n AeENDA ITEM No.---&....-

Application No: Proposed Development:

10/01397/FUL Construction of 50 Residential Properties (including 12 cottage flats and 2 wheelchair accessible houses)

Site Address:

Land To The North Of St Ives Road Moodiesbu rn

Date Registered:

22nd December 2010

Applicant: Agent: North Council Ogilvie Construction Ltd Dalziel Building Ogilvie House 7 Scott Street Pirnhall Business Park Stirling MLI 1PF FK7 8ES

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 005 Strathkelvin 165 letters of representation received. William Hogg, Joseph Shaw, Brian Wallace, Frances McGlinchey,

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposals are considered to be an acceptable departure from the terms of the development plan and whilst the development would result in the loss of an area of public open space/greenfield land it is considered that the benefits offered in enabling the provision of a development of 50 sociaVrented accommodation outweigh the loss of a substandard open space area.

Note to Council:

As the site is under the ownership of the Council and the application is deemed significantly contrary to the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005, the application must be notified to Scottish Ministers in line with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) () Direction 2009.

Proposed Conditions:.

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within three years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- GR-L(20)001, GR-L(20)002, GR-L(20)003, GR-L(20)004, GR-L(20)005 G, GR-L(20)006, GR-L(20)007 C, GR-L(20)008, GR-L(20)010 B, GR-L(20)011 B, GR-L(20)012 B, GR-L(20)013 B, GR-L(20)014 B, GR-L(20)016 A, GR-L(20)020, GR-L(20)021, GR-L(20)022, GR-L(20)023, GR-L(20)024, GR-L(20)025, GR-L(20)026, GR-L(20)030 GR-L(20)031 A, GR-L(20)032 A, GR-L(20)033 A, GR-L(20)035, GR-L(20)036, and GR-L(20)037.

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

3. That before any aspect of the development starts, full details of existing and proposed levels, including levels on immediately adjacent land, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that levels are appropriate for the site and for the general area.

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that external materials are appropriate for the site and for the general area.

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

Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that fences and walls are appropriate for the site and for the general area.

6. That before any aspect of the development starts, a scheme of landscaping for the development area shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding, turfing and footpath link provision; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) provide for the retention and upgrade of the existing footpath through the site and full details of the upgrade works to this path shall be submitted along with details of the new connections to this footpath (e) details of the phasing of these works.

Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that landscaping is suitable for the site and the general area.

7. That within one year of the occupation of the last dwellinghouse within the development site (or such other timescale as is approved under condition 6), all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 6 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity by ensuring that landscaping is suitable for the site and the general area.

8. That before any aspect of the development starts a management and maintenance scheme for landscaped areas and footpaths within the development area shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and this scheme shall be brought into operation prior to the first dwellinghouse within the development area being occupied.

Reason: In the interests of residential and public amenity.

9. That before any aspect of the development starts, full details of the proposed surface and foul water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the said Authority and shall be certified by a chartered civil engineer as complying with the most recent SEPA SUDS guidance.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater.

10. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 9 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant SEPA SUDS guidance.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution.

11. That except as may be otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority the development shall be connected to the foul sewer network via a new length of sewer running along Gartferry Road to the combined sewer located in Gartferry Road at the junction with Glenmanor Avenue.

Reason: To ensure that there is satisfactory drainage provision.

12. That no aspect of the development shall start, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, until evidence is exhibited to the Planning Authority that an agreement has been reached by the applicant with Scottish Water for the provision of a drainage scheme for the site.

Reason: To ensure that there is satisfactory drainage provision.

13. That, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, before development starts on plots 1-16 and 45-50,a flood risk assessment for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development will not be subject to unacceptable flood risk and will not increase flood risk outwith the site.

14. That any flood risk mitigation measures approved under condition 13 above shall be incorporated into the development proposals; for the avoidance of doubt this permission does not cover the layout specified in plan GR/L(20)005G should any approved flood risk mitigation measures indicate an alternative scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the development will not be subject to unacceptable flood risk and will not increase flood risk outwith the site. 15. That before any aspect of the development starts details of public access routes across or adjacent to the site during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority; thereafter any approved public access routes shall be kept open in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail, in the interests of public access.

16. That before any aspect of the development starts a comprehensive site investigation (carried out in accordance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 10175: 2001 "The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority; any approved mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the development proposals and any approved ground remediation work shall be completed and verification provided by the developer to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority before building works start.

Reason: In the interests of public health, safety and wellbeing.

17. That before the development hereby permitted starts a detailed written statement should be provided that confirms the suitability of the priority junction in terms of safety and efficiency and that the proposed right turn ghost island facility can be provided in accordance with current roads standards.

Reason: In the interests of Road Safety

18. That before development hereby permitted starts written confirmation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority that the following requirements of the Roads Authority (or such other scheme as may be agreed in writing) have been complied with:

a) Visibility splays of 9 metres x 90 metres is required from the proposed road along Gartferry Road in both directions b) the proposed roads should be 5.5 metres wide, curve road widening will be required on the bend adjacent to Plot No. 4, these details. c) Minimum Curve radius of 25 m to be provided along with forward visibility of 35 m if traffic calming is provided, these details to be noted on drawings. d) The gradients of the proposed roads should be a minimum of 0.8% and a maximum of 8%. e) Corner radii at junctions within the site should be 6.0 metres and a minimum of 10.5 metres at the junction of the proposed road with Gartferry Road. f) Visibility splays at internal junctions within the site should be 4.5 m x 35 m. g) Dimensions of the turning facility located at the termination of the cul-de-sac serving plots 40 to 50 should be in accordance with the current standards adopted in and be noted on the drawing. h) Footways widths to be a minimum of 2 metres wide.

Reason: In the interests of Road Safety

19. That construction piling working hours shall be limited to 8.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays; no construction piling shall take place on Sundays and on Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of adjacent residents.

20. That before the development hereby permitted starts written confirmation shall be provided to the Planning Authority that the transfer of funds has taken place between Housing and Social Work Services and Learning and Leisure Services to upgrade existing play facilities off site. Reason: To ensure compliance with the Council’s policy on play provision.

21. That no aspect of the development shall start until a Notice of Initiation has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.

22. That within 4 weeks of the last dwellinghouse of the development being occupied a Notice of Completion shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To monitor the development, to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.

23. That for the duration of the construction works one or more Site Notices, printed on durable material, shall be displayed in a prominent place at or in the vicinity of the development such that it is readily visible to the public; the Notice must accord with Schedule 7 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 and must give details of the approved development, its address, details of the planning permission and information on where further information about the development can be obtained.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006

Backaround Papers:

Representation Letters

Letter from Mr Peter Fisher, 15 Penzance Way Moodiesburn, , G69 OPB Letter from Mrs Frances Smith, 7 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Alistair Wylie, 11 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Helen McGregor, 22 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Anne Thomson, 31 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Alistair Chesney, 17 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Pamela Moore, 47 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr John Cairns, 43 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Niall Mulholland, 172 Bridgeburn Drive, Moodiesburn, G69 OLF Letter from Ina McNicol, 19 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Christie, 27 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from C Elborn, 9 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Pamela Moore, 47 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Miss J McKay, 42 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn , G69 OPE Letter from Mrs A Satti, 42 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Miss Laura Slaven, 2 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Peter Milne, 14 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Carol Johnson, 11 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Una Nicolson, 22 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Susan Gannon, 9 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Owner/Occupier, 38 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mary Williams, 8 Bodmin Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Kay Gannon, 9 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs J Home, 5 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr F Christie, 27 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Ms Lesley Andrew, 23 Loudon Road, Glasgow, G33 6NJ Letter from Mr Jeff rey McNicol, 19 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Johan Smith, 7 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Julie Kilbride, 20 Cambourne Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Angela Davidson, 29 Portreath Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Carole Wylie, 11 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Robert McDowall, 7 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Gary McCabe, 49 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs E McCabe, 49 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Emily Bell, 12 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from John Doolan, 8 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Sean George McCluskey, 25 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Margeret Doolan, 8 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from James J Bell, 12 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from lain Elborn, 9 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Robert Lawson, 28 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mary Fisher, 15 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Peter Fisher, 15 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs K Russell, 9 Bodmin Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr M Wardle, 5 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from G McCluskey, 25 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from J Barr, 7 Cambourne Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from W Willin, 8 Bodmin Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Glagma Davidson, 45 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mike Smith, 7 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs M V Lawson, 28 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr T Satti, 42 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Kieran Pyott, 25 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr J McMurray, 29 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Ann McMurray, 29 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr C Russell, 9 Bodmin Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Jaclyn Smith, 7 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Jessie Milne, 14 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Owner/Occupier, 7 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Frances Smith, 7 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Owner/Occupier, 10 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Christine Pyott, 25 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Lynn McDowall, 7 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Marko Marinovic, 10 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from David Richardson, Flat 3/1, 26 Thorwood Avenue, Letter from Graham Black, 33 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Colin Black, 5 Crescent Grove, Glasgow, G13 3RE Letter from Jenny Proctor, 5 Crescent Grove, Glagow , G13 3RE Letter from Hugh Mitchell, 37 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Agnes Mitchell, 37 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Francis Christie, 27 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr G Christie, 27 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Gartferry Mains Residents Association, 37 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Barry Richard, 31 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr & Mrs Thomas McKnight, 35 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from P Clark, 2 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Joan Clark, 2 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Bruce Caw, 15 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Miss Jenny Cairns, 8a Torwood Lane, Moodiesburn, Letter from Linda Caw, 15 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from John Morgan, 19 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Owner/Occupier, 19 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Linda Pollock, 14 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Elizabeth Rice, 28 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from David Rice, 28 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Malcolm McNicol, 19 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Emma McMahon, 31 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr & Mrs Donald McRae, 23 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Elizabeth Robertson, 29 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Robert Robertson, 29 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Hilda Black, 33 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr & Mrs Donald McRae, 23 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr lain Elborn, 9 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from John Elborn, 9 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr John Cranmore, 49 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs R Barr, 7 Camborne Road, Moodiesburn, G69 OPG Letter from John Weir, 26 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Brian Slaven, 2 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Lewis Pyott, 25 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Kirsteen Weir, 14 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Margaret Weir, 26 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Crawford Rae, 14 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Linda Wardle, 5 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from James Kilbride, 20 Cambourne Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Brian Shaw, 24 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Miss J Wardle, 5 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from James Shaw, 24 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Marian McCready, 32 Truro Avenue, Moodiesburn, Letter from Miss Margaret McAulay, 46 Portreath Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Henry McCready, 32 Truro Avenue, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Helen Grant, 8 Castle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from M Casey, 30 Truro Avenue, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Christopher Armstrong, 20 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Katrina Armstrong, 20 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Mary O'Neill, 6 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from John McCabe, 49 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Steven Mulholland, 172 Bridgeburn Drive, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Joanne Mulholland, 172 Bridgeburn Drive, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Stuart Urquhart, 27 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesurn, Letter from Mrs Catherine Mcalinden, Truro Avenue, Moodiesburn, G690PQ Letter from Miss Anne Elborn, 16 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Stephen Home, 5 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Councillor William Hogg, Member Services, Windmillhill Street, Motherwell Letter from Mr Stephen Home, 5 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Susan Kelton, 3 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs L Curtis, 3 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Diane Gresham, 8 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr A McMurray, 29 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Hilda Black, 33 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr M Murray, 29 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Anne Kinsela, 21 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Alan Kinsella, 21 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr John Kelton, 3 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Alex Milne, 21 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Linda Quinn, 7 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Swarn Lota, 5 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from P S Lota, 5 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Angela McCabe, 49 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr lan C Davidson, 4 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Rosemary A Davidson, 4 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from M McMillan, 6 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from G McMillan, 6 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Kenneth Phillips, 18 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Susan Phillips, 18 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Nancy Milne, 21 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Margaret Shaw, 4 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Owner/Occupier, 19 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr A Ogden, 21 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr F Ogden, 21 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn; Letter from Mr Crawford Rae, 14 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Kirsteen Weir, 14 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Alan J Thomson, 9 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Neil Clark, 17 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Joan Clark, 17 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from E Thomson, 9 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Judith Noon, 19 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Helen Chesney, 17 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from A Chesney, 17 Penzance Way, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mr Allan Pyott, 25 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Elaine McHaig, 12 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs K Slaven, 2 Hayle Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Lesley Bell, 12 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn, Letter from Mrs Anne Nimmo, 2 Ballayne Drive, Moodiesburn, Letter from R McDavid, 24 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from E McDavid, 24 Perran Gardens, Moodiesburn, Letter from Gartferry Mains Residents Association, C/o H McGregor, 22 St Ives Road, Moodiesburn

Consultation Responses:

Greenspace Services received 1lth January 201 1. Landscape Services received 8'h February 201 1 Play Services received 3rdFebruary 201 1 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 1gth January 201 1, Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 8'h February 201 1. Geotechnical Team Leader email received 11 February 201 1 Scottish Water received 27'h January 201 1 and 1Oth February 201 1 Traffic & Transportation (Northern Area) received 17'h February 201 1 Learning and Leisure Services email dated 1 lthFebruary 201 1

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Marshall at 01236 61 6459

Report Date: 17'h February 201 1 APPLICATION NO. 10/01397/FUL

REPORT

1. Site Description

1 .I Planning permission is being sought for the construction of 50 social-rented dwellinghouses at a site located to the north of St Ives Road, Moodiesburn.

1.2 The proposed development site extends to some 2.67ha in area and consists of an area of public open space grassland which is bounded by the rear garden areas of existing residential properties in Penzance Way, St Ives Road and Hayle Gardens. The proposed development site is bounded to the north by Gartferry Road. The land to the north of Gartferry Road is generally rural in nature, consisting of grazing land and woodland. An existing playing field and school are located to the southwest of the proposed development site and another school located some 200m to the southeast.

1.3 The site comprises an area of maintained grassland and is characterised by its undulating surface and central plateau which generally falls from east to west and towards the northwest corner of the site. There are some semi-mature trees located on the western, southern and eastern periphery of the site. A linear mound extends along the southern and western boundaries of the site. Informal pedestrian tracks link the footpath network between St Ives Road and Gartferry Road. The open space area is generally used for passive recreational purposes including dog walking, however it is poorly drained.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 The proposal is for a residential development of 50 dwellinghouses that would be constructed for sociaVrented purposes and be subsequently owned and managed by North Lanarkshire Council.

2.2 A new vehicular access would be constructed from Gartferry Road and designed to accommodate a right turn lane at the entrance to the site. The new build development would be served by a new road and footpath network constructed to adoptable standards. Internally the new road would incorporate a loop road and cul-de-sac configuration to provide road frontages to all of the proposed dwellings.

2.3 The proposed house mix would comprise new build units to general needs standards with 2 units built to wheelchair access standards.

House Mix

6 3 apartment ground floor cottage flats 6 3 apartment first floor cottage flats 17 3 apartment semi-detached houses 19 4 apartment semi-detached houses 2 4 apartment semi-detached wheelchair access houses

50 Total number of dwellings.

2.4 The proposed house types would be finished in a mix of facing brick and render to external walls with UPVC doors/windows/soffits/fascias and roofs finished with grey coloured slate effect Marley Duo Modern roof tiles to complement the surrounding dwellings. 2.5 Each development plot would be provided with 6m depth front and 10m depth rear garden areas. Each plot would be provided with 1.8 m high screen fencing to rear gardens and between gables with 1.1m high timber fencing provided between gardens. Site boundary fencing to public areas would be 2m high timber screen fencing. This would include a 2m high wall/fence feature along the Gartferry Road frontage. The 3 apartment flats and semi-detached units would be provided with 2 in-curtilage parking spaces and the larger 4 apartment units with 3 in-curtilage spaces. A total of 16 visitor parking spaces would be provided throughout the site.

2.6 The overall site would be subject to ground re-grading works to provide a more regular, consistent development surface through the removal of the site’s high centre ridge, undulating surface and peripheral mounds. Due to the site level re-grading works there would be a requirement to provide retaining walls between the rear gardens of plots 17/22 and plots 18 to 2l(inclusive), between plots 1-4 and 5-8 (inclusive) and along the rear garden areas of plots 39-44 (inclusive). An additional 1.2m high retaining wall would be provided along the Gartferry Road frontage of the site. These retaining walls are generally between 1.4m to 1.7m high depending on the level differences. A crib retaining wall (designed as a landscape feature) between plots 1-4 and 5-8 would be approximately 3m in height due to the varying ground levels at this part of the site.

2.7 The re-grading works would also include the provision of a large SUDS pond to the north- west (lowest) corner of the site. This drainage pond would be constructed to Scottish Water’s adoptable standards.

2.8 The site layout would also incorporate a landscaping scheme incorporating low level shrub and tree planting within open space areas, enhancement of a retained amenity space area to the eastern boundary of the site and along the main road frontage on Gartferry Road. The SUDS surface water drainage pond would also be subject to planting works around its periphery.

2.9 An established footpath link between St Ives Road and Gartferry Road would be retained and enhanced by additional landscape planting works.

2.10 There is no play area details provided with the planning application as it was agreed at the development brief stage that a financial contribution would be provided for off site upgrades.

3. ADDlicant’s SuDDortina information

3.1 The planning application is accompanied by a Pre-Application Consultation Report (PAC), Design Statement, Ecological Study and Geo-Environmental Investigation Report in addition to the planning application drawings.

3.2 The Design Statement advises that it is the aim of the Council to create new housing, within a balanced and sustainable community, that addresses identified housing need for social rented accommodation and provide family, amenity and wheelchair standard housing. The provision of affordable rented accommodation built to Housing for Varying Needs: Part 1 Standard and the new Building Regulations which is accessible, sustainable and energy efficient would assist the Council to achieve this. The proposed development would address an identified housing need. 4. Site History

4.1 The site has not been subject to any previous planning applications. The area has been used as an area of passive public open space area associated with the surrounding housing area which was constructed during the 1970's.

5. DeveloPment Plan

5.1 The application site is located within an area covered by Policy LR 1 (Protection of Existing Leisure and Recreational Facilities) of the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005. Policy HG 4 (Assessing Applications for Residential Development) would also be of relevance.

6. Co ns uI tati ons

6.1 Scottish Water had no objection subject to conditions. Scottish Water confirmed that the Balmore Water Treatment Works and Dalmuir Waste Water Treatment Works currently have capacity to service the proposed development. They also confirmed that as the development includes a SUDS pond constructed to their requirements there would be no additional impact on their existing surface water drainage system.

6.2 SEPA had no objection provided that all surface water from the development site is discharged in accordance with the principles of the SUDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) Manual (C697) published by CIRIA.

6.3 NLC Geo-Technical Services provided the following advice in terms of flooding and drainage.

Part of the site is within the 1:200 year flood plain of the Bothlin Burn. It is recommended that a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) be requested.

In principle, there is no reason to suppose that a satisfactory drainage solution cannot be developed for the site. Regardless of this, any drainage proposal will ultimately have to meet the requirements of Scottish Water.

There is evidence to suggest that the problems with the sewers which are believed to have been responsible for the flood event in August 2009 have not been identified, and that the ongoing risk of sewer flooding appears to remain. There has been a suggestion by some local residents that further development in the locality would increase the existing flood risk from the same source. Geotechnical commented as follows on this suggestion:- The flooding and surcharging event reports in all cases coincide with heavy rainfall or storm events. This suggests that the flooding originates from a local surface water sewer. If the proposed development is to discharge surface water directly to the local watercourse, which Geotechnical understand is the intention, and not to the sewer, then it could not be reasonably argued that there would be any increase in the existing flood risk post-development from the same sewer. This is because the surface water systems of the existing and new development would be independent of one another. Foul sewage characteristically seen in the flows reported, is very likely to result from the nature of manhole construction used locally, and overflow from the surface water sewer into the foul sewer.

6.4 Protective Services had no objection subject to conditions to ensure there would be no significant impact on adjacent residents during any construction period and that a comprehensive site investigation is submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. It was noted that the construction works may include piling and as such appropriate restrictions and controls over potential noise impacts should be imposed.

6.5 Transportation Section had no objection subject to conditions that will ensure that the proposed road junction and internal roads layout is acceptable and accords with current roads guidelines.

6.6 Greenspace Services had no objection provided the development incorporates facilities to protect and enhance plant and animal species and habitats in accordance with biodiversity action plans.

6.7 Play Services advised that the development would need to accommodate a 500m2 equipped play space for a development of this size.

6.8 Landscape Services had no objections subject to condition requiring that landscape details be agreed before the development commences.

6.9 Learning and Leisure had no objection to the proposed development as they did not anticipate future capacity problems in this area.

7. Rewesentat ions

7.1 Some 165 letter(s) of representation were received. Of these there were 7 letters of support for the proposals which in summary raise the following points:-

1. This site is not in the greenbelt but originally comprises a spoil heap created by a housing developer in 1970’s.

2. The existing open space area is not well-used as a community parklplay area and is mainly used by local dog walkers.

3. There is a need for social housing provision to diversify the tenure mix in the Moodiesburn area. This far outweighs the retention of a poor quality open space area.

4. The proposals are well considered and should not be detrimental to amenity or result in a loss of privacy.

5. Potential drainage issues would be dealt with before the development is allowed to commence.

6. The proposed house types would be eco friendly and new structure planting would increase biodiversity at this site.

7. Future tenants would be local people, whose children already attend schools in the area.

7.2 There were 158 letters of representations that raised objections to the proposals (including a letter from Cllr W Hogg who requests a site visit and hearing and in addition raises concerns over current drainage issues. Gartferry Mains Residents Association also request a Site Visit and Hearing). The material terms of objection can be summarised as follows:-

1. There is an existing problem with the drainage system in this area particularly when surface water and sewage water are able to surcharge in periods of heavy rainfall. Previous investigations by Scottish Water have been inconclusive and further surveys are required by them. As such it is considered this proposal should be considered premature until the outstanding problems relating to water and sewage infrastructure are resolved.

2. The open space area has mounds which assist in diverting rain water away from existing rear garden areas and their removal would exacerbate flood water issues at these properties.

3. The proposal is contrary to development plan policy.

4. The loss of this well used and valued open space would have a negative impact on the amenity of the area.

5. The proposed development would overshadow existing properties

6. The proposed development would overlook existing properties which would be exacerbated due to the difference in existing ground levels.

7. The proposals would result in a loss of bat habitat and impact on flora and fauna in the natural environment.

8. A local green space audit has not yet been completed. There are very few open space areas remaining in Moodiesburn.

9. The new development would block existing rear access to neighbouring properties.

10. The development would prevent access to and challenge the capacity of the existing drainage infrastructure. The existing drainage system cannot cope with moderately heavy rain which causes raw sewage to discharge in this area and the new development would exacerbate this problem.

11. If permission is granted for this development it should be on condition that the existing drainage infrastructure is upgraded along with the new development.

12. Additional residents would create additional pressure on existing Primary School rolls and other amenities.

13. There would be environmental and health impacts due to contamination issues related to previous use of this site as a landfill by previous housing developers.

14. There would be negative impacts due to increases in volumes of traffic.

15. The site is in the greenbelt and currently provides an unrestricted view to an outlying area of great natural beauty.

16. The development would be environmentally unfriendly and bring additional noise and traffic to the area.

17. The development would result in the loss of a public right of way.

18. The site is undermined and any new development could adversely impact on existing housing areas.

19. There are better alternative sites available for this development that would not be considered contrary to the local plan policy.

20. As this proposal is being promoted by the Council for their aims and on a site owned by them. Their subsequent consideration of the proposals cannot be objective especially when balancing their potential gains over impacts on existing residents. 21. The proposals are also contrary to the DSP4 policies of the emerging local plan.

22. The proposed development would increase residential density to the detriment of amenity.

23. The proposed development would comprise 2 storey dwellings, which is considered unacceptable as the surrounding existing properties are 1 % storey. a. Planning Assessment

8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 Develocvnent Plan The Development Plan consists of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 (incorporating the fourth alteration 2008) and the Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005. Relevant policies are as follows.

8.2 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000: The Structure Plan Strategic Policy 6 (Quality of Life and Health of Local Communities) indicates that the quality of life and health of the communities will be supported through providing housing opportunities to meet the requirement for a continuing 5 year effective owner occupied land supply. Schedule 6(b) the need to provide for choice in terms of size and type of housing in each housing market area and the needs for social rented housing identified in Local Plans and Local Housing Strategies. As the proposed development involves 50 houses on a Greenfield site the proposed development must be assessed against Strategic Policy 9.

8.3 Strategic Policy 9 - Assessment of Development Proposals - Policy SP9A(iii) covers proposals relating to affordable housing provisions including social rented accommodation. Schedule 6(b)(iii) and (iv) identifies local authority areas where there is a clear priority to improve the range and choice of affordable housing provisions. Whilst North Lanarkshire is not listed as a priority area, in Schedule 6(b)(iii) or (iv) (these include Glasgow, Inverclyde, East Dumbartonshire etc) the Structure Plan is generally supportive of local authorities allocating sites specifically for affordable housing/social rent tenure type specific to the needs of the area also suggests priority should be given to urban/brownfield locations where appropriate. Furthermore the FDNNLP includes a policy on Affordable Housing for the Sub-Market Area.

8.6 As noted above these proposals involve the provision of local authority housing for rent and would assist the aims of the Council to create new housing, within a balanced and sustainable community, to address local housing need for social rented accommodation. It is further advised the use of the site will address identified housing need in a sustainable manner and as such accords with the aims of this policy.

8.7 Under Policy 9B the location of this residential development needs to be appropriate in terms of its need to meet the following relevant criterion:-

8.8 Policy SP9B(i) sets out to safeguard and avoid the diversion of investment from the relevant strategic development locations indentified in Strategic Policies 1 and 6. The proposed development site is not located within any of these locations and as such does not strictly accord with the terms of SP1. However being a Council Housing Development it does not compete with the aims of SPI.

8.9 Policy SP6 seeks to ensure the quality of life and health of local communities is supported through various actions including the provisions of housing choice in terms of type, size and tenure including social rented housing. It is considered the proposals are in accordance with policy SPG(b). The Cumbernauld Sub Market Area has been identified as being a priority area for Affordable Housing in both the Council's Housing Strategy and the emerging FDNLLP.

8.9 Policy SPSB(ii) seeks to ensure proposals promote urban regeneration by utilising brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites or open space and safeguards the Greenbelt. Whilst the site is not located within the Greenbelt, the existing site is used as an area of open space (although poor quality) and is considered to be greenfield. As such the proposals are considered to be contrary to SPSB(ii).

8.15 As the proposal involves development of a greenfield site noted the proposed development is contrary to the Strategic Policy 9 and must be regarded as a departure from the plan. As such it must be considered under the criterion of SPlO (Departures from the Structure Plan).

8.16 Strategic Policy 10 - SPIOA requires a justification for the development in terms of:-

(ii) a clear evidence of a shortfall in the existing and planned supply of land for housing development within the appropriate Market Area; taking account of the need to provide for choice in terms of size and type of housing, and (iii) a requirement for affordable (including social rented housing) identified in a Strategic Housing Agreements or Local Housing Strategy;

It is considered that the provision of social-rented accommodation within this area would add to the choice of housing that is available and assist in addressing an indentified need for social rented accommodation in this area. It is also considered that the use of the site will increase choice and address an identified housing need in a sustainable and productive manner. It is considered the provision of social rented housing at this site can be justified under the terms of SPlOA(ii) and (iii).

8.17 The proposals also need to be assessed under the terms of SPlOB in terms of (i) Economic, (ii) Social and (iii) Environmental Benefit.

(i) There are no overriding economic benefits directly associated with the development although it is recognised that there may be a small short term economic benefit created during the construction phase. It is accepted that in more favourable economic conditions this could be said of almost any scheme however it is considered that at present any construction activity in the housing sector will be of benefit. (ii) Whilst the site is not located in the Priority Areas identified in Schedule 1 (b) or I (d) there would be a significant social benefit through the provision of social rented housing in the area which is in accordance with the Council's aims in addressing housing need. Furthermore, it is considered that the settlement has the capacity to absorb further development. (iii) Whilst the proposals would not result in any enhancement on the environmental resources identified in Schedule 7 there would also be no impact on these resources. Although the development will lead to the loss of open space, the proposals would however result in the improvementlenhancement of the remaining public open space for passive recreational including improvements to an alleged public right of way. There would be associated improvements to the drainage of this site. The wider benefits of social housing and the improvements to the remaining open space are considered to outweigh any negative impacts arising from the loss of the existing open space area.

8. 19 In concluding the assessment under the terms of Strategic Policy 10 it is considered that the loss of the greenfield site does not outweigh the benefits of enabling a development of 50 social rented dwellinghouses that would be owned and managed by North Lanarkshire Council and thus enable the Council to meet housing demands in this area. The proposals are therefore considered to be an acceptable departure from the terms of the development plan. 8.20 Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005. (NCLP) The site is zoned under Policy LR1 (Protection of Existing Leisure and Recreational Facilities) where there is a presumption against development that would adversely affect existing open spaces especially sports facilities, public parks, playing fields and land of recreational amenity or wild life value within or adjacent to built up areas, except where the development acceptably provides for outdoor recreation, nature conservation or landscape protection or enhancement.

8.21 The proposals would result in the loss of most of the existing public open space area, which would in part be contrary to the general terms of Policy LR 1. However it is considered that as this particular open space area is of poor quality, serves only passive recreational purposes (such as dog walking), does not support any outdoor active recreational facilities and has limited landscape and low ecological value its loss would not be unacceptable when compared to the benefits offered through the provision of social housing opportunities in the area. Moreover, the existing open space area is also poorly drained and due to its undulating surface could not support active recreational/sporting facilities such as playing pitches etc. Therefore given the limited value of this open space area its loss would not be significant and this would need to be considered against benefits in enabling the Council to provide 50 dwellings for social- rental purposes in the Moodiesburn area.

8.22 The proposed development would retain some 3400m2 of the existing open space area as an improved amenity space and include a landscape planting scheme that would enhance the landscape, biodiversity and nature conservation value of the site. Additional planting would also be provided along Gartferry Road and around the proposed SUDS pond area and this would improve the visual amenity of the site frontage. The proposals would also retain an existing route of an alleged public right of way and result in the provision of an equipped children’s play area that would be provided off-site at a local community education centre. It is therefore considered that on balance the loss of an open space area of limited value is acceptable when compared against the social housing benefits of the development, which would also include enhancements to the remaining open space area, landscaping and biodiversity interests. In this instance a departure from Policy LR 1 is justified for the above noted reasons.

8.23 The NCLP also requires new development proposals to meet the design standards laid out in Appendix 1 Design Guidance 1: Guidelines for New Development. Overall it is considered the proposal accords with these standards in terms of building materials, roads layout, garden sizes, services, landscaping (subject to final species details), boundary treatment, daylight and privacy and density. The roads and parking arrangements for access, off street and visitor parking are acceptable. The retained and enhanced areas of public open space are acceptable and an appropriate size of children’s equipped play space would be provided off site. Appropriate security measures have been considered in designing the overall layout. The proposals therefore meet the requirements of Design Guidance 1 in the NCLP.

8.24 Other Material Considerations : Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (FDNNLP): The site is covered by policy HCF 2A2 Promoting Housing Development and Community Facilities- Sites for (Short Term) Housing Development- Additions to Housing Land Supply. The Council sets out to satisfy housing demand in the period up to 201 1 and has identified the proposed development site for this purpose. As such it is considered the proposals are in accordance with this policy of the emerging local plan.

8.25 The proposals also require to be assessed under the terms of Development Strategy Policies (DSP 1-4).

DSP1 (Amount of Development). As noted above the scale of the proposed development is acceptable at a site allocated to meet short term housing demand. DSP2 (Location of Development). As the site is identified as an addition to the existing housing land supply it is consistent with the Plan’s locational criteria. DSP3 (Impact of Development). The proposals are unlikely to have significant impacts on the economic, social, or environmental infrastructure of the community. The loss of the existing poor quality open space area is not significant in terms of impact but may result in improvements to landscape, biodiversity and recreationalfacilities in the area. DSP4 (Quality of Development). It is considered the proposals include a high standard of site planning and sustainable design and that the proposals have been considered against appropriate appraisal of the existing character and site setting including landscape, biodiversity and amenity value. The existing site is considered to be poor quality open space and the development of the site would enhance the landscape and biodiversity including retention of the route of an alleged public right of way. The proposals are supported by a Design Statement which includes a comprehensive site appraisal and promotes satisfactory site layout, density, form and scale of development. The proposal also addresses requirements in terms of open space and shall include appropriate drainage design that shall incorporate a SUDS scheme. The proposals also integrate successfully within the surrounding area and avoid any significant impact on neighbouring amenity through overlooking, loss of privacy or amenity, overshadowing, noise or disturbance. Noise impacts during construction period would be covered by environmental regulations.

It is considered the proposals accord with Policies DSP 1-4.

Consultations:-

8.26 Scottish Water had no objections to the proposals as they considered the drainage infrastructure had spare capacity to service the development. They also confirmed that as the development includes a SUDS pond that would be constructed to their requirements there would be no additional impact on their existing surface water drainage system. It is acknowledged that there have been drainage surcharge problems in the St Ives Road and Penzance Way (as confirmed by Geotechnical’s response) particularly during periods of heavy rainfall, however it is noted these sections of the drainage infrastructure are located at a higher level than the development site and it is not anticipated that the proposed development’s drainage facilities would have any unacceptable impact on Scottish Water’s drainage infrastructure. This was also agreed in Geotechnical’s response. These requirements can be covered by planning conditions specifying that works must be approved by Scottish Water, that surface water drainage complies with SUDS principles and that a potential safeguarding sewerage solution be implimented.

8.27 SEPA had no objection subject to foul drainage from the site connecting to the public sewerage network and that surface water is discharged via an agreed SUDS scheme. These aspects can be covered by planning conditions as noted above.

8.28 NLC Geotechnical Services confirmed that a small part of the site falls within a flood plain and that a Flood Risk Assessment should be undertaken. This can be covered by a condition of any planning permission. Geotechnical Services also considered that there is no reason why a satisfactory drainage solution cannot be developed for this site. It was also their consideration that as the proposed development may discharge surface water directly to the local watercourse and not to the existing sewer, then it could not be reasonably argued that there would be any increase in the existing flood risk post- development from the same sewer. Geotechnical Services explained this is because the surface water systems of the existing and new development would be independent of one another. It is therefore considered that a satisfactory drainage design can be agreed with Scottish Water and that this arrangement is unlikely to increase flood and surcharge problems at other locations.

8.29 NLC Protective Services had no objection subject to conditions requiring a detailed site investigation survey and ensuring construction works are limited. These matters can be covered by planning condition and existing environmental regulations. It is proposed that conditions limit piling works times and that a site investigation be submitted and any required remediation is carried out.

8.30 NLC Transportation had no objections subject to conditions requiring clarification on certain matters in relation to the junction and internal roads layout.

8.31 Greenspace Services, Landscape Services and Play Services had no objection to the proposals subject to conditions requiring additional biodiversity protection and enhancement measures, and additional landscaping and play area details respectively. These matters can be covered by advisory notes and planning conditions requiring landscaping provision. With regards to play provision, instead of providing an on site play area the principle of upgrading existing facilitates at Kelvin Road has been agreed. This will be covered by planning condition requiring that the Planning Authority to be satisfied that an agreement has been reached between Housing and Social Work Services and Learning and Leisure Services. The normal level of financial contribution is based on f500 per house and f250 per flat.

8.32 NLC Learning and Leisure Services had no objection and considered the additional resident’s children would be accommodated within existing schools.

Representations:-

8.33 Supporting Comments: As noted above there were 7 letters of support for the development proposals as noted above at paragraph 7.1. These supporting comments are consistent with the above noted planning assessment of the proposals under the terms of the development plan and other material considerations.

8.34 Objection Comments: As noted above there were 165 letters of objection to the proposed development as noted in paragraph 7.2 above. With regards to the material issues raised the following responses can be made.

1. In respect of concerns over the current drainage issues raised by Councillor Hogg and others objectors it is noted that Scottish Water had no objection to the proposals and, along with Geotechnical, considered that a drainage design solution is achievable. As the new system would be unlikely to have an impact on current surcharge issues experienced elsewhere in the area (because the new development will have a separate surface water discharge system from the existing problem system) it is not, therefore, considered the proposals are premature.

2. The site would be subject to ground re-grading works which would remove mounds and highpoints in the topography to provide a more regular development area. The development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system and this would improve drainage arrangements at the site. Site levels would be contoured to direct water towards the SUDS pond that would be located to the north west corner of the site.

3. The proposals are considered an acceptable departure from the development plan under the terms of SPIO. The proposals are also considered an acceptable departure form policy LR1 of the NCLP due to the poor condition and value of the current open space area and due to the allocation of the site for housing purposes under policy HCF 2A2 of the FDNLLP, which is a material planning consideration.

4. It is considered the current open space is not well used as a recreational facility, is poorly drained and has poor ecological and landscape interest. Its loss does not outweigh the benefits of the Council addressing the social rental housing demands in the area. 5. The proposed properties are located to the north, east and west of adjacent existing properties and given the proposed layout in relationship to surrounding properties and the fact that the development has been laid out in accordance with the Council’s plot size standards would not cause any overshadowing of existing properties.

6. The site would be subject to re-grading works and this would effectively reduce the height of any high points and mounds. All of the proposed house units would be 2 storey and set within appropriate plot areas to ensure there would be no significant overlooking issues.

7. The existing site has low ecological value and the proposed development is unlikely to have a negative impact on any protected species or their habitat. Conversely the proposals would improve the ecological diversity of the site through a landscaping scheme.

8. Whilst a local open space audit has not been completed to enable the determination of value of this open space, it should be noted that the FNNLLP has allocated the site for housing development purposes. There are other open space areas and community recreation facilities in the Moodiesburn area.

9. All of the existing rear garden accesses from the site are informal ad-hoc arrangements.

10. There is existing drainage infrastructure that runs along the southern boundary of the application site and this would remain in place. Scottish Water would still be able to gain access to this infrastructure for maintenance purposes. Scottish Water had no objection to the proposals and considered there is sufficient capacity within their treatment works to service the site. Geotechnical Services advised that a satisfactory drainage design can be agreed with Scottish Water and that this arrangement is unlikely to increase flood and surcharge problems at other locations.

11. As noted above the proposed drainage system is unlikely to increase flood and discharge problems at other parts of the system. Imposing such a condition would not be reasonable.

12. There was no objection from Learning and Leisure Services in respect of potential increases in school roles or other community facilities. Moreover the new housing will in part be allocated to families already living in the area.

13. The site will be subject to a comprehensive site investigation survey and this shall include a detailed remediation strategy to deal with contaminated ground issues.

14. There was no objection from Transportation Section in regards to any negative impacts from significant increases in the volume of traffic on the local road network. Further clarification is required to demonstrate that the proposed junction is suitable and this has been covered by a planning condition.

15. The site is not located in the green belt. The loss of private views is not considered to be a material planning consideration.

16. It is accepted that their may be some increased noise impacts during the construction phase and to minimise such an impact the working hours for piling shall be controlled via a planning condition and existing environmental protocol. Once completed the development would not result in any unacceptable noise or traffic levels.

17. The route of the alleged public right of way is being retained. 18. As previously noted the site shall be subject to a comprehensive site investigation with appropriate remedial strategies as required.

19. This site has been considered appropriate as a housing development site in the FDNLLP.

20. Whilst the proposed development is to be undertaken by the Council, the planning application still requires to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. If the Council are minded to grant permission under the terms of the planning regulations there is a requirement for the application details to be forwarded to Scottish Ministers to enable them to determine if the Council can proceed.

21. The proposals are consistent with the terms of DSP4 as noted above.

22. The proposals relate to a development of 50 houses and its layout, house design and density are acceptable and as such would not have any detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

23. Two storey dwellinghouses are an acceptable house type in this area.

It is considered that the above noted objections have been addressed and it can be concluded that they are not sustainable and raise no material considerations which may other wise suggest that the proposed residential development of this site is unacceptable.

9 Conclusions

9.1 The proposals are considered to be an acceptable departure from the terms of the development plan and whilst the development would result in the loss of an area of public open space/greenfield land it is considered that the benefits offered in enabling the provision of a development of 50 social/rented accommodation outweigh the loss of a substandard open space area that is in poor condition with limited use as a recreational area. The residential development would lead to improved and enhanced landscaping and biodiversity of the retained open space area. There was no significant issue raised by the consultees that cannot be covered by condition. It is considered that reported drainage issues would not be exacerbated by the proposed development. Whilst there were a significant volume of objections to the proposals the issues raised have been taken into account but are not considered to outweigh the benefits of the proposal. It is concluded that the proposals are acceptable and it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

9.2 It should be noted that as this is a development on council owned land, which is contrary to the Development Plan the application requires to be notified to the Scottish Ministers under the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007.