East Dunbartonshire Council Proposed Local Development Plan

Main Issues Report - Additional Sites Consultation Report of Consultation Findings: November 2014

Contents

Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Summary of Additional Sites Responses Appendix 1 – Schedule 4s

Section 1: Introduction and land owners. The Council, in conjunction with key agencies, conducted site assessments of these sites using Following Committee approval on 27 August 2013 of the Main the same methodology as had been used in MIR Background 2 Issues Report, the Council embarked upon an 8 week Report 3 . consultation, commencing 9 September - 4 November 2013. Though the consultation closed on 4 November 2013 the Of these submitted sites, 25 were solely proposing housing, 2 Council continued to accept responses till 18 of November. A were proposing business uses and 1 was proposing a Report of Findings from this consultation was published in combination of both housing and business. Sites were May 2014 and can be found on the Council’s website1. proposed all across the Council area: 1 in Balmore, 1 in Bardowie, 2 in Bearden, 6 in Bishopbriggs, 4 in Kirkintilloch, 2 During this consultation 28 additional development sites were in Lennoxtown, 2 in Lenzie, 3 in Milngavie, 2 in Milton of submitted. At its meeting on 6 May 2014 the Local Campsie and 5 in Torrance. Development Plan Working Party agreed that these sites would be made available for public comment. This was to Section 2: Summary of Additional Sites ensure that the public and other interested parties could make Responses their views known on these suggestions by developers and land owners, prior to the Council publishing its Proposed Local Development Plan. A consultation was then carried out A total of 1112 responses were received in relation to this between 12 May 2014 and 20 June 2014. consultation. Of the contributions received 32 were in support of a site or sites; 1019 were objecting to a site or sites; and 29 Details of the consultation were placed on the Council were offering a comment which could not be deemed to be in website, advertised in the local press, promoted through the either support of or objecting to a site or sites. A number of LDP Newsletter and despatched to Community Councils. In respondents commented on more than one site. In addition addition hard copies were placed in the Hubs, local libraries, 32 offered comments on other matters including on the the Council headquarters and at the Planning office in consultation itself, requests for neighbour notification for site Broomhill. suggestions, that there should have been more publicity about the consultation. Finally, in addition to these figures, a late These sites were not being promoted by the Council as future development options but had been suggested by developers 2 1 http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/council_and_government/consultations, http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/planning__building_standards/planning/ _complaints_and/consultation_and_engagement/consultation_archive/2012___20 planning_policies/local_development_plan.aspx 13/main_issues_report.aspx

3 petition containing 25 signatures was received in relation to objections to the Glen Road site.

LDP COMMENTING OBJECTING SUPPORTING ISSUE LDP180 Douglaston Golf Course- Milngavie 4 151 2 LDP181 Blacklands Place- Lenzie 1 15 1 LDP183 Thomas Muir Ave/ Calliburn Rd- Bishopbriggs 0 2 0 LDP184 Balviebank/ Stockiemuir Rd- Milngavie 2 2 0 LDP185 Duntiblae Rd- Kirkintilloch (extension to LDP12 Fauldhead) 0 4 2 LDP186 Glassford House- Milngavie 2 82 1 LDP187 Glen Road- Lennoxtown/ Campsie Glen 0 366 0 LDP188 Hayhill/ Robinsfield- Bardowie 0 7 1 LDP189 Castlehill Farm- Bearsden 0 2 0 LDP190 Chryston Road/ Fauldhead South- Kirkintilloch 0 3 1 LDP191 Wardend Road, Torrance 1 2 1 LDP192 Mount of Glorat, Milton of Campsie 1 5 2 LDP193 Former Acre Valley Nursery- Torrance 0 0 3 LDP194 Old Balmore Rd/ Balmore Farm- Balmore 0 0 1 LDP195 Meadowbank Farm/ Kelvin View- Torrance 0 1 1 LDP196 Auchinairn Rd/ Crowhill Rd- Bishopbriggs 0 2 0 LDP197 Balcorrach Steading- Campsie Glen 0 11 1 LDP198 St Marys Road- Bishopbriggs 2 2 2 LDP200 Wester Gartshore Farm- Kirkintilloch 0 5 0 LDP201 Crosshill Road- Lenzie 2 253 1 LDP202 Campsie Road- Torrance 0 0 1 LDP203 Former Westerhill Rail Sidings – 1 1 1

Bishopbriggs LDP204 East of Ferrymill Motors - Torrance 1 0 2 LDP205 East of Alder Road- Milton of Campsie 1 93 2 LDP206 Westerhill- Bishopbriggs 4 2 1 LDP207 Boclair Farm- Bearsden 1 2 2 LDP208 Bankhead Rd- Kirkintilloch/ Waterside 1 10 2 LDP209 North East Westerhill - Bishopbriggs 0 1 1 MIR Preferred Option site 0 6 1 MIR Alternative Sites 0 4 2 MIR Less Sustainable Sites 2 8 1 Other new site suggestion 0 0 3 Comment consultation arrangements 2 0 0 Comment on other matters 2 0 0

Five sites attracted a particularly large numbers of objections  That building houses on this site would adversely affect and these are summarised below. both the historic and natural environment and landscape; LDP 180 Dougalston Golf Course and LDP 186 Glassford  That there are a lack of services in the local area; House, Milngavie  That there would be an unacceptable impact on land Objections to these two adjacent sites were raised on a range used locally for recreation; and of criteria, including:  That there are known flooding issues with the site.  The fact that the site is in the greenbelt and therefore not appropriate for development; LDP 187 Glen Road, Lennoxtown  That the site is not sustainably located and that there Objections to this site were based on: are public transport issues with accessing it;  The location of the site being within the greenbelt;  That the increase in private car use would cause  That there was no identified local housing need and unacceptable issues of congestion and that local roads demand; are not suited to that increase;  That it was likely to have seriously adverse effects on the landscape and setting  That it would adversely affect the natural environment;

 That there were would be an unacceptable increase in  That the site is part of an important wildlife corridor and traffic and parking issues; development would have an adverse impact on local  That the local infrastructure and services were wildlife and community woodland; inadequate to cope with a development of this scale;  That the local infrastructure, including school, shops and and doctor’s surgery would be unable to cope with  That the site had already been allocated for recreation development on this scale and that services including and community woodland, as set out in the section 75 water pressure, broadband and utilities were already agreement on the Lennox Castle Hospital housing struggling. development. LDP 201 Crosshill, Lenzie The site has since been withdrawn by MacTaggart and Mickel This site attracted objections based on: who stated that they “…do not intend to progress with the  The site presently being within the greenbelt, which promotion of housing land at Glen Road in Lennoxtown for the currently has a strong defensible boundary; duration of the current East Dunbartonshire Local Plan  The access to the site from Crosshill Road would likely Process. We are in discussion with a forestry operator in be hazardous due to a blind summit; order to deliver the community woodland at Hole Farm as  The site being elevated and thus detracting from the required by the s75 agreement for the adjacent Lennox Castle landscape and setting of the Gadloch; Hospital housing development.”  The impact on the natural environment, particularly on the Lenzie Moss Local nature Reserve and wildlife LDP 205 East of Alder Road, Milton of Campsie corridor; Objections were raised in relation to  The Council’s commitment to building on brownfield  There being a lack of housing need and the suitability rather than greenbelt sites; of the types of housing proposed;  The density of housing proposed being excessive and  That there were issues with both, location and access that it included insufficient affordable houses; to the site with poor public transport links;  The lack of capacity of local infrastructure and services,  The site being located within the greenbelt and that including both school and sewerage. development would weaken the greenbelt boundary which is presently both clear and defensible; Other Responses  That the site is part of a Special Landscape area and development would have an unacceptable impact on Sites LDP 193 Former Acre Valley Nursery (Torrance), LDP this; 194 Old Balmore Road/Balmore Farm (Balmore) and LDP 204

East of Ferrymill Motors (Torrance) did not attract any boundaries. For sites in the villages, concerns included objections. distance from services and facilities and lack of frequent public transport. There were three additional sites within the A range of responses were received from urban area and objections were raised to the loss of a range developers/landowners supporting development on their and choice of employment and a public park. suggested sites. These responses either questioned or sought to address issues which were raised in the site Detailed information on all comments received can be found assessments. A number of these responses also indicated a in Appendix 1. belief that the Local Development Plan needed to allocate more land for housing, to meet both need and demand. A number of comments were also raised by members of the public on Main Issues Report Preferred and Alternative sites Comments were also received from key agencies including for housing, but which were considered less sustainable. Scottish Natural Heritage, Sport Scotland, and, Scottish Water These sites were not part of this consultation and many of the and RSPB. These comments largely related to the issues raised have already been incorporated in the Report of environmental mitigation which would be required to make Findings on the MIR Consultation. In order to reflect the some of the sites developable. present consultation, however, they have been summarised and included here as Appendix 1 Issue 2. A range of objections to specific sites were raised by nine Community Councils, individual members of the public and Three entirely new sites were suggested during the local businesses. These commonly included queries on why consultation. However, as they have been submitted so late in new housing is needed, insufficient capacity in local schools, the plan making process, they cannot be subject to early impact on traffic and the road network, and poor public public engagement as outlined in the Development Plan transport provision. The majority of the additional site Circular. As such, they are considered ‘late submissions’ and suggestions are green field sites so a significant number of cannot be given full consideration through this Local objections concerned the adverse impact on the countryside Development Plan. Potential developers of these sites can setting of the town/ village which is also of value to nature however consider the Proposed Plan in April 2015 and may conservation and healthy outdoor recreation. Many members make a representation at that stage. Details of the three sites of the public wanted green field sites retained in the green belt have been summarised within Appendix 1 of this report. to protect this countryside and existing strong green belt

Appendix 1 Full analysis of all responses received during the consultation on the Local Development Plan Main Issues Report – Additional Sites Consultation

October 2014

Issue (ref and heading): Issue number 1: Additional Sites Consultation – Reponses on Individual Sites

Report reference: Background Report – Additional Site Assessments

Body or person(s) submitting a Response raising the issue:

Responses from Individuals: 988

Responses from Organisations/ Groups, as follows: Scottish Water Scottish Natural Heritage Sport Scotland RSPB Scotland Milngavie Community Council Bearsden East Community Council Campsie Community Council Lenzie Community Council Bearsden North Community Council Milton of Campsie Community Council, Torrance Community Council Bishopbriggs Community Council Auchinloch Community Council

Colliers International Warren Consultants Mains Estate Keppie Planning and Development Montagu Evans West Dunbartonshire Council Netherton Residents Association Friends of Lenzie Moss Ryden Geddes Consulting Persimmon Homes Savills Cameron Planning Gladman Developments University of Glasgow Henderson’s Chartered Surveyors Martin Currie Investment Management Lenzie Primary School Parent Council Right Cars Vehicle Rental Brodie’s LLP Cala Homes Lenzie Moss Parent Council Wright Johnston & MacKenzie LLP Royal Bank of Scotland Reproduction Plaster Company OBO Clyde Cruising Club Seamanship and Pilotage Trust,

Provision to which the issue relates: During the pre-Main Issues Report (MIR) engagement in 2011 a ‘Call for Sites’ invited suggestions for development sites. All sites submitted during in 2011 were assessed in the Main Issues Report Background Report 3, Site Assessment 2013. The Main Issues Report of 2013 then classed each of these sites as being either a ‘preferred’ or ‘alternative’ option for the MIR or a less sustainable site (and therefore not included in the MIR).

During the Consultation on the Main Issues Report in October/ November 2013 developers and landowners suggested twenty eight new sites which had not previously been identified during the call for sites. Therefore site assessments were carried out for these so that they could be considered alongside sites previously submitted. The additional sites consultation was an additional opportunity for stakeholders and the public to shape the forthcoming Local Development Plan, due for publication in April 2015. It should be noted that these additional sites were not being promoted by the Council. The additional site suggestions were published to raise public awareness of them and seek the views of the public on the content of their site assessments.

The additionally suggested housing and or business sites are: LDP180 Douglaston Golf Course- Milngavie LDP181 Blacklands Place- Lenzie LDP183 Thomas Muir Ave/ Calliburn Rd- Bishopbriggs LDP184 Balviebank/ Stockiemuir Rd- Milngavie LDP185 Duntiblae Rd- Kirkintilloch (extension to LDP12 Fauldhead) LDP186 Glassford House- Milngavie LDP187 Glen Road- Lennoxtown/ Campsie Glen LDP188 Hayhill/ Robinsfield- Bardowie LDP189 Castlehill Farm- Bearsden LDP190 Chryston Road/ Fauldhead South- Kirkintilloch LDP191 Wardend Road, Torrance LDP192 Mount of Glorat, Milton of Campsie LDP193 Former Acre Valley Nursery- Torrance LDP194 Old Balmore Rd/ Balmore Farm- Balmore LDP195 Meadowbank Farm/ Kelvin View- TorranceLDP196 Auchinairn Rd/ Crowhill Rd- Bishopbriggs LDP197 Balcorrach Steading- Campsie Glen

LDP198 St Marys Road- Bishopbriggs LDP200 Wester Gartshore Farm- Kirkintilloch LDP201 Crosshill Road- Lenzie LDP202 Campsie Road- Torrance LDP203 Former Westerhill Rail Sidings – Bishopbriggs LDP204 East of Ferrymill Motors - Torrance LDP205 East of Alder Road- Milton of Campsie LDP206 Westerhill- Bishopbriggs LDP207 Boclair Farm- Bearsden LDP208 Bankhead Rd- Kirkintilloch/ Waterside LDP209 North East Westerhill - Bishopbriggs

Summary of the Response(s): Overall Summary of Responses to Additional Consultation

LDP191 Wardend Road, Torrance 1 2 1 LDP192 Mount of Glorat, Milton of Campsie 1 5 2 LDP193 Former Acre Valley Nursery- Torrance 0 0 3 LDP194 Old Balmore Rd/ Balmore Farm- Balmore 0 0 1 LDP195 Meadowbank Farm/ Kelvin View- Torrance 0 1 1 LDP196 Auchinairn Rd/ Crowhill Rd- Bishopbriggs 0 2 0 LDP197 Balcorrach Steading- Campsie Glen 0 11 1 LDP198 St Marys Road- Bishopbriggs 2 2 2 LDP200 Wester Gartshore Farm- Kirkintilloch 0 5 0 LDP201 Crosshill Road- Lenzie 2 253 1 LDP202 Campsie Road- Torrance 0 0 1 LDP203 Former Westerhill Rail Sidings – Bishopbriggs 1 1 1 LDP204 East of Ferrymill Motors - Torrance 1 0 2 LDP205 East of Alder Road- Milton of Campsie 1 93 2 LDP206 Westerhill- Bishopbriggs 4 2 1 LDP207 Boclair Farm- Bearsden 1 2 2 LDP208 Bankhead Rd- Kirkintilloch/ Waterside 1 10 2 LDP209 North East Westerhill - Bishopbriggs 0 1 1 MIR Preferred Option site 0 6 1 MIR Alternative Sites 0 4 2 MIR Less Sustainable Sites 2 8 1 Other new site suggestion 0 0 3 Comment consultation arrangements 2 0 0 Comment on other matters 2 0 0

Comments on Individual Sites

LDP180 Douglaston Golf Course- Milngavie

Suggests Development of this Site –

Deliverability  Three house builders are interested in developing the site;  Development will not result in loss of outdoor sports facilities but will improve the golf club and secure its long term future. It will also enhance facilities for the private sports club;  Site will deliver a range of houses, including a high proportion of low cost homes. Moderately sized sites like this can deliver a high proportion of the site capacity for affordable or low cost housing. Sites are deliverable and the site is effective in a 5 to 10year period;  The indicative number of dwellings (100 to 200) will be refined though a masterplan. The 25% affordable housing will be exceeded, if site capacity can be maintained through masterplan process;  The site is in line with the SDP sustainable location assessment, demand and supply side. Work is required on demand side to balance supply side. The amount of housing land needed for market and affordable housing has been underestimated. In the absence of capacity on brownfield sites alternative sites cannot be overlooked;

Natural Environment  Too much weight is attached to protecting the natural features of the site;  It is too early in development process to assess performance against carbon footprint or greenhouse gas emission criteria, which can be addressed through a masterplan ;  The masterplan would consolidate and enhance biodiversity and paths;

Services and Facilities  Site is a sustainable location in close proximity to public transport and local services. A masterplan could detail how improved public transport could be provided;

Green Belt  There is no risk of coalescence of this development with other settlements. The green belt quality would make high quality development. A landscape led masterplan would protect the setting of the settlement. There would not be a significant loss of biodiversity as development would take place on the golf course;  The site should be developed as it does not risk future urban sprawl and development could be contained by the natural features;  The open setting of the dovecot can be maintained in a low density development;

Object to Development on this Site –

Location of Site and Transport  The remoteness of the area and the complete lack of public transport means an inevitable increase in traffic congestion;  Concern at development resulting in an increase in traffic congestion on the eastern side of Milngavie which has significant traffic problems at peak times. In particular in parallel with other new developments at Kilmardinny congestion will be increased on overloaded junctions on the Glasgow (eastern) side of the site, in particular the A81;  An increase in traffic will make it less safe for children to walk to school;  Concern at the impact on road safety from development as the access is from congested narrow roads, with narrow pavements and poor sightlines onto the A81, such as Baldernock Road. The rural roads through Baldernock are not suitable for an increase in traffic;  Access to the western area (at least) would have to be from Baldernock Road of Dougalston Avenue and upgrading and improved provision for pedestrians on Baldernock Road would be vital;  Parking in the area and Milngavie Railway Station are fully used and will not be able to cater for it;  Site is located at the top of a steep hill so is only accessible by car;  One bus per day passes on Strathblane Road;  Concerned about impact on air quality from traffic, particularly at Strathblane Road/ Glasgow Road junction, Milngavie;

Historic Environment  Should protect the setting of the listed Dovecote rather than developing around it  This dovecote should be protected as it is a popular landmark, it featured in the television series Taggart;  The proposal would have an adverse impact on the historic garden and designed landscape, and set a precedent for development within environmental designations. The area has high landscape value including, a historic gardens and

designed landscape with remnant features including: woodland policies, boundary walls, the remains of an old walled garden, designed lochs and a Ha-Ha boundary feature. Housing would have an adverse effect on the open vista of the golf course, particularly around the dovecot and TPO trees;

Natural Heritage & Landscape  Concerned about impact of a development of this scale on rural landscape setting of Milngavie;  Development will breach of nature conservation policies as Dougalston Estate is a designated Local Nature Conservation Site;  The scale of the proposal is too large in relation to the surrounding housing  Development would diminish the quality of the setting of Milngavie on its approach from Baldernock;  Agree site has low landscape capacity for development;  Site is an area of semi natural woodland, wetland, heathland and grassland and this varied habitat contains many species and this development would affect this biodiversity. It would not consolidate exiting woodland and wetland habitat. Development will result in significant loss of biodiversity and adverse impact on the Local Nature Conservation Site which covers the area and Tree Preservation Orders. Development would damage important wildlife habitat, including healthy and historic trees, flora, birds, insects and small mammals including Protected Species;  The proposal is in contravention of the East Dunbartonshire Biodiversity plan adopted by the Council;  The ground proposed is unsuitable and development would have an adverse effect as it is very marshy, unique wetland and is full of rare plants;  Inappropriate to develop a site which has woodland and high biodiversity value;  Prior to consideration of development a full wildlife audit should be carried out to understand the extent and diversity of existing wildlife habitats;  Loss of woodland reduces climate change mitigation;  Develop other areas with lower wildlife value before this site;  Development would work against the quality of life of Milngavie - suburban life benefiting from high quality natural surroundings;  Reduction in trees and shrubs would have an adverse impact on the Ozone of the wider area;  The statement that development would consolidate the existing woodland and wetland habitat is nonsense due to the range of valuable habitats and species found across the site;

Recreation  This countryside is valued and used for recreation, walking & cycling and has a positive impact on health & wellbeing. This

development would reduce the value of the golf course and result in a significant loss of visual amenity;  There is a Section 75 Agreement which regulates the future use of this site as woodland for the community and precludes housing. Part of the original planning permission for the nearby residential development of Fairways protects this area for golf course and sports centre;  Development would reduce the amenity value of the area for healthy green outdoor exercise. It would result in potential loss of pedestrian and cycle paths through site. Green areas should be better utilised for recreation and healthy exercise;  The area is presently a safe place for children to play and experience the outdoor environment, this would be lost if this large scale housing development was allowed;  Concerns at the potential loss of outdoor sports facilities. The provisions of Scottish Planning Policy should be applied to any replacement proposals and Sport Scotland would be a statutory consultee;  Improvement of Dougalston Golf Course and the health club will benefit its members but be to the detriment of the wider environment which benefits a wider range of the population;  Concerned that reconfiguration of the golf course could lead to its downgrading to a nine-hole golf course or closure. It is well designed and valued as a country club;  The proposal would have an adverse impact on the setting of the Dougalston walkway, a publicised attraction for the town;

Services  Services such as libraries, doctors, public transport and schools will not be able to cater for the development. Limited capacity in schools to accommodate additional children;  Inadequate sewerage, utility, roads and drainage capability;  Development could damage the main water pipelines from Loch Katrine which run through the site;  Development would make Milngavie larger and would erode its small town character;

Green Belt/ Brownfield  Should protect the green belt rather than allow a development of this scale, it would have a negative impact on the setting of Milngavie. The land release would reduce the defensiveness of the green belt as the current boundary is robust;  The development would result in random, isolated extensions to the urban area. Concern about setting a precedent for future release and piecemeal erosion of green belt;  Recognise the need for affordable housing but existing brownfield alternatives are available and brownfield development should be prioritised over development on green belt;  Site should not be considered in isolation so should take account of the agreed developments at Kilmardinny;  This is piecemeal development which would set a precedent for further development in the golf course area;

 Proposal is in contravention of national green belt policy;  Current green belt boundary is robust and development would reduce its defensiveness.

Flooding  The area is important as a provider of natural rainwater retention within a catchment system that runs down to the village. This provides flash floods/ storm water attenuation, and this is forecast to become more frequent. Concerned about existing flood risk in the area being exacerbated by development;  A Sustainable Drainage System to the north of the site was put in place to accommodate surface water from the Marchfield development and would in no way cope with the increased surface water inevitably caused by this development. This would significantly increase the risk of flooding of homes in Marchfield development and the Virgin sports complex.

LDP181 Blacklands Place- Lenzie

Suggests Development of this Site –

 The site could be developed in a sensitive manner which does not cause adverse landscape or visual impact and can mitigate any impact on the setting and significance of the improved Millersneuk wetlands, as demonstrated in the vision document.  It would not set a precedent for further development of smallholdings and fields east of the relief road, demonstrated in the vision document.  Site is effective and could contribute 33% affordable housing to meet the shortage in the area.  Small scale sites like this which can be delivered in the short term can play an important part in overall mix of housing land supply. They contribute to generosity of supply and deliver of the Plan strategy even when economic conditions, significant constraints and provision of new infrastructure makes larger sites unviable.

Object to Development on this Site–

Natural Environment  Development on this site would be contrary to green belt policy;  Threat to Millersneuk Local Nature Conservation Site;

 Southern edge of site is a designated flood risk area;  Negative impact on the visual landscape;  Adverse impact on hydrology of wetlands;

Location & Access  Remote from Lenzie village centre;  Poor access to local services including transport connections, public transport, retail, and education;  Poor access to the green network;  Site lies beyond the KLR which is a defensible boundary;  Any development would lead to coalescence with other areas;  Site is currently used for productive agriculture.

LDP183 Thomas Muir Ave/ Calliburn Rd- Bishopbriggs

Object to Development on this Site–

 Site is within a well-established functioning green/open space with mature trees, important for local amenity and with biodiversity value in an inner urban area  Site is on potentially contaminated land & this should be investigated as it may make the site ineffective.

Other Comments –

 SNH advise against release.

LDP184 Balviebank/ Stockiemuir Rd- Milngavie

Other Comments –

 No negative comment at present.

LDP185 Duntiblae Rd - Kirkintilloch (extension to LDP12 Fauldhead)

Suggests Development of this Site –

 13 units could be completed within five years, adjacent site LDP12 is in different ownership but suggest that sites could be progressed together, with a masterplan for both sites.  Climate change benefits - accessibility by sustainable travel and walking outweighs increased urban footprint.  Work with LDP12 to combine both sites and create good interface with the urban areas, create a strong urban edge, enhance green network, provide 25% affordable housing and provide SUDS. No apparent flood risk on site.

Object to Development on this Site–

 Adverse impact on wildlife habitat, particularly for amphibians.  Destruction of the unique identity of Waterside Village, development would further urbanise its setting. It will result in ribbon and continuous development linking the village to Woodilee and Kirkintilloch.  In all recent developments in the area the ‘affordable housing’ is tucked away in the least desirable area which is furthest away from the amenities (public transport, shops etc.)

LDP186 Glassford House – Milngavie

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Site is effective and deliverable, under the control of a single party and Cala Homes are committed to development. There are no physical or contamination constraints, no public funding is needed to make development viable, there is strong market demand in Milngavie, and there are no infrastructure constraints that cannot be resolved through development;  The Main Issues Report does not go far enough to ensure delivery of market and affordable housing in Milngavie. Additional sites should be provided and a range of sites to deliver the housing land requirement. There is market demand for this site and it will be developed at low density of 20 to 40 units which will help provide choice of house type in Milngavie. Development will support local schools and shops;  Site should be released from green belt as it is a location to direct planned growth to. It is not an objective of the green belt to prevent the spread of urban areas;  Note that GL Hearn represent Cala Homes West not Mactaggert & Mickel;

 Agree that the site has a high landscape capacity to absorb development, as it is contained within mature tree belts;  Green belt in the area should be more widely redefined as it does not meet the key tests of green belt designation. Green network and open space policies could reasonably protect the landscape around the site, rather than a formal green belt designation. This development provides an opportunity to generate funding for management of the green network – woodland management, links to paths, wetland enhancement. Conservation of wildlife and flood risk are not significant constraints but are important and can be addressed in detailed proposals for the site;  The development would not have an adverse on the A-listed Glassford House building as development is situated in two areas to the rear and can be screened from it. Detailed proposals, developed in consultation with Historic Scotland, will address the impact on setting and the developable area/ layout/ number of units will reflect this.

Object to Development on this Site–

Listed Building  Adverse impact on the setting of a Grade A listed building, which is the only Grade A listed premises in Milngavie;  If there is development around the house it is likely to be subdivided, and in turn there would be pressure for development on the remaining land;

Natural Environment  Adverse impact on a secluded area of value for natural environment, TPO protected trees and local wildlife;  Breaches nature conservation policies as Dougalston Estate is a designated Local Nature Conservation Site;  Biodiversity would be reduced. An ancient avenue of Yew trees has already been grubbed up to the north-west of the house as well as an important hedgerow to the southwest which was home to rare birds. The development would threaten the habitat of several important species of birds;

Landscape  Visibility of the site means that it would have a significantly detrimental impact on visual amenity of the area;  Site is a sensitive historic garden and designed landscape setting & development would have an adverse impact;  This would be an isolated extension of the urban area which would have a detrimental impact on the setting of Milngavie;

Green Belt  Proposal contravenes green belt policy – the green belt in Milngavie is being eroded by piecemeal development;

 Advise that this site cannot be accommodated in the green belt and should not be released;  Current green belt boundary is robust and development would reduce its defensiveness.

Recreation  Conditional planning permission TP/ED/01/0411 (issued 2.5.02) had a condition that access to woodland walks in the estate should be provided, but this has not happened;  Adverse impact on recreational activity such as golf and walking by restricting access to the countryside. The path network is used regularly by the community;

Housing Need  No need for further housing in the area;

Services and Facilities  Adverse impact on local schools, which will not have capacity;  Milngavie services and facilities cannot cater for development of this scale;

Transport  There is road and traffic congestion in Milngavie so the local road network will not be able to accommodate further development.  Access from a relatively small track is likely to result in traffic hold ups. It is a long track with passing places, which could not accommodate the increase in traffic;

Flood Risk  Area is a known flood risk, including from flash floods that are forecast to be more frequent;  Inadequate sewerage and drainage capability;  Concerned that a reduction in the water absorption capacity of land on this site would result in wider drainage and flooding issues, possibly affecting existing houses and roads.

LDP187 Glen Road- Lennoxtown/ Campsie Glen

Object to Development on this Site–

Green Belt  Zoning for up to 400 homes within or adjacent to the green belt is excessive;  Site is located within the green belt and would have an adverse impact on it;  A development of this size would increase urban sprawl and essentially join up Campsie Glen, Haughhead and Lennoxtown;  Not all houses in the current development in Lennox Castle Hospital site could be sold, so there is no demand for this development;  Would reduce the green belt at the western end of the village and not meet green belt objectives;

Housing Need and Demand  100% affordable housing is excessive;  There is existing approval for house building within grounds of former Lennox Castle Hospital which has yet to be delivered;  Village has no need of 400 more houses and this development would be completely out of scale with the present size of the village. To develop the site within five years a rate of 80 houses per year does not seem achievable, given past completion rates. Development is likely to take ten to fifteen years;

Landscape and Setting  Building on this site would destroy the visual amenity of the area and would detract from the tourist attraction of the Campsies;  Unacceptable impact on the landscape setting of Lennoxtown, agree site has low landscape capacity for development;  Conflicts with current s75 agreement this requires the site to be managed as woodland for recreation and biodiversity. This has never been delivered by the developer and would benefit residents and visitors;  Contravenes the tri-party agreement, involving Lennoxtown Initiative, that the land may not be used for any purpose other than green belt compatible Leisure, without the consent of Lennoxtown Initiative;  Would lead to urban sprawl from Lennoxtown towards Clachan of Campsie. Spreading the village to the west would have an adverse impact on its form;  Interferes with long established rights of way;

Natural Environment  Potential to have an adverse impact on Protected Species;

 Consultants who produced an action plan for the area noted its unique potential, which will be lost;  SEPA have designated site as high flood risk area, further information should be sought;  In 2002 an animal died of anthrax on an adjacent farmland and the site was treated. While risk may be minimal any disturbances to soil would require further analysis and potentially mitigation;

Transport & Infrastructure & Services  Unacceptable increase in traffic from the site, particularly because of lack of any local employment, with a resultant increase in pollution. Site access needs further investigation;  Local services and schools could not cope with a development of this size;  Parking within the village would be unable to cope;  The development will result in more accidents on the Lennoxtown to Torrance Road;  Adverse community impacts, including loss of privacy for current residents;  lack of sewerage capacity & problems with drainage connections;

Other Comments –

 Site is unsuitable for high volume development of the type proposed, given its unique landscape setting.

LDP188 Hayhill/ Robinsfield – Bardowie

Suggests Development of this Site –

 A development framework will be prepared to demonstrate how the land could be developed, i.e. through the provision of three exemplar dwellings: the redevelopment of Hayhill and the provision of two additional dwellings within the grounds of Hayhill;  There is an agreement in principle to the redevelopment of the existing property at Hayhill, which is in disrepair;  Seek to amend the settlement boundary which will not have a strategic impact on green belt;  The land is existing residential curtilage so should be classed as brownfield;  There are no impacts in relation to sustainable transport;  Visual impact can be addressed through the proposed development framework and design of the proposed dwellings, including how they relate to the existing landscape and nearby heritage assets. Would intend the architectural design to be exemplary;

 In terms of the potential impact on the Local Nature Conservation Site, wet woodland, ancient hawthorn hedge and flood risk area – these can be protected in the development proposal to ensure that there is no impact at all;  There would be no substantial increase in discharge as the development consists of only two additional houses;  It is agreed that development would be best placed to the south of the site where there is more landscape capacity.

Object to Development on this Site–

Services  There are no services and amenities in Bardowie so residents have to travel elsewhere;

Landscape and Setting of Bardowie  The current owners have already altered the natural beauty of the area considerably and any further alteration would be inappropriate;  Proposal is outside of the village within the green belt and will cause loss of amenity;

Historic Environment  Proposal is adjacent to Bardowie Conservation Area and the B-listed Robinsfield House and will have a negative impact on them;  It is overlooked and will affect the visual amenity of the A-listed Bardowie Castle as well on the residents of the area surrounding the loch;

Transport & Access  The access/egress from the site is on a dangerous corner of the busy A807, which has already been the site of many accidents. An increase in traffic can only increase the likelihood of this becoming worse;  Development will cause significant increase in traffic on a road which is not suitable for that;  There is very little public transport in the area which makes cars a pre-requisite for living in this development;

Natural Environment  The occupiers only own twenty four feet of the land fronting onto the Loch;  The loch is a designated nature reserve;  Risk of habitat destruction, of birds and mammals;  Use of the loch for leisure pursuits is causing harm to the environment and ecology. Any further use would be

unacceptable;  Bardowie Loch is a natural asset for the local community. It is a unique ecological environment, contrary to the developers comments this is a naturally formed body of water, home to a diverse range of birds, fish and mammals;  Limited waterflow through the loch means it cannot sustain further discharge from septic tanks or otherwise, and there is no link to the sewer network;  The “buffer strip alongside Bardowie Loch” is outwith the developers remit as it is owned by the Clyde Cruising Club.

Other Comments –

 Agree with assessment of the site but indicate the view that it has low capacity, in particular landscape.

LDP189 Castlehill Farm- Bearsden

Object to Development on this Site–

 Site is within the green belt  Site is part of the buffer zone for the Antonine Wall  Site is part of Castle Hill which is important to the setting of Bearsden.

LDP190 Chryston Road/ Fauldhead South- Kirkintilloch

Suggests Development of this Site –

 The preferred option alone does not meet Scottish Government requirements or local affordable housing targets. The alternative option should be taken forward as a minimum;  Site is effective, free of constraints and can be delivered immediately;  Any impact on the environment would be suitably mitigated.

Object to Development on this Site–

 Site is prominent and elevated so development will dominate the landscape which separates Waterside, Woodlilee and Kirkintilloch. It is also exposed which will impact on energy efficiency;  Development will weaken the important wildlife corridor;  It is separated from the site LDP12 (Fauldhead) by a road. If this is developed would be a later phase (more than five years) as it is more distant from the access road to LDP12;  The close proximity of the railway line means that a substantial buffer would be needed to deal with the resultant noise, vibration and air quality, and presence of a wildlife corridor. These requirements would clearly reduce the sites capacity;  Site is in a less sustainable location due to its half hour walking distance from town centre and train station;

LDP191 Wardend Road, Torrance

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Pluvial flood risk is not a constraint because surface water issues can generally be dealt with by Sustainable Drainage Systems, as long as land is retained to attenuate the drainage. A surface water issue is not generally serious enough to justify the non-allocation of a site for housing. SEPA pilot studies on river basin management will inform flooding issues in the wider district;

Object to Development on this Site–

 Object to the loss of green belt land which could set a precedent for further development. Much of the land around Torrance is owned by developers;

Other Comments –

 Suggesting a site definition which would allow approximately 10 affordable houses to be built.

LDP192 Mount of Glorat, Milton of Campsie

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Tree survey shows that the site contains 47 trees, of which 20 are worthy of retention. Loss of trees can be compensated for by native tree planting. Felled timber could be used to create biodiversity habitat along the shore of Mount Dam;  Ecological survey shows that the proposed development area does not extend to the shore of the Mount Dam so will not impact directly on it, and any Protected Species there. No features for roosting bats, no breeding birds or evidence of badger or water vole in the survey area. Development on this neglected garden ground is an opportunity to manage trees and enhance ground flora and potentially habitat enhancement alongside the Dam;  The flood risk on the site can be managed as the Dam is an artificial loch and there are proposals from the Glorat Estate to lower the level of the water, as part of the flood risk assessment for the adjacent redevelopment of the site of Baldoran House;  The adjacent redevelopment of the site of Baldoran House extends onto green field areas, this proposal should be considered to be part of this;  There are no problems with roads access;  The tree and wildlife survey that shows that the site is developable and that there is a substantial developable area in the centre of the site.

Object to Development on this Site–

 Distance to schools and public transport is unsustainable;  Brownfield development should be prioritised over green belt proposals such as this;  This is an area of outstanding natural beauty and should not be built on;  Would involve building on Baldoran House historical woodland and gardens;  There are environmental issues with building on this site.

LDP193 Former Acre Valley Nursery- Torrance

Suggests Development of this Site –

 The site is not in the floodplain according to the SEPA floodmap. There is a small burn to the north of the site. The SEPA floodmap only refers to surface water issues and these are easily dealt with by applying SUDS principles for attenuation;  Welcome the comments of SNH that the site can accommodate small scale development;  No adverse comments from the Council’s Roads Service;  Site is brownfield land and should be developed as a priority over greenfield land if infrastructure issues are resolved;

 Pluvial flood risk is not a constraint because surface water issues can generally be dealt with by SUDS, as long as land is retained to attenuate the drainage. A surface water issue is not generally serious enough to say that a site should not be allocated for housing. SEPA pilot studies on river basin management will inform flooding issues in the wider district.

LDP194 Old Balmore Rd/ Balmore Farm- Balmore

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Development can take place where it is not at risk of flooding, it is protected by defences and bungalows on raised ground would fit in to the residential area;  Development will be located beside the Old Balmore Road, a suitable distance from the nature conservation interest on the edge of the site.

LDP195 Meadowbank Farm/ Kelvin View- Torrance

Suggests Development of this Site –

 The site assessment report shows that the preferred and alternative site options have not been selected in a consistent and transparent way. The site assessment needs to address the need to allocate sites which are effective or capable of becoming effective, meeting the tests in PAN2/2010.  Further sites, including this, will need to be released to meet a generous housing land requirement & shortfall, and maintain an effective 5 year land supply. Considers that the site should be in the preferred option as it has overall neural effect on the environment which compares favourably/ better than most of the sites in the preferred and alternative options.  Delivering up to 70 new houses will help meet the strategic housing land requirement and provide a generous land supply and a 5 year land supply.  The site can make contributions to infrastructure, such as education.  The site is discrete visually and located one kilometre from the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site, so it will not have any effects on its setting.  It is not sound to identify the green belt defensibility as high because there are challenging housing requirements to meet.

 The site is a sustainable location as it is accessible on foot to local facilities and public transport. It is also a logical extension to the village. Therefore it meets the objective of directing planned growth to the most appropriate location.  The development can strengthen the green belt boundary and enhance the setting of the settlement, through creating a landscaped edge. It will improve access to open space, the River Kelvin and habitat connections. The parkland character of the site is of local merit only. Views to the site from the south and west are filtered through tree planting. From the north the site is contained by existing vegetation, trees and local topography. Views will be available from the east of the site.

Object to Development on this Site–

 Object to the loss of green belt land which could set a precedent for further development. Much of the land around Torrance is owned by developers;  The existing site provides for 25 affordable units and is not a precedent for further development which does not include affordable housing;  Development would have an adverse impact on the green belt, particularly due to proximity to the wildlife corridor along the River Kelvin;  The development area is in the flood plain;  Development is within the boundaries of the Antonine Wall Buffer Zone, which should not be developed.

Other Comments –

 Agree with landscape capacity assessment and indicate the view that it has low capacity for housing. Indicate that it will present a significant extension to settlement, affect local landscape character and existing landscape features and additionally is likely to affect green network and green belt functions.

LDP196 Auchinairn Rd/ Crowhill Rd- Bishopbriggs

Object to Development on this Site–

 Proposal is for a site which contains tenants, providing local employment. It is currently well let and in an area surrounded by small local businesses.  The land involved is potentially contaminated, being part of the old Huntershill quarry. There are known issues regarding the stability of the land. These could be constraints to development.

 A financial justification and information should be provided by the owners for not retaining the site for business/ industry. Non business development should be resisted if the site has not been shown to be unviable or uneconomic. The removal of employment land would not be consistent with the Strategic Development Plan Strategy.  There may be some landscaping but there is not much scope for woodland enhancement.

LDP197 Balcorrach Steading- Campsie Glen

Suggests Development of this Site –

 SEPA indicate that the site is not located within the floodplain;  Site has been subject of housing development proposals in recent years;  SNH have indicated that they believe limited development would be possible on the site and that is what is proposed in this development;  The designated Important Wildlife Corridor would not be affected by the proposal;  Site is brownfield because of its history and so should be developed as a priority over greenfield land.

Object to Development on this Site–

Landscape and Setting  This is a remote area of green belt and wildlife corridor where development would have adverse impact on landscape and biodiversity;  Site was supposed to be landscaped as woodland by the builders and promotion of the area for outdoor pursuits would have been greatly enhanced if the developers had delivered on this;  The village envelope would be compromised between Lennoxtown, Clachan of Campsie and Haughhead;  A development of this size would materially alter the nature of the site from an obvious steading to an isolated housing estate.

Natural Environment  High flood risk area from nearby burn;  Site contains a wildlife corridor.

Infrastructure  Lack of sewerage capacity.

Need and Suitability  Site was refused in previous attempts in 1967, 1976 and 2006/7 and the developer was supposed to plant and manage woodland on this site and has not done so;  Zoning for mixed housing on this site is unsuitable and zoning within neighbouring Lennox Castle site has not been fully developed;  Number of houses proposed is excessive;  100% affordable housing is inappropriate as developments should always be for mixed tenure;  Several areas of brownfield land in Lennoxtown have yet to be built on and should be prioritised over this site;

Location and Access  Development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic on an already busy road;  Huge increase in traffic could not be accommodated on existing roads and roads would be difficult to widen;  There is a lack of public transport in the area with one bus per hour, leaving anyone without a car, isolated and struggling to access employment.

LDP198 St Marys Road- Bishopbriggs

Suggests Development of this Site –

 The school sports pitch is accessed from the school entrance and the other pitch is in the centre of the remand centre. Therefore access to these is not affected by the proposal;  The land is not in a SEPA floodplain and the northern part of the land is in a V shaped valley and SUDS can be applied;  No TPO trees will be affected and the proposal will enhance woodland;  Agree with SNH that at least part of the site is developable, in terms of natural heritage interests;  The potentially contaminated area is very small;  The proposal will not result in coalescence with Milton due to the distance from it and development would be contained by existing buildings and woodland;  Part of the site is brownfield and so accords with the Council’s ‘brownfield first’ principle;

Object to Development on this Site–

 This land is potentially contaminated and subject to serious flooding. It is of strategic importance as part of the Green belt and has a role in preventing coalescence at the local boundary. It also has a vital role in terms of EDC green space with a significant wildlife interest;  Site contains moderate to high wildlife interest. Development would not have a strong green belt boundary and would create a negative landscape impact on the setting of the settlement. Local garden and designed landscape should be protected. The site is elevated so would have a dominant visual impact on the surrounding area;  Further flood risk and potentially contaminated land information should be sought; the latter in particular is a potential constraint.

Other Comments –

 Design should take into account the adjacent pitch and outdoor sports facility. Access should remain unimpeded during the construction period.  SNH indicate a view that northern part of the site has no capacity for housing and southern part has limited capacity as there are locally important landscape/green network features and therefore view the entire site as low capacity.

LDP200 Wester Gartshore Farm- Kirkintilloch

Object to Development on this Site–

 Site would not create a defensible boundary, as claimed by the promoter;  Site is a notable incursion into the green belt and would not minimise the development footprint of the city region;  Poor access to sustainable forms of transport, and is more than a 30 minute walk from a train station and town centre;  No access to Core Path network;  Has a low landscape capacity for development and would lead to an unacceptable extension of the settlement boundary on the eastern approach to Kirkintilloch;

 Development would have an adverse impact on the nature of the agricultural area next to Gartconner Primary school, and be a very visible blot on the landscape;  Site would create ribbon development and reduce the area which prevents coalescence with Cumbernauld and creates an attractive countryside setting for Kirkintilloch.

LDP201 Crosshill Road- Lenzie

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Caledonian Properties and Persimmon Homes are committed to delivering this & the market can support development;  No environmental or other site constraints on the site which would restrict development and make it ineffective;  Site within walking distance of services at train station and public transport, bus stop is within 200 metres of the site and the frequency of buses should not be a key consideration;  The site is a logical expansion for housing;  The main issues report options do not provide enough land to meet SDP or Local Housing Strategy housing targets;  Intend to incorporate open space on site and reinforce the wider landscape potential.

Object to Development on this Site – Location and Access  Inappropriate access to and from the site from local road network, Access from Crosshill Road is likely to be hazardous due to blind summit;  Poor access to local services including transport connections, schools and the town centre;  Would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic which would impact on the safety of children and increase air pollution and CO2 emissions;  Unacceptable noise pollution on existing residential area;  Very limited public transport in the area and the bus stop on Crosshill Road is not in use;  Parking concerns at village amenities and at Lenzie station;  There are former coal workings under the field that have already caused buildings to subside there;  Loss of amenity and privacy for local residents, including due to impact of traffic;  Cyclist safety would be compromised due to the increase in traffic flow;

Landscape and Setting

 The site lies within the current green belt and so any development would be contrary to green belt policy, reinforced by the 2012 green belt review;  There is a strong, defensible green belt boundary to the east, along garden boundaries.  Result in loss of agricultural land, used for arable or grazing.  Site is elevated and development would detract from landscape setting of the Gadloch;  Negative impact on the wider visual landscape;  Negative impact on Lenzie South Conservation Area, green field land defines its boundary and this was recognised in a recent Conservation Area Appraisal;  Would contribute to extension of village envelope and hence lead to urban sprawl.

Natural Environment  Development of this scale will have an adverse impact on the protected Lenzie Moss Local Nature Reserve & wildlife corridor in terms of hydrology, biodiversity and recreation. There is likely to be peat on the site;  There is a very high possibility that there are protected species within the area;  There is currently poor access to the green network;  High levels of surface water lead to significant drainage issues, recognised by SEPA;  Would adversely affect air quality due to the increase in traffic volume.

Need and Suitability  The Council is committed to developing brownfield land ahead of greenfield, so development at this location would directly conflict with this commitment;  Density of houses at this site (200 units) would be excessive, especially given its proximity to a Conservation Area;  The proposal as it stands includes an insufficient affordable housing element;  Lenzie has already contributed significantly towards housing need through the nearby Woodilee Village development and site at Lenzie hospital also remains unbuilt;  Local Housing Strategy states that there is no requirement for large family housing;  The Main Issues Report identifies that there is no further requirement for private housing until 2025.

Infrastructure and Services  Schools in the area could not cope  Water main lies beneath the southern part of the field;  Insufficient sewer capacity;

LDP202 Campsie Road- Torrance

Suggests Development of this Site –

 No objections to development of the brownfield part of this site, as long as speed restriction signs are moved.

Object to Development on this Site–

 Development on the greenfield part of this site, which lies to the north east, would conflict with the Council’s ‘brownfield first’ policy.

LDP203 Former Westerhill Rail Sidings – Bishopbriggs

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Suggest that it is inaccurate to assume that all of the woodland would need to be removed. A buffer would need to be left;  Would propose taking a masterplanning approach in conjunction with Council and SNH;  Suggest with former uses as railway land this would be an effective business site;  Happy to accommodate space for a rail halt within the site;  Bishopbriggs Community Council are in favour of major elements of the proposal;  Western part of the site is required to complete Bishopbriggs Relief Road and so nature of site will change in any case.

Object to Development on this Site–

 This land is subject to flooding (SEPA designated Flood Risk Area). It is of strategic importance as part of the Green belt and has a role in preventing coalescence at the local authority boundary. It is a local nature conservation site with high biodiversity value and forms part of an important wildlife corridor.

LDP204 East of Ferrymill Motors – Torrance

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Planning consent for the extension of the bus maintenance operation on the site was granted in 2006/7 (TP/ED/06/0132) Planning consent had also been granted for plant housing (TP/ED/08/0222). The Council’s Roads service, SEPA, SNH and Scottish Water all had no objections. The assessment refers to localized surface water flooding but this was dealt with to the satisfaction of SEPA as part of the planning application process. The site does not lie within a floodplain;  Any rights of way can be accommodated;  Use of this brownfield site accords with the Council’s brownfield first policy, as long as the right of way along the east of the site is reinstated;  Pluvial flood risk is not a constraint because surface water issues can generally be dealt with by SUDS, as long as land is retained to attenuate the drainage. A surface water issue is not generally serious enough to say that a site should not be allocated for housing. SEPA pilot studies on river basin management will inform flooding issues in the wider district.

LDP205 East of Alder Road- Milton of Campsie

Suggests Development of this Site –

 This site provides a more acceptable alternative to Redmoss Farm;  The site is close to the built up area and bus route but is located in an area screened by woodland;  The site could take vehicular access from Birdston Road, with good sight lines via LDP52 Birdston Road, promoted by Persimmon;  The land is not in floodplain and Sustainable Drainage Systems could be drained to the burn to the north;  This is an opportunity to extend the settlement and the core path and trees can be protected;  There is no impact on the setting of Kincaid House as it is screened by woodland;  Development would not set a precedent for expansion to the south, as it is contained by a car home and woodland;  Pluvial flood risk is not a constraint because surface water issues can generally be dealt with by Sustainable Drainage Systems, as long as land is retained to attenuate the drainage. A surface water issue is not generally serious enough to say that a site should not be allocated for housing. SEPA pilot studies on river basin management will inform flooding issues in the wider district.

Object to Development on this Site–

Need and Suitability  There is no identified need for further housing in Milton of Campsie;  There are existing brownfield sites within Milton of Campsie, particularly The Old Pulp Mill and adjacent to Stirling Hall and elsewhere in East Dunbartonshire, particularly in Kirkintilloch, which have not been developed.  The proportion of affordable housing exceeds demand and is higher than other parts of the council area.

Location and Access  There is currently poor public transport access to and from the site, more than five minutes from bus stops;  Site is at least 30 minute walk from primary school and is too far from services for older people or people with a disability;  Unsuitable vehicular access to the site, through an established built up residential area. This would inevitably result in considerable traffic and road/ pedestrian safety issues in adjacent residential area and Birdston Road;  Distance from village centre makes the site unsustainable and poorly located.

Natural Environment  The site is an Important Wildlife Corridor. There would be an adverse impact on local wildlife, community woodland and the wider environment in general;  Loss of woodland will result in reduction in trees which absorb carbon.  The site is shown as a SEPA flood risk area, especially at north-west corner;  Proposal contributes nothing to the Glasgow Clyde Valley Green Network.

Landscape and Setting  Significant loss of visual amenity, especially as site is already part of a designated Special Landscape Area.  Site is presently in use for agriculture and forestry  Site increases the village envelope and encourages urban sprawl towards Birdston  Encroaches on the Category A listed Kincaid House  Loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties.  There is a public safety risk in the area so the built environment should be designed to reduce opportunities for criminal activity.

Green Belt  This is a green belt site, as established through the Local Plan 2 and confirmed by the Examination Reporter. The Council is committed to developing brownfield sites as a priority and so any development at this location would directly conflict with this commitment.  There would be a loss of community woodland, which is open space that has health benefits as it is currently used extensively for recreation and leisure;  Would weaken green belt boundary as it is clear and defensible;  Object to risking the investment in the Community Woodlands on site and linked to it in this area and the core paths, which link to the John Muir Way;  A core path runs through small section of site.

Infrastructure, Amenity and Services  There is already a lack of local amenities and infrastructure within Milton of Campsie, including school, shops and doctor’s surgery, and such a large increase in the local population could not be reasonably sustained;  There would be an adverse cumulative impact on the safety, health and wellbeing of the local population;  A development of this size would have a significant noise impact;  There is a lack of facilities for young people and any increase in the population could not be sustained;  Increased pressure on struggling utilities – broadband, water pressure.  Negative impact on local businesses – hotel, care home and dog kennels.

Other Comments –

 Site includes community woodland and has important green network qualities.

LDP206 Westerhill – Bishopbriggs

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Support the production of a masterplan for the area. An initial masterplan was submitted to illustrate potential location of business and residential uses; this would be subject to detailed refinement.

 Flexibility is required through mixed use development, including residential  Ryden Report, Background Report 7, demonstrates that there is a significant oversupply of business space in the area. The site assessment has not addressed the fundamental issue of the significant over supply of business land in the area & therefore the need to consider alternative uses within the masterplan area.  Initial investigations on water environment, ecology, peat and contaminated land demonstrate that there are no issues that would prevent the site being allocated in the Proposed Development Plan. The development potential of the majority of the site has been formalised in the Main Issues Report. These issues would be addressed further in the masterplan.  Futurestate is committed to working with other landowners, the Council and other stakeholders to progress a masterplan for the Westerhill site.

Object to Development on this Site–

 Climate change, development footprint of the city region – this should be positive;  This land is subject to flooding (one section SEPA designated as of high risk). It is of strategic importance as part of the green belt and infringes on the proposed Phase 5 of the Bishopbriggs Relief Road. It is a Nature Conservation site and a wildlife corridor. It is a prime site of economic development land;  A financial justification and information should be provided by the owners for not retaining the site for business/ industry. Non business development should be resisted if the site has not been shown to be unviable or uneconomic. The removal of employment land would not be consistent with the Strategic Development Plan Strategy. There are existing tenants in buildings on the site and it seems to operate well;  The site is at least fifteen minutes away from most services and facilities;  Part of the site has high biodiversity value and potential for significant impact on species and habitats;  The potentially contaminated land should be investigated further.

Other Comments –

 The site contains a large area of open space to the north, containing 1 grass pitch. If the pitch is over 0.2 ha, Sport Scotland would be a statutory consultee for any development.  Advise that they recommend a landscape capacity study be carried out. It is likely that the western section is better suited to settlement and is likely to have higher capacity than the eastern section which may have low or no capacity. There may be locally important habitats within western area.

LDP207 Boclair Farm- Bearsden

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Cala homes are committed to developing the site and the site is in single ownership meaning it is in accordance with the housing land effectiveness criteria set out in Scottish Government advice in PAN2/2010;  Site presents opportunities to contribute to green network alongside the housing  Site is effective with no known constraints;  Proposal is for sensitive, low density development;  Owner would like to offer this site forward as part of the effective housing land supply.

Object to Development on this Site–

 It is in the green belt;  Proximity to Antonine Wall could have an adverse impact;  Reported flooding on site near road;  Nearest bus stop along a road with no pavements;  Current farm access is a bad bend where there has been a cyclist fatality.

Other Comments –

 Site is adjacent to Douglas Park Golf Club. Any development should be designed to ensure that use of the club is not affected.

LDP208 Bankhead Rd- Kirkintilloch/ Waterside

Suggests Development of this Site –

 The promoter disagrees that this site fails to minimise the built footprint. Argues that the site actually helps to minimise the footprint because there will be no increase to the wider settlement boundary;  The site is approximately 8 minutes from the nearest Primary School and so can reasonably be considered walkable;

 Would improve access to the Core Path Network along the banks of the Luggie Water;  Development would allow for upgrading of the adjacent playing fields and improvements to nearby wetland/grasslands;  The site is not covered by a TPO and may be a GIS error;  Disagree that the wider site has a high wildlife value. Instead it is considered to have a low wildlife value, with the Luggie Water being of ‘medium ecological importance’.  Disagree with Greenspace comments that there would be a negative impact on mature trees and mature hedgerow.  Indicative capacity would be 35-40, rather than 50 units.

Object to Development on this Site–

 The site is clearly within the green belt and conflicts with the landscape character of the area;  Development would endanger local wildlife including ducks, bats, otters, kingfishers, and heron, insects and flora;  Area is a designated as an important wildlife corridor;  There would likely be a negative Impact on local infrastructure – roads, school, local amenities and sewage system;  Unacceptable impact on traffic;  Site separates the village of Waterside from the town of Kirkintilloch and helps preserve its historic rural identity and amenity of walkers along the Luggie Water path;  The western part of the area is potentially at flood risk, and the likelihood of this may increase due to climate change;  Development would have an adverse impact on the amenity, privacy and seclusion of the adjacent Monastery.

Other Comments –

 In the past there was an agreement with the community that this site should remain undeveloped, and this needs renewing.

LDP209 North East Westerhill – Bishopbriggs

Suggests Development of this Site –

 Do not consider the site strategic in scale and nature, as it is not a SEIL. Mix of uses would not result in loss of business land and local employment opportunities. There is an oversupply of business and industrial space and there is no forecast

requirement for major business and industrial space in the Bishopbriggs area.  The site should score better for low carbon economy as it is only business in relation to the original Collins use & challenges that it would be a significant loss of prime economic development land.  Site should score well for supporting sustainable access and travel.  The former sports pitch was not for public use so its loss should not be an issue.  Considers the site is urban and set within the existing settlement therefore will not have an adverse impact on green belt  Would like a new policy on network of centres to be formulated in relation to this site, if that is acceptable. Commercial leisure has recently been encouraged at Westerhill. The need for local facilities and potential for commercial leisure on the site needs taken into consideration.  The site could be developed as part of a development framework or masterplan for the whole of Westerhill, LDP206.

Object to Development on this Site–

 This land is subject to flooding (one section at the east is designated by SEPA as an area of high risk). It is of strategic importance as part of the Green belt and one corner is within the local nature conservation area of Low Moss, which is woodland with adjacent peat bog with high biodiversity benefits. Another part of the site is a wildlife corridor with various protected species. It is a prime site of economic development land.

Issue (ref and heading): Issue number 2: Additional Sites Consultation, Other Comments

Report reference: Background Report – Additional Site Assessments

Body or person(s) submitting a Response raising the issue: Responses from Individuals: 17

Responses from Organisations/ Groups, as follows:

Auchinloch Community Council Keppie Planning and Development Monatgu Evans Warren Consultants Bearsden North Community Council Keppie Planning and Development Milngavie Community Council Scottish Natural Heritage Torrance Community Council

Provision to which the issue relates:

During the pre-Main Issues Report (MIR) engagement in 2011 a ‘Call for Sites’ invited suggestions for development sites. All sites submitted during in 2011 were assessed in the Main Issues Report Background Report 3, Site Assessment 2013. The Main Issues Report of 2013 then classed each of these sites as being either a ‘preferred’ or ‘alternative’ option for the MIR or a less sustainable site (and therefore not included in the MIR).

Therefore if a site was assessed in 2013 it was not included in the additional consultation in May/ June 2014. However this issue lists all comments made on these sites already assessed in 2013, for information. These include:

Preferred Option Sites: LDP18 Redmoss Farm, Milton of Campsie LDP120 Balmuildy Rd N, Bishopbriggs

Alternative Option Sites: LDP10 Carmelite Monastery, Kirkintilloch LDP21 Lennoxlea, Lennoxtown LDP47 Claddens South, Lenzie LDP52 Birdston Rd, Milton of Campsie LDP54 Antermony Rd, Milton of Campsie

Sites deemed to be less sustainable at Pre Main Issues Report Stage: LDP4 Birnam Crescent, Bearsden LDP15 Dougalston Estate, Milngavie LDP5 Wester Lumloch, Bishopbriggs LDP6 Bishopbriggs North LDP7 Langmuir, Kirkintilloch LDP11 Waterside Road/ Gartshore Rd, Kirkintilloch LDP46 Boghead Rd/ Crosshill Rd, Lenzie

This issue also notes any new late site suggestions made during the consultation on additional sites. However these sites have been submitted too late to be considered during the Pre MIR call for sites or the MIR consultation. Therefore there is no time in the Development Plan Scheme Timetable to carry out a full site assessment for these. This includes site suggestions at South of Boclair Road, Bearsden; Balmore Golf Course; infill site in Torrance.

Summary of the Response(s):

The number of responses which commented on sites other than the Additional Sites are set out in the summary table below. These include comments on the Main Issues Report 2013 Where We Live Preferred and/or Alternative Options for sites and sites considered to be less sustainable which were not included as a Main Issues Report Option. It also includes four new sites suggested during the consultation but which have been submitted too late in the process to be considered through the Main Issues Report. Pre MIR Site Site Name Settlement Number of Number of Number of other Reference Responses that Responses that Comments on object to site Support Site Site LDP 1& LDP3 Bearsden Golf Bearsden 1 1 Club/Kessington LDP 4 Birnam Crescent Bearsden 2 LDP 5 Wester Lumloch Bishopbriggs 1 LDP 6 Bishopbriggs Bishopbriggs 1 North LDP 10, Carmelite Kirkintilloch 2 Monastery LDP 15 Dougalston Milngavie 3 1 Estate LDP 16 Craigton Woods 2 LDP 18 Redmoss Farm Milton of Campsie 3 LDP 21 Lennoxlea Lennoxtown 1 LDP 46 Boghead Lenzie 2 1 Road/Crosshill Road LDP 84 Boclair House Bearsden 1 LDP 106 Garscadden Bearsden 1 Depot LDP120 Balmuildy Road Bishopbriggs 1

Preferred Option Sites:

LDP18 Redmoss Farm, Milton of Campsie

Objects to this Site being included as a Preferred Development Option

Services and Facilities  Unacceptable impacts on schools, local amenities and services. There is no medical centre in the village and the range of shops is limited. It will overload the local primary school and drainage systems.  The development will be a mile from the nearest school and shops

Infrastructure  There is no plan to develop the infrastructure to support the development.  Lack of safety provision during the construction phase  Proposal will result in air pollution

Natural Environment  Destruction of biodiversity and wildlife  Flood risk on site  Transport issues, overload of local roads with traffic and associated dangers, development will be a mile from the nearest school and shops. The bus services (again within a lengthy walking distance from the proposed development), are infrequent and only access Kirkintilloch or Glasgow. This therefore encourages further use of cars and the associated environmental impact.

Transport  Lack of any sustainable transport in the area of the development  Overload of roads and road safety concerns

Housing Need  previous developments have shown that the proposed affordable capacity, in this case 100%, may not actually be met  There are currently five on the waiting list for affordable housing in the village. This low demand matched with the large number of houses proposed suggests that this plan is to meet the needs of the builders and developers rather than the

constituents, not based on sound planning and assessment.

Greenfield/ Brownfield  There are suitable alternatives on brownfield land, including Lilybank and Baldoran field behind Stirling Hall  The green space on the site is incredibly valuable, in terms of leisure and environmental benefits and as habitat for wildlife, but also as natural flood defences by providing water run-off and should be protected for this.  There is a lack of thought about the sustainability of new developments  Site is within and would destroy the greenbelt

LDP84 Boclair House

Suggests development of this site

 Support this as it contributes to effective land supply.

LDP120 Balmuildy Rd N, Bishopbriggs

Objects to this Site being included as a Preferred Development Option

 This is an important open space for recreation and wildlife corridor, adjacent to the canal and associated ditches and should not be built on.

Alternative Option Sites:

Sites LDP1 Bearsden Golf Course & LDP3 Kessington

Suggests development of this site

 Support this as it contributes to effective land supply.

LDP10 Carmelite Monastery, Kirkintilloch

Objects to this Site being included as an Alternative Development Option

 Development would have an adverse impact on the amenity, peace and seclusion of the adjacent monastery. If the site is allocated the proposal should ensure that the Order’s need for peace and seclusion is factored in. Possibilities include a structure planting buffer zone around the monastery, the distancing of houses and gardens from the monastery boundary (for example to access roads for the scheme on the perimeter), and the relocation of the monastery garden to a more secluded location in floodplain near the Luggie Water.

LDP21 Lennoxlea, Lennoxtown

Suggests development of this site

 The visual impact on the landscape setting is not a significant constraint and can be addressed by a landscape assessment as detailed proposals are produced.  The potential impact on privacy of neighbouring properties can be addressed as detailed proposals are produced.  Flood risk can be mitigated and detailed studies will address this  Site is effective, Taylor Wimpey can deliver it and provided much needed private and affordable housing  Site is sustainable and can create a strong green belt boundary

LDP 106 Garscadden Depot, Bearsden

Objects to this Site being included as an Alternative Development Option

 While landscape capacity is high do not recommend that site should be allocated for housing because it is poorly related to existing settlements

Sites deemed to be less sustainable at Pre Main Issues Report Stage:

LDP4 Birnam Crescent, Bearsden

Agree that this Site is not Included as a Development Option

 Development would increase traffic on already congested roads, exacerbating school traffic problems, carbon emissions & road safety problems on Boclair Road.  It would have an adverse impact on local wildlife & birdlife.  Local schools are oversubscribed and will not be able to accommodate pupils from development.  There are drainage problems in the lower end of the site.  Development could reduce the area protected by green belt and lead to coalescence with Glasgow.  Developers should have to bear the total cost of infrastructure related to their plans, including traffic calming, providing schools & play areas.  This is green belt which should not be built on as it protects the amenity of the area, and should be protected for its value for natural open space, walking, educational value due to the wildlife and outdoor exercise. King George V Park and other open spaces are too far away for young children to play in. It is an attractive landscape setting for the neighbourhood.  Site has Tree Preservation Order trees and the Antonine Wall Heritage site on its boundary.

LDP15 Dougalston Estate, Milngavie

Agree that this Site is not Included as a Development Option  This site is green belt and should not be developed.

Objects on the basis that there has not been proper public consultation on the site.

 There is no need for this development.  The rich biodiversity – woodland, bird life, small mammals and insects of the area will be adversely affected  Permission was given for the development of the original Fairways estate on condition that the remaining wildlife

reserve was left alone. This site part of the greenfield remainder of the Dougalston Estate and is protected as such by a previous section 75 agreement  Concerned the local roads will not be able to accommodate the traffic from development and will have a negative impact on road safety.  Loss of amenity to walkers  Concerned that a reduction in the water absorption capacity of land on this site would result in wider drainage and flooding issues, possibly affecting existing houses and roads  Adverse impact on historic garden and designed landscape and Tree Preservation Order

LDP16 Craigton Woods

Agree that this Site is not Included as a Development Option

 This site is green belt and should not be developed.

LDP5 Wester Lumloch, Bishopbriggs

Suggests development of this site

 Development would create a strong landscaped edge as proposals would not extend beyond Auchinairn Road and provide woodland planting to north and east.  Proposal could contribute to the completion of the Bishopbriggs relief road  Proposal could provide 25% affordable housing and the site is effective as Caledonian Properties and Taylor Wimpey can deliver this and the private housing.  The Main Issues Report does not address housing needs in this community of Bishopbriggs as it does not include an alternative option for that area. This is ineffective and will not result in a range and choice of houses.  An enhanced masterplan has been prepared to support development. In this access is no longer to be taken from the bypass roundabout, due to traffic flow and ground levels. Access points are now suggested from Auchinairn Road to the south and Westerhill Road to the north.

LDP6 Bishopbriggs North

Agree that this Site is not Included as a Development Option

 This should be green space and most of this land is currently arable.

LDP46 Boghead Rd/ Crosshill Rd, Lenzie

Agree that this Site is not Included as a Development Option

 Maintain previous recommendation that site is not released  Do not develop this site; green boundaries are essential for people and wildlife.

Late/ Other Site Suggestions

Site suggestion at Balmore Golf Course

Suggests development of this site

 the site submission is late because the site has been fully consulted on and this took time  Rejection of the submission ignores local concerns expressed by the community to remove golf club traffic from Balmore Village road.

Site Suggestion at South of Boclair Road, Bearsden

Suggests development of this site

 29.4ha site is a natural extension to the east of Bearsden, with access from Boclair Road. There is potential to upgrade/ realign the road.  The development of the site could protect the Antonine Wall and setting of Bearsden with landscaping. It would leave a large proportion of the site with development potential. It provides the opportunity to enhance public access to the greenbelt, enhance its management and provide new structural planting along its northern, eastern & southern edges. This would mitigate effects on the adjacent SSSI. There is also potential for offset planting in adjacent land, with the same owner  Caledonian Estates, who are promoting the site, own it; there are a number of engineering constraints but large scale

housing should be deliverable on this site, in the short to medium term.  25% affordable housing could be delivered on the site.  Do not consider that there is sufficient justification for reducing the housing supply target and the MIR should provide a generous, effective land supply. Consider that the three alternative option sites in Bearsden should be delivered along with the release of other sites.

Meadowbank Garage, Torrance.

Suggests development of this site  This brown field site is adjacent to former village Inn and the play park, and near the war memorial. It extends back from the road to garages on Campsie Road. It is disused and the appearance of the village would be improved if it is developed. It was for sale recently.

In addition there were two comments on the consultation arrangements and a further two comments on other matters

East Dunbartonshire Council Proposed Local Development Plan

Main Issues Report – Addendum – Gartshore Estate Report of Consultation Findings November 2014

Section 1: Introduction The proposal is suggesting an entirely new settlement at Gartshore Estate, as an alternative to incremental growth in a Following Committee approval on 27 August 2013 of the Main range of other settlements throughout East Dunbartonshire. It Issues Report, the Council embarked upon an 8-week includes proposals for housing, business and retail provision. consultation period, commencing 9 September 2013 and ending on 4 November 2013. As a ‘period of grace’, the Section 2: Summary of Responses Council continued to accept responses until 18 of November 2013. A Report of Findings from this consultation was A total of seven responses were received in relation to this published in May 2014 and can be found on the Council’s separate consultation. Of the contributions received, two were website . 1 in support of the site; two raised objections to the site; and three were offering a comment which could not be deemed to However, one site proposed during this period was be in either support of or objecting to a site or sites. inadvertently omitted from the consultation process and therefore needed to be consulted on separately. The site in Support for the site was received from the landowner and their question is known as ‘Gartshore Estate’ (LDP 57). An agents. Unfavourable comments were received from Forestry additional consultation period was subsequently carried out Commission Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, while between 28 October 2014 and 21 November 2014. SEPA, SPT and Historic Scotland commented without making a clear recommendation either way. For clarity, this site was not being promoted by the Council as a future development option but had been suggested by developers and land owners. The Council, in conjunction with key agencies, conducted a site assessment of the site using the same methodology as had been used in MIR Background Report 32.

1 http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/planning__building_standards/planning/ planning_policies/local_development_plan.aspx 2 http://www.eastdunbarton.gov.uk/content/council_and_government/consultations, _complaints_and/consultation_and_engagement/consultation_archive/2012___20 13/main_issues_report.aspx

Appendix 1 Full analysis of all responses received during the consultation on the Local Development Plan Main Issues Report – Consultation on LDP 57 Gartshore Estate

Issue (ref and heading): Issue number 1: Additional Sites Consultation – Reponses on Individual Sites

Report reference: Background Report – Additional Site Assessments

Body or person(s) submitting a Response raising the issue:

Responses from Individuals: 0

Responses from Organisations/ Groups, as follows:

 Forestry Commission Scotland  Strathclyde Partnership for Transport  Michael Laird Architects  Scottish Natural Heritage  John Duff Planning  Caledonian Trust PLC  Historic Scotland  Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

Provision to which the issue relates: During the pre-Main Issues Report (MIR) engagement in 2011, a ‘Call for Sites’ invited suggestions for development sites. Sites submitted during in 2011 were assessed in the Main Issues Report Background Report 3, Site Assessment 2013. The Main Issues Report of 2013 then classed each of these sites as being either a ‘preferred’ or ‘alternative’ option for the MIR or a less sustainable site (and therefore not included in the MIR). One site, Gartshore Estate, was not included in this consultation. As this was an error, the proposed site was then subject to a separate consultation in November 2014, ending 21 November 2014.

A site assessment was carried out for this site so that it could be considered alongside sites previously submitted. The site consultation was an additional opportunity for stakeholders and the public to shape the forthcoming Local Development Plan, due for publication in April 2015. It should be noted that this site was not being promoted by the Council. The site suggestion was published to raise public awareness of it and seek the views of the public on the content of the site assessments.

Summary of the Response(s): LDP 57 Gartshore Estate

Suggests development of this site

 Create a sustainable village in an established setting at Gartshore, instead of gradual expansion of existing settlements.  Mixed use proposal also containing business provision and a hotel which would be cross funded by limited housing development  Woodland and landscape features would be retained in redevelopment & provide screening  The development of this new village would protect the character of other town or villages from being lost by suburban development & loss of character or amenity land  The new village could be delivered over a seven to ten year period & provide both affordable and private housing  Site is on a bus route & has excellent road infrastructure linking to the motorway network & East Dunbartonshire. It is close to the rail stations at Croy, Lenzie and Greenfaulds. This accessibility would provide employment opportunities in a prime parkland setting  Include a shop, community facilities and a hotel/ restaurant  Excellent road connections  Central location with access to Edinburgh and Glasgow  Site offers an opportunity to develop a modern low energy community with limited environmental impact on a previously developed site

Object to development of this site

 Not supportive of greenbelt release to achieve Council’s housing requirement  Site is within a historic designed landscape  Settlement pattern proposed would not relate well to the existing pattern  Site is in a landscape that is sensitive to development and would result in loss of traditional features and land-use and have significant effects on landscape character  Likely that development would adversely impact locally important habitat networks

Commenting on proposal to develop this site

 Site is within 400m of a bus stop that is currently served by at least one bus an hour  Site contains B listed Gartshore Stables, Dovecot and Quaker’s Cemetery. There may be scope for development for a sensitively designed development within the proposed site boundary, provided that appropriate mitigation measures are implemented  Site lies outwith the Antonine Wall World Heritage Site and its Buffer Zone  SEPA have no objection to the proposed development – there are no water bodies within the site boundary