June 2001 Memorandum from NLC Community Services dated 5 July 2001 Letter from Agent dated 2 July 200 1 Memorandum from Protective Services Division dated 28 June 2001 Letter from Agent dated 19 July 200 1 Letter from Agent dated 30 July 2001 Letter from Applicant dated 22 August 2001 Letter from Agent dated 10 September 2001 Letter of Representation from Angus Matheson Associates, 16 Newton Terrace, Glasgow on behalf of Walker Group, Livingston Letter of representation from GVA Grimley, 5-7 St. Pauls Street, Leeds on behalf of Legal and General Assurance Society Letter from Woolworth's PLC, Woolworth House, Marlybone Road, London dated 18 September 2001 Letter of Representation from Legal and General, 3 Queen Victoria Street, London dated 5 September 2001 Letter from Agent dated 25 September 2001 Letter or Representation from Matalan Retail Ltd., Gillibrands, Skelmersdale, West Lancashire
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812379 and ask for Mr. Kellock. APPLICATION NO. C/01/00637/OUT
REPORT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 The application site extends to approximately 4 hectares and lies to the south east of the centre of Coatbridge. It is bounded by Caldeen Road to the north and Tennent Street to the east, beyond both of which is the Calder Street Enterprise Zone which has been re-developed for industrial purposes. Adjoining to the south is Whifflet Station on the Glasgow/ Motherwell railway line, and to the west is Whifflet Street, which is part of the A725. There are several residential properties (mostly flatted) to the south of the railway line. The busy large roundabout at the Caldeen Road/ Coatbank StreetIMillar Street junction lies just beyond the north west corner of the site and also gives access to the Faraday Retail Park which comprises 8 non-food food units and a Tesco superstore. There is no longer any DIY store at this retail park following the closure of the Homebase unit in 2000 which is now a clothing store. Other retail warehouse parks in the CoatbridgeiAirdrie area include Airdrie Retail Park, which comprises 7 non-food units (including Focus DIY) and the Locks Street Retail Park which comprises 3 non-food units including B & Q, Capones and Tile It All.
1.2 Until recently the large industrial buildings of the Tennent Works, which had lain vacant since the works closed in 1996, occupied the application site. These buildings were demolished during the previous summer and the site cleared. Advertisement consent was approved in June 2001 for several advertisement hoardings at the north-east corner of the site, and these are now in place, affording some screening of the site from the adjoining roundabout.
1.3 Though the application is in outline, it was accompanied by illustrative drawings showing a single stand-alone DIY warehouse of around 9,200sq. m. (100,000 sq. foot) occupying the eastern half of the site. Adjoining this building would be an open-air garden centre and builders’ materials yard, each of which would measure in the region of 2,500 sq. m. The main vehicular access would be taken directly from Caldeen Road leading to a car park area with space for approximately 600 cars. Service vehicles would take access from Tennent Street to the east. Should planning permission be granted, B & Q PLC has confirmed that it would be legally committed to constructing one of their ‘Warehouse’ style developments on this site. The existing B & Q store in Locks Street would close. In a letter of support, B & Q state that the store would employ approximately 250 people, the majority being new jobs for local people. The company states that this would provide a wide range of jobs including both hll-time and part time positions.
1.4 A Transportation Impact Assessment, Retail Impact Assessment and other supporting information have accompanied the application. These are described in more detail elsewhere in this report.
2. CONSULTATION
2.1 Scottish Power, Transco, Railtrack and West of Scotland Water all have no objections in principal to the proposal.
2.2 The Coal Authority has advised of previous mine workings beneath the site, and the need for further investigation.
Comment: The need for further investigation can be addressed by a suitable planning condition.
2.3 The Council’s Director of Community Services has requested that the redevelopment should allow for the provision of a significant tree planting zone between the parking area and adjoining roads, the retention of existing tree planting and landscaped areas, and the provision of planting within the proposed car park area, They have also argued that the new building should be sited on the western half of the site, thus replicating the mass and character of the previous building.
Comment: The requirements for landscaping can be addressed through planning conditions and addressed in detail at the reserved matters stage. In response to the comment on siting, the applicants have stressed that this is merely an outline application, and submitted sketch plans are for illustrative purposes only. However, they do feel that a new building on the eastern half of the site would be
C:\TEMP\RO 100637 .doc preferable, as it would tie in with existing industrial buildings to the east; prevent the rear elevation of the building from being hard up against Whifflet Street and would allow for the best use of Tennent Street as an access road for goods vehicles. For my own part, I do not feel strongly enough about the siting of the building to dictate its precise location at this time.
2.4 The Environmental Control Section has asked that a full noise assessment be carried out in order to assess and mitigate any potential noise nuisance, particularly for the benefit of residents of the flatted properties to the south of the railway line. Given the previous industrial use of the site, a full contamination assessment would also be required.
Comment: The requirement for further noise and contamination assessments can be addressed by suitable planning conditions.
2.5 Following lengthy discussions between the Department and the applicant regarding the Transportation Impact Assessment, the Transportation Section has offered no objection in principal to the proposal. In general terms, the surrounding road network is capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed development, with the exception of the junction of Locks Street/ Caldeen Road Sikeside Road and Whifflett Cross. The former would be the basis of improvements to be carried out by the developer, likely to comprise of an enlargement to the existing mini-roundabout. Depending on the precise nature and extent of these improvements, this may impinge on Council owned land. Whifflet Cross is already experiencing problems of capacity and there are no obvious ways of improving this junction. The development, whilst not helping this situation, would not make a significant contribution to worsening the situation. Other off-site improvements to be carried out by the developer would be a new turn right facility on Caldeen Road at the proposed site access and the creation of a new bus lay- bye on the south bound side of Whifflett Street close to the roundabout.
Comment: The requirements for off-site road improvements can be addressed through planning conditions. The proposed upgrade of the Locks Streetl Caldeen Road Sikeside Road junction will be the basis of a further planning application for reserved matters allowing local residents the ability to comment on the proposed works. The developer would also be obliged, if necessary, to acquire land from the Council to implement these works. All of this would have to be concluded before any other works commenced on site.
3. OBJECTIONS
3.1 In addition to the normal neighbour notification procedure being carried out, the planning application was advertised within the local press as a potential departure from the development plan. In response to the advert, one letter of objection was received from Angus Matheson Associates, Planning and Development Consultants on behalf of The Walker Group, Livingston. The objection is summarised as follows:
the proposal is likely to have a detrimental impact on existing town centre retailers
the proposal would be detrimental to development schemes with consent and would deter respective tenants from committing to such schemes.
the proposal is contrary to the development plan including Structure Plan Policy RET2A
the proposal would rely on a wide spread catchment area outwith the Coatbridge and Airdrie area and would be prejudicial to existing and proposed retail developments both in the Motherwell and Cumbernauld area
The site is not readily accessible by public transport
the retail assessment which accompanies the application does not adequately consider the floor- spacelcatchment potential of the proposal
there is no qualitative deficiencies of DIY within the area at present the draft Structure Plan allows for 10,OOOsq. m additional comparison floorspace in the Airdrie/Coatbridge area, most of which has been taken up by the proposed ‘Big W’ development.
Comment: Since the letter of objection was received, the applicant has submitted additional information on retail impact and capacity. I am satisfied that the applicant has now submitted sufficient information with which to determine the application, and the specific points within the letter are addressed within the Section 6 (Assessment) of this report
3.2 Letters of support for the proposal have been submitted by Legal and General Assurance Society (who own the Faraday Centre), a further letter from GVA Grimley on behalf of Legal and General Assurance Society; Woolworth’s PLC (who will be the operators of the new “Big W” Store at the nearby Town Park site) and from Matalan Retail Ltd. who operate a store within the Faraday Retail Park. All consider that the proposed DIY store in this location would improve the attractiveness of the Faraday Retail Park and Coatbridge generally, subject to restrictions on the range of goods which can be sold from the site.
4. PLANNING BACKGROUND
4.1 In 1996 a planning application was submitted for a 10,500 sq. m. non-food retail development with restaurants and associated parking and service areas at this site (planning ref. C/1996/518). Planning permission was refused by the Council because the proposal was considered to be contrary to development plan policies which seek to protect Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres, and also contrary to the zoning of the adopted local plan which seeks to retain the site for business or industrial use. The applicants then submitted an appeal, and a public local inquiry was held in January 1998. This appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the reporter in his statement concluded the following: . whilst the development is unlikely to have any adverse impact on the vitality of viability of Coatbridge Town Centre, it would have an adverse impact on the Faraday Retail Park which although not part of a protected town centre, was seen to be an integral part of the success of the Coatbridge retail area. . The proposal failed the sequential test for the siting of retail developments, particularly given the availability of a potential retail site within the Town Park site (now being developed by Big W). . The loss of industrial land was not seen as a significant issue and was not cited as a reason for refusal.
4.2 In support of the current planning application, the applicant has argued that there have been several changes in circumstances since the previous application was refused, thus justifying the grant of planning permission, these being:
1. The current application is specifically for a DIY store and not a non-food retail development which might impact badly on Faraday Retail Park
2. Faraday is no longer anchored by a DIY unit following the relocation of the Homebase unit to Hamilton
3. The Town Park site is now being taken up by the Big W development
4. There have been significant changes in the DIY market and demand exists for a large new store in the Coatbridge and Airdrie area.
4.3 In 1999 Stuart Milne Homes submitted a Planning application for a development of 113 houses on the site (ref. No. C/99/01042/FUL). This application was subsequently withdrawn in July 2001 following the acquisition of the site by current developer.
5. PLANNING POLICY
5.1 1995 Strathclyde Structure Plan For the purposes of the Structure Plan, Coatbridge is a Tier 3 Centre within the retail hierarchy. Policy RET 1 requires that existing shopping centres should be sustained and improved and new retail investment directed to them in preference to out of centre locations. Schedule 1OC lists the opportunities for new retail development but no specific opportunities are identified within or adjoining Coatbridge town centre.
Comment: The application is considered to an out-of-centre retail development and must therefore be assessed in terms of other relevant policies within the plan relating to the assessment of new out-of- town retail proposals.
5.2 Policy ET2A advises that retail developments outside existing centres should be justified against 8 criteria which are summarised as follows: -
1. an assessment to be made of the impact on the viability and vitality of existing centres
2. a review of alternative sites within adjoining town centres should be made.
3. An appropriate catchment population should support existing and proposed retail floor space.
4. potential for development to be integrated into existing comparison floor space
5. an assessment of environmental impact
6. accessibility to public transport
7. impact on infrastructure
8. consistency with other structure plan policies
Comment: 1. The Retail Impact Assessment which accompanied the application concludes that the proposed development will have a negligible impact on the vitality and viability of Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres, with anticipated reductions in turnover of around 1%. Similarly, the Faraday and Airdrie retail parks (with the exception of the Focus DIY unit) will experience reductions in the region of 1-2%. The Focus unit alone is expected to see a greater reduction in turnover in the region of 15%. It is claimed by the applicant that the Focus group are planning to close this unit following the recent opening of the new Focus/Wicks DIY superstore at London Road, Glasgow. A significant impact is expected on the existing retail units at Locks Street, with both Capones and Tile It All anticipated to experience reductions in turnover of 25% and 20% respectively. As noted above, the existing B & Q unit would close.
2. Point 2 in effect asks that a ‘ sequential test’ be undertaken to ascertain if other more suitable locations are available within existing town centres in the first instance (in this case both Coatbridge and Airdrie) or failing that on the edge of the town centres. The site is in fact on the edge of the Farraday Retail Park which is not identified as part of the town centre, therefore the site is deemed to be an out-of-centre development. At the 1998 planning appeal, the appeal was dismissed partly because it failed this test; with the ‘Town Park’ site (which adjoins the Faraday Retail Park) cited as a potential edge-of-centre retail site. Today, the ‘Town Park’ site has planning permission for a retail unit and construction works have now commenced on a ‘Big W’ store. Accordingly, the applicant argues that the site, being on the edge of Farraday Retail Park, with good public transport links, within walking distance of the town centre and with no other suitable sites available within or on the edge of Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres, meets the sequential test.
3. Based on a variety of information sources, the applicant claims that the catchment population of the Coatbridge and Airdrie area will support the new store. This assessment is based partly on information sourced from the Council and Joint Structure Plan team which identifies a surplus of comparison goods expenditure by 2006 of 217.04 million. They also argue that this conclusion is made more compelling when the closure of the Homebase and the existing B & Q units is brought into the equation. Additional arguments in support of the capacity argument can be found within
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc paragraph 5.10 of this report relating to the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.
4. Although described as an out-of-centre retail development, the site is by no means a stand-alone development being close to the Faraday Retail Park and within walking distance of Coatbridge town centre. The site will therefore afford a reasonable degree of integration with existing comparison retail uses.
5. In terms of environmental impact, the site is currently a vacant and derelict site adjoining a major routeway in and out of Coatbridge. The redevelopment of the site, it is argued, would bring significant and positive benefits to the visual amenity and character of the area, as well as addressing the issue of on-site contamination.
6. In terms of accessibility to public transport, the site is adjacent to Whifflett Street which is a primary bus route and Whifflet Railway Station. Pedestrian linkages to the town centre are available through Farraday Retail Park.
7. Infrastructure impacts are not envisaged to be a problem, and as noted above, the anticipated impacts of the development on transport links can be addressed by road improvements, particularly through alterations to the Locks Street/ Caldeen RoadSikeside Road junction.
8. The application will also have to be assessed under policy RET 3 which is discussed below.
5.3 RET 3 sets out criteria for the assessment of new retail developments in excess of 10,OOOsq. m. Although the proposed building is shown in submitted plans to be under this figure, the fact that the application is in outline (and may if approved exceed this figure at the reserved matters stage) combined with the floorspace allocated for the open air garden centre (which also brings the floorspace over 10,OOOsq. m) suggests that it is correct for the proposal to be assessed in terms of RET 3. This policy states that the development will comply with the terms of the development strategy where:
1. the development is integrated within existing retail centres or specified out of town centres
2. there are limitations placed on hture sub-division
3. there are restrictions on types of goods sold
4. proposed retail warehouse clubs have additional restrictions
Comment: 1. The preference for sites adjoining retail centres (as opposed to shopping centres such as Coatbridge) is, it is argued by the applicant, out of date and is superseded by the sequential test advocated by NPPG 8 (Town Centres and Retailing). As noted above, it is argued that the proposal meets the sequential test.
2. The requirement for restrictions on sub-division can be addressed through suitable planning conditions.
3. The requirement for restrictions on range of goods available can be addressed through planning conditions
4. This criterion relates to warehouse clubs and does not apply in this instance.
5.4 MonkIands District Local Plan 1991 The site is zoned in the adopted local plan under policy SPZl (Develop Simplified Planning Zone) which aimed to see the site (and surrounding area) hrther developed for industrial and warehousing uses. In addition, the area to the north and east (excluding the application site) was designated as an Enterprise Zone in 1993.
Comment: The loss of industrial land was not identified as a reason for refusal when the previous rehsal of planning permission was sustained at appeal. Arguably, the protection of industrial sites is
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc wrong when there is no realistic expectation of the site being taken up for industrial purposes, particularly when other acceptable uses are proposed which would allow for immediate economic and environmental benefits.
5.5 Policy ECON 18 states that “the Council will in general consider sympathetically any proposals for the use of vacant buildings or land on either a temporary or permanent basis where, as a result jobs are created or safeguarded, provided acceptable environmental conditions can be met.”
Comment: The proposed development is claimed to generate around 250 new jobs over and above those already employed at the Locks Street B & Q store, and will also arguably improve environmental conditions at the site.
5.6 Policy COMl (Maintain Viable Town Centres) states that the Council wiIl resist major commercial developments within or outwith the local plan area which threaten the viability of the retail cores of Coatbridge and Airdrie, and encourage major commercial developments which will enhance and extend the retail cores of Coatbridge and Airdrie.
Comment: As noted elsewhere within the report, it is argued that the proposal is likely to have a negligible impact on the vitality and viability of Airdrie or Coatbridge town centres.
5.7 Policy COM 2 (Criteria for New Shopping Developments) states that the Council will judge proposals for new shopping developments against the following criteria: - 4 support for viability of existing shopping areas
b) convenience of access for pedestrians and vehicles
c) creation of safe and pleasant shopping environment
d) balance of unit size and mix of retaiynon-retail units
e) adequacy of car parking and public transport
f) quality and sensitivity of design
Comment: These criteria are now assessed, although it will be noted that there is a significant overlap with those already discussed in Structure Plan Policy RET 2.
a) As noted elsewhere within the report, it is argued that the proposal is unlikely to threaten the viability of Airdrie or Coatbridge town centres. However, the existing retail park at Locks Street is expected to experience a significant fall in trade, although such locations are not afforded the same protection as town centres.
b) The site adjoins an existing retail park close to the town centre and within walking distance of the town centre.
c) The quality of the development will be dependent on the quality of reserved matters, but initial sketch plans indicate the potential for an acceptable shopping environment.
d) The proposed mix of units is not relevant to this application.
e) Suitable conditions will require appropriate parking provision, and the site is well served by public transport being next to a railway station and main bus routes. 9 As with c) above, this is dependant on reserved matters, although indications are that this will not be problematic.
5.8 Policy COM 2 (Finalised First Alteration) In 1996, the Council made finalised first alterations to several policies within the Local Plan, including policies COM 1 and 2. These alterations were never adopted, and the retail policies are post dated by
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc newer adopted policies within the Structure Plan. Accordingly, I would give the finalised draft policies little weight in assessing this application.
5.9 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 This document was submitted to the Scottish Ministers in July 2000. The Ministers issued draft modifications to the plan in February 2001 and final approval is currently dependent on the outcome of on-going legal challenges. In the meantime the plan is a material consideration. New retail proposals are initially to be tested against the terms of Strategic Policy 9. Only where any new proposal fails to meet the relevant criteria it will then be considered as a departure from the development plan and considered against a range of additional criteria set out in Strategic Policy 10. The criteria within Strategic Policy 9 are summarised as follows:
1. Retail developments of this size require to be assessed in terms of a capacity assessment. In particular, the draft plan estimated that there is a shortfall or around 10,OOOsq m of comparison goods floorspace within the Coatbridgel Airdrie area. 2. The location of the development is appropriate in terms of (amongst other things) the re-use of brownfield land; the fact that it does not jeopardise the Joint Structure Plan’s preference for protecting and safeguarding and promoting town centres (in part through taking a sequential approach); avoiding sporadic development in the Greenbelt and the promotion of sustainable transport. 3. Appropriate provision should be made for various and necessary infrastructure and environmental implications.
In addition to the above, Schedules 6 (c) states that:
(i) all significant proposals will have to be assessed against various criteria, a summary of which is as follows:
Expenditure compared to turnover, and in particular, specific reference is made to an anticipated shortfall of 10,OOOsq. m. of comparison floorspace within the CoatbridgeIAirdrie catchment area by 2006.
Impact on town centres
Contribution towards the improvement of the vitality and viability of town centres
Need to restrict types of goods sold from out of town locations
Any other supplementary guidance within the draft Structure Plan
Contribution that the development may make to remedying any qualitative deficiencies in existing retail provision.
(ii) This section advises of the sequential tests to be applied to new retail and developments, and a summary of these tests is as follows:
First preference to be given to town centre sites, then edge-of-centre sites, and then only out-of-centre sites which can be made accessible by a variety of means of public transport
Accessible sites are preferred to inaccessible sites
It is the responsibility of the developer to demonstrate that the sequential test was applied before the relevant site was chosen
Comment: The above policies contain a great many criteria for assessing new retail developments, many of which are addressed elsewhere within this report. The above is a summary of the relevant policy, and I do not intend to address each of the various criteria on an individual basis. The key issues raised by the draft Structure Plan are in my opinion those relating to capacity, impact and sequential test. 5.10 The Joint Structure Plan makes reference to an estimated 10,OOOsq. m. shortfall of comparison floorspace within the Coatbridge/ Airdrie catchment area by 2006. Part of this shortfall has already been taken up through the grant of planning permission for the 8,OOOsq m. retail development at the ‘Town Park’ site currently being developed by ‘Big W’. Accordingly, there appears to be a shortfall of comparison floorspace of only 2,OOOsq. m,and the proposed development of around 10,OOOsq. m. is clearly way in excess of this figure. In response to this apparent anomaly, the applicant has argued that the shortfall of floorspace identified in the joint Structure Plan is only a guideline and was arrived at by the Joint Structure Plan Team based on an identified shortfall of comparison goods expenditure at 2006 (compared with potential floorspace turnover) of 217.04 million. From this figure, the Joint Structure Plan Team derived that this would be the equivalent of 10,OOOsq. m. of floor space, based on an average of all types of comparison shopping. However, the applicant has argued that because the turnover figures per square meter for bulky goods sales from retail warehouses is much lower than High Street comparison goods, the 217.04 shortfall would in this instance equate to a much higher floor space. In particular, the turnover of the proposed B & Q and Big W stores together are estimated by the applicant to be in the region of 22 1 million.
5.11 In addition to the above, the applicant also argues that the loss of the Homebase unit from Faraday Retail Park and the creation of new retail parks in Hamilton and the East End of Glasgow have lead to a ‘leakage’ of comparison spending from the Coatbridge/ Airdrie catchment area, and that this proposal would correct this by a factor of around 22.86 million. Accordingly, the estimated 217.04 million shortfall as noted above, added to a claw back of 22.86 million of claw back, leads the applicant to believe that there is sufficient capacity for a development of this size and nature within the Coatbridgei Airdrie catchment area.
5.12 The other issues of impact and the sequential test are addressed elsewhere within the report, albeit that the applicant claims that the proposal meets all of the criteria set out within the relevant policies of the draft Structure Plan. Accordingly, they argue that the proposal meets the terms of Strategic Policy 9 and need not be assessed under the terms of Strategic Policy 10 (Assessing Departures from the plan.)
5.13 NPPGS (Town Centres and Retailing) This sets out the government policy for town centres and retail developments. It stresses the general presumption in favour of retail developments within town centres, and introduced a sequential approach to the selection of retail sites. Paragraph 8 recognises that it is not always possible to locate retail development in or adjoining town centres, and sets out the circumstances in which out- of-centre developments (such as this) must be assessed. This states that the government will aim to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability and design quality of the town centres as the most appropriate location for retailing and other retail activities; maintain an efficient competitive and innovative retail sector of the consumer choice, consistent with the overall commitment to town centres and ensure that the ways of meeting these objectives are compatible with sustainable development and that new developments are located where there are a good public transport services and better access for those walking and cycling leading to less dependence on access by car.
5.14 NPPG8 also provides specific guidance on how planning authorities should assess new retail development. When a proposal is not consistent with the development plan, the document also requires developers to demonstrate why an exception should be made and states that the development should be refused if it cannot meet all of 11 stated criteria, which state that the development should:
0 Satisfy the sequential approach
Not adversely affect strategies in favour of town centres
0 Be capable of co-existing with town centres without undermining their vitality of viability
Tackle quantitative or qualitative deficiencies
0 Not run counter to Government’s integrated transport policy
0 Be accessible by convenient public transport services
Address consequences to the road network
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc Result in a high standard of design
Not threaten other important policy objectives e.g. the greenbelt
0 Not adversely affect local amenity
Not lead to other significant environmental effects.
5.15 The applicant claims that the proposed development succeeds in meeting all of the above mentioned criteria. There are many overlaps between the above criteria and those already discussed within other parts of the report. One issue not already addressed is qualitative deficiencies, and the applicant claims that the new development will bring address such matters (although the objector doubts this claim). In particular, the applicant claims that the limited range of goods available at the existing B & Q and Focus stores will be addressed by the new development, and that the poor shopping environment of the Locks Street retail units will be replaced by something of considerably higher quality.
6 ASSESSMENT
6.1 In assessing the merits and demerits of a major retail proposal such as this, there are clearly many considerations. However, I consider that the key issues in this instance are
Does the proposal fit in with the adopted and emerging development plan and other relevant planning policy, and in particular:
Is the loss of industrial land acceptable in principle?
What impact will the proposal have on Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres?
0 Does the Coatbridge and Airdrie catchment area have sufficient capacity to sustain a development of this size and nature?
0 Does the proposal pass the sequential test?
What environmental impacts will the development have on the site itself as well as on the wider area?
6.2 Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other considerations dictate otherwise.
6.3 Local Plan Zoning In light of the above assessment of the local plan zoning of the site as a Simplified Planning Zone, I do not believe that there is anything to be gained from seeking the retention of the site for industrial purposes. Since the local plan was adopted, the site has lain empty for several years and the site has been excluded from the Enterprise Zone status of surrounding areas. Rejection of the proposed development on grounds of its current zoning is likely to see the site remain vacant and derelict for many more years, and the potential to see immediate and significant environmental benefits lost. The loss of the site to an acceptable non-industrial use would be in accordance with local plan policy ECON 18. The loss of a potential industrial site was considered at the Public Local Inquiry of 1998 but was not considered in itself to be an obstacle to retail development at that time
6.4 Impact The potential impact of the proposal on Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres is clearly a major concern, and a key consideration of the development plan. I would accept the applicant’s assertion that there is little overlap between the goods sold at the proposed DIY store and goods sold within Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres, which in turn supports their claim that both town centres will only lose approximately 1% of their actual turnover to the new development. This claim would appear to be supported by the conclusions of the 1998 Public Local Inquiry (PLI) where it was concluded that a non-food retail development of similar size would have negligible impact on the town centres. 6.5 One reason why the previous retail proposal was dismissed at appeal was that it was seen to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability on Farraday retail park, which although not identified in the development plan as a protected retail centre, was seen to form a key part in the future success of Coatbridge town centre. This current application is not expected to have such an adverse impact, partly due to the specialised nature of the proposal and the fact that the Faraday Retail Park no longer contains a DIY store following the closure of the Homebase unit. The impact on Airdrie retail park, although further away, is likely to be greater, albeit focused on one unit. The applicant claims that the Focus store is to close soon following the recent opening of their new London Road Glasgow store, but I have not had this information confirmed and have not given this fact weight in making my assessment. The impact on the non-DIY unit is expected to be low (1 or 2% or thereabouts) and overall I do not see the anticipated loss of trade to one unit being sufficient reason to refuse planning permission for this proposal. The limited nature of impacts on protected centres within the catchment area suggests that any impact on centres outwith the catchment, a concern of the objector, area would be almost incapable of measurement.
6.6 The main focus of impact as a result of the new development would be the retail warehouse units in the Locks Street area. As well as losing one of the main traders in the area through the closure of the existing unit, the new B & Q unit would in itself have a significant and adverse impact on remaining units, with Capones and Tile It All experiencing reductions in turnover of around 25% and 20% respectively. However, as previously stated, there is nothing within the development plan which seeks to protect these units, and unlike edge-of -centre developments such as Faraday and Airdrie retail parks, the future failure of the out-of-centre Locks Street development has no implications for the important and protected town centres of Airdrie and Coatbridge. The shopping environment of the Locks Street area is also very poor, and the new unit would offer a much higher quality environment for future users. Should the development result in the complete closure of the Locks Street retail park, the site could potentially accommodate a wide variety of alternative uses. In particular, the site is zoned as ECON8 in the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan which allows for a variety of industrial and commercial uses, although other uses may also be acceptable. Given the poor layout and environment of the area at present, a comprehensive redevelopment of the Locks Street area may in fact bring wider benefits to the area.
6.7 The limited nature of the impacts is due in part to the relatively specialised nature of the proposed development, and it is essential that any permission reflects this by the use of restrictive conditions ensuring that the building remains in a DIY use, and that the unit is not subdivided so as to mimic the shop sizes normally found within a high street location.
6.8 In concluding the matter of impact, I am satisfied that the applicant has been able to demonstrate that the proposed DIY store will not adversely affect the vitality and viability of Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres and therefore it complies with the relevant policies within the adopted and emerging development plan.
6.9 CAPACITY The applicant has argued, partly through the submission of a capacity assessment, that the Airdrie and Coatbridge catchment area could sustain a development of this size and nature. The applicant also argues that the 10,OOOsq m. shortfall in comparison floorspace identified in the draft Structure Plan, part of which has already been taken up by the Big W store currently under construction, does not preclude the proposed development, but in fact supports it due to the calculations undertaken to arrive at the 10,OOOsq. m. figure. On balance, I believe that the applicant has provided sufficient argument to justify the proposed store in capacity terms and in this respect will accords with the relevant terms of the adopted and emerging development plan.
6.10 SEQUENTIAL TEST If it is accepted that the catchment area has the capacity to accommodate the proposed development, and that such a development will not have an adverse impact on town centres, it must be concluded that the principle of the development is considered acceptable (subject to other relevant and significant policy requirements being met). However, the applicant must also carry out a ‘sequential test’ (as outlined in NPPG 8 and subsequent development plan policies) to demonstrate that there are no other suitable sites within or on the edge of town centres. This was a key consideration at the 1998 Public Local Inquiry where the proposed retail development was seen to fail this test due to the availability of an alternative edge-of-centre site at Town Park. That site, however, has now been taken up by the
C:\TEMP\RO 100637.doc development of the Big W store. I would accept the applicant’s argument that with the take up of the Town Park site, there are no other suitable sites available for the proposed development either within the town centres or on in edge-of-centre locations. The choice of this site also benefits from good public transport links and could almost be seen as a natural extension to the Faraday retail park.
6.1 1 In terms of assessing the environmental impact of the development, the most significant and noticeable impact would be the fact that a prominent, derelict brownfield site, which has lain empty for several years, will be brought back into positive and productive use. This is to be welcomed and accords with the relevant aims of the development plan. Although only being considered in outline at present, I have advised the applicant that if approved, the subsequent reserved matters applications would be expected to show a development of a high quality which acknowledges its prominent location. The applicant has noted this comment, and although not part of this planning application, has submitted indicative elevational drawings showing how the building may look. This shows a building similar to a B & Q unit recently constructed in Paisley (Abbotsinch retail park) and this in general terms is acceptable. It is also acknowledged that high quality landscaping, boundary treatment, surfacing etc would play a large part in producing an attractive scheme for this location.
6.12 In terms of how the development fits in with existing and proposed transportation networks, the site already benefits from good public transport links and is within reasonable walking distance of Coatbridge town centre. Public transport links would be enhanced through the proposed creation of a bus lay-by on Whifflet Street (close to the roundabout) which will be provided by the applicant. The ability of the surrounding road network to accommodate the traffic generated by the development would be addressed through improvements and alterations to the Locks StreeuCaldeen RoadSikeside Road junction which is likely to consist of an enlarged roundabout. The proposed access points directly into the site would be enhanced and the site itself is capable of accommodating the required number of parking spaces.
6.13 Whilst the development is not expected to conflict with adjoining land-uses, the potential impact of noise (for example from the PA system commonly found within the builders yard, or noise from fork lift trucks) should be assessed and if necessary restricted so as not to adversely affect the flats on the south side of the site on the other side of the railway line.
7 CONCLUSIONS
7.1 In principle, I am satisfied that the proposed DIY store is acceptable, according with relevant policies within the development plan, emerging development plan and other relevant planning policy. The proposal is likely to have negligible impact on the vitality and viability of Coatbridge and Airdrie town centres, and there is a case for additional retail floorspace of this nature. The loss of a potential industrial site is not considered to hinder the proposal, the development of this site will allow for immediate and wide ranging environmental benefits, through the re-use of a derelict and vacant brownfield site in a very prominent location. The employment of 250 people from the area and other spin-offs will make a positive contribution to the local economy.
7.2 Accordingly, I must recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the attached conditions. Should the Committee be of a mind to grant planning permission, the application must first of all be referred to the Scottish Ministers for a decision on whether the application should be called in and made the basis of a Public Local Inquiry.
C:\TEMP\RO100637.doc Application No. C/O 1/00730/OUT Date registered 6 July 2001 APPLICANT MacCORNS LIMITED, OAKBANK PARK, LIVINGSTONE EH53 OTH
Agent RPS Chapman Warren, 7 Clairmont Gardens, Glasgow G3 7 LW DEVELOPMENT CONVERSION OF BARN TO FOOD PRODUCTION UNIT (Part Retrospective), CONVERSION OF DWELLINGHOUSE TO GIFT/COFFEE SHOP, ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF WIND TURBINE GENERATOR. (IN OUTLINE) LOCATION RAIZIEHILL FARM, AIRDRIE ROAD, BY BLACKRIDGE, BATHGATE EH48 3 AG
Ward No. 52 Grid Reference 286578 667024
File Reference CIPLICCA240ICMIKH
Site History 89615 Improvement to Vehicular Access and Formation of Vehlcle Hard Standing Refused April 1990
Development Plan Under the terms of the Approved Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 the application site is located within an area covered by the following policies:-
CAT 1,lA Countryside around Towns
Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by the following policies:-
GB2 Countryside around Towns LI1/3 Landscape Improvement'Medium Quality Landscape RE1 Support Rural Economy HG5 Rural Housing HG 10 Residential Development Outwith Residential Areas
Contrary to Development Plan Yes
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Scottish Power, Health and Safety Executive, Transco, The Coal Authority, Conditions NLC Director of Protective Services, NLC Director of Community Services No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response
Newspaper No Response Advertisement
COMMENTS Planning permission is being sought in outline to convert an existing barn to a food- manufacturing unit at Raiziehill Farm which is located about 2 % miles east of Caldercruix. The proposal would also involve the conversion of an existing dwellinghouse to a giftlcoffee shop, erection of a new replacement dwellinghouse and installation of a wind powered generator. The proposal is contrary to the terms of the development plan and following consideration of the material factors I have concluded in the main report that there is insufficient justification to set aside the development plan policies affecting the site. I therefore recommend that the proposed development be refused planning permission
C:\TEMP\RO 100730.doc Rodwed by 4 *I. DeparVnmt of Planning and Envimnmnl PLANNING APPLICATION NO: C/01/00730/OUT NORTH - hrestoiale sippit U”lt ,& LANEKSHIJE siita 501 Flerning House CONVERSION OF BARN TO FOOD PRODUCTION UNIT (Part Retropective), 2 Tiyd Rced (-. COLNCIL CUMBWNAULD CONVERSION OF DWELLINGHOUSE TO GIFT/COFFEE SHOP, L c57 1 JW ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF Rapoj~sdfromlh.adnac~Sunaymqp~wlh Telaphme 01B6616210 Fsx01236616232 WIND TURBINE GENERATOR AT h.prmiuiaofhaCmtdrdhrMaJ~ani~ 1 3003 sm m~,m- m crwn qrlcht RAlZlEHlLL FARM, AlRDRlE ROAD, BY BLACKRIDGE, BATHAGATE Lhakdmd rvmducum 8rdringm Crown wrlchl Os L~enceLA090411 8x1mayleadt~pm~Imwtuvpo&rnga RECOMMENDATION
Refuse for the following reasons:
That the proposed development is contrary to policies CAT1 and CATlA in the Strathclyde Structure Plan and policy GB2 in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 as it is an isolated development in the countryside for which there is no specific locational need. The justification in terms of economic, infrastructure or environmental benefit is insufficient to override the policies.
That the proposed development is contrary to policy RE1 Support Rural Economy in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and policy l(d) Rural Investment Areas Settlements in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan Finalised Draft 2000 in that the proposal is an isolated manufacturing unit not a rural enterprise, related to other rural services. As such it would create a precedent if approved and undermine the policies’ aims of supporting the regeneration of existing rural settlements.
That the proposal to convert an existing dwellinghouse out of residential use and construct a replacement in an isolated location would result in an unjustified sporadic development in the countryside.
NOTE TO COMMITTEE
If granted this application would require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997.
List of Background Papers
Application forms and accompanying plans and supporting statements. Approved Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995. Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan Finalised Draft 2000 NLC Average Wind Speed Data 200 1. Consultation Responses from The Health and Safety Executive received on 6 August, 18 October 200 1. Consultation Responses from NLC Protective Services received on 18 July, 25 July and 5 September 2001. Consultation Response from NLC Transportation Section received on 25 July 2001. Consultation Response from Scottish Power received on 26 July 2001. Consultation Response from NLC Community Services received on 6 August 2001. Consultation Response from Transco received on 18 July 200 1. Consultation Response from The Coal Authority received on 19 July 200 1. Letter from Councillor T. Morgan received on 26 October 2001 Letter from Karen Whitefield MSP received on 12 October 2001
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812376 and ask for Colin Marshal1
C:\TEMP\RO 100730.doc APPLICATION NO. C/01/00730/OUT
REPORT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 Planning permission is being sought in outline for the conversion of an existing barn to a food manufacturing unit, conversion of an existing dwellinghouse to giftlcoffee shop, erection of a new dwellinghouse and installation of a wind turbine generator at Raiziehill Farm, Airdrie Road, by Blackridge, Bathgate.
1.2 Raiziehill is located 2 ?4 miles east of Caldercruix village and sits to the north side of Airdrie Road (A89). The application site extends to 0.857 ha. The site boundary includes the existing dwellinghouse and barn and an area of land located to the northeast. The site is bisected by the Airdrie to Bathgate cycle track. Although Raiziehill includes outlying fields the farm has not been in agricultural use for some time.
1.3 The proposal would involve the conversion of an existing barn to a food production unit. The applicant’s business is currently the production of popcorn. Internally the barn would include a production and storage area, popcorn presentation area, gift shop, staff room, office, toilets and reception area. It is the applicants’ intention to allow visitors to view the popcorn manufacturing process as part of an educational and interpretive initiative aimed at educating children on the benefits of healthy eating.
1.4 The existing house would be converted to a coffee shop, gifucraft workshop and educational centre. The craft workshop would be used by local self-employed persons who would offer visitors an opportunity to purchase locally made items. The visitor centre would also be made available to the local farming community as a meeting place to further social and business links.
1.5 A new dwellinghouse would be located to the northeast of the site to maintain an on site family residence for the purposes of management of the centre.
1.6 A wind turbine unit would be installed some 200m to the west of the barn (proposed food production unit) with the aim of employing a renewable energy resource by virtue of the viable wind resource at Raiziehill.
1.7 The developer also intends to improve links to the adjacent cycle track. The developer considers the proposal would encourage more cyclists to use the route, which in turn would marginally assist spending in the local area. This part of the cycle track would also be cleared of all debris resulting in an improvement to this area of greenbelt.
1.8 Raiziehill Woodland would also be enhanced and a children’s play area would be provided to encourage family groups to visit the development.
1.9 The developer provided information on projected employment opportunities created as a result of the development. The developer envisages a total of 28 full time and 7 part time employees once the centre has been fully developed. The Manufacturing Unit would require 8 full time staff for food production, administration, and cleaning operations. The Visitor Centre may require 20 full time and 7 part time staff involved in the education unit, gift shop, woodlandllandscape maintenance, coffee shop and craft workshop. The construction phase would require the services of 6 full time employees. Overall the developer considers that a total of 28 full Time and 7 part time staff would be employed in the business.
1.10 The developer has acknowledged that separate elements of the proposal could be located to alternative sites in Lanarkshire. However alternative industrial locations suggested by the local authority are not considered viable by the developer due to the lack of an appropriate wind regime for their renewable energy proposals. The developer considers the site at Raiziehill is the only location available that combines a barn, a satisfactory wind regime, adjacent cycle route, and convertible property for a visitor centre all at the one location.
C:\TEMP\RO 100730.doc 1.11 The proposal would be implemented over a 2 year period with the popcorn manufacturing unit and power source set up first. Then a new house would be constructed which in turn would allow the existing dwellinghouse to be adapted for a visitor centrelcoffee shop. Improvements would then be made to the cycle path links and the tree planting scheme would be started.
2. CONSULTATIONS
2.1 The Environmental Health Section had no objection to the proposal subject to the developer submitting further details of the internal layout of the proposed food production unit and coffee shop. The developer would also need to establish that the previous use of the site has not been used for any contaminative purposes before any dwellinghouse was constructed on the site. These would be considered as reserved matters should outline planning permission be granted.
2.2 The Transportation Section had no objection subject to conditions.
2.3 Scottish Power raised no objection but provided a plan indicating that the site is traversed by 2 overhead power lines.
2.4 Transco had no objection to the proposal but indicated that a National High Pressure Gas Main (NHP Main) was located about 500 metres to the east of the application site.
2.5 The Health and Safety Executive noted the proposed development would be approximately 360 metres from a national high pressure gas main however they concluded that the risk of harm to people visiting the proposed development would be low and as such had no objection on safety grounds.
2.6 The Coal Authority had no objection to the proposal.
2.7 The Director of Community Services has no objection in principle however firther information of any proposed environmental improvement works or landscapinglwoodlands management scheme would be required at any detailed stage.
3. OBJECTIONS/REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Following the prescribed neighbour notification process and advertisement of the proposal in the local press no representations were received.
3.2 A letter of support for the application was received from the local member, Councillor. T. Morgan
4. ASSESSMENT
4.1 In essence the application is for the construction and operation of an isolated manufacturing facility in the countryside including the erection of a new dwellinghouse in the greenbelt. The principal element and key land use, the construction of premises for manufacturing popcorn, does not meet the normal criteria that would allow such proposals to be considered favourably. The developer is aware of this and in order to overcome the non-conforming nature of the proposal the applicant is promoting an ancillary visitor attraction linked to the food processing facility for users of the adjacent national cycle route. As noted above the new dwellinghouse is intended to allow the existing cottage to be converted to a Visitor Centre. The installation of the wind power generator is also used in mitigation.
4.2 As required under the terms of section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, applications for planning permission are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Therefore, the application needs to be assessed under the terms of the approved Structure Plan and adopted Local Plan.
4.3 Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995.
The application site presently comprises a dwellinghouse, barn and outlying fields, (It should be noted the barn has already been reconstructed without the benefit of planning permission). The site is bisected by National Cycle Route 75 (Glasgow-Edinburgh) and is set in open land which has not been in agricultural use for some time. As Raiziehill Farm is in the area designated as Countryside around towns, the relevant strategic policies are CAT 1 and CAT 1A.
CAT 1
Isolated developments in the Countryside Around Towns as shown on the Key Diagram, shall not generally accord with the Regional Development Strategy, unless there is a specijk locational need.
CAT 1A
Proposals for isolated developments within the Countryside Around Towns shall require to be justified against the following criteria.
(a) economic benefit
The developer has provided projected employment figures for the manufacturing plant and visitor centre. These have not been justified by any supporting business plan..
(b) specific locational need
The proposal is for an industrial operation, normally carried out in an industrial estate, business park or other urban area. It does not require to be located in a countryside location. This is particularly relevant, given the proximity of a large derelict site within Caldercruix situated 2 YZ miles to the west. The village of Salsburgh is located on a high ridge some 5 miles to the south west where there are alternative sites available for such a proposal.
(c) infrastucture implications
The supporting statement does not detail how the proposal would bring significant infrastructure improvements to the benefit of the wider community. The proposed wind powered generator would appear to be solely for the use of the factory, visitor centre and dwelling. If the development was located within one of the villages then the wind power generator may have provided sustainable energy resources to a wider user or other uses
(d) environmental impact and benefits
The site lies within Central Scotland Forest and is in relatively poor condition. Basic forestry planting in association with CSCT would bring appropriate environmental benefits without the need for transporting an urban use into the countryside. The reconstruction of the barn, (although undertaken without the benefit of planning permission) has in paradox enhanced the local environment already.
4.4 On balance, there is not in my view sufficient justification for allowing this proposal to proceed contrary to the above noted structure plan policies.
4.5 Monklands District Local Plan 1991
The relevant policies in the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 191 are policies GB 2 Countryside around Towns, LI 1/3 Landscape Improvement/Medium Quality Landscape, RE 1 Support Rural Economy, HG 5 Rural Housing and HG 10 Residential Development Outwith Residential Area. Both housing policies relate specifically to the developers intention to provide a replacement dwellinghouse.
GB 2 Restrict Development in Countryside Around Towns
This proposal matches the terms of Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 policy CAT 1 exactly and the assessment under paragraphs 4.3 above would be relevant.
LI 1/3 Landscape Improvement/Medium Quality Landscape This policy encourages improvements to the landscape. As noted above under CAT 1A (d) appropriate landscape works could enhance the area without the need to introduce a non-conforming industrial use to the greenbelt.
RE 1 Support Rural Economy To take active steps to support the rural economy of Monklands District by:-
(a) Encouraging the growth of appropriate rural enterprises (b) IdentiJLing and promoting rural development opportunities
The proposal relates to an essentially industrial operation, normally carried out in urban areas, industrial estates or business parks, It is my view that the manufacturing of popcorn is not an ‘appropriate rural enterprise’.
(c) Encouraging improvements to rural landscape
My comments on Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 Policy CAT 1A(d) would also apply in this case.
d) Encourage improvements to rural services
There is no compelling evidence in the supporting information to suggest that this will be the case. The manufacturing of popcorn is not considered to be a service needed in a rural area.
HG5 Rural Housing
The... . Council recognises that to encourage residential development in declining rural settlements it is necessary to provide adequate opportunities for residential development through the following measures..
(a) The assembly andpromotion of suitable sites in the villages (b) By encouraging the conversion and rehabilitation of existing cottages and redundant farm buildings in rural areas.
The proposal to convert an existing dwelling and build a replacement cannot be justified against this policy.
HG I0 Residential Development Outwith Residential Area
(A) New build residential development will not be permitted outwith the existing residential area as defined by HG 9, unless ....justified under the terms of GB 1 or GB 2.
The proposal to convert an existing dwelling and build a replacement cannot be justified under this policy.
4.6 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan Finalised Draft 2000,
The emerging Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan is a material consideration. It includes the areas of Caldercruix and Forrestfield (located 4.4km and lkm to the west of the application site respectively) on Schedule 1(d) Rural Investment Areas Settlements. Strategic Policy 1(d) recognises the special needs of rural communities, however the aim of this policy is to encourage development at or adjacent to existing settlements and villages. An isolated or stand alone development at Raiziehill would undermine the thrust of this concept, particularly as derelict land exists within Caldercruix and Salsburgh.
4.7 Taken together, it is clear that existing and emerging development plan policies do not support the proposal.
C:\TEMP\RO100730.doc 4.8 Supporting Planning Statement
The main argument promoted in the Supporting Planning Statement is that given the nation-wide down turn in agricultural activity, planning authorities should be looking at more diverse land uses in the countryside and that small scale industrial facilities with a potential to become visitor attractions should be encouraged. On the first of these points I would agree there is a need for more diversification in rural areas. However I consider in this instance allowing what is essentially a Class 5 Industrial Use to set up in a rural area would be inappropriate. There is also a strong argument that such a proposal if approved would set a precedent that may affect farms across North Lanarkshire. This could compromise the aims of the development plan in assisting rural settlement regeneration. Moreover it is my understanding that Raiziehill may not have been operating as a farm for several years, before its purchase by the developer. On the second point, I would again agree that rural based enterprise could attract visitors. However I am not convinced that a Class 5 industrial use can generate sufficient visitor interest from a rural cycle path to justify approval contrary to the development plan in this case.
The supporting statement also claims that the proposal is sustainable through the encouragement of visitors using the cycle route (non-car use) and the provision of a wind powered generator. The statement further contends that this particular site has greater potential for wind power than the Salsburgh area however no data was submitted to support this claim. Conversely, the Councils own data on mean wind speeds for the area suggests that both Salsburgh and Caldercruix villages have higher consistent wind speed (7.9ms-1 and 8.Oms-1 respectively) that the application site (7.8ms-1). The applicants have claimed that Salsburgh could not support a wind turbine, which is clearly not the case. Research figures indicate that wind speeds need to exceed 7.5ms-1 to render wind turbines viable.
4.9 The local member and MSP have both expressed their support for the application. They welcome the new employment opportunities and proposed use of a sustainable power supply. As noted in my assessment the potential job numbers would be welcome as would the use of natural wind power. However I remain of the opinion that this type of use can not be justified in an isolated green belt location. The food processing factory would be better located within existing settlements where the proposed use would not only accord with policy but would assist in any long term village regeneration strategies. Both Caldercruix and Salsburgh have higher mean wind speeds than the application site and as such are well placed to support the developers requirement to utilise a wind powered generator.
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 The above noted development plan policies generally discourage proposals for isolated developments in the countryside unless they can be fully justified. Given the above assessment I do not consider this has been done in this case. As noted in paragraph 4.6 the existing structure plan policy 1 (d) recognises the special needs of rural communities, however the main aim of this policy is to encourage development within existing settlements or villages. Any isolated or stand-alone development at Raziehill would undermine the long-term aim of this strategy, particularly as derelict land exists within Caldercruix and Salsburgh villages.
5.2 As also noted, the tourism and potential wind power arguments have some merit. However, in the absence of costings, evidence of market demand and likely visitor numbers I do not consider this would justify an appropriate departure from the development plan. The Council’s own data on mean wind speeds also demonstrate that existing settlements are not disadvantaged by low wind speeds. Indeed both Salsburgh and Caldercruix have higher mean wind speeds than the application site and therefore could sustain viable wind powered generators.
5.3 Taking all of these factors into consideration I consider the proposal can not be justified against the terms of the development plan. There are no material factors that would allow me to consider a departure from the development plan and it is recommended that planning permission be refused.
5.4 Finally, it should be noted that the developer has already completed improvement works to the barn without the benefit of planning permission. The improvement works by themselves are satisfactory. The main issue is that despite this improvement it should not be brought into use as a food manufacturing factory for the reasons noted above but should revert to its former agricultural use.
C:\TEMP\RO 100730.doc Application No. C/01/0082 l/FUL Date registered 2"dJuly 2001 APPLICANT LOCHSIDE HOUSING ASSOCIATION, 64a LEVEN ROAD, COATBRIDGE
Agent DEVELOPMENT CLOSURE OF 2 No LANES RUNNING FROM (BETWEEN 1711169) LOMOND ROAD SOUTH TO (BETWEEN 88/90) LEVEN ROAD VIA TANTALLON DRIVE LOCATION LOMOND ROAD, LEVEN ROAD AND TANTALLON DRIVE, COATBRIDGE
Ward No. 31 Grid Reference 271814666590
File Reference CIPLICTL75 O/GL/KH
Site History No relevant history to this proposal
Development Plan The site is zoned HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Scottish Power, The Coal Authority, Transco, West of Scotland Water Conditions No Reply British Telecom
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One
Newspaper Advertisement Three
COMMENTS This application relates to the closure of two lanes running from (between 1711169) Lomond Road south to (between 88/90) Leven Road Via Tantallon Drive, Coatbridge. It would be the intention of the applicant to incorporate the ground into the gardens of neighbouring properties. The southernmost lane provides access to a Scottish Power electricity substation. The lanes form part of a larger desire route providing access to St. Bartholomew's RC Primary School and bus stops on Lomond Road. It is acknowledged that the lanes are currently in a poor state of repair with evidence of vandalism to boundary fences, lighting columns, footpaths and a significant amount of graffiti, broken glass and bottles. No objections have been received from any of the utility companies. Scottish Power have indicated that they reserve the right to gain access to the sub-station, apparatus and underground cables in the vicinity. There are cables located along the length of the lane although Scottish Power have advised that they have no objection in principle to the proposal subject to retaining the right of access their apparatus and further consultation on any future development affecting their interests.
Four letters in support of the closures have been received from residents in the vicinity, three from dwellinghouses opposite the entrance on Leven Road and one from an adjacent dwellinghouse to the entrance on Lomond Road. The letters of support relate to the degree of anti-social behavior experienced by local residents and the potential for injury to persons using the lane in the future. The reasons for support are summarised as follows: -
C:\TEMP\RO100821 .doc
0 Potential for adultsichildren to be injured 0 Anti-social behavior from groups of youths, drunks and drug addicts Presence of old needles, bottles and broken glass Abusive language and threatening behaviour to residents Damage to property such as broken fences and windows 0 Cost to repair damage incurred on residents
The lanes subject of this application are considered to form a valuable route to St. Bartholomew's RC Primary School and bus stops on Lomond Road. The lanes form part of a more important desire route and form a direct link in Council's Safer Routes to School Initiative. It is considered that closure of the lanes would conflict with the spirit and intentions of the Safer Routes to School initiative resulting in a reduction in road safety. Closure of the lanes would also result in a substantial increase in distance for pedestrians to walk to bus stops on Lomond Road. The Transportation Section have recommended that the application is refused.
The concerns of the residents in support of the lane closure are both appreciated and understood however assessment of the proposal in planning terms must take a wider overview of the situation. While it is acknowledged that there is evidence of the anti- social behavior, these are essentially social problems better tackled through improved policing etc. Lane closure in this instance is not considered a solution particularly taking into account the value of the lane as a functional route and the existence of similar lanes in the vicinity. Closure of the lanes in this instance would not only stand against the spirit and intentions of Council's Safer Routes to School initiative but would also set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals. On balance, the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and hereby recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION
Refuse for the following reasons:-
1) That closure of the lanes would result in a substantial increase in distance for pedestrians to walk to bus stops located on Lomond Road.
2) That both lanes form a direct link in the Council's Safer Routes to School initiative and closure of the lanes would conflict with the spirit and intentions of this initiative, set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals and result in a reduction in road safety.
List of Background Papers
Application forms and accompanying plans received on 2ndJuly 2001 Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Consultation response from West of Scotland Water received 27" July 2001 Consultation response from Transco received 19* July 2001 Consultation response from The Coal Authority received 19" July 2001 Consultation response from Scottish Power received 6* August and 16" October 2001 Internal consultation response from Transportation Section received 7" August 200 1 Letter of support from James Rodgers, 103 Leven Road, Coatbridge received 2ndOctober 2001 Letter of support from Mrs Linnen, 101 Leven Road, Coatbridge received 9" October 2001 Letter of support from A Braphy, 17 1 Lomond Road, Coatbridge received 28" August 200 1 Letter of support from OwneriOccupier, 23 Crinan Crescent Road, Coatbridge received 5th October 2001
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812374 and ask for Gordon Liddell.
C:\TEMP\RO100821 .doc Application No. C/O 1/00846/OUT Date registered 22nd August 2001 APPLICANT A CUNNINGHAM, STONEDYKE, GOWANBRAE, CALDERCRUIX, ML6 7RB
Agent I Harley, 41 King Street, Coatbridge, ML5 DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF 5 NO. DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION OF ACCESS (IN OUTLINE) LOCATION STONEDYKE GOWAN BRAE CALDERCRUIX AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE ML6 7RB
Ward No. 46 Grid Reference 282563 668021
File Reference C/PL/CCG7 80IDBIKH
Site History No previous history
Development Plan Zoned HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection The Coal Authority, Scottish Power, Transco, West of Scotland Water Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response
Newspaper Not Required Advertisement
COMMENTS This application relates to the erection of 5 dwellinghouses, in outline, on land currently use as a transportation depot, at Gowan Brae, Caldercruix. The site is zoned HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and the proposal is in line with the terms of that policy. There have been no objections received from consultees however the Local Member has raised concern about the number of houses being built within the area and the potential conflict between pedestrians and vehicles movements along the substandard Gowan Brae road. The Transportation Manager has indicated no objection to the proposal subject to the provision of appropriate sightlines, formation of a road serving the plots and improvements along the frontage of the site. I therefore consider that the redevelopment of this site will result in an improvement to visual amenity and recommend that planning permission should be granted subject to the attached conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within five years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the date on which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. m uce by Eepdartmdent ofplmnirg and Environment PLANNING APPLICATION C/O1/00846/OUT DirectorateSupprt Unt E NORTH - Sute 501, Fleming House ERECTION OF 5 NO. DWELLINGHOUSE AND FORMATION ., o, LANSKSHAE 2Tryst Road OF ACCESS (IN OUTLINE) STONEDYKE GOWAN BRAE z :I. COLNCIL CUM BERNAU LD G67 1 JW CALDERCRUIX AlRDRlE LANARKSHIRE ML6 7RB Rpcdu;dfrornlh @d?-Suweymwpw wlh rmSlaf1-y prmisimd~C~cnadladhrMai~~~ Cfb 0 Crwn wrlghl Telephone 01236616210 Fax 01235616232 Lhartbdmdrqrn)dxUminhiwsr Ciwn ghl This copy has teen produced specificallyfor Plannlng and Bullding Contrd purposes only nd mayisadtopnr-bm udvlpodlnga- OS Licence LA 03041L No further copies may be made 2. That before development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:-
(a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the details of, and timetable for, the hard and soft landscaping of the site; (e) details for the management and maintenance of the areas identified in (d) above; (f) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (g) the phasing of the development; (h) the provision of drainage works; (i) the disposal of sewage; and 0') details of existing and proposed site levels.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.
3. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 2 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.
4. That the total number of dwellinghouses within the site shall be not more than 5
Reason: To define the permission.
5. That no dwellinghouse shall be occupied until the access roads and footways leading thereto from the existing public road have been constructed to wearing course.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings.
6. That before the last of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all roads and footways shall be completed to final wearing course.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings.
7 That the minimum space standards for each plot shall be in accordance with the Council's approved Developer's Guide to Open Space.
Reason: To ensure that the development provides an acceptable level of amenity.
8. That notwithstanding the details to be submitted under the terms of condition 2 above sufficient space within the curtilage of each plot shall be provided for the parking and manoeuvring of 2 cars.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.
9. That before the development hereby permitted is completed or occupied, a 2metre wide footway shall be constructed along the full frontage of the site, in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the said Roads Authority.
Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory pedestrian access facilities.
C:\TEMP\RO 100846.doc 10. That a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 60 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the proposed vehicular access and before the development hereby permitted is completed or occupied, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.
Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.
11 That before development hereby permitted starts, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render hadess 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 identify any potential contamination issues and ensure that the site is redeveloped to an appropriate standard.
List of Background Papers
Application forms and accompanying plans received on 3 June 2001 Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 199 1. Consultation response from The Coal Authority received on 3 September 2001 Consultation response from Transco received on 3 September 2001 Consultation response from Scottish Power received on 3 September 2001 Consultation response from West of Scotland Water received on 5 September 2001 Letter from Councillor Morgan received on 27 September 2001 Consultation response from Transportation Manager received on 15 October 2001.
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 81272 and ask for Mr. Baxter APPLICATION NO. C/01/00846/FUL
REPORT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application relates to the demolition of a transportation depot and erection of 5 dwellinghouses in outline at Stonedyke, Gowan Brae, Caldercruix. It is proposed to form a road from Gowan Brae to serve four plots to the rear of the site and one plot facing onto Gowan Brae. The site is currently used as a transportation depot and has several large garages and an area of hardstanding.
1.2 The site is located within an area zoned as HSG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 199 1.
2. CONSULTATION & REPRESENTATION
2.1 The Coal Authority indicated that coal is believed to exist at or close to the surface and may have been worked at some time in the past. As such it is recommended that appropriate technical advice is sought when developing the site, A note will be added to the decision notice if approval is granted by committee.
2.2 Scottish Power, Transco, West of Scotland Water indicated no objections to the proposal.
2.3 The Transportation Manager has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to footpaths, sightlines and a adequate road provision to serve the plots.
2.4 The Local Member has indicated that although he welcomes additional housing within the ward he is concerned at the number of houses that are served from the Gowan Brae road that is of variable width and does not have footpaths along its fill length.
3. ASSESSMENT
3.1 The development of infil housing within an area zoned HG9 in the Local Plan is generally acceptable where there is no loss of residential amenity and subject to compliance with the Design Guidance issued by the Council.
3.2 In this instance the site is used as a transportation depot and as such its redevelopment for housing should improve the residential amenity of the area.
3.3 The site has sufficient space to accommodate 5 detached dwellinghouses and can meet the requirements set out in relevant open space guidelines. A condition is however attached requiring compliance with these standards.
3.4 The Design Guidance Infill Housing also requires that each house should have its own vehicular access and no more than two houses shall be served from a private driveway. The indicative layout provided as part of the application indicates that the 5 plots should be capable of being serviced by a road.
3.5 With reference to the Local Member’s comments on the general condition of Gowan Brae it is acknowledged that there is a lack of pedestrian facilities over stretches of the road. Conditions have been attached related to the formation of a footpath along the site frontage and road access to the proposed plots. The Transportation Manager considers that subject to these requirements and the need to ensure appropriate sightlines the development should not adversely impact traffic safety.
4. CONCLUSION
5.1 In conclusion I consider that the proposed use of the transportation depot for the erection of 5 dwellinghouses is in line with the development plan zoning. Subject to the proposed conditions the development should enhance the residential amenity of the adjoining residents and should not adversely impact traffic or pedestrian safety.
C:\TEMP\RO 100846.doc Application No. CiO 1100955lFUL Date registered 13 September 2001 APPLICANT HUTCHISON 3G UK LTD
Agent James Ban Consultants, 226 West George Street Glasgow G2 2LN
DEVELOPMENT INSTALLATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPARATUS LOCATION LAND ON NORTH EAST SIDE OF LANGMUIR ROAD, SOUTH OF RAILWAY LINE, LANGMUIR ROAD, BARGEDDIE
Ward No. 36 Grid Reference 270394 66397
File Reference CIPLIBAL 180000lMLlLR
Site History No Relevant History
Development Plan The site is zoned Econ 2 - Existing Industrial Area in Monklands District Local Plan 1991
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response
Newspaper Advertisement Not Required
COMMENTS This application seeks permission for the erection of a 15 metre high telecommunications mast with an equipment cabin and associated infrastructure within an industrial area on Langmuir Road, South of Railway Line, Langmuir Road, Bargeddie.
There have been no objections to the proposal and I am satisfied that it meets the terms of relevant policy and guidance on telecommunications proposals and should not detract from the amenity of the area. Accordingly, I recommend that planning permission should be granted subject to the attached conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
C:\TEMP\RO 100955.doc 'roduced by lepartment of Plmniq and Environment PLANNING APPLICATION NO. C/01/00955/FUL 4 *I. liredorate Supprt Uflt + NORM - jute 501, Fleming House INSTALLATION OF TELECO MMU NI CAT1ONS APPARATUS 1'; is LANARKSHIRE !Tryst Road AT LAND ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF LANGMUIR ROAD, '1 L* COLNCiL - XMBERNAULD SOUTH OF RAILWAY LINE, LANGMUIR ROAD, BARGEDDIE 267 1 JW Rpdlsd homlh Odnaca Suweymappngwlh h prmis81m d h CmPdlrof hsr Mai&/8 relephone a236 616210 Fax 01236 616232 staiOav mca m crWnsopvrlitt lhulbhdrwmducbm IMIrgss Ciain 6wr ght This copy has been produced specifically for Plannlng and Buildlng Control purpcses Only and mayleadlopm~ubmo(ci~ilpos&dlll). IS Licence LA W041L No further copies may be made 2. That before the development starts, further details of the access road shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval, and these details shall include a turning area to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear, and a hard surface for the first 2.0 metres of the access road. These approved details shall thereafter be implemented in full before the apparatus is first brought into use.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
List of Background Papers
- Application forms, accompanying plans and ICNIRP certificate received on 11 July 2001 - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Planning Advice Note 62 - Radio Telecommunications - National Planning Policy Guidance 19 - Radio Telecommunications
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812379 and ask for Mr. Kellock.
C:\TEMP\RO 100955.doc APPLICATION NO. C/O 1/00955/FUL
REPORT
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 This application seeks permission for the erection of a 15 metre telecommunications mast with associated equipment cabin and infrastructure at land at Langmuir Road, immediately to the south of the railway line. The application is supported by a declaration of the proposal’s conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines.
1.2 The existing site is used as a storage yard and the boundaries are formed by the remains of a partially demolished brick building and a two metre high corrugated fence. The area is industrial in character and there are no dwellinghouses in the vicinity.
2. CONSULTATION
2.1 The Transportation section has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the provision of a turning area for service vehicles.
3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
3.1 The adopted local plan for the area within which this site is located is the Monklands District Local Plan 199 1, The application site is located within an area zoned Econ 2 - Existing General Industrial Areas. Policy TELl, which was adopted before the recent guidance from the Scottish Executive was issued on the subject, sets out the criteria for assessing all telecommunications developments. In this policy, the council encourages operators to discuss at the earliest stage any forthcoming proposals in order to reconcile technical requirements and environmental concerns. Any planning application will be considered, with regard to national policy, against criteria of economic benefit, specific locational need and environmental impact.
3.2 Recently the Scottish Executive has published a new NPPG (National Planning Policy Guideline 19) and Planning Advice Note (PAN 62) on Radio Telecommunications, which are of particular relevance to this application. The Scottish Executive’s policy is to enable the telecommunications industry to expand so that Scotland is served by the best possible radio telecommunications infrastructure. The expansion must however be undertaken in a manner that keeps the environmental impact of telecommunications equipment to a minimum. It states that Planning Authorities should not, however, question whether the service to be provided is needed nor seek to prevent competition between operators, but must determine applications on planning grounds.
3.4 To demonstrate to planning authorities that the known health effects have been properly addressed, applications for planning permission involving antennas must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation is designed to be in full compliance with the appropriate ICNIRF’ guidelines for public exposure to radio frequency radiation. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to decide what measures are required to protect public health.
4. REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
4.1 No objections have been received from Consultees, notified neighbours or from members of the public,
5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the applicant has claimed that there is a locational need for a new mast in this location. I am of the opinion that a mast of this particular design and height and in this particular location would not detract from the visual amenity or character of the area. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the proposal meets the terms of local plan policy TELl and also the recent and relevant guidance produced by the Scottish Executive. 5.2 Given that the proposal is in accordance with Local Plan policy, is not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of the area, and that there have been no objections submitted, it is recommend that planning permission be granted. Application No. CIO U0097 lIOUT Date registered 27 August 200 1 APPLICANT MRS C MCALISTAIR, 8 ANNATHILL CARAVAN SITE, GLENBOIG
Agent DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE (IN OUTLINE) AND SITING OF TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION DUFUNG CONSTRUCTION LOCATION SITE SOUTH OF RAMOAN HOUSE WEST OF 37-39 WHITELAW AVENUE GLENBOIG COATBRIDGE
Ward No. 33 Grid Reference 272547668133
File Reference CIPLIGBWS 1000037000/LWLR
Site History Proposed dwellinghouse (Ref. P90239) refused 199 1 Proposed dwellinghouse (Ref. 95 107) refused 1995 and subsequently dismissed at appeal 1996 Several cases of Enforcement Action in early 1990’s (see attached report)
Development Plan Monklands District Local Plan 199 1 - Greenbelt
Contrary to Development Plan Yes
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Coal Authority, British Telecoq Transco, West of Scotland Water, Health and Safety Executive Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours 4 letters of objection
Newspaper Advertisement No response
COMMENTS It is proposed to construct a detached dwellinghouse on vacant land at the western end of Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig. The site measures approximately 50m x 40m and is zoned as Green Belt within the adopted Local Plan. The applicant also seeks permission for the siting of a temporary caravan during the construction of the house.
Two planning applications for new dwelling houses have previously been refused permission; firstly in 1990 then in 1995. The most recent refusal was the basis of an appeal which was dismissed by the Secretary of State in February 1996. Since then circumstances relating to the site or the Development Plan have not changed significantly and I must again recommend that planning permission should be refused for the reasons given below.
Further details on the proposal and site history can be found within the attached report. Should the Committee wish to grant planning permission, it should be noted that the Council must first of all refer the matter to the Scottish Executive for a decision on whether the application should be called in.
C:\TEMP\RO100971 .doc )romcea ~y Iepartment d Rannhg and Ewinnment )rectorate Support Unit
rekphone 01236616210 Fax. 01236616232
2s Licence LA 09041L RECOMMENDATION
Refuse for the reasons that the proposed development would be contrary to policies GB1, GBlA, RES1 and RES 1A of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995, Policies GB 1 and HGlO of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and policy Stratl of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 (finalised draft) in that it represents an incursion into the Greenbelt with no acceptable justification for a Greenbelt release.
NOTE TO COMMITTEE
If approved this application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications (Scotland) Direction 1997.
List of Background Papers
Application forms and accompanying plans received on 27 August 2001 Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 (finalised draft) Letter of objection dated 17 August 2001 from Fraser Russell, Ramoan House, 24 Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig. Letter of objection dated 19 August 2001 from J. Colvan, 22 Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig Letter of objection dated 21 August 2001 from Mr & Mrs Thomson, 24a Ramoan House, Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig Letter of objection dated 23 August 2001 from Gillian and David Martin, Vere Lodge, Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig Letter from Health and Safety Executive dated 4 September 2001 Letter from The Coal Authority dated 3 1 August 2001 Letter from B.T. dated 4 September 2001 Letter from Transco dated 3 1 August 2001 Letter from West of Scotland Water dated 3 September 2001
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 8 12379 and ask for Mr. Kellock.
C:\TEMP\RO100971 .doc APPLICATION NO. C/01/00971/OUT
REPORT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single detached dwellinghouse, and siting of temporary caravan during its construction, on land adjacent to 37-39 Whitelaw Avenue, Glenboig. The site measures 50 x 40 metres and lies on the west side of Whitelaw Avenue adjacent to the Ramoan housing area south of Glenboig. The property is surrounded on the north and east by houses whilst to the west and south lies open countryside. Hedgerows bound the application site on its north, south and west and by palisade fencing to the east. Immediately to the east of the site is footpath access to a children’s play area located some 30 metres to the south. Access to Glenboig Primary School is from a lane from Whitelaw Avenue loometres to the east of the application site.
1.2 Although submitted in outline, the applicant has submitted indicative sketch plans showing an “L” shaped property within the site with access taken directly from the turning head at the western end of Whitelaw Avenue.
1.3 The applicant has submitted a letter in support of the proposal, which can be summarised as follows:
- The applicant has been a traveller all of her life, has travelled the length and breadth of the country and appreciates the importance of the Greenbelt. - The application site is not considered to be part of the Greenbelt as the two properties to the north of the site extend further westwards than the application site itself. - The application site has already been used for the storage of caravans during refurbishment projects and for the storage of heavy plant equipment overnight. - The land has all necessary services - The site would be upgraded to fit in with the surrounding area. - Local residents are in favour of the proposal and agree it would be a gain to the area.
2. CONSULTATION
2.1 The Coal Authority, British Telecom, Transco, and West of Scotland Water, all have no objections in principal to the proposal.
2.2 The Transportation Section has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the location and design of the site access.
3. OBJECTIONS
3.1 In addition to the normal neighbour notification procedure the application was advertised within the local press as a potential departure to the development plan. Four letters of objection have been received from adjoining proprietors and their comments can be summarised as follows : - Property was bought in the area on the assumption that the surrounding land was Greenbelt and that no further building could take place. - Any new house would infringe on outlook and amenity of surrounding properties. - The proposed development would result in additional traffic on Whitelaw Avenue which would detract from highway safety. In particular the street is often congested and is the only entrance to Glenboig Primary School. - The proposal is contrary to the Greenbelt zoning of the development plan - The proposed house would detract from the rural character and amenity of the area - Access to the property adjoins the access to a children’s play area
4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site lies within an area designated as Greenbelt. Policy GB 1 (Restrict Development in Greenbelt) states that no development will be permitted except for (amongst other things) new houses for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture. Policy HG10 (Residential Development outwith Residential Areas) states that
C:\TEMPR0100971 .doc new build residential development will not be permitted outwith existing residential areas unless it is justified under (amongst other things) Policy GB1 as noted above.
4.2 Policy GB1 of the adopted Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 presumes against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside within the Greenbelt. Policy GB1 states that proposals for development within the Greenbelt shall require to be justified against the following criteria; a) economic benefit b) specific locational need c) infrastructure implications and d) environmental impact, Policy RES 1 favours residential development on “brownfield” infill or redevelopment sites within urban areas rather than “greenfield” sites. Policy RES 1A states that proposals to extend the “greeenfield” supply of residential land will be assessed against various criteria including impact on other relevant policy for the Greenbelt.
4.3 Policy Strat 1 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 (finalised draft) requires the continued safeguarding of the Greenbelt and presumes against spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside.
5. PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 Planning permission was sought in 1991 (Ref. P90239) and 1995 (Ref. No. 95107) for the erection of a single dwelling house at this site, In both instances planning permission was refused by the Council as the proposals were contrary to the development plan. The second application was also subject to an appeal to the Scottish Office, and this was dismissed in February 1996 for the same reasons.
There have been several instances of unauthorised development at the site resulting in Enforcement Action being taken by the previous Council. In the early 1990’s) Monklands District Council took Enforcement Action against the unauthorised importation of infill material, siting of a residential caravan and the erection of screen fencing. I am not aware of any breaches of planning control at the site at present and there are no Enforcement Notices pending.
6. ASSESSEMNT AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Section 25 of the 1997 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act states that all planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless any other material considerations dictate otherwise. In this instance the proposal is within the Greenbelt and relevant planning policies presume against new housing unless suitable justification can be provided. The applicant has provided what I believe to be very limited justification for the granting of permission of a house in the Greenbelt, as summarised in paragraph 1.3 above, but this is considered to be insufficient to merit the grant of planning permission, and as such the proposal must be deemed to be contrary to the development plan.
6.2 As noted above, the objectors fear that the house may present problems of highway safety. However, I am satisfied that the house can be accessed in a satisfactory manner and that Whitelaw Avenue could accommodate the traffic from one additional dwellinghouse. Accordingly, should planning permission be refused, I would recommend that highway safety should not be cited as a reason for refusal. Similarly, I would not accept the claim by objectors that the erection of a suitably designed house would in itself detract from the character or amenity of the area or the outlook from adjoining properties.
6.3 As noted above, the application site has already been the subject of two similar planning applications, both of which have been refused as they were contrary to policies within the Local Plan and Structure Plan. The most recent refusal of permission was the basis of an appeal which was dismissed by the Scottish Office in 1996. Since that time there have been no significant changes in circumstances at the site or planning policy regarding this proposal. I must therefore recommend again that planning permission be refused for the reasons noted above. Application No. c/o1 /009 85FUL Date registered 13 August 2001 APPLICANT A BARTLETT & SONS (AIRDRIE) LTD, 25 WATT STREET, AIRDRIE, ML6 6AN
Agent The Kerr Practice, Chartered Architects, 47 Broad Street, Glasgow, G40 2QW DEVELOPMENT FORMATION OF TEMPORARY ACCESS AND HARD STANDING LOCATION LAND TO THE WEST OF THE A73 STIRLING ROAD AT THE CORNER OF RAEBOG ROAD GLENMAVIS AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE
Ward No. 45 Grid Reference 276430668223
File Reference
Site History Outline Planning Permission C/99/01187/0UT was granted on 14 February 2001 to A Bartlett & Sons (Airdrie) Ltd. for the use of the greenfield site for industrial process involving the storage, processing and distribution of vegetables and including the erection of associated buildings, parking and access road.
On 16 October 200 1 planning permission CiO 1/00549/REM was granted for the erection of industrial building and associated parking, accesddelivery arrangements (Reserved Matters of planning permission C/99/01187/0UT).
Development Plan Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991; Policy GB1 (Greenbelt)
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One
Newspaper Advertisement Not required
COMMENTS The applicants, A. Bartlett & Sons (Airdrie) Ltd seek planning permission for the temporary formation of a vehicular access and hardstanding to their development site at Raebog Road, Airdrie. The purpose of these works was to facilitate alterations to public water supply apparatus required in connection with the redevelopment of the site for industrial purposes under the above planning permissions.
Following assessment of the proposals, taking into account all material considerations, including the objection received, it has been concluded that temporary planning permission can be granted.
C :\TEMP\RO1 00985 .doc
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire on 3 1 December 2001
Reason: In the interests of amenity as the development would be intrusive in the landscape on a permanent basis and in the interests of road safety.
2. That not later than 31 January 2002, all hardstanding and other building materials within the site shall be completely removed and the site shall be restored to its former condition as agricultural land, unless an alternative satisfactory condition is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority
Reason: In the interests of amenity as the development is unsightly
List of Background Papers
- Application forms and accompanying plans. - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, - Consultation response from Team Leader, Traffic and Transportation. - Letter of objection from Mr. Robert W Stephens, 54 Crathie Drive, Glenmavis, Airdrie, ML6 ONR.
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812381 and ask for Gerard Quinn.
C:\TEMP\RO 100985.doc APPLICATION NO. C/01/00985/FUL
1. PROPOSAL
1.1 The applicants, A Bartlett & Sons (Airdrie) Ltd, seek planning permission in retrospect for a temporary access formation and associated hardstanding which they have constructed at the north west part of their development site at Raebog Road. These works were implemented in late June 2001 to facilitate preliminary alterations to the public water service network within the site in connection with the expected major redevelopment of the site for industrial purposes. Whilst the applicant received permission for the formation of the access under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 at that time, no planning permission was established for any of the works.
1.2 After being asked by this Department to regularise the position, the applicant submitted a planning application on the 13 August 2001.
1.3 The details supplied reflect the works undertaken on site. These works are characterised by a rectangular development area of 40m by 50m breached into the field adjacent to Raebog Road, and containing a 30m long fully constructed heavy vehicle access road, and an adjoining hardstanding area created by compacted stone, brick rubble/crushed concrete.
1.4 The applicants have indicated that the facilities created by the development are only required on a temporary basis in relation to the water utility works. In this respect, the applicants sought permission for a six months period (until 31 December 2001) following the commencement of the works. At the end of this period, the applicants have indicated that the field would be hlly reinstated to its condition prior to the start of any works and pending the introduction of tree planting as part of the landscape scheme required to be approved and implemented in relation to outline planning permission C/99/01187/0UT (see above).
1.5 Whilst the applicants asked for a six month period it is understood that the majority of works to the public utility apparatus is now completed and the actual use of the accesslhardstanding is currently minimal.
2. CONSULTATION
2.1 The Department’s Traffic and Transporation section, following consultation on the proposals, has expressed no objection subject to the assumption that the access would be returned to its original condition within a reasonable period (i.e within 3 months of no longer been required or 1 year from the date of permission, whichever is sooner).
3. REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 Following the statutory neighbour notification process, one letter of objection was received by a Mr Robert W Stephens of 54 Crathie Drive, Glenmavis. Mr. Stephens objects specifically to the proposals on the grounds of traffic safety in that the position of the access and the signage arrangements would fail to provide sufficient safe stopping distance for vehicles travelling at full speed.
4. ASSESSMENT
4.1 From a planning viewpoint, it is considered that the proposals raise both amenity and traffic safety concerns. Indeed, whilst it is acknowledged that the larger site at Raebog Road will be developed for industrial purposes, it is considered the works in their current form, provide an unnecessary blight upon the landscape, within this greenbelt location. Indeed, this site, together with surrounding land, is expected to form part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme in connection with the forthcoming industrial development. The current unauthorised works are not considered to be something that would be compatible with any new development.
4.2 Furthermore, the actual location of the vehicular access point is not considered to be wholly acceptable from a transportation point. However, given the temporary nature of the proposals, and the fact that the use of the access is now at a relatively low level, it is considered that the development is acceptable in this case.
4.3 In summary, from an amenity viewpoint it is noted that the land, whilst damaged, will be reinstated in the short term. From a traffic viewpoint, it is considered that the situation is acceptable on the assumption that the usage continues to wind down and the access is removed in the short term.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 On the foregoing basis it is considered that planning permission for a temporary period can be granted subject to conditions. Application No. C/O 1/O 10 1YFUL Date registered 17 August 200 1 APPLICANT SAVECO PROPERTIES LTD, 95C FORREST STREET, AIRDRIE, ML6 7AE
Agent DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF USE OF SHOP TO HOT FOOD TAKE-AWAY INCLUDING ERECTION OF REAR VENTILATION DUCT LOCATION 16 WILLOW DRIVE, AIRDRIE
Ward No. 49 Grid Reference 277785 665162
File Reference CiPLIAIW57000 16000/IJ/LR
Site History None
Development Plan Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by the following policy HG9: Existing Residential Policy.
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours Two
Newspaper Advertisement Four
COMMENTS This application relates to the change of use of a vacant shop unit to a hot food takeaway at 16 Willow Drive, Airdrie. The application site comprises a ground floor retail unit within a terraced row of retail properties with residential flats above. The rear part of the unit onto which a proposed ventilation duct is to be situated is of a flat roofed single storey construction. The proposal has been advertised as a “bad neighbour” development and five letters of representation have been received. The Head of Protective Services has objected to the proposed siting of the ventilation duct. The late hours opening of the hot food takeaway would, it is claimed, result in a loss of amenity to the adjacent houses. Taking all the foregoing together the proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable. Further details are contained in the accompanying report.
R0101015.doc RO 10101 5.doc RECOMMENDATION
Refuse for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed hot food takeaway would result in a loss of amenity to adjacent residents as a result of increased levels of activity and potential disturbance at night due to the required opening hours.
2. That the proposal is contrary to policy COM10 Hot Food Shops of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that the applicant's inability to erect an acceptable standard of ventilation flue would be detrimental to the amenity of adjacent residents by virtue of inadequate dispersal of cooking odours and fumes.
List of Background Papers
Planning application form and plans received 21 August 2001 Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Consultation response from Transportation Manager dated 23 August 200 1 Consultation response from Protective Services dated 5 September 2001 Consultation response from Protective Services dated 3 September 200 1 Letter of objection from Lindsay Monahan, 20E Willow Drive, Airdrie received on 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Mr Allan Ritchie, 72 Monks Road, Airdrie received 29 August 2001 Letter of objection from Mr & Mrs D Steel, 10D Willow Drive, Airdrie received 29 August 2001 Letter of objection from Mr & Mr & Mrs. G. Wilson, 1OC Willow Drive, Airdrie received 28 August 2001 Letter of objection from Sanna Tasty Bites, 3b Glen Road, Airdrie received 11 September 2001 Letter of objection from Petersburn Craigneuk Community Forum received 13 September 2001
Any persons wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812382 and ask for Mr Johnston
R0101015.doc APPLICATION NO. C/O1/01015/FUL
REPORT
1. PROPOSAL AND SITE
1.1 Planning permission is being sought for the change of use of a vacant former butcher’s shop to a hot food Takeaway at 16 Willow Drive, Airdrie. The applicant has advised that the Takeaway would operate from 12.00 noon Monday - llp.m. Monday to Saturday and from 4 p.m. - llp.m. on Sundays. Internally the shop unit will be refurbished to accommodate a frontage customer waiting area, a servery with improved kitchedtoilet and a store with attached cold storage area. The submitted plans also indicate that a ventilation flue would be installed with a vertical discharge cowl extending above the single storey flat roof rear section of the building. The submission does not indicate any external alterations to the building frontage although it is envisaged that should planning permission be granted some form of advertisement would be proposed.
1.2 The application property is located on the ground floor of a three storey terraced building with other commercial uses on its ground floor (Post Office and Newsagents) and 6 flatted dwellinghouses occupying the upper floors. The property fronts onto Willow Drive and forms part of a small local shopping area with rear servicing facilities provided to the rear of the building. The surrounding area is predominately residential in nature.
2. DEVELOPMENT PLAN
2.1 The application site is located within an area covered by Policy HG9 in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 where developments of an ancillary nature (including corner shops) may be permitted subject to the development satisfying considerations such as amenity, other Local Plan policies and proven need for the facility.
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Internal consultations with other functions of the Planning and Environment Department were carried out in respect of this application. The Protective Services Division has objected to the proposed termination point of the ventilation duct as this may result in smeWfumes problems in the residential accommodation occupying the upper floors of the property.
4. REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Following neighbour notification and press advertisement five letters of objection to this proposal were received. The main points raised can be summarised as follows:
a> The proposed use would result in excessive noise from vehicles b) The extended hours of operation would result in youthsidrunks etc. hanging about its area in the evening with the potential for vandalisation etc. c) The proposed ventilation flue would result in excessive smells, especially to the residential properties above. d) The proposal would decrease the value of its surrounding properties. e) There is adequate provision of hot food takeaways in vicinity.
5. ASSESSMENT
5.1 The principal consideration in determining any planning application is its compliance with the Local Plan together with any other material considerations. The application site is located within a small neighbourhood shopping area where the Council is generally supportive of Class 1 uses. The proposal should not be rejected on that basis alone (being Sui Generis) as a neighbourhood shopping area may be expected to accommodate a mixture of commercial uses including hot food takeways subject to those uses being ancillary to the residential nature of the area and not adversely affecting its amenity.
R010 1015.doc 5.2 The objectors raise concerns over the loss of amenity as the hours of opening would exceed those of the former (butcher’s shop) use or any of the adjoining commercial uses. Neither the butchers shop or the adjoining uses open after 5.30 p.m. I would accept that a potential for noise nuisance is inevitable through the use of the premises in evening hours taken together with additional customer traffic and the resulting presence of members of the public around its premises at extended periods of the day (including evenings).
.3 The objectors have also raised concern over the extraneous smells which would arise from the proposed location of the ventilation flue on the ground floor rear elevation of the building. The Protective Services Division has also objected to the positioning of the proposed ventilation duct as this may result in smell problems in the residential accommodation occupying the upper floor of the building. It should be highlighted that in respect of the provision of a ventilation duct Policy Com 10 of the Local Plan clearly states that if objections (to hot food shops) are received from any of the owners of the flatted premises above the application premises, the application would be considered unacceptable on the grounds that the applicants inability to erect (an acceptable) ventilation duct would cause the development to be detrimental to the amenity of the adjacent properties by virtue of inadequate disposal of cooking odours and fumes. In this regard it is also relevant to consider the provisions of the approved advice note on hot food shops and restaurants (no.6) which states that where the proposed premises is on a commercial ground floor of flatted properties, and where objections have been received from parties occupying those properties then it may be appropriate to impose a suspensive condition on any planning consent to ensure that the premises cannot be brought into use before the applicant has secured the agreement of all affected owners and its ventilation flue has been erected. The applicant was clearly advised of the situation and despite requesting additional time to investigate the available options in respect of the ventilation flue he has been unable to introduce an alternative extraction system (flue) which would overcome the concerns of the Protective Services Division and the objectors, the application details are to be considered as originally submitted.
5.4 Matters such as decrease in the value of properties and adequate provision of this type of proposed use are not relevant to the proper consideration of the application.
5.5 Following consideration of the material factors I would conclude the following. While the premises are located within a small neighbourhood shopping area which may be expected to support a mix of commercial use there are other material factors that suggest the proposal is unnacceptable. Firstly, due to the increased late opening hours over and above those of the adjoining units that noise nuisance would have an impact on the existing amenity levels. Secondly, there is no feasible alternative to the proposed location of the ventilation flue and this, as confirmed by the Protective Services Division would result in odour and fume problems in the residential properties above the premises. Given these factors it is my view that the proposal is unacceptable on amenity grounds. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.
RO 10 10 15doc Application No. C/O1/01041/FUL Date registered 18 September 2001 APPLICANT T.0.M Airdrie Ltd., 52 Southburn Road, Airdrie, Lanarkshire, ML6 9AD
Agent DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF PAINT BOOTH (IN RETROSPECT) LOCATION T.O.M. AIRDRIE LTD 52 SOUTHBURN ROAD AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE ML6 9AD
Ward No. 47 Grid Reference 274803 665142
File Reference C/P LIAIS46 80 5 2 0 OOO/I J/KH
Site History C1981012231FUL - Erection of Side Extension to Workshop - Approved 29 June 1999
Development Plan In terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is zoned:-
ECON 1311 : Improvement of Industrial Sites ECON8 General Urban Areas
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Director of Housing Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours 19
Newspaper Advertisement No response
COMMENTS This application is seeking Planning Permission (In Retrospect) for the erection of a paint booth within the curtilage of the Vehicle Repair premises addressed as T.O.M. Airdrie Ltd, 52 Southburn Road, Airdrie. 19 individual letters of objection have been received from adjoining neighbours in relation to this application and the comments are detailed in the accompanying report. Having regard to the specific points of objection raised and taking into account the comments of the Head of Protective Services in respect of the highlighted concerns I consider the proposal acceptable at this location I therefore recommend that Planning Permission is granted subject to conditions
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That no open air spraying of vehicles shall take place anywhere within the application site.
Reason: In the interests of amenity of the surrounding buildings.
C:\TEMP\RO 101041 .doc Depaltment of Plalnirg and Environment Dredorate Sup@ Uflt PLANNING APPLICATION NO: C/O1101 041/FUL Sute 501, Fleming House ERECTION OF PAINT BOOTH (IN RETROSPECTIVE) LANEKSHJE 2 Tryst Rod AT 52 SOUTHBURN ROAD, AlRDRlE .': ?. COLNCI L CUMBEPNAULD G67 1 J W blpcd~dfromth Odnare Suwsymsppng wlh Jc OBJECTORS sldim*i~~~,~irn~f~Crn~di-d~~~i~~~ mcs iD crwn sopyridlt Telephone01236616210 Fax 01236 616232 UIMbnadrcpmductlrn infrlngwcrhin mwr@hl This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Bullding Control purpcses only ndmgicadlopm-lmaaul~~~~~ OS Licence LA cB041L No further copies may be made List of Background Papers
Application forms and accompanying plans received on Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Memorandum from Director of Housing Dated 9 October 2001 Memorandum from Protective Services Division dated 9 October 2001 E-mail from Protective Services Division dated 15 October 2001 Letter of objection from Thomas Finesy, 9a Deedes Street received 21 August 2001 Letter of objection from Anne Best, 5f Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Martin McMath, 1 lb Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from M Taylor, 9c Deedes Street received 31 August 2001 Letter of objection from Theresa McGaughau, 1la Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from L McGuinness, 9e Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Linda McGurk, 77 Deedes Street received 31 August 2001 Letter of objection from A Sutherland, 1 Id Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from L Monko, 7b Deedes Street received 31 August 2001 Letter of objection form Ann McMath, 5d Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Eileen Ciyle, 1 Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Margaret McMath, 1lb Deedes Street received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Elain McMath, 2a Southburn Road received 3 1 august 2001 Letter of objection from Leona McCabe, 3b Southburn Road received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from Julie Small,2d Southburn Road received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from MIJ Ramage, 2e Southburn Road received 3 1 August 2001 Letter of objection from G Blair, no address received 31 August 2001 Letter of objection, no name, 3c Deedes Street received 31 August 2001 Letter of objection, no address received 25 August 2001
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812382 and ask for Ian Johnston. APPLICATION NO. C/01/01041/FUL
REPORT
1. SITE AND PROPOSAL
1.1 The application site is located on the east side of Southburn Road, Airdrie within an area predominantly commercial in nature. The use of the site i.e. vehicle repair has been established at this location for a number of years and the site itself is bounded to the north and west (on the opposite footpath of Southbum Road) by similar type uses. Small commercial workshops are located to the east of the site while the curtilage of flatted residential properties form the site’s southern boundary.
1.2 The proposal is for retrospective planning consent to legitimise the presence on site of a small pitched roof structure of sheet steel construction which serves as a Paint Booth and accommodates a Vehicle Drying Area and Heater compartment within a floor area of 40.46 sq metres. The Paint Booth structure is attached to an existing building (Body Shop) of similar construction from which internal access is taken (by vehicles). Two external flues are affixed to the roof area of the Paint Booth. All paint work associated with the operations is restricted solely within the premises (Body Shop and Paint Booth) and no open air spraying, preparation work etc is carried out or sought.
2. CONSULTATION
2.1 The Director of Housing has no objections to the application but stipulates that adequate precautions should be taken to minimise any inconvenience to adjacent residents during painting works.
2.2 The Head of Protective Services has offered no objection to the application subject to all fumes and vapors from the painting operation being disposed of by means of a suitable ventilation system capable of preventing offensive odours outwith the boundary of the premises.
3. REPRESENTATIONS
3.1 19 individual letters of objection, of which 15 were in a standard letter form were received containing the following points of concern:
the proposal is a health hazard because of the chemicals, paint and thinners used to spray cars and vans. . The structure has been on site for the past two years. . No notification of the application was served as required. . Service vehicles delivering to the application site (diesel deliveries) block accessiexit to/from the adjacent car park that serves the flats.
4. ASSESSMENT
4.1 The application is seeking to legitimise an unauthorised structure (Paint Booth) which has been present on site for at least two years and has operated in association with and established Vehicle Repair Business. The structure was in fact constructed in conjunction with the building of a large side extension onto an existing Commercial Vehicle Workshop following the granting of Planning Permission by decision notice date 27 January 1999. In Policy terms there is not an issue in principle with this proposal as the structure is directly associated with an established commercial operation (Vehicle Repairs) which in itself is deemed appropriate to the subject area i.e. Policy ECON8: General Urban Areas where existing light industrial and commercial uses will be encouraged to remain, subject to there being no change of use or intensification of use likely to create adverse environmental affects.
4.2 The main thrust of the objections is the reputed health hazard caused by the use in the painting operations of chemicals, paint and thinners which are released into the air via the flue on the roof of the Booth. This matter has recently been investigated by the Protective Services Division and on three separate occasions air samples of total volatile organic concentrations (VOC) at the site location have been taken and assessed. In all three occasions it was considered by the public analyst that the results were below levels shown to have toxic effects. Whilst the initial sample was considered high enough to account for odour complaint subsequent samples were registered lower following the applicant
C:\TEMP\R0101041 .doc increasing circulation time through filters within the existing flue. Having regard to the result of the samples the Head of Protective Services does not believe that any statutory nuisance conditions have been established and while residents may on occasion be able to detect flue emissions there are options available to the applicant to reduce odours further. The applicant has been advised of the options available and has confirmed his willingness to implement works to reduce further odour emissions from the flue. The Head of Protective Services will monitor this situation.
4.3 As previously stated the applicant is seeking to legitimise the presence of an unauthorised structure which has been present on site for about two years. Irrespective of its previous unauthorised presence on site the application must now be given full and proper consideration and determined against its appropriateness in terms of the local development plan and other relevant matters. Whilst claims of inappropriate notification of the application have been made it is obvious, given the level of written objections received, that the adjacent community have been made well aware of the proposal. The applicant has stated within the application form that all neighbour notification has been undertaken and has signed the form to this effect. Matters such as blockage of the public highway during general deliveries to the premises are not specifically relevant to the application under consideration.
4.4 In terms of general design the application structure is constructed of sheet steel panels similar in material to the adjoining workshop onto which it is attached. The external finish of both structures is of an acceptable standard which enhances the appearance of a predominantly industriallcommercial workshop type location.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Having regard to the foregoing I accept the concerns of the objectors in that the operations carried out within the application premises (Paint Booth) may on occasion result in odour emissions. However, having taken the expert advice of the Head of Protective Services who has carried out a series of air samples around the application site, I do not accept that the operations produce a health hazard as claimed. I am also confident that with additional agreed measures to be monitored by the Head of Protective Services, current odour emissions can be reduced further. I therefore recommend that the application is approved subject to appropriate conditions.
C:\TEMP\R0101041.doc Application No. C/01/01145/ADV Date registered 10 September 2001 APPLICANT APPLE OUTDOOR, 58 KIRKTON STREET, CARLUKE
Agent DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF 1 X 48 SHEET EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ADVERTISING HOARDING
LOCATION 29 FLOWERHILL STREET, AIRDRIE Ward No. 43 Grid Reference 276628 665625
File Reference C/PLIAIF5440290000/RT/KH
Site History No relevant site history
Development Plan In terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is covered by the following policy zonings:
ECON 9: Secondary Core Area
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No response
Newspaper Advertisement Not required
COMMENTS This application seeks express consent for the erection of one externally illuminated 48 sheet advertisement hoarding to the side of a tenement property which is not in need of any repair or screening.
The Design Guidance on Advertisements contained within the Local Plan advocates a general presumption against the granting of consent for advertisements other than on suitable sites in town centres where the hoardings would result in the temporary screening of a site or produce general environmental improvements. This policy also operates a general presumption against the granting of consent for free-standing advertisements unless the consent is granted for a temporary period only. The policy also has particular regard to the likely environmental impact of proposed advertisements.
In this particular case it is considered that the proposed hoarding is unacceptable on the grounds of it being detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. In addition the proposed hoarding would not screen a site which is considered to be significantly unattractive, nor would it produce any environmental improvements. The hoarding is also considered to be detrimental to the general environment mainly by virtue of its appearance, size and conspicuous positioning adjacent to an existing residential flatted area. As such it is recommended that consent be refused for the proposal.
ROlOl145.doc
RECOMMENDATION
Refuse for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed hoarding would be harmful to amenity and not supported by the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, in that it would not produce temporary screening of a site or general environmental improvements.
2. That the proposed hoarding, by virtue of its size and position, would be seen as an over-dominant and conspicuous feature on the site thereby being detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
List of Background Papers
- Application form and plans dated 27 July 2001. - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, - Consultation response from Transportation Manager dated 25 September 2001,
Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812375 and ask for Rosaleen Toal.
ROlOl145.doc Application No. C/PL/01/01159/FUL Date registered 12 September 2001 APPLICANT ALISON RABONE, 25 CAIRNHILL CRESCENT, AIRDRIE
Agent DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE (CLASS 2) TO INTERNET CAFE LOCATION 86 WHIFFLET STREET, COATBRIDGE
Ward No. 38 Grid Reference 273606663916
File Reference CIPLICTW435086000O/RTKH
Site History None
Development Plan Under the Terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policy:-
COM 5: Local Shopping Areas
Contrary to Development Plan No
CONSULTATIONS
Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply
REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One
Newspaper Not Required Advertisement
COMMENTS This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of an office to an internet cafe. One letter of objection has been received from an adjoining neighbour in relation to this application and the comments are detailed in my accompanying report. For reasons contained in the accompanying report it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant, subject to the following conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
2. That the permission hereby granted relates to a change of use only and no alterations to the shopfront are hereby permitted
Reason: To define the extent of the permission granted.
ROlOl159.doc 1
Produced by Department of Plmniq and Envlmnment PLANNING APPLICATION NO. C/01/01159/FUL Directorate Support Unt NORTH - Sute501 Fleming House CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE (CLASS 2) TO INTERNET CAFE I I 2 LANARKSHIRE 2 Tryst Rod AT 86 WHIFFLET STREET, COATBRIDGE .:L. COLNCIL CUMBEWAULD G67 1 JW Rpiu~frOmIhadn-Sunsymqpngwlh * LOCATION OF OBJECTOR a dprml~lmddCmudI~o(~rMa~lur*j~ Telephone 01236 616210 Fax 01235 616232 St88-r~ mice OCraun sDpyrighl Lhwibnmdrqm&slm 8nhrqaaCravn ccpyrghl This mpy has been produced specifically for Plannlng and Building Control purFG5es only md mqlMd Reason: To define the extent of the permission List of Background Papers - Application form and plans - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Letter of objection from Harriet McLees, 82b Whifflet Street, Coatbridge Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812375 and ask for Rosaleen Toal. ROlOl159.doc APPLICATION NO. C/01/01159/FUL REPORT 1. SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 The application site is a shop unit which is vacant a present and located within a row of shops along Whifflet Street, Coatbridge. 1.2 The applicant is seeking planning permission of the change of use from a office (class 2) to an internet cafe. The internet cafe will have a main area with workstations and seating with a separate coffeelsnack bar and reception area. The proposal is considered an acceptable use within this local shopping area and the transportation section have no objections to this proposal. 2. REPRESENTATIONS 2.1 One letter of objection has been received from an adjoining shop owner in relation to this application. The objection is on the following grounds: The internet cafe will effect her business, if the internet cafe opens, her premises will close. 2.2 This objection cannot be taken into account when assessing this application as is not a material planning consideration, being made solely on grounds of potential competition. 3. CONCLUSION 2.1 Following the taking into account of all material considerations, including the concerns of the objector, it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the attached conditions. ROlOl159.doc Application No C/01/01161/FUL Date registered 11 September 2001 APPLICANT MR & MRS SWEENEY, 82 CROMARTY ROAD, AIRDRIE Agent DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION LOCATION 82 CROMARTY ROAD, AIRDRIE Ward No. 50 Grid Reference 275809 663925 File Reference C/PL/AIC82400082000/ML/LR Site History None Development Plan Under the terms of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is located within an area covered by policy HG9 - Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas. Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One Newspaper Advertisement Not Required COMMENTS The applicants seek planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to their semi-detached dwellinghouse at 82 Cromarty Road, Airdrie. One letter of objection has been received from the neighbour at 80 Cromarty Road, Airdrie. The grounds of objection are that the proposed extension would result in a loss of light and views through their dining room window. It is considered that the extension will not detract from the neighbours amenity by blocking daylight to an extent which would merit withholding planning permission. I therefore recommend that permission be granted. RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture to those of the existing adjoining building. Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved complements the adjoining dwellinghouse in the interests of amenity. R0100250 toblcea by Ieprtment d Rannng and Ewironrnent liredorate Support Unit PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01/01 161/FUL uite 501, Fkming House ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION Twst Road UMBERNAULD AT 82 CROMARTY ROAD, AlRDRlE B7 1 JW * OBJECTOR ekphone 01236616210 Fax. 01236616232 This copy has been prcduced speaficalyfw Planningand Building Control purwses Only. S Licenoe LA 090411 Nofurther copes may be made List of Background Papers - Application Forms and Plans dated 14 September 2001 - Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Letter from Mr & Mrs McLaughlin dated 26 September 2001 Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812379 and ask for Mr Kellock. RO 100250 APPLICATION NO. C/01/01161/FUL 1. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 The application site is 82 Cromarty Road, Airdrie which is a semi-detached 1% storey house within an established private residential area. 1.2 The applicants are proposing to construct a rear extension measuring 5.5m x 3.5m onto the north elevation of their semi-detached dwellinghouse. The extension would be built onto the boundary of the adjoining property where its height would range between 4.4 metres and 3.5 metres above ground level. The proposed extension will comprise a dining room and cloakroom. 2. REPRESENTATIONS 2.1 One letter of objection was received from the neighbours at No.80 Cromarty Road, Airdrie regarding this proposal. The basis of their concern is that the proposed extension would result in a loss of daylight through the dining room window and also reduce the view from this window. 3. PLANNING ASSESSMENT 3.1 The main consideration in assessing this application is how the proposed rear extension will impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by the residents of No.80 Cromarty Road. The amount of daylight and sunlight received by the objectors dining room window will already be restricted by its northern outlook. A ‘sunlightidaylight’ test can be applied in some instances to measure precisely what impact a proposed structure may have on nearby properties. The sunlight test is not applicable to north facing elevations, but the relevant daylight test has been carried out and the impact of the extension has been shown to be within acceptable limits. In particular, the test revealed a result of ‘34’ and results which measure between 27 and 40 are acceptable. The proposed extension could not in my opinion be described as excessively large and is of a size and location commonly found on such properties. I am satisfied that it would not detract from the outlook or amenity currently enjoyed by the objectors to an extent which would merit the refusal of planning permission. Given the above, I recommend that permission is granted subject to the attached conditions. RO 100250 Application No. C/O 110 1 186/FUL Date registered 14 September 2001 APPLICANT SAFEWAY STORES PLC, 21 MELFORD ROAD, RIGHEAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BELLSHILL Agent Montagu Evans, 37 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7JF DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF SIDE EXTENSIONS COMPRISING 1,081.2 SQ METRES OF ADDITIONAL FLOORSPACE TO SHOP LOCATION SAFEWAY STORES PLC GARTLEA ROAD AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE ML6 9JL Ward No. 43 Grid Reference 276350665323 File Reference C/P LIAIG2 10 0 15 800 O/I J/KH Site History Consent granted on appeal (In Outline) (Ref: P/PL/55/256) for the erection of a supermarket, petrol filling station, service yard, customer and staff parking by letter dated 23 March 1993. Planning Consent granted 3 1 January 1994 f (Reserved Matters) or the erection of a supermarket, petrol station and car parks (Ref: C1931338). Consent granted 15 February 1994 for extension to service hours from between 0800-1800 to 0700-1800. Consent granted 18 March 1998 for extension of service area (Ref: C/97/525). Consent granted 28 May 1998 for a car park extension (Ref: C/98/00419/FUL). Development Plan ECON7 Offices/Business UseiLight Industry LR5 Upgrade Football Stadium Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Coal Authority, West of Scotland Water Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No response Newspaper Advertisement One COMMENTS The applicant is seeking to extend the existing supermarket floorspace by 1081.1 sq metres to provide 744 sq metres of additional retail space, additional storage, preparation area and an extension to the existing coffee shop. The new build will extend from the existing building on its northern and western (frontage) elevations and will be of a design and external finish to compliment the building itself. One letter of objection has been received and the contents will be covered in the accompanying report. Whilst having regard to the specific points of objection it is considered that the proposed extensions are acceptable at this particular location and therefore I recommend that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions. 'roduced by lepaltment of Plmnirg and Environment PLANNING APPLl CAT10 N NO:O 110 1 1WFU L "i1c lirectorate Support Unit NORTH - jute 501, Fleming House ERECTION OF SIDE EXTENSIONS COMPRISING 1,081.2 SQ .#*L-4 LANeKSHJE !Tryst Road METRES OF ADDITIONAL FLOORSPACE TO SHOP. :(-3 COLNCIL XMBERNAULD 267 1 J W SAFEWAY STORES PLC AT GARTLEA ROAD, AIRDRIE. Y\ Fbpdrsd hom1haadnx.SvNcymappnOwlh br pm1s61m d m0 Cmtdia of har MajeWs relephone M236 616210 Fax. 01236 616232 3c LOCATION OF OBJECTOR sta clCV mem crownsowri&t This mpy has been produced specifically for Planning and Buildlng Control purpcses only Lhmtbnaadrqroduclcn i"frinjea Crown ccwrighl nd may Ihd10 prosubmc. 5 "11 poclrXling6 2s Licence LA D3041L No further copes may be made RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. 3. That the permission hereby granted shall relate to the use of the extension solely for a use included within Class l(Shops) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997. Reason: To define the permission. List of Background Papers - Application forms and accompanying plans received on 13 September 200 1 - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Consultation response form West of Scotland Water dated 2 October 2001 - Consultation response from Protective Services Division date 3 October 2001 - Consultation response from the Coal Authority dated 5 October 2001 - Letter for Railtrack dated 25 September 2001 - Letter of objection from Roger Tym & Partners dated 17 October 2001 Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812382 and ask for Ian Johnston APPLICATION NO. C/01001186/FUL REPORT 1. SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 The application related to a proposed extension to the existing Safeway Superstore at Gartlea Road, Airdrie. The site is presently occupied by a large stand alone Retail Foodstore with associated servicinglparking facilities and accommodating a Petrol Filling Station at is vehicular access from Gartlea Road. The site is located adjacent to Airdrie Town Centre and north east of a relatively new retail park (Hogg Street). 1.2 The applicant is seeking to extend the existing floorspace of the shop by some 1,081.2 sq metres (gross) to provide 744 sq metres of additional sales area together with additional ancillary, storage and preparation areas. The extensions will be sited on the buildings northern and western elevations. Internally the new build will allow the relocation of the existing ‘Dry Cleaner’ facility, an extension to the back shop (storage area) and an extension to the sales area all on the northern elevation of the building. On the extended western (frontage) elevation the coffee shop facility will be extended together with the provision of additional ancillary storage space. 1.3 Externally the new build will be of a design (single storey with hipped roof) that will marry in with the roof line of the existing structure and all materials (roof, external walls and including glazing panels over canopies) will be similar to those existing on the main building. 1.4 The new build will be contained within the boundaries of the existing footway around the building to negate any requirement for any insite road realignment or loss of existing parking customerdstaff provisions. 1.5 It should be noted that a separate planning application (Ref: C/01/01189/AMD) for an amendment to a planning condition (No.12 for planning consent P/PPA/55/256) will also be considered at this committee. That application seeks a relaxation of the restrictive condition which limits the use of the Safeway Store only as a Foodstore (and ancillary purposes) with no other Class1 Use permitted. The report prepared in respect of that application is recommended approval of that amendment and any approval notice for this application should reflect the amended permitted use of the extension in line with the main store. 2. CONSULTATION 2.1 The Transportation Manager has offered no objections to this proposal. 2.1 The Head of Protective Services has advised that dependant on the inclusion of any additional ventilatiodrefrigeration provision within the proposed extensions then a noise impact assessment may be required. 3. REPRESENTATIONS 3.1 One letter of objection from Planning Consultant, Roger Tym & Partners on behalf of Somerfield Stores Ltd was received containing the following points: m There is not sufficient retail capacity within Airdrie catchment to sustain the proposal without perhaps having an adverse impact upon Airdrie Town Centre contrary to NPPG8 (Revised) and the current Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to the Technical Report on Retailing which states that beyond existing commitments there is no further strategic convenience retail requirement within Airdrie & Coatbridge. . The proposal is premature given that the Review of the emerging Airdrie & Coatbridge Local Plan is still at an early stage of preparation. A full retail impact assessment is required in accordance with the principles of NPPG8 (Revised). 4. ASSESSMENT 4.1 Whilst in terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site of the existing Safeway Store is zoned for Office, Business, Light Industry use or Football Stadium upgrading the current retail use enjoyed by the Store is a result of a successful planning appeal to the Secretary of State (Ref PIPPAi551256 - dated 23 March 1993). Any proposal therefore to extend the current usage of this site must therefore firstly be considered acceptable in terms of the Local Development Plan. 4.2 Having regard to the above, consideration of the proposal must subsequently be based on its acceptability in terms of design, materials, location and any other associated factors. Both the design and choice of sympathetic materials will ensure that the new build complements the existing main structure and the location of the extensions on both the north and western elevations will neither over- dominate the existing building nor result in any reduction in available customer/staff in site parking facilities around the building. 4.3 In respect of possible effects on the retail capacity of the Airdrie catchment cited by the objector the proposal accords with the provisions of Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 Policy RET 1A in that it is not considered to be of strategic significance (being less than 2,000 sq. metres which is the set threshold for assessing out of centre retail applications) and that based on the latest figures issued from the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Capacity Study the proposal would contribute to the existing deficit of &8 million in comparison expenditure in the catchment. Schedule 6 (c) (iii) of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan identifies a shortfall of 10,000 sq. metres of comparison floorspace in Airdrie and Coatbridge and the proposal can make a contribution towards meeting that deficit. 4.4 When considered against the criteria listed in Paragraph 45 of NPPG(8) (Revised) the proposal is seen as satisfying the stringent requirements including satisfying the sequential approach, according with the Development Plan in support of Town Centre, providing an increased choice and contributing to the take up of the shortfall in comparison expenditure in the catchment. The proposal is therefore in line with the provisions of NPPG8 (Revised) and as such does not require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment as requested by the objector to which there is no automatic requirement for being less than 2,500 sq. metres in floorspace. In view of the recent predicting for floorspace requirements in the comparison sector, it is not a premature proposal in advance of the Local Plan review. 4.5 In terms of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Finalised First Alterations the proposal meets the objections of the Alterations in “directing retail development of >1,000 sq. metres to either within or adjacent to the town centre of Airdrie and Coatbridge. 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Having regard to the acceptability of the existing use of the premises in terms of the then Secretary of State’s appeal decision, taking into account the high standard of design proposed to ensure that the extension compliments the existing Store and having assessed no adverse effects on traffic safety or retail policy then I consider the proposal acceptable and recommend that planning permission is granted subject to the attached conditions. Application No. C/O 1/O 11 89IAMD Date registered 14 September 2001 APPLICANT SAFEWAY STORES PLC, 21 MELFORD ROAD, RIGHEAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BELLSHILL, ML4 3LR Agent Montagu Evans, 37 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7JF DEVELOPMENT NON-COMPLIANCE OF PLANNING CONDITION 12 OF PLANNING PERMISSION PIpPAISSI256 LOCATION SAFEWAY STORES PLC GARTLEA ROAD AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE ML6 9 JL Ward No. 43 Grid Reference 276350 665323 File Reference CIPLIAIG2 100 158000/IJ/KH Site History Consent granted on appeal (Ref PlPPAISSI256) for the erection of a supermarket petrol filling station, service yard, customer and staff parking (dated 23 March 1993). Planning consent granted 3 1 January 1994 for the erection of a supermarket, petrol station and car parks (Ref; C/93/338 - Reserved Matters) Consent granted 15 February 1994 for extension to service hours from between 0800 - 1800 to 0700 - 1800. Consent granted 18 March 1998 for extension of service area (Ref C/97/525) Consent granted 28 May 1998 for a car park extension (Ref C/98/00419/FUL) Development Plan In terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the site is covered by: ECON7 Offce/Business Use/Light Industry LR5 Upgrade Football Stadium Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response Newspaper Advertisement Not Required COMMENTS The applicant is seeking consent for the amendment to a Planning Condition imposed on the granting of Planning Permission on appeal for the erection of a Supermarket, Petrol Filling Station, Service Yard, Customer/Staff Parking on the former site of the Airdrieonians Football Club, Gartlea Road, Airdrie (Ref P/PPA/SS/256 - decision letter dated 23 March 1993). Condition 12 of the subsequent reserved matters planning consent notice (Ref: 93/338) stipulated that “the main building shall be utilised as a foodstore and for ancillary purposes, and for no other purposes (including any use in Class 1 of the Schedule of the Town and Departmentof Plmnirg and Environment PLANNING APPLICATION NO: C/01101189/AMD Directorate Supprt Ulit p NORTH - Sute 501, Fleming House NON-COMPLIANCE OF PLANNING CONDITION 12 I 2 LANARKSHIRE 2Tlyst Road OF PLANNING PERMISSION P/PPNSS/256 ::i. COLNClL CUMBERNAULD SAFEWAY STORES PLC G67 1 J W Fapcdrral homlh Rdnma Suwsymgpw wlh AT GARTLEA ROAD, AlRDRlE ~~prmiiamd~CmPdlro(hrMai~c/~mscm crWn-,bt Telephone a236 616210 Fax. 01235 616232 This mpy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Cmtrd purposes only UlEuthonrdrqmdusPon 8d~ wesCraun scwrighf md may lerdto pm-Son c, CIV I PDC& w OS Licence LA cB041L No further copes may be made Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1989 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instruction revoking an re-enacting that Order.” The applicant considers that condition as over restrictive in terms of the goods permitted for sale within the premises (i.e convenience goods only) and is seeking approval for an expansion to the range of goods to include comparison (Classl) types. In considering the appropriateness or otherwise of the relevant Planning Condition (no.12) it is relevant to note that at the time of the granting of that Planning Permission (on appeal) in 1993 it was deemed appropriate to protect the commercial viability of the existing Town Centre comparison type goods outlets from this significant new retail development (Safeway) through the imposition of a restrictive condition which prohibited the sale of non-food type goods from the premises. Current practice is such that control over developments of large retail outlets such as of Safeway are now less restrictive in terms of their permitted usage as seen locally with both Asda and Tesco (Coatbridge) where the sale of both convenience and comparison goods are allowed. This current practice is reflected in NPPG8 (Town Centres and Retailing - Revised 1998) which seeks as a Policy objective to “maintain an efficient, comparative and innovative retail sector offering consumer choice” It is also important to note that since the construction of the Safeway Store a large Retail Park incorporating non food (comparison type) retail units and a fast food outlet has been constructed on land approx 200 metres to the south west of the Safeway site (or Hogg Street). The Retail Impact Study submitted with that proposal demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that there would be no adverse impacts upon the existing adjoining town centre (Airdrie) by the introduction of that development. It is also relevant to note that a separate planning application (Ref C/01/01186/FUL) will be considered at this same Committee for the “erection of a side extension 1,0812 sq. metres of additional floorspace” at the Safeway Store. It is the recommendation of the department that the application should be approved subject to conditions including compliance of use with the amendment sought as part of this application. Having regard to the above I consider that the existing condition (no.12) is over- restrictive and out of keeping with current practice. In addition a less restrictive condition allowing both the sale of convenience and comparison goods would not adversely impact on the viability of the Town Centre. I therefore conclude that the application is acceptable subject to the replacement condition noted below.. RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following replacement condition:- 1. That the permission hereby granted shall relate to the use of the main building solely for the sale of both convenience and comparison goods, but neither exclusively, and for ancillary purposes, and for no other purpose (including any use in Class 1 of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1989. Reason: To define the permission. List of Background Papers - Application forms and accompanying plans received on - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. - NPPG8: Town Centres and Retailing Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812382 and ask for Ian Johnston. Application No. C/O 110 1199iFUL Date registered 13 September 2001 APPLICANT MR & MRS D MC DONALD, 28 INVERVALE AVENUE, AIRDRIE, ML6 8NH Agent D & S Winning Property Consultants, 25 Monks Road, Airdrie, ML6 9QW DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF 2 STOREY REAR EXTENSION LOCATION 28 INVERVALE AVENUE AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE ML6 8NH Ward No. 52 Grid Reference 279018 664842 File Reference C/PLIAII4700280000lGQlKH Site History Development Plan Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 199 1: Policy HG9 (Policy for Residential Areas) Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One Newspaper Advertisement Not required COMMENTS The applicant proposes to erect a 2-storey rear extension to the dwellinghouse at 2 Invervale Avenue. The applicant proposes that this extension would accommodate sitting room, dining room and kitchen on the ground floor and 2 bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper floor. The footprint of the extension would measure 8% metres by 5% metres approx, and materials proposed would be to match the existing dwellinghouse i.e concrete interlocking roof tiles, dry dash roughcast, and facing brick corner details and base course. In the latter connection the applicant has agreed to delete the north facing window proposed for the sitting room. Following the normal neighbour notification process, one objection was received from Mr James G Hillen, the resident of the neighbouring house at 30 Invervale Avenue, Airdrie. The objection expressed is on the grounds that the proposal would: be excessive in scale, overshadow the objector’s dwellinghouse and cause privacy infringement. In assessing the proposals, it is considered that the extension is acceptable in terms of scale, design and materials. Whilst relatively large in scale it is considered that the plot is of sufficient scale to “absorb” the new development without causing any serious adverse amenity effects in relation to daylight, privacy or residual garden ground. Furthermore, in the proposals’ favour, the dwellinghouse sits at a reasonable distance from the adjacent property at 30 Invervale Avenue, and is abutted to the rear and side by open space amenity ground. 'reduced by kpartment of Plamrg and Environment PLANNING APPLICATION C/01/01199/FUL >rectorateSupport Unt ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION jute 501, Fleming House 'Tryst Road TO DWELLINGHOUSE XMBERNAULD AT 28 INVERVALE AVENUE, AlRDRlE :e7 1 IW Jc LOCATION OF OBJECTOR Mephone 01236 616210 Fax. 01236 616232 This copy has been produced specifically for Planning and Building Control purpmes only. IS Licence LA cB041L No further coDies mav be made On the forgoing basis, it is considered that notwithstanding the objection expressed, the extension proposed is acceptable from a planning viewpoint. RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwellinghouse Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the residential area 3. That, in accordance with the amended drawings, the ground floor side facing sitting room window shall be deleted from the proposals Reason: As these amended drawings represent the approved development List of Background Papers - Application form and accompanying plans - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Letter of objection from Mr James G Hillen, 30 Invervale Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 8N8 Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 812381 and ask for Gerard Quinn. C:\TEMP\RO 10 1199.doc Application No. C/O 1/O 123 2IFUL Date registered 18th September 2001 APPLICANT HUTCHISON 3G UK LTD. C/O 226 WEST GEORGE STREET, GLASGOW, G2 2LN Agent James Ban Consultants Ltd. 226 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 2LN DEVELOPMENT INSTALLATION OF 15M HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAST AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINET LOCATION LAND ADJACENT TO UNIT 6 CHAPELHALL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CHAPELHALL AIRDRIE LANARKSHIRE ML6 8QH Ward No. 51 Grid Reference 277941 663403 File Reference CIPLICHS728IDBIKH Site History No previous applications Development Plan The site is zoned ECON2 Existing General Industrial Area in the Monklands District Local Plan Contrary to No Development Plan CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One Newspaper Not Required Advertisement COMMENTS This application relates to the erection of a 15m high monopole telecommunications mast and associated equipment on land adjacent to Unit 6 Chapelhall Industrial Estate. The site is zoned ECON2 Existing General Industrial Area, and the proposal assessed against policy TELl Telecommunications Developments in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. One letter of objection was received following normal notification procedures, details of which are outlined in the attached report. The site was chosen as there is partial screening by existing planting and for its position on the edge of an industrial estate. The monopole design has been chosen to reduce the visual impact of the development. There are two similar monopoles within the industrial estate but these masts cannot be shared due to their design. There are no suitable buildings within the estate on which to mount the equipment. I consider that the proposal meets the criteria set out in policy TEL1. The applicant has submitted confirmation that all the equipment will be designed and operated within the ICNIRP levels as required under current planning guidance. As such the development will provide additional telecommunications coverage without significant visual impact on the adjoining properties or street scene. Accordingly, I recommend that planning permission should be granted. C:UEMP\ROI 01232.doc +oblcea ~y PLANNING APPLICATION C/01/01232/FUL leprtment d Rannng and Eruironment .*.+* NORTH Iredorate SUDDO~~Unit INSTALLATION 15M HIGH TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTANC OF '- LANARKSHIRE ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINET (MAST SITE) LAND A ,...'.I e: .L CY,VCIL ADJACENT TO UNIT6 CHAPELHALL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE .. CHAPELHALL Rpiodusd tom Iheadnan- Eurveymapphg wh ha prmlaion of ha OnlrolbrofherMwatyII rekphone 01236616210 Fax. 01236616232 * Location of Objectcr Samnery M1Se OCrownsopybhl been 1:1250 Lhsuthoisd cprcduc*in 8niInges Crowncopyghl mls copy has prcducedspeciflcalyfw Plamingand Building Contrd purpses only. md may led b pli(lwuDn or SNII pmaadmgs X Licence LA 09041L Nofurther copes may bernade RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on the external walls and roof of the equipment enclosure shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects. List of Background Papers - Application forms and accompanying plans received on 18th September 2001 - Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 - Letter of objection from Fox Construction, CiO Holmes Mackillop Solicitors, 109 Douglas Street, Blythswood Square, Glasgow, G2 4HB received on 1 October 2001 - Consultation response from Traffic and Transportation received on 25 October 2001 - Planning Advice Note No. 62 National Planning Policy Guidance 19 Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Coatbridge 81272 and ask for Mr Baxter C:\TEMP\RO 101232.doc APPLICATION NO. C/01/01232/FUL REPORT 1. SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 This application relates to the erection of a 15m high monopole telecommunications mast and associated equipment on land adjacent to Unit 6 Chapelhall Industrial Estate. The mast would be located within a landscaped area to the front of the industrial estate. 1.2 The site is zoned ECON2 Existing General Industrial Area, and should be assessed against policy TELl Telecommunications Developments in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. 2. CONSULTATION & REPRESENTATION 2.1 Following consultation with the Transportation Section no objections were received. 2.2 One letter of objection was received from the occupier of a unit on the other side of the road. The grounds for objection are: a) The land is not in the applicants ownership; and b) The proposed mast due to its appearance and location would result in overshadowing, impose upon the outlook from the building and potentially result in harm should any part of the structure fall. 3. ASSESSMENT 3.1 The adopted local plan for the area within which this site is located is the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The application site is located within an area zoned ECON2 Existing General Industrial Areas. Policy TELl Telecommunications Developments, which was adopted before the recent guidance from the Scottish Executive was issued, sets out the criteria for assessing all telecommunications developments. It indicates that applications will be considered with regard to national policy, against the following criteria: (a) economic benefit; (b) specific locational need; and (c) environmental impact. 3.2 Recently the Scottish Executive has published a new NPPG (National Planning Policy Guidelines) and PAN (Planning Advice Note) on Radio Telecommunications, which is of particular relevance to this application. The Scottish Executive’s policy is to enable the telecommunications industry to expand so that Scotland is served by the best radio telecommunications infrastructure. The expansion must however be undertaken in a manner that keeps the environmental impact of telecommunications equipment to a minimum. It goes on to say that Planning Authorities should not, however, question whether the service to be provided is needed nor seek to prevent competition between operators, but must determine applications on planning grounds. 3.3 Planning applications involving antennas must be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation is designed to be in full compliance with the appropriate ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure to radio frequency radiation. This was submitted with the application and demonstrates that the known health effects have been properly addressed. 3.4 In assessing this proposal the above policies and guidance have to be considered. In this instance the mast has been designed to reduce its visual impact and the proposed location is intended to make use of the mature trees and scrubs to partially screen it from road users on Carlisle Road. There are two similar monopoles within the industrial estate but these masts cannot be shared due to their design. None of the buildings within the estate are suitable on which to mount the equipment due to the roof pitches. 3.5 The letter of objection raises concern at the visual impact of the proposal and its potential for overshadowing, overbearing appearance and potential hazard from its collapse or items falling from it. In terms of visual impact the mast has been designed in such a manner to reduce such complaint and is only 70cm wide at the base tapering towards the top. The mast head is 1.2m in diameter and I do not C:\TEMP\RO 10 1232.doc consider that it will result in any significant loss of visual amenity. The equipment cabinet is to be encased in a small brick structure to reduce the visual clutter. 3.6 With respect to the potential hazard from material falling from the mast or its collapse in severe weather it is my understanding that the mast is constructed to withstand a reasonalble degree of direct impact as such should be secure to adverse weather conditions. The mast is also sited 16 metres away from the building and should it collapse would fall short of the objector’s property. 3.7 The objector also states that the land is not in the applicant’s ownership. This is not a material consideration as anyone can apply for a site prior to its purchase. The implementation of the proposal would not be possible should the applicant fail to agree terms with the owner. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 I consider that the proposal meets the criteria set out in policy TELl and current guidance. The applicant has submitted confirmation that all the equipment will be designed and operated within the ICNIRP levels as required under current planning guidance. As such the development will provide additional telecommunications coverage without significant visual impact on the adjoining properties or street scene, and therefore I recommend that planning permission be granted. C:\TEMP\RO 10 1232.doc Application No. S/O1/00662/HSC Date registered 29 May 200 1 APPLICANT TRANSCO PLC, 130 JERMYN STREET, LONDON SW14HR Agent Transco Plc, Brockham House, Dorking Business Park, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1HJ DEVELOPMENT CONTINUATION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSENT LOCATION WISHAW HOLDER STATION, NETHERTON STREET, WISHAW ML2 OEF Ward No. 6 Grid Reference 278539 654657 File Reference S/PL/B/11/4(75)/WLS/AH Site History Long established gasholder ‘Deemed Consent’ Under Hazardous Substances Regulations agreed in 1993 Development Plan Statutory Undertaker (Gas) (Burgh of Motherwell & Wishaw Dev Plan) Established Utility (Fiiialised Draft Southern Area Local Plan Modified 200 1) Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Transco, West of Scotland Water, SEPA Conditions No Reply Wishaw Coininunity Council, Scottish Power, Fire Brigade, HSE REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response Newspaper Advertisement No Response COMMENTS This application is for the continuation of a Hazardous Substances Consent for the existing gas-holder site at Netherton Street, Wishaw. Under legislation introduced in 1993, the storage of ‘hazardous substances’ in certain quantities requires a Hazardous Substances Consent, issued by the Planning Authority. As an established facility at that time, the Netherton Street gasholder benefited from a ‘deemed consent’ procedure, which removed the need for a full application. However, because Transco intend to transfer a sinal1 part of the site to a separate company for telecommunications purposes, that area of land is no longer subject to hazardous substances consent and they are required to apply for a continuation of the Hazardous Substances Consent for the remainder of the site. None of the bodies consulted offered any objections, and there were no representations received following the neighbour notification and press Works LANARKSHIRE Departmen1produced by OIPlannlnp and Envlronmenl Planning Application No. S/01/00662/HSC Southern Olvliion 303 8raodon Street Continuation of Planning Hazardous Substance Consent MOTHERWELL MLl 1RS Wishaw Gas Holder Station RePiodUEBd fmm me Ordnmc8 S~~~ymappIMWlth A me Peiml5110n of the COntmllerof herMsea,t Telephone 01698 302100 FBX Ot698302101 Netherton Street, Wishaw 1: 1250 ~~~~~~~~~~D~~~~~~~~~:b,,,,,,ht and may lead I0 pIo~ecY11onor c1v11proceedmgs os Licence LA OQMiL advertisement of the application. It should be noted that the Health and Safety Executive did not reply. Other than the removal of a small portion of the site, there are no changes to the operational circumstances. It is therefore recommended that consent be granted. RECOMMENDATION Grant subject to the condition that the storage of 42 tonnes of Natural Gas hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant conditions applied to Deemed Consent No. DC/4/93, which are appended to this consent. Reason: To accord with the requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. List of Background Papers Application form and plans Burgh of Motherwell & Wishaw Development Plan Finalised Draft Southern Area Local Plan (Modified 2001) Letter dated 18/6/0 1 from Transco Letter dated 26/6/01 from West of Scotland Water Letter dated 29/6/0 1 from SEPA Letter dated 20/6/01 from Health and Safety Executive Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 302088 and ask for Les Stevenson. Application No. Si0 110 1072lFUL Date registered 3 September 2001 APPLICANT MR IAN J CLOSE, 7 LITTLEJOHN GARDENS, NEWMAINS ML2 9BP Agent DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF USE FROM BUILDERS YARD TO FUNERAL PARLOUR LOCATION 129 HOLYTOWN ROAD, MOSSEND, BELLSHILL Ward No. 28 Grid Reference 275666660451 File Reference S/PL/B/S /7 5/JL/AH Site History Planning consent was granted on 4/9/85 for change of use of radiator engineering shop to builders and builders merchants (ref. 208185) Planning consent was granted on 19/1/99 for change of use from builder’s merchants to car sales showroom (ref. no. S/98/0 1348/FUL) This consent, however, was never implemented. Development Plan Established Industrial and Business on NLC Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft - (Modified June 2001) Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response Newspaper Advertisement Not Required COMMENTS The applicant seeks consent for the change of use from builder’s yard to funeral parlour at 129 Holytown Road, Mossend, Bellshill. He intends converting the existing building to facilitate the operation of a funeral parlour, including a chapel of rest, preparation area, sitting area, vehicle area and store. The enclosed yard area will be utilised for customer parking and manouevring of vehicles associated with the business. Whilst there is no land use issues of principle concerning this change of use, the main concern is that of customer parking. There would appear to be no scope for achieving anywhere near the level of car parking that would be required for the proposed use. The yard being just over 10 metres in width is not wide enough to form parking bays of 5 metres in length whilst retaining a 6 metre aisle width for manoeuvring purposes. Based on the parking principle of one car for every two seats within the chapel area, 25 car parking spaces would be required. The site can not I ,- accommodate this number of cars without spilling out onto the public highway and, given the location of the premises, on-street parking at this location would have severe implications for other road users and the traffic network in general. Based on the fact that the site has very limited parking, I hereby recommend that planning consent is refused. RECOMMENDATION Refuse on the following grounds that the proposed use is likely, due to the limited extent of parking facilities that can be made available, to result in both on street parking and reversing manoeuvres onto Holytown Road all to the detriment of road safety. List of Background Papers Application form and plans dated 31910 1 NLC Southern Area Local Plan - Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 302 142 and ask for Mr Lemon. Application No. S/O 1/O 1077iFUL Date registered 10'" September 200 1 APPLICANT ORANGE PCS LIMITED, UNIT 2 MASTERTON WAY, TANNOCHSIDE BUSINESS PARK, UDDINGSTON Agent Kingfisher Estates Limited, 350A Lanark Road West, Currie, Edinburgh, EH14 5RR DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF 15 METRE HIGH LATTICE MAST WITH 4 MICROWAVE DISHES, 6 ANTENNAE AND ASSOCIATED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT LOCATION CENTRELINK 5, CALDERHEAD ROAD, SHOTTS Ward No. 18 Grid Reference 286383 660915 File Reference S/PL/B/17/43( 1 12)/DA/JF Site History A different applicant received planning permission on appeal for the erection of a 22.5 metre high mast adjacent to this site on 4t'1April 2001 Development Plan Shotts Local Plan - Existing Industrial Area Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft - Policy Ind 8 (Established Industrial and Business Area) - Policy CS6 (Telecommunications Development) Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response Newspaper Advertisement Not Required COMMENTS The applicant seeks planning permission to erect a 15 metre high lattice mast to support associated telecommunications equipment including 4 microwave dishes and 6 antennae. There would also be equipment cabins and fencing. The site is located adjacent to a car park associated with the former Cummings factory. The site is isolated from residential development is in the type of location supported by the appropriate policies of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted. Coininittee may wish to note that planning permission was granted, on appeal in April 2001 for a 22.5 metre high telecommunications mast on a site adjacent to the current application. At the time of visiting the site, the mast had not been erected. RECOMMENDATION Grant subject to the following conditions;- 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. List of Background Papers Application form and plans, received on 10/09/0 1 Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines, dated 07/08/0 1 Shotts Local Plan Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft, Modified June 200 1 Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 302090 and ask for Mr Ashman. Application No. S/O 1/O 1134/FUL Date registered 11 September 200 1 APPLICANT MARION DYET, 1 AUCHTER ROAD, WISHAW ML2 8PJ Agent DEVELOPMENT CHANGE OF USE TO SANDWICH BAR/HOT FOOD TAKE AWAY LOCATION 1 HILLCREST AVENUE, WISHAW Ward No. 6 Grid Reference 278137655359 File Reference S/PL/B/11/14( 1OO)/WLS/AH Site History March 1983 - planning permission refused for erection of fish restaurant and store September 1983 - planning permission refused for erection of hairdressing salon and store August 1993 - planning permission granted for extension to shop February 1994 - planning permission refused for extension to shop to form hot food shop January 1996 - planning permission refused for extension to shop to form Hot Food Shop and Erection of Flue August 1996 - planning permission refused for extension to shop to form Hot Food Shop December 1996 - planning permission granted for erection of Hair Salon February 2000 - planning permission granted for alterations to a previously approved extension (although initially the application involved a hot food take away) Development Plan Residential (Burgh of Motherwell & Wishaw Development Plan) Established Housing Area (Finalised Draft Southern Area Local Plan) Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS 0bj ection No Objection Police Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours One petition, containing 27 names, Councillor Lunny Newspaper Advertisement No Response COMMENTS This application seeks to get permission to allow an existing sandwich bar to sell hot food. There is an extensive planning history surrounding this site, much of it involving hot food take away proposals. A petition with 27 names was submitted in opposition to the proposal. I ain of the opinion that the site is inappropriate for hot food use, because of its location close to houses and near a busy junction. I therefore recommend that permission be refused. Further details are contained in the accompanying report. RECOMMENDATION Refuse, on the following grounds:- 1. That tlie proposed hot-food take away would adversely affect the character and amenity of the locality in that it would lead to increased noise and litter problems for adjoining residents, to the detriment of the residential amenity of tlie area. 2. That the proposed hot-food take away, by reason of its location at a busy road junction could result in congestion at Hillcrest Avenue/Glasgow Road. List of Background Papers Application form and plans Letter dated 28 September 2001 from M Dyet Burgh of Motherwell & Wisliaw Development Plan Finalised Draft Southern Area Local Plan (Modified June 2001) Letter dated 6 October 200 1 from Strathclyde Police Memo dated 19 October 2001 from Transportation Team Manager Letter (undated) from Mrs R M Graliam, with petition Letter dated 26'" October 2001 from Councillor Lunny Any person wishing to inspect tlie above background papers should telephone Motherwell 3 02088 and ask for Les Stevenson. APPLICATION NO. S/O 1/O 1134/FUL REPORT 1. PROPOSAL AND SITE 1.1 This application seeks permission for the use of an existing Sandwich Bar as a Sandwich Bar and Hot Food Take Away at 1 Hillcrest Avenue, Craigneuk, Wishaw. The premises are attached to a small Licensed Grocer’s Shop, located at the corner of Hillcrest Avenue and Glasgow Road; there are residential properties adjacent to the site and on the other side of Hillcrest Avenue. Glasgow Road is the main distributor road between Motherwell and W i shaw . 1.2 The proposal involves no physical changes, as there is currently a flue on the building. The applicants have indicated that the premises would operate 7 days per week from 7 am until 4 pin, and two people would be employed. 2. PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 There is an extensive planning history relating to the premises, including previous proposals for hot food uses. In summary, the background history includes:- May 1983 - permission refused for fish restaurant and store, on road safety and amenity grounds November 1983 - permission refused for hairdressing salon and store, on road safety and amenity grounds August 1993 - permission granted for extension to shop February 1994 - permission refused for extension to shop to form hot food shop, on the grounds of insufficient off-street parking January 1996 - permission refused for extension to shop to form hot food shop, on amenity grounds August 1996 - permission refused for extension to shop to form hot food shop, an amenity and public safety grounds December 1996 - permission granted for erection of hair salon March 2000 - permission granted for alterations to the previously approved extension (note - the application originally sought permission for the formation of a hot food take away, but that aspect was withdrawn). 2.2 The current use of the premises, as a sandwich bar, did not need a change of use consent because that type of activity falls within Class 1 (Retail) of the Use Classes Order, as does a hairdressers. 3. CONSULTATIONS AND OBJECTIONS RECEIVED 3.1 Strathclyde Police had no objections to the proposal. 3.2 A letter, with a petition of 27 names of local residents, was received, noting that the sandwich bar has resulted in more litter and on-street parking (blocking driveways and the bus stop), and that this would worsen if a hot food use was permitted. Councillor Lunny, as local Member, has indicated his support for his constituents who are objecting to the application. 4. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Finalised Draft Southern Area Local Plan contains policies relevant to this type of proposal. Policy HSG 8, ‘Established Housing Areas’, seeks to protect the established character of residential areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects amenity. 4.2 Policy RTL 11, ‘Assessing Applications for bad Neighbour Development’, sets out criteria to be used in assessing uses such as liot food takeaways. These criteria include “the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of adjoining properties and the surrounding environment”, and “the provisions made for . . . . parking, and tlie proposal’s impact on pedestrian safety aiid traffic circulation”. 4.3 Although the shop is located on a busy distributor road, the surrounding properties on that side of the road are all residential. It is therefore important to consider the various impacts which might affect tlie nearby houses, aiid thus the conceriis of the neighbouring residents regarding litter and disturbance are a material consideration. 5. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The proposal involved in this planning application is one which, in one form or another, has been presented to and rejected by tlie Council on four separate occasions over an 18 year period. It should be noted that the police had no objections, and that the Transportation Team Manager did not recommend refusal; it should also be noted that the applicant has stated her intention to operate only from 7 am until 4 pm. 5.2 However, tlie premises are immediately adjacent to housing, aiid issues of litter and disturbance are common features with regard to liot food takeaways; although this application states a closing time of 4 pin, a subsequent operator may wish to open later, aiid the principle of the use would, by then, have been accepted. 5.3 Parking spaces were provided adjacent to the shop as part of a previous permission, but their use is impeded by an existing lighting column which the Transportation Team Manager has suggested be relocated; this was previously required by a condition on the most recent permission, but has not been done. I therefore have strong doubts about the effectiveness of such a condition and, consequently, about the suitability of the car parking. 5.4 111 such circumstances therefore, given the proximity of housing and the premises’ location at a busy junction, I consider that the issues of residential amenity and road safety would merit rejection of the proposal. I therefore recommend that permission be refused. Application No. S/O 1/0 1 176/FUL Date registered 17 September 200 1 APPLICANT GILCHRIST & LYNN, HALLCRAIG HOUSE, HALLCRAIG STREET, AIRDRIE, ML6 6AW Agent DTA, 4 Stuart Street, Tlie Village, East Kilbride, G74 4NG DEVELOPMENT ERECTION OF 40 DWELLINGS FOR SOCIAL HOUSING LOCATION LAND NORTH WEST OF 228-240 LIBERTY ROAD, BELLSHILL Ward No. 24 Grid Reference 273 186 659768 File Reference S/PL/B/7/37(96)/JL/AH Site History None Development Plan Residential aiid Protected Open Space on NLC Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) Contrary to Development Plan Yes CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection The Coal Authority, West of Scotland Water Conditions No Reply REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours No Response Newspaper Advertisement No Response COMMENTS The applicants seek plaiining consent for the erection of 40 dwellings for social housing at land north west of 228-240 Liberty Road, Bellsliill. The land was in Couiicil ownership until fairly recently, when it was disposed of to tlie applicants. Tlie site, at present, is an open grassed area, incorporating a dilapidated children's play area aiid has a footpath traversing it froin north to south. No representations have been received from notified properties aiid no objections were received either as a result of the consultation process or from the advertisement in tlie local press. Whilst part of the site is allocated as protected open space and part residential, I am of the view that the site is suitable for housing and accordingly, hereby recommend that consent is granted. Further details may be found in the accompanying report. RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following conditions:- 1. That tlie development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission y.i@ '*f NOEL..-..- Produced BY wepanmen$ aiann8ng anc ~n~nmeni Planning Application No. S/01/01176/FUL LANARKSHIRE SOulneT Wlulslfin COUNCIL MOTHERWELL303 BrEPdon Street Erection of 40 Dwellings for Social Housing .-._...: MLI iRS Reproduced from the OidrsnCe Sunieymdppmg mth Land North West of 228-240 Liberty Road, Bellshill the Pe'mliilon Of the COntloller 01 her Maiestyi Telephone 01598 302100 Far 0'598 302101 A 12500 StBliOnery OIl8CB ecrown caprpnt UnaulnOnisd repiOdYcllon mlringei Cmwn Copyright OS kence LA 3904iL ena mylead10 PTOW~IO~~or :Ivi~ prOCBealngi Reason: To accord with tlie provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences aiid walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 3. That before any of tlie dwellinghouses hereby permitted, situated on a site upon which a fence or wall is to be erected, are occupied, tlie fence, or wall, as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected. Reason: To ensure adequate boundary treatment. 4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) details of the phasing of these works. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 6. That within one year of the occupation of the last dwellinghouses within the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed; aiid any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate landscaping. 7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme for the landscaping and play area, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include proposals for the continued care, maintenance aiid protection of same. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 8. That before completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and maintenance schemed approved under the terms of condition 7 shall be in operation. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate maintenance regime. 9. That no dwellinghouse shall be occupied until the access roads and footways leading thereto from the existing public road have been constructed to base course level. Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings. 10. That before the last of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all roads and footways shall be completed to final wearing course. Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities. 11. That prior to any of the houses hereby permitted being occupied, the new vehicular access shall be constructed with 10.5 metre radius kerbs and a 5.5 metre wide road. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 12. That a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 90 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and before the development hereby permitted is completed, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate sightlines on Liberty Road. 13. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme for the provision of a play area within the site, hatched BLUE on the approved plans, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and this shall include:- (a) details of the type and location of play equipment, seating and litter bins to be situated within the play area; (b) details of the surface treatment of the play area, including the location and type of safety surface to be installed; (c) details of the fences to be erected around the play area, and (d) details of the phasing of these works. Reason: In the interest of the amenities of nearby residents. 14. That before occupation of the last dwellinghouses within the development hereby permitted, all the works required for the provision of equipped play area and, included in the scheme approved under the terms of condition 11 above, shall be completed. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate play facilities within the site. 15. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a report describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the PIanning 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 List of Background Papers Application form and plans dated 17/9/0 1 NLC Southern Area Local Plan - Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) Letter dated 2/10/0 1 from The Coal Authority Letter dated 10/10/01 from West of Scotland Water Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 302 142 and ask for Mr Lemon. APPLICATION NO. S/O 1/0 1 176/FUL REPORT 1. SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 The application relates to the construction of 40 dwellings for social housing at land north west of 228-240 Liberty Road, Bellsliill. 1.2 The application site is a grassland area which was recently disposed of by North Lanarkshire Council to the applicant. It is allocated partly for residential purposes and partly as protected open space in tlie Local Plan and it extends to some 3.63 acres. The site is bounded by residential properties on it’s northern and eastern boundaries, Orbiston Public Park to the south and a Day Centre and Bowling Club to the west. 1.3 There were pre-application discussions with tlie applicant when the site was being marketed by the Council and the current application is generally in accordance with these discussions. 1.4 Due to the existence of tlie public footpath within the site, if tlie Council are of a mind to grant planning permission for this development, then a footpath closure order shall be required to close off said path. 1.5 Tlie Iiouses proposed are two storey and range from 1 bed flats to 2 bed/4 person semi-detached houses. There are also 2 semi-detached wheelchair units proposed. Tlie site meets the Council’s general criteria for open space around new dwellings along with current highway requirements. 2. REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS 2.1 No letters of representation were received, either as a result of the neighbour notification procedure or through advertisement in the local press. 2.2 Neither The Coal Authority nor West of Scotland Water have any objections to the proposals, subject to conditions. 3. OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 3.1 Part of the site has been earmarked for residential development purposes for a number of years and, with the inclusion of some Council owned land, it makes for a better, more productive scheme which will benefit the area in terms of the ‘social’ housing that is proposed. Tlie loss of tlie well used path is unfortunate, however, there are other suitable paths in close proximity that walkers will be able to use without too much inconvenience should consent be granted and a footpath closure order confirmed. 3.2 The proposals are acceptable in design terms and meet the Council’s open space standards, as well as the highway’s parking requirements, I therefore hereby recommend that planning consent is granted, subject to conditions. Application No. SI0 1I0 1280lFUL Date registered 25 September 2001 APPLICANT GEHE UK PLC, SAPPHIRE COURT, WALSGRAVE TRIANGLE, COVENTRY, CV2 2TX Agent Wheeler & Sproson, 1 18 Hanover Street, Edinburgh, EH2 1DR DEVELOPMENT NEW GROUP PRACTICE SURGERY AND PHARMACY LOCATION LAND SOUTH WEST OF JUNCTION OF POLLOCK STREET WITH MAIN STREET, BELLSHILL Ward No. 26 Grid Reference 274075 660277 File Reference S/PL/B/7/52( 9 3)lJDlAH Site History Development Plan Bellshill & Mossend Local Plan - zoned as Sites at Mossend Reserved for Development Appropriate to their Main Street location. Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) - zoned as Opportunities for Community Facilities Contrary to Development Plan No CONSULTATIONS Objection No Objection Coal Authority, British Telecom Conditions West of Scotland Water, Transco No Reply Scottish Power REPRESENTATIONS Neighbours 3 letters of objection Newspaper Advertisement Not Required COMMENTS Detailed planning permission is sought for the erection of a new group practice surgery and pharmacy to replace the existing surgery located at 388 Main Street which no longer satisfies the floorspace requirements of the applicant. This application serves as the first phase of the implementation of the Mossend Development Strategy, given Committee approval on 10 May 2000. Three letters of objection have been received in opposition to this development. However, for the reasons contained in my accompanying report, I recommend that planning permission be granted. It should be noted that if planning permission is granted, a footpath closure and Right of Way Diversion Order will have to be promoted. Should the Committee be minded to approve the application, I will in association with the Head of Legal Services, take the appropriate measures to promote the necessary Order. RECOMMENDATION Grant, subject to the following conditions: - 1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, all the fences, or walls, as approved under the terms of condition 2 above, shall be erected. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 5. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) details of the phasing of these works. Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 6 That within one year of the occupation of the development hereby permitted, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 5 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area. 7. That before the development hereby permitted is occupied the roundabout shown on the approved plans shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 8. That before the development hereby permitted is completed, 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. List of Background Papers Application form and plans dated 25 September 2001 Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 200 1) Bellshill & Mossend Local Plan Letter dated 16 October 2001 from Transco Letter dated 17 October 2001 from The Coal Authority Letter dated 22 October 2001 from West of Scotland Water Letter dated 24 October 2001 from British Telecom Letter of objection dated 27 September 2001 from Mr & Mrs Furfey, 8 McCourt Gardens Letter of objection dated 1 October 2001 from Laura Verrecchia, 5 McCourt Gardens Letter of objection dated 3 October 2001 from Mr & Mrs G Roberts, 11 McCourt Gardens Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 302137 and ask for Joanne Delaney. APPLICATION NO. S/O 1/O 1280/FUL REPORT 1. SITE AND PROPOSAL 1.1 The application site is currently an area of landscaped open space prominently located on the corner of Main StreeUPollock Street, Mossend and is zoned as a site for community facilities, specifically a Medical Centre on the Southern Area Local Plan finalised Draft (Modified June 2001). 1.2 Owing to lack of accommodation at the existing surgery, the applicant proposes to construct a two-storey building measuring 824 sq. metres in total floor area, which will provide a pharmacy retail unit, surgery consultation rooms and ancillary facilities on the ground floor with staff accommodation on the upper floor. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the surgery will be taken from Greenmoss Place at the rear. The existing public footpath requires to be diverted, coupled with the formation of a new mini-roundabout to accommodate access and parking requirements of the development. 1.3 The application site had previously been designated as a suitable location for the construction of a doctor's surgery by the Mossend Development Strategy which was given Committee approval on 10 May 2000 and offers an opportunity to upgrade local health facilities within Mossend. 2. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 2.1 No objections were received from the Coal Authority and British Telecom, whilst no reply was received from Scottish Power. 2.2 West of Scotland Water and Transco have no objections in principle to the development, but advise that contact be made to ensure satisfactory servicing of the site. 2.3 Three letters of objection were received from residents of nearby McCourt Gardens. The concerns raised, along with my comments are detailed as follows:- (a) Loss of view/outlook. Comment: There are no legal entitlements to such and so cannot provide justification for refusal. (b) Reduction in Value of Residential Properties. Comment: The value of adjacent properties are not material planning considerations and therefore cannot be taken into account. (c) Increased Traffic. Comment: It is accepted that the development will generate traffic, however the Transportation and Traffic Team Leader is satisfied that sufficient parking has been provided within the site. In addition, the provision of a new mini-roundabout coupled with rear access arrangements to the surgery, will alleviate problems of traffic congestion currently experienced and off set the likelihood of vehicles parking on Main Street. (d) No Locational Need for the Surgery. The objector questions the need for another surgery and pharmacy given that the facilities exist within the locale. In addition the provision of a second pharmacy would detrimentally affect the viability of the nearby Mossend shopping centre, due to loss of passing trade. Comment: The new surgery would not duplicate the provision of this facility, but would serve as a replacement and upgrade of local health facilities within Mossend. Whilst a pharmacy exists within the shopping centre, the retail provision in Mossend has also been subject to assessment through the Mossend Development Strategy, with discussions ongoing for the possible relocation of the shops. In any case, the planning system cannot intervene in matters of commercial competition, as a means to justify refusal of the incorporation of the pharmacy as an ancillary use to the surgery. (e) The development would encourage a criminal element to this location. Comment: Matters relating to potential public order offences are not matters to be controlled through planning legislation, rather they are matters to be addressed by the appropriate enforcing authorities. 3. CONCLUSION 3.1 The proposed development accords with the development plan and the previously committee approved Mossend Development Strategy. Furthermore, local plan policy CS 1 ‘Provision of Community Facilities’ seeks to enhance the range and quality of community facilities by supporting public sector bodies and the private sector in the provision of community facilities. It is considered that the development affords the opportunity to upgrade health facilities within the central core of Mossend. I consider that the siting and design of the building are acceptable and will contribute to the regeneration of this area. 3.2 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.