AGENDA ITEM No. I
North Lanarkshire Council
Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee
Committee Date : 22. May 2008
Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved
1 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 22 MAY 2008
Page Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation
4 N/08/00143/FUL Grant and Linda Construction of Dwellinghouse Refuse McFarlane Former Craigmarloch nursery New house at Endwood Kilsyth
10 N/08/0031 O/FU L Mr A J Steel Proposed Single Storey Grant Extension to Side and Rear Request for Site of House 13 Binniehill Road Visit and Hearing Balloch Cumbernauld
16 C/07/0027O/FUL Mr William Main Erection of Agricultural Grant (P) workers Dwellinghouse on land North of Drumbowie farm, Brakenhirst Road Glenmavis
22 C/07/00865/FUL S Broadley Demolition of Dwellinghouse Refuse and Erection of 5 Request Site Visit Dwellinghouses at The Cairn, and Hearing Crosshill Street Airdrie
32 C/07/00924/MIN Waste Recycling Continued Reclamation and Grant (P) Group (Northern) Ltd Restoration Operations by the Importation of Non-Hazardous Waste Materials at Greengairs Landfill Site Meikle Drumgray Road Greengairs Airdrie
70 C/07/01844/FUL Mr Asif Majid Construction of 2 Flats and Grant 1 Class 2 Office Unit at A Grant Butchers Clarkston Post Office 95 Forrest Street Airdrie
77 C/O8/0026O/FUL Mr & Mrs A. Eyles Construction of Two Storey Refuse Side Extension (Amendment to Request for Site Planning Permission Visit & Hearing C07/01777/FUL) at 21 Golfview Drive Coatbridge
83 C/08/00431/FU L Mr & Mrs B. Dempsie Two Storey Side and Single Grant Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse at 15 Dalmore Drive, Airdrie 89 C/O8/00433/FUL Mr Gordon Kennedy Two Storey Side Extension to Grant Dwellinghouse at 25 Ballochnie Drive Plains 94 C/08/00542/AMD Universal Land Residential Development Refuse Investments Ltd (Amendment to Planning Application C/08/00048/FUL) at Land at St Monicas RC Church, Cumberland Place Coatbridge
99 S/07/02083/FUL CRE Energy Ltd Erection of 70m High Wind Grant Monitoring Mast Land Near Auchterhead Muir. Allanton
2 105 S/08/00188/FUL IN1 Enterprises Siting of Storage Container Refuse 159 A-F Netherton Road Request Site Visit Wishaw
111 S/08/00350/FU L Miss A Quinn Subdivision of and Extension Grant to Existing House to Create Request Site Visit 2 Houses 37 Adele Street Motherwell
117 S/08/00372/FUL Mr & Mrs Brian Two Storey Side and Rear Grant McCusker Extension Request Site visit 16 Thomson Drive Bellshill
122 S/08/00419IFUL Mrs Razzaq Erection of Outbuilding to Rear Grant of Dwellinghouse Request Site Visit 43 Alexander Gibson Way Motherwell
128 S/08/00478/0UT Margaret Frame Construction of Dwellinghouse Refuse (P) Land To The West of 501 Wishaw Road Wishaw
134 S/08/00488/FUL Benhar Change of Use of Industrial Grant Developments Site to Builders Merchant Yard and Construction of Builders Merchant Warehouse/Sales/Office Building Land South of 5 School Road Newmains
(PI C/07/00924/MIN If granted, a Section 75 Agreement and Bond of Caution are required. In addition the application details and accompanying Environmental Statement require to be referred to Scottish Ministers under the Town and Country Planning (Notificationof Applications)(Scotland) Direction 2007.
C/07/0027O/FUL If granted, Section 75 Agreement required to restrict occupancy of house and to prevent house from being sold off separately from the farm. S/08/00478/OUT If granted, refer to Scottish Ministers (Green Belt)
3 Application No: N/08/00143/FUL
Date Registered: 5th February 2008
Applicant: Grant & Linda McFarlane Endwood, Colzium Kilsyth G65
Agent Crichton & Simpson Architects Saltoun Pottery, Saltoun Lane Ruthven Street, Glasgow G12 9BT
Development: Construction of a Dwellinghouse
Location: Site Adjacent To Endwood Former Craigmarloch Nurseries Coach Road Kilsyth G65 OPR
Ward: I- Kilsyth : Councillors Griffin, Jones and Key
Grid Reference: 273355678033
File Reference: N/08/00143/FUL
Site History: 0 No recent history
Development Plan: Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 (Strategic Policy 1) The site is covered by the Green Belt Policies of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 (GB3)
Contrary to Development Plan: Yes Consultations: Scottish Water - No objections
Representations: No letters of representation received. Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 13th February 2008
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:- 1. In the interests of proper planning of the area in that the construction of a dwellinghouse within the application site is contrary to Green Belt Policies GBI - 4 and GB 6 of the adopted Kilsyth Local Plan which states a presumption against new development in the Green Belt unless required for agriculture, forestry, horticulture nature conservation, appropriate countryside recreation and tourism dependent on a countryside location. As such this development would also be contrary to Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing, Scottish Planning Policy 21: Green Belts and Strategic Policy 1 of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006.
4 5 2. The proposed development is considered to be premature in that the Council has not yet completed its assessment of current Green Belt Boundaries with this exercise being undertaken as part of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The justification provided in support of the proposed development primarily relates to the reasons why the site should be rezoned from Green Belt and it is considered that this matter is best addressed through the Local Plan Process.
3 That should planning permission be granted for this development, a precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other similar applications.
NOTE TO COMMITTEE:
If granted, this application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 because the proposed development falls within an area of land designated as Green Belt.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 5th February 2008
Letter from Scottish Water received 10th March 2008
Memo from Local Plans Section received 13th March 2008 Memo from Traffic & Transportation (Northern Area) received 6th February 2008
The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 Kilsyth Local Plan 1999,
SPP3: Planning for Housing SPP 21: Green Belts
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Jennifer Thomson at 01236 616473.
Date: 14'h May 2008
6 APPLICATION NO. N1081001431FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 The application site is part of the former Craigmarloch Nursery within the Green Belt on the eastern edge of Kilsyth.
1.2 The site is bounded to the north by Stirling Road, to the south west by the original dwelling (Endwood) and to the south by the access to the dwelling. To the west of the site is the remaining area of the former Nursery.
1.3 The Craigmarloch Nursery site is surrounded to the south, east and west by the agricultural land of Woodend Farm.
1.4 The proposal is for a 5 bedroom, 2 storey detached villa with internal garage. The front of the house would face onto Stirling Road and the rear of the house and rear garden area onto the existing house. The access would be taken from the service access on Old Dullatur Road which also serves the existing detached house.
1.5 The applicant has intimated through his agent that if planning consent was granted the remaining area of the site would be set aside for future development of a similar nature. Indicative plans have shown an additional four detached dwellings
1.6 A Design Statement in support of the application received on 13'h March 2008 has been submitted by the agent, Crichton and Simpson Architects.
2. Development Plan I National Planning Policy
2.1 The application site lies within the Green Belt and policies relevant to the consideration of the proposed development can be summarised as follows :-
1. Scottish Planning Policy 3: Planning for Housing.
Key themes are promoting development in Brownfield rather than Greenfield locations and seeking to maintain the effectiveness of existing Green Belts and safeguarding the character and amenity of the countryside.
2. Scottish Planning Policy 21 : Green Belts
The three main purposes of the Green Belt are:
a) To maintain the identity of towns by establishing a clear definition of their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence; b) To provide countryside for recreation or institutional purposes of various kinds; and c) To maintain the landscape settings of towns.
3. Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006.
Strategic Policy 1 - strategic Development Locations ; The Metropolitan Development Strategy requires the continued designation and safeguarding of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt within which there is a presumption against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside. Local plans shall define the detailed boundaries and policies to safeguard the Green Belt.
7 4. Kilsyth Local Plan 1999,
The site lies within an area where Green Belt policies GB 1-4 and GB 6 apply. There is a presumption against new development in the Greenbelt unless required for agriculture, forestry, horticulture, nature conservation, appropriate countryside recreation and tourism dependent upon a countryside location and other development such as telecommunications development, which can be shown to require to be located within the Green Belt. Policy GB3 states that there is a presumption against residential development in the Green Belt.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Scottish Water have no objections, subject to connection to infrastructure.
3.2 My Traffic and Transportation Section have no objections to the proposal.
4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, Strategic Policy 1 of the Structure Plan and Polices GB2 and GB3 of the Kilsyth Local Plan do not support the proposed development.
4.2 The Design Statement in support of the application makes justification in support of the proposal in terms of the following:
0 Brownfield status of the site
The classification of the site as Brownfield does not automatically result in its appropriateness for housing. The previous use as a garden centre / nursery was considered an appropriate use as it required a countryside location. Although a submission has been made to the North Lanarkshire Local Plan review to reconsider the Green Belt boundary at this location, this review is not completed.
How the development can achieve a long term defensible edge to the Green Belt
The application is considered to be premature. The site is currently within the designated Green Belt and the potential reallocation of the site is best considered as part of the Local Plan process and the related review of North Lanarkshire’s Green Belt Boundaries
Commercial use of the site is not economically viable especially because of Traffic and Transportation’s requirement to close the main access to the site
Any application for commercial use would be considered on its merits. In any event the potential lack of viability for commercial use is on its own is not sufficient justification to override the land use zoning of the site and allow a form of development that would otherwise not be appropriate.
Ability to connect to existing Infrastructure
The ability to connect to existing infrastructure is not sufficient reason to deviate from Local Plan Policy.
High quality of design
While the design of the house would be a consideration if the proposal could be supported in principle, on its own the quality of the design is not sufficient justification to deviate from the Green Belt policies contained in the Local Plan.
8 0 Low environmental impact of proposed development
Although the applicant has stated that the proposal would be sustainable in that it would provide healthy environments and economic activity, it would also result in an extension of the urban area at the edge of Kilsyth. This could result in difficulties in adhering to Green Belt policy when assessing further development on the urban fringe.
0 A precedent has been set by planning permission granted on other schemes.
A precedent has not been set which is directly comparable to this application.
Notwithstanding the above, insufficient justification has been provided by the applicant to warrant a departure from established Green Belt policy.
4.3 The proposed house is contrary to Green Belt policies in the adopted Kilsyth Local Plan, 1999 and could set a precedent that would make it difficult to refuse similar planning applications. In spite of the quality of the design of the proposed house it is recommended that planning permission be refused.
4.4 In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007, if the Committee does not accept my recommendation that permission should be refused, the application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers since the application site lies within the Green Belt.
9 Application No: N/08/00310/FUL
Date Registered: 4th March 2008
Applicant: Mr A J Steel 13 Binniehill Road Balloch Cumbernauld G68 9DT
Agent Colin Stewart ‘Lismore” The Lane Dullatur G68 OAU
Development: Proposed Single Storey Extension to Side and Rear of House
Location: 13 Binniehill Road Balloch Cumbernauld Glasgow North Lanarkshire G68 9DT
Ward: 2-Cumbernauld North: Councillors, Chadha, McCulloch, Murray and O’Brien
Grid Reference: 274961 675099
File Reference: N/08/0031O/FUL
Site History: No relevant history
Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 2 letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:-1, 2, 3, 4,5,6,7 and 8.
Reason: To ensure the proper planning of the site.
10 -1 iii%%k5**--y .E=?>=-U ~~031~~1 jg--yw= Mr AJ Steel A 13 Binniehll Road Balloch Cumbernauld 113250 RoDosed Sinale Storey Extension
11 3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, revised plans detailing the removal of the window on the south east elevation that is highlighted in yellow on the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt, shall be submitted for the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.
4. That not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the south east elevation of the extension shall remain void of any windows or openings unless expressly authorised in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.
5. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 4th March 2008
Letter from Kirk Chambers, 9 Binniehill Road, Cumbernauld, G68 9AJ received 11th March 2008.
Letter from Kirk Chambers, 9 Binniehill Road, Cumbernauld, G68 9AJ received 18th March 2008.
Letter from Mr Les Milne, Nachtweide, 15 Binniehill Road, Cumbernauld, G68 9DT received 19th March 2008.
E-mail from Mr Les Milne, Nachtweide, 15 Binniehill Road, Cumbernauld, G68 9DT received 21 April 2008.
E-mail from Mr Les Milne, Nachtweide, 15 Binniehill Road, Cumbernauld, G68 9DT received 2 May 2008.
Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 616464.
Date: 14 May 2008
12 APPLICATION NO. N10810031OlFUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 The application property is a 2 storey, detached dwelling with associated garden ground to the rear and in-curtilage parking and garden ground to the front. The site is located within a residential estate. Neighbouring property No. 9 to the North West is a single storey property, No.15 to the south east is a 2 storey property, similar to that of the application property.
1.2 The proposal is for a single storey extension that would wrap around the north side and rear of the dwelling. The footprint of the extension would measure approximately 52 square metres and would comprise a study area and an extension to the existing kitchenldiner area. The proposal also includes an associated raised patio area, not exceeding the floor height of the extension.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against local plan policies.
2.2 In the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the site lies within a defined residential area where policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) applies.
Extract from HG4: “There will be a presumption against development which could be
detrimental to residential amenity. ”
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 There were no consultations as a result of this application.
3.2 2 Letters of representation have been received as a result of this application. The points of objection can be summarised as follows:
0 I object because of the loss of light and overshadowing that will occur to my property at No.9 Binniehill Road if the extension is approved
Comment: There is one window on the south east elevation of No.9. The occupier of this property has verbally advised the Planning Authority that this window is one of two living room windows. The main living room window faces onto the public road. It is a south westerly facing bay window, considerably larger that that of the side window. It is considered that the majority of light enjoyed in this room is from the bay window. Furthermore, due to its positioning and proximity to the application property, the window in question is overshadowed for the majority of the day.
0 The north elevation of the extension to be constructed in front of the only south facing window on my property (No.9) that illuminates the living room. I believe the proximity and height of the extension will impair the visual amenity.
Comment: The overshadowing of this window has been addressed in my first comment above. The current outlook of this window is onto a 2 metre high boundary fence. Beyond this is the northwest facing gable wall of the application property. Should the extension be approved, the outlook of this window would be onto the northwest facing gable wall of the extension that would measure approximately 2 ’% metres high. I consider that the affected outlook would not be significant enough to recommend refusal of this application. It should also be noted that the applicant could erect an extension within the permitted development limits that could project to the mutual boundary with No. 9.
13 The bin area shown on the block plan infringes on my property (No. 15). I have recently enclosed this area by means of a fence. I regard this as an attempt, by my neighbour to take this part of my property for his ownership.
Comment: This is a legal issue between the application property and No.15. For information; there is approximately 1 metre from the existing house and the extension to the boundary with No.15. This is adequate space for the applicant to create a refuse area to the rear of hidher property and bring the bins to the front of the property when necessary. Although it may no longer be possible to form the refuse point illustrated on the plans this is not a concern. It should also be noted that there are examples of extensions in the Cumbernauld area that do not allow for bins to be taken from the rear garden to the front of the property.
The application site is two to three feet higher than my property at No.15. This should be taken into consideration when considering objections.
Comment: The proposal is for a single storey extension, the gable elevation would not exceed 2 W metres in height. The roof would slope away from the neighbouring dwelling. The boundary fence between the aforementioned properties measures approximately 2 metres in height. As such, I have no concerns with the level differences between the properties.
0 The overall affect of this proposal would almost double the existing floor area.
Comment: Approximately 13 metres in depth of rear garden ground would remain if this extension were to be approved and built. This is 4 metres more than the objector’s property at No.15. The width of the garden would not be affected. As such, I consider the plot can accommodate an extension of this scale.
The overall height of the extension is too high. This will affect my sunlight and will overshadow my property (No.15).
Comment: The overall height of the extension, including the roof, would be approximately 3 W metres high. The mutual boundary fence is approximately 2 metres high. No.15 has no side elevation windows. No.15 is positioned south east of the application property. As a result of these facts, I consider the extension would have virtually no impact in terms of overshadowing or loss of sunlight to No.15. It should be noted that the applicant could erect a 4 metre high extension within the permitted development limits.
Due to the proximity of my property (No.15) with the proposed extension, I object to the formation of a window on the south east elevation.
Comment: The south east elevation window is not essential as windows would adorn the rear elevation of the extension. The agent was advised to remove this window and submit amended plans. These plans have not been received and as such, a condition has been attached requiring its removal and restricting any windows being formed on this elevation after construction is complete.
4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 In terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal complies with policy HG4 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993 in that it is not considered to significantly and detrimentally impact on residential amenity.
4.2 There are considered to be no significant sunlighVovershadowing issues with the extension and neighbouring properties No.9 and No.15.
14 4.3 The plot is considered large enough to accommodate an extension of this footprint.
4.4 The proposed south east facing window measures approximately 1 metre from the mutual boundary with No.15. This is considered particularly close and it is not necessary as the rear elevation has two large windows and patio doors and there are also 4 velux windows proposed, all of which will allow sufficient light into the extension. A condition has been attached requiring the submission of revised plans that illustrate a south east gable void of any windows.
4.5 A condition has been attached restricting the formation of a window on the south east elevation in the future. This is required to secure the current and future privacy of property No.15 Binniehill Road.
4.6 There is a proposed raised patio area attached to the rear of the extension. This would not exceed the height of the internal floor area (approximately ?4 a metre high from ground level). Due to the level difference with No. 9 Binniehill Road, I am satisfied that the patio, hard against the boundary with the existing 2 metre boundary fence, will not have a significant impact on privacy levels. With regard to No.15, the patio will be 2 metres off the common boundary. It should be noted that existing decking measures the height of the internal floor area and measures 2 metres off the boundary with No.15. As such, I consider the raised patio are will not impact on current levels of privacy.
4.7 Having considered the merits of this case and the representations received, I recommend that planning consent be granted subject to conditions.
4.8 There has been a request for a site visit and a hearing by the Planning and Transportation Committee prior to the determination of this application. The reason for this request is for the Committee members to be fully appraised of the site and its relationship with neighbouring properties as this cannot be fully appreciated from plan form.
15 Application No:
Date Registered: 14th March 2008
Applicant: Mr William Main Drumbowie Farm Brackenhirst Road Glenmavis ML6 084
Development: Erection of Agricultural Workers Dwellinghouse
Location: Land North Of Drumbowie Farm Brackenhirst Road Glenmavis Airdrie Lan ar ks h ire
Ward: 07 New Monklands West Councillors Cameron, Sophia Coyle, McGuigan & Morgan
Grid Reference: 275580669551
File Reference: C/PL/GMB750000/1 J/LR
Site History: 0 C/02/00136/OUT Erection of Agricultural Workers Dwellinghouse and Cattle Shed (In Outline) - Granted March 2004. Now expired
Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, 8 & C September 1996 - Policy GB1:Restrict Development in Green Belt
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Rep resentat io ns: No letters of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
16 Planning Application UU7~2To/REM Erection of Agricultural Workers UwelPnghouse x-avL-A.?zzL!!% w---- Land North of Orumbornie Farm, Bracksnhkst Road %5w?%Ye--?EWr Glenmavis, ALrdfie U?- e*
17 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 3. That BEFORE to any works start on site, the applicant must 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). The preferred method for the disposal of septic tank effluent is the provision of a sub soil soakaway system. The septic tank and soakaway must be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements set out in The Scottish Building Standards : Technical Handbook : Domestic issued in May 2005. In terms of the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations (CAR) 2005, the discharge of treated sewage effluent will require registration with SEPA. Further details on this matter can be found @ www.sepa.org.uk.wfd. Surface water should be excluded from the foul drainage treatment system.
In order to reduce the risk of contamination of controlled waters, any soakaway should be located at least 50 metres from any private water supply or other groundwater resource and at least 10 metres from any watercourse or permeable drain. (Note : If poor soil porosity or risk to groundwater resources preclude the use of a soakaway, alternative arrangements will have to be agreed with SEPA. Further advice on the disposal of sewage where no mains drainage is available, is contained within Pollution Prevention Guidance Note 4 which is available on the SEPA website www.sepa.org.uk/guidance or from any SEPA office).
Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.
4. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
5. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition. For the avoidance of doubt the roofing material shall be slate or an acceptable slate alternative tile.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
6. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, for the areas shown on the approved plans, 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, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing; (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted; (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development, (d) details of the phasing of these works.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
7. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 6 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.
8. That the occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be limited to a person employed full time locally in agriculture, as defined in Section 277 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, or forestry, or a dependant of such a person, residing with him, or her, or the widow or widower, of such a person.
Reason: To define the permission.
9. That the first 15m of the access onto Brackenhirst Road should be 6m wide, surfaced in hardstanding and a drainage facility provided across the entrance, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that water or deleterious material is not carried onto Brackenhirst Road in the interest of traffic safety.
10. That a visibility splay of 2.5m x 160m measured from the road channel shall be provided at the junction of the site access with Brackenhirst Road. Everything exceeding 1.05m in height above the road channel within these splays shall be removed from the sight line and thereafter nothing exceeding 1.05m shall be planted, placed, erected or allowed to grow within these sight lines.
Reason: To ensure adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site in the interest of traffic safety.
NOTE TO COMMITTEE
The applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement in terms of Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Order 1997 to tie the house to the associated Farm. The planning permission should not be issued until these matters have been concluded.
Background Papers: Application form and plans received 19th February 2007 Planning permission C/02/00136/OUT Memo from Transportation Section received Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382.
Date: 7 May 2008
19 APPLICATION NO. C1071002701FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 This application relates to the erection of a dwellinghouse on land to the north east of Drumbowie Farm, Brackenhirst Road, Glenmavis. The site is located to the north of the nearest settlement of Glenmavis within a rural location and is accessed from Cullochrigg Road on the north side of Brackenhirst Road.The dwellinghouse is required to accommodate an agricultural worker employed on Drumbowie Farm which is located to the south of the application site.
1.2 The dwellinghouse will be "U" shaped in design with the central element being 2 storey in height and the attached elements being single storey. Externally the dwelling will be finished in a mix of natural stone and render with concrete roof tiles. Internally the dwelling will accommodate a Lounge, Sitting/Dining Area, Kitchen, Family Room, Office, Integral Garage and 2 stables on the ground floor. On the upper floor 3 bedrooms and a Study are proposed. A new 3.5 metre wide access road is to be formed off Cullochrig Road into the site and additional planting/landscaping will be provided around the boundaries of the site.
2. DeveloDment Plan
2.1 The site is within the Greenbelt as defined in policy GB1 (Restrict Development in the Greenbelt) and policy LI1/1(High Quality Landscape) of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal raises no strategic issues.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures no objections were received against this proposal.
3.2 The Transportation Section offered no objection to this proposal subject to conditions.
4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 The application site is located within the designated Greenbelt in terms of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 where, under Policy GB1, there is a presumption against any development not directly associated with green belt uses. The policy does allow for new housing for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture.
4.2 In March 2004 planning permission C/02/00136/OUT was granted, in outline, on this same site for the erection of a dwellinghouse and cattle shed. That proposal was to erect a new cattle shed for the rearing of young bulls separate from the existing farm steading to provide improved biosecurity, and locate a new dwellinghouse adjacent to it thereby providing appropriate supervision. The additional residential element of that proposed development was supported by the Scottish Agricultural College on the basis of additional required level of workforce. The applicant agreed to enter into a section 75 Agreement tying the proposed house to the farm and planning consent was subsequently issued following the signing of that Agreement, but that permission lapsed in March 2007.
4.3 The current application is for the erection of a dwellinghouse for use by an agricultural worker primarily in line with the previous outline planning permission and Section 75 Agreement. While
20 this current submission does not include a cattle shed for the rearing of young bulls as proposed under the previous outline permission, an updated supporting document from the Scottish Agricultural College confirms that whereas Drumbowie Farm currently employs 2 full time staff there is a labour requirement of 3.42 labour units, thus justifying a further dwelling on site for an agricultural worker. The applicant is agreeable to restricting the new dwellinghouse to a person employed in Drumbowie Farm in a similar fashion to the requirement of the outline planning permission.
4.4 In terms of design, site layout and external treatment the proposals are acceptable. The proposed siting of the dweliinghouse is in line with the location identified in the outline consent and the requirements of the Transportation Section in terms of new access road details and visibilities have been incorporated within the approved development layout. Taken that the dwellinghouse requires to be tied directly to the farm operations, then this can be achieved through an updating of the previous Section 75 Agreement (relative to the outline planning permission).
4.5 Having regard to the foregoing I therefore consider the proposal acceptable both in policy and design terms and recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions. If granted the planning consent will not be issued until the Section 75 Agreement has been concluded.
21 Application No: ClO7100865lFUL
Date Registered: 18th May 2007
Applicant: S. Broadley The Cairn Crosshill Street Airdrie
Agent Construction Design Associates 19b Academy Street Coatbridge ML5 3AW
Development: Demolition of Dwellinghouse and Erection of 5 Detached Two Storey Dwellinghouses
Location: The Cairn Crosshill Street Cairnhill Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 9DA
Ward: 08 Airdrie Central Councillor Devine, Logue & Stocks
Grid Reference: 275586665080
File Reference: C/PL/AIC750000/1J/LR
Site History: 0 C/OO/Ol 101/FUL Erection of Dwellinghouse and Domestic Lock- up Garage Granted December 2000
Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG9:Existing Residential Areas
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 21 letters of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 30th May 2007
22 Manning Application No 6/07/008651FUL Demolibon of Dwellinghouse and Eremon of 6 Detached Two Storey Dwellinghouses The Cairn, Crosshill Street, Cairnhill, Airdne zEz.Ln o.* MI' I,*iwr"",*m' *- 1 nu.*". MY&U.- .,U dW2libU)b *.*IY*WI> Jlr Representalms nkur*l..tYI b -Y..mm*L*dL*..YI*1U k* pD*.*a*ne Representations also received from ~.z~~&:*~w~~~2U.u.l-..1 UCUII*-r..r, Councillor Jim Logue and Councillor David Stocks ruU*Ut..r"MC.y. ~ Mt to Scale LLr.Wle-a) .CUM1 Site Area 0 28 HA
23 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
1 That size, scale, bulk, massing, elevational design and materials of the proposed dwellinghouses and detached garages are contrary to policy HG9 (I) of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that they do not accord with the provisions of the Design Guidance on lnfill Housing and Conservation which presumes against unsympathetic and incongruous additions to the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area.
2. That the proposed development is contrary to policy ENV 16 (F) of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 which presumes against the demolition of any buildings which contribute to the character of the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area.
3 That the proposed development is contrary to the aims of guidance contained in NPP18 Planning and the Historic Environment and the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 1998 which presume against the demolition of buildings within conservation areas and seek to preserve and enhance the character of conservation areas.
4. That the proposed development is contrary to Section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 in that it conflicts with the objective of preserving and enhancing the character or appearance of the designated conservation area.
5. That the proposed development would set an unwanted precedent for further similar redevelopments of existing buildings within the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area which would lead to the further incremental erosion of its character.
6. That the proposed development is contrary to policy HG9 (I) of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and in particular the Design Guidance on lnfill Housing in that the development would be detrimental to road safety in that whereas access to the site should be from a contiguous link with the existing public road network, Crosshill Street is a private road which is geometrically substandard at the point of access into the development site with no scope for providing the necessary improvements. In addition, the proposed transition from a conventional road construction to a shared surface road does not comply with the council's guidelines in terms of geometry and pedestrian facilities.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 18th May 2007
Memos from Transportation Section received 28th June & 22ndNovember 2007
Memo from Head of Protective Services received 6th June 2007
Letter from William and lrene Allison, Brookfield, Crosshill Street, Airdrie, ML6 9DA received 22nd May 2007. Letter from Dr Brendan McCann, "Deanston", 50 Victoria Place, Airdrie, ML6 3BY received 24th May 2007. Letter from W & I Allison, Brookfield, Crosshill Street, Airdrie, ML6 9DA received 5th November 2007 Letter from W. Burton, 20 Kennedy Drive, Airdrie, ML6 9AN received 29th May 2007. Letter from I Calder, Ruthven Bank, 52 Victoria Place, Airdrie, ML6 9BY received 29th May 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs Allison, Brookfield, Crosshill Street, Airdrie, ML6 9DA received 30th May 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs Shaw, Elmbank, Devonview Street, Airdrie, ML6 9BZ received 30th May 2007.
24 Letter from Mr & Mrs Ferrie, Stratford, Crosshill Street, Airdrie, ML6 9DA received 31 st May 2007. Letter from A & J Porte, "Eriska", Devonview Street, Airdrie, ML6 9BZ received 4th June 2007. Letter from Samuel Black, 62 Viewfield, Airdrie received 6th June 2007. Letter from A Elliot, 64 Viewfield, Airdrie received 6th June 2007. Letter from Councillor Jim Logue, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell, MLI ITW received 7th June 2007. Letter from R W & I S Shaw, Elmbank, Devonview Street, Cairnhill, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 9BZ received 21st November 2007. Letter from I Francis, 22 Kennedy Drive, Cairnhill, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 9AN received 21st November 2007. Letter from I. T. Calder, Ruthven Bank, 52 Victoria Place, Cairnhill, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 9BY received 22nd November 2007. Letter from Mrs Jackie Bergen, Norwood, Crosshill Street, Airdrie, ML6 9DA received 26th November 2007. Letter from William And lrene Allison, Brookfield, Crosshill Street, Airdrie received 26th November 2007. Letter from David Johnston, 23 Kennedy Drive, Airdrie, ML6 9AW received 18th June 2007. Letter from William Burton, 20 Kennedy Drive, Airdrie, ML6 9AN received 27th November 2007.
Letter from Councillor David Stocks, Ward 8, Airdrie Central, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell, MLI 1TW received 13th August 2007. Letter from Councillor Jim Logue, Convenor Of Learning and Leisure Services, Civic Centre, Motherwell, MLI 1TW received 26th November 2007.
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382.
Date: 8 May 2008
25 APPLICATION NO. C1071008651FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and ProDosal
1.1 The application site measures 0.26 hectares and is located within a residential area to the south west of Airdrie Town Centre. The site currently contains a large one and a half storey detached dwellinghouse set within substantial garden grounds, including a swimming pool and a large number of mature trees and is bounded on all elevations by garden grounds of surrounding residential properties. The site is currently accessed on its eastern boundary from Crosshill Street. The site is also located within the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area.
1.2 Permission is being sought for the erection of 5 detached dwellinghouses within the application site. The dwellings will all be two storey in height incorporating a hipped roof design and will be externally finished in light coloured sandstone blockhender and Marley modern concrete roof tiles. Internally the new build will provide a Living Room, Study, Dining Room, Kitchen and Utility Room on the ground floor and 4 Bedrooms and a Bathroom on the upper floor. The majority of the existing mature trees within the site will be retained.
1.3 The site will be accessed directly from Crosshill Street at the existing point of access and will include a monoblocked shared surface 5.5 metre wide road serving each of the individual plots. Each plot will include individual driveways with detached domestic garages. The connection of the internal road to Crosshill Street will be 3.5 metres wide and will include a rumble zone.
1.4 To accommodate the development the existing dwellinghouse on site will require to be demolished.
2. Develoment Plan
2.1 The site is covered by policies HG9: Existing Residential Areas ; ENV 15/3:Conservation Area and ENNV16: Conservation Area Improvements in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal raises no strategic issues.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification and public advertisement procedures 18 letters of objection were received against this proposal from 11 neighbouring proprietors. The relevant points of objection are as follows:
a. The ground levels between the application site and the properties on Kennedy Drive is substantial and the introduction of 2 storey housing would restrict light, reduce privacy to those existing properties and would be out of keeping with the surrounding properties. b. Surface water run off into adjacent lands would be a result of this development. This may affect drainage and soil stability around the site as there is a history of sewage problems at the junction of the main sewer.
C. No details have been provided in respect of tree removal along the northern boundary of the site as a large proportion of the tree roots are within adjacent curtilages. The site is within the Conservation Area and surrounded by well established mature trees which should be retained to protect the overall environment of the area. d. Crosshill Street is a non adopted private road serving 4 houses and is not suitable of serving the proposed increase in number of vehicles accessing the development site.
26 e. The inevitable traffic generated by this development would adversely impact on the surrounding roads and the properties served by those roadways. f. There are concerns over the stability of the retaining wall between the rear of the properties on Kennedy Drive and the application site and structural problems may result in development of this site. 9. The stability of the application site is questionable to accommodate the level of building proposed. h. Cross sections of the proposed contours of the site, including the heights of the proposed buildings should be submitted to allow proper assessment of the impact of the proposal on the surrounding properties. i. lnsuff icient information has been provided on proposed boundary treatment including repair/replacement fencing/walls, trees etc. j. The development would adversely affect the market value of surrounding properties. k. The applicant has no legal control over the section of Crosshill Street that he proposes to alter to serve the development. I. No details on ground stability, Surface/Foul Drainage capacity, Site Contamination have been submitted as part of this application. 3.2 In addition to the above, Councillors Stocks and Logue submitted objections against this proposal on the following grounds.
m. Contrary to Local Plan
n. Access to the proposed development
0. DrainageAnfrastructure problems
p. Impact on Natural environment
3.3 The Transportation Section has recommended against the proposal for the following reasons:
(a) A development of 3 or more dwelling houses should be served by a road constructed to adoptable standards. Any new road should also form a contiguous link with the existing public road network. The adjoining Crosshill Street is not on the council’s list of public roads with no apparent scope for providing the necessary improvements that would be required; the proposed road would therefore not form a contiguous link with the public road in this instance. Construction consent would therefore not be granted for the proposed road in its current form. (b) The proposed transition from a conventional road construction to a shared surface road does not comply with the council’s guidelines in terms of geometry and pedestrian facilities. Shared surface roads should be positioned such that drivers turn into them from adjacent roads. The proposals indicate the transition as a continuation of Crosshill Street. It does not appear to be possible to comply with the council’s requirements in this regard. (c) A forward visibility of 35m should be provided along the length of the proposed road. The proposals appear to fall substantially short of this. (d) A minimum horizontal curvature of 25m should be provided, approximately 10m has been proposed. (e) A 2m wide service strip should be provided on both sides of the shared surface road. The retaining wall proposed in the vicinity of the site entrance encroaches into this. This wall also restricts forward visibility at the site. (9 The vertical alignment of the road should be a maximum of 8%.
27 (9) There is a retaining wall proposed at the end of the access road within the visitor parking bays. It is unclear if this wall would support the road or the adjacent private area. Additionally, future maintenance of the wall would likely impinge on the operation of the road. (h) Driveways to a number of plots appear to be less than 3m wide as required. (i) Visitor parking spaces should be perpendicular to the carriageway. The bank of 4 spaces located on the inside of the horizontal curve does not comply with this requirement. These spaces would also restrict forward visibility at the site. (j) In order for a garage to be considered as a usable parking space, it should have minimum internal dimensions of 3m wide x 5.5m long. It is unclear if this has been proposed. (k) It appears that the applicant cannot satisfy the geometric requirements for a road to be constructed to adoptable standards, and the application should be refused on this basis.
3.4 The Protective Services Section has recommended that a Site Investigation Survey be carried out prior to any development commencing to determine, and render harmless any contaminants found present on site.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application raises no strategic issues and therefore can be assessed under the terms of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
4.2 This application requires to be assessed against Policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas), ENVl5 (Conservation Areas) and ENVl6 (Conservation Area Improvements) contained within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The associated Design Guidance on lnfill Housing and Conservation are also relevant.
4.3 The Design Guidance on lnfill Housing states that the Council will presume against the demolition of traditional houses in order to accommodate a new development and that within Conservation Areas stricter design and size standards should be applied. In addition it cross references to the Design Guidance on Conservation.
4.4 The lnfill guidance identifies 4 principles when assessing the suitability of a site for infill housing. Points b and c are of particular relevant. Point b) asks Will the new houses harm the character or amenity of an established area, particularly in a Conservation Area or an older residential area? It is considered that the size, scale, bulk and massing of the proposed development will harm the character of the surrounding Conservation Area.
4.5 Point c) asks ‘will the development have adverse affects on the surrounding properties, particularly any original house on the site, by loss of garden, privacy or sunlight?’ In this case the positioning of the proposed 2 storey properties will cause no overshadowing of the rear elevation of neighbouring properties on Victoria Place (to the south) or the properties on Viewfield (to the west). The presence of existing tree cover along the sites northern boundary will also minimise any potential overshadowing effect of the new build on the adjacent properties on Kennedy Drive which are set at a substantially lower ground level. However any future loss of this tree cover could introduce a potential overshadowing issue.
4.6 The guidance goes on to say that ‘When a site is closely bordered by other buildings any new development should match materials, roof and floor heights and window pafterns of surrounding buildings wherever possible’. It is considered that the proposed dwellinghouses do not match materials, roof and floor height or window patterns of surrounding properties within the conservation area. This is particularly relevant in relation to the adjacent properties on Kennedy Drive, Crosshill Street and Victoria Place.
4.7 The Design Guidance on Conservation states that ‘Any new buildings should incorporate traditional features. Designs should reflect the surrounding buildings in terms of the materials, heights and elevation details in order to provide consistency’. The proposed dwellinghouses and detached garages do not reflect the surrounding buildings in terms of materials, height and elevational detail and therefore does not accord with this guidance.
4.8 As noted above the application site falls within ENV15/3 which is the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area. ENV 16 Conservation Area Improvements outlines further considerations when assessing developments in the conservation area. Points (E) and (F) are of particular relevance to this application.
(E) The Council will pay regard to the height, scale, materials, roof lines, building lines, detailing, colour, overall character of the surrounding buildings which it is desirable to maintain and enhance.
(F) In cases where Conservation Area Consent is required the Council will generally oppose the demolition of any potentially useful buildings which contribute to the character of the Conservation Areas. In any event no approvals will be given for any demolition work prior to the approval by the council of a satisfactory improvement or redevelopment scheme.
4.9 As noted above consideration has been given to the height, scale, materials, elevational detail, and colour. In terms of the roof lines it is evident that even when utilising the sloping nature of the site the roof line will be distinctly out of place in relation to those adjacent dwellings. Overall it is considered that the redevelopment of the site as proposed will be to the detriment of the character of the surrounding streetscape and wider conservation area. In addition it would set an unwanted precedent which could lead to the incremental erosion of the character of the wider conservation area.
4.10 No justification has been provided by the applicant to support the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse. The position is therefore taken to oppose its demolition.
4.1 1 Taking into account the foregoing it is clear that the application does not accord with the provisions of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
4.12 When turning to other material considerations NPPG18, Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas 1998 and The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 are relevant.
4.13 NPPG 18 advises that there should be a general presumption in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of conservation areas and that ‘special regard should be paid to such matters as scale, bulk, height, materials, colour, vertical or horizontal emphasis and detailed design’.
4.14 The memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas is relevant and advises that ‘If the building is considered to be of any value, either in itself or as part of a group, a positive attempt should always be made by the Planning Authority to achieve its retention restoration and sympathetic conversion to some other compatible use before proposals to demolish are seriously investigated. Where demolition is to be followed by redevelopment of the site consent to demolish should in general be given only where there are acceptable proposals for the new building. ’
29 4.15 Section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)(Scotland) Act 1997 states that “notwithstanding the acceptability of the proposals in terms of other planning issues, if any proposed development would conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the designated area there should be a presumption against granting planning permission”.
4.16 When assessing the application against the other material considerations above it is clear that they offer no support for the demolition or proposed redevelopment scheme and therefore they would not justify any departure from the development plan policies.
4.17 The Transportation Section has recommended against the application on the grounds that while any development of 3 or more dwellinghouses requires to be served by a road constructed to adoptable standards, the adjoining Crosshill Street is an unadopted private road with no scope for providing the necessary improvements that would be required to bring it to adoptable standards. In addition, the proposed transition from a conventional road construction (Crosshill Street) to a shared surface road (internal road) does not comply with the Council’s guidelines in terms of geometry and pedestrian facilities.
4.18 Having regard to the points of objection I would offer the following comments: a. There is a substantial difference in ground levels between the properties on Kennedy Drive and the application site which is set at a higher level and the positioning of a dwellinghouse near the northern boundary of the application site will cause a degree of overshadowing. However, taken that the new dwellinghouse will be set back some 4 metres from the boundary and the existing tree line along that boundary will be retained then there will be little if any impact on the existing properties (on Kennedy Drive) in terms of loss of daylight etc. Taken also that there are no habitable room windows on the northern gable of the new dwellinghouse then there will be no privacy conflict. In terms of design of the dwellinghouses the style is not complimentary to the traditional style of the surrounding dwellinghouses on Victoria Street, Kennedy Drive and Crosshill Street itself.
b. The site is currently served by the public drainage network and the development is proposed to be drained by a surface water filtration installation and prior approval to any proposed method of drainage would be required from Scottish Water to prevent off site flooding .
c. The applicant has clearly indicated on the submitted drawings the locations and number of trees proposed to be felled to accommodate and this only involved the removal of 5 larger trees while retaining the tree cover along the northern and western boundaries of the site. This level of removal is considered acceptable and will not adversely impact on the sites natural environment.
d. Crosshill Street is a private road with footways and street lighting on both sides of the 8 metre wide carriageway. While a public road of that standard would be capable of serving the proposed number of dwellinghouses (5 off) the connection into the application site at the west end of Crosshill Street is not of a standard or width acceptable to the Transportation Section. e. The increased level of traffic generated by this development would have little impact on the surrounding road network.
f. There are no proposals to affect the existing retaining wall between the application site and the properties on Kennedy Drive. Any damage caused to that wall would be a legal issue outwith the remit of this authority.
30 g. Should planning permission be granted the applicant would require to satisfy this authority, through the submission of a comprehensive site investigation report that the application site is capable of accommodating the level of development proposed.
h. The submitted level of detail in terms of building positions and heights is sufficient to assess the potential impact of the development on the surrounding properties.
I. The applicant does not propose to alter the existing boundary treatment around the site.
j. Market value is not a relevant planning consideration. k. Legal matters such as control over Crosshill Street is not a relevant planning consideration.
I. As with point g. above then should planning permission be granted then appropriate conditions would be attached to any consent notice requiring the submission, and approval of details relating to Site Drainage/Contamination etc.
m In policy terms the residential use of this site is acceptable although appropriate consideration has to be given to the associated design guidance as containd within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
n. As per point d. above.
0. As per point b. above.
P. As per point c. above. 4.17 To conclude, the proposed development has been fully assessed and is considered to be contrary to the provisions of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991, national policies, guidance and legislation. As discussed above there are no material considerations which would justify the departure from the development plan in this instance. Account has been taken of the relevant points of objection which raise material considerations and, when taken together with the above, merit the refusal of this application. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.
31 Application No: C/07/00924/MIN
Date Registered: 2gthMay 2007
Applicant: WRG (Northern) Ltd Greengairs Landfill Meikle Drumgray Road Greengairs Ai rdrie ML6 7TD
Agent Entec UK Ltd 6/7 Newton Terrace Glasgow G3 7PJ
Development: Continued Reclamation and Restoration Operations by the Importation of Non-Hazardous Waste Materials
Location: Greengairs Landfill Site Meikle Drumgray Road G reengai rs North Lanarkshire
Ward: 007 Airdrie North Cllrs Cameron, McGuigan, Morgan and S Coyle
Grid Reference: 278850669842
File Reference: CIPLIGWM4001CM
Site History: e M86/458 Reclamation by Landfilling of Abandoned Coal Workings e C/OO/O1164/MIN Extraction of Clay and Peat for the Engineering and Restoration of Adjacent Landfill Operation b C/OO/O1446/FUL Erection of Building to House Electricity Generation Equipment e C/O1/00462/AMD Variation of Condition One of Planning Permission C/96/00076/FUL to Extend Time Limit for the Start of Erection of Waste Recycling and Recovery Facility e C/01/01447/FUL Installation of Landfill Gas Flare Compound with Associated Plant, Equipment and Control Building e C/02/00194/AMD Proposals to Vary Phasing Operations and Restoration Details for Reclamation and Waste Landfilling (Submitted in Accordance with Condition 2 of Planning Permission M86/458) b C/03/00455/FUL Integrated Waste Management Facility with Associated Access and Landscaping e C/04/00316/AMD Variation of Condition one of Planning Permission 01/00462/AMD to Extend Time Limit for the Start of Erection of Waste and Recovery Facility. e C/04/01243/FUL Construction of Leachate Treatment Tank Compound and Fuel Storage Facility
e C/04/01832/FUL Erection of Temporary Office Accommodation
32 With Associated Car Parking 0 C/05/00481/FUL Extension to Existing Power Plant Incorporating 4 Engines within Blockwork Building and Extension of Switch Gear Room 0 C/97/05486/MIN Change in Hours of Operation (Amendment to Condition 22 of Planning Consent No 861458) 0 C/97/05487/Min Use of Skip Storage Area for Recycling of Road Construction Materials 0 C/98/00950/FUL Extension to Site Offices 0 C/05/00831/FUL Installation of Service Strip Between Hartlouphill Landfill Site and Greengairs Landfill Site 0 C/06/0061O/AMD Alteration to Phasing of Existing Landfill Site (Phases 7D, 8A, 88, 8C, 8D) (Amendment to Planning Permission C/02/00194/AMD) Granted 01.03.2007 0 C/06/00839/FUL Erection of 60M High Anemometry Mast (Mast Site No.2) 0 C/06/00840/FUL Erection of 60M High Anemometry Mast (Mast Site Nol) 0 C/06/01525/FUL Installation of Leachate Tank 0 C/06/01795/AMD Amendment to ( 05/00481/FUL) Extension to Existing Power Plant 0 C/06/02097/AMD Variation of Condition One of Planning Permission 04/00316/AMD to Extend Time Limit for the Start of Erection of Waste Recycling and Recovery Facility 0 C/07/00172/FUL Construction of Wind Farm Comprising of 9 Turbines (maximum 80m Hub Height & 45m Blades) with Ancillary and Other Infrastructure & Access Roads: Approved 1 May 2008 subject to notification to Scottish Ministers and Section 75 and Bond e C/07/01638/AMD Replacement Two Storey Office Building (Amendment to C/04/01832/FUL)
Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Health and Safety Executive (No Objection) Scottish Government Development Dept. (Comments) West of Scotland Archaeology Service (No Objection) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Comments) Scottish Water (No Objection) British Gas (No Objection) Scottish Power (No Objection) Forestry Commission Scotland (No Objection) Central Scotland Forest Trust (No Objection) British Telecom (No Objection) Scottish Rights of Way Society (No objection) Rep resentat io ns: 197 letters of re resentation received. Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 6P June 2007 and 1gth March 2008
33 Planning Application MO 6/07/00924/M IN
ULnrCbkLr.*s*..I- Continued Reclamation and Restoration Qerations my..., mrr*rrmlmm* I*.(.*Wiwt-t b*u&.Y U* by the Importabon of Non-Hazardous Waste Matenals *&*S ..U* O*O.II'I~'> Greengairs Landfill Site Meikle Drumgray Road Greengarrs Fbtm sea%
34 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That this permission shall be for a temporary period and will cease on 22"' May 2038, or whenever the infill capacity of the 9 cells (contained in phases 8, 7, 9, 10, 11 & 12) is completed, whichever period is the lesser and notification of the date that landfill operations are expected to cease shall be provided to and agreed with the planning authority 6 months prior to cessation. All landfill tipping shall cease and the site shall be fully restored in accordance with the approved landscaping plan, (as approved under the terms of condition 9) within 2 years from the date agreed for the cessation of landfill operations, in accordance with the specification set out in the environmental statement, all to the written satisfaction of the Planning Authority. No importation or deposition of waste may be undertaken within the approved site as detailed following the agreed date of cessation of this permission, except for restoration materials comprising inert soils.
Reason: To define the scope and extent of the development hereby permitted and to ensure the site is appropriately restored in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
2. That within 6 months of the date of this permission, a 5 year aftercare scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority; for the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall include:-
i) the steps necessary to bring the land to a standard that accords with the phased restoration proposals; the full details of cultivation techniques to be used, the fertilisation methods, the soil sampling and analysis procedures, the watering and drainage methods, the weed control systems and any other treatment proposed for the land. ii) The submission of a written annual report to the planning authority. iii) A timetable for the implementation of these works.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site
3. That the approved aftercare scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory reinstatement of the site
4. That, notwithstanding the terms of Condition 1, details of all operations, buildings, and machinery required specifically for the SEPA aftercare period and a timetable for their removal and full restoration shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, 6 months prior to the cessation of landfill tipping within the site. Full details of a public access plan during the aftercare period shall also be submitted.
Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
5. That the infilling shall be phased and controlled in such a manner as to ensure that no more than three cells are being worked at any time, one cell to comprise infilling and two cells to comprise restoration and landscaping. The developer shall ensure that the cells marked 8D, 8C, 88, 8A, 7D, 9, 10, 11 and 12 on the approved plan are worked progressively in that sequence.
Reason: To ensure the progressive restoration of the site in the interests of amenity.
6. The maximum quantity of waste that can be disposed of at the site in any one year shall not exceed 600,000 tonnes, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. The operator shall confirm that the agreed level of
35 waste input is not exceeded by submitting annual reports on waste acceptance at the site to the Planning Authority. The report shall also include a yearly report on the progress of the phased restoration proposals, including details of the current operational areas and areas still to be worked.
Reason: To define and quantify the terms of the permission and allow the Planning Authority to consider the progress of site operations in the interests of amenity.
7. That landfilling operations shall only take place Monday to Friday, 0730 a.m. until 0730 p.m., and Saturday 0730a.m. to 1 p.m., and not at all on Sundays, except for essential plant maintenance unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of controlling the operations on the site in the interests of amenity.
8. That, within four months of the completed aftercare period of the site as stipulated by Condition 4 or at such other time as the Planning Authority may reasonably determine, the private access road to site shall be closed, the road surface removed and the land reinstated t o provide a footpathkycle route to the satisfaction of the local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the site is restored in an appropriate manner in the interests of amenity and to enhance public access provision in the area.
9. That, notwithstanding the approved restoration plan as part of this application, within 6 months of the date of this permission, or such other date as may be agreed with the Planning Authority, the applicant shall submit and obtain written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, full details of the progressive restoration of the site and the details shall include the following: a) full restoration proposals in the form of a method statement covering all works, b) An indicative time table/schedule of all works c) A drainage plan for the site including flood drainage attenuation ponds
Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these matters
10. That the waste material received and handled on site shall be non-hazardous controlled wastes only. (For the avoidance of doubt, within this scope of acceptable materials, the actual characteristics of all substances received and how they are processed shall be controlled by SEPA as statutory waste regulator).
Reason: To further define the permission in terms of the type of waste material permitted at the site
11. That within 6 months of the date of this permission, the operator shall submit a traffic management plan (TMP) (in respect of the private access road) for the written approval of the Planning Authority. The TMP shall include measures to minimise site traffic noise emitting from the private access road by detailing feasible speed reduction measures including road surface upgrading and periodic maintenance works for the road. All measures included in the agreed TMP shall be carried out within three months of approval of the submitted plans to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these details in the interests of residential amenity and road safety
12. That all of the noise mitigation measures including provision of effective acoustic screens (walls, close boarded fencing or earth mounds) as noted in the site management plan
36 and as referred to in table 7.18 of the Environmental Statement shall be provided within 1 month of the date of this permission.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity
13. That a sign stating “Private Road” at the entrance to the private bypass and notice giving the name, address and telephone number of the site operator at the site entrance shall be maintained for the lifespan of this consent.
Reason: To prevent the unauthorised use of the private road and to offer appropriate contact details of the site operator
14. That prior to the work relating to the re-routing of watercourses within the site, the relevant watercourses shall be surveyed for the presence of otters and water voles together with any water bodies and the findings detailing necessary mitigations shall be submitted to for approval to the Planning Authority in consultation with SNH and where necessary appropriate licenses shall be obtained.
Reason: In the interests of maintaining, protecting and enhancing the ecological interests within the site.
15. That the additional drainage attenuation measures as noted in the SE1 Report dated loth March 2008 shall be incorporated within a revised site restoration plan which shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission.
Reason: To prevent the flooding of existing watercourses adjacent to the site
16. That the clearance of any areas of scrub and dense ground vegetation should take place out with bird the breeding season, March to August, unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the safeguarding of all bird species populations and habitats found within the site
17. That within two months of this consent, the applicant shall appoint an independent Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) acceptable to the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH. The terms of the appointment shall be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with SNH, and the terms of the appointment shall be to monitor ongoing and post-construction restoration having particular regard to the Habitat Management Plan as stipulated under Condition 18.
Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these details and to ensure that all mitigation and restoration measures and habitat enhancement works are fully implemented in accordance with legislation and regulations covering such works
18. That within three months of this consent, a Habitat Management Plan, to including details of wildlife restoration, water voles habitat improvements and woodland creation and management, shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval in consultation with SNH and Conservation and Greening Services.
Reason: In the interests of maintaining and protecting the ecological interest of the site.
19. That the development of phases 10 and 11 shall not be started until a supplementary Section 75 Agreement has been concluded between the Planning Authority, the site operator and any other interested parties.
37 Reason: To ensure complete and progressive site restoration.
NOTE TO COMMITTEE
1. Section 75 Agreements: If granted, the planning permission will not be issued until an Agreement under Section 75 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been concluded with the applicant in respect of site restoration and aftercare requirements.
A supplementary Section 75 Agreement would be required to be concluded before approved infill phases 10 and 11 are brought into use as required under the terms of condition 15 above.
2. Bond of Caution: If granted, the planning permission will not be issued until a Bond of Caution of a suitable value has been produced by the applicant in respect of site restoration and aftercare.
3. Referral to Scottish Ministers If granted, the application details along with the ES would need to be referred to Scottish Ministers as the proposals would constitute an EIA development as defined by regulation 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 29th May 2007 Supporting Statement May 2007 Needs Assessment and Demonstration of Best Practicable Environmental Option May 2007 Environmental Statement May 2007 Supplementary Environmental Statement March 2008
Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 23rd April 2008 Letter from Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee received 12th September 2007 Letter from Health and Safety Executive received 4th July 2007 Letter from Scottish Executive Development Dept. received 18th July 2007 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 27th June 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 3rd March 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 20th June 2007 Letter from British Gas received 22nd June 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 27th June 2007 Letter from Forestry Commission Scotland received 18th April 2008 Letter from Central Scotland Forest Trust received 17th April 2008 Letter from British Telecom received 22nd June 2007 Letter from Greengairs Community Council received 19th July 2007
38 Letter from Scottish Rights of Way Society received 27th July 2007 Memo from Head of Land Services received 20th September 2007 Memo from Transportation received 22nd April 2008 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 17th August 2007
Letter from J Comrie, Chairman Glenmavis Community Council, 76 Balmoral Avenue, Glenmavis, Airdrie, ML6 OPY received 20th June 2007. Letter from Mrs Margaret and Mr William Douglas, 13 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, By Airdrie, ML6 7UA received 4th July 2007. Letter from Vera Bennett, 344 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 4th July 2007. Letter from Mr John Sangster, 11 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UD received 5th July 2007. Letter from Mr And Mrs Murdoch, 8 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 9th July 2007. Letter from Andrew Johnston, 340 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, By Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 9th July 2007. Letter from Linda and Morris Watterson, 338 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 9th July 2007. Letter from Mr Angus McArthur, 36 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TG received 9th July 2007. Letter from Archie Whyte, 31 Hillrigg, Greengairs, By Airdrie received 9th July 2007. Letter from Mrs Elizabeth McArthur, 36 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TG received 9th July 2007. Letter from Matthew Clelland, 37 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 9th July 2007. Letter from A Brynes, 23 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 11th July 2007. Letter from C Sneddon, 113 Greengairs Road, Wattston , Airdrie received 11th July 2007. Letter from M Angel, 10 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie received 11 th July 2007. Letter from W Logan, 201 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SZ received 11th July 2007. Letter from M Williams, 148 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 11 th July 2007. Letter from A Gray, 91 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie received 1Ith July 2007. Letter from S F Grace, 22 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie received 1Ith July 2007. Letter from Alexander & Janet Boyd, 3 Hillrigg, Greengairs, By Airdrie received 11 th July 2007. Letter from W McVey, 33 Hill Rigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 11th July 2007. Letter from J & E Ferguson, 98A Greengairs Road, Wattston, By Airdrie received 1 Ith July 2007. Letter from M McNeil, 9 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UA received 12th July 2007. Letter from L & W Rae, 7 Annandale, Greengairs, ML6 7UB received 12th July 2007. Letter from E Buchanan, The Heritage Inn , 420 Greengairs Road, Greengairs received 12th July 2007. Letter from T Brogan, 126 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 12th July 2007. Letter from G Brogan, 124 Greengairs Road , Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 12th July 2007. Letter from H & R McManus, 216 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 12th July 2007. Letter from M Mathieson, 237 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7SZ received 12th July 2007. Letter from T Gibson, 82 Greengairs Road , Wattston, Greengairs, ML6 7SY received 12th July 2007. Letter from J & P Wilson, 422 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, ML6 7TE received 12th July 2007. Letter from S Wightman, 413 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 12th July 2007. Letter from E Stirling, 4 Coalburt Street, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TH received 17th July 2007. Letter from C Hamill, 14 Annandale , Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UB received 17th July 2007. Letter from S Cown, 334 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 17th July 2007.
39 Letter from G McLachlan, 6 Hillview , Greengairs, ML6 7TG received 17th July 2007. Letter from C Walker, 5 Elmpark Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UT received 17th July 2007. Letter from W Goldie & A McGill, 454 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 17th July 2007. Letter from J Stangoe, 9 Hillrigg, Greengairs, M16 7TB received 17th July 2007. Letter from E Dunbar, 3 Coalburn Street, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TH received 17th July 2007. Letter from J Thomson, 24 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs, ML6 7TF received 17th July 2007. Letter from J & I Kennedy, 7 Meikle Crescent, Wattston , Greengairs , received 17th July 2007. Letter from A Thomson, 168 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , ML6 7TA received 17th July 2007. Letter from T Walsh, 210 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 17th July 2007. Letter from J Russell, 18 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TG received 17th July 2007. Letter from S Whightman, 8 Roadside Place , Wattston, Airdrie received 17th July 2007. Letter from M Arbuckle, 373D Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 17th July 2007. Letter from R & S Tait, 403 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 17th July 2007. Letter from A Dougall, Braedale , 450 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 17th July 2007. Letter from G & M Paton, 179 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 17th July 2007. Letter from T & J Walsh, 210 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 17th July 2007. Letter from , received . Letter from C Stangoe, 9 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 17th July 2007. Letter from J Blades, 365 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, Airdrie received 17th July 2007. Letter from S Brown, 289 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , By Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 17th July 2007. Letter from T Kane, 10 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie received 17th July 2007. Letter from W Mathieson, 34 Hillrigg, Wattston , Greengairs received 17th July 2007. Letter from W Mclntyre, 209 Greengairs Road , Wattston, Airdrie, ML6 7SZ received 18th July 2007. Letter from W Johnstone, 293 Greengairs Road , Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 18th July 2007. Letter from A & M McGeachy, Burnbrae , 286 Greengairs Road , Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TQ received 18th July 2007. Letter from S F Mclntyre, 309 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , By Airdrie , ML6 7TE received 18th July 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs Whyte, 2 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from W Murdoch, 134 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , ML6 7TA received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Brown, 19 Meikle Drumgray Road , Greengairs , ML6 7TD received 19th July 2007, Letter from M M McAuley, 6 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from W & A Hannah, 13 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Linden, 4 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from D Blades, 33 Hillview , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TG received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Walker, 25 Hillview , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TG received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Fingland, 297 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Dungan, 325 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from K Dunbar, 323 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Thatcher, 327 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Isaac, 73 Greengairs Road , Wattston, Airdrie, ML6 7SY, received 19th July 2007. Letter from W Gallethy, 373A Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from S McGlaughlin, 331 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from S Orr, 290 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from S Thomson, 300 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from G Brown, 2 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TG received 19th
40 July 2007. Letter from Owner/Occupier, 393 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from T Peden, 28 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7TF received 19th July 2007. Letter from G & M Peden, 26 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TF, received 19th July 2007. Letter from L Reid, 349 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from R Brown, 321 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from S McConville, 4 Elmpark Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UT, received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Dunbar, 11 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UQ, received 19th July 2007. Letter from J & B Callaghan, 3 Roadside Place , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from C & H Brown, 3 Meikle Crescent, Wattston , ML6 7 UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Zambonini, 151 Greengairs Road , Wattston, Greengairs received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Davies, 149 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7SY, received 19th July 2007. Letter from H Earl, 30 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from H Ross, 7 Glenburn Close , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 8EN, received 19th July 2007. Letter from F & A Rae, 2 Meikle Drumgray Road , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TD received 19th July 2007. Letter from S Barrie, 5 Meikle Drumgray Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from D Raybould, 4 Meikle Drumgray Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from E McDavitt, 5 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Crook, 23 Meikle Crescent, Wattston , Greengairs received 19th July 2007. Letter from G Lochran, 18 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from G & H Collin, 25 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Digan, 16 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Smith, 5 Glenburn Close, Wattston, ML6 7SN received 19th July 2007. Letter from G Russell, 106 Greengairs Road, Wattson , Airdrie, ML6 7SY received 19th July 2007. Letter from I Mcove, 177 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie , ML6 7SZ received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Muir, 171 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Brynes, 173 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Craib, 167 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Bergen, 163 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Bergen, 163A Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from W Goldie, 22 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Hay, 26 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Reid, 223 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs E Kane, 181 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from R Hillis, 185 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from S Walsh, 208 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from R Ridley, 247 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs Blacklaws, 241 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from G Turnbull, 227 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007.
Letter from W Ferguson, 221 Greengairs Road , Greengairs I Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from T O'Hare, 217 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A O'Hare, 180 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007.
41 Letter from J Simpson, 21 1 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Mitchell, 17 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Love, 39 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Lang, 26 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Simpson, 29 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from D Dunbar, 7 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Clelland, 132 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Linden, 136 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from I Linden, 138 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Harold, 144 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from W Buchanan, 182 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Willis, 188 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Thomson, 196 Greengairs Road , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Logan, 16 Rankin Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Swinbank, 204 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Buchanan, 21 Hillrigg , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Whyte, 7 Meikle Drumgray Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TD received 19th July 2007.
Letter from J Boyd, 5 Drumgray Gardens, Greengairs ~ Airdrie, ML6 7TZ received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Brogan, 4 Drumgray Gardens, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TZ received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Davies, 8 Drumgray Gardens , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Blades, 342 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Hillis, 330 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from A & K Logan, 220 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , ML6 7TA received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Sommervalle, 14 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UA received 19th July 2007. Letter from P Downie & Signatories, 6 Annandale, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UB received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Lucas, 8 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UA received 19th July 2007. Letter from E McCloskey, 12 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UA received 19th July 2007. Letter from J McLellan, 12 Laurel Grove , Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Smith, 28 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from G Muir, 135 Coatbridge Road , Glenmavis, Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from R Rae, 135 Coatbridge Road , Glenmavis , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from C McGleish, 314 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from GP Blades T.D., 318 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from N McBride: 14 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from L Rae, 2 Meikle Drumgray Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TD received 19th July 2007. Letter from K Stewart, 15 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UA received 19th July 2007. Letter from L Barclay, 4 Glenburn Close , Wattston, Airdrie, ML6 7SN received 19th July 2007. Letter from W Bergin, 26 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Ness, 16 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TB received 19th
42 July 2007. Letter from J Baird, 20 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from T Flynn, 14 Roadside Place, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UF received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Hoffmann 8, Signatories, 1 Roadside Place, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UF received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Walsh, 159 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 19th July 2007. Letter from T Brennan, 16 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TG received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Brennan, 88 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SY received 19th July 2007. Letter from E Marshall, 41 1 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Marshall, 41 1 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from J & D Weir, 399 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from KAllison, 6 Glenburn Close, Wattston, ML6 7SN, received 19th July 2007. Letter from M McCluskey, 8 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Marshall, 193 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7SZ received 19th July 2007. Letter from R Earl, 30 Hillrigg, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TB received 19th July 2007. Letter from Mr & Mrs A Rennie, 11 Annandale, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UB received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Macaulay, 13 Annandale , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UB received 19th July 2007. Letter from E McEwen, 426 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from W Cantwell, 13 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TG received 19th July 2007. Letter from L O'Donnell, 341 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TE received 19th July 2007. Letter from S Gibson, 34 Hillview, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TG received 19th July 2007. Letter from L Allardyce, Smithy Cottage , 363 Greengairs Road, Greengairs , Airdrie received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Weir, 4 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from F Gilfillan, 2 Roadside Place, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UF received 19th July 2007. Letter from L Gilfillan, 2 Roadside Place, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UF received 19th July 2007. Letter from L Shields, 2 Drumgray Gardens, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TZ received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Garven, 320 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Mclntyre, 332 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from M Danskin, 346 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TQ received 19th July 2007. Letter from I Garven, 202 Greengairs Road, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7TA received 19th July 2007. Letter from A Murdoch, 10 Annandale , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UB received 19th July 2007.
43 Letter from A Rae, 135 Coatbridge Road, Glenmavis, Airdrie, ML6 ONL, received 19th July 2007. Letter from J Melroy, 17 Laurel Grove, Greengairs, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 7UA received 19th July 2007. Letters from Geddes Consulting, Overton House, 21 West Road, Haddington, East Lothian , EH41 3RE received 5th July 2007, 7'h April 2008. Letter from C Davis & I Brown, 12 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UQ received 26th July 2007. Letter from D Gardner, 24 Meikle Crescent, Greengairs, Airdrie, ML6 7UQ received 27th July 2007. Letter from L Flynn, 184 Greengairs Road , Wattston, Airdrie, ML6 7TA received 13th August 2007. Letter from W Duncan, 6 Roadside Place , Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7UF received 14th August 2007. Letter from J Linden, 4 Hillrigg, Greengairs , Airdrie, ML6 7TB received 15th August 2007. Letter from Councillor S. Coyle, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell, MLI 1TW received 3rd October 2007. Letter from Todds Murray LLP Solicitors, Edinburgh Quay, 133 Fountainbridge , Edinburgh, EH3 9AG received €ithJuly 2007.
Glasaow and Clvde Vallev Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Marshall at 01236 812376.
14 May 2007
44 APPLICATION NO. C1071009241MIN
REPORT
1. DescriPtion of Site and ProDosal
1.1 Planning permission is being sought by Waste Recycling Group (Northern) Limited (WRG) for the continuation of the existing landfill operations at Greengairs Landfill Site. The proposals would enable the completion of the reclamation and restoration of the remaining unfilled area of the site which was extensively scarred by previous opencast mining activities.
1.2 The operational landfill site is located approximately 700m to the south of the village of Greengairs and lkm to the southeast of the village of Wattston although it should be noted that the application site immediately abuts both villages (refer to location plan). The landfill site is currently accessed by operational vehicles via a private access road off Greengairs Road, which joins Meikle Drumgray Road. The application site boundary matches the existing Greengairs Landfill Site and covers an area of some 325 ha. The proposals do not include any extension to the current landfill site area boundary.
1.3 The proposal is for a phased non-hazardous waste disposal of up to 600,000 tonnes per year over a 30 year period that would allow for the continued phased restoration of the site. (Refer to location plan which includes the completed, ongoing and proposed phasing areas). The proposed landfill operations would also be subject to a Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Permit which sets out how the site would be operated via a series of site management plans, all regulated by SEPA.
1.4 WRG considers that a 30 year period is necessary to complete the restoration given a realistic infill rate of 600,000 tonnes per annum. Whilst the original permission (planning permission re. no. 86/458, which expires in July 2008), allows for an infill rate of up to 1.3 million tonnes over a 20 year period, actual infilling rates have been significantly less and there now remains approximately 50% of the available void space that would benefit from a phased restoration via landfill operations. WRG consider the reduced levels of waste have been due to a general decline in the amount of waste that is disposed to landfill, increased waste reduction and diversion over the last 5 to 10 years. It is forecast by WRG that this decline may continue as European and National target years for landfill alternatives approach, however it is generally acknowledged there will be a remaining need for landfill capacity for a proportion of residual waste that cannot be disposed of by other treatment methods. The developer considers that the proposed infilling of up to 600,000 tonnes per year reflects a realistic maximum and this figure has been adopted for the purposes of assessment within the accompanying Environmental Statement and other supporting information.
1.5 In terms of operation, the landfill site would continue to accept waste during the existing operational hours of 0730 to 1930 Monday to Friday, 0730 to 1300 Saturday. The site would be closed on Sundays. It is estimated that with an agreed maximum disposal rate of 600,000 tonnes per annum, there would be up to 382 two-way refuse collection vehicle (RCV) movements from Monday to Friday (inclusive) and 80 two-way RCV movements on Saturdays. RCV wheel washing facilities are provided at the site. As in line with the existing site management, during periods of high winds, operations would cease to prevent the risk of litter leaving the site. All waste taken to Greengairs, would arrive via road as there is no current viable alternative to this and the acceptance of waste to the site would continue to be strictly controlled by permit conditions. Since 2004 Greengairs Landfill has operated as a non-hazardous landfill accepting only non-hazardous and inert waste types. Hazardous waste is not permitted under the PCC permit, except in a
45 stabilised form, where the hazardous elements have been secured and the waste is then considered non-hazardous under the PCC permit. Existing site management practices would be maintained as the phased infilling progresses. More effective site management practices have reduced potential for windblown litter, malodorous emissions, leachate generation and reduced the attraction of material to vermin. Daily inspections also seek to minimise the visual impact of the site. Temporary capping of waste cells would continue to be employed progressively as final levels are reached.
1.6 WRG consider the continued use of Greengairs Landfill site would be complimentary to a range of alternative residual waste treatment facilities planned for the surrounding region by providing disposal capacity for wastes unsuitable for resource recovery and also for the disposal of rejects and residues from the proposed treatment facilities. For example in 2003, Shanks Waste Solutions obtained planning permission subject to a Section 75 Agreement (not yet concluded) for the construction of an Integrated Waste Management Facility on the Greengairs Landfill Site. This facility would allow for the processing of selected household, commercial and industrial wastes into recyclable materials but would rely on the ability of the adjacent landfill to dispose of the residual waste from this facility. In addition WRG have separate planning permission for a Materials Recovery FacilityITransfer Station at the site. Although both proposals are tied to the current landfill completion date of July 2008, if planning permission is granted for the extension to the landfill it is anticipated that amendments to both of these proposals would be sought by the applicant to achieve an opportunity to form a more integrated facility in line with Government policy and waste disposal targets.
1.7 The proposed operations would also include an extension to the existing leachate management system and a landfill gas extraction system. All site discharges from the leachate system are monitored by the applicant and SEPA, and there is a need to meet the quality standards set out in the PPC permit. The landfill gas system is connected to a series of flares and gas engines that have an electricity production capacity of up to 12.5 MW and this is linked to the national grid.
1.8 A restoration plan has been included with the application and covers the entire site with the intention of providing a finished landscaped profile of mixed woodland and grassland that would provide environmental protection measures and allow for the ecological improvement of the site. The site would be restored progressively in line with the phasing plan. The restored landform would be contiguous with the wider landscape of the surrounding plateau moorland area but would introduce more diverse forestry and natural woodland with grazing areas, wetland habitats, restoration of field boundaries and the introduction of footpaths designed to link with the wider network of footpath links outside the site boundary.
1.9 After the site has ceased to accept wastes and the capping and restoration works have been completed, the site would then move into a period of aftercare that would be agreed with SEPA under their PPC permit arrangements. The aftercare period and monitoring and management would be formally agreed with SEPA. Leachate and landfill gas would still be generated during the aftercare period and therefore the landfill gas and leachate infrastructure would need to remain on site. However, although the aftercare period is likely to be considerable, once SEPA agree that the continual monitoring results on landfill gas, leachate, groundwater, surface water and stability, demonstrate that there is no significant risk to the environment, including human health from the landfill, the site would be allowed to surrender the PPC permit. This in turn would allow that all remaining site infrastructure is removed from the site. In respect of the aftercare period, as detailed within the ES this period is likely to be significant and its end date depends on final approval by SEPA under the PPC regime. During the aftercare period there are areas of the site that will not be suitable for public access due to the nature of the operations. The preparation and submission of a public access plan for the site during the aftercare period
46 would be required for further consideration. SEPA generally control the management of the site under their PPC permits and this includes a suitable bond to ensure there are no residual pollution problems form the site should the operator go out of business.
1.I0 An Environmental Statement (ES), and Supplementary Environmental Information (SEI) with associated volumes of figures and appendices together with a non-technical summary accompanied the planning application details. The ES and SE1 reports on the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which examined in detail the environmental impacts of the proposed continued operation of the landfill site on the area. The EIA process has a number of key characteristics which allows for a systematic, analytical and impartial assessment of potential environmental effects. This includes a consultation process involving interested parties including local authorities and statutory agencies. The process also allows for opportunities for any environmental concerns to be addressed during the planning and design of a project which may result in a proposal to be progressively refined to mitigate potential effects. In addition the EIA is used to evaluate the significance of the environmental effects that have been assessed. These are then presented in the ES. The submitted ES that accompanies this application includes assessments on the following topics: socio-economics and public attitude; landscape and visual impacts; noise; ecology and nature conservation; traffic and transport; water environment and air quality. The EIS provided additional information on Transportation, Restoration and Drainage.
1.11 The proposals were also supported by a report on Needs Assessment and Demonstration of Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) as required as a planning consideration within PAN 63 Waste Management Planning. This does not form part of the ES.
1.12 Finally a Supporting Statement was also included which offers an assessment of the proposals under the terms of the development plan and other material considerations.
1.13 Site History: In July 1988, planning permission (M86/458) was granted with a time limit up to July 2008 for the reclamation by landfilling of an extensive area of abandoned coal workings lying to the south of Greengairs village and to the east of Darngavil Road. The site has since been in the process of being developed as a landfill with the importation of waste commencing in 1989. The original application was made by Shanks and McEwan before the developer’s company name changed to Shanks Waste Services (SWG). The site was then at this time the subject of two ancillary planning applications. In December 2002 the Council agreed that planning permission should be granted for the extraction of clay from an area within the site (C/OO/Ol164/MIN) subject a Section 75 Agreement and a bond covering restoration. Planning permission was issued in October 2007. In May 2005, the Council agreed that planning permission be granted for an Integrated Waste Management Facility (application no. C/OO/O1164/FUL). This is still subject to the finalisation of a Section 75 Agreement covering integration with the existing landfill and complete and progressive site restoration. This particular application is unlikely to progress as the permission is time linked to the current landfill permission. The infill phasing was further altered under the terms of planning permissions C/02/00194/MIN (deletion of the original phases 3 and 4 (East Loch) and C/06/0061O/AMD (alteration to the order of phasing granted under C/02/00194/MIN) by WRG (successor operator to SWG). The main site operations were further enhanced and upgraded with permissions being issued for electricity generation, gas flare compound as listed above.
1.14 Land Ownership: Not all of the proposed operational site area falls within the ownership of WRG. A small part of the proposed phase 10 and the majority of the phase 11 infill areas is within the ownership of the now restored Drumshangie opencast coal site. However it is understood that WRG are in negotiation with the landowner with a view to acquiring this area. Under the terms of the existing permissions WRG are required to
47 complete a supplementary Section 75 Agreement with the Council before phases 10 and 11 are started. This is to ensure that this part of the site would be subject to satisfactory restoration works. WRG have requested that a similar arrangement be considered if planning permission is granted for the current proposals.
2. DeveloPment Plan and National Policv
2.1 Under the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 (approved by Scottish Ministers April 2008) the proposals require to be assessed under Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) and other related strategic policies. Strategic Policy 10 would apply in the case of a departure (to be established or otherwise through Strategic Policy 9).
2.2 The 2006 Structure Plan recognises the aims of the Area Waste Plan (AWP) for Glasgow and Clyde Valley (2003). Strategic Policy 9 requires that waste management developments exceeding the 10 hectare threshold implement priorities in the AWP and identifies with the requirements for waste management facilities as set out in the AWP. Strategic Policy 6 (Quality of Life and Health of Local Communities) incorporate the provision of an integrated system of waste management facilities. The criteria set out in Strategic Policy 1, 3 and 7 of the 2006 Structure Plan are also relevant.
2.3 The key aim of the AWP is to contribute to the sustainable development of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area that will control waste generation, reduce environmental impacts of waste production, improve resource efficiency, stimulate investment and maximise the economic opportunities arising from waste. The AWP sets out several objectives to assist delivering its main aim in terms of an integrated waste management system. Part of this is to ensure that the waste-management system is developed in accordance with Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). The BPEO is derived from a systematic and consultative decision making process, which emphasises the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The AWP identifies landfill as the final disposal point for wastes and treatment residues and recognises that landfill will continue to play an important role within an integrated waste management system. The AWP further states that it is essential within the waste management system that there is sufficient landfill capacity for future use. It identifies Greengairs Landfill Site as a major site with significant void space remaining and currently serves a strategic purpose across waste strategy area (WSA) boundaries where several local authorities make use of the site. The BPEO infrastructure as set out within the AWP requires that a 10 year consented and licensed forward capacity of landfill is maintained beyond the long term target of 2020. It states further that an integrated waste management facility for North Lanarkshire has yet to be identified. SEPA were consulted on the application details
2.4 Under the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, the main coverage of the site is through policies L11/5 and GB2. The site is also covered by policies WDRI, CU1/3, LR7/5.
2.5 Policy L11/5 confirms the designation of the area as lying within the devastated landscape and recognises the improvements that developments involving subsequent restoration can bringing to the landscape in such areas.
2.6 Policy GB2 (Restrict Development in Countryside Around Towns) states that development within these areas (of which the site forms part) would require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) economic benefit (b) specific locational need (c) infrastructure implications (d) environmental impact
2.7 In relation to L1115, policy WDR1, also recognising the landscape and environmental benefits that may come from restoration, limits the disposal and recycling of wastes to sites lying within the devastated landscape (and lying at least 250 metres away from settlements).
2.8 Policy LR7/5 allows for a district wide footpath proposal traversing part of the site. Policy CU113 incorporates a gas pipeline safety zone (recognising a gas main that lies to the south of the site). Policy CU1/5 recognises the existence of the landfill area and the need to take into account in any assessment of new development the potential for leakage of landfill gas.
2.9 As well as the Development Plan the relevant policy context is also represented by the following:
2.10 National Policy and Guidance: These provide statements of Scottish Government policy on nationally important land use and other planning matters, supported where appropriate by a locational framework. NPPG's and SPP's identify key priorities for the planning system. They may, so far as relevant, be material considerations to be taken into account in the development plan preparation and in development management.
National Planning Framework for Scotland 2004 SPP 1 The Planning System 2002 SPP 2 Economic Development 2002 NPPG 5 Archaeology and Planning 1994 SPP 6 Renewable Energy 2007 SPP 7 Planning and Flooding 2004 SPPlO Planning for Waste Management 1996 NPPG 14 Natural Heritage 1999 SPP 15 Planning for Rural Development 2005 NPPG 17 Transport and Planning 1999 NPPG 18 Planning and the Historic Environment
Planning Advice Notes supplement SPP's and NPPG's at a national level, by providing advice on good practice and other relevant information. PAN's are material to the determination of a planning application insofar as they assist to define methodology for the assessment process. The accompanying ES referred to the following PAN's:
PAN 42 The Planning System and Scheduled Ancient Monument Procedures 1994 PAN 45 Renewable Energy Technologies (in relation to landfill gas) 2002 PAN 51 Planning, Environmental Protection and Regulation 2006 PAN 56 Planning and Noise 1999 PAN 58 Environmental Impact Assessment 1999 PAN 60 Planning for Natural Heritage 2000 PAN 63 Waste Management Planning 2002 PAN 64 Reclamation of Surface Mineral Workings 2002 PAN 68 Design Statements 2003 PAN 73 Rural Diversification 2005
2.1 1 The National Waste Strategy Scotland, (NWS) as published by SEPA in 1999, together with the Area Waste Plan (AWP) and the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) for the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Waste Strategy Area (WSA), are material considerations, which relate closely to the policy context. The relevant national policy on how these should affect the land use planning system is expressed through the above noted SPP10. This policy guidance is also complemented by PAN 63 (Waste
49 Management Planning).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 The consultation responses to the proposals are summarised as follows:
e SEPA had no objections provided only residual waste is landfilled at the site. They had no objection to the proposed 30 year infilling period and agreed that the proposals would meet the aims and priorities of the AWP. e Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) had no objection to the proposals subject to conditions that would protect and enhance habitats and any protected species through the mitigation measures set out in the ES. They recommended that an Ecological Clerk of Works should oversee any requirement for a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the site. SNH did not consider the proposals would have any significant impact on the strategic environmental resources located near the site or on any protected species. Whilst the loss of some of a bog area was noted this was acceptable as a larger area to the north east of the site would be subject to a HMP as proposed as a mitigation measure in the ES. In terms of impact on the landscape, SNH accepted the mitigation measures promoted by the ES which includes the protection of existing landscape features, progressive restoration along with management of grasslands, e Forestry Commission had no objection to the revised restoration plan noted in the SE1 document e Central Scotland Forest Trust had no objection and noted the revised restoration plan included in the SE1 had introduced additional footpath links and additional shelterbelt planting as requested. e NLC Traffic and Transportation had no objection subject to conditions that the waste disposal at the site does not exceed 600,000 per year. e NLC Land Services had no objections but would require further information on a maintenance plan for the restoration works, a long term management plan for the grassland and integration of the proposed footpaths with NLC core path network. e NLC Protective Services had no objection. e NLC Geotechnical had no objections following receipt of additional information in the SEI. e Scottish Government had no objection to the ES but noted that noise was assessed under PAN 50 Annex A rather than PAN 56 industrial assessment. They also note that the ES acknowledges that a number of potentially significant effects from noise have been identified relating to both operational and traffic noise. e Scottish Water had no objection e The Health and Safety Executive had no comments but noted that a high-pressure gas main is located close to the site. e Scottish Gas (Transco) had no objection e BT had no objection e West of Scotland Archaeology had no objection e Historic Scotland had no objection e Scotways had no objection e Transport Scotland had no objection and agreed that the increase in traffic would have minimal impact on the trunk road network e Glenmavis Community Council objected to the proposals as it was considered there was no locational need for the landfill, that the proposals were premature as the local plan had not been updated. If planning permission was granted a Section 75 Agreement should be set up to agree that the developer gives 30% of all profits to a community fund for the villages of Glenmavis, Greengairs and Plains. All site traffic should be identified by a vehicle numbering system. e Greengairs Community Council had no objection subject to conditions to minimise
50 the impact of the proposals on the village of Greengairs. It was suggested that the site should be accessed by a new rail link instead of via the road network. If approved mitigation measures should deal with odours, visual impact, road safety, noise, health, visual amenity and wider impact on the environment
3.2 There were a total of 199 letters of representation in respect of the proposals. Most of these (196) consisted of a pro-forma type letter of objection including one from Cllr S Coyle and the material terms of objection can be summarised as follows.
The proposals would be detrimental to public health due to pollution from the site. The additional traffic noise, speed and dust would be detrimental to amenity of houses adjacent to the private access road. The impacts on these houses were not considered in the ES. 0 The restored ground may not be available for use by the public for over 50 years due to reduced levels of waste materials The completed areas of the site are not to the standard expected by local people. Improved screening should be a priority. The local community has continually suffered from the cumulative impact of primary industries in the area to the detriment of their amenity. This proposal continues this impact and the 30 year extension period should be refused planning permission.
3.3 There were 3 other relevant letters of representation received on behalf of a landowner who holds title to land situated to the east of the site and shares part-ownership of the East Loch with WRG. The East Loch was excluded from the landfill phasing operations under the terms of an amended planning permission on the original phasing which was granted in March 2007. The material terms of these objections can be summarised as follows:
Two separate letters from Geddes Consulting made the following summary objections
That the landfill capacity is not defined and therefore cannot be agreed and controlled. The capacity should be specified and controlled under a legal agreement set at 600,000 tonnes per annum and should be restricted to bio-logically pre-treated residual waste after 2010. 0 The proposed 30 year duration of the proposed landfill is excessive and reflects commercial requirements and not site restoration requirements. If alternative restoration profiles were proposed that did not require such extensive land raising, the impacts on the community would be significantly reduced. Landfill operations should not continue for more than 10 years. The ES did not consider alternative restoration profiles that may otherwise have resulted in a reduced landfill capacity. The ES survey, analysis and conclusion do not address the potential impact on the East Loch or its role in the proposed restoration scheme. There is a lack of information on the restoration scheme and how these will meet other wider objectives. As a minimum the Council should require a Landscape and Habitat Management Plan via a Section 75 Agreement to deliver the restoration proposals. All owners of the water filled void should be party to the agreement. The proposals are therefore contrary to PAN 81. The ES does not address cumulative impacts of the proposed 9 wind turbines on the restoration plan or on the potential impacts such proposals would have on protective species such as bean geese or other wildfowl. The proposals are contrary to the approved development plan as they are not in accordance with the BPEO in the AWP. The ES has not addressed noise and vibration impacts on properties on the A73 There are no details on the progressive restoration of the site and there are no details of public access facilities to the banks of the East Loch
51 e The East Loch is necessary for the continued operations at Greengairs yet there has been no agreement with the landowner over the use in the proposed mitigation measures noted in the ES in respect of drainage, habitat management and public access. Site Management on wind blown litter and drainage is poor and requires to be improved. The application should be deferred to Scottish Ministers as the Council has a waste disposal contract interest in the site. The surface water proposals shows a perimeter catchment drain which would feed into the East Loch by means of a new discharge point. This would increase the water burden from WRG land to this water body.
A letter received from Todds Murray LLP offered the following summary objections. A number of associated legal issues, not material to the application were addressed in correspondence with the Head of Legal Services.
e It would be inappropriate for the Council to allow a planning permission for the continued operation of the site as the operator has been allowed to elide its restoration obligations for the area covered by areas 3 and 4 (East Loch). e The proposed development does not accord with NPPG 10 under the proximity principle. e That there is an unauthorised water discharge to the East Loch. e The existing permission expires on 6‘h July 2008. The land must be restored by then with waste infill ceased. The Council must utilise the performance bond funds to complete the restoration works. It would be unreasonable to grant permission for another 30 years, when the site restoration has been elided. The terms of the original planning permission have not been implemented therefore the current application should be refused. The basis for the Council’s decision to grant permission was flawed and based upon technical misrepresentations by the applicant. The retention of the East Loch would attract noted protected bird species such as Bean Geese which would be under threat from the proposed wind turbine. This would require an appropriate assessment. e The existing unauthorised drainage discharge from the landfill site onto the adjacent land causes a nuisance and consideration of the current application should be deferred until permission is sought with the landowner. e The ES does not address earlier claims that the landfill operations were causing a nuisance to the adjacent landowner’s property and as such does not comply with Circular 15/1999. e The discharges to the former open cast void (East Loch) from the landfill site has caused pollution and cannot be used to create a recreational feature or habitat as suggested in the restoration plan. The proposals can not comply with the requirements of NPPG 10 that would enable the waste management to be surrendered. As such permission should be refused and the previous land restoration plans enforced. e The adjacent landowner was not notified of either the planning application or the Environmental Statement and the application is therefore procedurally incompetent. e If WRG have not had permission from SEPA under their regulations to discharge trade effluent to land, wetlands, surface water etc then the planning application should be refused. e The East Loch was excluded from the original landfill phasing due to hydrological conditions. It would be unreasonable for WRG to deny that risk, whilst pursuing further waste infill rather than reverting back to the original phasing plan. e That permission should be refused for the extended waste infill operations as existing restoration obligations, incremental operations and incremental restoration has been
52 ignored and in breach of planning control and without any enforcement action being undertaken by the Council. The WRG landfill operation does not comply with the proximity principle of the AWP nor does it comply with sustainable transport principles. Any future infilling of waste should be restricted to only the North Lanarkshire Council Area to enable it to accord with the EC Waste Directive proximity principle. The proposed 600,000pa tonnes of waste proposed is grossly excessive and unsustainable particularly as the Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) approved at the site has not been progressed. Permission should therefore be refused or restricted to only NLC derived waste for IWMF processing before infill. The application should be deferred until SEPA have approved all site management plans, including site water discharges from the site to the surrounding watercourses. Alternatively the application should be refused planning permission. The proposed development is considered as a bad neighbour development and should be refused planning permission as it does not comply with government sustainability requirements or the proximity principle of infilling only locally derived waste. The application should be referred to the Scottish Ministers as the Council has a financial interest in the site due to waste contracts with WRG. A call-in is also considered appropriate due to the development’s impact on nationally important and protected environmental habitat and species. The proposals should be deferred until the development can be assessed under the terms and context of the emerging local plan which would be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. Alternatively the Scottish Ministers should call- in and determine the application.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for the area comprises the Approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 (Approved 2008) and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 (adopted 1995).
4.2 The Structure Plan, through Strategic Policy 9 requires that the location of the development is appropriate in terms of the need to implement the waste management hierarchy as defined in the National Waste Strategy (NWS) and Area Waste Plan (AWP).
4.3 The current NWS provides a foundation from which an integrated approach to waste management in Scotland was to be developed. The NWS identifies the following key principles which need to be taken into account in establishing a sustainable future for waste management:
The proximity principle and self sufficiency 0 The precautionary principle The polluter pay principle 0 The waste hierarchy
4.4 The Waste Hierarchy of Reduce-tRe-Use-tRecycIe-rRecovery-tDisposal provides a framework within which the most desirable waste management options are set out. It identifies disposal to landfill as appropriate if none of the others are available or appropriate and that energy recovery through methane capture should be considered from land filled biodegradable waste. It recognises that landfill will continue to play a part
53 within a sustainable waste management system as there will always be some waste that cannot be recycled or for which there is no market or where transportation to distant facilities is a less suitable option. A key element of the NWS would be to integrate landfill development with other waste management methods including methane recovery of biodegradable wastes. The NWS also recognises there are a limited number of landfill sites that generate energy from methane gas. In addition, the NWS confirms that landfill can be an appropriate method of reclamation for quarries and derelict land.
4.5 The proposals are considered to be in line with the aims of the NWS. The proposed landfill would continue to serve as a method of reclaiming land previously scarred by open cast activities and would utilise a large area of the landscape that the current landfill operations have not restored due to a decrease in waste inputs associated with the original planning permission and time limitations. The site is located close to the waste source by being strategically placed within the wider conurbation of the Central Belt. The continued use of Greengairs Landfill Site as a waste disposal method is intended to compliment a range of alternative residual waste treatment facilities proposed for the region. In addition the proposal includes continued extraction of landfill gas which would serve associated operations generating energy from recovered methane. There are separate recent planning permissions for integrated facilities associated with the existing landfill operations including an Integrated Waste Management Facility and a Materials Recovery Facilitymransfer Station however it is noted these facilities are subject to time constraints in terms of their implementation and operation. (Permissions would expire with the current landfill operations in July 2008). However, as noted by SEPA, there is scope, as evident from previous proposals at the site, to incorporate additional integrated facilities as part of the proposed continued operation of the landfill operations. This would however be dependant on a long term plan for the treatment of all residual wastes, (municipal, commercial and industrial) within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley area. The need for an agreed infrastructure stems from the need to implement the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO), which as outlined in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Area Waste Plan (AWP) is the preferred method for achieving sustainable waste management for the area. It is considered that the continued use of Greengairs Landfill site would accord with the current aims of the NWS and may prove to offer scope to provide integrated waste management facilities in line with the aims of the proposed NWMP.
4.6 Under the terms of Strategic Policy 9 the proposed continued use of Greengairs Landfill site would also need to accord with the aims and priorities of the AWP. However as pointed out in the Structure Plan, the current AWP relates only to municipal waste streams and there would be a need for the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Waste Strategy Area Group (GCWVSAG) to set targets which support the Government’s policy of the amount of commercial and industrial waste sent to landfill. As noted above the Greengairs Landfill site is considered by SEPA as a national facility which has the potential to deliver an integrated waste management solution if the developer pursues additional recycling and composting facilities at the site. SEPA had no objections to the proposals subject to conditions and accepted that a case could be made for a further 30 year lifetime for the landfill operation at Greengairs. SEPA accepted that the site is considered to be a brownfield site, which requires to be restored and is in line with Government policies that support the reinstatement of such degraded land. It was also appreciated that this was an existing landfill site as opposed to a fresh greenfield site and the proposals do not represent a new landfill site with new capacity. SEPA advised that they therefore had no objection to the extended 30 year lifetime of the site provided it forms part of an integrated waste management strategy. SEPA also recommend that any grant of planning permission should be conditioned that only residual waste is landfilled at the site. SEPA consider this would ensure that land filling is restricted and in line with the latest government policy targets. SEPA suggests that this requirement could be the subject of a legal agreement to ensure the need to landfill only residual waste streams is embedded with any future use of the site. These issues are addressed later in
54 paragraphs 4.32 and 4.34 of this report.
4.7 It is considered that the proposed landfill operations at Greengairs would meet the priorities as set out in the current AWP. The remaining capacity would provide a long term strategic solution for the AWP which assist in meeting the targets of the BPEO until at least 2020. It is also considered that the site meets the proximity principle and provides a recognised restoration option for a landscape scarred by previous mineral activities. The proposed development is considered to meet the terms of the AWP and BPEO and as such accords with this aspect of the SP9.
4.8 Strategic Policy 9 also requires that the proposed landfill development meets the general hierarchy for accessibility relating to bulk goods and freight movement as outlined in Strategic Policy 3 as follows:
Directly from railhead or port Short road haul to railhead or port Trunk Road Network
Strategic Policy 3 states locational preferences for new waste management facilities to incorporate dedicated haul roads or use by rail transport. As noted above the proposed continuation of landfill operations would continue to utilise the existing transport network associated with the existing landfill site. The site is currently accessed via the A73, a short section of the B803 and a private haul road near Wattston which bypasses the village and connects to Meikle Drumgray Road from where the landfill site is accessed. The site is located within the countryside and is not within a reasonable or practicable distance in terms of providing an alternative transportation link from the site to a usable railhead. As such it is considered that the absence of alternative transport options is considered to be outweighed by the site’s other locational benefits incorporating a strategic central location within the Central Belt. This allows for waste disposal relatively close to its source of production in accordance with the proximity principle of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley AWP. This states that “in order to reduce the impact of vehicle emissions associated with waste transport, waste should be disposed of as near to possible to the point of production.” It is therefore considered that the proposed continuation of landfill within the Greengairs site in relation to transport is in accordance with Strategic Policy 3 and would continue to offer a strategic waste disposal facility located within the local trunk road network and close to sources of waste production. The proposed development is considered to meet the terms of Strategic Policy 9 in respect of Waste Hierarchy outlined by the NWS and the accessibility hierarchy as outlined in Strategic Policy 3.
4.9 The proposals also require to be assessed under the terms of SP 7 which outlines that there would be a presumption against proposals which could have a significant adverse effect upon the strategic environmental resources listed in Schedule 7. The ES recognises that there may be potential impacts on West Fannyside Moss Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI); Longriggend Moss SSSl (both designated for their bog habitat), Head of Avon Water Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) (lowland raised bog) and the Slammannan Plateau potential Special Protection Area (pSPA) and SSSl (protected for its bean geese interest). In addition the ES considered the continued operation of the landfill and its potential to affect species and habitats protected by national and international legislation. The ES considers the effects of such designations in detail but concluded that there is unlikely to be any significant adverse effect on these resources as a whole. By virtue of the distance and hydrological separation of the development to those features protected for their bog habitat that there would not be a significant adverse effect on their integrity or the reasons for their designation. In respect of protected and other species, it is considered that the operation of the landfill would cause minimal disturbance to the fauna on the site. as is
55 currently the case. For example the loss of drainage ditches on the site, due to the continued landfill phasing over the next 30 years could have a low to negligible impact on water voles and otters. As noted above SNH had no concerns over any potential impacts of any of these environmental resources.
4.10 In addition the ES notes that the most valued ecological habitat around the perimeter of the landfill site is blanket bog, which is recognised as a priority habitat for nature conservation action under European law and world wide environmental conventions. The areas of blanket bog within the site are largely limited to a small strip along the eastern perimeter, a larger area to the north east of the site and an isolated area in the west of the site and south of the WRG site offices. The ES states that all areas show signs of modification and degradation due to drainage and physical disturbance resulting from the previous open cast and peat cutting works together with recent landfill activities. The ES reports the potential for minor significant effects in relation to the loss of blanket bog and habitats of water voles and otters, however the affected bog area is relatively small in area (6% of all modified bog at the site) but in mitigation the ES suggests this bog area be removed and stored separately to ensure the integrity of the seed bank is protected. The loss of another small area of modified bog from the edge of a larger area of bog extending to the east of the site is unlikely to have a detrimental impact and would be offset by WRG proposals to undertake a habitat management plan for the site, which would include the large bog habitat area to the northeast of the site. It is noted that SNH had no objection to the proposals and it is agreed the proposals would have no significant impact on the bog habitat found at the site.
4.1 1 The ES reported that water vole colonies found at the site were small and often isolated from neighbouring colonies due to a lack of suitable connectivity of riparian habitat. The ES reports that small areas of drainage ditch may be lost through a continuation of landfilling but in mitigation suggests that the loss of drainage ditch habitat may be offset by active management of habitats elsewhere on the site and allow water voles to be retained on or near the site. The ES considers such provisions would bring about improvements to the nature conservation value of the site. Again these findings were acceptable to SNH.
4.12 The ES also advised there were no recordings of otter holts on site and that the potential for underground holt sites was considered low. In addition there were no recordings of otter in the surveyed fox earths. Whilst these findings do not eliminate the potential that otters could take up temporary residence on one of the water bodies or sections of re- routed watercourses due to the phased development of landfill cell, the ES in mitigation suggests these watercourses be surveyed for signs of otter in the proposed habitat management plan by WRG. SNH had no objection to any of these findings.
4.13 Considering the above, it is considered that whilst the continued operations may lead to minimal effect upon protected habitat and species within the site, there would be no expected effect upon protected habitats and species surrounding the site. The offsetting arrangements through habitat improvement within areas of the site including restoration would enhance the habitat resources in the long term and be beneficial for protected and other species. As such the proposals are considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 7 in respect of the protection and enhancement of ecological resources.
4.14 Strategic Policies and through it Strategic Policy 9 requires the protection and enhancement of built heritage resources contained in Schedule 7 of the plan, including “Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other archaeological sites and landscapes, Listed Buildings, World Heritage Sites, Conservation Areas, the locations identified in the Inventory of Historic Gardens and Designated Landscape” There is no development plan policies which are explicit about the nature of either direct or indirect effect, but national legislation clarifies that both direct and indirect effects must be taken into account in
56 respect of features of built heritage interest. The ES reports that there are no designated cultural heritage features within the landfill site which would be affected by the proposals and indirect effects are not expected to increase as a result of the continuation of the extended period of working. There were no objections from Historic Scotland or from the West of Scotland Archaeology. As such it is agreed that the proposals would not have any significant effect on features of cultural heritage noted in Strategic Policy 7 and as such the proposals accord with SP9 in this respect.
4.15 Strategic Policy 7 and cross referred to SP9 requires the protection and enhancement of landscape designations at a national and local level, designated recreational resources including path and cycle routes, agricultural land and designations, mineral resources and flood plains. In this regard it is noted that the ES reports there would be no physical impact on the designated recreational resources of the Greengairs Railway Path, National Cycle Route 75 or the Calder Heritage Trail. The ES also noted there are no landscape designations which cover the site, recreational resources would become available as the site is restored, the site is not used for agricultural purposes, the site has been subject to historical mining and the site is not within a flood plain. SNH had no objections to the proposals on landscape grounds but did suggest that existing landscape features should be protected or enhanced. The proposals would not have a significant impact on any landscape designations and as such accord with SP7 and SP9.
4.16 The proposed continuation of infill operations at the Greengairs Landfill site meets with the objectives of the National Waste Strategy, Area Waste Plan and the accessibility hierarchy of SP3. There would be no significant adverse impact of strategic environmental or landscape resources as noted in SP7.
4.17 The proposal would therefore satisfy the terms of Strategic Policy 9 of the Structure Plan in this respect. In effect the proposals would not be regarded as a departure from the development plan and therefore consideration would not be required under Strategic Policy 10.
4.18 Turning to the terms of the local plan the following assessment can be made under the relevant policies noted in section 2 above:
4.19 Policy GB2 (Restrict Development in Countryside around Towns) states that development within these areas (of which the site forms part) would require to be justified against the following criteria:
(a) economic benefit (b) specific locational need (c) infrastructure implications (d) environmental impact
4.20 Economic Benefit: The continued operation of the landfill site would be expected to support the existing level of employment at the site which would also be supported by policy RE 1 (Support Rural Economy). As noted in the ES the current WRG landfill operation provides direct, indirect and induced employment opportunities for this rural area. WRG employ 27 staff plus indirect jobs for an additional 4 to 6 persons involved in servicing the site. These employees may then make use of local shops and other retail outlets and therefore would contribute to a continued level of induced employment. Whilst it is accepted the actual number of employees is not significant in relation to the wider employment levels in Central Scotland, in a local area with higher than average unemployment, the continued operation of the site would be important in supporting the existing rural economy. Whilst not material to the consideration of the planning application the ES notes that WRG supports the rural economy through the Government’s Landfill Communities Fund, which enables its non-profit making
57 environmental body, Waste Recycling Environmental Limited (WREN) to contribute to community projects. The proposed continuation of the site operations would therefore have a neutral impact on the rural economy as current employment levels would be retained.
Specific Locational Need: It is considered there is a clear locational need for the proposals at this site. The main purpose of the landfill proposals, whilst offering strategic waste disposal facilities, is to ensure that an area of devastated landscape is appropriately restored and landscaped. The landfill operation has only managed to restore about 50% of the original site over a 20 year period and a significant void space remains in a devastated condition. It is unlikely the site could be restored unless the landfill operations are allowed to continue, Local plan policies WDRl and LI 1/5 would also support a specific locational need for the continuation of the proposed landfill operations at this site to achieve an adequate restoration of the remaining part of the site.
Infrastructure Implications: The continuation of the landfill operations would not have any requirement for the provision of additional infrastructure and therefore its impact would be neutral.
Environmental Impact: Clearly there is scope for significant environmental improvements in the long term through the proposed landscape restoration scheme for the site. Whilst the ES reports that there may be some impact on blanket bog habitats and the habitats for water voles and otters, the proposed Habitat Management Plan is in mitigation considered to off set any loss of habitat and this has been agreed by SNH. The proposed HMP would also accord with the terns of local plan policy NAT 4 and NAT 5.
4.21 Policy CU1/3 acknowledges the existence of a gas pipeline running some distance south of the site and is not affected by the development. Whilst the HSE advised in writing of its presence, Transco had no objection to the proposals. Policy Cull5 is noted in terms of the need for any new development to ensure it is not exposed to the dangers of landfill gases. The proposals would involve the additional generation of such gasses to offer a renewable power source as exploited at present. This is controlled under SEPAs PCC site management regulations and as such is acceptable. The district wide footpath system as represented under policy LR7/5 would not be compromised by the development but may be enhanced following the restoration of the site as this would include additional public access paths that would link with the network.
4.22 For the reasons noted above the proposed development is considered to be in accord with both the approved structure plan and adopted local plan. As such it is considered that the determining issue in the assessment of the application details is whether there are any material considerations as noted in the 1997 Act which indicate that the proposals should be refused irrespective of the fact that the proposals are in accord with the development plan.
4.23 SPPl on the planning system provides guidance on what can be considered as a material consideration. There are two key tests for deciding materiality in respect of determining factors when considering a development proposal: Firstly “that it should serve or be related to the purpose of planning- it should therefore relate to the development of land” and secondly “it should fairly and reasonably relate to the particular application”. For the purposes of this assessment, material considerations not already covered by development plan policy, which must be assessed to establish whether they outweigh the development plan include:
The emerging development plan; Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Advice; Scottish Government Policies on Waste Management;
58 0 Scottish Planning Policy; and as per the terms of PAN 63: 0 Visual Impact, (both on its own and cumulatively with other developments);
0 Noise; 0 Traffic and Transport; 0 Impact on Water Environment; 0 Air Quality; 0 Need
4.24 The Consultative Draft North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2007: Policy ED18 states there is no general presumption in support of waste development but proposals would be assessed under local environmental considerations, the nature of the proposed working, restoration and aftercare, impact on local communities, restoration and aftercare, potential for long-term improvements to site appearance, site access and affect on traffic safety, demonstration of need for the facility and potential use of alternatives to road transport. It is considered that the current proposals would meet the terms of the above criteria as these issues have been addressed in the supporting ES. In this respect, the emerging local plan is not strictly material as it has not yet been finalised.
4.25 Scottish Planning Policy on Waste Management: In terms of assessing waste management proposals, current national planning policy is expressed through SPP 10 complemented by PAN 63 (Waste Management and Planning) covering good practice in policy making through the development plan system and decision making through the development management assessment. All planning applications should be assessed against the development plan and material factors arising from SSPlO and the National Waste Plan and associated policies. The SPP supports a wide range of waste management technologies and applies policy direction to specific waste streams or installations. The SPP would support installations which include the thermal treatment of waste as a renewable energy source that may produce both heat and electricity which comply within the relevant PCC permit issued by SEPA. The SPP supports landfill proposals which adhere to the waste hierarchy noted in the NWS with the general aim of ensuring that residual waste be landfilled. Whilst landfill reduction targets have been set, the SPP accepts there would still be a need for some landfill capacity for residual municipal wastes and wastes from commercial and industrial sources. SPP expects landfill sites to be well engineered with close monitoring of management plans by SEPA to ensure minimal impacts. Landfill gas production from waste is also supported from such sites. The SPP generally recognises that landfill operations can eventually improve the appearance of land and bring such land back to productive use. SPP supports land raising on derelict or degraded sites provided there is a satisfactory restoration plan to undertake structural planting and perhaps where there are problems with leachate management and groundwater control. The SPP requires local planning authorities to ensure that such proposals would not lead to disproportionate negative environmental impacts on nearby settlements or other sensitive receptors which may include landscape quality particularly in terms of cumulative impact with other large scale developments within 5km of any site. Developers are required to demonstrate what measures could be taken to mitigate any cumulative impacts. If such impacts cannot be mitigated in a satisfactory manner the SPP states permission should be refused. The SPP also suggests any phased landfill should be strictly controlled to ensure minimum disruption to local communities and the environment. In terms of development management process the SPP states that consideration should focus on the proposals ability in delivering appropriate infrastructure to meet Business Waste Framework Objectives, Area Waste Plans an EU Landfill Directive targets. The SPP considered that control via conditions should be complementary to SEPA’s regulatory powers and suggests that the planning consideration should:
0 focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable land use rather than the
59 control of waste streams involved; 0 regulate the location of the development and aspects of its operation, enforceable under planning control, that would avoid or mitigate adverse effects on amenity, the use of land and on the environment; and 0 secure decommissioning or restoration to a condition capable of an agreed afteruse.
The SPP also encourages monitoring of any impacts to allow for any remediation measures to safeguard the environment.
4.26 It is considered that the proposals follow the main principles of national policy and there would not appear to be any obvious contravention. The proposals accord with the terms of the development plan, the NWS and AWP. SEPA consider the site is capable of supporting further recycling facilities in line with the previous planning applications and permissions. The current site operations utilise landfill gas to produce electricity to an existing national grid connection and the landfill site is considered by SEPA to offer a strategic landfill site suitable for accepting residual waste. It is accepted that not all waste would be residual, particularly from industrial and commercial uses, however it is considered that the non-residual wastes would reduce through time as recycling options for industrial and commercial sources are developed in line through national policy directives such as construction site waste management plans etc. The current site is carefully managed and generally operations have complied with the PCC permit to an acceptable degree that complaints from the local community have significantly reduced. The ES has demonstrated that the continued landfill would operate with no significant impact on the environment including no significant cumulative impacts and that a satisfactory restoration scheme would be provided to improve the devastated landscape and bring the land into a usable condition which would be accessed by the general public. The continued operation of the landfill would accord with the AWP. The proposals are considered to be an acceptable continued use of the land, its use can be controlled to ensure there would be no significant detriment on the environment or local community and the decommissioning, restoration and aftercare could be secured through a Section 75 Agreement. It is considered that the proposed continuation of the landfill operation is fully supported by national policy and subject to need as assessed below would make a valuable contribution to the aims and objectives of the policy.
4.27 Visual Impact: In terms of visual impact PAN 63 Waste Management Planning notes that “in general, the most appropriate locations will be those with the least adverse impacts on the local population and the environment. While there are clear advantages in combining facilities, the planning authority should consider the cumulative impact of co-location on the local community”. The ES reported no significant visual effect on settlements within 3km and identifies no residential properties that would have a high magnitude of change due to the proposed continued operations. In terms of views from Meikle Drumgray Farm, which is situated to the west of the site, views to the current site activities are limited and this is predicted to increase as the latter phases of the workings in the south west leading to a short term significant visual effect. However, overall the ES reports that there would be no significant effects on neighbouring and designated landscapes, built heritage, roads, cycleways and footpaths. In terms of cumulative visual landscape effect caused by a combination of existing development and other similar developments, the ES considers this to be significant in the short term but the restored landfill void would have a positive impact on the landscape in the long term.
4.28 Noise: As noted in the ES, noise emissions from a landfill operation can have a noticeable environmental impact. Effects can be caused by noise generated by plant machinery preparing cell areas as well as depositing waste in the cells. Noise sources include engines, materials being loaded and unloaded from trucks and from audible site vehicle alarms. In addition there is a potential for disturbance from traffic noise due to additional HGV movements. However although such noise may be audible over long
60 distances, the ES suggests it does not necessarily mean there would be significant effects. PAN 56 Planning and Noise provides some guidance relating to noise and in relation to landfill site states that “licensing conditions or planning conditions designed to protect amenity might therefore relate to hours of working; the number and/or capacity of vehicles using the site and their points of ingress and egress; and the provision of acoustic screening. Useful information on predicting this type of noise will be found in BS 5228 Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites. General guidance can be found in NPPG Planning and Waste Management, and many aspects of good practice outlined in PAN 50 Annex A, Control of Noise at Surface Mineral Workings will also apply” The ES assessed the potential noise impact by comparing the noise levels created by a maximum waste input of 600,000 tonnes per year against a worst case baseline of no landfill past July 2008 as well as a comparison with existing input levels at 495,000 tonnes per annum. The ES found that there would be a small number of potentially significant effects relating to operational and traffic noise from the proposed continued landfilling at the site. The ES reports that additional mitigation measures in the form of temporary or permanent acoustic barriers may be required to reduce noise levels at Meikle Drumgray Farm (west of the site) and Annandale Estate (north of the site and representative of all of the properties in Greengairs village) to acceptable levels. The ES reported that significant effect was only recorded to Annandale Estate for the current operational phase with no further effect one operations moved south. The mitigation measures of provision of effective acoustic screens (walls, close boarded fencing or earth mounds) could be covered by a condition of any planning permission. The ES also found that there may be significant effects from traffic noise at Meikle Drumgray and Roadside Place, but only when comparisons were made between the worst-case baseline of no landfilling past July 2008 and the assumed maximum infilling of 600,000 tonnes per annum. The change between the existing levels of traffic noise and the assumed maximum was not considered to be significant and below the threshold of perception. The ES reports that the following mitigation and monitoring measures be implemented at the site. Speed reduction measures to be installed at the private access road, noise reduction at source (e.g. use of SMART reversing alarms on site operational and maintenance vehicles), restriction of hours of operation to avoid sensitive period of the week, construction of perimeter bunds or screens where appropriate and regular monitoring of noise levels. There was no objection from NLC Protective Services in respect of noise issues. Whilst The Scottish Government Environment Directorate noted that the ES noise assessment applies PAN 50, Annex A rather than PAN 56 Industrial Assessment it is noted that the application of PAN 50 Annex A is based on directions provided within paragraph 44 of PAN 56 and as referred to in Section 7.4 of the ES. As such the ES assessment in terms of noise is considered valid. These mitigation measures noted in the ES are considered acceptable On-going noise monitoring and enforcement is covered by SEPA under site management agreements under the PCC permit. Additional noise mitigation measures (such as those relating to the restriction of HGV speed on the private access road) can be addressed by planning condition.
4.29 Traffic and Transport: Transportation impacts are associated with the movements of municipal waste refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) and other licensed waste disposal vehicles travelling to and from the Greengairs Landfill Site. The ES provided an assessment of potential effects of proposed landfill activities against a worst case scenario of no landfilling past 2008 but also considered traffic generation from existing landfill operations. The ES reported that the proposed landfill activities would represent less than 10% increase in traffic on the A73 based on an assumed maximum of 600,000 tonnes of refuse being landfilled per year. Such increases are generally considered to be insignificant given that daily variations in background traffic flow may offer similar fluctuations. The increase in traffic along Meikle Drumgray Road would increase by 21% when compared to existing landfill activities and offer a 100% increase when compared to the above noted worst case scenario of no landfill past July 2008. There were no objections from NLC Transportation Section following receipt of a Transportation
61 Statement submitted as part of the SEI. JMP (Term Consultants to Transport Scotland- Trunk Road Network Management Directorate) had no comments as they considered the proposals would have no significant impact on the trunk road Network. Following consideration of this issue it is agreed that the traffic related environmental effects from this increase in RCV movements are not significant along this final approach road to the site as there are minimal pedestrian and other traffic movements along this road. Moreover it is agreed that the changes in traffic are not considered to be significant in relation to noise, visual effects, ecological effects and heritage and conservation interest as considered in the ES.
4.30 Impact on the Water Environment: The ES reports that water resources within the site are likely to be affected by past open cast activities. The site includes the East and West Lochs which resulted from the flooding of past coal mining activities and there are Several springs within and surrounding the site. The ES identifies that the main watercourses in the area are Cameron Burn, Shielhill Burn and Head of Avon. The ES states that in order to protect ground and surface water resources during operations and post closure of the site, mitigation measures including groundwater and surface water management, engineering clay base/sidewalls within phases and leachate management would be continued. Surface water runoff from undisturbed areas of the site would be kept separate from disturbed areas which in turn would be managed to SEPAs requirements. The ES notes the landfill development is above the groundwater table and no groundwater resource effects are predicted from the development. SEPA had no objections in this regard. The NLC Geotechnical Section had no objection but recommended that additional flood attenuation ponds be introduced within the proposed site restoration plan at the 3 distinct drainage zones as referred to in the ES. This may be covered by an appropriate condition.
4.31 Air Quality: The ES reports that the air quality at the site is generally good. There are existing mitigation measures in place which effectively reduce odour emissions and dust migration as agreed with SEPA who had no objection in this regard. The continued use of an on-site wheel washing facility to be used by all HGV is proposed to minimise dust emissions. Engines on site which generate electricity from landfill gas are not controlled by the developer but in any event are unlikely to produce significant levels of pollutants as they are controlled by SEPA’s regulations. Associated gas flares are only used occasionally and are unlikely to create significant pollution emissions or odour. It is considered that as the proposed phasing operations move further away to the south of Wattston and Greengairs, it is unlikely that the continued operation of the landfill would cause significant odour or dust effects or worsen the existing well controlled air environment. Traffic levels would only increase slightly over the existing use and it is agreed with the ES that this would not have a significant effect. It is envisaged that the continual monitoring and existing mitigation measures would be maintained. As such the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on Air Quality. As with issues of noise, on-going monitoring and enforcement of air quality issues (including issues of odour) are addressed by the SEPA PCC permit.
4.32 Need Assessment: The need for a waste management facility is referred to within PAN 63 which states that “it is up to the local planning authorities within each WSA to deal with the land use planning aspects of the need for waste management facilities.” The Needs Assessment and Demonstration of Best Practicable Environmental Option sets out a case for the continuation of landfill at Greengairs by providing a comparison of municipal, commercial, industrial and inert waste arisings against the alternative landfills available within the WSAs of Glasgow and Clyde Valley, Forth Valley and Lothian and Borders. This has shown that despite a projected significant reduction in the amount of waste destined for landfill, there would over the long term be a reduction in the number of facilities capable of accepting waste due to site closures, particularly in the west of Scotland. The needs assessment demonstrates that “orphaned” waste would increase
62 from 900,000 tonnes in 2008 to 1.6 million tonnes by 2020 as current operational sites close. The Needs Assessment states that although this need could be met through the development of landfills elsewhere in the Central Belt, the advantage of the continued use of Greengairs is that the continued restoration of a degraded landscape accords with planning policy and would continue with no significant environmental impacts. Alternative suitable sites would also need to be found that would meet the requirements of the planning system and demonstrate they would have least environmental impacts. In addition the Needs Assessment also argues that the development of alternative new sites would also require significant development and available void space. It is recognised by SEPA that the availability of land suitable for landfilling is also reducing, implying that available void space should be safeguarded. It is noted SEPA had no objections to the continuation of landfill operations at Greengairs provided that government targets on reducing landfill waste is not compromised. SEPA also considered that the Greengairs site has the potential to develop further integrated waste management facilities at the site, which would accord with waste management policy. Other sources of waste including commercial, industrial and inert are also predicted to increase over the next 20 years as current AWPs have not as yet determined what amounts are capable of being diverted to recycling centres before being sent to landfill. It is envisaged that the forthcoming NWMP and AWPs would address this however the number of sites receiving waste for all types would also reduce in number. The Greengairs Landfill site is capable of receiving municipal, commercial/industriaI and inert waste streams and has been identified in the AWP for Glasgow and Clyde Valley as its most suitable landfill facility but if closed would lead to a significant landfill capacity shortfall for the area. The Greengairs site would provide an available capacity of 15 million cubic metres for all types of waste streams, for a 30 year period given an infill rate of 600,000 tonnes per annum as proposed. Given these considerations it is agreed that the continued need for Greengairs Landfill Site can be justified particularly given the needs of the NWP and AWS for a forward rolling 10 year landfill capacity.
4.33 LandownershiplRestoration: As noted in paragraph 1.43 above, the Council would need to ensure that a satisfactory legal agreement is put in place to ensure the satisfactory restoration of all of the worked areas. Normally it is standard practice to include all relevant landowners in a Section 75 Agreement to ensure the restoration of all of the land before planning permission is granted. However in this case, as these particular phases would not be started until 2018 and 2022 (respectively) it is agreed that it would be appropriate that a supplementary Section 75 Agreement (in addition to the main Section 75 Agreement) be agreed before works start on these particular phases. This could be covered by a condition.
4.34 Consultations
SEPA had no objections but requested that any grant of planning permission be conditional that only residual waste be landfilled at the site. Greengairs Landfill accepts a wide range of waste types from municipal, commercial and industrial sources. WRG are aware of the Landfill Regulations (Scotland) and the need to pre- treat all wastes destined for landfill. It is the responsibility of the waste producer to provide evidence that the waste provided to the landfill has been pre-treated and in the case of municipal waste, the source segregation of recyclate and bio wastes from the residual stream is understood to be sufficient evidence. The requirement to pre- treat commercial/industriaI waste has yet to be, fully defined but is currently in force. It is likely that if any future national targets arise for commercial waste, then the onus to meet these would also be on the waste source. Further refinement of the regulations may need to be considered under primary legislation to ensure only residual wastes be landfilled. As such it would be considered inappropriate to apply such a condition in this instance. Indeed PAN51 is explicit in ensuring that the planning system should
63 not seek environmental controls on developments when those controls are the proper function of other or pending legislation, There is no appropriate mechanism with which the planning authority could promote such measures as this should essentially be a policy and regulatory function of SEPA. Such a control would be difficult to enforce and may fail the appropriate tests of conditions as noted in SPPI. This notwithstanding, WRG has advised they are to secure appropriate permissions to develop a recycling and recovery facility should the continued operations at Greengairs be approved. Previous planning permissions, all of which are tied to the current site and expire in July 2008, demonstrate the site's suitability to accommodate such facilities and it is envisaged that through an integrated approach with updates to the regulations, that only residual waste would be landfilled at Greengairs over its continued lifespan of 30 years. This would allow the site to be continually developed in a sustainable manner and achieve a satisfactory restoration of the devastated landscape. 0 SNH had no objections subject to conditions. These requirements to protect and enhance the noted habitat and species can be covered by condition. 0 The Forestry Commission and Central Scotland Forest Trust had no objections. 0 There was no objection from NLC Transportation, Protective Services, Land Services or Geotechnical Sections. 0 The Scottish Government had no objections to the ES but commented on use of PAN 50 instead of PAN 56 in the Noise Assessment. The ES cross refers to both sets of guidelines and is considered acceptable. It is considered that the mitigation measures suggested in the ES are acceptable and would be sufficiently controlled under site management plans overseen by SEPA. There was no objections from Scottish Water, Scottish Gas (Transco), The Health and Safety Executive, Scotways, West of Scotland Archaeology, Transport Scotland or Historic Scotland. With respect to the objections raised by Glenmavis Community Council it has been determined that there is a locational need for such types of development where it would result in the restoration of devastated areas of landscape as supported by the development plan. Any community benefit payments are voluntary undertakings by the developer and are not material to the consideration of the planning application. Vehicle numbering is not considered appropriate as all RCV's are operated by separate licensed bodies responsible for waste disposal and not within the control of the developer. Greengairs Community Council has no objections subject to conditions that would minimise the impact of the development on the local community. It is agreed that most of the impacts can be covered by condition or through the site management plans and regulatory controls exercised by SEPA. The provision of a new rail link is not considered feasible or necessary given that the additional traffic movements were not considered significant.
4.35 Representations
In response to the above noted representations the following comments can be made.
0 It is accepted that landfill sites if improperly managed, may lead to complaints over dust and smell emissions from the public and could lead to pollution of water courses in or near such operations. However Greengairs Landfill site is subject to a series of site management plans agreed by SEPA which ensures that any such impacts are suitably managed within acceptable standards. The PPC permit issued by SEPA sets out to prevent environmental pollution and harm to human health and site operational activities are continually monitored by SEPA. As such it is considered that impacts on public health are considered to be well controlled and acceptable under current regulations.
64 0 The ES considered the impact of noise from a monitoring station located close to Roadside Place (refer to figure 7.1 of the ES) and is representative of the group of houses that are located approximately 100-200 metres to the north of the private access road. The ES concluded that in the worst case scenario traffic noise levels at Roadside Place would be considered as significant but that the proposed increase in noise due to the proposals would not be perceptible. However given the significance of traffic noise at this location the ES in mitigation recommended that WRG investigate speed control measures for the private access road to reduce noise annoyance. Further noise reduction at peak periods may be addressed via the Noise Management Plan implemented by SEPA. The speed control measures could be covered by a condition of any planning permission. 0 The proposals include a phased restoration plan for the area which is dependant on the progressive landfilling of the existing void spaces left over from previous open cast workings. The proposed restoration plan and include grassland and tree planting along with the formation of wetland areas and improvements to ecological habitats. Public access routes are also included. It is unlikely the devastated landscape area would be restored by any other means apart from landfilling. The proposals reflect an expected rate of waste disposal and this is reflected in the 30 year infilling period. Even if landfilling was not allowed to continue the unrestored areas may not be made available for public access for safety reasons therefore the continuation of the restoration of the site via landfilling operations would eventually secure a landscape safe for public access. The proposed restoration plan takes into account areas that have already been restored and there is a large area of planting that was undertaken pre 2000 in the foreground area situated between the current operational area and Greengairs village. There are areas of bog that would remain but subject to a management plan, therefore its appearance is unlikely to alter to public perception. Beyond this, the area would be restored to areas of wildflower and grassland as infilling phases move south away from the village. It is accepted that the appearance of the restored areas will take time to establish in terms of noticeable growth and established meadows. Nevertheless, the ongoing restoration of the site is considered acceptable although additional planting works could be introduced with the agreement WRG and NLC Landscape Services. It is noted that the area surrounding Greengairs village has been subject to significant if temporary primary industry proposals including landfill and open cast developments and more recently proposals for a wind farm have been considered. As with all planning applications there are opportunities for the public to offer representations and all material considerations must be taken into account before a planning authority can make a decision. Whilst such representations may not be significant enough to outweigh favourable recommendations for such proposals, they nevertheless are considered and given appropriate weight. As noted in the ES the existing landfill site has been subject to site management plans overseen and monitored by SEPA and this has reduced the number of complaints of odours, dust, noise and flies affecting local residents. It is agreed the Greengairs landfill site is of a significant scale but only due to the existing void capacity created by previous open cast works and this is unlikely to be restored unless landfill operations are allowed to continue.
4.36 With regards to the representations submitted by Geddes Consulting on behalf of the adjacent landowner the following comments can be made.
0 If planning permission is granted it would be a condition of the planning permission that waste disposal amounts would be restricted to 600,000 tonnes of waste per annum in accordance with the ES. It is not necessary to cover this by legal agreement. The current Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003 requires all wastes to be pre-treated before being landfilled.
65 The proposals as described in the ES are for a continued disposal of waste for a period of 30 years and the ES predicts the environmental impacts on this basis. The material consideration is over whether this is acceptable under the terms of the development plan taking into account other material considerations. Matters relating to the financial aspects of the proposals are not material. SEPA considers the 30 year period to meet the terms of the NWS. Site management practices are covered by the PCC permit. There is no requirement within Circular 812007 to consider alternative restoration schemes. It is only where alternatives are included that these should be outlined in the ES as detailed within the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999. No alternative restoration approaches were considered and the profiles shown on the restoration scheme are considered acceptable in landscape terms that would allow for settlement and appropriate drainage run-off. The ES and the SE1 provides all information required by the planning authority to understand and consider the likely environmental effects. The level and detail of the information is considered satisfactory and this is reflected by scrutiny of the consultation responses from the statutory consultees on the application where there are no outstanding issues that have prevented them from providing advice to the planning authority to allow an appropriate assessment of the proposals. It is considered that sufficient information has been included and as such the ES is considered satisfactory. A HMP can be secured via a planning condition and would not require to be secured by legal agreement. The advice provided within PAN 81 Community Engagement-Planning and People is not relevant to the proposed drainage attenuation proposals in relation to the potential impacts on third party land. The PAN sets out examples of how developers can engage communities in the planning application process and in relation to this it is noted the developer undertook extensive community consultation prior to the submission of the application and indeed prior to the publication of PAN 81. The ES does address cumulative impact and there was no objection from SNH. There would be no impact on any protected species or habitat. As noted in the above assessment the proposals are in accordance with the development plan, the NWS, AWP and BPEO. SEPA had no objections. The scope of the ES was formed though the formal scoping exercise and this did not require the consideration of the impacts of vibration from traffic as there was not thought to be any impact due to the distances between the nearest dwellinghouses and the private access road. The submitted ES is considered acceptable under the terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 and in accordance with Circular 8/2007. A revised restoration plan was submitted in the SE1 and this addressed issues raised following consultation with SNH and CSFT. This included additional planting and public access routes, including a link to the East Loch within the site boundary. Whilst there are no restoration plan phasing details apart from those relating to the infill phasing this aspect would be covered by planning condition should planning permission be granted. The ES has been comprehensive in its assessment of the impacts of the proposals and there have been acceptable to the statutory consultees. Both SEPA and SNH had no objection to the environmental impacts of the proposed continuation of the landfill operations at Greengairs. On site drainage arrangements and all discharges to watercourses including the East Loch are agreed with SEPA. WRG have partial ownership of the East Loch and such provisions are undertaken on their own land and loch banks. The mitigation measures in respect of drainage, habitat management public access and the scope of the overall restoration proposals can be undertaken satisfactorily within the boundaries of the application site. Site management practices are covered by the PCC permit and controlled by SEPA. Any outstanding concerns or complaints should be addressed directly to SEPA. The BPEO notes in table 2.10 that North Lanarkshire Council does not have a
66 municipal waste disposal contract with WRG and as such has no financial interest in Greengairs Landfill Site. However the Scottish Government will be notified of the application as the application required the support of an ES. The BPEO notes that WRG accepts municipal waste streams from East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire and West Lothian local authority areas. Figure 1 within Annex D details ground water and surface water principal features and predicted flow directions and not the surface water proposals for Greengairs Landfill Site. This is shown within Annex C of the SE1 Figure 1.1 which shows the proposed restoration drainage for the site. The figure shows an existing consented discharge point to the East Loch and issue dealt with via the existing PCC permit. As this is already competently controlled via SEPA, who also have no objection in this regard it is considered that the environmental impact on the East Loch is not a concern. Areas 3 and 4 (East Loch) were excluded from the phased infill operations under the terms of planning permission C/02/00194/AMD. The East Loch is included within the landscape restoration plan which is considered acceptable.
In respect of the objections raised by Todds Murray LLP (also on behalf of the adjacent landowner) the following responses can be made.
Planning permission C/02/00194/AMD altered the original phasing and excluded the East Loch from landfill operations. The area around the East Loch would be included with the revised restoration plan. This previous decision would not prejudice the Council's ability to determine the application. The proposals are considered acceptable to SEPA and accord with the proximity principles of the NWS and AWP and are also in accordance with SPPIO, which supersedes NPPGI 0. All water discharges from the site are controlled and approved by SEPA under the terms of the PPC permit and detailed site management plans. As noted above the current permission expires on 6'h July 2008 and the current application seeks to extend this period for a continuation period of 30 years to allow for the infilling of the remaining void area. Current restoration works have progressed as previously agreed under the terms of the revised phasing plan, which excluded the East Loch area. The restoration bond does not need to be called upon to infill the East Loch area as it has been agreed this would be left as a water feature in the revised restoration plan. The terms of the original permission were amended as already noted. SEPA had no objections to the operator's proposals to delete the East Loch from infilling operations under the terms of planning permission C/02/00194/AMD SNH had no objection to the proposals in terms of the proposals impact on the bird species. It is noted SNH previously accepted the findings of the ES submitted in support of the windfarm proposals considered under the terms of planning application C/07/00172/FUL previously considered acceptable to the Council on the 1" May 2008. This particular ES concluded there would be no impact on Bean Geese from the proposed wind turbines located at the landfill site. All drainage discharges from the site are controlled by SEPA. Any nuisance issues regarding the operation of the landfill site should be investigated addressed by SEPA. There is no need to defer consideration of a planning application due to any outstanding matter considering the regulations covering current site operations. SEPA had no objections to the proposals in terms of any impacts causing concerns under the current PCC permit. The ES addressed site drainage issues and was considered acceptable to SEPA. It would be the responsibility of SEPA to investigate any complaints over pollution caused by discharges to the East Loch or any other water course. SEPA had no objection in respect of any concerns over any discharge to the East Loch area. The
67 restoration plan indicates the site would be traversed by public footpaths and public access would only be allowed once SEPA are satisfied that the site is safe for public access purposes. Such controls are exercised under the PCC permit and to date the ongoing management of the site is appropriately and effectively controlled by SEPA. Appropriate notification was issued by the developer’s agent Entec UK Ltd in terms of both the planning application and ES procedures. It is understood that WRG have appropriate agreements with SEPA to operate the site including all requirements for the effective drainage of the site. The removal of the East Loch from landfill operations was previously considered acceptable with no objection from SEPA as noted above. The East Loch is to remain as a water body under the revised restoration plan. The proposals to continue landfilling remaining void space are also considered acceptable. 0 The site has been progressively restored under the terms of the existing planning permission and is acceptable at this point. Additional facilities have been developed under the terms of additional planning permission and are also acceptable. There has been no formal planning enforcement action served in relation to the operation of the site. 0 The proposals accord with the terms of the NWP and AWP and SEPA have stated that the site has potential to serve as a strategic landfill capable of serving the Central Scotland Area provided the operator’s additional longer term proposals to provide an integrated waste management facility are secured. Greengairs accepts waste from surrounding local authority areas and accords with the proximity principle. 0 The projected waste amount of 600,000 tonnes of waste per annum offers a realistic projection based on current infill rates. All waste destined for landfill including commercial waste requires to be pre-treated in line with the Landfill Regulations. The onus to comply with this is on the waste source not the landfill operator. Further pre- treatment is sought through national targets, currently only in place for municipal waste where the onus to meet targets are on local authorities. It is likely that if any future national targets arise for commercial waste, then the onus to meet these would also be on the waste source. While it is the intention of the applicant to incorporate a treatment facility at Greengairs (from previous application, discussions at meetings and submission to the forthcoming local plan), it is not within the scope of this application and as such, would be subject to separate planning application. It is considered unreasonable and not in accordance with the AWP to ensure all waste streams only come from the North Lanarkshire Area as noted above. 0 SEPA have approved of the current site operations via the site’s current PCC permit. Alleged breaches of the PCC permit should be taken up with SEPA and such issues would not preclude the consideration of the current proposals which would also be subject to the PCC permit including amendments if required. Non-compliance with the PCC permit would have been noted by SEPA however they had no objections in this regard. 0 Clearly the proposed development would be considered as a bad neighbour development capable of having significant environmental impacts if not controlled and managed in an appropriate manner. The ES demonstrates that the site operations could continue subject to mitigation measures noted above and to the continued compliance with the PCC permit. As discussed above the proposals accord with the AWP and are acceptable to SEPA. The Council has no financial interest in the site and the application would not require to be notified to Scottish Ministers on this basis. The application would be referred as it is accompanied by an ES, which concludes there would be no significant impacts of strategic environmental habitats, species or other resources. The proposals do not need to be deferred until the new local is approved or adopted. This would be contrary to SPP6 which states that planning authorities should continue to determine those applications that are, or come before them ahead of revised local policies being put in place. It has already been concluded that the
68 proposals accord with the terms of the current development plan.
4.37 Following consideration of the above objection it can be concluded that they cannot be sustained or carry sufficient weight which may otherwise suggest the proposals are unacceptable.
5. Conclusion
5.1 The proposed development has been comprehensively assessed in accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and it has been determined that the proposals accord with the development plan. There are no material considerations that have been found to suggest that the proposals should be refused despite their accordance with the development plan. The proposals are considered acceptable in terms of the National Waste Strategy and Area Waste Plan. The ES has satisfactorily demonstrated that there would be no significant impacts on local communities, landscape sensitivities or unacceptable visual, ecological impacts. Where there has been a small number of significant negative effects such as cumulative visual impacts and the effect on some protective habitat and species, these can be mitigated through planning conditions. On balance the negative effects must be weighed against the positive effects which would accrue from the development including:
The full restoration of a scarred landscape to bring it back into a usable condition Restoration and creation of habitats for the benefit of known protective species Contribution of the site to a regional and national integrated waste management system Improved public access with links to the wider footpath network Continued support of the rural economy through appropriate rural enterprise, employment, improvement to the rural landscape and voluntary contributions to the local community through WREN,
5.2 It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement and Bond to cover complete and progressive restoration and aftercare of the site.
5.3 Should planning permission be refused, the ongoing landfill operations would have to cease on 6'h July 2008. A full restoration of the site would not be feasible without further importation of waste and the remaining void beyond Phase 8D would remain in its current condition. Under SEPAs PPC Permit the restored site would still be subject to a lengthy aftercare period. The entire site may need to be secured due to public safety considerations not only due to the unfilled voids but also due to the continued landfill gas production. The restoration bond is sufficient to ensure the completion of the landscaping of the site and removal of plant and associated buildings but does not offer sufficient funds to allow for the infilling of the remaining void space. SEPAs own bond would only address site pollution issues during the aftercare period following the termination of landfilling. In addition the loss of the landfill site would lead to a strategic shortfall in available landfill space as discussed above.
69 Application No: C107/0 1844lF UL
Date Registered: 11th December 2007
Applicant: Mr Asif Majid 95 Forrest Street Airdrie ML6 7AE
Development: Construction of 2 Flats and 1 Class 1 Shop Unit
Location: A Grant Butchers Clarkston Post Office 95 Forrest Street Clarkston Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7AE
Ward: 7 Airdrie North Councillors Cameron, S Coyle, McGuigan and Morgan
Grid Reference: 277894665595
File Reference: C/PL/AIC456095/SM/LR
Site History:
The application site is located in an area designated as HG9 Development Plan: (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan.
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (no objection) Scottish Water (no objection) Scottish Power (no objection)
Representations: I letter of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:-
L(90) 001 ,L (90) 002,001,002,003,004,005,006,007,008,009,010
70 A Grant Butchers Clarkston Post Cfhce 95 Forrest Street Markston Fdfdrie Ik Repremtabon %e Area 0 02 HA
71 Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the permission hereby granted shall relate to the use of the ground floor shop; solely for a use included within Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
Reason: To define the use of the land.
4. For the avoidance of doubt the building shall be finished in a light render and not finishing bricks as shown on the approved plans. A sample of the render shall be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to any works starting on site.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
5. That BEFORE any works start on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by ClRlA in March 2000.
Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.
6. That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, 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.
Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.
7. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of condition 6 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. 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 that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.
8. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:-
(a) the proposed parking areas (b) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas (c) the proposed fences to be erected along the boundaries
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
9. That BEFORE completion of the development hereby permitted, the management and
72 maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 8 shall be in operation.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 14th November 2007 Monklands District Local Plan 1991
Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 10th January 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 23rdJanuary 2008 Letter from Scottish Power received 31'' December 2008 Letter from Mr & Mrs Wilson, 7 Mossywood Court, McGregor Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 7DY received 12th February 2008.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374.
Date: 8'h May 2008
73 APPLICATION NO. C1071018441FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.I Planning permission is being sought for the construction of 2 flats with a retail unit below at 95 Forrest Street, Airdrie. The application site occupies a corner position at the junction of Forrest Street and McGregor Avenue. The site currently accommodates a single storey shop and an area of hard surface utilised by the existing group of shops. The adjoining shops are accommodated on the ground floor of a traditional two storey sandstone building with pitched roof. There are four existing shops, one of which is a hot food takeaway, with 2 flats above.
1.2 The area is characterised by a mix of property styles. There are three storey flats along McGregor Avenue, the school and community building to the east with a mix of flats and single storey buildings to the south of Forrest Street.
1.3 The proposed development would be constructed along the west gable of 95 Forrest street and the main elevation will run parallel with McGregor Avenue. The development will be two storey with two pitched roof sections running parallel to Forrest Street and McGregor Avenue. The ground floor will comprise a retail unit of 118 sqm. The upper floors will accommodate two flats (lx one bed and lxtwo bed).
1.4 Planning permission (C/06/00403/AMD) was granted permission for 12 flats at 2 McGregor Avenue in May 2006 which have been completed and are located to the north of the application site.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The application site is located in an area designated as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan. There are no strategic implications.
3. Consultations and Rewesentations
3.1 The Transportation Section was consulted and has recommended that the application be refused primarily due to the level of car parking provision. These comments are discussed in detail in section 4 below.
3.2 The Pollution Control Team have requested that a desk top survey be carried out. This can be added as a condition.
3.3 Scottish Water and Scottish Power have no objection to the development.
3.4 Following standard neighbour notification procedures 1 letter of objection was received. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:
i. They were not notified of the planning application ii. The flats are too close to their property iii. There could be a loss of light to the bathroom iv. Depending on what kind of shop it is - it could encourage unsavoury characters to hang about v. The parking is bad enough with the existing shops without another one vi. It will Drevent the value of the Drooertv increasina
74 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application raises no strategic implications and therefore can be assessed under the terms of the policies contained within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
4.2 This application requires to be assessed against policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) and the associated Design Guidance on lnfill Housing.
4.3 The local plan gives emphasis to development sites geared towards infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas. Policy HG9 indicates that developments on suitable gap sites that are in accordance with the Design Guidance on lnfill Housing will be encouraged. In this instance the proposed development is designed to meet the above policies and will sit satisfactorily in the surrounding streetscape.
4.4 The flats will continue the existing building line along McGregor Avenue. The flats will be two storey in height and will be 9.5m high along the Forrest Street elevation and 8m high along the McGregor Avenue elevation. The development has an awkward layout and as a result has a complex roofscape, however the design of the development is considered to be acceptable in this location and will improve the appearance of this corner.
4.5 The applicant proposes to use facing brick, however, this is considered inappropriate in this location as most of the surrounding flatted properties are finished in a light render. The use of concrete tiles and a mix of aluminium and white upvc windows is considered acceptable.
4.6 There is 98sqm of grassed space to the front of the proposed flats which is considered acceptable open space and meets the requirement for at least 60 sqm for this type of development.
4.7 As noted above the Transportation Section recommended that this application be refused on the basis of a shortfall in parking provision. Their comments are discussed in turn below.
4.8 The transportation section advised that 4 parking spaces should be provided for the flats. There are 6 parking spaces to the rear of the unit which are monoblocked and delineated. At present these serve the existing 2 flats above the shops. The current guidance advises that 165% parking provision should be provided for the 2 existing flats and the 2 proposed flats. On this basis the site as a whole should accommodate 7 spaces. In this case the shortfall of 1 space is considered acceptable.
4.9 The applicant had indicated that the unit on the ground floor would either be a class 1 shop or a class 2 office. The transportation comments advise that based on the floor area a total of 16 spaces would be required for a Class 2 office. There is no scope to provide this parking within the site. On this basis it is considered that a Class 2 use would not be appropriate at this location with such a shortfall in parking.
4.10 In terms of a Class 1 retail use the Transportation Section has advised that demand for parking in the vicinity of the existing shops is currently exceeding the number of on-street parking spaces available and that in the absence of designated parking for the site, drivers would be likely to park indiscriminately on McGregor Avenue and Forrest Street to the detriment of road safety .
4.11 It is clear that designated parking for a Class 1 shop could not be accommodated within the curtilage of the site. The existing group of shops does not have any designated parking and as such it would seem unreasonable to refuse this application on this basis.
75 4.12 The Transportation Section also raises concerns about the possibility of a betting shop occupying the unit which would attract significantly more traffic to the area. It is considered that a condition restricting the use of the ground floor unit to a Class 1 use could be attached to any permission.
4.13 The points of objection are addressed as follows:
1. The applicant was advised that the new properties at Mossywood Court, McGregor Avenue had not received the original notification and was asked to re-notify which was carried out and confirmed. II. It is acknowledged that the development will be taken up to the shared boundary with ... Mossywood Court, however, this is considered acceptable in this case. ill. It is accepted that there are bathroom windows on the gable of the Mossywood Court flats, however these are not habitable rooms and therefore the lack of sunlightldaylight to them does not merit the refusal of this application. iv. If planning permission is granted for the Class 1 use there would be no control over what kindltype of shop would occupy the unit. V. It is acknowledged that there is not sufficient parking for the existing shops, however, this area does have an existing group of shops without any designated parking and therefore an additional unit is considered acceptable. vi. This is not a material planning consideration
4.14 Taking the foregoing into account it is considered that the proposed application generally accords with the provisions of HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) and associated Design Guidance on lnfill Housing. Due consideration has been given to the points of objections raised, however, these do not merit the refusal of the application. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
76 Application No: C/08/00260/AMD
Date Registered: 25th February 2008
Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Eyles 21 Golfview Drive Coatbridge ML5 1JN
Agent R Carrick 3 Whirlow Gardens Glasgow G69 6LE
Development: Two Storey Side Extension (Amendment to Planning Permission C/07/01777/FUL)
Location: 21 Golfview Drive Drumpellier Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 1JN
Ward: 6 Coatbridge North And Glenboig Councillors Clarke, McWiIliams, Shields, & Wilson
Grid Reference: 271458665092
File Reference: C/PL/CTG735021000/CMN/LR
Site History: 0 C/01/00542/FUL Erection of Double Domestic Lock-up Garage and Formation of New Vehicular Access - Permitted 27/06/01 0 C/07/01777/FUL Side and Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse - Permitted 19/02/08
Development Plan: Policy HG9: Housing Policy for existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991, including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 4 letters of representation
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
77
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
(1) That the proposed amendment application for a side extension would be contrary to policy HG9 (C) of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that it does not accord with the provisions of the Design Guidance for House Extensions regarding scale, form, position, proportion, and elevational design and would be to the detriment of visual and residential amenity.
(2) That the proposed amendment application for a side extension would create privacy levels between the extension and the neighbouring property to the south that are inadequate and no means of mitigating this has been proposed to the detriment of residential amenity.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 25th February 2008
Letter from Mr J. Weir, 19 Golfview Drive, Drumpellier, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 1JN received 18th April 2008. Letter from Mr & Mrs A Eyles, 21 Golfview Drive, Drumpellier, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 1JN received 17th April 2008. Letter from Councillor William Shields, Coatbridge North And Glenboig - Ward 6, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell, ML1 1TW received 21st April 2008. Letter from J. Weir, 19 Golfview Drive, Drumpellier, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 1JN received 10th March 2008. Letter from J. Weir, 19 Golfview Drive, Drumpellier, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 1JN received 6'h May 2008.
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236 812375.
Date: 8'h May 2008
79 APPLICATION NO. C1081002601AMD
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 The application seeks to amend planning permission C/07/01777/FUL for a 1% storey side and rear extension granted by committee on 5'h February 2008, to form a two storey side and rear extension. Effectively the amendment seeks to raise the wallhead height, remove the proposed dormer features, and flatten the roof pitch of the approved full application. There would also be an additional bedroom formed to the first floor increasing the dwelling from 2 bedrooms to 6 bedrooms.
1.2 The building is located within the predominantly residential Drumpellier area of Coatbridge, and is surrounded by a mix of housing types including single storey, one and a half, and two storey properties. Of particular relevance is the aspect from the south where the housing type is predominantly single storey and the site forms a visible boundary for the housing type change to one and a half storey.
1.3 The house is orientated so that it faces west onto the golf course but the main access is from the rear (east) and can be considered to form both the primary pedestrian and vehicular entrance. There is a detached double garage (C/01/00542/FUL) and a large shed (formerly positioned to the side) located to the rear. The submitted plans indicate no obstruction to the garage but currently a caravan and the large shed obstruct access to the garage resulting in very limited parking provision.
1.4 The garden was formerly fenced or hedged to 1.8 metres on all sides, creating a private area around the swimming pool and an enclosed rear drive. The southern fence has since been removed and that aspect is now open and faces onto the neighbouring property at 19 Golfview Drive. The applicant has not indicated any replacement fencing would be erected.
1.5 The proposed finishing materials would be roughcast with facing brick skirt, and roof tiles to match the existing.
2. Development Plan
2.1 There are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to Local Plan Policy which is HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 The Transportation Section has advised aurally that sightlines of 2.5 x 60 metres and four useable car parking spaces would be required.
3.2 Two letters of objection were received from the neighbour to the north at 19 Golfview Drive. The objections can be summarised as follows: 0 Size and scale would be too large 0 Character of extension not in keeping with the building 0 Parking provision is inadequate Tree removal in TPO area was not included in plans but has been undertaken as part of preparatory work for permitted extension.
3.3 A request for a site visit has been received from the objector at 19 Golfview Drive for similar reasons to those noted above, size, scale, proximity to gable.
80 3.4 Two requests for a site visit and hearing have been made. As the councillor for the area Councillor Shields requested a site visit and hearing. The applicant has requested a hearing to allow the applicant to respond to the points of objection.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Of particular relevance is the design guidance noted below.
4.2 Policy HG9 of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 is of relevance to the determination of this application. It states that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the District Council. The design guidance for ‘House Extensions’ is of relevance to the determination of this application.
4.3 In response to the above points of representation the following comments can be made.
0 It is accepted that the size and scale of the extension is out of keeping with the scale of the original house. It is accepted that the character of the extension bares little relation to the existing house or the surrounding properties. It is accepted that the four parking spaces required for a six bedroom house are not currently available. There is scope to provide the required number on site and this would require the removal of the shed. There was removal of the hedging and immature trees along the southern boundary but this is not relevant to the determination of this application.
4.4 The design guidance advice states that extensions should “relate to the scale and design of the original house and should not affect the amenity of neighbours”. It is considered that the proposed extension would not relate to the scale and design of the original house. A two storey extension with shallow roof pitch would not be in keeping with the steep sloped 1% storey original house, especially when seen in the context of neighbouring single storey properties and the letter of objection supports that this would be to the detriment of amenity.
4.5 The guidance also states that it should “integrate into the surroundings by virtue of its scale, form, proportions and materials and it should not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as a result of overshadowing or overlooking”. In this case it is considered that the proposal would not integrate with the surroundings by virtue of its form or proportions in that the southern elevation would extend forward (west) from the building line and would do so above first floor level. The roof is perpendicular to the existing and not centre aligned. The rise in height would make these alterations prominent within the streetscape to the detriment of visual amenity. In addition the proposed window placements do not reflect the existing windows or align with one another from ground to first floor. The extension is unlikely to cause any adverse affects relating to daylight or sunlight but there are concerns relating to privacy caused by the proposed windows from the southern elevation. The windows would directly face the lounge of 19 Golfview Drive and would be at a substandard distance of 13 metres, no screening has been proposed. This was previously dealt with by ensuring the first floor windows were obscure glazed and there was a 1.8 metre fence (since removed) screening the ground floor sunroom.
4.6 The guidance also stipulates that in the case of an extension “its positioning and proportions should be in keeping with the existing building and should be finished in materials with colours and textures which complement the existing building and other buildings in the locality”. The positioning of the extension (to the side) is not unusual, and no concerns were raised by the Transportation Section regarding its proximity to the road. There would be adequate space to
81 the boundary to allow pedestrian access around the building and the materials proposed are generally in keeping with the existing building.
4.7 The guidance also states that side extensions should leave garden ground appropriate for the size of the house and plot and access to the rear should be maintained. The proposed extension would not constitute an overdevelopment of the house plot as there would be no increase in footprint size and the resultant garden area would be equivalent to that previously approved.
4.8 The amendment does not include any parking alterations from that approved (a double garage and a parking area of 12 x 8 metres). However, following the site visit it was noted that the large shed has been repositioned onto the rear parking area rather than removed from the site, and now effectively prevents access to the caravan and double garage. This reduces the possible parking provision to a maximum two spaces accessible from the existing entrance onto Golfview Drive. For the proposed six bedroom dwelling, four car parking places are required. There is scope to provide the spaces but it would require the removal of the shed and caravan from the former parking area. In addition, there is no improvement to the visibility from the existing access as requested by the Transportation Section and this would require the removal of the 1.8 metre boundary fence to the east.
4.9 It is concluded that the proposals do not accord with the policy HG9 in that they do not comply with Development Control Advice design guidance for 'House Extensions'. It is accepted that although there is scope to mitigate some of the issues raised i.e. by removing the shed and caravan to provide adequate parking, or by providing new screening and obscure glazing on the southern elevation, in general the changes to the scale, form, position, proportion, and elevational design are unacceptable and to the detriment of visual and residential amenity. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the above noted reasons.
4.10 It should be noted that a request has been made for a site visit and hearing prior to a decision being made by the committee.
82 Application No: C/08/00431/FUL
Date Registered: 25th March 2008
Applicant: Mr & Mrs B Dempsie 15 Dalmore Drive Gartlea Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 QAH
Development: Two Storey Side and Single Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse
Location: 15 Dalmore Drive Gartlea Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 9AH
Ward: 08 Airdrie Central Councillors Logue, Devine and Stocks
Grid Reference: 276397664910
File Reference: C/PUAI DO200 15000NVSILR
Site History:
Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration) Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG3/ 9 :(New Private Sector Housing Development)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations:
Representations: I letter of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
83 84 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- 07-11-A1-02 + 07-11-A1-01 Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
4. That 2 off-street car parking spaces shall be provided within the site and shall, thereafter, be maintained as car parking spaces.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 25th March 2008
Letter from Protective Services Section received 10th April 2008
Letter from Mr & Mrs G McGuinness, 17 Dalmore Drive, Airdrie, ML6 9AH, received 1st April 2008.
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration) Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 812231.
Date: 7 May 2008
85 APPLICATION NO. C/08/00431/FUL
REPORT
1. DescriPtion of Site and ProPosal
1.1 The application is for the construction of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension to a dwellinghouse at 15 Dalmore Drive, Airdrie. The property is a two storey end terraced dwellinghouse which fronts south west in direction. The area is a relatively new residential estate with further housing proposed to the west. The surrounding dwellinghouses are all similar in height, scale and design but vary in layout as some are semi detached rather than terraced. The rear garden is 9 metres long and 10 metres wide with the side garden being 12 metres long and 4 metres wide. The dwellinghouse is situated on a corner and therefore is limited in where access can be taken for car parking provision. At present the car parking for the dwellinghouse is at the end of the rear garden.
1.2 The two storey side extension would have a length of at most 8.7 metres with the western corner of the extension being set back. Due to this, there would a section of around 2.43 square metres removed from this corner of the extension to allow continued visibility on the corner adjacent to the dwellinghouse. The extension would be 3.375 metres wide. There are two windows proposed on the front elevation of the two storey extension, one being on the ground floor and one on the first floor. There is also a window proposed on the first floor of the rear elevation. The extension would adjoin directly onto the roof of the existing dwellinghouse creating a consistent roofline. The extension would be used for an extra bedroom with dressing area and toilet.
1.3 The applicant also proposes to construct a single storey extension to the rear which would extend almost the complete width of the rear elevation, attaching onto the proposed side extension. It would have a length of 9 metres and would project approximately 1.6 metres from the building. The extension would have a mono-pitched roof and at its highest point would have a height of 3.2 metres. There would be a gap of approximately 0.3 metres between the edge of the extension and the adjoining boundary line. The extension would have two windows, a door and French doors all on the rear elevation. The extension would consist of a WC and an extension to the kitchen, dining room and family room. The applicant has not stated the type of materials that are to be used on either extension.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The relevant development plan is the approved Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration) and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
2.2 The proposed development does not have any strategic importance and therefore would not be assessed against the criteria of the Structure Plan.
2.3 Policy HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) is relevant to the consideration of this applicaion. Policy HG9 (c) states that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the District Council.
2.4 The Monklands District Council design guidance 'house extensions' is of relevance here. It states that extensions should be positioned so as not to seriously affect the daylight or privacy to neighbouring windows. The extension should be sympathetic to the existing dwellinghouse in terms of size, scale, design and use of materials. Side extensions are acceptable where there is sufficient side garden to allow access to the rear garden.
86 3. Consultations and Rewesentations
3.1 The Transportation Section were consulted and stated that 3 car parking spaces are needed for a four bedroom dwellinghouse. They asked that the car parking space be shown on a plan in order to prove that these can provided within the curtilage of the property.
3.2 The Pollution Control Section of Protective Services made comment that there is a history of mineral extraction in that area and therefore they request that a ground condition survey be carried out.
3.3 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure 1 letter of representation was received from the adjoining property. The terms of objection can be summarised as follows:
(a) Diffuse light to the rear garden would be significantly reduced.
(b) Direct sunlight to the rear garden would be significantly reduced.
(c) The single storey rear extension would reduce the volume of light entering the kitchen window of their property.
(d) The inclusion of the single storey extension would create a security risk by screening anyone attempting to break into their property.
(e) The extensions would reduce the space available for car parking on the site and therefore would create a detrimental impact on road safety.
(9 The property is on a corner and thereby the extension would have the potential to affect the visibility splay for that corner.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.2 The proposed development does not contradict the development plan policy for this area. The extension would integrate satisfactorily with the existing building and would not over- dominate the dwellinghouse. It meets the requirements of the design guidance in that it would be sympathetic to the existing dwellinghouse and would not seriously affect the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing. Due to the positioning of the dwellinghouse, the side garden at present is not used for access to the rear garden. Presently, the access to the rear garden is either through the house or from a side entrance where the driveway is. This means that the inclusion of the extension would not affect the access to the rear garden. To ensure that the extension integrates well with both the existing dwellinghouse and the surrounding residential area a condition should be applied requiring that the materials to be used match the existing dwellinghouse. Three car parking spaces can be provided within the rear garden area as requested by the Transportation Section however it is felt that if this is adhered to there would be no amenity space left in the rear garden. Currently the dwellinghouse has 3 bedrooms and therefore would require 3 car parking spaces under the new car parking standards but was only allocated two. A four bedroom house also requires three car parking spaces (which this dwellinghouse would be with the extension) and although this can be accommodated within this site it is felt that this would leave an unacceptable area of amenity space left over.
4.3 In relation to the grounds of objection, the following comments can be noted:
87 (a) Through the use of an elevation sunlight/ daylight test it has been proved that no light toward the garden would be lost. Firstly, the distance from the extension to the garden would ensure that any shadow created would fall onto the applicant’s garden and not the neighbouring garden. Once the shadow has fallen onto the ground it may continue towards the neighbouring garden but will be intercepted by the 1.8 metre high boundary fence. In general terms, the fence is likely to create more of a shadowing effect than the extension. Secondly, diffuse daylight does not come directly from the sun but is present in all directions. If direct sunlight is not reduced to the garden then the volume of diffuse daylight would not be adversely affected.
(b) As noted above there would be no overshadowing affect on the neighbouring rear garden. Also the sunlight that would be affected by the extension would be that coming from the West to north west. Only at the peak of summer would any direct sunlight come from this direction and therefore most of the year round the garden would not receive direct sunlight.
(c) It is noted that the single storey rear extension would have a slight overshadowing affect on the neighbouring property. Through a sunlight/ daylight test it was found that this would not be significant. A small corner of the kitchen window would be affected by overshadowing. Only when more than half of a habitable room window falls into shade does the development fail and the therefore warrant refusal. Although there is a slight overshadowing affect on the neighbouring property this is not significant enough to warrant refusal.
(d) It is argued that the single storey extension would not create a security risk as it would not screen the rear of the neighbouring property from anyone. There already exists a high fence between the adjoining properties which would already screen the rear of 17 Dalmore Drive from anywhere on the premises at 15 Dalmore Drive. Furthermore the extension would not screen the majority of the surrounding neighbours thereby not increasing the security risk.
(e) The extension would not remove any of the current car parking area as there is not access to the side of the garden by vehicles and the scale of the rear extension means that it would not project into the rear parking area. As discussed there is adequate area for three car parking spaces however it is felt that through providing this there would be an unacceptable reduction in amenity space. In this instance only 2 car parking spaces are requested. Due to this, it would seem the proposed development has sufficient space for parking which would not be altered by the current proposal and therefore would not be detrimental to road safety.
(9 The property is on the corner and for this reason the front of the extension is set back which allows continued visibility on this corner. The Transportation Section did not note any visibility concerns and therefore it can be argued that the extension would not reduce the visibility splay on this corner.
4.4 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of policies within the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991. The development is acceptable in terms of the scale, design, location, overshadowing, privacy and parking. The extension would integrate well with the existing dwellinghouse. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted subject to the recommended conditions.
88 Application No: C108100433lFUL
Date Registered: 7th April 2008
Applicant: Mr Gordon Kennedy 25 Ballochnie Drive Plains Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7NB
Agent Mr Phi1 Dobbin 36 Craigvale Crescent Airdrie ML6 8EP
Development: Two Storey Side Extension to Dwellinghouse
Location: 25 Ballochnie Drive Plains Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7NB
Ward: 7 Airdrie North Cameron, Sophia Coyle, McGuigan and Morgan
Grid Reference: 278961 667010
File Reference: C/PL/PLB081025000NVSILR
Site History:
Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration) Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations:
Representations: I letter of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
89 90 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5A, 8A, 9A, IOA, 1IA, 12A and the Block Plan
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 25th March 2008
Letter from .J Steele, 23 Ballochnie Drive , Plains , Airdrie , ML6 7NB received 26th March 2008.
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration) Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Williarn Shand at 01236 812231.
Date: 7 May 2008
91 APPLICATION NO. C1081004331FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 The application is for the construction of a two storey side extension to a dwellinghouse at 25 Ballochnie Drive, Plains. The property is a two storey end terraced dwellinghouse which faces south east in direction. The area is predominantly residential with this particular dwellinghouse being situated at the top of a slight slope. The surrounding properties are all similar in height, scale and design. This dwellinghouse differs in that it has a relatively large side garden in comparison to the surrounding properties. The side garden is approximately 3.5 metres wide and at present is used as a driveway.
1.2 The two storey side extension would be set back from the front of the dwellinghouse by 0.5 metres. This would mean that the length of the extension would be 6.8 metres and the width approximately 3.25 metres. The extension would comprise a pend on the ground floor and a bedroom with ensuite on the first floor. The pend would have a width of 3 metres which would be suitable for car parking space. There would be enough space to accommodate three car parking spaces within the curtilage of the property which would be required for a three bedroom dwellinghouse under the current North Lanarkshire Council Parking Standards. There would be a gap of 0.25 metres between the proposed extension and the boundary with the neighbouring property at 23 Ballochnie Drive. Two windows are proposed for the first floor of the extension, one on the front elevation and one on the rear elevation. The window proposed for the rear elevation would be linked to the ensuite and would have obscure glazing. The applicant states that the materials to be used would match those on the existing dwellinghouse.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The relevant development plan is the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006 (Third Alteration) and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
2.2 The proposed development does not have any strategic importance and therefore would not be assessed against the criteria of the Structure Plan.
2.3 The dwellinghouse is located within an area designated as HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) in the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991. Policy HG9 (c) states that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the District Council.
2.4 The Monklands District Council design guidance ‘House Extensions’ is also relevance here. It states that extensions should be positioned so as not to seriously affect the daylight or privacy to neighbouring windows. The extension should be sympathetic to the existing dwellinghouse in terms of size, design and use of materials. Side extensions are acceptable where there is sufficient side garden to allow access to the rear garden.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure 1 letter of representation was received. The terms of objection can be summarised as follows:
(a) The extension would create an overshadowing effect on the neighbouring property.
(b) The extension would overdominate the existing dwellinghouse.
92 (c) The extension would overlook the neighbouring property.
(d) The extension would create a terracing effect as it would be built close to the boundary line.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.2 The proposed development does not contradict the development plan policy for this area. The extension would integrate satisfactorily with the existing building and would not over-dominate the dwellinghouse. It meets the requirements of the design guidance in that it would be sympathetic to the existing dwellinghouse and due to its location would not seriously affect the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing. The inclusion of the pend on the ground floor would allow continued access to the rear garden for the inhabitants of the house with respect to bin storage and general access. With the pend being 3 metres wide it would be adequate to be used for car parking space and due to this 3 car parking spaces can be provided on site. The applicant proposes to use materials on the proposed extension that would match the existing dwellinghouse which would help integrate the extension with the existing structure. The applicant also proposes to step the extension off the front building line to minimise any terracing effect.
4.3 In relation to the ground of objection, the following comments can be noted:
(a) Due to the position of the proposed extension and the position of habitable windows on the neighbouring property there would be no issues regarding over shadowing. The shadow from the proposed extension would fall onto the wall of 23 Ballochnie Drive but would not overshadow any habitable windows of this property.
(b) Although the proposed extension would be two stories in height it would still be relatively minor in scale. Also as it is set off the front of the dwellinghouse by 0.5 metres the proposed extension would be sympathetic to the existing dwellinghouse. The property has a relatively large area of side garden which would allow the extension sufficient area to be accommodated without being overbearing on the neighbouring property. The scale of the overall proposed development is acceptable and therefore it can be concluded that the extension would not overdominate the existing dwellinghouse.
(c) As the proposed windows both face outward onto the applicants property there would be no overlooking issues with the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the rear window on the proposed extension would comprise of obscure glazing which would remove any overlooking issues that there may have been.
(d) The applicant has proposed to step the extension from the front of the dwellinghouse. This would remove any terracing issue if the neighbouring dwellinghouse at 23 Bacllochnie Drive was to extend to the side of their dwellinghouse as there would not be a consistent flat building line on the front elevation.
4.4 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of policies within the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991. The development is acceptable in terms of the scale, design, location, overshadowing, privacy and parking. The extension would integrate well with the existing dwellinghouse. It is therefore recommended that the application be granted subject to the recommended conditions.
93 Application No: C108/00542/AMD
Date Registered: 11th April 2008
Applicant: Universal Land Investments Ltd Unit 6 Russell Street Johnstone PA5 8BX
Agent Planterra 16 St Ninians Lanark MLll 7HX
Development: Residential Development (Amendment to Planning Application C1081000481FUL)
Location: Land At St Monicas RC Church Cumberland Place Kirkwood Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 5RP
Ward: 009 Coatbridge West Councillors Maginnis, Smith and Welsh
Grid Reference: 271594663912
File Reference: C/PUCTC936/LM/LR
Site History: C/08/00048/FUL Residential Development (8 Terraced Dwellinghouses and Parking Court Including Demolition of Disused Church Hall) Granted 13 March 2008
Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B 81 C September 1996: Policy HG9 Existing Residential Areas
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: No letters of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
94 Manning Application No. CdI8m0542iAYD
* Residential Development (Amendment to Planniing Application ~~~8~UL)
95 Recommendation:
1. Refuse for the reason that the proposed development is contrary to the Design Guidance on 'Infill Housing' associated with policy HG9 Existing Residential Areas contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that it would not have the required standard of parking within the site which would result in on street parking to the detriment of road safety.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 11 th April 2008
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Leigh Menzies at 01236 812372.
Date: 8 May 2008
96 APPLICATION NO. C/08/00542/AMD
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 Planning permission is being sought for an amendment to the previously approved erection of 8 terraced dwellinghouses and associated parking court including demolition of an existing church hall within the grounds of St Monicas RC Church, Cumberland Place, Coatbridge.
1.2 The proposed site area extends to approximately 0.13 ha and is located to the north east of the church. The site boundary incorporates part of the existing parking area that serves the church. To the north and east of the site there are areas of existing dwellinghouses.
1.3 The initial proposal, which was granted planning permission on 13 March 2008, involved the erection of eight terraced two storey houses of traditional design served by a new vehicular access off Cumberland Place cul-de-sac, to provide access to a private parking court which would provide a total of 14 off-street car parking spaces. The approved proposal would incorporate a lounge, kitchen/dining area to ground floor and 2 bedrooms and bathroom on the first floor.
1.4 The application currently under consideration is to amend the previous approval by increasing the height of the properties from 7.6 metres to 8.8 metres. This would allow the incorporation of additional accommodation in the attic space, which the applicant had identified as two bedrooms, whilst the accommodation on the first floor has been relabelled as ‘study’ and ‘living room’, with the ground floor accommodation remaining kitchen/dining/living.
2. Development Plan
2.1 Under the terms of the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site falls within an area covered by policy HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas. There are no strategic issues to address.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure no letters of representation were received.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations, In this instance there are no strategic planning issues to address and the proposals require to be assessed under the terms of policy HG9 and the appropriate design guidance on infill housing which is associated with small scale housing development sites. In relation to parking the general principle of this policy is to ensure that adequate parking is provided which is comparative to the type and size of accommodation.
4.2 The principle of the development has been established in terms of the land use by the previous permission, the issue under consideration is whether the additional habitable accommodation within each of the properties could be considered as overdevelopment in relation the ability to provide additional parking.
4.3 The parking standards generally quoted are based on the number of bedrooms contained within a property. The parking standards for the development as originally submitted as two bedroom accommodation should have required the provision of 16 parking spaces, i.e. 2 per dwelling,
97 however only 14 were provided. It is conceded that there is a small shortfall of 2 spaces in terms of the required standards, but it was considered that this was acceptable in this instance.
4.4 In order to determine the appropriate parking requirement in this instance, consideration requires to be given to whether or not, despite the relabelling of the rooms on the first floor, the properties are 2 bedroom as indicated by the applicant or whether they should be considered as 4 bedroom, as the first floor layout has remained relatively unchanged since the previous application.
4.5 Prior to the current submission the applicant approached the planning office and proposed four bedroom properties. At this time the planning office indicated that this would be unacceptable due to the lack of ability to provide adequate parking provision.
4.6 It is considered that although the application indicates that each of the properties would only contain 2 bedrooms, the properties would in fact not be utilised as such. Under the current guidance on parking standards, even if only 1 of the rooms on the first floor was utilised as a bedroom then an additional parking space per property is appropriate. To clarify in properties containing 3 or 4 bedrooms the parking provision should be 3 spaces per dwelling. Relating this to the application, a further 8 spaces would be required, bringing the requisite total to 24. This is far in excess of the 14 currently indicated, and it is considered that there is no material consideration that could justify this significant shortfall. The lack of adequate parking provision would encourage on street parking, which would be to the detriment of road safety.
4.7 In conclusion the proposed development is considered contrary to the development plan as it fails to meet the criteria set out in policy HG9 Existing Housing Areas and the associated design guidance on 'Infill Housing' proposals requiring the provision of adequate parking. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
98 Application No: S/07/02083/FUL
Date Registered: 14th January 2008
Applicant: CRE Energy Ltd Clo Scottish Power Spean Street Glasgow G44 4BE
Agent Sgurrenergy Ltd 79 Coplaw Street Glasgow G42 7JG
Development: Erection of 70m High Wind Monitoring Mast
Location: Land Near Auchterhead Muir Allanton Shotts ML2 9PJ
Ward: 12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson
Grid Reference: 288648655440
File Reference: S/PL/BF/l 7/63/GSM/GF
Site History: None
Development Plan: The site is zoned as ENV 8 Countryside Around Towns in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: Countryside and Landscape Manager (Comments) Conservation and Greening (Comments) Scottish Natural Heritage (Comments) Defence Estate (Safeguarding) (Comments) National Air Traffic Services (Safeguarding) (No objections) Central Scotland Forest Trust (No comments) RSPB (No comments)
Representations: No letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 31st January 2008
99 W 01808 274214r pt~Ol(198 403053
100 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the mast and associated structures hereby permitted shall be removed from the site, and the land restored to its former condition to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, by 22ndOctober 201 1 or within 6 months of the wind survey being completed, whichever is the sooner.
Reason: To accord with the terms of this application and in the interests of visual amenity in this countryside location.
2. That, except for the terms of conditions (3), (4) and (5) below or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the drawing numbers;- MM2/Plan 1, MM2/Plan 2, MM2IPlan 3, MM21Plan4.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
3. That notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, bird deflectors shall be added to the guy ropes and prior to any works commencing on the site revised plans be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise the potential collision risk to birds.
4. That the proposed mast shall be located outwith the areas of deep peat as shown in the Extension ES (Fig 12A.3) of the Technical Appendix to the Black Law Extension Environmental Statement and in a location that minimises the ecological impact and prior to any works commencing on site, the precise siting of the mast and numbers of guy ropes and any associated equipment shall be shown on plans to be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
5. That prior to any works commencing on site, a plan showing the proposed route to the construction site approved under Condition 4 above, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and it shall include:
(a) the means of vehicular access to the site from the public road; (b) the proposed internal route for construction traffic to the construction site; (c) details of the creation of any new access routes or the upgrading of any existing access routes required to reach the construction site; (d) details of the types and numbers of vehicles that will be accessing the construction site; (e) details of the proposed service routes required for future maintenance; (9 details of the proposed methods of reinstatement of the access route to the mast; (9) details of the proposed phasing of these works and the proposed timescales of implementation.
Reason: To protect the woodland and surrounding areas in the interests of nature conservation and to enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance with British Standards BS 5837 shall be erected around any trees which may be adversely affected by the development, and shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority. Details of such locations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the starts of any works on site.
Reason: To minimise the visual impacts of the installation and in the interests of nature conservation.
101 7. That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped or felled, or otherwise affected, without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To minimise the visual impacts of the installation and in the interests of nature conservation.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 20th December 2007
Letter from Defence Estate (Safeguarding) received 25'h March 2008 Letter from Conservation and Greening received 1 IthApril 2008 Letter from Landscape Services Manager received 3" April 2008 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 11" April 2008 Letter from NATS (Safeguarding) received 2"' April 2008 Letter from Central Scotland Forrest Trust received 3m'April 2008
Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 274104.
Date: 14 May 2008
102 APPLICATION NO. S/07/02083/FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 A temporary consent is sought to erect a 70 metre high meteorological mast within land at Auchterhead Muir, Allanton. This would consist of a steel post supported by guy wires with the apparatus for measuring wind on the post. The spread of the guy ropes would be 53 metres by 53 metres. The mast is required by the applicant for a period of 3 years, in order to monitor wind speeds at the site and it will gauge the potential for renewable energy sources at this site. The application site is land within a field and is bounded on all sides by farmland. The site is approximately 700 metres north east of Auchterhead Muir Covenanter's Monument and has to the south the existing Black Law Windfarm and within the extension to that site also being considered in this committee. Access to the site is taken from Spoutcross Farm via Dura Road.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The site is zoned as ENV 8 (Countryside Around Towns) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 The Countryside and Landscape Manager has commented that they have no objections to the development in principle however they have requested a viewpoint of the site in order to assess the visual impact. The Conservation and Greening Manager has no objections in principle to this development. He recommends that disturbance to the ground should be minimised and that areas should be suitably restored.
3.2 SNH have raised no objections to the proposal but have commented that the mast is located in an area of deep peat and they recommend that it be moved further west where peat depths are shallower and to an area outwith the habitat management plan for the Black Law Windfarm. They also commented that flights of geese and peregrine falcons have been recorded in close proximity to the site and recommended that bird deflectors are fitted to the guylines supporting the masts.
3.3 NATS (Safeguading) and the Central Scotland Forest Trust raised no objections to the proposal.
3.4 Defence Estates (Safeguarding) raised no objections to the proposal but requested that the developer notifies the Defence Geographic & Imagery Agency with information such as the precise location of the development, dates of construction, the height of the structure and if the site will be lit, in order that their records can be amended.
3.5 This application was advertised in the Wishaw Press 31" January 2008. No objections have been received as a result of the neighbour notification process.
4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material consideration. The application raises no strategic issues and must be assessed against the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) where the site is zoned as ENV 8 (Countryside Around Towns). The relevant policies are ENV8 and ENV5
103 (Assessment of Environmental Impact).
4.2 Policy ENV 8 permits renewable energy developments within the area zoned as Countryside Around Towns. The proposed development is in compliance with this policy.
4.3 Policy ENV5 states that the council will assess the suitability of a proposal to the character of the area, its landscape and visual impact and the impact on biodiversity. The views of the landscape at this location are characterised by open fields and wind turbines at the neighbouring Blacklaw Windfarm and in light of this the structure is not considered to have a significant impact. The height of the mast is such that it would be visible from a distance however it would be insubstantial in structure and would remain for a temporary period only. The Council’s Community Services Department have requested that they are provided with more details to allow them to assess the visual impact. However, given the temporary period the mast will be in operation and the insubstantial structure this is not considered to be appropriate. SNH have raised concerns over the location of the mast and the impact the mast could have on bird flights. I recommend that conditions are attached allowing the final position of the mast to be approved and another requiring bird deflectors to be installed. It is not considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring the mast to be located outwith the Black Law Habitat Management Area as this would be the site of a future planning application for the extension to the existing wind farm. In order to minimise the impact of this mast however I recommend that the mast be located outwith the areas of deep peat as shown on the Extension ES (Fig 12A.3). I do not consider that the countryside location, existing natural habitat or landscape character of this site would be compromised by the proposal. Consequently the proposal accords with policy ENVS.
4.4 In conclusion I am satisfied that the impact of the wind monitoring mast is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in accordance with policies ENV 8 and ENV 5 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). For the reasons stated above it is recommended that temporary planning permission be granted for a period of 3 years subject to conditions.
104 Application No: S/08/00188/FUL
Date Registered: 8th April 2008
Applicant: IN1 Enterprises 7 Chapmans Court Wishaw ML2 7PQ
Agent AA Neil Architects 72 Berkeley Street Glasgow G3 7DS
Development: Siting of Storage Container (In Retrospect)
Location: 159 A-F Netherton Road Netherton Wishaw ML2 OAR
Ward: 20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland
Grid Reference: 277972654509
File Reference: S/PL/BF/2/6/KD/GF
Site History: Planning permission granted for shopping development (including hot food shop) in August 1984 Application No. 320184 S/97/10097/FUL Change of Use from Retail Shop to Hot Food Takeaway Shop - Approved 17th April 1997 S/03/00756/FUL Extension to Shop - Approved 5th February 2004 S/04/01643/AMD Amendment to Car Park/Service Yard Layout of Consent No. S/03/00756/FUL -Approved 20th December 2004 S/05/00098/FUL Extension to Shop Premises to Form Hot Food Takeaway - Refused 24th June 2005, Allowed on Appeal on 24th November 2005 S/05/01311/FUL Erection of Single Storey Extension to Rear of Shop Premises - Refused 19th September 2005 Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy RTL 6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan (Modified 2001,2004 and 2005)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 3 letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
105 Produced by PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I08 loo188 I FUL North Lamrkontre Council Environmetltal Sewices Depamnent, SITING OF STORAGE CONTAINER ( IN RETROSPECT) 159 A - F, NETHERTON ROAD, WISHAW.
Representations tal01698 274274v pax 01698 403053
106 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-
1, That the proposed storage container located to the rear of 159 A-F Netherton Road is contrary to Policy TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as it is considered to have a significantly detrimental impact upon the service area which is likely to lead to conflict between servicing and customer vehicles within the car park or access road to the detriment of pedestrian and traffic safety. Furthermore, an approval of this storage container would set an undesirable precedent for other developments within the service area.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 7" February 2008
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 7'h May 2008
Letter from K Gregor, 11 Saffron Crescent, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OFA received 1 IthFebruary 2008 Letter from L Forrester, 13 Saffron Crescent, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OFA received 14" February 2008 Letter from Catherine Kennedy, Hair By Chas, 159D Netherton Road, Netherton, Wishaw, ML2 OAR received 27th February 2008
Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01698 274107.
Date: 14 May 2008
107 APPLICATION NO. S/08/00188/FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for the siting of a storage container at 159 A-F Netherton Road, Wishaw.
1.2 The application site is the service yard to the Netherton Shops, 159 A-F Netherton Road which comprises of a row single storey shops fronting onto Netherton Road, including a Post Office, Licensed Grocers, Tanning Salon, Hairdressers, and two hot food takeaways. The application site is bounded to the south by a private residential development. To the east of the site is an area of vacant land, for which an application for the erection of 17 flats has been submitted for consideration (Planning Ref S/05/00029/FUL).
1.3 The storage container measures 2.5 metres in width by 9 metres in length, 2.6 metres in height and has a footprint of 22.5 square metres. This is located in the south eastern corner of the service area and is used for the storage of non-hazardous materials.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The site lies within an area covered by Policy RTL 6 ((Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 The Transportation Section has been consulted in relation to the application and has recommended refusal on the grounds that if this proposal were to be approved, given the location of the container, this would inhibit the use of the service area and restrict access to the post office at 159a.
3.2 Three letters of representation was received from members of the public in response to the proposed development and their views are summarised as follows:
1) The storage container has been in place since December 2007 and has resulted in a significant increase in noise levels, due to the opening and shutting of its doors at all hours day and night. This is unacceptable in a residential area.
2) Due to its size, bright colour and poor condition, the container is not in keeping with and has a detrimental impact on the commercial and residential area.
3) Query regarding what is stored in the container, e.g. any flammable liquids, fireworks etc., as it located close to residential properties.
4) The container has a detrimental impact on the service area, directly affecting access and the circulation of delivery vehicles to other shops. Also potential for damage to adjacent properties should there be an accident.
5) The location of the container may result in an increase in criminal activity by making access to adjacent properties easier.
6) Plans are not accurate as the existing extension to the applicant's shop is not shown.
108 7) One of the objectors has previously been refused permission to extend their shop due to the impact on the service area.
3.3 A site visit and hearing has been requested by one objector
4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusion
4.1 The proposal requires to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. The application is not of strategic significance and requires to be assessed against Local Plan policies. In this instance the terms of policies RTL 6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the emerging Southern Area Local Plan are relevant.
4.2 Policy RTL 6 identifies that the application site is located with a neighbourhood commercial area, where the policy seeks to support existing retail, office and ancillary uses, so long as development is of an appropriate scale commensurate with and does not affect the character and amenity of the nature of the area within which is set. It is considered that the proposal is incidental to the existing use on the existing group of shops. It is acknowledged that the condition and colour of the container make it an overly obtrusive feature in close proximity to the adjacent houses. Subject to conditions, to require the painting of the container in a muted colour, a close board fence is erected and the container is repositioned, I would be satisfied that the storage unit would not have a detrimental impact on the character or visual amenity of the area. Therefore, the siting of the storage container could be made to accord with this policy.
4.3 In assessing the transportation implications of a development, Policy TR13 is applicable and states that the Council will take account of criteria including: the impact of the development on road traffic circulation/road safety and the provision made for access, parking, and vehicle manoeuvring. As indicated in paragraph 3.1, the Transportation Team Leader objects to the application as this would compound an already difficult situation and the storage container in the rear service area has a detrimental effect on the use and function of the service area. This restricts the practical operation of the site in terms of the manoeuvring of vehicles in the service yard and the vehicle turning head which is likely to encourage servicing being carried out from within the car park and site access rather than the service bay. This would have implications not only for the safe operation of the site but also the safety of users of the adjacent public road. As such the development is considered to be contrary to policy TR13 in that the container has an adverse effect on the use and function of the service area to the detriment of pedestrian and road safety.
4.4 In relation to the points of objection, I would comment as follows:-
Noise is primarily controlled by Environmental Health Legislation, however given that the proposal is located in a service area; the noise from the storage container would be no more than the noise generated from deliveries and associated operations of the other commercial units. Therefore I am satisfied that the proposal should not significantly affect the level of amenity currently enjoyed by the neighbouring residents.
The siting of the storage container is considered to be in keeping with the nature of the area subject to conditions recommending that required the container be finished in a dark brown colour, a close board fence is erected and the container is repositioned, as discussed in paragraph 4.2 above.
The applicant has confirmed that the storage container is required for the purpose of general storage excluding hazardous materials.
109 4) In relation to the impact on the service area, this has been discussed in paragraph 4.3 above and it is considered that the container affects deliveries to the commercial properties.
5) The container is located with a secured service yard which should act as a deterrent to any criminal activity.
6) While I appreciate that the existing extension is not indicated on the 1:1250 location, I can confirm that the extension to the applicant’s shop is shown on the 1500 block plan.
7) Given the location of the container in the service area, this results in a similarly undesirable impact on the service area as the previously refused shop extension (S/05/01311/FUL), as discussed in 4.3 above.
4.5 In conclusion, the siting of the storage container within the existing service area has a significantly detrimental effect on the use and function of the service area to the detriment of pedestrian and road safety. Furthermore, an approval of this storage container would set an undesirable precedent for other developments within the service area to its detriment. Taking the above reasons into consideration, it is considered that development is contrary to policy TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), it is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.
110 Application No:
Date Registered: 14th March 2008
Applicant: Miss A Quinn 37 Adele Street Motherwell MLI 2QF
Agent Apex Drawing Services 4 Gala Crescent Wishaw ML2 7JS
Development: Subdivision of and Extension to Existing House to Create Two Houses
Location: 37 Adele Street Motherwell MLI 2QF
Ward: 18 Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig: Councillors Harmon, Lunny, McKay and Valentine
Grid Reference: 275612655819
File Reference: SIPLIB F112161AMCL1G F
Site History: S/06/01401/OUT Erection of Dwellinghouse (in outline) refused 18th December 2006, dismissed at appeal 14th August 2007
Development Plan: Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 2 letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
111 112 2. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.
3. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers:- PL.BP Rev A, PL.01, PL.02, PL.03, PL.04, PL.05, PL.06, PL.08, PL.09, PL.10, PL.11, PL.12, PL.15 all of Job No. 07.21, and other plans stamped approved as part of this permission.
Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.
4. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, 3 off-street car parking spaces shall be provided within the site for each dwelling house, as described on the approved plans and shall, thereafter, be maintained as car parking spaces.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.
5. That before the dwellinghouse hereby permitted is occupied, dropped kerb vehicular accesses shall be constructed in the positions shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the specifications of the Roads Authority and as described in the Roads Guidelines published by the said Roads Authority.
Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.
6. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is brought into use, a 2 metre high screen fence shall be erected along the area of the boundary marked orange on the approved plans.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the adjacent property.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 1Oth March 2008 Amended plans received 2"d May 2008
Memo from Transportation Team Leader, received 6'h May 2008
Letters from Mrs E Inglis, 35 Adele Street, Motherwell, ML1 2QF received 8" and 28'h April 2008 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alistair Maclean at 01698 274105.
Date: 14 May 2008
113 APPLICATION NO. S/08/0035O/FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 Planning permission is sought for the extension and subdivision of a detached dwelling house at 37 Adele Street, Motherwell into two semi-detached dwelling houses. The present house is an attractive single storey house with a dormer to the front. It has two public rooms, two bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and utility room on the ground floor and a further bedroom on the upper floor. Parking is provided by a double garage to the rear of the property accessed via George Street.
1.2 The proposal is to construct an extension projecting 6 metres to the rear of the dwelling. The rear extension would be pitched roof, one and a half storey. No higher than the roof height of the existing house. The only change to the front of the house would involve adding a second door in place of a ‘porthole’ window, removal of the front dormer and the installation of two rooflights. Each of the proposed houses would contain lounge, bedroom, bathroom, kitchenldining and utility rooms on the ground floor and three bedrooms on the upper floor.
1.3 The application site is bound on all sides by existing residential properties. The surrounding area is characterised by detached and semi-detached properties set in large gardens.
1.4 An outline application was for an additional dwelling in the back garden, accessed from George Street, was refused by the Council on 18‘h December 2006 and later dismissed at appeal.
2. DeveloPment Plan
2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing) in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 The Transportation Team Leader has no objections to the application subject to a number of conditions. He stated that the pedestrian access fronting Adele Street should be moved away from the corner of George Street; the proposed driveway should not be gated, that three parking spaces are required for each of the houses and that the existing garage would not be practical as there would be insufficient space in front.
3.2 There has been one letter of objection received following neighbour notification procedures. The points of objection can be summarised as follows: (i) the side door and two windows on the side elevation of the proposed extension would look directly into the living quarters and will overlook the objector’s property, in particular the kitchen and living areas, and will result in loss of privacy; (ii) the size of the extension will be out of scale with the existing property, thus overwhelming an adjacent property. It would not be in accordance with the early construction types of the existing houses and will not be aesthetically pleasing; (iii) the extension will cast shadows over the living area of the adjacent property and may affect the market value of that property.
114 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. This application raises no strategic issues and therefore requires to be assessed against Local Plan policies. The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant in which the site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).
4.2 Policy HSG8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects the amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSGl3 (Housing Extensions). The proposal to extend the house and add an additional dwelling house is acceptable in principle. The impact of the extension of the property is dealt with in the following paragraph. I consider that, in general terms, the proposal complies with Policy HSG8.
4.3 Policy HSG13 states that consideration is to be given to the following, amongst other things:
The size, proportion and positioning of the extension; the provision of private garden ground; impact on the street scene; relationship to neighbouring properties, effect on privacy, sunlight and daylight; parking provision, access and road safety, external finish and design details.
In assessing the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area it should be noted that the housing in the area is a mix of single, one and a half and two storeys in height comprising mostly semi-detached dwellings and detached dwellings. The subdivision of the house will cause very little change to the streetscene of Adele Street as described in paragraph 1.2 above. The extension, also described in paragraph 1.2, will not be incongruous in terms of size or design. The footprint of the existing house and proposed extension will be similar to the immediately adjacent semi-detached pair of houses and other houses in the immediate area. The proposal meets Council standards in terms of rear garden depth and size and sufficient parking can be provided. External finishes to the proposed extension are not detailed and a condition is proposed in this respect. The effects on privacy, sunlight and daylight are dealt with more fully in paragraph 4.5 below and are considered acceptable. Overall, it is considered that the proposals comply with Policy HSGI 1.
4.4 In assessing the transportation implications of a development, Policy TR13 is a material consideration and states that the Council will take account of various criteria including the impact of the development on road traffic circulationhoad safety and the provision made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. Amended plans have been submitted addressing the issues raised by my Transportation Team Leader. The proposal therefore accords with Policy TRI 3
4.5 In relation to the points of objection, I would comment as follows:-
i. the height of the proposed extension will not exceed the height of the existing house; there will be an element of overlooking by kitchen and one bedroom window at ground floor level; although the angles are oblique, I propose a condition that the existing fence between nos. 35 and 37 be increased in height in order to screen any overlooking. It is proposed that two windows will be placed on the upper floor of the gable wall, one of which is an en-suite window, the other a bedroom window, however neither will cause any overlooking issues due to considerable distance to any opposing windows. A number of ‘Velux’ style windows are proposed which again would create no overlooking issues; ii. the extension proposes to extend the footprint of the building by approximately 50 per cent which will be in line with the footprint of the pair of adjacent semi-detached houses; the design will be not be incongruous with the surrounding area;
115 iii. there are presently two windows on the side of the objector’s property however a sunlightldaylight test shows they will be unaffected by overshadowing; the potential effect on market value is not a material planning consideration.
4.6 In conclusion, the application is considered to be in accord with Policies HSG8, HSG13 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the proposal would result in a development that would be in character with the surrounding area, provide adequate garden ground, and parking. Taking Local Plan policies into consideration and notwithstanding the objection, I recommend that planning permission be granted.
4.7 Please note that the objector has requested that the committee conduct a Site Visit before deciding the application.
116 Application No: S1081003721FUL
Date Registered: 28th March 2008
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Brian McCusker 16 Thomson Drive Bellshill ML4 3ND
Agent N/A
Development: Erection of Two Storey Extension to Side and Rear of Dwellinghouse
Location: 16 Thomson Drive Bellshill ML4 3ND
Ward: 13 Thorniewood: Councillors Burrows, McCabe and McShannon
271700 660 415 OS Map Ref File Reference:
Site History: None
Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 1 letter of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
Recommendation:Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwellinghouse.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
3. That, except as may otherwise be 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 of which this approval of permission is founded.
117 118 Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 1Oth March 2008 Amended plans received 28'h April 2008
1 Letter from Mr and Mrs Ward, 14 Thomson Drive, Bellshill, ML4 3ND received on 25'h March 2008
Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Colin Campbell on 01698 274 118
Date: 14 May 2008
119 APPLICATION NO. S1081003721FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.I This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two storey extension to the side and rear of 16 Thomson Drive, Bellshill. The application property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse and is bound by dwellings on all sides apart from the west which is a playground.
1.2 The extension would project 3.6 metres from the rear and be the full width of the existing house with a pitched roof tying to the existing roof at 90 degrees to the house. The proposed side extension on the east gable would be constructed above the existing garage (which will be retained). It will consist of a pitched roof to match and tie in with the existing roof. The extension will be finished in materials to match the existing house. The extension will create a family room, an extension to the existing kitchen, and an extension to two existing bedrooms.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 No consultations were required.
3.2 One letter of representation was received from the owners of number 14 Thomson Drive. Their objections can be summarised as follows:
i. The proposal will cause restriction of light and have a detrimental affect on an already poorly lit kitchen. The objector also faces the prospect of being no more than eight feet from a forty foot tall brick construction which would be extremely unsightly. ii. The proposal may cause a loss of direct sunlight to the rear of the property, which has been decked at considerable cost. iii. The proposal will look out of proportion to the rest of the properties in the street. iv. In the past the rear of the objector’s property has suffered from drainage problems which resulted in extra pipes being fitted and the proposed building work would have an adverse effect on this. v. With all the building work there will be a certain level of disruption which could drag on for a long time due to the scale of the proposal. Also there are concerns that the mono blocked drive at the front of 14 Thomson Drive and the boundary fence at the rear may be damaged during construction.
4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. This application is not of strategic significance and requires to be assessed in terms of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).
4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (Established Housing Areas).
4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to
120 privacy, daylightlsunlight and parking provision and access.
4.4 With regards to size and scale, the extension is considered to integrate satisfactorily with the house and not dominate it. The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing house and other properties in the vicinity, some of which also have 2 storey extensions. The application site has an adequate garden area and overall plot size with a rear garden length of approximately 7.5 metres remaining after the proposed extension. It is considered that there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained.
4.5 With regards to the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties the proposal contains a blank gable end facing the neighbouring dwellinghouse at 14 Thomson Drive so there will be no overlooking or privacy issues. With regards to privacy issues at 2 Crighton Wynd, the proposed rear extension measures only a 10 metre distance from the gable of the property, however, the facing windows at the overlooking property are not any major rooms in the house such as living or bedrooms which will be acceptable in terms of privacy. In relation to sunlightldaylight and the impact on the neighbouring dwellinghouse at 14 Thomson Drive a sunlightldaylight test has confirmed that the levels of sunlight and daylight received by the neighbouring property will still be acceptable. A detailed sunlightldaylight test revealed that pre- development sunlight received is 73%; post- development sunlight received would be 53%. The minimum requirement for sunlight is 25% so even though the proposal reduces the level of sunlight received, the proposed level is above the minimum requirement. The results also revealed that pre-development daylight received is 22.5% and post- development daylight received would be 9%. The minimum requirement for daylight received is 27%, so even though the proposal reduces the level of daylight received as the amount of pre-development daylight is already lower than the minimum requirement, Parking and access are unaffected by the proposal as the existing garage and 2 off street parking spaces are to be retained.
4.6 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:
i&ii Although the extension is close to the neighbouring boundary, the distance is deemed acceptable. SunlighVdaylight will not be altered to an unacceptable level as indicated above. iii As indicated in Paragraph 4.4 the proposed extension is in keeping with the style and materials of the existing property and the design is not over dominant in relation to the size and scale of the extension and others in the vicinity. iv The potential impact of the drainage on the objectors property is not a material consideration. v Concerns regarding disruption from construction is not a material planning consideration.
4.9 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with Policies HSG 8 and HSG 3 of the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
121 Application No: SI081004 1SIFUL
Date Registered: 18th March 2008
Applicant: Mrs Rauaq 43 Alexander Gibson Way Motherwell MLI 3FA
Development: Erection of Shed to Rear of Dwellinghouse
Location: 43 Alexander Gibson Way Motherwell MLI 3FA
Ward: 16 Motherwell West: Councillors Kelly, Ross and Valentine
Grid Reference: 274682656454
File Reference: SIPLIBFII 317lGSMlGF
Site History: None
Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 2 letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That, except as may otherwise be 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 of which this approval of permission is founded.
3, That the use of the shed hereby permitted shall be restricted to private use incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse on the site and no commercial activity shall be carried out, in, or from, the garage.
Reason: To protect the amenity of the surrounding residential area.
122 i '. j: 1-, PLANNING APPLICATION No. SI 08 I0041 13 I FUL ERECTION OF SHEDTO REAR OF WrlELLINC?HOUSE
OALEWNMR GlRSON WAY, MOTHERWELL. * ~eprmntation
123 4. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 18'h March 2008
Letter from Lynn And Robert Sanders, 41 Alexander Gibson Way, Motherwell, MLI 3FA received loth April 2008 2 Letters from Lorraine Faloon & Garry Faloon, 45 Alexander Gibson Way, Motherwell, MLI 3FA received 10Ih and 2gthApril 2008
Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 274104.
Date: 14 May 2008
124 APPLICATION NO. S10810041 SIFUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection a domestic shed to the rear of 43 Alexander Gibson Way, Motherwell. The outbuilding would be 5.5 metres in length, 3 metres in width with a height of 2.5 metres.
1.2 The application property is a one and a half storey detached dwellinghouse and is bound by dwellings to the north, east and south with Strathclyde Hospital to the west.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 No consultations were required.
3.2 Two letters of representation were received from the owners of number 41 and 45 Alexander Gibson way, Motherwell. Their objections can be summarised as follows:
I. The applicant has changed their rear garden considerably by removing a mature tree, raising the level of garden and creating a patio, erecting two sheds, converting their integral garage and erecting a conservatory. The applicant did not seek planning permission for the existing shed or a previous shed and the proposed shed represents overdevelopment of the site. ii. The size and scale is very large for a garden shed and in line with the size of a garage. The use of the previous outbuildings has caused a considerable amount of noise and disturbance at all hours and the purpose of this large shed is not purely domestic but shall be used for business and as a workshop. Furthermore the nature of the building ensures that the construction materials are likely to be basic. This is not suitable for the surrounding residential area. iii. The existing shed is uns ightly and the proposed shed would adversely affect the objector’s views from their main living area. This type of shed is not in keeping with the surrounding area and it would cause an adverse visual impact. iv. The proposal would overshadow the objector’s properties. These dwellings already have diminished light due to protected trees to the rear of these properties. V. The application property would retain very little garden ground and further development would cause a fire hazard due to the proximity to other buildings and restriction on access. The plans are out of scale and it is not clear that there will be enough land to erect a shed of the proportions shown. The plans are misleading as there will be very little garden ground retained post development. vi. The distance from the outbuilding to the boundary fence between 41 and 43 Alexander Gibson Way is unacceptable and the level difference at 41 Alexander Gibson Way ensures that should the proposal be granted the objectors on either side of the application site would have to increase the height of their fence. vii. The development will only affect the two houses on either side. As the property to the front and hospital to the rear have not objected does this mean therefore that the objections will be less likely to succeed?
125 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. This application is not of strategic importance and therefore requires to be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).
4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (House Extensions). 4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylightlsunlight and parking provision and access.
4.4 In relation to size and scale this dwelling has a conservatory and lean to shed to the side of the house at present and the outbuilding proposed is large however it is not considered to represent overdevelopment or be over dominant in relation to the existing property. The outbuilding would not project significantly higher than the existing boundary fence and would therefore not be visually prominent.
4.5 Approximately 68 square metres of private garden ground will be retained post development. It is therefore considered that there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained. 4.6 With no windows proposed the outbuilding does not raise any adverse overlooking issues. In relation to the impact on the sunlight and daylight received by neighbouring properties the outbuilding would be north of 41 Alexander Gibson Way therefore there will not be any adverse overshadowing of this property. In relation to the dwellinghouse at 45 Alexander Gibson Way the shed would be 9 metres away from this dwellinghouse therefore the impact of the proposal on overshadowing of this property would not be significant.
4.7 The proposed outbuilding will have no impact on parking provision, access or road safety as it is located in the rear garden.
4.8 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:
I. I acknowledge that the applicant has carried out the described works in their garden and as a result of the conservatory and shed this proposed outbuilding requires planning permission. However, as discussed in paragraph 4.4 I do not consider this to be overdevelopment. ii. As discussed in paragraph 4.4 the size of and scale of the shed is considered to be acceptable. The applicant has confirmed that the shed would be used for domestic purposes only. With regards to the times that the applicant uses the shed this is not something that can be reasonably controlled by planning conditions. In relation to the materials that the shed is likely to be constructed with, its location in the rear garden ensures that it will not be prominent and the visual impact on the surrounding residential area will not be significant and a condition is recommended requiring approval of the ... construction materials. Ill. The existing shed is located to the side of the dwellinghouse and is not higher than the existing timber boundary fence and did not require planning permission. In relation to the visual impact as discussed in paragraph 4.4 this is not considered to be significant and the impact on the objector's view from their property is not a material planning consideration. iv. As discussed in paragraph 4.6 the proposed outbuilding will not have a significant impact
126 on the sunlight and daylight received by the neighbouring properties. V. As discussed in paragraph 4.5 the application property is considered to retain an adequate amount of private garden ground post development. 1 acknowledge that the submitted plans are not to scale however the dimensions have been given and the proposal has been assessed on site and the proposal scaled on a map, therefore this has not prevented the proper assessment of the application. vi. The position of the shed in relation to the boundary is considered to be minimal as the highest point of proposed outbuilding is only marginally higher than existing fences. The impact of the shed on causing the neighbours to increase the height of their boundary fence is not a material planning consideration. vii. Every objection received is judged on its own merits and while other notified neighbours did not object to this application that will not prejudice my recommendation.
4.9 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the shed is acceptable from a planning viewpoint and that the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
4.10 It should be noted that the objectors have requested that a site visit be conducted prior to a decision being made on the application.
127 Application No: S/08/00478/OUT
Date Registered: 1st April 2008
Applicant: Margaret Frame Clo GL Hearn
Agent GL Hearn 16 Gordon Street Glasgow G1 3PT
Development: Construction of Dwellinghouse
Location: Land To The West Of 501 Wishaw Road Bogside ML2 8EY
Ward: 19 Murdostoun: Councillors Martin, McKendrick, Shevlin and Taggart
Grid Reference: 282724653884
File Reference: S/PL/BF/3/92/EMUGF
Site History: No relevant site History
Development Plan: The site is zoned as ENV6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Contrary to Development Plan: Yes
Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (No Objections)
Representations: No letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 9th April 2008
Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
1. The proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policy set out in Strategic Policy 1, of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2006, Policy ENV 6 and HSG 12 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), and national planning policy contained in SPP 21 (Green Belts) in that it constitutes an additional dwellinghouse in the Green Belt where there is no justification in terms of agriculture, forestry, outdoor leisure or recreation.
2. The proposed development would be an incongruous urban extension into the open Green Belt setting and would set an undesirable precedent for further linear intrusion into the Greenbelt at this location.
128 1578m
Produced by North Lanarkshire Council PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I08 / 00478 I OUT ErwimnmentalServices Departmet, CONSTRUCTIONOF DWELLINGHOUSE
LAND WEST OF 501 WISHAW ROAD, WSHAW.
WO1698 274274v fax 01698 403053
129 3. That the proposal is contrary to Policies HSG 12 (Housing in the Countryside and Green Belt) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the development would be detrimental to road safety in that it would create an additional access on to a de-restricted section of A-class road giving rise to additional braking and turning manoeuvres to the detriment of road safety.
Note to Committee:
If granted this application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 as the proposed development constitutes a significant departure from the Development Plan.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 1St April 2008
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 7'h May 2008 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 24" April 2008 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received gthApril 2008 Letter from Scottish Water received 12'h May 2008
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01698 2741 13.
Date: 14 May 2008
130 APPLICATION NO. S/08/00478/OUT
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.I The applicant seeks outline planning permission for the erection of a dwellinghouse at land to the west of 501 Wishaw Road, Bogside, Wishaw.
1.2 The application site is a rectangular shaped area of land measuring 720 square metres and lies between 499 and 501 Wishaw Road. The site is bounded by open space to the west and north and by 501 Wishaw Road to the east. It should be noted that 499 is surrounded by substantial grounds and is set well back from the road and row of dwellings (517 to 501 Wishaw Road) which form the linear development of the settlement. The adjoining dwellings are predominantly single storey detached dwellings with a building line fairly close to the footway. The site is fairly level comprising grassland and incorporates a hedgegrow and fence forming the southern boundry adjacent to Wishaw Road.
1.3 A supporting statement has been submitted on behalf of the applicant in respect of the proposed development. This details the relevant development plan policies, the wider material considerations and a copy of an appeal decision P/PPA/320/231 at Greengairs Road, Greengairs. The relevant points will be assessed within Section 4 below. The main points made in support of the application are:
a) The site is contained by existing built development and is an infill development. The proposed development is therefore not contrary to the aims of the policies contained within the Development Plan or Scottish Planning Policy. b) Precedent has been set by previous approvals of dwellings in the Greenbelt such as application S/05/00149/FUL at 279 Main Street, Bogside. c) The proposed development complies with the councils open space guidelines.
2. Development Plan
2.1 Strategic Policy 1 in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2006 is applicable in this case. This states a presumption against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside.
2.2 The application site is zoned as Green Belt in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964.
2.3 The site is identified as Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Rewesentations
3.1 My Transportation Team leader has recommended refusal of the application as the proposals would create an additional access on to a de-restricted section of A-class road giving rise to additional braking and turning manoeuvres to the detriment of road safety.
3.2 My Protective Services Team Leader has no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the requirement for a site investigation report.
3.3 Scottish Natural Heritage has offered no objections to the proposed development and comments that the loss of this area of improved grassland is not considered to have any
131 significant ecological implications.
3.4 Scottish Water have no objection to the proposed development.
4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.2 Strategic Policy 1 of the Structure Plan requires the continued designation and safeguarding of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Green Belt within which there is a presumption against the spread of built up areas and encroachment into the countryside. The Southern Area Local Plan defines physical Green Belt boundaries in this area.
4.3 This application requires to be assessed against the Development Plan. The proposal is not of strategic significance with relevant policies being ENVG (Green Belt) and HSG12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005. The Central Industrial Area Part Development 1964 also zones the site as Green Belt, but is significantly out of date.
4.4 Policy ENVG presumes against development that will affect the character and function of the Green Belt, within which there is a presumption against development other than directly associated with an appropriate rural use. Policy HSG12 indicates that new houses will only be permitted where there is a proven operational need in accordance with Policy ENV6. This policy also sets criteria for assessing new housing applications, including visual prominence of the site, design issues, vehicular access and site drainage. While there is a small group of dwellings close to this location, the application site lies within an open field which currently contributes positively to the purposes of the Green Belt. The applicant has provided supporting information to justify a new dwelling at this Green Belt location, however it is not considered that sufficient weight has been shown to warrant approval contrary to the development plan which is considered further in paragraph 4.9 below. Subsequently, the application is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to the primary requirements of policies ENVG and HSG12 of the Southern Area Local Plan on safeguarding the Green Belt.
4.5 Policies HSG12 and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) both consider roads and transportation issues. While adequate parking can be provided within the plot, wider negative road safety issues are raised by my Transportation Team Leader, as set out in paragraph 3.1 above. The road safety problems associated with the access and egress of the site onto a derestricted section of A-class road to the detriment of road safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy TR 13 and I conclude that the road safety concerns with the proposal to be sufficient to warrant separate reasons for refusal of the application.
4.6 Relevant national planning policy is contained firstly in Scottish Planning Policy 1 (The Planning System) and Scottish Planning Policy 21 (Green Belts). SPPl does not preclude appropriate Green Belt development but seeks to promote brownfield development and minimise development in the Green Belt. SPP21 states that there will be a strong presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt. Where a proposed use would not normally be consistent with green belt designation, exceptionally it may still be considered appropriate, either as a national priority or to meet an established need. No such justification has been submitted and it is therefore considered the application does not meet the requirements of SPP21 “Green Belts”. Furthermore SPP 15 “Planning For Rural Development” also states that Green Belts will continue to presume against most new development and play a key role in maintaining the setting and separation of towns and cities. Any proposals to release land for development, which is currently designated as Green Belt, should be part of a longer term
132 strategic policy and set out in the development plan. The proposed development does not fall within the criteria set out in both SPP21 and SPP15 and as such is considered contrary to this national planning policy.
4.7 In response to the submitted supporting information I would make the following comments:-
a) The contention that the dwelling should be considered as infill development is not accepted. The current linear development of dwellings from 517 to 501 form the basis of the settlement which effectively ends at 501 Wishaw Road. 499 Wishaw Road is then separated and set back from this grouping with open ground thereby signalling the separation of this dwelling from the settlement. The proposed dwelling is therefore considered to be an extension to the existing settlement rather than infill development.
b) The previous approval by the council at 279 Main Street, Bogside (Application S/05/00149/FUL) is not considered to offer justification as the circumstance of that application are not the same as the applicants current application. That particular application involved the infill of a gap site between two existing properties in the settlement and was therefore considered to be an acceptable infill development. The present proposals are an extension of the settlement into the Green Belt which would set an undesirable precedent for further linear intrusion into the Greenbelt.
c) The proposed developments compliance with the councils open space guidelines is accepted but does not outweigh the other planning considerations in the assessment of the proposals.
4.8 In conclusion, taking the provisions of the development plan and all material considerations into account, it is considered that the proposed dwelling has no appropriate justification in terms of its Green Belt location and would have a detrimental impact upon road safety. The application is contrary to policies ENVG, HSG12 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) and would set an undesirable precedent for further linear intrusion into the Greenbelt at this location. I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused.
133 Application No: Sl08/00488/FUL
Date Registered: 1st April 2008
Applicant: Benhar Developments 1A Melville Terrace Stirling FK8 2ND
Agent Dalziel Design 136 Coursington Road Mothetwell MLI 1PW
Development: Change of Use of Industrial Site to Builders Merchant Yard and Construction of Builders Merchant WarehouselSaleslOffice Building
Location: Land South Of 5 School Road Newmains ML2 9BE
Ward: 19 Murdostoun: Councillors Martin, McKendrick, Shevlin and Taggart
Grid Reference: 282094 655736
File Reference: S/P L/BF/3/72/GORL/G F
Site History: S/03/00255/OUT Residential Development (in outline) Approved 18th June 2003 S/04/02237/OUT Residential Development in Outline Refused 29th August 2005 S/05/02118/FUL Erection of 18 Dwellinghouses Withdrawn 30th January 2006
Development Plan: The site is zoned as IND8 (Established Industrial Business Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Contrary to Development Plan: No
Consultations: None
Representations: 3 letters of representation received
Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required
134 135 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. That before any works start on site, a plan detailing all areas of outdoor storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this shall include a schedule of the different materials to stored externally and their specific locations and heights.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
3. That external material storage shall at all times be in accordance with details agreed under the terms of condition 2 above unless otherwise approved in writing beforehand by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To maintain control over external material storage in the interest of visual amenity.
4. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, 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 and turning facilities within the site.
5. That a scheme for the continued control, mitigation and monitoring of potential dust pollution shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of work on site and the scheme shall be in operation before the development hereby approved starts trading.
Reason: In the interests of public health and general amenity.
6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the colour of the external cladding for the walls and roof of the building shall be a muted tone, for example grey or green.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and to ensure the proposed building integrates satisfactorily in the streetscene.
7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and for the avoidance of doubt, this shall include closeboarded fencing along the boundaries marked BLUE on the approved plans.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in the interest of the amenity of neighbouring residents.
8. That before the development hereby approved starts, a scheme of landscaping for the areas hatched GREEN on the approved plans, 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;
136 (b) a scheme of tree screen planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted;
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.
9. That within 6 months of the site coming into use, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 8 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity.
10. That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in terms of the relevant ClRlA Manual and other advice published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). If the site layout requires to be amended as a result of the drainage infrastructure, an amended application shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater.
11. That the building hereby approved and associated yard (including the existing building to be retained) shall be used solely as a builders merchant with ancillary retail sales relating only to that use, unless otherwise firstly agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. The sales office and showroom shall be limited solely to the area detailed on the approved plans (HATCHED YELLOW) unless otherwise firstly agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the Planning Authority can retain control over the extent of retail sales from the site in the interest of maintaining the site's industrial status, protecting the integrity of local plan policy on retail and in the interest of the amenity of the area.
12. That BEFORE any works of any description start on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, 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.
Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future occupants.
13. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 12, shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible 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 that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future occupants.
137 14. That the design, installation and operation of any air conditioning/ventilation or other plant for the proposed development and any other noise associated with the use of the site as a builders merchant shall be such as will not give rise to a noise level, assessed with the windows open, within any dwelling or noise sensitive buildings in excess of the equivalent to Noise Rating Curve (N.R.C.) 35 between 07.00 hours and 20.00 hours and N.R.C. 25 at all other times.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of adjoining dwellinghouses.
15. That no burning of materials shall take place from any point within the site.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of adjoining dwellinghouses.
16. That before the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance with British Standard BS 5837 shall be erected within the site along the drip line of any trees which overhang the application site, details and a plan of which shall be submitted to the Planning Authority before the development commences on site, and the protection measures shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to safeguard the adjacent trees, in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
17. That the opening hours of the premises hereby granted planning permission shall be limited to between 8.00am to 6.00pm on Mondays to Saturdays; and 9.00am to 1.OOpm on Sundays.
Reason: In order to protect the amenity of adjoining neighbours.
18. That before development hereby permitted starts, details of a scheme, for:- (a) The parking and manoeuvring of 11 cars (with parking aisles continuing 1 metre beyond the end parking bay); (b) A turning circle with a diameter of 26 metres, (4 Access via a 9 metre wide radius junction with a minimum carriageway width of 7.3 metres and, (c) The proposed access gates set back a minimum of 15 metres from the edge of the carriageway;
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To allow the Planning Authority further consideration on this matter in the interest of highway safety.
19. That before the development hereby permitted starts trading, all areas covered by the scheme, approved under the terms of condition 18 above, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing works, and clearly marked out and shall, thereafter, be maintained as such to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking and access facilities in the interest of highway safety.
138 Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 1St April 2008
Memo from Head Of Protective Services received 24' April 2008 Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 14'h May 2008
Letter from Owner/Occupier, 8 Victoria Street, Newmains, Wishaw, ML2 9BQ received 21'' April 2008 Letter from Lynn Nicol, Newmains Nursery Centre, The Annexe, School Road, Newmains, ML2 9BE received gthApril 2008 Letter from R McArthur, 6 Victoria Street, Newmains, Wishaw, ML2 9BQ received 14thApril 2008
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gordon Liddell at 01698 274114.
Date: 14 May 2008
139 APPLICATION NO. S1081004881FUL
REPORT
1. Description of Site and Proposal
1.I This application seeks planning consent for the use of a vacant industrial site on land south of 5 School Road, Newmains as a builders merchants, including the erection of a steel portal frame building to be used as a warehouse with offices, an ancillary sales counter and showroom as well as the formation of a yard and parking area. The application site is flat and extends to approximately 0.8 hectares. Scotkleen (manufacturer of pressure washers) previously occupied the depot with access taken via dropped kerb access along the site frontage on School Road. The remainder of the site is largely vacant with grassland towards the northern corner. There are currently various out buildings within the site relating to the former use, one of which has sustained fire damage. The boundary is marked by a mix of fencing, predominantly 2.5 metre high heavy palisade fencing.
1.2 The Newmains Pipe Band hall lies to the front of the site, adjacent to the existing access with a nursery opposite on School Road. The site is thereafter bound to the north (separated by a footpath) and east by established residential properties, to the west by woodland and to the south by Victoria Park.
1.3 The proposed building would be located along the northern boundary when entering the site, fronting School Road, with the parking and yard area located to the front and side. The building measures approximately 1100 square metres and is I0 metres in height along it’s ridge. Customer access would be taken at the front of the building with vehicular yard access on the buildings southern side. It is also proposed to retain one of the existing buildings within the site for storage purposes. This building is located centrally within the site at the southern boundary.
2. Development Plan
2.1 The site is zoned as Policy IND8 (Established Industrial and Business Area) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 My Transportation Team Leader has no objections subject to conditions relating to suitable access arrangements, turning facilities and parking provision.
3.2 My Protective Services Team Leader has requested that a noise assessment and site investigation report be completed and submitted as part of the application to determine if any mitigation is required. It is also recommended that best practice methodology is adopted to control any dust generated as part of the operations. Further recommendations are given on acceptable levels of construction and air conditioning/ventilation noise, the burning of materials on site and appropriate site lighting.
3.3 The Council’s Community Services had no objections to previous residential proposals on this site subject to conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme and the protection of adjacent trees. They also pointed out that japanese knotweed is present within the site and as controlled waste must be disposed of safely. These comments remain relevant.
3.4 Three letters of representation have been received from neighbouring residents and the adjacent nursery school. The points raised may be summarised as follows: -
140 School Road already suffers from traffic difficulties (congestion and heavy parking at peak times) and this will be made worse by the current application. This is in relation to both residential properties and Newmains Nursery Centre directly opposite on School Road and an adjacent school. Concerns are expressed particularly in regard to road safety due to the lack of traffic calming and additional HGV movement, throughout the day and at peak times when there is a lot of pedestrian movement with children. A builders merchant is not conducive with good house keeping and would result in an unacceptable increase in noise and dust. It is noted that should the building be located in the south eastern corner of the site, it would result in a reduction in daylightkunlight to the nearest residential properties. The developers appear to have no interest in the site of the Pipe Band Hall which is now vacated and overgrown.
4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions
4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.2 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore must be assessed against the relevant policies of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
4.3 The site is identified as policy IND 8 (Established Industrial Areas). Policies IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transportation Implications of Development) are also relevant to the assessment of this application.
4.4 Policy IND 8 supports the continuation of industrial uses, and while the proposed use of the site for industrial purposes does not require formal planning permission in itself (due to it's established use under planning legislation) the additional building and formation of a yard area does. Nonetheless, this form of development on this site is supported by policy IND 8.
4.5 Policy IND 9 details criteria against which industrial development will be assessed. This includes, whether the site is located within an established industrial area, the extent to which a vacant site is to be re-used, significant benefits to the plan area, suitability of the character of the area, access to public transport and effect on travel patterns, detailed design issues, provisions for servicing, access vehicle circulation, manouvering and parking.
4.6 This proposal is located within an established industrial site and this is reflected though it's historic use and local plan zoning. While the site and existing buildings effectively have permission for an industrial use, they are however vacant. This application therefore facilitates their redevelopment. In terms of significant benefit to the plan area, while the impact of one business within the southern area is not likely to be significant, it does bring business to a local area, allow a local business to develop and bring back into use a former industrial site. As indicated in paragraph 1.4 above, the site is industrial in character and suitable for a proposal of this nature. While there are residential properties in close proximity at School Road and Victoria Street, it must be noted that a range of industrial uses could operate from the existing site and buildings with no requirement for formal planning permission, had it not been for the erection of a new building.
4.7 The proposed building is located along the northern boundary of the site with a well designed aspect fronting School Road and a loading access to the south towards the yard area. While relatively high at 10 metres and 48 metres long, it is set some 18 metres at its closest point to the nearest property on School Road. This is considered to be an adequate distance in terms of sunlightldaylight. The applicant proposes a section of closeboarded fencing along this boundary and a line of conifer planting to filter views of the building from residential properties to the north.
141 To the south, the nearest property at Victoria Street is approximately 50 metres. It is proposed to attach a condition requiring the implementation of similar fencing and landscaping along this boundary to ensure the business can integrate well with all surrounding properties. While the building is relatively large, it is also noted that it is set back from the main viewpoints on School Road and Vicoria Street. A significant number of mature trees are also located around the site, particularly to the rear and this will further help in integrating the building in the area by reducing the perceived scale and giving the site a landscaped context. Taking these factors into account it is considered that the visual impact of the building is reduced to an acceptable level. In terms of visual amenity, it is also proposed to attach conditions requiring the submission of details of all materialskolours and a scheme for outdoor storage of materials, limiting the location and height of materials. Internally, with the removal of the older disused buildings, the formation of a yard area and the implementation of some landscaping there would be an overall improvement to the visual appearance of the site and the design of the building is acceptable. In relation to detailed design issues, I therefore also find the proposals to be satisfactory subject to these conditions.
4.8 Policy TR13 requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including, the level of traffic generated, the impact on road traffic circulation and road safety and the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. As indicated at paragraph 3.1 above, my Transportation Team Leader has no objections subject to conditions. I would again re-iterate that many uses could effectively use this site and the existing buildings with no requirement for formal planning permission due to their established use. The proposed building in itself does not significantly alter the likely transportation implications of simply bringing the site back into use.
4.9 In terms of other consultation responses, the recommendation by Protective Services on the requirement for a site investigation, appropriate working methodology to control of dust, limits on the acceptable noise levels of plant and machinery and concerns regarding burning of materials can all be addressed through conditions. The requirement for a formal noise assessment is considered to be unreasonable in this instance due to the historic use of the site and types of operations that could operate without any requirement for formal planning permission. The site has a previous and therefore established industrial use and as advised earlier in the report, could be used for industrial purposes without formal planning permission. A condition is however recommended restricting opening hours of the premises in order to protect the amenity of adjacent residents. Other issues raised by Pollution Control cannot be controlled under planning legislation but can incorporated in any consent as advisory notes.
4.10 In relation to the points of objections I would comment as follows:-
(i) In regard to the objections surrounding road safety and traffic generation, it is noted that no objection has been raised by my Transportation Team Leader. These are not therefore considered to merit refusal of the application. (ii) In regard to unacceptable levels of noise and dust I refer to paragraphs 4.5 and 4.7 above. This matter is not considered sufficient to merit refusal of application. (iii) The proposed building is not located at the south eastern corner of the site as detailed in the objection. There will be no significant reduction in the amount of daylighffsunlight currently enjoyed by the properties on Victoria Street as proposed building is located some 50 metres to the north. (iv) The site of the former Pipe Band Hall does not form part of this site and is not material to the assessment of the application.
4.1 1 In conclusion, the application is considered to comply with policies IND8, IND9 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that it constitutes a suitable use on an appropriately zoned vacant industrial site. In light of the established use, the proposal is considered to integrate satisfactorily in the wider area subject to some additional landscaping and fencing. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved, subject
142 to conditions.
143