Lgth JULY 2007 Ref: SIP L/B/5/90 To
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT To: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Subject: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (IN OUTLINE) From: HEAD OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LAND AT 417 HIGH STREET, NEWARTHILL 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 Lanarkshire'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 Motherwell 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 Dalziel 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 Glasgow G31 3AU Development: Residential Development (In Outline) Location: Land At 417 High Street Newarthill MLI 5SP Ward: 15 Mossend and Holytown : 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 Scotland 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