SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

To: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Subject: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (IN OUTLINE)

From: HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LAND AT 417 HIGH STREET,

Date: lgTHJULY 2007 Ref: SIP L/B/5/90 APPLICATION NO. S/07/00062/OUT

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 To advise Committee that further representations have been received from Mr Dan Smith, Mr Menzies and Mr Meehan in relation to this application.

2. Representations

2.1 Mr Menzies of 138 Burnside Road, Newarthill and Mr Meehan of 84 Loanhead Road, Newarthill originally wrote to the Planning Department after receiving acknowledgement from the Council regarding their support for this application. In these letters (received by this office on the 20th April 2007), both Mr Menzies and Mr Meehan stated that they did not wish to receive any further correspondence in relation to this application as they had no recollection of signing a letter of support. However, in their most recent correspondence, received on the lgth and 22nd June, Mr Menzies and Mr Meehan state that they now wish to support the application for the following reasons:

The letter of acknowledgement was confusing as it led Mr Menzies to believe that he had submitted a planning application. On phoning the planning section, Mr Menzies was advised of the nature and content of the letter, however after reading the recent press articles concerning this site, Mr Menzies states that he is more aware of the implications of the planning application and its possible merits.

e Mr Menzies and Mr Meehan state that during their telephone conversations with the planning office, they were not advised that the proposed housing was linked to the provision of new sports facilities for the local boxing and fitness clubs, football teams and grants for the schools and a community fund. Mr Menzies states that if he had been informed about these matters, he would have not written in to the office to withdraw his support and would like to clarify that he believes it to be a genuine wish of the majority of the community to see the application approved. Mr Meehan also wishes to see his letter of support retained.

2.2 Mr Smith continually supported the application throughout the assessment stage, and offered additional supporting information in the form of the NLC Wardfiles Tenure Estimates 2006 and National Census data. Mr Smith states that Newarthill has a major deficit of detached dwellings compared to adjacent settlements and that Newarthill is lagging behind neighbouring communities in terms of owner occupied homes within the settlement. Mr Smith adds that planning guidelines suggest that such anomalies should not exist, and that this application offers the opportunity to redress this imbalance. Furthermore, Mr Smith argues that Newarthill is one of North 's largest villages and is situated close to an important nodal point, although numerically and in percentage terms, it has less private houses than communities a fraction of its size.

2.3 In addition, Mr Smith considers the site to be brownfield, as the Geotechnical Team confirms that contamination issues on the site have not been restored/remediated.

0700062 - supp reportdoc 5 2.4 Lastly, Mr Smith states that a precedent for residential development has been set by the granting of residential applications along Biggar Road by District Council in the early 2990’s and then cites the personal view of the former Director of Planning at Motherwell District Council that a precedent has been established for additional properties along Biggar Road.

3. Planning Assessment and Conclusion

3.1 In response to the issues raised by Mr Menzies and Mr Meehan, I would respond that although the applicant indicated in his supporting statement accompanying the application that there would be numerous monetary community benefits, this cannot be secured through a planning consent and notwithstanding, such a proposal to award funding towards community projects must not affect the objectivity of the Planning Authority when examining the planning merits of the proposal. Nevertheless, their support for the development is noted.

3.2 With regards to the points raised by Mr Smith, I would address these as follows:

0 Newarthill and the adjacent area has recently seen an increase in the number of large executive housing developments, namely at Park and the forthcoming Torrance Park development. Although Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing aims to encourage a range of house types and mix of tenures within towns and cities, the primary aim is to direct housing to appropriate locations and it is the responsibility of Planning Authorities to maintain the effectiveness of existing Green Belts and safeguard the character and amenity of the countryside. Therefore, I do not consider Mr Smith’s points raised to be valid arguments in this instance.

0 With regards to the previous use of the site, a brownfield site should not be presumed to be suitable for development, especially in Green Belt and other countryside areas. Brownfield is not a land use zoning; the Council’s recognition of the site as brownfield does not advance the case for the site being developed as it is firmly located within the Green Belt for valid reasons, Green Belt status negates the general presumption in favour of brownfield sites.

e Lastly, the applications for individual house plots along the north eastern edge of Biggar Road do not establish a precedent for further significant erosion of the Green Belt to the south west of Biggar Road, and therefore this is not a relevant consideration in this instance. Each application is considered on its merits having due regard to the development plan, and the Council is not bound by decisions taken in previous circumstances.

3.3 In conclusion having given consideration to these representations and taking the above matters into account, it is maintained that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in my previous report.

n

Patrick Kelly HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Local Government Access to Information Act: for further information about this report, please contact Mrs Lesley Carus on 01698 302142. Date: 2ndJuly 2007

0700062 - supp reportdoc 6 Application No: S/07100062lOUT

Date Registered: 17th January 2007

Applicant: Lothian Investments Ltd 33 Glenagles Court Whitburn West Lothian EH47 8PG

Agent Car1 Bro Group Suite G7 City Park G31 3AU

Development: Residential Development (In Outline)

Location: Land At 417 High Street Newarthill MLI 5SP

Ward: 15 and : Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

Grid Reference: 279062 660261

File Reference: SIP LIBFl5190/LClM M

Site History: S/O51015991OUT Development of Land for Residential Purposes (Including the Remediation of Former Mines). Refused March 2006.

Development Plan: Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 Strategic policies 1 (Strategic Development Opportunities) and 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals).

The Adopted Northern Area Local Plan 1986 zones the site as

Greenbelt where policies El~ E2 and E3 are relevant.

The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) zones the site as ENV 6 (Greenbelt), ENV 7 (Urban Fringe Improvement Opportunities) and ENV 14 (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation).

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Objections) Scottish Water (Comments) Scottish Power (Objections) British Gas (Comments) West Of Archaeology Service (Comments)

7 8

'113Mtl3HlOW 'llIHltlVM3N '133tllS HOlH L CP 1V aNVl

( 3N111flO NI ) lN3Wd013A3a lVllN3alS3tl

In0 I29000 I LO I S 'ON NOIlV3llddV 9NINNVld Representations: 306 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 25th January 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the aims of Strategic Policies 1 and 9 of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, Policies ENV6 and HSGl of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) and SPP 21 as it would constitute residential development within the Green Belt.

2. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy I0 of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, as the applicant has not demonstrated that the development is a justifiable departure from the Plan.

3. The proposal is contrary to Northern Area Local Plan Policies El, E2, E3 and H3 which seek to protect the rural area and Greenfield sites from urban development.

4. The proposal is contrary to Policy HSGI of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), which seeks to direct new residential development to brownfield land in preference to the release of land in Greenfield areas.

5. The proposal is contrary to Policy ENVS of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), as it will inflict an unacceptable impact on the environment due to its landscape and visual impact.

6. The proposal is contrary to Government guidance contained in SPP3 "Planning for Housing" and NPPG14 "Natural Heritage" which seek to protect the Green Belt where there is no proven need for development which may outweigh this protection; as the applicants have failed to demonstrate a shortfall in housing land supply or a specific locational need for housing in the Green Belt, or that the development would result in social and environmental benefits to the area.

NOTE TO COMMITTEE

If granted, this application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997 as the proposed development constitutes a significant departure from the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 17th January 2007 Supporting information dated 15'h February 2007 Wildlife Survey dated 5'h March 2007

Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 13th February 2007 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 19th February 2007 Memo from Education received 30th January 2007 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 25th January 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 15th March 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 2nd February 2007

9 Letter from British Gas received 24th January 2007 Letter from West Of Scotland Archaeology Service received 8th March 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 1st March 2007

Letter from Raymond Cullion, 6 Manse View, Newarthill, MLI 5TB received 24th January 2007. Letter from Stephen McGurk, 9 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5TS received 26th January 2007. Letter from Julie King, 13 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5TS received 29th January 2007. Letter from Mr Andrew King,- 13 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill , Motherwell, MLI 5TS received 29th January 2007. Letter from Eric Bastian, 15 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5TS received 29th January 2007. Letter from Fiona Jane Curtis, 7 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5TS received 29th January 2007. Letter from Councillor John Lafferty, Ward 29 - Newarthill, Civic Centre, Motherwell, MLI ITW, received 31st January 2007. Letter from Anthony & Ann McAree, 5 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, MLI 5TS received 31st January 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs Brown, 1 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, MLI 5TS received 31st January 2007. Letter from Mr Damian McKenna, 10 Manse View, Newarthill, Motherwell, NIL1 5TB received 1st February 2007. Letter from Miss M Murray, 8 Manse View, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLl 5TB received 1st February 2007. Letter from Andrea Shearer, 3 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, MLI 5TS received 2nd February 2007. Letter from Mrs B.A. Anderson, 365 High Street, Newarthill, MLI 5HR received 5th February 2007. Letter from Mr D.J. Anderson, 365 High Street, Newarthill, MLl 5HR received 5th February 2007. Letter from Alastair Mackie, 4 Cullion Way, Newarthill, MLl 5SF received 13th February 2007. Letter from John & lsabelle Cox, 2 McPhail Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5TS received 19th February 2007. Letter from Daniel Smith, 22 Gowkhall Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JF received 5th March 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 3 Henry Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5TZ, received 21st March 2007. Letter from Mrs F Muircroft, 19 Lintie Road, Newarthill, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Lothian Investments Ltd, 33 Gleneagles Court, Whitburn, West Lothian, EH47 8PG received 4th April 2007. Letter from J Henshaw, 14 Brannock Place, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs J Cook, 10 Kilbreck LAne, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs R Morrison, 2 Brannock Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DS received 4th April 2007. Letter from M Stannage, 204 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5BS received 4th April 2007. Letter from T Stannage, 204 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5BS received 4th April 2007. Letter from Joanna Memor, 93 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JX received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Murphy, 93 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JX received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Murphy, 17 Yett Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from James Slavin, 53 Marshall Street, , ML2 7NR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Bobby Mootie, 15 Chapel Street, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5QX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Jean Mootie, 15 Chapel Street, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5QX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Sharon Mootie, 2 Crosshill Drive, Cleland , Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mary McCarron, 3 Crossgates Avenue, Claland received 4th April 2007. Letter from William McCulloch, 49 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Rennie, 12 Kyle Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Joanne Rennie, 49 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Nimmo, 19 Caledonian Drive, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007.

10 Letter from Helen Nimmo, 51 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gordon Maccalman, 47 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Linda McAllister, 47 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007 Letter from Helen Graham, 55 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, ML1 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from James McCarthy, 8 Beachworth Drive, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Agnes Donnachie, 2 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AF received 4th April 2007. Letter from Elizabeth Bonham, 33 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 27 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from V Turner, 17 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwelt, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from C Tighe, 15 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from C Gracie, 9 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from C Cullen, 19 Beechwood Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from C & C Munro, 3 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AF received 4th April 2007. Letter from L E Adam, 24 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from A O'Rourke, 22 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Mothetwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from C Lafferty, 14 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 52 Beechworth Drive , Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from R Hart, 2 Eribol Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DD received 4th April 2007. Letter from I McGrath, 26 Whittagreen Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, ML1 5AQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from M Hart, 10 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AF received 4th April 2007. Letter from K Hamilton, 2 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JR received 4th April 2007. Letter from C Blackwood, 11 Whittagreen Avenue, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from G Jamieson, 108 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from A Hughes, 76 Loanhead Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AY received 4th April 2007. Letter from B Logan, 27 Spalehall Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JD received 4th April 2007. Letter from M Percy, 8 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, ML1 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from J Mullen, 21 Spalehall Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JB received 4th April 2007. Letter from W S Neill, 58 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Thomas Nailen, 1 Sycamore Place, Newarthill, received 5th April 2007. Letter from Thomas Nailen, 1 Sycamore Place, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Willie Trower, 88 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from lan McCleland, 100 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill, received 10th April 2007. Letter from Thomas Sneddon, 80 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Richard Nailen, 173 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5BS received 4th April 2007. Letter from Peter Cruthers, 74 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Richard Hooper, 4 Armour Path, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Ashburn, 78 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Eileen Nailen, 3 Glen Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DN received 4th April 2007. Letter from Rosie Moore, 23 Armour Place, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Lainey Hands, 76 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Michael Hughes, 14 Ellisland Wynd, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HF received 4th April 2007. Letter from Adam Nicolson, 8 Kirk Street, Motherwell, MLI 1EB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Roy Wilson, 7 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, ML1 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier-, 20 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill , ML1 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from R Marshall, 39 Hillside Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DL received 4th April 2007. Letter from Claire Marshall, 39 Hillside Crescent, Newarthill, Mothetwell, MLI 5DL received 4th April 2007. Letter from Kathleen O'Rourke, 49 Glencairn Tower, Motherwell received 4th April 2007.

11 Letter from Kathleen O’Rourke, 18 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AE received 4th April 2007. Letter from Margaret Cruikshanks, 16 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AE received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs P Fisher, 4 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Peter & Mary Carroll, 2 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gina Rice, 14 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AE received 4th April 2007. Letter from George- Devlin, 14 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AE received 4th April 2007. Letter from Andrew Baggley, 15 Glen Street, Newarthill, MLI 5DN, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Jane Douglas, 10 Kyle Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, , MLI 5EB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Annie Rennie, 49 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Brian Devlin, 45 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from D Hendrie, 11 Kyle Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EB received 4th April 2007. Letter from J Hendrie, 11 Kyle Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EB received 4th April 2007. Letter from L Carter, 22 Whittagreen Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Anna Lang, 20 Whittagreen Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AQ received 4th April 2007. tetter from Paul Hattie, 212 Loanhead Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Fiona Hattie, 212 Loanhead Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Elizabeth Rice, 45 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Tracey Kelso, 38 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs Elizabeth McCluskey, 16 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mr R Chambers, 15 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Cathy McCourt, 1 Armour Place, Newarthill, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, MLI 5HJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Anna Clark, 24 Gowkhall Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, MLI 5JF received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 7 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Scott Matusavage, 7 Glenburn Avenue, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Tracey Gaughan, 4 Kilbreck Lane, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HL received 4th April 2007. Letter from Steven Gaughan, 4 Kilbreck Lane, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HL received 10th April 2007. Letter from J Hughes, Whammond Tower, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Jackie Gibb, 1 Nagle Gardens, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs Nicolson, 45 Dale Drive, , Motherwell, MLI 4NB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Simone Watson, 24 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Lisa McGuinnes, 36 Gemini Grove, Holytown, Motherwell, ML1 4SP received 4th April 2007. Letter from Frances Wason, 24 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Joseph McGuinnes, C/o 36 Gemini Grove, Holytown received 4th April 2007. Letter from Ann Feely, 36 Gemini Grove, Holytown received 4th April 2007. Letter from Thomas More Snr, 24 George Street, New Stevenston, Motherwell, MLI 4NQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Harry Coogan, 6 Vardon Lea, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from James Thomson, 48 Broompark Road, Blantyre received 4th April 2007. Letter from Allen Pegman, 16 Ellisland Wynd, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HF received 4th April 2007. Letter from Paul Crichton, 22 Morar Way, Newarthill, Motherwell, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 2 Melford Quadrant, Newarthill received 4th April 2007.

12 Letter from James Kennedy, 40 Mennock Court, Hamilton received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs C Lavelle, 9 Clockenhill Place, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JP received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gerard Savage, 39 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Trisha Savage, 39 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Caroline Hughes, 80 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLl 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Tommy Tierney, 21 Lochlea Way, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JT received 4th April 2007. Letter from Richard Wotherspoon, 319a High Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mary Kerr, 82 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Morvan Kerr, 82 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Mothewell, MLI 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Esther Colquhoun, 86 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Franny Fox, 38 Etive Crescent, Pather, Wishaw, ML2 OPL received 4th April 2007. Letter from William Hamilton, 35 Lintie Road, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Danielle Burns, 10 Crathes Court, Wishaw, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 19 Auchinlea Drive, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5QJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Sara A Wilson, 19 Auchinlea Drive, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5QJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Alan Wilson, 25 School Road , Morningside, Wishaw received 4th April 2007. Letter from Colin Nicol, 10 School Road, Morningside, Wishaw received 4th April 2007. Letter from Angela Nicol, 10 School Road, Morningside, , Wishaw, ML2 9QW received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Tollan, 50 Windsor Road, Holytown, MLI 4QN received 4th April 2007. Letter from Ally Wharrie, 9 Violet Place, Holytown, Motherwell, MLI 4SQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 235 O'Wood Avenue, Holytown received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 8 Kirkhill Road, Netherton , Wishaw received 4th April 2007. Letter from Christine Gilfinnan, 8 Kirkhill Road, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OBW received 4th April 2007. Letter from Jim Gilfinnan, 8 Kirkhill Road, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OBW received 4th April 2007. Letter from John P McManus, 65 Waverley Drive, Rawyards, Airdrie, ML6 6HB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Joanne McLaren, 21 Road, Newmains, Wishaw, ML2 9AR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Lorna Hyndman, 24 Tarbeer Court, Hamilton received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gerry McArdie, 22 Calderigg Place, Airdrie received 4th April 2007. Letter from Leon Gibb, 1 Nagle Gardens, Dalziel Park received 4th April 2007. Letter from Madeline Hughes, Whammond Tower, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Karen Longmire, 36 Yarrow Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7JX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occpier, 36 Yarrow Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7JX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Stuart Longmire, 36 Yarrow Crescent, Wishaw, ML2 7JX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gerardo Chievchia, 131 Old Manse Road, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OEW received 4th April 2007. Letter from Annette Watson, 112 Station Road, Law, By Carluke received 4th April 2007. Letter from Jamie-Marie, 112 Station Road, Law, By Carluke received 4th April 2007. Letter from Stacey Gilmour, 48 Muir Street, Law Village received 4th April 2007. Letter from Annemarie Gilmour, 48 Muir Street, Law Village received 4th April 2007. Letter from Alan McFarlane, 4 Tinto Crescent, Wishaw received 4th April 2007. Letter from Stuart Logan, 5 Range Street, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Kimberley Logan, 5 Range Street, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from William Cook, 17 Bannerman Drive, Mossend, , ML4 2RN received 4th April 2007. Letter from Catherine Cook, 17 Bannerman Drive, Mossend, Bellshill, ML4 2RN received 4th April 2007. Letter from A Collins, 319b High Street, Newarthill, MLI 5HR received 4th April 2007. Letter from lan Anderson, 62 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Margaret Anderson, 62 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Angela Downie, 11 Dalmore Crescent, Carfin, Motherwell, MLI 4GG received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 12 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, MLI 5JR received 4th April 2007.

13 Letter from Alison McMurdie, 12 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, MLI 5JR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Ross McMurdie, 12 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, MLI 5JR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gordpn McMurdie, 12 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, MLI 5JR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Stephen Garraton, 7 Knowenoble Street, Cleland, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, ML1 5PR received 4th April 2007. Letter from Paul McShane, 83 Fraser Street, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5PX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Steven Gaughan, 4 Kilbreak Lane, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Sammy Guy, 20 Diana Quadrant, Holytown, Motherwell, MLI 4AX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owen Watters, 22 Diana Quadrant, Holytown, Motherwell, MLI 4AX received 4th April 2007. Letter from Kevin Marshall, 39 Hillside Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DL received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Morrissey, 23 Bentford Avenue, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 5 Bernadette Crescent, Carfin, Motherwell, MLI 5AH received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gerard Farrell, 11 Wlsgait Street, Cleland received 4th April 2007. Letter from Angela Cullion, 17 Brigbrae Avenue, Mossend , Bellshill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, Newhouse Caravan Park, Lanark received 4th April 2007. Letter from Sarah Cullen, 5 Bernadette Crescent, Carfin, Motherwell, MLI 5AH received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Downie, 11 Dalmore Crescent, MLI 4GG, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mr J Talloch, 36 Jedburgh Street, Blantyre received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs F Mullen, 3 Harkins Avenue, Blantyre received 4th April 2007. Letter from Graeme Downie, 11 Dalmore Crescent, Carfin, ML1 4GG received 4th April 2007. Letter from Edward James McConnachie, 5 Bernadette Crescent, Carfin, Motherwell, MLI 5AH received 4th April 2007. Letter from William Downie, 11 Dalmore Crescent, Carfin, Motherwell, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 41 Clay Crescent, Bellshill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Gemma Gaughan, 4 Kilbreck LAne, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Anna Gaughan, 31 Nith Quadrant , Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Liam Hill, 22 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from K M Cadona, 20 Lomond Walk , Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Alice Wason, 60 Garfield Avenue, Mossend, Bellshill, ML4 2NU, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 24 Ettrick Court, Halfway, Cambuslang received 4th April 2007. Letter from Richard B Rafferty, 6 Romulus Court, Motherwell, ML1 3FN received 4th April 2007. Letter from Danny Lee, 42 Glen Crescent, Inverkip, PA16 OBP received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 50 Colintraiuls Crescent, Glasgow, G33 1BJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 71 Mosshall Street, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 100 Burn Crescent, New Stevenston received 4th April 2007. Letter from Stewart Allan, 217 Allanton Road, Allanton, ML7 5AQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Caroline Allan, 217 Allanton Road, Allanton, ML7 5AQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Sam Allan, 217 Allanton Road, Allanton , received 4th April 2007. Letter from Scott Allan, 217 Allanton Road, Allanton, ML7 5AQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Marilyn Ferguson, Range Road, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Rena Hinshelwood, 7 East Road, New Stevenston, MLI 4NE received 4th April 2007. Letter from Marie Therese Smith, 22 Gowkhall Avenue, Newarthill, Mothetwell, MLI 5JF received 4th April 2007. Letter from ASmith, 120 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5BU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Daniel Smith, 120 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, ML1 5BU received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Smith, 120 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5BU received 4th April 2007. Letter from Linda McCorry, 15 Mossgiel Way, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from J Greenhorn, 5 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 15 Loanhead Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 34 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AB received 4th April 2007, Letter from Owner/Occupier, 15 Carron Way, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HH received 4th April 2007. Letter from Hugh McStay, 4 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Elizabeth Queen, 29 Knowe Crescent, Newarthill, MLI 5BZ received 4th April 2007.

14 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 56 Motherwell Road, Carfin received 4th April 2007. Letter from Kevin McKenna, 3 Cedar Walk , Carfin, MLI 5GZ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Matt Dougan, 4 Stanefield Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLl 5BH received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mr James Dougan, 29 Nith Quadrant, Newarthill, MLI 5EY received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 14 Brannock Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DS received 4th April 2007. Letter from John Meehan, 84 Loanhead Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AY received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 47 Mossgeil Way, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Elizabeth Baldwin, 7 Loanhead Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DB received 4th April 2007. Letter from Robert Taylor, 17 Nith Quadrant, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from James Whyte, 23 Hatton Hill , Carfin, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/OccuDier, 60 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLl 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 20 Brannock Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DS received 4th April 2007. Letter from James McCluskey, 16 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs Sadie McCluskey, 16 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from N Rafferty, 12 Braehead Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mr J Rafferty, 12 Braehead Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DJ received 4th April 2007. Letter from James Hainey, 73 New Stevenston Road, Carfin, MLI 4EE received 4th April 2007. Letter from Michael Greenan, 6 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from P Sweeney, 23 Whitagreen Crescent, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 4 Erbol Walk, Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from Joseph McStay, 4 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 22 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AD received 4th April 2007. Letter from Grace Wason, 60 Garfield Avenue, Mossend, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Frank Wason, 60 Garfield Avenue, Mossend received 4th April 2007. Letter from Steven Gaughan, 4 Kilbreck Lane, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HL received 4th April 2007. Letter from Henry Bryce, 10 Melford Quadrant, Newarthill, received 4th April 2007. Letter from Teresa Hill, 22 Lomond Walk , Newarthill received 4th April 2007. Letter from William Hill, 22 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from J Codona, 20 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from M Codona, 20 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from R Codona, 20 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from S Codona, 20 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 4th April 2007. Letter from C Mullen, 23 Montalto Avenue, Motherwell received 4th April 2007. Letter from Mrs Yvonne McMeechan, 32 Maryfield Road, Burnbank , Hamilton received 10th April 2007. Letter from James Mullen, 23 Montalto Avenue, Cleekhimin, Motherwell, MLI 4AP received 4th April 2007. Letter from Ellen White, 5 Carol Crescent, Newarthill received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Robert White, 5 Carol Crescent, Newarthill received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Martin White, 5 Carol Crescent, Newarthill received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Bobby White, 5 Carol Crescent, Newarthill received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Wilma O'Neil, 9 Brannock Place, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DX received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Brenda Wright, 4 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JR received 2nd April 2007. Letter from R Allan, 31 Robert Burns Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JW received 2nd April 2007. Letter from A M Higgins, 6 Alloway Wynd, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5JR received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Christopher Chance, 14 Kilbreck Lane, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HL received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Francis Chance, 14 Kilbreck Lane, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HL received 2nd April

15 .. .

2007. Letter from Gerard Delaney, 14 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 24 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Stacey Foy, Farmend Road, Carluke received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Scot Foy, 45 Oakfield Tower, Motherwell, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from K Foy, 8 Kerr Grieve Court, Motherwell, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Pat Foy, 8 Kerr Grieve Court, Motherwell, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from lrene Allan, 2 Kenmar Road, Whitehill, Hamilton, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Carol Foy, 104 Laurel Dirve, Wishaw, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Catherine Swanson, 51 Etive Crescent, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire, ML2 OPJ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Frances Steele, 14 Brannock Road, Newarthill, Mothewell, MLI 5DU received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Charles Cullen, 19 Legbrannock Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DT received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Edward Cullen, 1I Melfort Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DE received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 4 Whittagreen Crescent, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AF received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 12 Lintie Road, Loanhead, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EA received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 2 Whittagreen Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLl 5AQ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from George Coyle, 16 Kyle Quadrant, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EB received 2nd April 2007. Letter from James Mays, 1 Tillanburn Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HY received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 13 Hill Terrace, Catfin, Motherwell, MLI 4DU received 2nd April 2007.

/ Letter from Susan McLaughlan, 12 Lintie Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EA received 2nd April 2007. Letter from David Menzies, 138 Burnside Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5BT received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 12 Lintie Road, Loanhead, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5EA received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Peter Gollogly, 21 Taylor Avenue, Carfin, Motherwell, MLI 5EU received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 4 Hillside Place, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5DH received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Elizabeth McCluskey, 16 Beechworth Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLl 5AD received 2nd April 2007. Letter from T Brennan, 22 Torridon Avenue, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AR received 2nd April 2007. Letter from John O'Neil, 81 New Stevenston Road, Carfin, Motherwell, MLI 4EE received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Eddie Sweeney, 3 Maryknowe Road, Carfin, Motherwell, ML1 4DH received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 32 Carfin Road, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5AB received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 7 Glen Burn Avenue, Newarthill, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 76 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HU received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Mr Ferguson, Range Road, Motherwell, received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Mrs O'Neil, 26 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Frances Wason, 24 Lomond Walk, Newarthill, Motherwell, MLI 5HQ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Amanda More, 24 George Street, New Stevenston, Motherwell, MLI 4NQ received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Daniel McGuinness, 36 Gemini Grove, Holytown, Motherwell, MLI 4SP received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Clare McDevitt, 74 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell, ML1 5HU received 2nd April 2007.

16 Letter from Laura Gilfillan, 8 Kirkhill Road, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OBW received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Eileen Watters, 22 Diana Quadrant, Holytown, Motherwell, MLI 4AX received 2nd April 2007. Letter from Mr Downie, 11 Harkins Avenue, Blantyre received 2nd April 2007. Letter from M Allan, 50 Culzean Drive, Newarthill, received 19 April 2007. Letter from L Cowan, 519 High Street, Newarthill, received 19" April 2007. Letter from R Barrie, 20 Eribol Walk, Newarthill, received lgthApril 2007. Letter from M Cowan, 20 Gowkhall Avenue, Newarthill, received lgthApril 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Adopted Northern Area Local Plan 1986 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

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

Date: 17 May 2007

17 APPLICATION NO,S/07/00062/OUT REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and Proposal

1.I Outline consent is sought for residential development on an 18 hectare area of land situated around the junction of High Street and Biggar Road, Newarthill. The site is bisected into two areas; the larger area lying to the north of High Street is approximately 12.48 hectares in area and fills the gap between the properties at Manse View/McPhail Avenue and the houses beyond on Biggar Road, while extending northwards to the burn. The other section of the site is approximately 4.9 hectares in area and lies to the South of High Street to the northeast of the village boundary. An indicative layout submitted by the applicant proposes approximately 141 houses on the site. This is split between 26 detached properties on the site south of High Street, and 115 detached properties on the northern site. The northern section of the site is bounded to the east and west by residential properties varying in age and character. The most recent properties are currently under construction on the site of the former distribution depot and scrapyard, now addressed as Maclnnes Drive and Henry Quadrant. There are no residential properties adjacent to the southern section of the site as the surrounding area is undeveloped Green Belt.

1.2 The site is currently scrub and open grassland, and is in a well-maintained condition. There is little landscaping throughout both areas, however there is a narrow band of tall planting at the north edge of the site. The site is visually prominent when viewed from the north, and it undulates throughout.

I.3 Historic maps dating from 1861 show the site as predominantly greenfield land with the exception of two coal and ironstone pits, and a quarry, situated at the western end of the site. This concurs with plans submitted, which suggest that the some areas of the site contained mineshafts.

1.4 The application site currently does not benefit from any formal vehicular access arrangements although the indicative layout plan shows access being taken via a new roundabout on High Street with some road realignment. There is also a lack of any formal pedestrian access into the site, and the applicant is yet to demonstrate how this will be achieved.

1.5 A similar application was refused at the Planning and Environment Committee on 14'h March 2006 for residential development on the northern section of this site.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as Green Belt in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 where policies 1 (Strategic Development Opportunities), 6 (Quality of Life and Health of Local Communities), 7 (Strategic Environmental Resources), 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) and 10 (Departures from the Structure Plan) are relevant to this application.

2.2 The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan Alteration 2006 requires a study of the A8/M8 corridor to examine the longer term potential for development in the area. This site lies within the study boundaries.

2.3 The adopted Local Plan for the area is the Northern Area Local Plan 1986 within which the site is zoned as Green Belt.

2.4 The emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) provides contemporary policy guidance and similarly zones the site as Green Belt.

18 2.5 Also relevant in this instance is Scottish Planning Policy SPP3 ’Planning for Housing’, SPP21 ‘Green Belts’ and NPPG14 ‘Natural Heritage’.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 Scottish Gas had no objections to the proposal, but confirmed the presence of a Low/Medium/lntermediate Pressure gas main within proximity of the site. Therefore no mechanical excavations should take place above or within specified distances of the systems.

3.2 Scottish Power objected to the proposal on the basis that there is an overhead line within the vicinity of the site, and the proposed development may affect the apparatus.

3.3 Scottish Water have no objections to the proposal, however they advised that planning approval does not guarantee a connection to the infrastructure and due to the size of the proposed development, it is necessary for Scottish Water to assess the impact of this development on the existing infrastructure as there are known constraints on the waste water network. Therefore Scottish Water is keen to understand the phasing and timescales of the proposed development in order to examine all options available to allow connection. In addition, Scottish Water recommends that a separate drainage system is required with the surface water discharging to a suitable outlet. The principle of SUDS is recommended and this should be used>in discharging surface water.

3.4 SEPA objected to the proposal on the grounds that it could place buildings and persons at flood risk, contrary to the provisions of National Planning Policy guidance and advice, and advised that a flood risk assessment should be carried out. In addition, the foul drainage should be connected to the public sewer, with surface water being treated in accordance with SUDS principles. Further advice was given in relation to waste storage, recycling, composting and disposal, and construction works. SEPA further advised that if Committee are minded to grant planning permission for this development, it will be required to be notified to the Scottish Ministers as per the Notifications of Applications Direction 1997.

3.5 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) have no objections to the proposal. However, they advise that the continuing expansion of town and cities can often lead to the loss of open countryside of value to people for its biodiversity, landscape and informal recreational interests. A netwdrk of green space, green belt and open countryside within, around and between settlements therefore has an important contribution to make to the development of more sustainable urban forms. The landscape character type in which this proposal is sited is defined as Plateau Farmlands within The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Landscape Assessment. The planning guidelines for managing change in this landscape type include the aim to restore the rural character. Furthermore, SNH have advised that the impacts of development are likely to be considerable, and several measures should be implemented if consent is granted. These measures include reconsideration of the design and footprint of the proposal to fit better with the form of the existing settlement; that no development should take place on the south west corner; substantial planting and additional recreation facilities within the site and; a restriction on any development adjacent to the Legbranock Burn. SNH have also recommended that any tree and shrub removal or cutting should take place outwith the bird-breeding season. Due to the proximity of development to the Legbranock Burn, the applicant carried out a protected species survey, and although the site provided a suitable habitat for badgers, water voles and otters, no evidence of these species was found on site. SNH were broadly satisfied with the findings of the survey, but recommended that their measures, as stated above, be implemented.

3.6 The West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) advised that there are several recorded sites of possible significance directly affected by the proposals. There may also be various industrial remains which could be of significance, as well as evidence of later settlements and so there should be an attempt made to investigate these issues by carrying out an

19 archaeological evaluation of the site before the application is determined as per government guidance stipulated in PAN 42 (Archaeology - the Planning Process & Scheduled Monument Procedures).

3.7 The Geotechnical Team Leader made several comments in relation to the proposals. Firstly, the site lies in an area of known mine workings which are present mainly at depths of less than 30 metres below rockhead. In addition, a number of abandoned mine entries are indicated to be present at various locations within the site boundary. There is also an indication of the presence of an infilled or partially infilled opencast excavation. Problems with differential settlement are commonly experienced at old backfilled quarries due to poor quality and state of compaction of the backfill. In addition, published information suggests that natural or man-made deposits have been redistributed throughout the site on the original ground surface, possibly to infill or partially infill an opencast excavation. As such, contaminants and/or harmful gases can be associated with made ground, and the developer should ensure the suitability of the land for its proposed end use. In relation to flooding, although there is no information to suggest that the site has ever flooded, the absence of flood reports should not be interpreted as an absence in flood risk. Finally, there is insufficient information on drainage and flooding to allow the Geotechnical Team Leader to made a full assessment of the drainage proposals.

3.8 The Transportation Team Leader requested a deferral of a recommendation until a Transport Assessment has been submitted, examining the existing road network and its capacity to serve a development of this syle. However, it was commented that the proposed roundabout would provide a good gateway to Newarthill while also acting as a traffic calming measure. Further to this, detailed design should take cognisance of visibility splays and junction spacing appropriate to the roads affected. All new roads would require to be designed and constructed in accordance with NLC standards.

3.9 The Landscape Services Manager commented that overall, the proposal demonstrates a good proportion of housing plots and green spaces, and would blend well with the landscape at the edge of the Green Belt. However, further decorative planting would be beneficial. The Conservation and Greening Manager made comments in relation to the natural habitat of the site, and advised that no part of the SlNC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) be developed. The site also offers opportunities to enhance public areas and nature conservation within the site should consent be granted.

3.10 The Director of Education stated that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate all projected pupil numbers within the existing schools, including Holytown, Newarthill and St Teresa’s Primary Schools, and Brannock and Taylor High Schools.

3.1 1 In total, 31 1 letters of representation and a petition with 151 signatures were received in relation to this application. 18 of these letters objected to the proposals, while the remaining 293 supported the application by way of signing and addressing a copied letter. However, it should be noted that after standard letters of acknowledgement were sent by the Council to the supporters of the application, the Council office received in excess of 60 telephone calls from members of the public who had no recollection of signing or agreeing to sign the letter of support. The Council also received 13 letters withdrawing support, and 6 letters of acknowledgement were returned as undeliverable as the address was unknown. Therefore the authenticity of the letters is doubfful, and therefore limited credibility can be afforded to them. Nevertheless, the points of support were:

1.) The proposal will bring much needed housing to this part of Newarthill as well as many other direct benefits such as grants to the local schools, a new sports facility, a community fund and a parking/drop off zone between Keir Hardie Primary School and St Teresa’s Primary School. 2.) The road works to be carried out will reduce the number of accidents on this stretch of road.

20 3.) The proposed low density housing means that the area will remain green in perpetuity. 4.) The site has good transport links.

3.12 In addition to these points, one supporter of the application, Mr Dan Smith, has submitted four letters of support. Mr Smith has focused on previous consents for housing development within proximity of this site, namely the consent in 1978 for Barratt Homes to the immediate west of the site, and more recently for the Torrance Park development, neither of which were zoned for housing. Mr Smith also states that there has been Committee approval of applications on Biggar Road, which led to the Director of Planning recommending approval on a nearby site. The golf course development at Torrance Park would provide an effective Green Belt edge. Furthermore, the boundary of the sites would provide a physical sense of containment. Mr Smith argues that the function of the Green Belt at this location is untenable as it is not contiguous nor does it coalesce with Green Belt land outwith Newarthill. Mr Smith further argues that this proposal would benefit the natural evolution of Newarthill on a site which offers no countryside or recreational value; this site is of poor agricultural quality due to the historical land uses and has never been used for recreational pursuits. The proposed low density housing would result in development that is largely landscaped with large areas of open space, and is in accordance with the provisions of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan in terms of local need and sustainability. Mr Smith states that the absence of additional modern housing to supplement the post-war housing which currently dominates Newarthill is a key factor in declining school roles. Furthermore, Mr Smith argues that the site is positioned in a key location served by an accessible public transport infrastructure, namely the station at Carfin, and various bus routes. It is alleged that the development will remove the over head cables at the site. Finally, Mr Smith argues that the realignment of High Street will reduce the accident risk and provide a benefit to pedestrians and drivers.

3.13 Further to this, Mr Smith has stated that Lothian Investments will fund various public activities, including a public sports facility on the site of the existing boxing club on Mosshall Street as well as providing a community fund and assist in projects such as the creation of a parkinglsetting down facility to serve the local schools. It is also stated that Lothian Investments will provide Newarthill Primary, Keir Hardie Memorial Primary, St Teresa’s Primary, and Taylor High School with grants for the benefit of the pupils. Mr Smith has requested that a visit be carried out to these schools and other areas of suggested improvements, as well as the application site in this case.

The points of objection raised were:

1.) The application is contrary to Council policy, Structure Plan policy and national policy, namely Scottish Planning Policy 3 (SPPS), where support is given to the redevelopment of brownfield sites in order to protect the Green Belt. 2.) If this application is granted, other similar proposals will be hard to resist. 3.) The protection of the Green Beltlcountryside is essential in order to retain a quality of environment to ensure its attractiveness of the area, to encourage investment within existing settlements and to prevent the coalescence of settlements. 4.) The proposal would cause an intrusion into the open countryside and expand the eastern boundary of Newarthill to the detriment of the local amenity. 5.) The Council’s Local Housing Strategy has consistently highlighted the need to use brownfield sites for residential development and that greenfield/Green Belt sites should not be used for development. Numerous Brownfield development opportunities exist, including , only 2 miles away. 6.) The site presently is a valued break from the urban area, and if consent was granted, an undesirable precedent would be set. 7.) The Local Housing Strategy has highlighted the east Motherwell Villages for future developments primarily because of the availability of a rail service. This service does not exist in the NewarthilVNewhouse area. 8.) The location of the proposed development will adversely affect the character and

21 amenity of the surroundings, particularly landscape and countryside amenity and nature conservation. 9.) The natural habitat and wildlife corridor will be destroyed by a residential development. 10.) The site is contrary to the Scottish Executive’s aspirations of encouraging public transport and sustainable transport facilities. Currently, no public transport links exist at this location, increasing the reliance on private means of transportation. 11.) Given the varied habitat, a wildlife survey should be carried out. In addition, a noise survey should also be undertaken. 12.) The site has not got defensible boundaries. 13.) The volume of existing traffic at this location is dangerously high, and an increase in traffic would exacerbate the problem. 14.) The proposed houses may overshadow neighbouring gardens and disrupt the current outlook, causing a detrimental effect and result in noise and disturbance. 15.) The increase in houses would put an additional burden on services including the sewer system. 16.) If granted consent, the application requires to be referred to the Scottish Executive. 17.) There is a possible impact on local services, particularly sewerage. 18.) Cullion Way may be used as an access to the site. 19.) The development would destroy amenity of a quiet cul-de-sac. 20.) There would be disturbance during construction.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, This application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in terms of both the Structure Plan and Local Plans for the area.

4.2 The aims of the Structure Plan which are most relevant to the consideration of this application are the safeguarding and enhancement of environmental resources as promoted in Strategic Policies 1 & 7; and the improvement in the quality of life and health of local communities through the provision of an effective housing land supply in terms of choice, size and type of housing in each housing market area, as advocated in Strategic Policy 6. The realisation of one aim must not be at the expense of another as each aim is complementary and interrelated. The Plan requires that all developments must be assessed against the criteria listed in Strategic Policies 9 and 10.

4.3 Strategic Policy 1 sets out the development framework in terms of strategic development locations for future investment in urban and rural areas. Priority shall be given to investment in certain areas as listed in the Schedules in order to maximise the scale of urban renewal. The site is not listed within the schedules contained within Strategic Policy 1 and therefore not identified as an area for expansion or renewal. Strategic Policy 2 assesses the long term potential of development for strategic environmental renewal and the development of housing, business and industrial uses to contribute to the requirement for development land. It is proposed to include the Newhouse- Corridor within this policy and that a study be undertaken to assess the potential of various competing development types. This is a reflection of the strategic importance of this corridor and the volume of development interest. However, this study has yet to be commissioned and the Structure Plan Review has not reached a conclusion regarding the appropriate scale or location of any change and does not therefore provide a strategic justification for changing existing land uses within the corridor. Strategic Policy 6 deals with Housing Land Supply and affirms that there is no numerical shortfall within the Motherwell Sub-Market Housing Area (SMA) and within the Eastern Conurbation Housing Market Area (HMA) as identified in Strategic Policy 6bi. As such, the proposal cannot be justified against this policy as the Structure Plan does not identify a shortfall in housing land in

22 this area and there is no demonstrable or proven operational need for housing within the Green Belt or a requirement to review the Green Belt boundary at this location. Strategic Policy 9: Assessment of Development Proposals sets out a number of criteria that all development proposals should satisfy. Development must be assessed against the criteria set out in Strategic Policy 9 and any development failing to meet these criteria requires to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10. Among these of most note, are the assessment of the development against its contribution to promoting urban regeneration; avoiding isolated and sporadic development in the Green Belt and the wider countryside; and the assessment of the proposal against the effective housing land supply for the market area and the establishment of a clear shortfall. Since the proposal does not provide any numerical or locational justification and is a departure from policy 9, it is necessary to consider the proposal under Strategic Policy 10 - Departures from the Structure Plan. This policy lists criteria where consideration should be given in order to assess the appropriateness of the development. The proposal does not offer any economic, environmental or social benefit and thus it remains a significant departure from the Plan which requires to be notified to the Scottish Ministers under the relevant legislation. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the Structure Plan in terms of Strategic Policy 6(b), Policy Q(A)(ii) and is unjustified in terms of Policy IO(A)(ii). In addition, it is considered that there are local issues which point to the proposal's unacceptability in policy terms and these are discussed in turn.

4.4 The Adopted Northern Area Local Plan zones the site as Green Belt. The relevant policies indicate that within areas defined as Green Belt, only development which is clearly required in connection with agriculture, forestry, outdoor sports and open space will be allowed. Other policies in this local plan further strengthen this, namely policy H3 (Greenfield Housing Development) where it is stated that no additional greenfield sites outwith the fabric of the existing villages are to be identified for future housing development. It terms of the application of this policy against the proposal, it is deemed to be not in accordance with the provisions of the local plan.

4.5 The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) similarly zones the site largely as ENV 6 (Green Belt), with a small section of the western end of the site as ENV 7 (Urban Fringe Improvement Opportunities), and ENV14 (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation). Policy ENV 6 states that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Green Belt, within which there will be a presumption against development other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, renewable energy sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural use. Directing new development towards brownfield sites confirms the Council's commitment to urban renewal and improving sustainability. This policy seeks to maintain the Green Belt for the purposes of:

0 Controlling the growth of built up areas 0 Preventing neighbourhood settlements from merging 0 Preserving the character of settlements, including their setting 0 Preserving landscape character 0 Providing for the enjoyment of the countryside 0 Preserving natural habitats

Therefore the proposal is clearly contrary to the aims of policy ENV 6.

4.6 In addition, the areas zoned as Urban Fringe Areas face pressures and problems typical of land on urbanhural margins. Policy ENV 7 states that the Council will promote improvements to the Green 6elt and Urban Fringe and will encourage and support public, private and voluntary sector initiatives which enhance its amenity and ecological value. The western corner of the site is identified in schedule 7.1 as the Legbrannock Urban Fringe Park Expansion, where environmental improvement schemes will be concentrated. A small part of the site is also covered by ENV14 (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC)) which states that the Council will resist developments which would adversely affect these designated areas. The

23 submitted indicative layout plans show that it may be possible to design the development so as to exclude these areas, nevertheless, there are concerns over the proximity of the proposal to these areas.

4.7 Further to this, policy ENV 5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact) lists criteria to assist in determining applications for development by addressing the impact on the environment, including:

0 The suitability of a proposal to the character of the area in which it is set The landscape and visual impact of the proposal 0 The extend of traffic generation, noise, dust, pollution, flood risk and interference 0 The loss of natural habitats, protected species and areas designated for their natural heritage value 0 The loss of urban open space

4.8 This policy continues that developments will need to be of a compatible nature to existing land uses and not result in significant adverse change in the character of the area. Proposals will not be considered favourably if they create an unacceptable visual intrusion on the intrinsic landscape qualities of the area. This is further reinforced in policy HSG 12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside), which seeks to retain the quality and characteristics of the countryside by controlling inappropriate uses and isolated developments. In assessing this proposal against the provisions of policy HSG 12 and ENV 5, it is considered that the although the northern end of the site lies adjacent to existing properties, the southern end lies within an area of open space, and as such, a housing development at this location would be an alien feature on the landscape. Notwithstanding, the indicative layout shows large house plots and large detached dwellings, thus creating a proposal that forms no relationship with the existing built form and traditional housing layouts of Newarthill. Overall, the proposal would be detrimental in terms of the visual impact of the development, and is not an appropriate form of development at this location. The impact on the natural habitats has been examined through the submission of a wildlife survey, and although no protected species were found to exist on the site, Scottish Natural Heritage has expressed concerns over the continuing expansion of town and cities that can often lead to the loss of open countryside and its biodiversity, landscape and informal recreational interests. The proposed housing is not justified as an appropriate use , and therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies ENV 5 and HSG 12.

4.9 Policy HSG 10 (Assessing Applications for Housing Development) is also a material consideration in the determination of this application. This local plan policy requires the following matters to be taken into consideration: the impact on the existing built and natural environment; design, density, layout and mix of housing; provision of landscaping, screening and open space; the environmental condition of the site; and provision made for roads, access and parking. In assessing this proposal against HSG 10, I would make the following comments:

(a) The development would have an adverse impact on the built and natural environment as it would result in a large release of Green Belt land. No provisions are included within the application for any structural buffer planting around the boundaries, however, that could be conditioned if approval were to be granted. (b) Since this application is submitted in outline, no definitive details have been submitted regarding house types, however indicative layouts suggest that the site will comprise of mainly large detached dwellings. These matters could be considered at the detailed application stage. If any permission was to be granted, it is recommended that conditions are imposed to secure a form of development that would be acceptable at such a prominent Green Belt edge location. (c) As indicated above, landscaping, screening, and open space are not detailed at this stage. Again, conditions would be recommended if permission was granted, to secure adequate provision. (d) The provision made for parking, access etc are considered in paragraph 4.10 below.

24 4.10 Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) is also a consideration. This policy seeks to assess: the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; the scope to integrate development proposals with existing public transport facilities; the impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring and; the extent to which the development promotes ‘access for all’, particularly for those with impaired mobility. The Transportation Team leader has offered no objections to the proposed new road layout and roundabout on High Street, however, offered comments in relation to the internal layout within the development. Therefore it is considered that this proposal is broadly in accordance with policy TR 13.

4.1 1 The main principles of Scottish Planning Policy SPPS ‘Planning for Housing’ are that planning has an essential role in achieving the Government’s policies for housing while protecting and enhancing environmental quality. It is considered that this proposal is not in a suitable location in terms of the main aims of protecting the Green Belt from inappropriate development, and is again, contrary to Strategic Policy 6(b), Local Plan Policies HSGI & HSG12(3) and SPPS.

4.12 SPP21 ‘Green Belts’ aims to strengthen and enhance the role of green belts and encourage greater stability to increase their effectiveness. The effective operation of green belt policy has major benefits to Scotland in improving quality of life for local people and managing land carefully to guide the growth of our settlements. From this, the key objectives of green belt policy are: To direct planned growth to the most appropriate locations and support regeneration;

To protect and enhance the character, landscape setting and identity of towns and cities; and

To protect and give access to open space within and around towns and cities, as part of the wider structure of green space.

As a result, this SPP places a strong presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. Therefore this proposal is not in accordance with SPP21 as it has not provided any reasoned justification for development at this location. 4.13 In a supporting statement submitted by the applicant, it is stated that the site can be classed as Brownfield due to the presence former mines on the site. In addition, it is stated that the redevelopment of this land would provide an opportunity to supply local housing demand without impacting on the existing greenfield resource. However, it is contended that the site does not constitute brownfield land in accordance with the definition contained in SPPS. it is considered that the site is classified as ‘greenfield’ land as records suggest that although it has previously been developed for minerals, it has subsequently been brought back into beneficial use for agriculture. Historic maps show that the majority of the site has never been developed and is therefore largely greenfield land. The recycling of brownfield land for housing and the implementation of a strong Green Belt policy have underpinned the wider urban regeneration process and this momentum requires to be continued. This is further strengthened by the provisions of policy HSG I (Housing Strategy) where it is stated that the Council will seek to direct new residential development to brownfield sites within built up areas in preference to the release of land in greenfield locations and in doing so, will aim to encourage the process of urban renewal and regeneration, to satisfy the majority of demand for private housing and widen housing choice. Therefore, it is considered that the applicant has not provided a suitable justification for developing at this location, nor has it been demonstrated that the proposal would conform to any of the criteria listed in the Green Belt policies above.

4.14 The applicant states that the proposed residential development is sympathetic with local policy in terms of landscaping and visual impact, with the proposed green space and boundary

25 landscaping improving and enhancing the town boundaries of Newarthill. In addition, the applicant states that since the scale and density of the proposed development is low, the development is able to incorporate exceptional areas of recreational green space, therefore promoting the ecological and environmental value of the site to the wider local area. The applicant also proposes landscape and environmental improvements to the corridor of the Legbrannock Burn, with these works supporting recreational access, and improvement works to be carried out would ensure unification of indigenous plant species and optimisation of animal habitats.

4.15 Turning to the points raised by consultees, while some of the issues raised could be covered by conditions or resolved by requesting further submissions, there is a fundamental policy presumption against this development. It would therefore be unreasonable to request the applicant to carry out further investigative studies in these circumstances.

4.16 In relation to letters of support, it is noted that the majority of these letters are copies of the same letter, simply with signatures and addresses of supporters. The letter does not give specific details of the planning application, but focuses on the alleged ‘community benefits’ such as grants to the local schools, a new sports facility, a community fund and a parkingldrop off zone between Keir Hardie Primary School and St Teresa’s Primary School. However, it should be noted that the applicant has made no indication in any supporting information accompanying the application of these benefits, or any contribution towards a community fund. Notwithstanding, such a proposal to award funding towards community projects should not affect the objectivity of the Planning Authority when examining the planning merits of the proposal. With regards to the road works, the Transportation Team Leader has commented that the revised layout may act as a traffic calming measure. In addition, the letter states that the site has good transport links, however there are few bus links to the site, with the nearest bus stop being over 200 metres from the entrance to the site. In addition, given the nature of the proposed development there will be a high volume of private cars, resulting in a development which is unsustainable. Lastly, the supporting letters also state that the proposed low density housing will secure the site as a green area by way of landscaping and other natural features. However, since this application is made in outline, no weight can be given to the indicative layout plan accompanying the application. Further details would be required to be submitted and assessed at a reserved matters stage. If the principle of housing is established by the granting of outline consent, the application would need to comply with the adopted standards and guidance regarding developments at such locations. There is, however, no guarantee that the levels of space shown on the indicative layout would be maintained in any detailed application.

4.17 With regards to the letters of objection, it is clear that the policy issues raised have been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs. It is agreed that development at this location would constitute an unacceptable form of development in the Green Belt. With regards to other points raised, I would respond as follows:

a The Council’s Local Housing Strategy was published in 2004 and it aims to show the links between national housing priorities and local requirements and identify the broad picture of investment needs for existing and new housing. Section 4.3 states that the Council will aim to improve the accessibility and sustainability of housing development by increasing the proportion of new build housing built on ‘brownfield’ sites by 2009. Therefore, the points raised by objectors are noted and agreed. The Comments regarding the east Motherwell Villages and lack of rail link at this site is noted. It is agreed that this is not a location where sustainable transport links are readily available.

0 No details have been submitted regarding the layout and design of the proposed houses, therefore it is not possible to comment on any overshadowing. In addition, the right to an outlook or view is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken

26 into account when assessing this application

With regards to the development placing an additional burden on services including the sewer system, a condition could be imposed to address this. Although at present, Scottish Water have indicated that there may be constraints on the waste water network, but it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that any new development will not have a detrimental impact on Scottish Water’s assets.

4.18 With regards to the points raised in the letters by Mr Smith, I would dispute his claim that the function of the Green Belt at this location is untenable as it is not contiguous nor does it coalesce with Green Belt land outwith Newarthill. The definition of Green Belts, as given in SPP 21 I is that a Green Belt is an area of land designated for the purposes of managing the growth of a town or city in the long term. It should be used to direct development to suitable locations, and is a key part of a long-term settlement strategy, Green belts can encircle settlements but can take a variety of other forms including buffers, corridors, strips or wedges, to take account of local circumstances and in many instances, Green Belt policy can be used effectively to prevent the coalescence of settlements. Therefore it is considered that the Green Belt at this location is paramount in managing the growth and regeneration of Newarthill and other settlements within this area.

4.19 Mr Smith further argues that this proposal would benefit the natural evolution of Newarthill on a site which offers no countryside or recreational value. The is debateable and I would argue that this site provides a strategic area of Green Belt at the edge of Newarthill. Mr Smith states that the absence of additional modern housing to supplement the post-war housing which currently dominates Newarthill is a key factor in declining school roles, however the adopted and finalised draft local plans aim to direct development to within the established boundaries of towns, and redevelop brownfield sites, and therefore this is not an adequate justification for a large release of Green Belt land. In addition, despite the letters of support from Mr Daniel Smith, the applicant has not provided details of any community benefits, therefore these cannot be secured by the granting of planning permission.

4.20 The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Section 25 requires the application to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In conclusion, it is considered that the development constitutes a significant departure from the development plan and that no material considerations that would justify the departure have materialised during the assessment of the proposal. Furthermore, the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not result in a significant adverse effect on the environment or that there are any other justifications for a departure from the development plan and national planning policy. Therefore, taking into account the Development Plan and other material considerations, including representations, and the fact that there has been no change in circumstances, 1 see no reason to alter my recommendation from that last year on this site, and therefore recommend that this application be refused.

4.21 A site visit has been requested by Mr D Smith, prior to the determination of this application by Committee.

27