North Lanarkshire Council
AGENDA ITEM No..-...... a, .....
North Lanarkshire Council
Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee
Committee Date : 28'h June 2012
Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved
1 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
28th June 2012
Page Application Applicant DevelopmentBite Recommendation No No
4 11/01 184/PPP Mr Robert Proposed Residential Grant Binns Development of 14 Detached Dwellings and six Flatted Dwellings Land To The East Of Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld
15 11/01227/FUL Advance Removal of 7000 Tons of Request Site Visit Construction Tipped Material and Ltd Remediation of Affected Area, Forming Access TracWRoad to Site Land To North West Of Branchal Cottages Branchal Road Cam busnethan Wishaw
24 12/00102/FUL Mr William Formation of Cluster Request Site Visit and Chambers Residential Development, Hearing Comprising of 3 New Build Dwellings, 3 New Build Single Garages & Conversion of Existing Barn. 2 Allanton Holdings Mill Road Allanton
38 12/00159/AMD Bellway Proposed Demolition of Grant Homes & Existing Off ice Building Taylor Wimpey and Construction of Residential Development Comprising 24 Flats and 38 Dwellinghouses (Amendment to Existing Consent) Site Of Former Boots Factory Motherwell Street Ai rd rie
2 48 12/00284/FUL Harthill Wind Erection of 2 No. Wind Grant Limited Turbines (74.5m to Hub and 125m to Tip) Including Ancillary Transformers, Crane Hardstandings, New and Upgraded Access Tracks, Two Substations, Control Buildings and Underground Cabling and 1 no. 75 m Meteorological Mast NETHERTON FARM Westcraigs Road Harthill Shotts
78 12/00453/FUL lnchwood Erection of Dwellinghouse Grant Properties Ltd and Stables Site To East Of lnchwood Mews Kilsyth Road Queenzieburn
87 12/00501/FUL Cumbernauld Change of Use From Grant South Credit Community Centre to Union Financial Services (Credit Union) Community Centre 1 Lomond Drive Condorrat Cumbernauld Glasgow
(P) 11/00993/PPP - If minded to grant, s75 required for financial contribution (Education) (P) 11/01 184/PPP - if minded to grant, legal agreements required covering a) transfer of land to Scottish Wildlife Trust with associated management plan and commuted sum, b) affordable housing and c) financial contribution (Education)
3 Application No: Proposed Development:
11/01184/PPP Proposed Residential Development of 14 Detached Dwellings and six Flatted Dwellings Site Address:
Land To The East Of Stirling Road Luggiebank Cumbernauld North Lanarkshire
Date Registered:
21 st November 201 1
Applicant: Agent: Mr Robert Binns N/A Luggiebank IIP Keepers Longfords Minchinhampton Stroud GL6 9AN Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes
Ward: Representations: 004 Abronhill, Kildrum and the Village 6 letters of representation received. Elizabeth Irvine, Tom Johnston, Stephen Grant
Recommendation: Refuse
Reasoned Justification:
The proposed development is contrary to policies HG1 and EN26 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan and policies DSP 1, DSP 2 and NBE 3A and NBE 1 A of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the proposed development will lead to the loss of an important area of open space/Green Belt which is of nature conservation value. If granted, the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for other similar inappropriate development.
4 11/01 ReprWced by permission PLANNING APPLICATION 184/PPP Produced by of the Ordnance Survey on Planning and Development behalfof HMSO @Crown Proposed Residential Development of 14 CWYnghtad eatabase Detached Dwellings and six Flatted Dwellings 2009 All rights reserved Orcfiance Survey Llce~enum~1~~Land To The East Of Stirling Road, Luggiebank Cum bemauld G67 1JW * Representations 5 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
1. The proposal is contrary to policy EN 26 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan as it is considered that the proposal will not enhance existing levels of nature conservation and landscape protection on the site. Furthermore, the proposed development will have significant impact on the character and amenity of Luggiebank and to a key approach to the town of Cumbernauld.
2. The proposal is contrary to policy HG 1 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan as the site is not an appropriate infill site as is not within the built up area or an area identified for residential development in the local plan.
3. The proposal is contrary to development strategy policies DSP 1 and 2 of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan as it would involve the provision of more than 10 units on Greenfield land without justification in terms of housing supply/demand and would not meet the criteria as set out in policy DSP 28, namely, maintaining the clearly defined urban and rural boundaries in the context of the Green Belt. Insufficient justification has been provided to argue that the site would be suitable for housing taking into account the above assessment factors.
4. The proposal is contrary to policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan and constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would significantly alter the character and amenity of the Green Belt and the existing settlement of Luggiebank, furthermore, no justification has been provided in terms of the required criteria for development within the Green Belt.
5. The proposal is contrary to policy NBEI A (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment) the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the proposal will result in a reduction in the existing levels of nature conservation value and landscape protection.
6. If approved, the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for other similar unacceptable and inappropriate development proposals within an area of identified open space and the Green Belt.
6 Backaround Papers:
Supporting Statement submitted as part of the Planning Application. Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Kaya Consulting Ltd. Phase 1 Habitat Survey prepared by DoctorhAlisonC Hannah dated 2012. Phase 1 Site Investigation Report dated 15 May 201 2. Map showing extent of proposed land transfer to Scottish Wildlife Trust. Proposed Site Plan (For Illustrative Purposes) numbered 1816:Ol and dated 27'h April 2012.
Representation Letters
Letter from Mrs lrene Jenkins, 658 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 11th December 201 1. Letter from Mr David Morrow, 656 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 12th December 201 1. Letter from Mr James Gardner, 652 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 10th December 201 1. Letter from R Gallacher, 654 Stirling Road, Cumbernauld, Glasgow received 13th December 201 1. Letter from Mr John Wilson, 650 Stirling Road, Luggiebank, Cumbernauld received 29th November 201 1. Letter from Mr Sorooshian, Tower House, Luggiebank, G67 4AB dated 6'h December 201 1.
Consultation Responses:
Traffic & Transportation dated 2gthNovember 201 1 , 1 lthJanuary 2012. 1dh May 201 2 and dhJune 201 2. NLC Head of Community Services dated gthDecember 201 1. The Coal Authority dated 23rdNovember 201 1. Scottish Water dated 6'h December 201 1. NLC Greenspace dated 22ndDecember 201 1 , 2dhand 30th May 2012. Scottish Natural Heritage dated gthDecember 201 1. Scottish Power Energy Networks dated 7'h December 201 2. Scottish Environment Protection Agency dated 25'h April 201 2. Geotechnical Team Leader dated 18'h April 201 2. NLC Education dated 31" May 2012.
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Paul Williams at 01236 63251 9
Report Date:
1 lthJune 201 2
Note to Committee : If granted, the Decision Notice should not be issued until legal agreements required in connection with nature conservation, affordable housing and developer contributions (Education) have been completed and further protected species and nature conservation studies have been completed.
7 APPLICATION NO. 11/01 184/PPP
REPORT
1. Site Description
1 .1 The site lies to the east of Luggiebank village on the site of a former clay quarry. It is bounded the north by the gardens of dwellings and to the west by the rear gardens of bungalows and cottages on the eastern side of Stirling Road and to the west by an area which bounds a tributary of the Luggie water and some spoil heaps which date back to the previous uses of the site. The site is bounded to the south by Glenhove Road. The development site has an area of approximately 1.8 Hectares.
1.2 The site is relatively flat, with the exception of the spoil heaps on its eastern side. Although having a former clay pit use, the site has a green leafy rural character. There are mature trees and shrubs within site as well as along boundaries. The existing vehicular access on Glenhove Road has a locked gate. The site is covered by grass in central area and is relatively flat with water course running (a tributary of the Luggie Water) running along eastern boundary. The site dips down into a gully on the eastern side which accommodates this burn. The site is covered by woodland to the north and also at its southern end.
2. ProDosed Development
2.1 The applicant seeks Planning Permission in Principle for a residential development of 14 two storey houses and one two storey block of 6 affordable starter flats, and has provided a proposed layout illustrating this. The applicant proposes to use the existing access albeit upgraded for access into the proposed development. The proposed house plots are relatively generous in area and similar in size and proportion to other existing plots within the village. The proposed block of flats is situated to the east of the vehicular access.
2.2 As the eastern half of the site forms part of a larger site designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), the applicant has agreed in consultation with the Scottish Wildlife Trust (SWT), to gift SWT a pocket of land to the east of the site to form part of a managed ’Green Corridor’ as well as a commuted sum of f28,000to go towards its management. This would in effect be an extension of the existing Luggiebank Wood Reserve, an area of 26.7 Hectares of grassland, scrub and riverside woodland along the Luggie Water currently managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust.
3. Amlicant’s Sumortina Information
3.1 As part of the submission the applicant has submitted a supporting statement. The applicant states that if the application was approved that he would gift the remainder of the clay quarry site, some 3 Hectares to the Scottish Wildlife Trust (and f28,OOO towards its management) and the Local Community. The Scottish Wildlife Trust currently manage a larger adjoining area that this area would connect into. The applicant has documented positive discussions and meetings with SWT regarding the proposed land transfer. Furthermore, the applicant states that the area to the east of the site that is designated as being Important for Nature Conservation in the Cumbernauld Local Plan would have public access as it would be gifted to the local community. The applicant further states that the proposed development site is an old brickworks and is, except for the stream valley, covered with spoil heaps and as such affords no natural habitat. The applicant argues that in the context of the previous use of the site and because the site is immediately to the east of Luggiebank Village, the proposal would be a natural rationalisation of the village boundary. The applicant further argues that the proposal would be good for the local economy and be in accordance with council aims of providing links and opportunities with existing settlements and outdoor recreation in the form of the ‘Green Way’ along the burn. Finally that the proposed development would provide the housing required for the
8 area as well as removal of a brownfield site. The applicant has also indicated that the mature trees on the southern, western and north western boundaries would be retained as well as new tree planting within the site. Also the applicant states that the whole site is outside the South Cumbernauld Community designated open space and therefore the proposal does not conflict with this policy.
4. Site Historv
4.1 There is no recent planning history for the site but it is understood that the site was a former clayworks/quarry which after its functional life was used as a landfill site for a house builder. There was an application to extend a previous consent for Lenziemill tip in 1985 (CN/85/11 - 5 year extension approved), proposals for infill of site in 1991 (MN/91/51 - approved) and residential development in 1992 (PL/92/59) which was withdrawn as it was recommended for refusal as contrary to the open space policy in the emerging Cumbernauld Local Plan.
5. Development Plan
5.1 The site is designated as a significant area of open space by policy EN26 in the Cumbernauld Local Plan. Policy EN26 states that there will be a presumption against development in areas of open space defined on the Proposals Map, and other areas of recreational or amenity value to their surroundings except where the development provides for outdoor recreation, nature conservation or landscape protection.
6. Consultations
6.1 SEPA has no objection to the proposed development on flood risk grounds provided that the council undertakes its responsibility as Flood Prevention Authority. Based on the information provided the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has confirmed that the proposed development is outwith the 200 year flood outline, at relatively low potential flood risk and therefore compliant with the principles of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) and Sustainable Flood Management (SFM).
6.2 Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application and has provided advice for the applicant in terms of connections to their network.
6.3 The Coal Authority has confirmed that the application site does not fall within the defined Coal Mining Development Referral Area. The site is located instead within the defined Standing Advice Area, meaning that there is no requirement to specifically consider coal mining issues as part of the planning application. If the application was successful, issues relating to coal mining can be dealt with as an informative note to the applicant in the interests of public health and safety.
6.4 Scottish Natural Heritage have responded by saying that they are content to offer no advice or comment on the proposal and are confident that the council will identify any natural heritage impacts and address them without further reference to Scottish Natural Heritage.
6.5 Scottish Power has indicated that a connection to the power supply network is available.
6.6 NLC Transportation section has recommended that the application be refused unless a 2 metre wide pedestrian footway can be provided on the north side of Glenhove Road connecting the site with Luggiebank village and that Glenhove road should be widened to 5.5 metre width and visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 90 metres should be provided at the access point.
6.7 NLC Greenspace in terms of biodiversity does not support the proposal.
9 6.8 NLC Pollution Control has confirmed that the Phase 1 Site Investigation submitted is satisfactory.
6.9 NLC Education has advised that an education contribution may be required but that further capacity study and implications on local schools would have to be carried out to ascertain this.
7.
7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure and an advertisement within the local press six letters of representation were received in total, all of which were objecting to the application. The letters of representation can be summarised as follows: The site was a clay quarry not a brickworks but with subsequent landfill by housebuilders. Two-storey height of proposed houses inappropriate to character of this location in Luggiebank. Road safety issues regarding traffic generation, sub-standards access and road as well as no pedestrian footway ling from site to village. Flats inappropriate. Construction Noise. Loss of Privacy. 650 Stirling Road will be overshadowed. Detract from character of village by increasing number of houses by approximately 50%. Drainage Issues. Contrary to Policy EN 26 in Cumbernauld Local Plan and Policy NBE 3A (Greenbelt) in emerging North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Gift of land to SWT done more to avoid remedial works to quarry face than for mitigation.
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Planning Authorities are required that in determining planning application proposals, where regard is to be had to the Development Plan, determination should be in accordance with this Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance there are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to Local Plan Policy. Therefore the proposal requires to be determined under the terms of the Cumbernauld Local Plan and any other material considerations.
8.2 Policy EN 26 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan states that there will be a presumption against development in areas of open space defined on the proposals map, and other areas of recreational or amenity value to the surroundings except where the development provides for outdoor recreation, nature conservation or landscape protection.
8.3 It is recognised that the applicant proposes the transfer of land to the Scottish Wildlife Trust as well as a sum of money (f28,OOO)for management costs in order to provide a nature conservation corridor which would link into the Luggie burn and an adjacent tract of land currently owned and managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The applicant has documented that SWT has been positive to the principle of the proposed land transfer. This could be facilitated through a Section 75 Legal agreement. However, approximately half of the application site falls within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and in terms of the policy EN 26, the consideration is whether this proposed residential development will enhance nature conservation and landscape protection.
10 8.4 Although, the applicant proposes mitigation measures in terms of landscape and habitat on land adjoining to the east of the site, it is considered that building 20 houses on the site in itself cannot be beneficial to nature conservation and landscape protection. In other words, the nature conservation value of the site as existing is greater than it would be with the site developed for housing even with the proposed mitigation by the applicant. The proposal will result in the loss of a significant amount of woodland to the north and south of the site and habitat in general as advised by NLC Greenspace. It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in a net reduction in nature conservation value and as such is contrary to Policy EN 26 in the Cumbernauld Local Plan.
8.5 In terms of overall context, Policy EN26 was a blanket policy covering a wide swathe of land round and through Cumbernauld and as an edging corridor to the A80 trunk road. In this way, it acted similar to green belt policies. Paragraphs 8.26-8.31 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan written statement set out the background thinking and purposes for the policy, and while open space is to be regarded for its recreational and amenity value, these are not exclusive to other purposes. This view of policy EN26 having a similar application to a green belt policy was accepted in an appeal as recently as 2009 for a residential development on land adjacent to the A80, to the west of 'Dobbies' garden centre, Eastfield Road, Westerwood, Cumbernauld (case reference P/AAC/320/2). The loss of this important area of open space would be contrary to Policy EN26.
8.6 Other policies relevant are EN7 - Impact of Development on Locality, EN8 - Impact of Development on Site, EN9 - Scale & Character of Development, EN11 - Environmental Improvements, EN18 - Nature Conservation, EN23 - Landscaping. Policies HGI - Location of New Housing Development, HG2 - General & Special Needs Housing, HG3 - Residential Development are also of relevance. These policies, with the exception of HGI relate to detailed design considerations which would be dealt with at the detailed planning application stage. It is considered that the layout provided for information purposes could comply with policies EN7, EN8 and EN23 subject to required detailed changes. However, it is considered that, as the applicant proposes two-storey houses, the proposal does not comply with policy EN9, as two storey houses would be out of character with the adjacent existing houses to the west along Stirling Road. Again, however, this issue could be addressed by appropriate design changes. In terms of policy HG2, the proposal complies as the applicant proposes an element of affordable housing for local needs.
8.7 Policy HGI (Location of New Housing Development) directs new residential developments to appropriate infill and redevelopment sites within the built up area. The application site is not within the built up area or an area identified for such development in the local plan. As such, the proposal does not comply with Policy HGI.
8.8 The Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan is a material consideration in the assessment of the application. The application site is designated by policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) within the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (FDNLLP). This policy seeks to protect the character and promote development in the Green Belt through restricting development to acceptable types and impacts. The proposed residential development is not considered to be an acceptable development within the Green Belt, with no justification in terms of the required criteria, subsequently the proposed development is contrary to policy NBE 3A of the FDNLLP.
8.9 NBEl A - Protecting the Natural and Built Environment (Policies NBEI A3(a) and NBEl a3(d)) is also relevant to the consideration of the proposal. Policy 'NBEI A' safeguards identified sites of importance for natural heritage and biodiversity from development. The subject site is affected by two designated local sites, NBEI A3(a) which protects Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and NBEl A3(d) which protects Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). A significant proportion (approximately half) of the subject site falls within the Luggiebank - Glenhove
11 SlNC site which is protected by policy NBEl A3(a). Policy NBE 1A states that where proposals potentially affect a protected site, planning permission will only be granted ‘if the applicant demonstrates to the Council’s satisfaction that there will be no adverse impact, or that any impacts can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact’. From the proposed site layout plan it would appear that a significant proportion of the proposed housing (approximately 40%) falls within the SlNC boundary. Notwithstanding, even if a proposed development was located adjacent to a SlNC site it would still need to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact. In addition, the subject site contains a small area along its southern boundary which is covered by a TPO. Land adjacent the western boundary of the site is also covered by a TPO. Subsequently, the suitability of the development under Policy NBE 1A3(a) and NBEl A3(d) cannot be determined until the applicant can demonstrate what impact it will have on the SlNC site and areas covered by a TPO. For the same reasons outlined in paragraph 8.5, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy NBEl A.
8.10 The FDNLLP requires all proposed developments to be assessed against Policies DSP 1 - DSP 4. The proposed development exceeds the threshold for housing on a Greenfieldhon-urban brownfield location provided by DSP 1 and therefore the proposal requires to be justified in terms of supply and demand. The proposed development also requires to be justified against the locational criteria set out in Policy DSP 2. Particular attention should be given to maintaining clearly defined urban and rural boundaries in terms of the Green Belt designation as well as establishing how the proposal contributes to urban renewal, is linked to sustainable modes of transport and local facilities. In this case, there is no justification in terms of supply and demand as this has been met other allocations in the Local Plan and by the identification of the nearby Community Growth Area. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy DSP 2 in terms of not maintaining the clearly defined urban and rural boundary in the context of the Green Belt designation as well as local demand. In relation to DSP3 and DSP4 an assessment requires to be made as part of any future full detailed application.
8.1 1 In terms of consultation responses, NLC Transportation has also noted that more details will be required with any subsequent application in terms of in plot parking, visitor parking and traffic calming. Transportation has also confirmed that a footway on the southern side of Glenhove Road would not be acceptable and that the only acceptable access solution would be the realignment of Glenhove road to the south, utilising land owned by the applicant to provide the additional land required to form the required 2 metre wide footpath on the northern side of Glenhove Road.
8.12 NLC Greenspace has commented that the proposal involves the loss of 1.8 Hectares of semi-natural habitat as well as 0.78 Hectares of land designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, SINC. The footprint of the development that encroaches on the SlNC consists of semi natural broadleaved woodland, and diverse semi improved grassland. The SlNC as it stands provides a buffer for the Luggie, and with the variety of habitats present is very diverse. Greenspace recommends that the development is refused or an amended proposal not affecting the SlNC is submitted. However, should the development be pursued, further study will be required at the detailed planning stage, as the Phase 1 Habitat Survey submitted was carried out outwith the main period of peak activity to ascertain impact on certain species and the following would be required :-
e Management Plan requirement - Although Luggiebank Wood reserve may have a long-term management they have to presume (as no copy of this plan has been submitted) that this plan does not include the 2.07ha of land to be donated to SWT. In order to ascertain that the proposal affecting this SlNC can be mitigated in environmental terms relevant to the impact Greenspace development requires an agreed Management Plan for the 2.07ha of land to be donated to SWT. Breeding bird survey of site and 100 metre buffer around it. Batsurvey.
12 0 Phase 1 habitat survey in the period June to August with target notes for key species or NVC (National Vegetation Count) survey of the site. 0 Survey of current badger use on site.
8.13 As NLC Protective services have has confirmed that the Phase 1 Site Investigation submitted is satisfactory with enough data supplied to allow the application to be processed and that site investigation submitted identifies enough detail regarding potential pollutants for any subsequent investigation and mitigation work to be conditioned.
8.14 In terms of a possible education contribution being required as outlined in paragraph 6.9 above, further study would be required to see if this is required and also what level of contribution would be applicable. The applicant has agreed in principle to a contribution.
8.15 In response to the letters of objection I would comment as follows:
0 The site was a clay quarry not a brickworks but with subsequent landfill by housebuilders. Comment : Agreed. Initial site investigations have determined that this would not prevent the site from being developed 0 Two-storey height of proposed houses inappropriate to character of this location in Luggiebank. Comment : Agreed, but this could be addressed by appropriate condition limiting height and any subsequent design amendments 0 Road safety issues regarding traffic generation, sub-standards access and road as well as no pedestrian footway ling from site to village. Comment : Issues relating to road safety and access could be addressed as per the comments of Transportation by providing the visibility splay and 2 metre wide footpath on the northern side of Glenhove Road by realigning it as described in paragraph 6.6 and 8.1 1. 0 Flats inappropriate. Comment : It is agreed that two-storey height would not be in keeping with character of the village in terms of the adjacent housing to the west along Stirling Road. As before this could be designed out be condition. Construction Noise. Comment : This is not a material planning consideration and is controlled by separate environmental health legislation. Loss of Privacy. Comment : It is considered that loss of privacy would be not be an issue based on the proposed indicative layout drawing provided. This would be addressed at the detailed application stage. 0 650 Stirling Road will be overshadowed. Comment : It is considered that this would not be the case given the significant distance from 650 Stirling Road to the nearest proposed house. Again this would be assessed at the detailed application stage 0 Detract from character of village by increasing number of houses by approximately 50%. Comment : It is considered that the proposal would certainly alter the character of the village and would detract from it if two-storey houses were built. Drainage Issues. Comment : Consultation with SEPA and Scottish Water has resulted in no major issues. Contrary to Policy EN 26 in Cumbernauld Local Plan and Policy NBE 3A (Greenbelt) in emerging North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Comment : Agreed Gift of land to SWT done more to avoid remedial works to quarry face than for mitigation. Comment : This could be argued, but this area would not be practical to develop.
13 9. Conclusions
9.1 Although it is recognised that the applicant has made efforts to mitigate against the proposed residential development in context of the relevant local plan policies and other material considerations, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the relevant local plan policy (EN26) as well the relevant policies NBE 3A (Green Belt), NBEl A (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment) and DSPI and 2 as well as the SlNC designation in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The site, although a former clay quarry is of significant amenity value and habitat in terms of the mature trees and vegetation on it. It is considered that the site as existing has more amenity value for the village of Luggiebank than it would have developed as a housing site. Also, similarly, it is considered that the impact on existing levels of nature conservation value in terms of habitat on the site will be significantly affected by the proposal even taking into account the proposed mitigation measures.
9.2 It is therefore recommended that this application is refused.
14 Application No: Proposed Development:
11/01227/FUL Removal of 7000 Tons of Tipped Material and Remediation of Affected Area, Forming Access Track/Road to Site Site Address:
Land to North West of Branchal Cottages Branchal Road Cam busnethan Wishaw ML2 8QG
Date Registered:
31 st October 201 1
Applicant: Agent: Advance Construction Ltd Dalziel Design Caldergrove House Walter Struthers Caldergrove Motherwell Business Centre Blantyre 136 Coursington Road G72 8YA Motherwell MLI IPW
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local No
Ward: Representations: 01 9 Murdostoun 1 letter of representation received. Alan Clinch, Robert McKendrick, Nicky Shevlin, John Taggart,
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification:
The proposed removal of tipped material and remediation of the site meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the Southern Area local Plan 2008 and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable and the development can be accommodated at this location without detriment to the surrounding area.
15 ....-.-.- I1
Tip (dis)
11fll227/FUL rploduced by pennission Advance Construction Ltd Produced by the Otxhance Survey on bi I Planning and Development ~hatfofHHMS0.OCrawn Land To North West Of Branchal Cottages Environmental Services ,pytiglt and database rifl Branchal Road, Cambusnethan, Wshaw North Lanarkshire Council 12. All rights resented. Removal of 7000 Tons of Tipped Material and dnanee Suntey Remediation of Affected Area, Forming Access ;emnumber 100023396. Cumbernauld T ack/Road to Site 087 IJW 4 Representation 16 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 Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. That the development hereby permitted shall not start until a Notice of Initiation has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006
3. That within 4 weeks of the development hereby permitted being completed 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.
4. That except as may be otherwise agreed in writing by the planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the plans stamped approved as part of this permission.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
5. The prior to the works starting on site a chartered environmental consultant shall be appointed to provide a watching brief throughout the removal works as outlined in section 13.3 of the IKM Consulting Site Investigation Report commissioned by Levy and McRae (referenced 13220) dated March, 2012 and within 4 weeks of the waste material having been entirely removed from the site, a validation report authorised by the consultancy which undertook the watching brief throughout the removal works, requires to be submitted to the Planning Authority to satisfy the Planning Authority that the tipped material has been removed.
Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.
6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance with BS 5837 shall be erected along the drip line of the trees on the western and southern boundaries of the site, and shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To maintain the contribution of existing trees to the landscape quality of the area and to ensure that the trees on the southern, western and northern boundaries are protected during the works.
7. That prior to any works starting on site full details of the provision for wheel cleaning facilities to be used on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the approved wheel cleaning facilities shall be installed and retained throughout the duration of the works hereby permitted. The surfaced access road within the site must be swept/ washed as required in order to ensure that no debris from the site is carried onto the public highway.
Reason: To prevent mud or deleterious material being carried onto public roads to the detriment of road safety. a. That all loaded lorries leaving the site, except for vehicles less than 3.5 tonnes gross weight shall be adequately sheeted to secure their loads to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise dust emissions from the site.
17 9. That all loads shall be trimmed prior to leaving the site in order to avoid any spillage of material on public roads.
Reason: In the interests of public safety and to prevent deleterious material being carried onto the highway.
10. That all precautions should be taken to minimise noise from vehicles and machinery and, in particular, efficient silencers shall be fitted to, and used by, all vehicles, plant and machinery on site.
Reason: To minimise noise nuisance emanating from the operations.
11. That operations authorised by this permission, including Heavy Goods Vehicles entering or leaving the site, shall be restricted to the following specified times; with the exception of public holidays when no working shall take place;-
School Summer Holidavs 2gthJune 2012 to Mondav 13'h Auaust 201 2:
Monday to Friday 8:OO am to 5:OOpm
School Term Time:
Monday to Friday 8:OOam to 5:OOpm with no HGV activity on Branchal Road from 8:30am to 9:15am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents and to minimise the impact on the adjacent primary school.
12. That prior to the commencement of development a joint road condition survey shall be carried out between the applicant, and North Lanarkshire Council. Following completion of works a second road condition survey shall be carried out with any identified failures of the carriageway agreed and carried out by the applicant.
Reason: In the interest of road safety.
18 Backaround PaDers:
Representation Letters
Email from Councillor John Taggart received on the 17'h November 201 1.
Consultation Responses:
Memos from Transportation received 24'h January and 2ndMay 2012 Memos from Protective Services received 1'' June 201 2 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 25'h November 201 1
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Fraser Miller at 01236 632503
Report Date:
13'h June 2012
19 APPLICATION NO. 11/01227/FUL
REPORT
1. Site DescriDtion
1.1 The application site is part of the former Branchal Colliery and extends to 0.55 hectares, it is situated to the north and west of Branchal Cottages, Branchal Road, Wishaw. The application site was formerly open grassland with low level shrubs and was cleared a few years ago in preparation for construction work. The site is bounded by a substantial grouping of trees on the south western and northern boundaries and a linear grouping of trees running the length of the western boundary. A Site of Importance for Nature Conservation adjoins the northern and western perimeter of the site. Open grassland bounds the site to the east with dwellings being located to the south west and south east of the application site, beyond the grouping of trees.
2. ProDosed DeveloDment
2.1 Planning permission is sought for the removal of approximately 7000 tons of tipped material, the formation of an access track and for the re-grading of the land back to its former levels. The imported material on the site ranges from depths of 0.2 metres to 1.2 metres and was deposited in January/February 2011 without the benefit of planning permission. The applicant has indicated that the anticipated timescales for the removal of the material is between 2-3 weeks with a total of 277 vehicle trips associated with the removal of the material. The material is to be taken to an appropriate licensed tip and the hours of operation of the works are Monday to Friday 8:OOam to 5pm. The applicant has confirmed that all vehicle wheels will be cleaned prior to joining the public road network and that all works are to be completed in accordance with the Site Investigation dated March 2012 prepared by Levy and McRae.
3. Atmlicant’s Sumortinu Information
3.1 The applicant has submitted plans detailing the original site levels prior to the importation of the material, plans showing the site levels following the depositing of the material and finalised contour plans showing remediation. In addition a Site Investigation and Transportation Strategy have been submitted in support of the application.
4. Site Historv
4.1 S/98/00760/OUT - Residential development on land to the north and west of Branchal Cottages - Granted 18th August 1998 (Now expired)
4.2 S/04/00270/OUT - Residential development on site of Branchal Cottages and land to the north and west forming part of the former Branchal Colliery - Refused 12th December 2005
4.3 08/0067O/FUL Residential Development Comprising 28 Plots and Formation of Associated Access Roads and Footpaths on land at Branchal Road, Wishaw approved 1 3‘h November 2008. 5. DeveloDment Plan
5.1 The site is zoned as HSG2 (Housing Development Opportunities) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.
5.2 The application site is zoned as HCF2A Sites for Short Term Housing Development in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
20 6.
6.1 Transportation have advised that unrestricted HGV movements between 8:OOam and 5:OOpm would only be acceptable during school summer holidays. During term time it is recommended that there should be no HGV activity from 8:30am to 9:15am and 2:30pm to 3:30pm. Comments have also been made in connection confirmation of the route to be used to export the material to a licensed facility for deposit.
6.2 Protective Services have raised no objections to the removal of the material on site, subject to the works being carried out in accordance with the Site Investigation dated March 2012 prepared by Levy and McRae and subject to the submission of a validation report confirming that the remediation works have been carried out. Comments have also been received in connection with the use of covers of vehicles leaving the site, the control of dust, hours of operation and noise from vehicles at the site.
6.3 SEPA have raised no objections to the proposed development.
7. Representations
7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement, one letter of representation has been received from Councillor Taggart. The letter requests that a Site Visit and Hearing be carried out prior to the determination of the application on the grounds that there are serious concerns over the application and to make Committee aware of the ongoing civil litigation concerning the application site.
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues; it can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. In the adopted Southern Area Local Plan 2008 the site is covered by policy HSG2 (Housing Development Opportunities). Policies ENV5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact) and TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are also relevant to this development.
AdoDted Local Plan
8.2 Policy HSG2 states that the Council will actively support and where appropriate release sites identified in Schedule HSG2 for residential development. The current planning application seeks to remove the material that was deposited on the site and restore the site back to the existing 2008 levels. The proposed works will enable the approved residential development to progress. Therefore taking into account the previous planning approvals for this site, in combination with the land use zoning of the site, it is considered that the principle of the development to allow the residential development to progress is acceptable.
8.3 Policy ENV 5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact) requires assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the environment by addressing criteria which include; suitability of the proposal to the character of the area in which its set, landscape and visual impact, extent of traffic generation, noise, dust, pollution, flood risk and loss of natural habitats and protected species. In this instance, the development, subject to conditions to control hours of operation, noise and the provision of wheel cleaning is acceptable. The works will not adversely affect the character of the area or have any significant long term visual impact on the landscape. Whilst additional traffic will be present during the operations to remove the material, the applicant has confirmed a timescale of 2-3 weeks for the completion of the works. In terms of flood risk, it is noted that SEPA have raised no concerns. Two dwellings are located in the immediate locality, however given the temporary nature
21 of the works and the methodology proposed for the removal of the material in the submitted Site Investigation it is considered that the impact on the amenity of the surrounding area will be minimal. There is considered to have been no overriding adverse impact on natural habitats given the distances of the material that has been deposited to the adjacent SINC. The trees on the periphery of the site are not to be effected by the development however, it is considered appropriate to ensure that tree protection measures are installed prior to the start of works on site. It is therefore considered that subject to the recommended conditions the proposal complies with the relevant criteria contained in Policy ENV 5.
8.4 Policy TR13 requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including: the level of traffic generated and its impact on the road network and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As detailed in paragraph 6.1 above, Transportation have raised no objections to the application. Comments have been provided in regards to the timing of the operations in connection with School Holidays. The applicant has confirmed that works would be able to progress within the School Holiday period, however conditions are recommended restricting hours of operation in case works do not fall within the school holidays and to ensure that works do not start on site prior to 8:OO am in order to protect the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. Suitable planning conditions are proposed to ensure that wheel cleaning facilities are provided on site prior to vehicles entering the public road network. Planning conditions cannot be used to control the route of vehicles using the site, however a condition is recommended requiring a joint survey of the condition of the public road as requested by Transportation. The works are therefore considered to be acceptable and comply with the criteria contained in Policy TR 13.
Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan
8.5 The application site is zoned as HCF2A Sites for Short Term Housing Development in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The principle of a residential development on the site has been established through the approval of the 2008 planning permission and the current application shall enable the residential development to progress. It is considered that appropriate measures to minimise the impact on neighbouring residential properties can be suitably controlled through appropriate planning conditions. The development is considered to accord with policy HCF2A.
8.6 The FDNLLP also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). The development accords with policy DSP 2 in that the development is located with a site identified for housing and the removal of the material will ensure that the approved residential development can progress on site. Furthermore the re-grading works can be completed without significant detriment to the site and overall area. The proposals are considered to accord with policy DSP 3 as the impact of the development is considered acceptable With respect to policy DSP 4, it is considered that the removal of the deposited material will enable the approved residential development to progress on site and, as such the development is considered to accord with policy DSP 4. As such, the proposal accords with the emerging local plan.
Consultations:
8.7 With regard to the consultation response from Protective Services, a suitable planning condition is recommended to ensure that verification that the removal of the material has been completed is supplied by a suitably qualified source. In relation to the response received from transportation, suitable planning conditions are proposed in connection with hours of operation, a pre start survey of the public road and measures to ensure that debris is not carried on to the public road.
22 Representations:
8.8 In terms of representation received, I would advise that the impact of the development has been assessed in paragraphs 8.2 to 8.6 above where it is concluded that the short term impact of the development is acceptable subject to the application of appropriate planning conditions. The on going civil litigation is not a material planning consideration.
9 Conclusions
9.1 In conclusion, the development is considered to comply with policies HSG2, ENV5 and TR 13 of the Southern Area local Plan 2008 and the relevant policies contained within the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable and subject to the recommended conditions the works shall not be to the detriment of the surrounding area. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.
23 Application No: Proposed Development:
12/001OZFUL Formation of Cluster Residential Development, Comprising of 3 New Build Dwellings, 3 New Build Single Garages & Conversion and Extension of Existing Barn. Site Address:
2 Allanton Holdings Mill Road Allanton ML2 9PH
Date Registered:
7th February 2012
Applicant: Agent: Mr William Chambers Grant A Johnston Edgewood 19B Academy Street 2 Mill Road Coatbridge Allanton ML5 3AW ML2 9PH Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes
Ward: Representations: 012 Fortissat 18 letters of representation received and Charles Cefferty, Thomas Cochrane, James a petition containing 132 signatures. Robertson, A Site Visit and Hearing has been requested.
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification:
The proposed application fails to meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the Southern Area Local Plan 2008. The proposals however are considered to be acceptable in terms of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan and the approved supplementary planning guidance SP 08 Development in the Rural Investment Area. The impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable and the proposed development can be accommodated at this location without significant detriment to the surrounding rural area.
24 Flaming Application 12A)0102tFUL Repaduced by permission Mr mlliam Produced by dtheOthnce Survey on Planning and Development hhdf dHMS6. eCvDwn Formaticn d Cluster Rasidantial Deudopmmnt. Canprising Envir on mental Services COPYrigM and database infrt d 3 New Build Dwellings, 3 New hild Single Ganges North Lanarkshire Council 2012. All tights reserved. & Ccnvarsicn d Existing Barn. Fleming House Ordnance Sutvey 2 Tryst Road ucencenumber fOOO23396. 2 Allanton Holdirgs, Mill Road, Allanton Cumbernauld G87 IJW * Representation A 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 Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
2. That, except for the terms of conditions (5) and (11) below in relation to boundary treatment, or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers;- 1232/PL01, 1232/PL02, 1232/PL03, 123ZPL04, 1232/PL05, 123ZPL06, 1232/PL07, 1232/PL08, 1232/PL09, 1232/PL10, 1232/PL10, 1232/PL11, 1232/PL100, 123ZPL101, 1232/PL102 and CDAlEDGEWOOD/l.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That the development hereby permitted shall not start until a Notice of Initiation has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
4. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls, windows and roofs, guttering etc shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. Notwithstanding this requirement the facing materials shall include stone, neutral coloured smooth or wet dash render, dark stained timber doors and windows and slate for the roof.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
5. That no approval is hereby given for the boundary treatment shown on drawing no 1232/PL101 A and BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design, location and height of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Notwithstanding these requirements the boundary treatment shall include dry stone walls along the boundary with the adjacent road and the principle elevations, no higher than 1 metre in height, and agricultural type post and wire fencing for all other boundaries. Thereafter any walls or fences erected shall be implemented as per the approved details.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
6. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice, such as BS 10175: The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required as part of the above report.
Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity of future residents.
7. That prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved, any remediation works identified by the site investigation report required in terms of Condition 7 above shall be completed and a certificate (signed by a Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the
26 Remediation Strategy.
Reason: To ensure the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity of future residents. a. That PRIOR to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water can be fully met to demonstrate that the development will not have an impact on their assets, and that suitable infrastructure can be put in place to support the development.
Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory drainage arrangements.
9. That before any works start on site, full details of the septic tank and soakaway system to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the applicant shall confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the drainage arrangements to be provided are to the satisfaction of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.
10. That before each of the dwellinghouses hereby approved are occupied the associated parking and manoeuvring area as shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas. For the avoidance of doubt the parking and manoeuvring areas shall be finished in tarmacadam for the first two metres only and thereafter shall be gravel.
Reason: In order that vehicles can enter and leave the site in forward gear and to ensure adequate parking provision and in the interests of the visual amenity of this rural location.
11. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping 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 and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and hedge planting along all of the site boundaries and within the central courtyard, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and hedging 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) a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in consideration of the desirability of tree/hedging plantingiretention to help integrate the new cluster development into the rural setting.
12. That the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 1 1 above, shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and shall be completed prior to the occupation of the last dwellinghouse within the development hereby permitted. Any trees, hedging or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure that the required landscaping does not fail to be established through damage or neglect.
27 13. The scheme of landscaping approved in terms of conditions 11 and 12 above and coloured green on the approved plans shall not be altered or removed without the prior written agreement of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the landscaping scheme is retained on site in the interests of the visual amenity of the wider rural area.
14. That should 6 months or more have elapsed between the timing of the initial ecological surveys dated February 2012 hereby approved before development commences, a further survey shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, particularly for bats, and badgers, the said survey shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the study, should any mitigation measures be required for the relocation or protection of any protected species, these shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.
Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
15. That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment Order 201 1, no alterations to the dwellinghouses, no fences or walls and no development within the curtilage of the application site shall take place other than that expressly authorised by this permission.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and to ensure that any future development complies with SPG 08 and is appropriate to the rural setting of the site.
16. That within 4 weeks of the development hereby permitted 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.
28 Representation Letters
Letters from MisshMargaretGray, Eastmains Holding, Bonkle, Newmains received 28th February and 26 March 2012. Letters from Mr John Barclay, 3 Allanton Holdings, Mill Road, Allanton received 29th February and 28'h March 2012. Letters from Miss Jacqueline Birch, 5 Cathburn Holdings, 66 Church Road, Bonkle received 1st and 21st March 201 2. Letter from Mrs Tracey Stone, 8 Cathburn Holding, Cathburn Road, Wishaw received 27th February 2012. Letter from Mr Keith Black, Cairney Cottage, 51 Church Road, Bonkle, Wishaw received 1st March 2012. Letter from Mr Sam Crumley, 7 Cathburn Holdings, 86 Church Road, Bonkle Wishaw received 1st March 2012 Letter from Miss Jacqueline Russell, 4 Moorfoot Drive, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 5th March 2012. Letter from Mr Andrew Reglinski, 2 Sharnotshields, Wishaw, ML2 9PH received 8th March 2012. Letter from Mrs Joanne Roberts, 3 Sharnotshields Holdings, Bonkle, ML2 9PH received 5th March 2012. Letter from Mrs Jean Pless, 26 Monkland Avenue, Kirkintilloch, Glasgow received 7th March 2012. Letter from Miss Elaine Baxter, 5 Cathburn Holdings, Bonkle, ML2 9QG received 2nd March 2012. Letter from Mr David Rothin, 5, Sharnotshields Holdings, Bonkle received 29th February 2012. Letter from Mrs Joanne Roberts, 3 Sharnotshields Holdings, Bonkle, Wishaw received 9th April 2012.
Letter from Councillor Charles Cefferty, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell received 28th May 2012. Letter from Councillor Thomas Cochrane, Member Services, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street received 31st May 201 2.
Letter with a petition containing 132 signatures from Mr Matthew Gray, East Mains, Bonkle, Newmains received 29th February 2012
Consultation Responses:
Memo from Transportation received 20thMarch 2012. Memo from Protective Services received 15'h February 2012. Memo from Greenspace received 16'h March 2012. Letters from Historic Scotland received 12'h and 23" March 2012. Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency 3" May 2012. Letter from Scottish Water received 24'h May 2012. Letter from Scottish Gas Network received 23" May 2012.
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Fraser Miller at 01236 632503
Date:14'h June 2012
29 APPLICATION NO. 1U001 OUFUL
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is an existing dwellinghouse and land at Edgewood, 2 Allanton Holdings, Mill Road, Allanton is located to the south of Allanton. It is a smallholding originally associated with the Allanton estate, the overall site area extends to 0.85 hectares. The buildings on site include the exiting dwellinghouse, a single storey outbuilding, both located at the western end of the site, and 3 agricultural barns located towards the centre of the site. The site is relatively level and is set within an open agricultural area with other small holdings located in the vicinity. Recent tree planting to the east and north of the site was undertaken to provide shelter and screening of the site within the wider landscape. Access to the site is taken from the A71 onto Mill Road (an unclassified road) that passes the site on the western boundary. The existing dwelling and outbuilding are single storey in height, with the existing agricultural building measuring approximately 5-6 metres in height. Mature trees are located on the western boundary of the site.
2. Proposed Development
2.1 The proposals relate to the demolition of the existing barns and flat roofed outbuilding within the eastern section of the site and the re-development of the site with three two storey dwellings and for the conversion and extension of the single storey outbuilding to the west of the dwellinghouse to form a single storey dwellinghouse. The existing house and barn conversion would share a parking area and access onto the adjoining road. The proposed new build dwellings are "L" shaped in formation, have a ridge height of 7.6 metres and include attic accommodation in the form of wall head dormers and roof light windows and would be finished in stone with white render, dark coloured roofing materials with lead flashing, timber double glazed windows and timber doors and weatherboarding. Each dwelling has its own off street parking and private garden areas with a central communal courtyard with shared access taken from the unclassified road. The layout of the plots is fairly compact and they are located on the site of the existing buildings to be removed adjacent to the road.
3. Applicant's Sumortina Information
3.1 The applicant has submitted detailed plans of the proposed dwellings including finishing materials, landscape proposals, ecological surveys (Bats, Badgers and Birds), 3D modelling of the proposed cluster and a photomontage of the proposed development.
4. Site Historv
4.1 No relevant history.
5. Development Plan
5.1 The site is zoned as ENV8 (Rural Investment Area) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.
5.2 The application site is zoned as NBE 38 Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
6.
6.1 Transportation notes that the development would take access onto a single track road which is substandard in terms of width, make-up and geometry with no footways or street lighting. They indicate that a further increase in the use of the access would
30 require a road to be constructed to adoptable standards, as there is no scope to do so they have recommend that the application be refused.
6.2 Greenspace Services have accepted the findings of the submitted protected species surveys and have no objections to the proposals.
6.3 Protective Services have raised no objections to the proposed development.
6.4 Historic Scotland has commented that the development lies within the parkland of Allanton House designed landscape which is included in the Inventory of Designed Landscapes in Scotland in recognition of its national importance. However they have raised no objections to the application and indicate that, given the site and scale of the development, the impact on the integrity of the designed landscape will be limited.
6.5 SEPA, Scottish Water and Scottish Gas have raised no objections to the application. SEPA have made reference to the application of standard conditions in connection with the proposed development.
7. Representations
7.1 18 letters of representation from 15 parties and a petition containing 132 signatures have been submitted following the neighbour notification and press advertisement procedures. Councillor Cefferty has written objecting to the application and Councillor Cochrane has written a letter of support in connection with the application. One letter of representation has requested that a site visit and hearing be carried out prior to the determination of the application. The detailed points of objection are summarised below:
1. The site is designated as Green BelVRural Investment Area and the proposal relates to a new residential development and doesn’t comply with Policy ENV8 of the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan NBE 38. 2. The impact of the development is out of character with the area as the proposed houses are suburban in nature and look out of place with the existing small holdings and the landscape setting of the area. The location of the proposed buildings within the plot, their design, massing, scale and material detailing are not in keeping with the original smallholding or reflective of traditional rural architecture and indeed are “vulgar modern giants”. 3. Policy NBE3A states that acceptable development must have a positive economic benefit. The proposal does not appear to have any unique advantages to the local or wider community other than a short burst of building work. This does not compensate for the environmental risks, impact and loss of visual amenity. 4. The subject is within the site of the historic gardens of Allanton Estate, NBE 1B 2b Inventory Historic Garden/Designed Landscape as shown on NLLP Map 2. The application fails to identify this or have made any special consideration in relation to the policies relating to the historic garden. 5. The application site cannot be designated as a cluster as it is too close to East Mains and Westcroft farms, SPG08 section F states that any proposals for new building clusters must have a separation distance of 1,000metres from and existing building cluster.” If the Council designate the site as a cluster and it is subsequently developed this would preclude a similar development at East Mains and Westcroft farms which would be quite unfair. 6. The proposal contravenes SPG section G “...any new development proposals
should relate to the existing footprint ...I’ however in the proposal the majority of the existing buildings are to be demolished. 7. SPG 08 section Q states that “an accurate site survey should include: a description of the nature and extent of any features of interest, levels, topography, north point”. The subject lies at the foot of a hill at the abandoned Kingshill no 1 Mine Workings, at points above the property there is evidence of
31 groundwater springs and bog land. This feature and impact has not been recognised in the subject proposal. 8. Access to the site is across a private 2.5 metre wide single gravel track. The access is not fit for purpose, the development will double the usage of the track, and it is inadequate in width for construction and delivery vehicles. SPG 08 prefers that existing routes are used. The residents request that a survey be carried out by the Council. Furthermore access to the site is off a private access that is maintained, owned and primarily fabricated to support the existing residents. The additional usage proposed without prior agreement or discussion with owners is objectionable. Furthermore construction traffic associated with the development could destroy the road and be hazardous. Walkers use the access track and there are no pavements or parking on the start of this walk. The development would result in an increased danger to pedestrians and to the access to the woodland walk. There is no proposed mitigation against the increased danger to pedestrians by construction and domestic traffic. 9. All drainage exits via a single open ditch 1 foot across. Fields are particularly boggy as a result of a raised water table caused by the abandoned mine workings. The existing drainage system is regularly clogged and over whelmed at time of heavy rainfall. Title to the ditched is owned by adjoining properties and additional burden will be assumed for which this has not been agreed. 10. Disturbance of possibly contaminated land as a result of the previous mine workings on and in close proximity to the site. 11. No contact was made by those preparing the Protected Species Survey and residents have witnessed badgers, bats and other species within the area. The development may adversely effect the wild life population and has the potential to pollute the ponds at Woodypoint. 12. The water supply to serve the site suffers from low pressure and is inadequate to serve the additional dwellings. Additional survey work and corrective action should be submitted as part of the application. 13. The additional dwellings would over burden the domestic power supply and telephone lines to the established dwellings in the area and there is a danger to construction workers given the presence of an industrial high power supply bordering the road. 14. Recent tree planting by the applicant on the fields to the east of the application site referred to in the supporting statement has paid no respect to and have adversely affected the designed landscape. The tree planting has also adversely impacted on the existing field drainage system and neighbouring properties septic tanks and soakaway systems. 15. The title deeds restrict access to the site to a single dwelling with no subdivision.
The letter of support submitted provides support for the reasons detailed below:
1. The removal of the 3 existing unsightly agricultural buildings will provide sustainable family homes with the retention of the existing cottage, improving the visual appearance of the site. 2. There is to be no change in ownership of the fields associated with the small holding. 3. There will benefits to the local community as new families will be brought to the area providing support for public facilities and amenities in the area. 4. 1500 trees have been planted by the applicant to the east of the application site, offsetting the carbon footprint of the development and enhancing local wildlife creating a woodland habitat. 5. Employment through local construction jobs.
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues; it can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. In the Southern Area
32 Local Plan 2008 the site is covered by Policy ENV8 (Rural Investment Area). Policies HSG11 (Housing in the Greenbelt and Countryside) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) are also relevant. In the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan FDNLLP the site is zoned as NBE 3B Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area and NBElB 2b (Inventory Historic GardedDesigned Landscape) with the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance 08 (Development in the Rural Investment Area) also relevant. Both the FDNLLP and the approved SPG 08 are now material considerations in the assessment of such cluster developments.
Adopted Local Plan:
8.2 Policy ENV8 of the Southern Area Local Plan seeks to protect the Countryside and will not normally permit development other than that which relates to agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewable energy sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecommunications or other appropriate rural uses. The proposed development fails to meet the criteria above as it proposes the erection of 3 new dwellings in the countryside without justification in terms of the criteria listed above. The policy does allow for the conversion of existing buildings. However in general terms the development fails to meet the location requirements of policy ENV8.
8.3 Policy HSG 11 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) requires assessment against a number of criteria the Council will consider when determining proposals for new houses in the Green Belt. New houses, which do not form replacement dwellings, will only be permitted where there is a proven operational need in accordance with policies ENV6 (Green Belt) and ENV8( Rural Investment Area). Policy HSGI 1 does allow for the conversion of buildings to residential usage. In this instance the proposed conversion with a modest extension to the outbuilding is considered acceptable. However the proposed three new build dwellings cannot be supported by the policy requirements of policy HSG11. The proposals therefore are not fully in compliance with the requirements of policy HSG11 in this respect
8.4 Policy TR 13 (Assessing Transport Implications of Development) sets out criteria including: the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As indicated at paragraph 6.1 above, Transportation has recommended that the application be refused. In terms of the access to the site, this is off a private access track that is not a through road that serves an existing 4 established dwellings (including the application site). The nature of the road is such that informal passing places are formed along the length of the road. The level of traffic to be generated by the development is not considered to be excessive and given the relatively short length of the access road, could be accommodated. It is not considered appropriate or reasonable to seek that this rural access be upgraded to an adopted road with footways and street lighting. Adequate on site parking can be achieved within the site for the existing and proposed conversion/new build units, with the parking and a single garage for the new build dwellings being located to the side of each dwelling accessed off a central courtyard. The existing dwellings and the converted outbuilding would be served by a separate parking area to the west of these units. The access requirements however do remain substandard when accessed against policy TR13.
Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan
8.5 The application site is zoned as NBE 38 Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009. This policy seeks to protect the character of and to promote development in Rural Investment Areas through restricting development to acceptable types. There is a general presumption in favour of granting planning permission for new dwellings in the RIA if they are:-
33 i) Enhancement of an existing cluster of development and be acceptable in terms of design, scale and countryside integration.
ii) Enhance the natural heritage value of the site (new planting, removal of intrusive features).
iii) Respect the natural boundaries (road, hedge, tree line, watercourse) and include works to reinforce and enhance boundaries and buffers.
8.6 The proposals require to be assessed against the criteria outlined in the related SPG 08 “Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area”. A cluster is defined in SPG 08 as a dwellinghouse and associated agricultural outbuildings closely grouped together within an average footprint diameter of 100 metres. The application site is an existing steading and a recognised building cluster. The principle of a residential development in the RIA is therefore deemed acceptable at this site.
8.7 SPG 08 specifies layout and design requirements for such development proposals. Section 1.4 of SPG 08 states that “any new development proposals should relate to the existing building footprint and the need to create a sense of enclosure and space.” The scheme as submitted achieves this aim with 3 of the dwellings located together on the footprint of the derelictlobsolete buildings which are to be demolished and the buildings are closely grouped together adjacent to the original dwelling and the outbuilding to be converted as required by the SPG.
8.8 The SPG requires any new development be located within a 50 metre radius development footprint (aka the circle of opportunity). The proposed development is accommodated within the circle of opportunity and complies with the criteria of SPG 08.
8.9 The SPG advocates the creation of courtyard forms; this is achieved by the proposed development of the three houses around a communal courtyard in close proximity to the existing buildings, creating a sense of enclosure and place.
8.10 Section G and H of SPG 08 allows for an increase in building footprint of approximately 30%. The footprint of the proposed 3 residential units including the extension to the existing barn (to be converted) is approximately 470 sqm. The proposed footprint therefore represents a 27% increase and as such is considered to be acceptable.
8.1 1 The size, height, configuration and design of the buildings proposed are a modern interpretation of the rural vernacular and are in keeping with the massing, scale and design guidance contained within SPG 08 section K (Appropriate dwelling forms). The proposed housing designs provide a simple form with simple traditional detailing around the roof, walls, windows and wall head dormers. The traditional 45 degree roof pitch and narrow width of the dwellings results in a traditional scale and design that avoids a sprawling layout. The principle use of white smooth render and the dark roof materials are in keeping visually with the original cottage on site and other dwellings in the vicinity. In addition, the use of materials such as timber provides a contemporary aspect to the design of the dwellings whilst elements such as the feature chimneys and roof form help retain some traditional rural features. The established trees along the site frontage in addition to those proposed in the landscaping scheme will provide a visual break to the elevations fronting road, further reducing the visual impact. Furthermore the dwellings are to be set back within the site further reducing the impact of height when viewed against the back drop of the existing mature tree planting to the east of the application site. The SPG also specifies design issues in relation to the conversion of buildings. Conversions should maintain the simplicity and protect the original features and fabric of the building. The works to the outbuilding to be converted do preserve the fabric of the building and existing openings are to be utilised on the front elevation with new openings reflecting
34 those already present. The rear elevation includes some new openings of a more modern appearance but the faqade remains simple and the overall fabric of the building would remain intact. Similar to the proposed residential new builds the conversion works shall comprise a mix of traditional and contemporary design elements and materials. The size and scale of the extension proposed as part of the conversion of the outbuilding is not over dominant and does not prejudice the character of the countryside. It is therefore considered that the conversion and alterations of the outbuilding and the size scale, design and materials of the new builds are in keeping with the criteria set out in SPG 08 sections H, K, M, N and 0.
8.12 Policy NBE 36 requires that any development should result in an enhancement of the RIA landscape through extensive boundary planting to settle the development into the landscape setting. The applicant has provided a landscaping scheme for the 0.85 hectare site with perimeter and courtyard planting to allow the development to be integrated into the landscape. The impact of the dwellings upon the landscape would be mitigated by their location against a back drop of mature trees to the west of the site and by the proposed planting within the site and along the site frontage .They will therefore not be seen in isolation and as such will not be an obtrusive feature in the countryside area. A planning condition is proposed to secure the submission of a finalised landscaping scheme and for its implementation contemporaneously with the development. The development is considered to be in accordance with Policy NBE 38.
8.13 The development is accessed from an existing declassified road, with the number of vehicular access points not increasing. The form and location of the car parking and manoeuvring areas for the proposed dwellings complies with the guidance at section P of SPG 08 and at 200% in curtilage car parking provision also meets the Council’s current transportation guidance. The surface material for any hard standing areas will be rural in character e.g. gravel, with the standard distance from the public road in a suitable hard surface material e.g. tarmac and a condition is recommended to achieve this.
8.14 Policy NBE 1B 2b Inventory Historic GardedDesigned Landscape seeks to identify and protect areas of distinctive character in order that their interest survives and can be appreciated in the future. As indicated at paragraph 6.4 above Historic Scotland have raised no objections to the proposed development and its impact on the HGDL.
8.15 The FDNLLP also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). The proposed development is considered to accord with policy DSP 1 as the number of units at the site will accord with that stipulated in both policy NBE 38 and the associated SPG 08. The development accords with policy DSP 2 in that it relates to an established cluster located in the rural investment area as outlined in SPG 08. The proposals are considered to accord with policy DSP 3 as the impact of the development is considered acceptable in accordance with the requirements of SPG 08 as detailed in paragraphs 8.6 to 8.1 1 above. With respect to policy DSP 4 it is considered that the proposed design and finishing materials of the dwellings are such that they will satisfactorily integrate with the countryside and as such accord with policy DSP 4. As such, the proposal accords with the emerging local plan.
Consultations:
8.16 The consultation response received from Transportation and their concerns regarding the proposed development are noted. However the policies contained in the NLLP and SPG 08 allow for new housing in such rural locations. Notwithstanding the principle of Transportation’s opposition to access from a remote rural road, the access and parking arrangements for the individual houses proposed are acceptable as detailed in paragraphs 8.4 and 8.13 above. In general, the remaining consultation
35 responses received offer no objections and all issues raised can be addressed by suitable planning conditions and submission of further details.
8.17 In response to the objections raised:
1. The development has been assessed against the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and is concluded to be contrary to Policies ENV 8 and HSG 11. As detailed in paragraphs 8.5 to 8.15 above the proposals are considered to comply with the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan and accompanying SPG 08 “Development in the Rural Investment Area” as the application site is an existing steading and a recognised building cluster. 2. The proposals comply with the requirements of SPG 08 in terms of layout, scale and massing and architectural merit as detailed in paragraphs 8.7 to 8.1 1 above. 3. Economic benefit is one of the impact criteria stated in Policy NBE 3A, however it should be noted that the proposals are not required to meet all five of the criteria as this is not a sequential test. The assertion that the proposed development does not have a positive economic benefit is not accepted. The Council in keeping with National Government Policy is seeking to halt the decline in the rural population by promoting a more permissive attitude to development within rural communities so as to retain and enhance the population through a range of activities including new residential development. The environmental impact of the proposals has been assessed above and it is considered that there will be a minimal impact on the visual amenity of the area. 4. As detailed in paragraph 8.12 above it is considered that the proposed development will not create a detrimental effecting on existing views to, from or within the HGDL. Indeed the rationalisation of the existing dispersed buildings of the steading into a more closely grouped cluster will consolidate development and reduce the amount of visual clutter within the wider HGDL thereby improving the amenity of the HGDL. 5. The 1,000 metre separation distance relates to the development of a completely new building cluster on a Greenfield site. The number, location and spread of existing building clusters were surveyed as part of the preparation of SPG 08. The SPG allows further development at these locations. It should be noted that national organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland were consulted on Policy NBE 3B and SPG 08 and have supported their intent and detail and as such recognise the impact of the policy on the landscape of North Lanarkshire. Furthermore the redevelopment of an existing cluster does not preclude the redevelopment of an adjacent building cluster no matter how close they are to each other. The owners of East Mains and Westcroft farms can also use policy NBE 3B and SPG 08 to promote the redevelopment of their building clusters to their maximum capacity either through conversion of their existing buildings or demolition and new build as in the case of the current application. 6. SPG 08 Section G.6 states that if the non-residential buildings are of no architectural merit then their floor area can be used to determine the appropriate thresholds for any new development. The reference to building footprint relates to the area of ground covered by the development not the configuration of the buildings. Non residential buildings of no architectural merit can be demolished and new build of a similar footprint developed in their place, with a number of provisions including that the location of the new build must be substantially located within a 50m radius of the original building cluster. The combined footprint of the proposed development represents a 27% increase and as such is considered acceptable as SPG 08 H allows for an increase in building footprint of approximately 30%. 7. The omission of a specific statement pertaining to the landscape assessment and integration of the proposals on the landscape is noted, however this in itself is not grounds to recommend refusal of the application. SPG 08 section Q (Site Features) advocates the submission of an accurate site survey but only requires information on land beyond the site boundary which may be affected by the
36 proposal. In this instance the proposals are considered to have limited impact upon the landscape due to their location in relation to existing and proposed planting as detailed in paragraph 8.1 1 above. 8. It is neither possible nor reasonable to have the road upgraded to adoptable standards as part of this development. The transportation implications of the development have been discussed in paragraphs 8.4 and 8.13 above and it is considered that the impact of the development upon the road network would be minimal. The impact of construction traffic is not a material planning consideration. Any damage as a result of construction traffic and any associated repair works are a private civil matter with those who have ownership and a right of access and the applicant. The anticipated increase in the usage of the road is unlikely to significantly impact on pedestrian safety. 9. A drainage strategy has been submitted in support of the application and as is normal practice planning conditions are recommended to secure the submission of SEPA and Scottish Water approvals prior to the start of works on site. 10. In relation to potential mineral instability and to contamination a site investigation would be required to be submitted prior to the start of works on site, this can be achieved through the imposition of planning conditions requiring any remediation measures to be completed prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. 11. Surveys have been undertaken for statutory protected species and Greenspace have concluded that the findings are acceptable. In terms of potential contamination of nearby ponds the outflow from septic tanks/soakaway systems would be approved by SEPA and controlled by SEPA and Scottish Water accordingly. 12. Scottish Water has raised no objections to the proposed development and separate applications for connection will be required to be made to Scottish Water by the applicant. 13. The applicant will be required to make their own investigation in connection with the presence of underground cables/pipelines and for the connection to utilities. However, Scottish Gas Networks have raised no objections to the application. 14. Planning permission is not required for the tree planting that has been undertaken in the area of the Historic Gardens, and the Council has no authority to prevent such works. In the event that there is an impact on the septic tank and drainage infrastructure then this matter would be a civil issue between the parties involved. Furthermore, any work under taken to field drains would not require planning permission in this instance. 15. Any restrictions upon the title deeds relating to the small holding are not a material consideration.
8 Conclusions
9.1 To conclude, taking account of the development plan and all material considerations, the proposed development is contrary to both policies ENV8 and HSG11 of the adopted Southern Area Local Plan 2008, however the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan and its approved supplementary planning guidance SPG 08 “Development in the Rural Investment Area” are material considerations of significant weight as the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan is at an advanced stage and in turn outweighs the adopted local plan. The development is considered to comply with the policy requirements of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan and the approved SPG 08. The proposed development is therefore considered an acceptable departure from the adopted local plan and notwithstanding the objections received it is recommended that permission be granted subject to conditions.
37 Application No: Proposed Development:
12/00159/AMD Proposed Demolition of Existing Office Building (non- compliance with condition 16 of planning permission C/06/00579/OUT) and Construction of Residential Development Comprising 24 Flats and 38 Dwellinghouses (Amendment to 08/00193/REM)
Site Address:
Site Of Former Boots Factory Motherwell Street Airdrie North Lanarkshire
Date Registered:
17th February 2012
Applicant: Agent: Bellway Homes & Taylor Wimpey Debbie Reeves Bothwell House 49 St. Vincent Crescent Hamilton Business Park Glasgow Caird Street G3 8NG Hamilton ML3 OQA
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application No
Ward: Representations: 007 Airdrie North 1 letter(s) of representation received. Alan Beveridge, Sophia Coyle, Thomas Morgan, Andrew Spowart,
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification: The principal of residential development has been previously established through permission 06/00579/OUT and 08/00193/REM. That the proposed demolition of the office block and re-mix of house types within the residential development is acceptable in terms of policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan and is acceptable in terms of design and impact on the amenity and character of the surrounding area.
38 PLANNING APPLICATION 12/00159/AMD Reproduced by permission Produced by oft hew^^ Sur~on Proposed Demolition of Existing Office Building Planning and Development Environmental Services ~~~~~~,"",$~~g,,tand Construction of Residential Development North Lanarkshire Coun 2012 Ail rlghb reserved Comprising 24 Flats and 38 Dwellinghouses Fleming House rlqhire 3rdnance Survey (Amendment to Existing Consent) 2 Ttyst Road councw .item number 100023396 Cumbemauld 067 1Jw Site Of Foner Boots Factory, Motherwell Street Airdrie 1 *Representation
39 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:-
AL(0) 001 AL(0) 101 AL(0) 100 D BH-CF-GA-01 BH-CF-GA-04 GA-EDEN-01 GA-ROSE-01 GA-UTCM-01 GA-UTCM-02 052.73.01a 052.73.02a 052.73 -03 052.73.04a
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That the development hereby permitted shall not start until a Notice of Initiation has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
4. 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 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006.
5. That within 4 weeks of completion of all building works on site, of the development hereby permitted, a Notice of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Authority.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, to monitor the development, to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.
6. That BEFORE any works start on site, details of the proposed artwork feature located within the central turning circle as shown on planning drawing AL(0) 100 D shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the artworks should be placed outwith the visibility splay requirements.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail to accord with the original outline planning permission and to enhance the appearance and character of this part of the site in recognition of the socio-economic importance of the site within the wider area.
40 7. That the approved artwork, approved in terms of condition 6 above; shall be constructed within 12 months of the completion of the first residential unit.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity
8. That visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 35 metres to the left and 4.5m to the speed bend to the right shall be provided at the roundel junction within the site and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel shall be planted, placed, erected or allowed to grow within these sight line areas.
Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.
9. That forward visibility of 15m shall be provided around both speed bends of the central roundel.
Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.
10. That the alignment of the footways at plots 3, 46 and where the verges terminate at Motherwell Street shall be tapered as opposed to the right angled changes shown on drawing AL(0) 100 D.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.
11. That before the development hereby permitted is first occupied; all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.
12. That notwithstanding the terms of this permission, the requirements (including all ongoing requirements) of planning permission 08/00193/REM remain relevant to this amended scheme and shall be complied with in full, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the terms of the original consent are met.
41 Backaround PaDers:
Representation Letters
Letter from Councillor Thomas Morgan, Member Services, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street received 5th March 2012
Consultation Responses:
Traffic 81 Transportation received on 11 May 2012 and 06 June 2012 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received on 12 March 201 2 NLC Greenspace received on 13 June 2012 Scottish Environment Protection Agency received on 25 May 2012 Scottish Gas Network received on 28 May 2012 Scottish Water (Glasgow) received on 25 May 201 2
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Mer at 1236 632498
Report Date:
15th June 201 2
42 APPLICATION NO. 12/00159/AMD
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.1 The site, extending to approximately 2.lha, is located on a portion of the former Boots factory site. The site consists of the north-west portion of the overall development with the spine road and housing to the south completed. The site is bound to the north by existing housing and a proposed housing area, to the east by a proposed housing site, to the south by a residential care home and to the west by Motherwell Street (A73).
2. Proposed Develoument
2.1 The northern area of the Boots factory site was granted detailed planning permission for residential development in November 2009 (08/00193/REM). This consent approved 219 dwelling houses north of the spine road and 10 houses accessed from Burnhead Road. The area occupied by the existing office building was not included in this planning application.
2.2 The area occupied by the existing office building was included within the outline planning application covering the whole of the former Boots factory site in C/06/00579/OUT. Condition 16 of this consent requires that the office building be retained and converted into flats.
2.3 This application seeks planning permission to amend the previously approved residential layout 08/00193/REM and non-compliance with condition 16 of planning permission C/06/00579/OUT.
2.4 The proposals comprise the demolition of the existing office building and the construction of a residential development including flats, terraced, semi-detached and detached dwellings. In total 62 dwellings are proposed for the site:
0 24 flats 0 30 terraced houses 0 6 semi-detached houses 0 2 detached houses
3. Applicant’s Supportincl Information
3.1 The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the application.
0 PACReport 0 Design and Access Statement 0 Batsurvey
4. Site History
0 06/0058O/FUL Construction of Road. Granted 17 October 2006. 06/00579/OUT Residential Development (In Outline) Including the Change of Use of Office Block to Residential. Granted 19 January 2007. 0 06/00581/MIN Various Land Engineering Operations to Prepare Land for Redevelopment, Including Ground Stabilisation Works, Ground Reprofiling, the Containmentrrreatment of Contaminated Land and the Ancillary Removal of Coal. Granted 01 September 2006. 0 08/00193/REM Reserved Matters in Respect of Application C/06/00579/OUT for 219 Dwellinghouses and 132 Flats over 2, 3 and 4 Storeys Incorporating Full Planning Permission for 900m2 (54 Motherwell Road) and Non-
43 Compliance with Condition 14(b) (Provision of 1No. Footpath Link on Burnhead Road) Granted 24 December 2009.
5. Development Plan
5.1 The site is zoned as ECON 2 General Industrial Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
6. Consultations
6.1 A summary of the comments received from the consultees is as follows:
6.2 Traffic and Transportation has provided comments in relation to structural retention, layout, junction visibility, parking provision this application. These are discussed in paragraph 8.1 2-14 below.
6.3 Greenspace Development (Biodiversity) raise no objection to the application. The applicant was asked to submit a bat survey. Greenspace has accepted the findings of this report and provided additional comment.
6.4 Protective Services raise no objection to the application. They have advised that an addendum to the original Site Investigation will be required. This can be covered by condition.
6.5 SEPA, Scottish Water and Scottish Gas Network raise no objection.
7. Representations
7.1 1 letter of representation received.
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 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 is not of strategic significance and should therefore be assessed against the policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
Adopted Local Plan
8.2 Monklands District Local Plan 1991: The site is zoned under policy ECON 2 Existing General Industrial Areas. This policy has been superseded by planning permission C/06/00579/OUT and 08/00193/REM which approved residential development across the site.
Material Considerations
8.3 Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan: zones the site as HCF 2 A1 Sites for Short Term Housing Development (Housing Land Supply). In this regard the application is supported by emerging planning policy. The North Lanarkshire Local Plan goes on to assess developments under policies DSP3 and 4 (Impact and Quality of Development) and for the reasons detailed in this report these policies are also satisfied.
8.4 Residential Development and Open Space Desian Guidance: The adopted Local Plan contains design guidance on new housing areas which has been partly superseded by the Council’s ‘Developers Guide to Open Space’. Combined these guidance notes consider housing density/mix, open space, detailed design, impact on residential amenity (privacy, overshadowing etc), play provision, roads, access and parking.
44 8.5 The current approved layout (08/00193/REM) consisted of a flatted development (76, 1 and 2 bedroom flats) on this portion of the site comprising a mix of 2, 3 8.4 storeys in height. The applicant has advised that due to the current economic climate the scheme which consists entirely of flats is neither desirable nor financially viable and hence the reason for this application re-mixing the types of housing on the site. This application seeks to provide a mix of house types, including terraced semi-detached and detached housing as well as a smaller number of flats.
8.6 Traffic and Transportation was consulted on this application and has provided comments relating to structural retention of the adopted roads, internal road layout, parking provision and visibility splays. The comment about road retention relates to the retaining wall and steep slope to the rear of plot 42. This issue was resolved through the previously approved planning application 08/00193/REM. As this slope has not altered in relation to the road serving the proposed 10 houses accessed from Burnhead road (which is outwith the site boundary of the application currently under consideration) and the proposed internal road (serving the site under consideration) is now located further away from the bottom of this slope and falls outwith the zone of influence this is considered acceptable.
8.7 The matters raised in respect of visibility splays can be adequately addressed through condition.
8.8 Concerns were raised about the emergency access route and two house plots been taken from the outside of the speed bend. The emergency access will not be frequently used and was previously approved under 08/00193/REM in this position; it is therefore considered acceptable. The access serving the two plots at 41/42 is also considered acceptable.
8.9 Traffic and transportation have raised concerns about the parking provision for plots 61 and 62 and advised that they should be served from an adoptable road. However, the required level of parking is provided within the adjacent courtyard serving the flats and terraced properties and is considered acceptable in this case.
8.10 The flatted blocks (containing 18 flats) have been retained at the ‘front’ of the site; however, the building line has been set further back from Motherwell Street. This will provide the opportunity for a wider landscaped buffer between the road and the buildings. The height and mass of the buildings have also been significantly reduced along this elevation, which is more sympathetic to the neighbouring properties. The open space around the flats is considered acceptable.
8.1 1 The two storey terraced, semi-detached and detached houses are acceptable in terms of their design and layout and generally accord with the open space requirements. Plots 23-26 do not meet the 10m rear garden length; however, they are adjacent to the residential care home with adequate boundary treatment in the form of a stone wall (approximately 1.6m high) and trees which will prevent any adverse overlooking.
8.12 The entire site has been the subject of land engineering works and therefore the site area for development is reasonably level with an existing retaining wall which runs roughly parallel to a wooded buffer strip which rises up to Burnhead Road. In terms of the portion of the site which is the subject of this application the retaining wall is to the rear of plots 41 and 42. As the previous planning permission 08/00193/REM has found this acceptable across the wider former Boots Factory site in plots immediately adjacent to plot 41 it is considered acceptable to continue the housing line adjacent to the retaining wall. The rear gardens of these plots are both irregular in shape. It is acknowledged that Plot 42 does not meet the 10m rear garden length; however, it does benefit from a large side garden. As the rear boundary of the plots is adjacent to a landscaped area it is considered that there will be no adverse privacy or overlooking issues as a result of the reduced garden length.
45 8.13 In addition a retaining wall to the rear plots 43-62 was approved under the terms of planning permission 08/00193/REM. This wall forms the rear boundary of plots 43 and 44 and runs at an angle to the houses. The plots are both irregular in shape. Plot 44 has a rear garden length of between 12m and 15.5m. Plot 43 is most affected by the retaining structure as it has a rear garden length of 12m dropping to 7m; however, it has an adequate rear garden area. Given the proximity of the retaining walls across the wider site and within the previous 08/00193/REM application this is considered acceptable in this case.
8.14 It is considered that the proposal is generally acceptable in terms of the layout and general design and that it satisfactorily meets the garden dimensions and parking requirement and reflects the quality of the wider residential development.
Demolition of the office buildinq
8.15 This application seeks to demolish the office building which remains on site. The building is not listed, nor is it in a conservation area; however, it is considered to be a building of local interest and the outline planning permission C/06/00579/OUT sought to retain the building as part of the overall redevelopment of the site and convert it to residential apartments. Condition 16 states:
8.16 That the reserved matters for the works within Phase 3 of the development shall allow for the retention of the former office block associated with the Boots factory, and in particular this shall allow for the retention of the principal stair well within the building.
8.17 Reason: to enhance the appearance and character of this part of the site and in recognition of the socio-economic importance of the site within the wider area.
8.18 Within their design and access statement the applicant has advised that the condition of the office building is beyond the point of viable financial repair, is now no longer capable of re-use and its presence is delaying the redevelopment of this area of the site.
8.19 The applicant has submitted a report by GVA Grimley which uses the four SHEP tests relating to the demolition of a building. This assesses the building as if it were a listed building that were to be demolished and the tests are therefore more stringent than would be applied to the building on site. The broad conclusions of this report are:
a The structural integrity of the building has been assessed and concerns have been noted about the structural steelwork of the building and the integrity of the remaining structure due to fire damage.
That it is not financially viable to repair the building nor is it economically possible to redevelop the building in its present form.
The building was originally retained due to its historical connotations rather than any definitive architectural merit. It is not considered as a nationally recognisable location in historical terms and it was never considered as a particularly rare design of building.
8.20 A public event was advertised in the local press and held on 05 December 2011 in Springfield Community Centre. The PAC report provides an overview of the issues raised and discussed and states that whilst most visitors had personal memories of the factory when it was in operation there were concerns about the site in its current state.
46 8.21 There were no objections to, and general support for the demolition of the existing building. Some assumed that it was a listed building. However, when advised otherwise, they were unconcerned that the proposals were for its demolition. It was acknowledged that it is now in a very bad state of repair.
8.22 Historic Scotland was consulted on the outline application and advised that they welcomed the retention and conversion of the office block, although the building was not of sufficient architectural or historical interest to merit it becoming a listed building.
8.23 The office building has been allowed to structurally deteriorate over the last 5-6 years since the outline planning permission was granted and is visually dilapidated. The building is not listed, nor is it in a conservation area. This application has been the subject of a Pre Application Consultation event, press advertisement and standard neighbour notification procedures; however, no letters of representation have been received objecting to the demolition of the building. On this basis it is considered that the building is no longer held is such esteem as it once was when the factory was operational and given the current economic climate it is considered acceptable to demolish the office building to allow the redevelopment of the site to be finished.
8.24 As this building is to be demolished the applicant was asked to provide a bat survey. The applicant has provided a bat survey which found that there are no bats using the building and its demolition would not impact on bats in the surrounding area which cross the site. The Greenspace team was consulted on this application and accepted the findings of the bat survey. They also requested further survey work to be carried out; however, as the majority of the site already has a current consent for residential development which could be implemented without further survey work it was considered unreasonable to ask for more ecological reports.
Public Artwork
8.25 In order to provide a link to the historic use of the site the applicant has suggested a public artwork in the form of a gateway feature. This is considered to be an appropriate way of recognising the local historic significance of the site. The plans show the stone ‘Boots’ sign from the building incorporated into a feature landscaped area within the site. Further consideration required to be given to the most appropriate form artwork in this location and as such it is recommended that a condition be applied requiring a further detailed scheme to be submitted and reviewed.
Representations
8.26 1 letter of representation was received from Councillor Morgan which does not object to the application. Following press advertisement and neighbour notification procedures no letters of representation were received from members of the public.
9. Conclusions
9.1 Taking the above into account it is considered that the proposed demolition of the office block and re-mix of house types within the residential development is acceptable in terms of the aforementioned policies in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. It is considered that the revised layout is acceptable in terms of design and impact on the amenity and character of the surrounding area. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to relevant conditions.
47 Application No: Proposed Development:
12/00284/FUL Erection of 2 No. Wind Turbines (74.5m to Hub and 125m to Tip) Including Ancillary Transformers, Crane Hardstandings, New and Upgraded Access Tracks, Two Substations, Control Buildings and Underground Cabling and 1 no. 75 m Meteorological Mast
Site Address:
Netherton Farm Westcraigs Road Harthill Shotts ML7 5TT
Date Registered:
19th March 2012
Applicant: Agent: Harthill Wind Limited Fiona Campbell 15 Brookfield Arcus Renewable Energy Consulting Ltd London 507-511 Baltic Chambers N6 6AS 50 Wellington Street Glasgow G2 6HJ
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application No
Ward: Representations: 012 Fortissat 579 letters of representation received. Charles Cefferty, Thomas Cochrane, James Robertson,
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification:
The proposed application meets the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the Southern Area Local Plan and of the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The environmental impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable and the proposed development can be accommodated at this location without significant detriment to the surrounding rural area,
48 12m284/FU L Repaduced by permission Steve Ruggi Produced by the Orehance Sum$ on Netherton Farm, Westcraigs Road, Harthill, Shotts d Planning and DeveloDment bzhatfofHMSQ. @Crown Erection of 2No. Wind Turbines j74.5m to Hub and Envir on mental Sew ices Copyrigk and datd3ase ti@ 125m to Tip) Including Ancillary Transformers, Crane North Lanarkshire Council 2012. Ailright$ ~5e~ed. Fleming House Ordnslnm S umey Hardstandings, New and Upgraded Access Tracks, 2 Tryst Road Liceme number 100023396. Two Substations, Control Buildings and Underground Cabling and 1 no. 75 m Meteorological Mast Cumbernauld Representation G87 IJW v * 49 Proposed Conditions:-
That the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within 3 years of the date of the permission, which shall subsist for a period of 25 years from the first date of generation of electricity from the development to the grid. Written confirmation of the first date of electricity generation shall be provided in writing to the Planning Authority. Within twelve months of the end of the permission, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, the wind turbine, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a restoration and after-care scheme to be submitted for the approval of the planning authority no later than 2 year prior to the expiry of the 25 years period, referred to above.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006, to allow the planning authority to review the circumstances of the temporary permission in the interests of the amenity of the area in the longer term, beyond the 25 year period covered by the permission.
2. That the operators shall at all times accord with the areas forming the subject of this consent in accordance with the approved plans and other supporting information, including the Environmental Impact Assessment, except as amended by the terms of the approval hereby given and shall omit no part of the approved operations and shall not amend the development (including changes to the make or model) without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That the development hereby permitted shall not 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).
4. That prior to their erection, details of the precise positioning of each turbine shall be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The turbines shall be positioned no more than 30 metres in any direction from the location of each turbine as shown on the approved plans. The number of turbines shall not exceed 2 and the blade tip height of turbines shall not exceed 125m in height. The final specification of the turbines, including colour and finish, shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority prior to their erection on site.
Reason: To allow limited flexibility in positioning turbines and to ensure that amenity and environmental assets are protected.
5. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a comprehensive site investigation report incorporating mineral stability issues shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice, such as BS 10175: The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, or CLR 11. The report must include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required as part of the above report.
Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination.
50 6. That prior to the development being brought into use, any remediation works identified by the site investigation report required in terms of Condition 5 above shall be completed and a certificate (signed by a Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.
Reason: To ensure the site is free of contamination.
7. That prior to the erection or installation of any ancillary equipment or buildings, the design, colour and finish of the equipment and buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
8. That prior to their erection on site, the specification of the turbines with regard to noise predictions, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for assessment and confirmation that the noise criteria in this approval will be met.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area
9.. That noise levels inclusive of any necessary tonal correction at any noise sensitive property existing at the date of this consent excluding Torrance Farm shall not exceed an external free-field level LA90,70min of the greater of 35dB or 5dB above the prevailing background noise level at any 10m height wind speed up to 12m/s during 07:OO-23:OO and the greater of 43dB or 5dB above the agreed prevailing background noise level at any 10m height wind speed up to 12m/s during 23:OO-07:OO. The data provided in the noise assessment presented in the Environmental Statement provides information on measured background noise at various wind speeds and the methodology used within that document should be the basis for assessment of future investigations.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
10. That construction and decommissioning work, which is audible from the boundary of any noise sensitive receptor, shall only take place between the hours of 08.00-19.00 on Monday to Friday inclusive and 08.00-13.00 on Saturdays, with no working on a Sunday or local or national public holiday. Outwith these said hours, development at the site shall be limited to turbine commissioning, emergency works, dust suppression and the testing of plant and equipment, or construction work that is not audible from any noise sensitive property outwith the site. The receipt of any materials or equipment for the construction of the site, by track, other than turbine blades, nacelles and towers, is not allowed outwith the said hours, unless otherwise agreed by the council having been given a minimum of two working days notice of the occurrence of the proposed event.
Reason: To minimise disturbance and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.
11. At least two (2) months prior to the commencement of any works, a full site specific environmental management plan (Pollution Prevention Plan) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority (in consultation with SEPA) and thereafter all work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason: To ensure that waste on the site is managed in a sustainable manner and in the interests of the amenity of the site.
12. That prior to commencement of development a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Such Construction Method Statement shall cover:
0 Detailed and scaled map to include the anticipated layout and width of temporary
51 and permanent tracks, cable routeing, turbine bases, crane standings, site storage compound, substation, on site switch gear and equipment store and any ancillary buildings. Details of any change to the layout shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority; Details of all on-site construction, including drainage (incorporate SUDS where appropriate), pollution prevention, mitigation, post-construction restoration, and reinstatement work, as well as the timetables for such work. Details of construction practices in terms of minimisation of the use of raw materials and the reuse or recycling of waste materials; Details of surface water drainage measures to comply with national guidance on pollution prevention, including surface water run off from internal access roads; Details of welfare facilities Details of concrete and vehicle washdown areas; A dust management plan during the construction period: Details of the arrangement for the on-site storage of fuel oil; Details of the working and re-instatement of borrow pits;
The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area, to ensure that necessary contingencies are in place, to minimise pollution risks arising from construction activities, and to ensure the site is satisfactorily restored.
13. That neither the turbine nor meteorological mast shall be erected on site until the applicant has demonstrated that they agreed with the Ministry of Defence, NATS and CAA the following information:
Construction start and end dates of turbine and meteorological mast; The position of the turbine tower and meteorological mast in latitude and longitude; The height of the turbine and meteorological mast in metres above ordnance datum and above ground level; and The proposed methodology for lighting the turbine
Reason: To enable military aircrew to avoid overflight of the site in the interests of safety.
14. That the turbine shall be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting or infrared lighting with an optimised flash pattern of 60 flashes per minute of 200ms to 500ms duration at the highest practicable point to the satisfaction of the MOD unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with the MOD.
Reason: In the interests of air safety.
15. That no symbols, signs or logos or other lettering, other than those required for health and safety and for traffic management, shall be displayed on any part of the turbines nor any other building or structures without the written consent of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
16. That all turbine blades shall rotate in the same direction.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area.
17. That should 12 months or more elapse between the timing of the initial ecological survey dated 201 1 hereby approved, before development commences, a further survey shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any statutorily protected
52 species, particularly for bats, badgers and Otters the said survey shall thereafter be submitled to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the study, should any remediation measures be required for the relocation of any protected species, this shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.
Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
18. That prior to the commencement of development a construction methodology statement for protected species shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt this statement shall include:
Pre-construction Otter and Watervole surveys. 0 Details of the Badger Species Protection Plan. 0 Measures for the protection of Otters and Badgers during construction if required. Confirmation that any pipes left on site during construction are capped to prevent entry of animals. 0 Confirmation that excavations deeper than 1 metre are covered over night to prevent injury or death of animals. Where excavations are less than 1 metre deep, the sides should be graded or a ramp provided to allow easy egress of animals.
Thereafter construction of the development shall be in accordance with this approved statement.
Reason: To ensure the protection of species on site.
19. That no turbine shall be erected until a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the Council in consultation with NATS.
Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.
20. That no turbine shall be erected until the approved Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme approved as part of condition 19 above has been implemented and the development shall thereafter be operated fully in accordance with such approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of aviation safety.
21. That before any works commence on site, details of measures to overcome potential shadow flicker problems at the identified receptors shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Planning Authority; thereafter the approved measures shall be brought into operation and shall continue throughout the operation of the wind turbine except as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to overcome potential nuisance to receptors through shadow flicker.
22. That should additional shadow flicker issues be identified over the first three years that the turbine is in operation then further mitigation details shall be submitted to overcome these shadow flicker issues at the affected receptor and these shall be approved in writing, by the Planning Authority; thereafter the approved measures shall be brought into operation and shall continue through the operation of the wind turbine except as may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to overcome potential nuisance to receptors through shadow flicker.
23. That before any turbine is erected on site, a survey of television signal reception (the scope of which to be agreed in advance with the Planning Authority) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority.
53 Reason: To establish a baseline against which to assess the impact of the wind turbine on television reception.
24. That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, within one month of the approved wind turbines coming into operation a report covering the effect of the wind turbines on local television signal reception shall be submitted to the Planning Authority; thereafter any approved measures for overcoming television reception interference shall be brought into operation within two months of the reports submission to the Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the report shall include measures to ensure public engagement.
Reason: In order to overcome any television reception interference caused by the wind turbine.
25. That prior to the commencement of development on site details full traffic management proposals should be submitted including:
1. Assessments to determine any alterations to existing junctions that may be required and any street furniture that may require to be temporarily removedhelocated due to abnormal load oversail. 2. A scheme of junction improvements for the 8718 at the proposed site access. 3. Details of the sightline for the access of 4.5m by 215m in both directions on the 8718. 4. Details of the finalised transportation route for the turbines.
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
26. That the scheme of junction improvements, transport routing and road widening works approved under the terms of condition 25 above, shall be completed prior to the transportation of turbines to the site.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory access and in the interests of road safety.
27. No development shall take place within the development area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the local Archaeology Service and approved by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of cultural heritage.
28. That within 4 weeks of the development hereby permitted being brought into use a Notice of Completion shall be 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) and to monitor the development and to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.
54 Backclround PaDers:
Representation Letters
Letter from Mr Peter Connor, 9 Victoria Street, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Jessie Connor, 9 Victoria Street, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Marjory Cochrane, 37 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 201 2 Letter from Louise McGrath, 4 Flaxmill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Kevin McCairn, 6 Sprig Way, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Derek Ceffetty, 55 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr James Wornin, 8 Gibbshill Place, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from L Grierson, 28 Hawthorn Drive, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Derek Clarkson, 8 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 67 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Marion Burns, 5 Muirhead Place, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 201 2 Letter from S Cleland, 4 Flaxmill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from lsabella Wornin, 8 Gibbshill Place, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from L Harvey, 52 Park View, Fauldhouse, EH47 9JX received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Scott Hendrie, 24 Stanley Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from W McAllister, 1 1 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 201 2 Letter from Stewart Wallace, 33 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 2012 Letter from Evonne Wallace, 38 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 201 2 Letter from Jean Burt, 12 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 2012 Letter from Mr David McLean, 6 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from A Kennedy, 4 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Andrew Johnston, 3 Gibbshill Place, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Daryl Mclntyre, 18 Balbakie Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Jonathan Burke, 28A Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Margaret Baxter, 9 Netherton Street, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Jim Singler, 7 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 2012 Letter from Alan Johnston, 15 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 2012 Letter from Marie Wilson, 5 Nith Lane, Newmains, Wishaw received 10th May 2012 Letter from H Aitchison, 32 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Caroline Simpson, 44 White Street, Whitburn, EH47 OBG received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr tan Henney, 39 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 201 2 Letter from Amanda Nicol, 28 Mollison Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Danny Hudson, 121 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Johan Hamilton, 19 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 201 2 Letter from Margaret Fleming, 25 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Frank Vance, 15 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from M Vance, 15 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from K Vance, 15 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr John Black, 27 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 7 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mary McGrogan, 5 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Sharon McGowan, 52 Westcraigs Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Mark Timmins, 9 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Neilson, 7 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Jaclyn Clements, 14 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr David Bonnes, 3 Whyte Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Veronica Reid, 6 Whyte Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs M Burn, 8 Whyte Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs Agnes Miller, 18 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Lynne Black, 27 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from T Cowan, 10A Polkemmet Road, Greenrigg, ML7 5RF received 2nd May 2012
55 Letter from Mr R McAlister, 11 Netherton Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Colin Swan, 18 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Gemma Orr, 18 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Robed McNeill, 137 Polkemmet Drive, Greenrigg , Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Brendan McGhee, 16 South Calder Way, Newmains, ML2 9FD received 31st May 201 2 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 42 Dyfrig Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from Alan McGowan, 23 Dura Road, Allanton, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from John Leckie, 6 Currieside Avenue, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 31st May 201 2 Letter from John McLean, 222 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from John Williamson, 4 Newark Gate, Allanton, North Lanarkshire received 31st May 201 2 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 261 Old Edinburgh Road, Uddingston, Glasgow received 31 st May 2012 Letter from S Mitchell, 36 Clark Street, West Crindledyke, Newmains received 29th May 2012 Letter from R Joseph, 19 Canthill Gardens, Hartwood, Shotts received 29th May 2012 Letter from Marion Bisset, 20 Eastwood Drive, Crindledyke, Newmains received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Stephen Harold, 75 Shankly Drive, Morningside, Newmains received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Kayleigh Smith, 4 Dougan Drive, Newmains, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 201 2 Letter from P Monaghan, 97 Branchalfield Drive, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Tracey McColl, 8 Currieside Avenue, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Lee Burns, 80 School Road, Morningside, Newmains received 29th May 2012 Letter from Wendy Gardner, 19 Lochaber Crescent, Stane, Shotts received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Stewart McGuiness, 4 Spey Court, Newmains, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Wendy Drysdale, 5 Shawgill Court, Law, ML8 5SJ received 29th May 201 2 Letter from J C Wallace, 84 Benhar Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Lesley Carlin, 6 Rhu Quadrant, Overtown, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Mark Carlin, 6 Rhu Quadrant, Overtown, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Linda Chalmers, 4 Alexander Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 29th May 201 2 Letter from lsabel Watterson, 3 Brownhill View, Bonkle, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Malcolm MacDonald, 1 1 Branchalfield Drive, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 9 Etive Walk, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from M Nisbet, 16 Fruin Drive, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 83 Burnside Crescent, Dykehead, Shotts received 29th May 2012 Letter from Lyndsay Harold, 75 Shankly Drive, Morningside, Newmains received 29th May 2012 Letter from B Millar, 27 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 201 2 Letter from J Millar, 27 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Audrey Marshall, 1 Almond Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Mr John Cefferty, 55 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 37 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Sharon Stobbs, 21 Ellisland Place, Ayr, KA7 3EG received 9th June 2012 Letter from F Tudhope, 49 Hawthorn Drive, Girvan, received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Craig Boyd, 20 Bedhorne Drive, Blackridge, EH48 3RD received 9th June 201 2 Letter from Mr John McGhie, 91 Bailie Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Colin Elliott, 43 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from E Gibson, 9 Hill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012
56 Letter from Mr Michael Duffy, 9 Hill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Danny Wright, 17 Mains Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Peter Smith, 3 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from J Boyd, 37 Eastside Drive, Westhill, Aberdeen received 9th June 2012 Letter from Marion McGhie, 91 Baillie Avenue, Harthill, ML7 5SY received 9th June 2012 Letter from Moira McKee, 83 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Fiona Smith, 3 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Heather Buchanan Locke, 14 Armour Drive, Ayr, KA3 3JX received 9th June 201 2 Letter from Margaret Mitchell MSP, The Scottish Parliament, Constituency Office, 104 Cadzow Street received 30th April 2012 Letter from Dorothy Brown, 31 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Sonia Mcllwraith, 46 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Edward Quigley, 19 Bank Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr William Stoddard, 13 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Matt Mcllwraith, 16 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Belle Mcllwraith, 38 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 18th June 201 2 Letter from Eleanor Stoddart, 13 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Councillor Jim Dixon, Armadale And Blackridge Ward, West Lothian Civic Centre, Howden South Road received 18th June 2012 Letter from Mr Brendan Rooney, 7 Warrener Crescent, Dunbar, EH42 1LU received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Christopher Grant, Dalgety Road, Edinburgh, EH7 5UH received 15th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Scott Hunter, 5 Sprig Way, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Kevin Jeffrey, 70 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 201 2 Letter from Jane Hudson, 121 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Lesley Ann Scott, 15 Victoria Street, Harthill, Shotts received 15th May 201 2 Letter from J Donnelly, 60 Milton Street, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mr Colin Drummond, 45 Bridgecastle Road, Armadale, EH48 3NX received 15th May 2012 Letter from Louise Lewis, 70 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 151 Polkemmet Drive, Greenrigg , Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 67 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 101 Allison Gardens, Blackridge, West Lothian received 15th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 51 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 107 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 15th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Alexandra Cochrane, 37 Stanley Road, Greenrigg, Harthill received 26th April 201 2 Letter from Lesley Grant, 22 Bartonhall Road, Waterloo, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Kevin Dunne, 40 Newark Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Robert McNeill, 137 Polkemmet Drive, Greenrigg, Harthill received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr John Mcllhain, 15 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Keith McDowell, 39 Stanley Road, Harthill, ML7 5RA received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Tom Stewart, 76 Jubilee Road, Whitburn, EH47 OAT received 2nd May 2012 Letter from T Hilditch, 10 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from C Shearer, C/o Harthill Wind Ltd, 15 Brookfield, Highgate West Hill received 28th May 2012 Letter from Alec Monaghan, C/o Harthill Wind Ltd, 15 Brookfield, Highgate West Hill received 28th May 2012 Letter from Aileen Foley, 1 Woodstock Drive, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Helen Jannis, 3 MacLean Terrace, Blackridge, West Lothian received 6th June
57 2012 Letter from Alan Jannis, 3 MacLean Terrace, Blackridge, West Lothian received 6th June 2012 Letter from John Jamieson, 3 MacLean Terrace, Blackridge, West Lothian received 6th June 2012 Letter from Stephen Stewart, 2 MacLean Terrace, Blackridge, West Lothian received 6th June 2012 Letter from Marion Stewart, 2 MacLean Terrace, Blackridge, West Lothian received 6th June 2012 Letter from Mhairi Shanks, 1 Craig Street, Blackridge, EH48 received 6th June 2012 Letter from Gary Stewart, 2 MacLean Terrace, Blackridge, West Lothian received 6th June 2012 Letter from W Hilditch, 32 Westcraigs Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from D Cafferty, 65 Bank Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Robert Hilditch, 14 West Benhar Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Louise McGrath, 4 Flaxmill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Yvonne Brodie, 6 Hill Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 27 Mollison Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Fiona Fell, 23 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr David Campbell, 1 Dykebrow, Greenrigg, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from H Barclay, 157 Polkemmet Drive, Greenrigg, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Linda Campbell, 1 Dyke Brow, ML7 5QR, received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr John Blades, 52 Queens Crescent, New Stevenston, Motherwell received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs J Blades, 52 Queens Crescent, New Stevenston, Motherwell received 2nd May 2012 Letter from E Hutcheson, 106 Ryden Mains Road, Glenmavis, Airdrie received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Geraldine Burns, 25 Tollpark Crescent, Newmains, Wishaw received 2nd May 2012 Letter from H Dunsmore, 34 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Kathleen McGilp, 51 Bank Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from E Rutherford, 34 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Angela McLaren, C/o Benhar Youth & Activities Club, The Community Halls, 56 West Benhar Road received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr P Hughes, 68 South Park, Armadale, West Lothian received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr James Graham, 5 Harthill Road, Fauldhouse, EH47 9HR received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr John Brodie, 58 Craig Avenue, Whitburn, EH47 OLS received 2nd May 2012 Letter from M A Goldie, 91 Lanrigg Road, EH47 9JG, received 3rd May 2012 Letter from A McGoldrick, 41 Athol Terrace, Bathgate, West Lothian received 2nd May 2012 Letter from S G O'Connor, 2 Portland Place, Fauldhouse, West Lothian received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr John Watson, 21 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mrs M Longmuir, 31 Middlewood Park, Deans, Livingston received 2nd May 2012 Letter from B Struthers, 1 Bank Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Arlene Matthews, 4 McLauchlan View, Harthill, ML7 5SU received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Karen McGilvary, 28 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from D Clements, 26 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Alex McGilvary, 28 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from J Clements, 26 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Graham Munn, Beechgrove, East Main Street, Harthill received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 44 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Margaret Russell, 19 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr David Alexander, 29 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from lrene Ramsay, 1 Hawthorn Drive, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Wilma Ellis, 3 Burns Crescent, Greenrigg, ML7 received 2nd May 2012
58 Letter from Janet Smith, 38 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Gary Matthews, 4 McLauchlan View, Harthill, ML7 5SU received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr George Clelland, 19 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr James Connor, 6 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Susan Norman, 49 McMahon Drive, Newmains, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Helena Kennedy, 45 Currieside Avenue, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Clare Kennedy, 45 Currieside Avenue, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from R Paterson, 27 Station Road, Carluke, received 29th May 2012 Letter from Michelle Keane, 21 St Andrews Drive, Law, Carluke received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Philip Dougal, 17 Kames Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Ross Grierson, 7 Hyndshaw View, Law, ML8 5JX received 29th May 201 2 Letter from C Grierson, 7 Hyndshaw View, Law, ML8 5JX received 29th May 2012 Letter from E Lawson, 1 Gail Crescent, Carluke, ML8 4BU received 29th May 2012 Letter from Alister Kirkhope, Thornhome Farm, Carluke, ML8 4QD received 29th May 2012 Letter from Fiona Donnelly, 214 Shottskirk Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr John Reid, 23 Northwood Drive, Crindledyke, Newmains received 29th May 2012 Letter from I McKie, 1 Fortissat Avenue, Dykehead, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from Anne Graham, Auchterlea Cottage, Daviesdykes Road, Newmains received 31st May 2012 Letter from Lynne Walker, 21 Wilson Road, Allanton, Shotts received 31 st May 2012 Letter from John Banly, 3 Allanton Holding, Mill Road, Allanton received 31st May 2012 Letter from Andrew Reelinski, No 2 Sharnotshields Holdings, Mill Road, Allanton received 31 st May 2012 Letter from T Murdoch, 5 Kinghill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from L McKee, 25 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from R McKee, 25 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from William Greenshields, 21 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31 st May 2012 Letter from Martin Greenshields, 21 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31 st May 201 2 Letter from Gwen Russell, 29 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from lsabella McLean, 49 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Thomas Peters, 45 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Moira Bowes, 38 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 21 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received 31 st May 2012 Letter from Eleanor Stewart, 3 Browhill Street, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Steven Mollins, 19 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Maralyn Clelland, 19 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from D Loft, 39 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs Anne Elliott, 13 Church Street, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Anita V Loft, 39 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Lynn Melrose, 27 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Thomas Melrose, 27 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Stacey Melrose, 27 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Alan Brown, 26 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr D McKee, 17 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Gemma Wilson, 20 Church Road, Bonkle, Wishaw received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs B McKee, 17 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr lan Rafferty, 1 Mollison Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mary Neil, 9 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from Cynthia Cuthbert, 24 Livingstone Quadrant, Eastfield, Harthill received 31 st May 201 2 Letter from Lillian Jenkins, 5 Swan Way, Law Village, South Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012
59 Letter from C Mitchell, 48 Marshall Street, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 113 Birkshaw Brae, Gowkthrapple, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Jim Quinn, 28 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Kelly Anne Quinn, 28 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 32 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Harthill Wind Ltd, 15 Brookfield, Highgate West Hill, London received 15th May 2012 Letter from Joan Gardiner, 3 Viewfield Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 6 Livingstone Quadrant, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from E Hay, 18 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 201 2 Letter from D & T Conner, 10 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 2012 Letter from B Quigley, 4 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 2012 Letter from J Jamieson, 1 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 201 2 Letter from B Bradley, 20 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 10th May 201 2 Letter from Angela Parris, 1 1 Greenan Way, Doonfoot, received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Harthill And Eastfield Community Council, C/o 51 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr R McCulloch, 33 Albert Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr lain Hunter, 6 Rimmon Place, Dykehead, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Yvonne Cornwall, 9 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs M McCulloch, 33 Albert Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Robert Swan, 15 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Cyril MacPherson, 16 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs Sarah MacPherson, 16 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Jack Ramsay, 1 Hawthorn Drive, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr Peter White, 4 Polkemmet Road, Harthill, ML7 5RF received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr Andrew Easton, 45 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Anna White, 4 Polkemmet Road, Greenrigg, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from M Mollins, 51 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 7th May 2012 Letter from Mary Tait, 8 Primrose Avenue, Rosyth, Dunfermline received 7th May 201 2 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 61 Kirk Brae, Longridge, West Lothian received 7th May 2012 Letter from George Murphy, 28 Mather Avenue, Whitburn, received 7th May 2012 Letter from David Allison, 28 Gardners Crescent, Whitburn, EH47 OPE received 7th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 21 Torrida Lane, Rosyth, KY11 2EX received 7th May 2012 Letter from Gavin Dow, 23 Kirk Road, Bathgate, West Lothian received 7th May 2012 Letter from Lorraine Roan, 91 Edinburgh Road, Harthill, ML7 5PT received 7th May 2012 Letter from Rona Boyd, 42 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, ML7 5SR received 7th May 2012 Letter from John Boyd, 42 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, ML7 5SR received 7th May 2012 Letter from Tracy Taylor, 54 Hastanes Road, Armadale, EH48 3LA received 7th May 2012 Letter from Stephen Hutton, 21 Hillside Place, Longridge, Bathgate received 7th May 2012 Letter from M MacKay, 1 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD received 7th May 2012 Letter from Margaret G Gilroy, 7 Bank Road, Harthill, ML7 5RX received 7th May 2012 Letter from Ms Connie Riddoch, 3 North Reeves Place, Whitburn, EH47 8HD received 7th May 201 2 Letter from Matthew Radcliffe, 48 Southpark, Armadale, EH48 1LF received 7th May 2012 Letter from W Hutchinson, 38 Westcraigs Road, Harthill, Shotts received 7th May 2012 Letter from C Hutchinson, 38 Westcraigs Road , Harthill Shotts , North Lanarkshire received 7th May 201 2 Letter from Robert Milligan, 14 Miller Place, Harthill, ML7 5SJ received 7th May 2012 Letter from Mrs A Wright, 111 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 9th May 201 2 Letter from Mr David Burt, 12 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 9th May 2012 Letter from Christine Black, 27 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Harthill And Eastfield, Tenants And Residents Association, C/o 5 Breslin Terrace, Harthill received 2nd May 2012
60 Letter from J Thompson, 45 James Street, Anstruther, received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mrs S McGregor, 3 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs A Brodie, 1 Hunter Grove, Bathgate, EH48 1NN received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs J Swan, 5 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr F Swan, 5 Breslin Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 2nd May 2012 Letter from J Riddell, 24 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from E A Riddell, 24 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Agnes Milligan, 22 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 4 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mrs Jane Wilson, 12 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Miss Jane Wilson, 12 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Stephanie King, 16 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Tony McNee, 16 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Thomas Neil, 17 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Miss Karen Gibson, 29 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr William Gibson, 29 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Caroline Close, 18 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mr Gary McKee, 18 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Arthur Black, 27 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 2012 Letter from Mr John R Fleming, 25 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 2nd May 201 2 Letter from Mrs B Walker, 37 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 9th May 2012 Letter from Mr lan Taylor, 13 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 9th May 201 2 Letter from Joyce Wallace, 14 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 9th May 2012 Letter from Mr C B Longmuir, 31 Middlewood Park, Deans, Livingston received 23rd April 201 2 Letter from Councillor Charles Cefferty, Member Services, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street received 25th May 2012 Letter from Shona Fell, 21 Sidehead Road, Harthill, ML7 5QH received 31st May 2012 Letter from Fiona Blair, 75 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31 st May 201 2 Letter from John Watson, 75 Edinburgh Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31 st May 2012 Letter from Mrs A Johnston, 3 Gibbshill Place, Harthill, Shotts received 31 st May 2012 Letter from Mr W Dickson, 1 Gibbshill Place, Harthill, ML7 5RZ received 31st May 2012 Letter from Mrs M Dickson, 1 Gibbshill Place, Harthill, ML7 5RZ received 31st May 2012 Letter from Anne Peters, 45 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31 st May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 8 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 201 2 Letter from Mr J Alexander, 29 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs M Alexander, 29 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs M Longmuir, 109 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mr W Griffith, 19 Covenanter Road, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs J McLaren, 9 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs D Morley, 18 Murdouston Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mr C Morley, 18 Murdouston Crescent, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mr D M Rennie, 41 Albert Road, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs W Dickson, 51 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 201 2 Letter from Mrs I Rennie, 41 Albert Road, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mr C Dickson, C/o 51 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs H Griffith, 19 Covenanter Road, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs A McLaren, 9 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs M Dickson, 51 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 23rd April 2012 Letter from Mrs J Maxwell, 3 Covenanter Road, Harthill, Shotts received 11th June 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 1 Covenanter Road, Harthill, ML7 5PA received 11th June 201 2 Letter from June Morrison, 3 Howborn Road, Harthill, ML7 5SD received 11th June 2012 Letter from Alex Morrison, 3 Howborn Road, Harthill, ML7 5SD received 11th June 2012 Letter from Freda Stewart, 31 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 1lth June 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 27 Mollison Avenue, Harthill, Shotts received 11th June 2012
61 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 83 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 11 th June 2012 Letter from Lisa Elliott, 43 Honburn Road, Harthill, received 11 th June 2012 Letter from Chris Gilmour, 48 Honburn Road, Harthill, received 1 lth June 2012 Letter from Mr Walter Curle, 71 Baillie Avenue, Harthill, ML7 5SY received 1lth June 2012 Letter from Robert Gilmour, 48 Howburn Road, Harthill, Shotts received I1th June 2012 Letter from John Boyd, 37 Eastside Drive, Westhill, Aberdeen received 11th June 2012 Letter from Mrs A Curle, 71 Baillie Avenue, Harthill, ML7 5SY received 11th June 2012 Letter from N McGinn, 237 Dyfrig Street, Shotts, ML7 4BY received 11th June 2012 Letter from G McCormick, 71 Edinburgh Road, Harthill, ML7 5PT received Letter from S McCormick, 71 Edinburgh Road, Harthill, ML7 5PT received 1Ith June 2012 Letter from M Ballantyne, 5 Crombie Close, Westhill, Aberdeen received 1Ith June 2012 Letter from L Ballantyne, 5 Crombie Close , Westhill , Aberdeen received 11th June 2012 Letter from Joyce Boyd, 28 Hilltop Gardens, Westhill, Aberdeen received 1Ith June 2012 Letter from L Shaw, 107 Edinburgh Road, Harthill, received 11 th June 201 2 Letter from Car1 McCormick, 2 Balbakie Road, Harthill, Shotts received 1 1th June 2012 Letter from Sheena McGinn, 10 Katrine Road, Shotts, ML7 4JA received 11th June 2012 Letter from Mrs A McCormick, 2 Balbakie Road, Harthill, Shotts received 11th June 2012 Letter from J.C. Boyd, 28 Hilltop Gardens, Westhill, Aberdeen received 11th June 2012 Letter from Councillor Malcolm McMillan, Member Services, Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street received 26th April 201 2 Letter from Mr John Sodden, Alma House, 3 Station Place, Law received 28th May 2012 Letter from E McCann, 56 Walkerburn Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Andrea Boyle, 109 Berryhill Crescent, Netherton, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Gina Cairnduff, 27 Stewart Crescent, West Crindledyke, Newmains received 28th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 29 Conservation Place, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mrs E Miller, 1 Wingate Street, Craigneuk, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Lisa McKeever, 5 South Line View, Netherton, Wishaw received 28th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Steven Campbell, 142 Campbell Street, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Ann Marie Sinclair, 12 Hillhead Drive, Cleekhimin, Motherwell received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Jonathan Hutchinson, Hawthorn Cottage, Muirhall, Addiewell received 16th April 2012 Letter from Mr Brian Clarke, 16 Brown Street, Carluke, ML8 5DS received 28th May 2012 Letter from Jannette Jameson, Ness Street, Pather, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from W Gilmour, Allshaw, Wishaw, ML2 received 28th May 2012 Letter from Wendy Lindsay, , , received 28th May 201 2 Letter from Mary McCulloch, 10 Crathie Quadrant, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from C Dingwall, 12 Woodstock Drive, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Ella Campbell, 25 Woodstock Drive, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Joanne Donaldson, 14 Langholm Crescent, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from G Flanagan, 58 Curlinghaugh Crescent, Greenhead, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from H Walker, 79 Charles Street, Craigneuk, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Evelyn McCourt, 16 Tarbert Avenue, Pather, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Kimberley Hughes, 55 Curlinghaugh Crescent, Greenhead, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Kathleen Scanlon, 50 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 25th April 2012 Letter from Mrs Kate Strachan, 29 Westcraigs Road, Blackridge, Bathgate received 6th May 2012 Letter from Ruth MacDonald, 14 Airdrie Road, Carluke, ML8 received 29th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 72 lnnerleithen Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Jackie Andrew, 2 Coronation Street, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 29th May
62 2012 Letter from Heidi Kelly, 15 Church Avenue, Newmains, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Michael McBride, 33 Kennedy Street, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Nan Wilson, 25 Kelvin Drive, ML7 5NA, received 29th May 201 2 Letter from J Taylor, 47 Greenknowe Street, Overtown, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Elizabeth Smith, 106 Lomond Drive, Pather, Wishaw received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Lorna Smith, 29 Etive Street, Pather, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mrs S McLaughlin, 43 Graham Street, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Lynn McBride, 3 Kateswell Drive, Salsburgh, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from A Jamieson, 108 Mosshall Street, Newarthill, Motherwell received 29th May 2012 Letter from Kay Ross, 8 Castle View, West Crindledyke, Newmains received 29th May 2012 Letter from Margaret Dochnenko, 22A Beltonfoot Way, Netherton, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from H Magee, 25 Letheron Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from A Magee, 25 Letheron Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Phyllis McNeil, 43 Millbank Road, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from A Smith, 101 Jennie Lee Drive, Overtown, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Janet E Wolseley, 265 Bonkle Road, Newmains, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Peter Dunne, 64 Denholm Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 35 Duns Crescent, Coltness, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Elaine Purdie, 16 Brown Street, Carluke, ML8 5DS received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr John Watson, 67 Jennie Lee Drive, Overtown, Wishaw received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Martin Hamilton, 50 Lyman Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from Gillian Leggett, 32 Castlehill Road, Overtown, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from P Hart, 9D Omoa Road, Cleland, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Ann Wilson, 278 Mill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Alan Macvicar, 19 Murdostoun Gardens, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from S Paterson, 5 Staig Wynd, Muirhouse, Motherwell received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr Walter McLeary, 23 Broompark Road, Craigneuk, Wishaw received 29th May 201 2 Letter from Fiona Gray, 287 North Dryburgh Road, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from R McLaughlan, 106 Hawthorn Drive, Greenhead, Wishaw received 29th May 2012 Letter from C Beresford, 36 Allanton Grove, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 29th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, Ness Street, ML2 OPQ, received 29th May 2012 Letter from Mr David Brownlie, 24 Tweed Crescent, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 201 2 Letter from Mr Andy Coulter, 47 Tiree Crescent, West Crindledyke, Newmains received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr David Steel, 323 Caledonian Road, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Jacqueline Malcolm, 8 Hobart Quadrant, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Robert Sommerville, 33 Hawthorn Drive, Greenhead, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from J Moffat, 9 Laughland Drive, Newarthill, Motherwell received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Daly, 101 Leighton Street, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Stewart Crockett, 75 Heron View, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire received 7th June 2012 Letter from A Lithgow, 12 Houldworth Crescent, Allanton , Shotts received 28th May 2012 Letter from H Warren, 83 Melrose Crescent, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012
63 Letter from Amanda Nisbet, 96 Glencairn Avenue, Craigneuk, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Marri Dickson, 27 Northmuir Drive, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from P Attwood, 61 Nethan Avenue, Netherton, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Ellen McBride, 23 Rodger Way, Cleland, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Louise McShane, 89 York Street, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr I Dunsmore, 22 Heathfield, Gowkthrapple, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 91 lnnerleithen Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Joe Glancy, 89 Castlehill Road, Overtown, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from M Barton, 30 Yarrow Crescent, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr James Davie, 28 Meadowfield Place, Bonkle, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Margaret Davie, 28 Meadowfield Place, Bonkle, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from C Elliott, 28 lnglis Street, Netherton, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Henry Hughes, 14 St Mary Court, Stewarton Street, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from R Brindley, 26 Muirlinn, Forth, ML11 8AQ received 28th May 201 2 Letter from Helen Morton, 49 Dimsdale Road, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from C McBride, 33 Kennedy Street, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Ann Bell, 3 Wood View, Allanton, Shotts received 28th May 2012 Letter from J Martin, 145 Machanhill, Larkhall, ML9 2JR received 28th May 2012 Letter from R Gardner, 66 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Paul A Morton, 35 Hirst Gardens, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr John Young, 53 St Catherine's Crescent, Shotts, ML7 4HB received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr James F Cowley, 242 Dyfrig Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr David Hilditch, 113 Benhar Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Elizabeth Watson, 15 lnverkip Drive, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr William Hamilton, 114 Springhill Road, Stane, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Stuart McLean, 8 Easter Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Lee Thomson, 13 Mornay Way, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr William Kenny, 27 Quarry Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Robert Rankin, 36 Currieside Avenue, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 201 2 Letter from Wilson Shaw, 19 Greenwood Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Paul Morton, 35 Hirst Gardens, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Kate Bell, 43 Burnside Crescent, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from J McGuinness, 42 Thomson Terrace, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Luan Hardie, 46 St Catherine's Crescent, Shotts, ML7 4HB received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Alex Burns, 57 Baird Terrace, Eastfield, Harthill received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Jill Calson, 92 Main Street, Stane, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Kay Rodger, 6 Greenwood Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 201 2 Letter from A Young, 53 St Catherine's Crescent, Shotts, ML7 4HB received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Janice Connelly, 43 lnverkip Drive, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 201 2 Letter from J Murphy, 59 lnverkip Drive, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Edward Hutton, 10 Beechmount Court, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Billy Stevenson, 26 Kirk Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Gillian Carlin, 13 Dimsdale Road, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from R M Allan, 55 Cambusnethan Street, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 28th May 2012
64 Letter from Marie Russell, Leapark, Cobblehagh Farm, Lanark received 28th May 2012 Letter from M & R Sleith, 10 Duke Street, West Crindledyke, Newmains received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Joseph Carlin, 13 Dimsdale Road, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr John G Wolseley, 265 Bonkle Road, Newmains, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from J Miller, 129 Wishaw Road, Waterloo, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Geraldine Foley, 20 Gilchrist Way, Wishaw, North Lanarkshire received 28th May 2012 Letter from A Crossan, 30 Hawthorn Drive, Greenhead, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Thomson, 1 Kilmichael Avenue, Crindledyke, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Tracy Sims, 5 Eastwood Drive, Crindledyke, Newmains received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Anderson, 38 Cambusnethan Street, Cambusnethan, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Alan Henry, 7 Letheron Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from C Horton, 28 Dundyvan Street, Wishaw, ML2 OHG received 28th May 201 2 Letter from Mr William Slaven, 60 Muirhouse Road, Muirhouse, Motherwell received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mr Janes Gallacher, 3 Gateside Road, Craigneuk, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Annette Turnbull, 24 Eastwood Drive, Crindledyke, Newmains received 28th May 2012 Letter from Caroline Dunne, 41 Newark Drive, Coltness, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Esther Reardon, 32 Woodside Crescent, Crindledyke, Newmains received 28th May 2012 Letter from Gail Hughes, 125 Laurel Drive, Craigneuk, Wishaw received 28th May 2012 Letter from Jason Pettigrew, 78 Belmont Drive, Stane, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Robert Lawrie, 9 Windsor Place, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 201 2 Letter from Catherine Kelly, 71 Bon Accord Crescent, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from M McGowan, 6 Fortissat Avenue, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Keith Ferguson, Bogshill, Dalrymple Road, By Coylton received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Stephen Hilbourne, 1 1 The Yetts, Tarbolton, KA5 5NT received 9th June 201 2 Letter from Mr James Quigley, 38 Balbakie Road, Harthill, Shotts received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr John Stobbs, 21 Ellisland Place, Ayr, KA7 3EG received 9th June 2012 Letter from Anne Conway, 4 Bank Street, Prestwick, received 9th June 2012 Letter from Mr Thomas Buggy, 39A Quarry Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Margaret Warnoch, 28 Easter Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Ellen Conlon, 12 Quarry Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Frances Burt, 112 Springhill Road, Stane, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Grant Irvine, 8 Currieside Place, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Trudy Irvine, 8 Currieside Place, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Pat O'Hara, 5 Garry Way, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 40 Thomson Terrace, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Erin Stevenson, 26 Kirk Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Derek Leask, 13 Margaret Avenue, Salsburgh, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Elizabeth Allison, 3 Parkside Road, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Jean Goldie, 2 lnverkip Drive, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Daniel Chamberlain, 20A Shottskirk Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Tom Cameron, 157 Torbothie Road, Stane, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Francis Smith, 3 Kilfinan Road, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mrs Burns, 13 Hunter Place, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012
65 Letter from Mr Barry McDonald, 25 Vennacher Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr David Burns, 13 Hunter Place, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Ann Henderson, 2 Hirst Gardens, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Paul Leckie, 53 Tulloch Road, Stane, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr Thomas Harvey, 6 Clive Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Susan White, 25 Mornay Way, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from D Murphy, 1 Torrin Loan, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 13 Clive Street, Dykehead, Shotts received 22nd May 2012 Letter from Mr J McMillan, 22 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Mrs G Speirs, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 31st May 2012 Letter from Mrs K A Trussler, Lodgehill, Daviesdyke Road, Allanton received 31 st May 201 2 Letter from J M Speirs, Dura Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 31st May 2012 Letter from Audra MacPhee, Brow Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 31 st May 201 2 Letter from A C Melvin, Kirkhall Farm, Dura Road, Allanton received 31st May 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 279 Allanton Road, Allanton, Shotts received 31st May 201 2 Letter from Mr William Murdoch, 5 Kingshill Road, Allanton, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from Mrs Y McMillan, 22 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 31st May 2012 Letter from Leigh-Ann Donoghue, 14 Hillside Drive, Blackridge, EH48 3SL received 31.9 May 201 2 Letter from Mr Dennis Mowbury, 14 Hillside Drive, Blackridge, EH4 3SL received 31st May 201 2 Letter from Lilian Donoghue, 14 Hillside Drive, Blackridge, EH48 3SL received 31 st May 2012 Letter from Mr David Greig, 39 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from Jean Mitchell, 37 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 31st May 2012 Letter from Harthill Wind Ltd, 15 Brookfield, Highgate, West Hill received 29th March 2012 Letter from Mr Archie Brown, 49 Cunningham Drive, Eastfield, Harthill received 29th March 2012 Letter from Anne Donaldson, 10 East Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 2012 Letter from Mr James Topping, 57 Bank Road, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 2012 Letter from L Simpson, 1 Beechbank Cottage, Greenrigg, ML7 5RL received 29th March 2012 Letter from Carol McLeod, 6 Polkemmet Lane, Harthill, ML7 5RQ received 29th March 2012 Letter from Susan McCulloch, 25 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 2012 Letter from Mr John McCulloch, 25 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 201 2 Letter from lrene Mills, 17 Sidehead Road, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 2012 Letter from A Kennedy, 4 Miller Street, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 2012 Letter from lsobel Devine, 8 Victoria Road, Harthill, Shotts received 29th March 2012 Letter from Mrs M McCulloch, 33 Albert Road, Harthill, Shotts received 30th April 2012 Letter from Miss L Thomson, 2 Robert Street, Shotts, North Lanarkshire received 30th April 2012 Letter from G Wright, 111 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 30th April 2012 Letter from Mrs Catherine Strachan, 29 Westcraigs Road, Blackridge, Bathgate received 6th June 201 2 Letter from lsabel Shanks, 1 Craig Street, Blackridge, EH48 3SU received 8th June 2012 Letter from Alan Macaulay, 5 Maclean Terrace, Blackridge, Bathgate received 8th June 2012 Letter from Linda Macaulay, 5 Maclean Terrace, Blackridge, Bathgate received 8th June 2012 Letter from Lyn Smith, 31 Covenanter Street, Eastfield, ML7 5PA received 8th June 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 31 Covenanter Road, Eastfield, ML7 5PA received 8th June 2012 Letter from M Brandon, 1 Polkemmet Drive, Greenrigg, ML7 5RE received 8th June 2012 Letter from A Neil, 9 Murdostoun Crescent, Harthill, ML7 5SR received 8th June 2012 Letter from S Scott, 60 Harthill Road, Westcraigs, Blackridge received 8th June 201 2 Letter from Colin Mackay, 54 Harthill Road, Blackridge, EH48 3AR received 8th June 2012 Letter from J Connor, 9 Victoria Street, Harthill, ML7 5QE received 8th June 2012 Letter from P McTaggart, 40 Harthill Road, Westcraigs, Blackridge received 8th June 201 2 Letter from Anna Wisley, 50 Harthill Road, Blackridge, West Lothian received 8th June 2012 Letter from James Burns, 70 Harthill Road, Blackridge, EH48 3AL received 8th June 2012 Letter from Mr Chris Raine, 56 Harthill Road, West Lothian, EH48 3AL received 8th June 201 2 Letter from A Forbes, 58 Harthill Road, Blackridge, EH48 3AL received 8th June 2012
66 Letter from Alex Marshall, 57 Harthill Road, Blackridge, EH48 3AL received 8th June 2012 Letter from Jason Marshall, 61 Harthill Road, Blackridge, EH48 3AL received 8th June 2012 Letter from Gordon Marshall, 38 Bedcormie Drive, Blackridge, EH48 3RR received 8th June 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 66 Harthill Road, Blackridge, EH48 3AL received 8th June 2012 Letter from Mr Duncan, 62 Harthill Road, Westcraigs, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from lan Boyd, 59 Harthill Road, Westcraig, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from B Gallagher, 64 Harthill Road, Blackridge, West Lothian received 8th June 2012 Letter from David Ross, 5 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, ML7 5SS received 8th June 201 2 Letter from E Marr, 5 Dunn Terrace, Harthill, ML7 5SS received 8th June 2012 Letter from James Robertson, Hikanos, Main Road, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from A Robertson, Hikanos, Main Road, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from R Robertson, Hikanos, Main Road, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from Douglas Haig, Arbores, Main Street, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from Owner/Occupier, 5 Main Street, Blackridge, EH48 received 8th June 2012 Letter from Connie Whally, 5 Main Street, Blackridge, EH48 received 8th June 201 2 Letter from lan Sneddon, 21 Blairhill View, Blackridge, EH48 received 8th June 2012 Letter from Jean Sneddon, 21 Blairhill View, Blackridge, EH48 received 8th June 201 2 Letter from Anne W Steele, Home Cottage, Main Street, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from Edward C Steele, Home Cottage, Main Street, Blackridge received 8th June 201 2 Letter from J Woolf, 2 Blairhill View, Blackridge, EH48 received 8th June 2012 Letter from C Woolf, 2 Blairhill View, Blackridge, EH48 received 8th June 2012 Letter from S Haig, Arbores, Main Street, Blackridge received 8th June 2012 Letter from Harthill & Eastfield Community Council, C/o 51 West Main Street, Harthill, Shotts received 8th June 2012
Consultation Responses:
Traffic & Transportation received 4'h May 2012 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 23rdApril and 30thMay 2012 Greenspace received 21 '' May 2012 Landscape received 14'h May 2012 Scottish Natural Heritage received 24'h April 2012 Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 20thApril 2012 Scottish Power Energy Networks received 12'h April 2012 BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding received 1'' May 2012 Historic Scotland received 19 April 2012 Essar Oil (UK) received 28'h March 2012 Rathmell Archaeology received 2dh May 2012 West Lothian Council received 26thApril 2012 National Air Traffic Services (Safeguarding) received 3rdApril and 6'h June 2012 National Air Traffic Services (NERL) received 22"d May and 6'h June 2012 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (Ministry Of Defence) received 12'h April 2012 Ofcom (Wind Farm Enquiries) received 22ndMarch 2012 Atkins received 27'h March 201 2 JRC received 1gth April 201 2 Health and Safety Executive received 21" March and 2ndApril 2012 Transport Scotland received 2gthMarch 201 2 JMP Consultants Limited (Transport Scotland) received 27'h April 2012 Scottish Government's Directorate for the Built Environment received 20thMarch and 1gth April 2012 The Coal Authority received 30thMarch and 30thApril 2012
Contact information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 236 632496
Report Date: 7'h June 2012
67 APPLICATION NO. 12/00284/FUL
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.I The application site extends to 156 hectares (ha) and is located on land owned and farmed by both Netherton Farm and Wester Torrance Farm. The application site is bounded by the B718 to the northwest, a farm access track to the east, an unclassified road to the north and the M8 and Harthill Services and slip road from the M8 to the south. The application site comprises of farmland and commercial forestry and both operations would continue throughout the construction and operation of the development
2. Proposed Development
2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of 2 turbines, access tracks including passing bays, a temporary construction compound, permanent meteorological mast up to 75m to tip, hardstanding area, substation compounds and control building. Each turbine would have a hub height of 74.5 metres, a rotor diameter of 101 metres and a maximum height to blade tip of 125 metres (412 feet). It is proposed that the development will be connected to the grid via a new low voltage connection with the existing 11KV network using underground cabling. The total generating capacity of the turbines will be up to a maximum of 6 Megawatts (MW).
2.2 The turbines would be designed with an operational life of 25 years and at the end of this period, the developer would decommission the wind farm at which time the above ground infrastructure would be removed and the site reinstated.
2.3 It should be noted that the planning application and Environmental Statement was originally submitted for 4 turbines (in addition to the 3 already granted - see section 4 below). Accordingly, most of the letters of consultation comments and representations (contained in section 6 and 7 below) relate to the proposal for 4 turbines. In light of comments made as part of the application process, the developer agreed to delete 2 of the proposed turbines.
3. Applicant's Supportinu Information
3.1 An Environmental Statement and supplementary ecological information on Newts and Bats were submitted. The Environmental Statement and supplementary information outline the environmental effects of the proposed development. The submitted Environmental Statement includes assessments on the following topics: planning policy; project description, EIA methodology, landscape and visual assessment; ecology; ornithology; traffic and transportation; hydrology, geology and hydrogeology; archaeology and cultural heritage, noise, infrastructure, telecommunications, television, aviation and public safety and shadow flicker.
4. Site Historv
4.1 Relevant planning history for the site consists of the following:
0 Application 08/01523/FUL Erection of 6KW Wind Turbine (15m in Height) withdrawn 26'h February 2009.
Application 10/00535/FUL Erection of a Temporary Meteorological Monitoring Mast of Height up to 70m approved 2"d July 201 0.
0 Application 10/00973/FUL Erection of 3 125m Wind Turbines & Ancillary Infrastructure Including Foundations, External Transformers, Control Kiosks, New
68 Access Tracks, Temporary Construction Compound and Underground Cabling approved 28'h February 201 1.
5. DeveloPment Plan
5.1 The site is covered by Policy ENV8 (Rural Investment Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008.
5.2 The application site is zoned as NBE 3B Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009.
6. Consultations
6.1 The following consultees have no objection to the proposed development:-
Scottish Government Directorate for the Built Environment, Health and Safety Executive, Ofcom, Atkins, Essar Oil (UK), Scottish Power, JRC, Protective Services, BAA,
6.2 A summary of the comments from the remaining consultees are as follows:-
i) Transportation has no objection to the proposed development subject to the submission of full traffic management proposals, further details regarding the access arrangements and construction details and the proposed transport route of the turbines.
ii) Greenspace Services have no objections subject to the submission of further survey work relating to Great Crested Newts and Bats. They also request that mitigation in the form of habitat enhancement for Lapwing be carried out and that an Ecological Clerk of Works be appointed to carry out and monitor species protection and breeding bird protection plans prior to construction.
iii) Landscape Services comment that the proximity of the Harthill settlement to the south and the Blackridge settlement to the north, will result in significant visual impact from this development. The cumulative effect of the development, along with the consented turbines to the east, will be significant, particularly with the spread of turbines along the horizontal views along the ridge to the north of Harthill. Landscape recommend the removal of turbine NO4 from the proposed development as this will reduce the spread of the two developments and allow it to register visually as more of a cohesive cluster rather than a linear windfarm. In addition they comment that the removal of turbine NO3 would also help with the reduction of the visual impact and help move the development further back from the main receptors in Harthill. Landscape note that the longer range views are not so significant or intrusive due to the landform characteristics.
iv) SNH has no objections subject to the submission of further survey work relating to Great Crested Newts and Bats. SNH note that there are likely to be some significant localised impacts that may cause concern especially upon the settlement of Harthill and East Craigs Hill / Blackridge Heights AGLV. SNH agree with the assessment that finds significant visual effects occurring from receptors at Blackridge, Armadale, Polkemmet Country Park, Harthill and East Craigs Hill. These significant effects are found to the north, east and south of the proposal at distances of up to 3km. These effects are a function of the developments proximity to settlements as well as touristhecreational attractions. At greater distances the visibility appears constrained due to the location of the turbines upon a plateau. SNH note that the proposals will have a significant impact upon Harthill given the proximity of the development to Harthill (i.e. approximately 1km away), the size of the proposed turbines, the horizontal extent of the development when viewed
69 from Harthill, and, the orientation of the views from the majority of the residencies in the direction of the development. SNH however consider the principle of the extension to be acceptable as it will appear as an extension to the consented Torrance Farm Windfarm.
v) SEPA has no objections to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring the submission of a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) for approval two months prior to the commencement of development on site to ensure adequate environmental management during the construction of the development.
vi) West Lothian Council objects to the proposed development in terms of its landscape and cumulative impact and supports the comments made by SNH. WLC consider that significant visual effects will occur from receptors at Blackridge, Armadale, Polkemmet Country Park, Harthill and East Craigs Hill. These significant effects are found to the north, east and south of the proposal at distances of up to 3km. The council therefore consider that there will be considerable localised significant visual effects. These effects are a function of the developments proximity to settlements as well as tourisVrecreational attractions. They also highlight the level of visual impact upon Harthill and consider the development in its current form will dominate this settlement as a result of; the proximity of the development to Harthill (i.e. approximately 1km away), the size of the proposed turbines, the horizontal extent of the development when viewed from Harthill, and, the orientation of the views from the majority of the residencies in the direction of the development. WLC also consider that there would be a significant impact upon the Blackridge Heights AGLV given the proximity of the development to key viewpoints within the AGLV, such as Blawhorn Moss and East Craigs Hill, as well as the overall visibility of the scheme within the higher points to the north.
vi i) NATS (Safeguarding) & (NERL) previously indicated that the proposed development did conflict with their safeguarding criteria and objected to the proposed development. NATS have however indicated that they now have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions regarding the submission and approval of a radar mitigation strategy.
viii) Ministry of Defence has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions relating to lighting and the submission of information pertaining to the position and construction of the turbines being provided prior to the commencement of development on site.
ix) JMP Consultants Ltd (Transport Scotland) have no objections to the proposed development in terms of the impact on the trunk road network but recommend conditions regarding submission of further details regarding the routing of delivery and construction vehicles and management by a recognised transport consultant.
x) The Coal authority have no objections to the proposed development subject to condition that a site investigation and any remedial works required are carried out prior to the commencement of development on site.
7. Reoresentations
7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement, 579 letters of representation have been received, of these 329 are letters of objection, including one from Margaret Mitchell MSP, Councillor Charles Cefferty, Harthill and Eastfield Community Council, Blackridge Community Council, one from Councillor Borrowman and one from Councillor Dixon of West Lothian Council and one from former councillor Malcolm McMillan. The reasons for objection are outlined below:-
70 Planning Policy Visual Impact and Cumulative Landscape Impact Noise Shadow Flicker Wildlife and Ecology Negative impact on Tourism and Recreation Proximity of the turbines to the nearby properties and settlements and failure to adhere to the Scottish Government precautionary 2 Km distance from settlements Loss of forestry Health and safety Ground stability Proximity to M8 motorway Ice throw Perception of Harm
7.2 250 Letters of support have been submitted the reasons for support are summarised below:-
0 Additional community benefit 0 Turbines are well located 0 Valuable contribution to sustainable energy targets for Scotland 0 EIA indicates no significant environmental impacts
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 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.
8.2 The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) adopted the approach of defining search areas for wind farm developments. The areas of search as defined provide a strategic spatial framework for more detailed local development planning. The proposed two turbine extension is in line with the Spatial Development Strategy and supports its spatial role and function. In line with the SDP the application still requires to be assessed under the terms of both the adopted Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan.
Southern Area Local Plan 2008
8.3 The site is identified as Policy ENV8 (Rural Investment Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan 2008. Policies ENV2 (Renewable Energy), ENV5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact), ENV13 (Biodiversity), ENV18 (Listed Buildings), ENV21 (Archaeology) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implication of Development) are also relevant to the assessment of this application.
8.4 Policy ENV8 states that the Council will seek to promote and protect the Countryside, within which there will be a presumption against development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture and other appropriate rural uses including the generation of power from renewable sources. In this case the proposal relates to renewable energy and the proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with policy ENV8.
8.5 Policy ENV2 encourages the use and development of renewable energy encouraging schemes, where appropriate, to utilise wind energy subject to assessment in terms of their wider environmental effects and need to accord with policy ENV5. Subject to the assessment against policy ENV5 the proposed 2 turbines accord with policy ENV2.
71 8.6 Policy ENV5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact) sets criteria for assessing the environmental impact of proposed development. These include; suitability of the proposal to the character of the area in which it is set; the landscape and visual impact of the proposal; the extent of traffic generation, noise, dust, pollution and flooding risk; the loss of natural habitats and protected species; and the need for specific measures to ensure satisfactory decommissioning, particularly of renewable energy developments. Having assessed the proposals and the submitted Environmental Statement and in view of the consultation responses detailed above, it is considered that the size, number and appearance of the turbines will not significantly detract from the wider landscape setting. It is acknowledged that the additional 2 turbines with a hub height of 74.5m, blade diameter of 101m and a total tip height of 125m is inevitably going to have a some visual impact on both its immediate surroundings and the wider area, however it is considered that the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Cumulative Assessment prove that the impact of the proposed extension is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. Both SNH and Landscape confirmed that the proposed cumulative impact of the development has been adequately considered and accepted that the proposed extension can be accommodated within the site. SNH and Landscape however note that there are likely to be some significant localised impacts that may cause concern especially upon the settlement of Harthill and East Craigs Hill / Blackridge Heights AGLV. In addition they note that at greater distances the visibility appears constrained due to the location of the turbines upon a plateau. In this regard it was recommended that the applicant remove turbines 3 and 4 from the proposals to lessen the visual impact of the development on the nearby settlements of Harthill and Blackridge. In response to our concerns the applicant has amended the scheme by removing turbines 3 and 4 and now proposes a two turbine extension. The proposed site has been identified for turbine developments of this nature and scale in the NLLP Wind Farm Search Area Review which sought to identify areas within NLC that had the most capacity, in landscape terms, to absorb further turbine development. Having considered the visual information submitted and in light of the reduction in the number of turbines it is considered that the development has demonstrated by the submitted viewpoints that the development will not appear overly prominent and thus can be accommodated at this particular location without significant detriment to the adjacent settlements and AGLV. It should be noted that this is not the first instance of a windfarm being located adjacent to an area of great landscape value or indeed an area with high amenity value. In terms of traffic generation, these issues will be addressed in section 8.10 below. Having consulted our Pollution Control Section it is noted that the Environmental Appraisal has satisfactorily considered the noise and dust issues affecting the site. In terms of flood risk and drainage, no issues have been raised by SEPA and in terms of the loss of natural habitats and protected species these issues are addressed in section 8.7 below. The proposals include sufficient details to ensure satisfactory decommissioning and conditions are recommended to ensure the satisfactory decommissioning and restoration of the site. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable and in accordance with policy ENV5.
8.7 Policy ENV13 seeks to maintain and enhance the nature resources of the plan area by the protection of habitats, species and natural features which are vulnerable and/or specifically protected, and by a requirement to take account of the needs of wildlife where new development is proposed. Both SNH and Greenspace have confirmed that the ES and additional ecological survey work submitted is sufficient and therefore it is considered that the applicant has adequately addressed all the issues and the proposals are therefore considered to accord with policy ENV13.
8.8 Policy ENV18 indicates that the Council will resist proposals, which would harm the historic or architectural interest of a Listed Building. It is noted that the Environmental Appraisal concludes that the development will have no significant impact on any ancient monument, listed building or historic park/designed landscape. Having consulted Historic Scotland they have no objections to the proposed development and it is therefore considered that the application accords with policy ENV18.
72 8.9 Policy ENV21 indicates that the Council will not normally allow development which would have an adverse impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments, other archaeological sites and industrial archaeological resources and their setting. The Councils archaeological consultants have offered no comments on the proposed application and Historic Scotland raised no concerns therefore the proposed development is considered to accord with policy ENV21.
8.10 Policy TR13 requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including: the level of traffic generated; the impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. Transportation has no objection to the proposed development subject to the access arrangements being as per those outlined in the Environmental Statement and the submission of further details regarding the proposed transport route of the turbines which can be addressed by recommended conditions. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with policy TR13.
8.1 1 On balance, is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and accords with the Development Plan and must therefore be approved unless there are other material considerations that indicate otherwise.
Other Material Considerations
Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan
8.12 The application site is zoned as NBE 38 Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area in the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2009. This policy seeks to protect the character of and to promote development in Rural Investment Areas through restricting development to acceptable types. Generation of power from renewable sources is considered an acceptable type of development. The policy then lists impact criteria for assessing acceptable development. The development must comply with the undernoted criteria:
0 Have a positive economic benefit. 0 Minimise any adverse environmental impacts. 0 Do not pose undue infrastructure implications. 0 Have a specific locational need. 0 Be of a suitable scale and form for the location. 0 Applications include a landscape assessment.
As outlined in section 8.6 above, the proposed development is considered to be of a suitable scale and form for the location. The submitted landscape assessment and subsequent amended scheme is considered to fully address all the concerns with regard to the impact of the turbines on the landscape character of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable and accords with policy NBE 3A..
8.13 Policy EDI 3 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals) is also relevant. This states under EDI 3A2 that ‘the Council supports, in principle, all forms of renewable energy generation subject to wind farms meeting the criteria contained in the approved supplementary planning guidance relating to issues of scale, cumulative impact, community benefit and restoration. Having assessed the submitted Environmental Statement and in light of the amended scheme reducing the number of turbines it is considered that the proposed development does not raise any serious issues with respect to scale and cumulative impact. The study carried out in the NLC Strategic Planning Study Technical Report TFUNLC/05 -Wind Farm Search Area Review indicates that at this particular location there is capacity for Turbine developments in excess of 1OOm in height and that the landscape characteristics are such that this is considered one of the most appropriate areas to site such a development. The concerns outlined bv SNH and LandscaDe reaardina the sianificant
73 localised impacts especially upon the settlement of Harthill and East Craigs Hill / Blackridge Heights AGLV are noted. Having considered the details of the Environmental Statement, the amendment to the scheme to reduce the number of turbines to two with the removal of turbines 3 and 4 it is considered that two additional turbines at this location can be accommodated without significant detriment to the surrounding landscape areas and would not cause detriment in terms of cumulative impact. It should be noted that the applicant has agreed to provide a financial contribution in the form of community benefit payments in line with the original three turbine scheme and conditions are recommended to secure the restoration of the site. The proposals therefore accord with policy EDI 3A2.
8.14 The FDNLLP also requires proposed developments to be assessed against DSP policies including DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). It is considered that the development would comply with these policies as outlined in the sections above. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development accords with the emerging local plan.
8.15 Directorate of Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) Report of Examination on the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan: The DPEA have recently concluded the examination process for the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The policy alterations made in this process would not raise any further material considerations for the determination of this applications.
8.16 Scottish Planning Policy outlines that planning authorities should support the development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently and environmental and cumulative impacts can be satisfactorily addressed. Development plans should provide a clear indication of the potential for development of wind farms of all scales, and should set out the criteria that will be considered in deciding applications for all wind farm developments including extensions. The criteria will vary depending on the scale of development and its relationship to the characteristics of the surrounding area, but are likely to include:
landscape and visual impact, assessed in section 8.6 above, effects on the natural heritage and historic environment, assessed in sections 8.6 to 8.9 above, contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets, effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests, benefits and dis-benefits for communities assessed in section 8.12 above, aviation and telecommunications, noise, assessed in section 8.6 above, and cumulative impact assessed in section 8.6 above.
The design and location of any wind farm development should reflect the scale and character of the landscape. The location of turbines should be considered carefully to ensure that the landscape and visual impact is minimised. As detailed above the site is within an area identified in the development plan as suitable for this type of development and meets the criteria in the supplementary planning guidance. The criteria listed above, has been addressed and the impact of the development is considered to be acceptable as detailed below.
8.17 Shadow Flicker: The ES has assessed the likelihood of this phenomenon becoming a problem (using the worst case scenario). The ES concludes that shadow flicker may affect Torrance Farm, Southrigg Farm, Netherton Farm, 61 Harthill Road, 72 Harthill Road, Craigholm and The Ruin. However the effects are likely to be further reduced given the removal of turbines 3 and 4. Should objections be received subsequent to the turbines being erected, there are measures which the developer can take to minimise the problem, in the form of systems which shut down the wind turbine at times that flicker is likely to occur. Mitigation for shadow flicker can be addressed by the conditions proposed.
74 8.18 Aviation: Having consulted the MOD, BAA and the CAA they have advised that they have no objections to the proposed development. NATS have indicated that they have no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions being attached regarding the submission and approval of a radar mitigation strategy.
8.1 9 TWRadio Reception: In order to resolve any problems that may occur, the developer has agreed to carry out an assessment of TV reception before and after the turbines are constructed and thereafter carryout works designed to remedy any potential problems. It is considered that this is an acceptable solution and can be controlled by the proposed conditions.
8.20 The Scottish Government issued a consultation document ‘Steering the Implementation of Solutions for Aviation Objections to Windfarms in South West Scotland’ in July 2010 looking at potential changes to national planning advice seeking to address certain issues surrounding aviation objections to windfarm developments in south west Scotland. The consultation explored the idea of developing advice to planning authorities on the use of suspensive conditions covering aviation objections while at the same time expressing a position which Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) could refer to in deciding where to apply the limited mitigation they are able to provide to safeguard aviation. Subsequent to this consultation process the Scottish Government issued further guidance ‘Dealing with Aviation Objections and Associated Negative Conditions in Wind Turbine Consents’ in January 2012. This guidance outlined the complexities involved in achieving the agreements and technical arrangements required to mitigate the effects of wind turbines on radar. It also outlined that planning authorities should recognise that the existence of a theoretical or potential technical mitigation will not represent a solution to an aviation objection if it cannot be realised. In addition the use of such conditions where there is no identified mitigation to deal with an aviation objection, could have an impact on the likelihood of other developments being consented owing to cumulative effects related to both radar and landscape. Therefore planning authorities should consider the views of relevant consultees on the matter and, where applicable, evidence confirming the technical existence of mitigation already identified in theory. Evidence of the likelihood of a technical solution being realised within a reasonable timeframe will therefore be a relevant consideration in deciding whether or not to give consent with negative conditions to address aviation issues. However, it should be noted that the availability of a mitigation solution does not over-ride other planning considerations, including spatial planning factors. Planning authorities should balance all the material considerations in the normal manner in coming to a view on a proposed development. NATS have indicated that they have no objections to the proposed development subject to the submission and approval of a Primary Radar Mitigation Scheme. It is therefore considered that proposed aviation mitigation conditions are acceptable and in line with current Scottish Government guidance on such matters.
Consultations
8.21 The consultation response received from West Lothian Council and their objection to the proposed development is noted. However the points raised in section 6.2 vi) above have been considered and addressed in sections 8.6 and 8.12 to 8.15 above and the conclusions are considered to adequately address the concerns outlined by West Lothian Council. In addition it should also be noted that the applicant has amended the proposals and reduced the number of turbines which further mitigate the impact of the extension. The comments submitted by SNH and Landscape are noted and have been considered in the assessment of the proposals. The response from NATS offers no objection subject to conditions regarding the submission and approval of a radar mitigation strategy. In general, the remaining consultation responses received offer no objections and all issues raised can be addressed by suitable planning conditions and submission of further details.
75 Rewesentations
8.22 In terms of points of objection, I would comment as follows:-
1. The concern that the proposed development is contrary to planning policy is addressed in paragraphs 8.4 to 8.1 5 above. 2. The visual impact that the proposed development will have on the area and surrounding countryside is noted, and has been addressed in section 8.6 and 8.12 to 8.15 above. 3. The potential cumulative impact of the proposed development in conjunction with other approved and proposed wind farm developments and clustering effect surrounding Blackridge is noted. The cumulative impact is addressed in section 8.6 and 8.1 2 to 8.15 above. 4. The potential for noise disturbance caused by the construction and operation of the development is considered above. Having consulted Pollution Control they have indicated no objections to the proposed development in terms of noise subject to appropriate conditions. Furthermore chapter 10 of the ES confirms that no significant noise effects will occur to the nearest affected properties during either construction or operation of the proposed extension. 5. The proximity of the site to surrounding communities and its impact on the amenity of residents in particular with regard to Shadow Flicker has been addressed in section 8.16 above. It is considered that remediation measures can be addressed through the use of a recommended planning condition. 6. The concern regarding the impact of the development on wildlife and ecology on the site is noted and having consulted SNH and the Council’s Greenspace Services it is considered that all issues with regard to protected species have been satisfactorily addressed. 7. The potential negative impact on tourism and recreation is noted, however, chapter 12 of the ES confirms that no significant impacts on tourism or recreation will occur during either construction or operation of the proposed extension. 8. The proximity of the proposed turbines to the nearby properties and settlements and the issue of the 2 km precautionary zone has been considered in section 8.6 and 8.12 to 8.15 above. Furthermore it should be noted that the applicant has amended the proposals by reducing removing turbines 3 and 4 which were closest to the nearest settlements. 9. The loss of forestry is noted, however the areas to be felled for turbines 1 and 2 are commercial forestry which would have been felled in the future. The proposed extension just brings forward areas of limited felling and therefore the proposals are considered acceptable. 10. The impact on health and safety has been assessed and having consulted the HSE they have offered no objections to the proposed development. 11. The issue of ground stability is covered in chapter 8 of the submitted ES. Furthermore having consulted both Protective Services and the Coal Authority neither have objected to the proposed development subject to recommended conditions. 12. The proximity of the turbines to the M8 is considered acceptable and having consulted both Transportation and Transport Scotland neither have objected to the proposed development. 13. It is considered that the issue of potential ice throw is satisfactorily addressed in the submitted ES. 14. In terms of the perception of harm it is considered that the submitted ES satisfactorily addresses all the potential impacts of the proposed development.
8.23 In terms of points of support, I would comment as follows:-
1. It is noted that the applicant has agreed that if approved the project will be accompanied by the implementation of additional community funding to benefit the surrounding communities providing a fund of up to f24,000 per
76 annum for community projects. This is not, however, a valid planning consideration. 2. The layout and impact of the proposed turbines has been considered in section 8.6 and 8.12 to 8.15 above. It is noted that the applicant has amended the proposals and reduced the number of turbines which has further minimised the impact of the development. 3. It is agreed that the development will help reduce CO2 emissions and reduce Scotland’s dependence on fossil fuels and provide a contribution to the Scottish Governments targets for renewable energy generation in line with current national policy. 4. As indicated above it is concluded that the proposed development will not have a significant visual, ecological or noise impact on the surrounding countryside and residential properties. Having assessed the submitted ES and consulted the relevant consultees it is considered that the proposed development satisfactorily addresses all these issues.
9. Conclusions
9.1 The proposed development is considered acceptable and accords with the policies contained within the Southern Area Local Plan 2008 and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The environmental information submitted and landscape, visual and cumulative impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable and having consulted various amenity bodies and examined the ES the objections received are not sufficient as to warrant refusal of the application. The proposed development is therefore considered to accord with policy and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
77 Application No: Proposed Development:
12/00453/FUL Erection of Dwellinghouse and Stables Site Address:
Site To East Of lnchwood Mews Kilsyth Road Queenzieburn North Lanarkshire G66 8AL
Date Registered:
15th May 2012
Applicant: Agent: lnchwood Properties Ltd Donald Paul Murray 4 Dunn Park Plan Designs Kirkintilloch 6 Stirling Street Glasgow Cumbernauld Village G66 2DU Cumbernauld G67 2QY
Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Local Application Yes
Ward: Representations: 001 Kilsyth 3 Letters of representation received. Jean Jones, Heather McVey, Alan Stevenson,
Recommendation: Refuse
Reasoned Justification: The proposal to construct a dwellinghouse at this location is contrary to green belt policy and will adversely affect the local rural amenity.
78 12/00453/FUL cpmduted panniriion Produced by the Onhancc Sumy on Planning and Development thabofHMS0. BCroun Inchwood Properties Ltd Environmental Semicos ~mti$t and dattlbase t+w log. nil t+gkn~e~al. Site To East Of lnchwood Mews Kilsyth Fleming House rdnantc Sunray Road Queenzieburn 2 Tryst Road terre number 100023396. Cumbcrnauid Erection of Dwellinghouse and Stables M7IJW v
79 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
1. The proposed development will adversely affect the green belt by introducing new residential development that is not required for any rural use; in this respect the proposal is contrary to the Green Belt and site location policies in the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 (GB3) and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (DSP 2 and NBE 3A).
2. The proposal would result in a development where the configuration and constraints of the layout are such that the proposal would constitute an inappropriate development giving rise to a detrimental impact on the amenity and character of the Green Belt; in this respect the proposal would be contrary to the Kilsyth Local Plan Policies GB3 Green Belt, and the Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan (policies HCF1 A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) and DSP4 (Quality of Development)).
3. It is also considered that the proposed dwelling house would adversely affect the character of the area by introducing a permanent building which would be out of keeping with the immediate site and its surroundings and would as a result permanently alter the character of the area.
4. The proposal will result in an intensification of the use of the access giving rise to an unacceptable reduction in road safety.
5. That should planning permission be granted a precedent may be set for inappropriate development within protected green belt areas.
80 Backaround PaPers:
Representation Letters
1 on-line representation received 3rdJune 2012 from Mr & Mrs Grzegorz & Magdalena Sianos,2 lnchwood Mews, Milton of Campsie, G66 8AL.
Letter received on the 6'h June 2012 from Mr & Mrs. J Morrison 1 lnchwood Mews Kilsyth Road Milton of Campsie, G66 8AL.
Letter received on the 1 lthJune 2012 from Mr & Mrs. J Provan Upper lnchwood Farm Milton of Campsie, G66 8AL.
Consultation Responses:
Traffic & Transportation Memorandum received 1gth June 2012 NLC Greenspace Services memorandum received 13'h June 2012
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01236 632524
Refort Date: 19' June2012
81 APPLICATION NO. 12/00453/FUL
REPORT
1. Site DescriDtion
1.1 The proposal is for the construction of a dwellinghouse and stables on land to the east of lnchwood Mews, Kilsyth Road, Queenzieburn. The site, which is 1302 sq.m in area, lies adjacent to a steading development comprising of 3 dwellings resulting from the restoration of former agricultural buildings. The site is accessed via a central private access road shared with the three existing properties. The site itself lies to the east of lnchwood Mews and fronts onto the shared private access road connected to Kilsyth Road. The site is bounded to the east and south by agricultural fields (open countryside). To the north lies the (A803) Kilsyth Road and fields (Inchwood cottage) beyond. Finishing materials for the proposed house have been detailed on the plans and it would appear traditional materials are proposed.
2. ProPosed Development
2.1 The proposal includes the construction of a 3 bedroom dwellinghouse that would be 1.5 storeys in height, incorporating both traditional and contemporary characteristics but is essentially a contemporary design in terms of height and massing. Permission for stables incidental to the use of the proposed dwellinghouse is also proposed.
3. Amlieant's Suwortina Information
3.1 The applicant has provided a copy of a statement submitted to the Planning Service (Local Plans Section) on the 1dh June 2008 as representation in support of a dwelling in the Green Belt. Also submitted is an appeal statement, prepared by Keppie Planning on behalf of North Lanarkshire Council, following grant of planning permission for a dwellinghouse at this location and subsequent call in of the application (April 2003) by the Scottish Government. The appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Scottish Government.
4. Site History
5.1 The following previous applications are relevant to the current proposal.
98/00517/FUL Change of Use of Agricultural Outbuilding to Dwelling approved dhJune 1998 99/00994/FUL Erection of 3 Dwellings, Change Of Use And Alterations To Office Workshop To Form Dwelling And Relocation Of Vehicular Access refused 15'h November 1999. 02/01641/OUT Residential Development (In Outline) refused on appeal, 27'h May 2004,following referral to the Scottish Government. 03/00009/OUT Erection of Dwellinghouse refused on appeal, 19th April 2004, following referral to the Scottish Government. 06/00060/FUL Alterations to Outbuilding to Form Extension to Dwelling approved 17'h February 2006. 06/01892/FUL Extension to a Dwellinghouse and the Construction of a Garage approved 14'h January 2007.
5. Development Plan
5.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.
5.2 In the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999, the application site is located within the Green Belt and is covered by policy (GB3) which presumes against new residential development
82 unless shown to be necessary for agriculture, forestry or other uses appropriate only to a rural area.
6. Consultations
6.1 A summary of comments from consultees is as follows:
0 Transportation: has recommended that the application be refused and commented that the proposed road in serving an additional dwelling should be brought to an adoptable standard. They also have significant road safety concerns in that the existing site lines from the proposed development are sub-standard and pose difficulties for vehicles exiting onto the A803. The proposed development will further increase vehicle movement at the junction which will have an adverse affect on road safety.
0 Greenspace Services: has no objections to the proposal and has recommended a series of best practice measures. Other protection measures relate to species which are not European protected species but are protected under the Wild Life and Countryside Act 1981. An informative is therefore recommended to cover these matters.
7. Representations
7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement, three letters of representation were received. Points raised include, contrary to the Local plan policy, surface water runoff, landscape maintenance overshadowing, increased traffic, business use, location operation access and odour from stables, pest control, devaluation of property, access and visibility onto the A803, field access to grazing land.
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application raises no strategic issues and therefore requires to be assessed against local plan policies.
8.2 Develoment Plan - Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 Residential development in the Green Belt is covered by policy GB3 which presumes against new residential development unless shown to be necessary for agriculture, forestry or other uses appropriate only to a rural area. The purpose of the policy is to protect the urban fringe and countryside from inappropriate developments and to direct development into the urban area. The proposal does not relate well to the existing arrangement of buildings and houses (arranged in a tight grouping) and is unconnected with agriculture or any other rural use. The proposal is therefore contrary to Green Belt policy GB3.
8.3 Other Material Considerations - Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan: The site is covered by emerging local plan policy NBE 3A which continues to identify the site as Green Belt with a presumption against development unless required for agriculture or other identified uses compatible with a greenbelt location. The proposal is contrary to this policy. The FDNLLP also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Due to the limited nature of the development the proposal raises no issues with regards to Policies DSP 1 and DSP3.
8.4 The FDNLLP policy DSP 2 covers the location of development. Amongst other matters, this policy specifies that for developments to be acceptable, development
83 should avoid key green belt corridors and should be accessible by non car means of transport. The proposed dwellinghouse is in a prominent section of green belt and is only reasonably accessible by car. Furthermore the proposed dwellinghouse will have an adverse impact on the local rural amenity by adding an additional building on this site. The proposed development will not only reduce the openness of the area, but will introduce an additional dwelling to the locale which will adversely affect the local rural character. The granting of permission will set a precedent for other inappropriate dwellinghouses in the green belt, to the detriment of the amenity of the wider area, as such, the proposal is contrary to this policy.
8.5 In considering policy DSP4 the dwelling is located in the Green Belt where development should avoid key corridors and wedges and maintain clearly defined urban/ rural boundaries. It is considered that the dwelling, for which no acceptable justification has been provided, will significantly impact on the rural character of the area and have an adverse impact on the Green Belt at this location. Therefore the proposal does not accord with this Policy. Furthermore Policy DSP 4 also states that development will only be permitted when design is of a high standard. Notwithstanding the dwellings contemporary design overall the design of the building is in itself considered acceptable. In considering the impact on the adjacent dwellings (steading), it is considered that while the proposal will generate a modest level additional traffic on the access lane, the proposal will not result in a loss of privacy or overshadow these properties and on balance will not result in an overriding loss of amenity. However, the proposed layout does not pay sufficient regard to the surrounding built form which is characterised by a tight grouping of buildings resulting in the proposed plot and dwelling being out of character with the surrounding area. This site is within the Green Belt where the argument for additional dwellings centred on an existing cluster of buildings does not apply (this is only relevant in the Rural Investment Area). Accepting this argument in the Green Belt would set an undesirable precedent for inappropriate development in countryside. It is considered, therefore, that the proposal does not accord with the emerging local plan policy with regards to design.
8.6 Consultees: Traffic & Transportation has advised that they have significant road safety concerns in that the existing site lines from the proposed development are sub- standard and pose difficulties for vehicles exiting onto the A803. The proposed development will further increase vehicle movement at the junction which will have an adverse affect on road safety. In addition, they advise that as the access road already serves 3 dwellings this would need to be upgraded to adoptable standard. The comments in relation to road safety are accepted and this has been included as a reason for refusal.
8.7 Representation: The points of objection raised can be summarised as follows:
Point of objection: Road safety - the existing access to the A803 is an issue with poor visibility on this 60 mph road.
Comment: These concerns are shared by Traffic & Transportation who recommend that planning permission be refused.
Point of objection: What is the justification for the departure from the local plan?
Comment: The applicant has provided no additional information justifying a house in the green belt.
Point of objection: Surface water runoff flows in the direction of the application site and would require a drainage solution.
Comment: The applicant should ensure that drainage infrastructure associated with the site is sufficient.
84 Point of objection: Proposed screen planting on the boundary could damage the foundations of the adjacent domestic garage in future years.
Comment: Landscaping maintenance associated any development should be robust enough to ensure that damage does not occur to adjacent buildings.
Point of objection: The position of the proposed dwelling will block sunlight to neighbouring property at 2 lnchwood Mews.
Comment: A combination of intervening distance, orientation and building height combine to ensure that there is no significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties.
Point of objection: An additional dwelling will increase traffic on the access lane giving rise to deterioration in the ease of access to existing dwellings.
Comment: An additional dwelling will increase traffic on the access lane giving rise to disturbance and ease of access resulting in a loss of amenity.
Point of Objection: The stable is considered a business use within an exclusively residential steading. It is not clear where feeding and waste from the stables will be stored. The stables have a separate access and may be sold as a separate site in the future and there is not enough room for the manoeuvring of a horse box within the site.
Comment: The stable proposed is a use incidental to the proposed dwelling house as such is proposed for the exclusive use of the applicant. The removal of waste from this part of the site and storage of feed are not material planning considerations but rather a matter to be considered under current environmental legislation. In considering the site layout it is noted that there are no planning restrictions on the applicant temporarily unloading a horsebox from this private access road.
Point of objection: The location of the proposed stables is used as a holding area for cattle by a neighbouring farmer before crossing the A803 Kilsyth Road.
Comment: This is a civil legal issue over land ownership and not a material planning consideration.
Point of Objection: The stable will result in unacceptable odours and give rise pests and vermin.
Comment: Stables are a common feature in rural areas and if properly maintained should not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residences.
Point of objection: The proposal will result in the devaluation and diminish the resale opportunity of neighbouring dwellings.
Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.
Point of objection: Gate access from the proposed stables to the adjacent field will allow cattle and horses to mix which is poor agricultural practice.
Comment: This is not a material planning consideration.
Point of objection: A dwelling at this location should be subject to a legal agreement.
Comment: The proposal is recommended for refusal, however planning policy states that dwellings in the Green Belt area should be subject to a legal agreement covering an occupancy agreement where the Council is minded to approve.
85 9. Conclusions
9.1 The proposal to construct a dwellinghouse at this location is contrary to Green Belt policy in that the dwelling is unconnected with an accepted Green Belt use. There are road safety issues, the proposed dwelling will adversely affect the openness of local rural amenity and result in an unacceptable layout at this location. It is recommended that planning permission be refused.
86 Application No: Proposed Development:
12/0050 1 /FU L Change of Use From Community Centre to Financial Services Office (Credit Union) Site Address:
Community Centre 1 Lomond Drive Condorrat Cumbernauld Glasgow North Lanarkshire G67 4JL
Date Registered:
8th May 2012
Applicant: Agent: Cumbernauld South Credit Union Charlie McCudden 5 Main Road Pride Shopfitting Ltd Condorrat 38 Russel Street Cum bernauld Falkirk G67 4BT FK2 7HS
Application Level : Contrary to Development Plan: No
Ward: Representations: 003 Cumbernauld South 3 letters of representation (one in William Goldie, Allan Graham, Paddy Hogg, support from Councillor Barry Stephanie Muir, McCulloch)
Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions
Reasoned Justification:
The proposal is an acceptable use within the residential area and is considered to have a generally positive impact on the area in bringing the Community Centre back into use, integrating satisfactorily with the existing character of the area and retaining the established residential amenity and in doing so, complies with the adopted and emerging local plans.
87 12100501FUL hpmduced ky permission Cumbernauld South Credlt Union Produced by dthe0nhsnce Suncy on Planning and Development beha8ofHMSO. @Crown Community Centre 1 Lomond Drlve Condorrat Environmental Stwi Copyrigli and dathae tiw North bnarkshire Counoi PO9 All tighb mrernd Fltming Houst Ordnance Sutuey Change ofUse From CommunityCentrs to 2 Tryst Road ~~~~~~~~~~1000~396,Financial Services (Credit Union) Cumbernauld A GB7 IJW Representations
88 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 the drawing stamped approved as part of this permission.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That the development hereby permitted shall not 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).
4. That within 4 weeks of the development hereby permitted being occupied or brought into use a Notice of Completion shall be 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, to monitor the development, to enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.
89 Representation Letters
Letter from Miss Nicola O'May, 44 lomond place, Condorrat, Cumbernauld received 16th May 2012 Letter from Mrs Angela Currie, 42 Lomond Place, Condorrat, Cumbernauld received 22nd May 2012 E-mail communication from Councillor Barry McCulloch received 28'h May 2012.
Consultation Responses:
Traffic & Transportation Memorandum received 28'h May 2012.
Contact Information:
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Arthur at 01236 632524
Report Date:
7'h June 2012
90 APPLICATION NO. 12/00501/FUL
REPORT
1. Site Description
1.1 This application is for a change of use from a community centre to financial services (credit union) located within an established residential area at 1 Lomond Drive Cumbernauld. Surrounding the site are residential properties of a similar age, style, character, height & materials. The site is bounded to the north by a strip of landscaped ground with semi detached properties beyond. To the East and south lie an area of communal car parking, an access road and rows of two storey houses beyond. To the west there is a densely planted landscape boundary and the grounds of St.Helen’s Primary School beyond.
2. Proposed Development
2.1 This application seeks permission for a change of use from a community centre to financial services (credit union) office at 1 Lomond Drive Cumbernauld. No physical alterations are proposed to the building and the original footprint of the community centre will be unaltered by the proposal.
2.2 The application property is owned by North Lanarkshire Council, as such, the application requires to be reported to Committee.
3. Applicant’s Supportinu Information
3.1 The applicant has provided no additional supporting information.
4. Site History
4.1 No relevant planning history.
5. Development Plan
5.1 There are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to the Cumbernauld Local Plan. Policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) applies in this case.
6. Consultations
6.1 A summary of comments from consultees is as follows:
Transportation has no objections to the proposal and has commented on the current parking arrangements within the wider area.
7. Representations
7.1 Following the standard notification process 3 letters of representation were received including an e-mail from Councillor Barry McCulloch in support of the proposal; one objecting to the proposal and the other commenting upon it. Points raised include impact on parking, the need for additional traffic calming, improved walking distance to facility and landscaping. Comments received are summarised in paragraph 8.6 below.
8. Plannina Assessment
8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
91 8.3 DeveloDment Plan - Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993: Policy HG4 seeks to protect residential amenity. The proposed Credit Union is considered to be an acceptable ancillary use within this residential area. In considering the impact of the proposal, it is considered that this type of use, which has a restrictive and defined catchment, limiting the number of visitors to the location, will potentially attract fewer visitors in an intermittent manner than the potential number of visitors arriving as an assemblage, associated with the previous community use. The proposed use is also considered advantageous over the previous use, in that, the site will operate during normal working hours as opposed to events that could take place all throughout the day, in the evening hours or at weekends. Given the foregoing, the proposal is considered acceptable, having a neutral or improved impact on the character and amenity of the area, not least as no alterations to the building are proposed, with the footprint of the building remaining unaltered and the current level of parking remaining constant. It is considered that the proposal complies with policy HG4.
8.4 Other Material Considerations - Finalised Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The zoning of the site does not change in this plan and the development is considered to accord with policy HCF1 A Protecting Housing and Community facilities (residential amenity). Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) seeks to ensure that developments are well designed and do not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposal complies with this policy for reasons explained above.
8.5 Consultation: The comments by Transportation, also raised below by objectors, are noted and, whilst there may be potential for conflict between visitors and residents for on-street parking spaces within the locale at certain times of the day, this conflict is transient and does not present an overriding reduction in road safety. It is not considered that the development will exacerbate the existing situation to such a degree which would merit the refusal of planning permission. It is also noted that the proposed use will have less of a potential impact than the approved existing use, as outlined in paragraph 8.3 above.
8.6 Representation: The points of objection raised can be summarised as follows:
Point of objection: There is an impact on street parking availability in the area at the beginning and end of the school day and on Saturdays due to the proximity of the primary school to dwellings.
Comment: It is noted that on street parking is communal in this area and conflict may arise due to the inconsiderate actions of visitors to the area. However, whilst recognising potential inconvenience to residents, it is also recognised that this is a transient and relates to the school.
Point of objection: Traffic calming measures should be implemented to control the speed of traffic on Lomond Drive.
Comment: Transportation has no objections to the proposal in its current form.
Point of objection: Landscaped areas around the building should remain.
Comments: The there is no proposal to remove the landscaping nor to carry out additional landscaping.
Point of support: The location of the facility on a single level will be favourable in terms of improved access.
Comment: Being a local facility it is anticipated that improved access combined with the retention of relatively short walking distance are positive factors.
92 9. Conclusions
9.1 The development would integrate satisfactorily with the existing character of the area and as such it is considered that the proposed development would not unacceptably impact upon the established residential amenity of the area. Having regard to the foregoing, it is acknowledged that the proposal complies with the adopted Local Plan policy for the site, rendering the proposed land-use compatible with the surrounding residential area. It is also noted that the proposal complies with the emerging Local Plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to the attached conditions.
93