Planning and Building Standards Services South Lanarkshire Local development plan 2 Proposed plan MIR consultation responses July 2018 Community and Enterprise Resources Full Name MIR Organisation Para Summary Council's response Details Rebecca 1 4.46 Supports the proposed extension of Support for extension to Langlands Moss noted. Hay Langlands Moss. This area is a wildlife haven and a wonderful asset for the community. It should be protected from being disturbed and should be nurtured by the council. Jim 2 4.7 Objects to the proposed residential Noted – the representation will be taken into account as Thomson developments at East Overton and part of the Stage 2 assessment of the site(s). A further Glassford Road Strathaven. In particular technical assessment is being carried out on the sites that because of traffic issues this is likely to are identified within the MIR as potential development cause. opportunities. As part of this process detailed information has been submitted. This data is being assessed to ensure that any sites which go forward into the proposed plan can be adequately serviced without due pressure on existing infrastructure. If a capacity issue is identified then it is expected that this will be addressed by any prospective developer before any development is allowed to proceed. Michael 3 4.34 Supports the development of further Local Support for development of Local Nature Reserves is Philip Nature Reserves. noted. Michael 4 4.36 Supports the identification of Cadzow Glen Support for Cadzow Glen is noted. Philip as an exemplary LNR Catherine 5 Woodland Trust 4.3 The current wording of the preferred option Noted - The Council is considering rewording the Spatial Pendreigh in regards to balancing the economic benefit Strategy policy in the proposed plan. These comments will of mineral development against be considered and amendments made if appropriate. environmental impact suggests that if the economic benefit were great enough environmental detriment could be overlooked. We strongly disagree with this position. The preferred option does not make any mention of ensuring land for forestry and woodland creation, this is a significant flaw. Catherine 6 Woodland Trust 4.4 We believe that alternative option 1 would be Noted 1 Full Name MIR Organisation Para Summary Council's response Details Pendreigh the most appropriate option to accord with the Scottish Government's Climate Change objectives. Catherine 7 Woodland Trust 4.7 We oppose the following sites proposed on The proposals for Blairbeth include a small element of Pendreigh the grounds that they would detrimentally residential but the majority of the site is to be retained as impact ancient woodland: Blairbeth Golf greenspace and enhanced as parkland/greenspace. Course, Rutherglen – this proposed site covers an area of ancient woodland 1b LEPO (Long Established Plantation Origin) in Cathkin Braes Park. Catherine 8 Woodland Trust 4.12 We strongly oppose to the proposal for The small area defined as ancient woodland 2b LEPO Pendreigh further development at Kaimend. The (Long Established Plantation Origin) which falls within the proposed development boundary includes proposed settlement boundary of Kaimend is already an area of ancient woodland 2b LEPO (Long predominately occupied by houses and garden ground. Established Plantation Origin). Therefore The proposal in the MIR is to define Kaimend as a development within this boundary is settlement by drawing a settlement boundary. This does completely inappropriate not involve new development and there is therefore no loss of ancient woodland associated with this proposal. Alternatively the proposed boundary can be amended to exclude this land. The Council will assess which option would be most appropriate. Catherine 9 Woodland Trust 4.33 Agree that policy 15 should be changed to Support noted Pendreigh make provision for future identification of Local Nature Conservation Sites. Catherine 10 Woodland Trust 4.36 Yes we agree that all of these sites should Support noted Pendreigh be designated Local Nature Reserves. Ian 11 4.31 Objects to the extension of East Overton as Noted – the representation will be taken into account as Barr a proposed housing development. Reasons part of the Stage 2 assessment of the site(s). A further given include parking, traffic congestion and technical assessment is being carried out on the sites that noise and disturbance. are identified within the MIR as potential development opportunities. As part of this process detailed information has been submitted. This data is being assessed to ensure 2 Full Name MIR Organisation Para Summary Council's response Details that any sites which go forward into the proposed plan can be adequately serviced without due pressure on existing infrastructure. If a capacity issue is identified then it is expected that this will be addressed by any prospective developer before any development is allowed to proceed. D.W. 12 4.31 Objects to the non inclusion of a site at Site was assessed as part of initial Call for Sites and found Leggat Broomelton Farm Larkhall as a proposed not to accord with strategy. housing release in the MIR Catherine 14 Woodland Trust 4.13 Opposed to Development Framework Site at Comments relating to the proposals at HITP have been Pendreigh Hamilton International Technology Park, and passed to the relevant development management team for would recommend 50m buffer zone around consideration as this is now outwith the development plans ancient woodland if it goes ahead. provision - an application has already been approved for the site. Emilie 15 Central 4.33 CSGNT strongly supports the creation of Support noted Wadsworth Scotland Green LNCS in South Lanarkshire, and agrees with Network Trust the proposal to amend the policy to include provision for LN Emilie 16 Central 4.35 CSGNT strongly supports the designation of Support noted Wadsworth Scotland Green LNRs, bringing the area into line with other Network Trust CSGN Local Authorities. Emilie 17 Central 4.36 CSGNT supports the suggested LNR sites. Noted. We are prioritising the potential LNR sites as we Wadsworth Scotland Green In reality, it will take many years to designate move towards designations. It is likely that LNCS Network Trust all the sites as LNRs, and we suggest that designation will be occurring along the same timetable, so the list is ranked, to enable the most it may not be possible to consider potential LNRs as LNCS important sites to be designated first. The but we will keep this in mind as an option. others sites should be considered as LNCS's in order to protect them whilst the LNR designation process is progressed. Gillian 18 4.37 Supports the designation of LNRs Noted, we will consider the proposed boundary expansion. Robertson particularly Neilsland and Earnock. Has questioned why the area is not joined by the 'black path'. 3 Full Name MIR Organisation Para Summary Council's response Details Ian 19 4.31 Objects to inclusion of EK10/002 on grounds Noted – the representation will be taken into account as Dixon of over supply of housing land and impact on part of the Stage 2 assessment of the site(s). A further local road network, services and technical assessment is being carried out on the sites that environment. are identified within the MIR as potential development opportunities. As part of this process detailed information has been submitted. This data is being assessed to ensure that any sites which go forward into the proposed plan can be adequately serviced without due pressure on existing infrastructure. If a capacity issue is identified then it is expected that this will be addressed by any prospective developer before any development is allowed to proceed. Neil 20 Network Rail 3.1 The MIR and LDP should recognise that by Noted. This comment has been passed to our Roads and MacDonald directing growth towards public transport Transportation Service. corridors, without the provision of additional capacity or where required, improved facilities, the network will become constrained and will not be able to provide increased service. The MIR should look to follow the Developer Contribution pooling approach, being advocated and endorsed through both SDPs and LDPs. Network Rail should be clearly excluded from having to make developer contributions as a publicly owned company. Neil 21 Network Rail 4.38 LDP site assessments must take cognisance This is a matter for the Local Transport Strategy. However, MacDonald of the impact of development proposals it should be noted that there are only two level crossings in affecting level crossings. Transport SL and it is not proposed that new development will occur assessment and developer contributions in the proximity of these facilities. policy and supplementary guidance must ensure infrastructure risks are identified and mitigation secured i.e. level crossing upgrades; alternative crossings etc. Neil 22 Network Rail 4.38 Request that the MIR provides a strategic This comment relates to the strategic development plan MacDonald context for LDP’s to provide a designated rather than the MIR for a local development plan. 4 Full Name MIR Organisation Para Summary Council's response Details notification zone around all operational railway infrastructure within which any development application proposals would be notified to Network Rail. This strategy would be similar to that associated with the oil and gas pipelines which run through the SDP area. Neil 23 Network Rail 4.38 Support the general requirement for This