APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 14 AP

Page No. Application No. Applicant DevelopmentlLocus Recommendation

2 N/03/00070/OUT Mr. Henderson Construction of a Dwellinghouse Grant (P) Auchenrivoch Farm, Banton

7 N/03/00160/FUL Lennox Golf Extension to a Golf Course, Grant Club Kilsyth Lennox, Kilsyth.

12 C/02/01679/OUT Mr R Kennedy Erection of Dwellinghouse (In Refuse Outline) 218 Shottsburn Road,

17 C/03/00183/FUL Mr Clachar Change of Use of 1'' and 2ndFloor Grant Shop (Classl) to Gymnasium (Class 11) at 42 - 46 South Bridge Street. Airdrie

21 C/03/00228/FUL Balmer Developments Erection of Care Home at 20A Grant West Canal Street

28 S/O 1/O 1 330/FU L Strathclyde Business Erection of Class 4 Business Grant Park Developments Units Phoenix Crescent Limited Strathclyde Business Park

35 S/02/00172/FUL Mr M Ross Two Storey Rear Extension to Refuse Dwellinghouse 600 Merry Street

40 S/02/00198/OUT Bett Homes Alteration and Improvement to the Refuse (P) Existing Golf Course and Proposed Residential Development (In Outline) Colville Park Golf Course Jewiston Road Motherwell

50 S/02/00905/FU L Mr More Erection of Garage 149 Waverley Grant Drive

55 S/03/00182/AMD Mr Pollock Erection of 1 and % Storey Grant Dwelling Heathfield Wishaw Road Waterloo

61 S/03/00294/FUL Mr Black Erection of Rear Conservatory 6 Grant Thrashbush Road Wishaw

(P): N/03/00070/OUT If approved, a Section 75 agreement is required

(P): S/02/00198/OUT If approved, refer to the Scottish Ministers. (Contrary to Policy) Application No: N/03/00070/OUT

Date Registered: 22nd January 2003

Applicant: David Y Henderson Auchenrivoch Farm Banton Kilsyt h Glasgow G65 OQZ

Development: Construction of a Dwellinghouse

Location: Auchenrivoch Farm, Banton, Kilsyth

Ward: 66: Banton And Kilsyth East Councillor Tom Barrie

Grid Reference: 274638.679675.

File Reference: N/03/00070/OUT

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by Greenbelt Policies in the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999. Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (Comments) Scottish Power (No Objection) The Coal Authority (Comments)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant seeks outline planning permission for the construction of a dwellinghouse at Auchenrivoch Farm, Banton, Kilsyth. The applicant has submitted a Business Plan from the Scottish Agricultural College in support of the application. One letter of objection has been received from Banton and Community Council on the grounds that the proposed house should be located within the cluster of farm buildings, near to the existing farmhouse. The applicant has since re-located the house to a site south of Bramblebank Cottage. The supporting business plan justifies the need for a second house at the farm and I recommend that planning permission be granted subject to conditions. Proposed Dwelling House Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That before development starts, a further planning application shall be submitted to the Planning Authority in respect of the following reserved matters:-

(a) the siting, design and external appearance of all buildings and other structures; (b) the means of access to the site; (c) the layout of the site, including all roads, footways, and parking areas; (d) the design and location of all boundary walls and fences; (e) the provision of drainage works; (f) the disposal of sewage;

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

2. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in Condition 1 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning () Act 1997

3. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within five years of the date of this permission, or within two years of the date on which the last of the reserved matters are approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

4. 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 accord with the approved Green Belt policy.

5. That the design and siting of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted on the site shall take cognisance of the rural location, with particular regard being paid to scale, massing, roof pitch, fenestration and materials and shall be in accordance with the provisions of Planning Advice Note No. 36; in this respect the proposed dwelling shall have a cottage style design, shall be finished in slates / slate substitute tiles and shall be a maximum height of one and a half storeys or such other scheme as may be to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the rural amenity of the area.

6. That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990, and before the development starts, a certificate from a recognised firm of chartered engineers, duly signed by a Chartered Engineer or Chartered Geologist of Geotechnical Adviser Status (ICE, SlSG 1993) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming the mineral stability of the site. This certificate shall be based on a professionally supervised and regulated rotary drilling program me.

Reason: To ensure the mineral stability of the proposed housing site in the interests of prospective residents. 7. That details of upgrading of the private access road shall be submitted with the detailed / reserved matters application required by Condition 1 above.

Reason: In the interests of road safety by ensuring that the access road is to an acceptable standard.

Note To Committee

If granted, the Decision Notice should not be issued until the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement in terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to ensure that the occupation of the dwellinghouse is limited to a person employed full time locally in agriculture, or a dependant of such a person, residing with him, or her, or the widow or widower, of such a person.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 22ndJanuary 2003

Letter from Scottish Water received 12'h February 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 2!jth February 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 6thFebruary 2003

Letter from Banton and Kelvinhead Community Council, Woodlyn, High Banton, Kilsyth, G65 ORA received 4'h March 2003.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mrs. Lavery at 01236 616464. APPLICATION NO. N/03/00070/0UT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This outline application is for the construction of a farm worker’s house at Auchenrivoch Farm, Banton. The location, as amended, is adjacent to Bramblebank Cottage on the farm access road.

1.2 A farm labour justification by the Scottish Agricultural College has been submitted in support of the application.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is covered by Greenbelt policies (GBI-4,6) in the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Summaries of consultation responses are as follows:- . The Coal Authority : The property is within the likely zone of influence of seams of coal, limestone and ironstone all at potentially shallow depth. . Scottish Water : A water supply can be made available from the public main. There are no public sewers in the vicinity. . Scottish Power : No objection. 3.2 There are no objections from my Transportation Section.

3.3 Santon and Kelvinhead Community Council have stated that any house should be constructed at the existing farm steading. Councillor Gordon Murray has written providing clarification on the agricultural need for the proposed house.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 All planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. In this case the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the Kilsyth Local Plan.

4.2 An agricultural justification report prepared by the Scottish Agricultural College has concluded that there is a labour requirement of 2.5 farmworkers for Auchenrivoch Farm. This takes account of the stock carried (sheep and cattle) and crops grown (grazing, silage and turnipshape). Despite initial concerns that the proposed house would be occupied by a retired farmer rather than a farmworker, it has now been established that the occupant will be actively involved in working the farm.

4.3 The location of the proposed house has been amended, and it now relates to an existing house (Sramblebank Cottage) on the farm access road rather than being in an isolated position.

4.4 Taking account of the justifiable agricultural need and the improved location, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the occupation of the house being restricted to an agricultural worker or dependants. This matter can be covered by an appropriate condition and a legally binding Section 75 Agreement. Application No: N/03/00160IFUL

Date Registered: 11th February 2003

Applicant: Alan G Stevenson, Hon Secretary Kilsyth Lennox Golf Club Tak-Ma-Doon Road Kilsyth G65 ORS

Development: Change of Use of Agricultural Land to Golf Course

Location: Site to The North of Existing Golf Club, Tak-Ma-Doon Road, Kilsyth

Ward: 66: Banton and Kilsyth East Councillor Tom Barrie

Grid Reference: 27231 1 679276

File Reference: N/03/0016O/FUL

Site History: N/99/00477/MIN - Extension to Beltmoss Quarry which included the extension and alteration of the Golf Course permitted 14th January 2002.

Developmen t Plan: Strategic Polices 7 (Strategic Environmental Resources) and 8 (Sustainable Development of Natural Resources) of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan seeks to protect and enhance a range of environmental resources including the Campsie Fells Regional Scenic Area.

The site is covered by the Greenbelt Policies GBI-4 and 6 of the Kilsyth Local Plan. The land immediately to the north of the application site is covered by policy NE11 which defines and protects the land within the Kilsyth Hills Regional Scenic Area.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (No objection) Scottish Natural Heritage (No response) S.E.P.A.(West) (No response) Scottish Power (No response) S portScotla nd (No response) West of Scotland Archaeology Service (Conditions)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application proposes an extension to Kilsyth Lennox Golf Course to form 3 new holes. By extending the course and providing three new holes, the Golf Club can alter the existing course and improve the layout as well as allowing a practice area to be formed close to the club house. The new holes are to be formed on grazed agricultural land to the north of the existing course just before the REGIONAL SCENIC AREA

Produead by PIannm~and Enu#Onm.nI Northern Dnlsmn Change of Use of Agricultural Kilsyth Hills rise significantly to the north.

There are not considered to be any strategic policy issues with regards to this development. The land in question is zoned as Greenbelt in the local plan and the extension of an existing golf course is considered to be an appropriate development. The Kilsyth Regional Scenic Area lies immediately to the north of the application site and the Colzium Burn which lies within the site is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Value (SINC). It is considered that the development can proceed without there being an adverse effect on either the Scenic Area or the SINC.

In response to consultation, NLC Community Services have advised that the application site is not of any importance in ecological terms. They advise that the value of the site could be increased through careful design, the planting of appropriate species and the appropriate management of the course. In landscape terms, the general layout is adjudged to sit well with the current landform, although some further details regarding the alterations to water courses and finished ground levels should be required by planning condition. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service recommend that prior to the commencement of the development, an archaeological assessment should be carried out.

I consider that the proposed development is acceptable in planning terms, and that the matters raised by the consultees can be addressed by the imposition of planning conditions. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Recommendation: Grant 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 no development shall take place within the application site until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service as appropriate. Thereafter, the applicant shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of archaeological resources within the site is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the scheme.

Reason: In the interests of recording information on a historical landscape prior to it being affected by the development

3. That no development shall take place within the application site until a scheme detailing all the works to be undertaken to form the new golf course layout as shown on the approved plans has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:-

a) full details of any ground preparation works, earth works or other engineering works involved in the formation of tees, greens, fairways, areas of rough, footpaths or cart tracks

b) full details of the existing and proposed finished ground levels and contours

c) full details of the alteration to any water courses within the site d) full details on drainage showing how the new holes will be drained and how any new drainage scheme will tie into or alter the existing golf course drainage system or other existing drainage systems.

Reason: To ensure that these matters are considered in detail in the interests of the landscape and environment.

4. That prior to the new holes being brought into play, the details approved under the terms of Condition 3 above shall be implemented

Reason: In the interests of the landscape and environment.

5. That notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, this planning permission relates solely to the formation of 3 golf holes within the application site. Accordingly this planning permission does not give approval for any of the alterations detailed on the plan in respect of the existing golf course or the new holes proposed over Colzium Tip or the fields adjacent to it.

Reason: To define the scope of the planning permission

6. That notwithstanding the generalities of Condition 3 above, a margin of at least 3 metres shall be left alongside the Colzium Burn and the burn shall not be altered or adversely affected by the works hereby permitted.

Reason: Colzium Burn is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation Value.

7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, 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: In the interests of the landscape and environment

8. That within one year of the new holes being brought into play, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of Condition 7 above, shall be completed and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the landscape and environment Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11th February 2003

Memo from NLC Community Services received lgthMarch 2003 Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 1gth March 2003

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr. Lee at 01236 616474 Application No: C/02/01679/OUT

Date Registered: 11 th December 2002

Applicant: Mr R Kennedy 218 Shottsburn Road Salsburgh

Agent John Nicol Jarvine Partnership 102 High Street Dunblane FK15 OER

Development: Outline Application for Dwellinghouse.

Location: 218 Shottsburn Road Salsburgh Shotts Lanarkshire

Ward: 52: Salsburgh Councillor Brian Brady

Grid Reference: 285491663290

File Reference: C/PL/SAS2600218/DB/EL

Site History: Planning Consent 94/081 for Erection of Temporary Mobile Home (in retrospect) granted 22 April 1994 Planning consent 91/063 for Use of Ground for Stabling, exercising and training of horses, including erection of barnktables was granted 26 April 1991

Development Plan: The area is covered by policies designed to restrict development in Countryside Around Town contained in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Community Services (No Objection) S. E. P.A.(West) (Comments) Scottish Water (Comments) Scottish Power (Comments) The Coal Authority (Com ments)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 24 December 2002

Comments:

This application is for the erection of a dwellinghouse in outline at 218 Shottsburn Road, Salsburgh. The applicant obtained planning permission on 26 April 1991 for the use of ground for stabling, exercising and training horses, including the erection of bardstables (P91063). In addition planning permission was granted on a temporary basis for the erection of a temporary mobile home on 22 April 1994. This consent was for a limited period that expired on 23 March 1999 and there are now two chalets on site \

)1679/OUT N that do not have the benefit of planning permission. Following advertisement and neighbour notification no objections were received. Consultation with the utility companies raised no objection. The Coal Authority has indicated the zone of influence of shallow workings. The Transportation Section has indicated no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the provision of appropriate access and parking provision. The site is zoned GB2 Restrict Development in the Countryside in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Any development of this nature therefore requires to be supported among other matters but principally on the grounds of specific locational need. The applicant has submitted 2 versions of a business plan for an equestrian import/export breeding training and trotting business. These statements indicate that at present 5 horses are stabled at the site in an existing shed. The proposal would be to operate the business with 10 horses stabled at the site. NLC Finance have assessed the business plan and have indicated that it is does not indicate a viable business. I therefore consider that the proposal is contrary to Local Plan policies relating to Countryside Around Towns and therefore recommend that the application be refused.

Recommendation: Refuse for the reasons that;

1. The proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to Policy GB2 in the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, which restricts development in the countryside around towns in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a potential viable business in the equestrian importlexport, breeding and training facility nor any justification for an associated dwellinghouse.

Background Papers:

Application form, plans, business plan and supporting letter received 11th December 2002 and 17 March 2003

Memo from the Transportation Section received 6 February 2003 and 13 March 2003 Memo from NLC Community Services received 10 February 2003 Memo from NLC Finance received 13th January 2003 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 8th January 2003 Letter from Scottish Water received 10th January 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 31st December 2002 Letter from The Coal Authority received 26 March 2003

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact David Baxter at 01236 812372. APPLICATION NO. C/02/01679/OUT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application is for the erection of a dwellinghouse in outline at 218 Shottsburn Road, Salsburgh. The site is accessed via a narrow access lane from Shottsburn Road. When the site was visited there was a barnktable building, two chalets, several vehicles including a caravan on the site.

1.2 The applicant proposes to operate an equestrian importlexport business including breeding and training of horses

I.3 The applicant obtained planning permission on 26 April 1991 for the use of ground for stabling, exercising and training horses, including the erection of barnktables (P91063). In addition planning permission was granted on a temporary basis for the erection of a mobile home on 22 April 1994. This consent was for a limited period that expired on 23 March 1999 and has not been renewed.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned GB2 Restrict Development in the Countryside in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2.2 In respect to the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan the development of a singe house at this location is not regarded as being strategically significant.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section has indicated no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the provision of appropriate access and parking provision.

3.2 The Coal Authority has indicated that the proposed site may be affected by previous shallow workings and appropriate technical advice should be take before any development proceeds on the site.

3.3 NLC Finance assessed the business plans that were submitted in support of the need for the proposed house at this location. The response indicated that the business plan was rudimentary and omitted details of the cost of sales or any administration and did not provide an assessment of the state of the market for this type of business. NLC Finance concluded that there was only a negligible profit shown after 3 years and therefore unlikely to be a viable business to support the need for a residential unit in the countryside.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The site is zoned GB2 Restrict Development in the Countryside in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Any development of this nature therefore requires to be supported on the ground of specific locational need. The applicant has submitted a business plan for an equestrian importlexport breeding training and trotting business. This statement indicates that at present 5 horses are stabled at the site in an existing shed. The proposal would be to operate the business with 10 horses stabled at the site. NLC Finance have assessed the business plan and have indicated that it is does not indicate a viable business. The proposal therefore fails to identify a specific locational need and is therefore considered contrary to policy GB2. 4.2 A hobby business may have been operating on the site since 1991 when the stables were given permission however the applicant has failed to support his assertion that a viable business can be generated by these operations. I therefore consider that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient justification to support the need for a house at this location and the proposal is therefore contrary to policy GB2 in the Monklands Local Plan 1991 should be refused for the attached reason.

4.3 If this proposal is refused then consideration will be required in respect to any appropriate action in respect to the current unauthorised mobile homes that are presently occupied on site. Application No: C/03/00183/FUL

Date Registered: 17th February 2003

Applicant: Mr Jim Clachar Quest Fitness 301 Brandon Street Motherwell

Agent Mr Jim Angus IH Killermont View Glasgow G20 OTZ

Development: Change of Use of 1st & 2nd Floor Shop (Class 1) to Gymnasium (Class 1I)

Location: 42-46 South Bridge Street Airdrie Lanarkshire ML6 6JA

Ward: 43: Airdrie Central Councillor James Logue

Grid Reference: 276079 665599

File Reference: C/AIS675004200-IJ/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policies COM 4 (Secondary Retail Core Areas), COM I1 (Social, Entertainment & Commercial Bad Neighbour Uses) and ENV 15/3 (Conservation Areas) in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: 26'h February 2003

Comments:

Consent is being sought for the change of use of the 1st and 2nd floor areas of an existing shop premises addressed as 42-46 South Bridge Street, Airdrie to a Gymnasium. The subjects are located on the west side of South Bridge Street between a bank to the north and a retail shop to the south. South Bridge Street is predominantly commercial in nature, being directly adjacent to the Town Centre, and the application premises itself is also within the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area.

The proposal seeks to utilise the upper two floor areas of the commercial premises as a Gymnasium through the following internal fitting out works: 1st floor sales/storage area - removal of central partition to provide large class/studio area with attached changing facilities and toilets. 2nd floor storage area - laying out of large open area as gymnasium/workout area.

Access to both areas from ground floor street level (for general public use) will be by means of an existing access doorway to an internal stairway located on South Bridge Street. An internal emergency exit stairway serving all floors is already available at the rear. The existing ground floor shop premises will continue to operate (and be accessed) independently. No external alterations are proposed to the building and new frontage signage will be subject to a separate application should this application be successful.

In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within a Secondary (Retail) Core Area (COM 4) where the Council will seek to support shopping and related uses (Classes 1,2 and 3). Policy COM 11 does however accept the development of Social, Entertainment and Commercial "bad neighbour" uses in Secondary (Retail) Core Areas subject to other policies in the Local Plan, and where there is no anticipated adverse effect on the amenity of local residents. Having regard to these policy provisions it is noted that the application premises are located within a predominantly commercial area. While residential accommodation exists on the upper floors of several of the tenemental properties along the eastern side of South Bridge Street no objections to the proposal have been received. Any parking requirements generated by the proposal would be satisfied by existing town centre car parks. The proposal is considered therefore to be compliant with the terms of the Local Plan.

The application premises are also located within a Conservation Area where the Council encourages the re-use of vacant buildings. The proposal under consideration seeks to re-introduce existing town centre upper floor areas to a productive commercial use while retaining the existing external fabric and appearance of the building. No external alterations are proposed. The proposal accords with the requirements and restrictions of its Conservation Area location.

Taking all of the foregoing into consideration I consider the proposal acceptable within this Town Centre location and therefore I recommend that the application be approved subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant 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 premises shall be used as a Gymnasium and for no other purposes (including any other purpose in Class 11 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.

Reason: To define the permission.

3. That the permission hereby granted relates to a change of use only and, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no alterations shall be made to the external appearance of the building without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the permission.

Background Papers: Application form and plans received 31st January 2003

Memo from the Transportation Section received 20th March 2003 Memo from the Protective Services Section received 31st March 2003

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382. Application No: C/03/00228/FUL

Date Registered: 24th February 2003

Applicant: Balmer Developments Croftbank House Mill Road Uddingston G71 7JB

Agent W H Dickie 77 Hamilton Road Mothe rwel I MLI 3DG

Development: Erection of Care Home.

Location: 20A West Canal Street Coatbridge Lanarkshire ML5 IPR

Ward: 32: Blairpark Councillor William Shields

Grid Reference: 272661.664975.

File Reference: C/PL/CTW7500020800/l J/EL

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policies TR1/6 :Support Rail Transport and T04/6: Develop Summerlee Industrial Museum in the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S.E.P.A.(West) (Comments) Scottish Water (No response) British Gas Transco (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections) The Coal Authority (Comments) Network Rail (Comments) British Telecom (No response)

Representations: None Received

Newspaper Advertisement: !jthMarch 2003

Corn me nts :

Consent is being sought for the erection of a Care Home on land directly adjacent to Coatbridge Central Station, West Canal Street, Coatbridge. The single storey stand alone care facility will provide 80 bedroom units with associated day rooms, dining rooms, offices, staff rooms, toilets etc. all within a site area of 1.193 hectares. The site will incorporate an existing hard surfaced car park and an adjacent large open grassed area. To the east the site is bounded by an operational railway line, to the west by Summerlee Street, to the south by West Canal Street and to the north by existing local authority housing. The site is also adjacent to the Dunbeth & Blairhill Conservation Area.

It is firstly noted that Network Rail have disposed of its interests in the existing car park within the application site and the adjoining open grassed lands have, for some time been the cause of anti-social behaviour through youths congregating etc. Given Network Rail's position in respect of the car park it would appear that circumstances have overtaken the Local Plan designation for the application site. It is considered that the development of the site for the proposed purposes is acceptable in land use and design terms, and will significantly enhance the appearance and vitality of the surrounding area. I therefore recommend that permission is granted subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant 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 shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans hereby approved and no change to the design or external finishes shall take place without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

3. That, for the avoidance of doubt the permission hereby granted is for a Care Home only and the Pre-School facility indicated on approved Drawing No.102/02 does not form part of the permission.

Reason: To define the permission.

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, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

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, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

6. That before the development hereby approved starts, full details of the location and design of the surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the application site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme shall comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory disposal of surface water. 7. That 2 metre wide footways shall be provided along the length of the access road on both sides at its junction with West Canal Street.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the site.

8. That the existing junction visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 60 metres at the site access shall be maintained.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular access to the site.

9. That gullies shall be provided on the access road into the site.

Reason: To prevent surface water flowing onto the public road.

10. That before the development hereby approved starts, full details of all surface treatment within the site boundary, including the car park and courtyard areas, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

11. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and tufing; (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) details of any phasing of these works.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects.

12. That within one year of completion of the development hereby approved, all planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 11 above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

13. That before the development hereby approved is brought into use, the proposed internal noise mitigation measures, as set down in the submitted Noise and Vibration Report, shall be fully implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

Background Papers: Application form and plans received 24th February 2003

Memo from the Transportation Section received 2ndApril 2003 Memo from the Protective Services Section received 7th March 2003 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 13th March 2003 Letter from British Gas Transco received 11th March 2003 Letter from Scottish Power received 11th March 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 11th March 2003 Letter from Network Rail received 5th March 2003

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact lan Johnston at 01236 812382. APPLICATION NO. C1031002281FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

3.1 The application site measures I.I93 hectares, is located directly adjacent to Coatbridge Central Railway Station and comprises of an existing hard surfaced public car park and a large open area of flat grassed land that fronts onto West Canal Street along the sites southern boundary. An operational railway line forms the sites east boundary, Summerlee Street forms the western boundary and local authority housing is located to the north of the application site. The site is located to the west of the Town Centre and adjacent to the Dunbeth & Blairhill Conservation Area.

3.2 The proposal is for the development of the site to accommodate a Care Home facility which will be set within a large single storey rectangular shaped construction with traditional pitched roof areas and two central amenity courtyards. Internal accommodation will include 80 individual bedroom units, day rooms, quiet rooms, kitchen and dining rooms, staff rooms and offices, toilets etc. Externally the new build will be finished in facing brick and concrete roof tiles, all to be agreed with the planning authority. Boundary treatment will also be the subject of further discussion.

3.3 Vehicular access to the site will be taken from the present access that serves the car park area and on site parking has been provided to accommodate 30 cars.

3.4 The initial submission had also sought outline consent for a pre-school facility at the northern part of the site although following discussions with this department that element has been withdrawn from the application now under consideration.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by policies TR1/6 (Support Rail Transport) and T04/6 (Develop Summerlee Industrial Museum) in the adopted 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 no objections were received in respect of this proposal.

3.2 None of the statutory consultees advised of this proposal offered any formal objection although Network Rail did advise that title obligations exist that require their consent before any development could commence on site. SEPA made reference to possible ground contamination from previous uses although the Site Investigation report submitted concluded that there are no significant sources of contamination which would pose a risk to either human health or controlled waters.

3.3 The Transportation Section have raised concern over the loss of car parking for the Central Station should this proposal be approved while the Protective Services Section have offered no objections to the proposal.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions 4.1 This application requires to be considered against the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations. While the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 seeks to support rail transport and develop Summerlee Industrial Museum (through the construction of car parking facilities within the application site) it is firstly noted that whereas a public car park area has existed within the application site for a number of years, its daily usage is viewed as minimal at best. While this Authority (through the former Monklands District Council) pursued in association with RailTrack the provision of the car park facility adjacent to the Coatbridge Central Station in an effort to support the local rail transport network, in practical terms the provision of that facility has not proven successful as it is seldom used by either rail users or the general public. Such is the lack of use or need at this location for a car park facility that Network Rail disposed of their title interests in the car park area some years ago.

4.2 In terms of perceived linkages between the application site and Summerlee Industrial Museum, as highlighted in the Local Plan, it is clearly evident that the existing car park area within the application site is somewhat detached from and does not serve the Museum whereas a large dedicated public car park now exists directly adjacent to the Museum entrance on Heritage Way and that satisfies the projected parking requirements of that facility.

4.3 In general design terms the proposal in of a high standard which will fit in well within this large open site. The single storey construction will minimise the visual prominence of the structure when viewed against the surrounding environment and the use of high quality external materials will complement the standard of materials present on the adjacent buildings to the north and west which are all located within the Dunbeth & Blairhill Conservation Area. The close proximity of the site to the adjacent operational railway line raises the issue of potential railway noise and vibration levels affecting the development. In this respect a detailed site investigation has been submitted to conclude that both anticipated noise and vibration levels are likely to be within the recommended acceptable limits. A condition on any planning permission will address this issue.

4.4 Having regard to the foregoing I consider that while the proposal is not strictly in accordance with the terms of the Local Plan for the application site, that particular designation i.e. provision of car parking facilities linked to the adjacent railway and Summerlee Museum, is not now considered relevant to this particular site, as highlighted above.The proposed Care Home use is however seen as acceptable in general land use terms and appropriate in design terms to this particular location when viewed against the surrounding uses. The proposal has been generally welcomed by the surrounding community. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the attached conditions. Application No: S/O 110 1330/FU L

Date Registered: 12th October 2001

Applicant: Strathclyde Business Park Developments Limited 51 Melville Street Edinburgh EH3 7HL

Agent Cooper Cromar Newton House 457 Sauchiehall Street Glasgow G2 3LG

Development: Erection of Class 4 Business Units

Location: Land North Of And Land South West Of The Hilton Hotel Phoenix Crescent Strathclyde Business Park Bellshill Lanar ks h ire

Ward: 23: Councillor James McCabe

Grid Reference: 272700.661682.

File Reference: SlPLlBl9l11 IIAMILG

Site History: 66/89 Industrial/Business Campus (in outline). 250193 Construction of Business and Industrial Units; granted November 1993 S/OO/OO819/FUL Erection of 5 No. Class 4 Business Units; granted August 2000 S/02/00453/FUL Improvement to A725/Bellshill and Righead Industrial Estates Roundabouts Junction, Amendments to Strathclyde Business Park Access Roundabout - granted

Development Plan: Green Belt on the Bellshill and Local Plan Established Industrial and Business Areas on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: NLC Community Services (no response) Bellshill Community Council (no response) British Gas Transco (no objection) British Telecom (no response) The Coal Authority (conditions) Scottish Water (no objection)

Representations: 1 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised under Article 12 (Bad Neighbour) as the application originally included an area for a Public House.

Comments:

This application is for the erection of 12 Class 4 business units as part of the continuing development of Strathclyde Business Park. The site and this application have a lengthy history which is outlined in the attached report. The majority of this development is subject to a suspensive condition from a consent issued in 1993 which requires the upgrading of the diamond interchange junction with the A725 Bellshill by-pass and Bellshill and Righead Industrial Estates. This was approved at the March 2003 Committee. The development will form one of the last phases of development at Strathclyde Business Park enhancing job prospects in the area. I recommend that permission be granted subject to conditions.

Recommendation: Grant 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 within 3 months of the commencement of development a scheme of landscaping and associated works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:- (a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, 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; (e) details in respect of the construction of the water features, including cross sections and the location/design of any pump houses and footbridges and (f) details of the surface treatment of the car parking areas (including designated disabled spaces) and footpaths.

Reason: To accord with the general terms of condition (11) of Outline Planning Consent No. 66/89 and detailed consent no. 250193.

3. That the landscaping and associated works approved under the terms of condition (2) above shall be implemented simultaneously with the construction of the buildings, in accordance with accepted construction practices and shall be completed within six months of the buildings being completed, and thereafter all the soft landscaping areas, water features, car parks and footpaths shall be maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with the terms of condition (12) of the Outline Planning Consent No. 66/89 in the interests of amenity.

4. That all foul drainage, yard and internal drains shall be connected to the public foul sewer systems, and oil interceptors shall be provided on surface water drains serving car parking areas, all to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in accordance with the specifications of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

Reason: To prevent pollution of watercourses within the vicinity of the Business Park in the interest of amenity and nature conservation.

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

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail. 6. That before each business unit hereby permitted is occupied, all the parking and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

7. That visibility splays of 4.5 metres x 60 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of all proposed vehicular accesses onto Phoenix Crescent and before the development hereby permitted is completed or brought into use, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8. That no part of the proposed Calder Campus Development Offices 3 to 8 as indicated on Cooper Cromar plan AL(0)IOOO Revision A 'Location Plan of Development Sites within Strathclyde Business Park' shall be occupied until an improvement to the A725(T) Diamond Interchange (generally in accordance with JMP Drawing Nos. 22163/P/GL/01 and 02) has been implemented as agreed by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Executive Development Department - Road Network Management and Maintenance Division (SEDD- RNMMD).

Reason: In the interests of road safety and the satisfactory operation of the trunk road.

9. That no part of the proposed Calder Campus Development Offices 3 to 8 shall be occupied until a Green Travel Plan (GTP), aimed to encourage more sustainable means of travel, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Executive Development Department - Road Network Management and Maintenance Division. The GTP will identify the measures to be implemented, the system of managementko- ordination, monitoring, review, reporting and duration of the plan. It will incorporate measures designed to encourage modes other than the private car, The GTP will be implemented in accordance with a time-scale to be agreed with the Planning Authority.

Reason: To be consistent with the requirements of NPPG 17 and PAN 57.

10. 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, including any modifications as may be required.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 11th October 2001; amended layout plans received 1 April 2003 Memo from NLC Transportation section received 28 March 2003 Memo from Environmental Services (Southern Area) received 11th December 2001 Memo from NLC Protective Services received 1I December 2001 Letter from British Gas Transco received 25th October 2001 Letter from The Coal Authority received 31st October 2001 Letter from Scottish Water received 5th November 2001 Letter form Scottish Executive Development Department - Road Network Management and Maintenance Division received 18 March 2003

Letter from Rachel Gee, Montagu Evans, 37 Melville Street, Edinburgh, EH3 7JF on behalf of Safeway Stores received 19th October 2001.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Alistair Maclean at 01698 302093, APPLICATION NO. S/Ol/Ol330/FUL

REPORT

1. Proposal and Site

1.1 This application is for the erection of 12 business units, amounting to over 44,000 square metres, for Class 4 Business Use. The original application included a further building (Avondale House) which included class 1 retail and class 3 restaurant, and amendments to the roundabout junction within the Business Park. Since this application was submitted, a revised application was submitted for Avondale House and this is under construction. The amendments to the roundabout junction was resubmitted under application S/02/00453/FUL which has already received consent from the Committee. Thus this application is now for 1 ‘building’ (Building 4) to be located to the south of Phoenix Crescent and 11 ‘offices’ to be situated to the east and north of Phoenix Crescent. The ‘Offices’ are part of Phase 3 of the development as noted on the site Masterplan, whereas Building 4 is part of Phase 2.

1.2 The buildings will be of varying sizes containing either 2 or 3 floors of business space, as follows: Building 4 - 3,722 square metres on three floors; 187 parking spaces on ground and basement levels. Offices 3 to 6 - 5,607 square metres each on 3 floors; total of 1229 parking spaces on ground and basement levels. Offices 7 and 8 - 4,770 square metres each on 3 floors; total of 542 parking spaces on ground and basement levels. Office 9 - 2,397 square metres on 2 floors; 120 parking spaces on ground and basement levels. Offices 10, 11, 13 - 1,538 square metres each on 2 floors; total of 238 parking spaces on ground and basement levels. Office 12 - 1,968 square metres on 2 floors; 96 parking spaces on ground and basement levels. Total 44,669 square metres; 2,413 parking spaces.

2 History

2.1 The initial concept for the development of a quality industrial location stems back to 1989 when outline consent was granted for a business campus for Class 4 (Business) and Class 5 (General Industry). Strathclyde Business Park has developed over the years, some 25 consents being granted for development, many to Strathclyde Business Park Developments Limited, a joint venture amongst HF Developments Ltd., Scottish Enterprise Limited (formerly Lanarkshire Development Agency) and Morrison Developments Ltd.

2.2 Over the years a number of transportation assessments have been undertaken and conditions imposed on a number of planning consent restricting future developments until certain works have been undertaken. Condition 13.1 of planning permission 250/93 restricts the development of phase 3 until improvement to the road connections between the Business Park and the A725 (including the diamond interchange) has been undertaken. This restriction was amended by condition 10 of consent S/00/00819/FUL to read no works on the West Industrial, the North Site, or the remaining part of the Phase Three Site prior to condition 13.1 of 250193 being implemented.

3 Development Plan

3.1 The site is zoned as Green Belt on the Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan. It is within an area of Established Industrial and Business Areas on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) and is in accord with this latter Plan and the Structure Plan. 4 Consultations and Representations

4.1 None of the service authorities raised any objections to the development. The Coal Authority advised there is a mine entry within the vicinity of the site.

4.2 The major consultees in this application have been the roads authorities, both internal to the Council and the Scottish Executive Roads Department as the A 725 (Bellshill by-pass) is a trunk road. After protracted negotiations, the Scottish Executive has agreed that the development is acceptable subject to the condition that the access arrangements as outlined in para. 2.2 above are implemented prior to this development commencing.

4.3 A holding objection was submitted by Safeway Stores raising concerns relating to potential adverse traffic implications that could be caused by the proposal.

5 Planning Assessment and Conclusions

5.1 Condition 13.1 of planning permission 250193 and condition 10 of consent S/OO/OO819/FUL are critical to the majority of this development proposal. The details of these conditions are stated in para. 2.2 above. Building 4 is part of Phase 2 and is not constrained by these conditions, however, the remainder of the development requires the above-mentioned conditions to be implemented before commencement of development. The application for those works (ref. S/02/00453/FUL) was approved at the March meeting of the Committee.

5.2 The future development of Strathclyde Business Park depends to a large extent on improvements to its access. Both the Scottish Executive and the Council as Roads Authority have significant roles in the determination of this application in terms of the effects on the trunk road network and the local roads network. While the proposals have a direct effect on the A725 which is a trunk road the wider network also needs to be considered given the proximity of the A8 and the Shawhead Interchange. The Scottish Executive Roads Department's conditions (see para. 4.2 above) are recommended for incorporation to the proposed permission.

5.3 In respect of the holding objection raised on behalf of Safeway, further correspondence was received from this company in response to the subsequent application for the diamond interchange and roundabout junction internal to Strathclyde Business Park. This was dealt with in the report on this application (ref. S/02/00453/FUL) which was submitted to this committee in March of this year.

5.4 While I recognise that the proposals for expansion of Phase Three will require improvements to the diamond interchange this can be incorporated in conditions and as the application raises no strategic policy or local amenity/design concerns I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to conditions. Application No: S/02/00 172lFU L

Date Registered: 17th December 2002

Applicant: Mr M Ross 92 Highfield Crescent Motherwell MLI

Development: Two Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 600 Merry Street Motherwell Lanarkshire MLI 4BP

Ward: 2: Calder Valley Councillor Vincent Mathieson

Grid Reference: 276232.657785.

File Reference: SIP L/B/l2/14/J o D

Site History: Planning Permission (S/99/0091 O/FUL) Granted 3rd September 1999 for the erection of a single garage.

Residential (Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan); Development Plan: Established Housing Areas (Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft, (Modified 2001). Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

The applicant seeks planning permission for a two storey extension to the rear elevation of a single storey semi-detached dwelling house. The site is located on the south east side of Merry Street, in a prominent corner location on a main artery out of Motherwell. The dwelling has been previously developed with permission granted (S/99/0091 O/Ful) for the construction a large single garage to the rear boundary.

Two letters of representation were received from the adjoining neighbour, raising concerns regarding overshadowing and over-development. The other issues raised are considered non-material and are discussed in the attached report..

The extension is approximately 6.5 metres in length and when combined with the existing outhouse would extend approximately 8.5 metres into an 11 metres rear garden. The extension is approximately 3.5 metres in width and approximately 6 metres in height and develops approximately 27% of the remaining rear garden area, excluding the existing garage area. However, the proposal when combined with the garage develops approximately 40% of the rear garden. Therefore, due to its size, massing and positioning, and location within an open and prominent corner site, the proposal will be visually incongruous within the area and constitute over development of the site, to the detriment of the residential and visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, it is considered that due to its design, height and massing, the two storey flat roof extension will dominate and be out of keeping with the integrity of the original single storey pitched roof dwelling house to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.

The proposal, combined with the length of the existing garages along the adjacent boundary, will leave a gap between buildings of approximately 2.5 metres along the north east boundary. It is considered that as a result this will significantly reduces the amount of sunlight available to the rear garden of the north east adjoining property, to the detriment of the residential amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the aims of policy HSG 10 - Assessing Applications for Housing Development of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001), as it would, due to its location, positioning, size, massing and design result in a detrimental visual impact in a prominent location, would constitute over development, and would be out of keeping with the integrity of the original single storey building, to the detriment of the visual and residential amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 15th February 2002 Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan 1953. Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight, A Guide to Good Practice.

Letter from Mr Paul Elkin,602 Merry Street, Motherwell, MLI 4BP received 20th February 2002. Letter from Mr Paul Elkin,602 Merry Street, Motherwell, MLI 4BP received 30th December 2002.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact John Drugan at 01698 302136. APPLICATION NO. S/OZ/OOl72/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application site is an existing single storey, semi-detached dwelling house on the south east side of Merry Street at the corner with Highfield Crescent, within an established residential area. The dwelling has an original two storey outhouse to the rear elevation and has also been extended with front and rear dormer extensions. To the rear boundary of the site is a garage approximately 5 metres in height, which is attached to a large double garage, belonging to an adjacent property in Highfield Crescent.

1.2 The proposal is for a two storey flat roof extension projecting approximately 6.5 metres from the rear elevation of the existing two storey outhouse, a total of approximately 8.5 metres from the main rear elevation of the dwellinghouse. The proposal is approximately 3.5 metres in width and approximately 6 metres in height and is located on the north east boundary with the adjoining neighbours.

1.3 Works are currently being undertaken to the rear of the property and includes the formation of a driveway and the erection of a fence, approximately 2 metres in height to the side boundary. These works are outwith this application.

2. Consultations and Representations

2.1 Two letters of representation were received from the adjoining neighbour at No. 602 Merry Street, issues raised were overshadowing to a non-habitable room and to the garden area, and disamenity due to over-development of the site. Other issues raised relate to previous works carried out and include ongoing sewerage and drainage problems, removal of earth and undermining / damage to boundary fences and resulting safety issues for children, and disturbance due to works.

Comments - The issues of overshadowing and over development are addressed in section 3 - Planning Assessment. The other issues regarding sewerage, condition of boundary treatment and disturbance due to works, are considered not to be material considerations in assessing this application for planning permission.

2.2 No consultations were undertaken for this proposal.

3. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

3.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues and complies with the residential zoning within both the Burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw Development Plan 1953, and the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). However, given the date of 1953 plan, the Southern Area Local Plan is the most relevant planning policy document, which significant weight can be accorded.

3.2 The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) policy HSG 10 - Assessing Applications for Housing Development, requires the assessment to take into account the impact of the development on the existing built environment, and the detailed design elements such as height, materials and positioning.

3.3 The site is situated in a prominent corner location, and can be readily seen from the junction of Merry Street and Highfield Crescent. The rear garden of the site, historically contained a single storey shop unit, fronting onto Highfield Crescent. This was demolished sometime around the submission of the planning applications for the garages.

3.4 The existing rear garden is approximately 11 metres in length, when measured from the main rear elevation of the house to the garage and approximately 8 metres in width. The proposal is approximately 6.5 metres in length and approximately 3.5 metres in width, a footprint of approximately 23 square metres, developing approximately 27% of the rear garden area, excluding the garage. The extension is attached to an existing two storey outhouse, which itself extends approximately 2 metres into the rear garden. Therefore, the total length of the proposed extension and outhouse is approximately 8.5 metres, which results in approximately 2.5 metres of garden being retained between the proposed extension and the existing garage. This area is currently under construction to create a hard surface driveway, accessed from Highfield Crescent, and constitutes permitted development.

3.5 The proposed extension would substantially reduces the amount of garden width, which could meet the council’s standard of 10 metres rear garden length. Only approximately 60% of the garden width would meet the above standard. The garage, which is approximately 23 square metres, combined with the proposal develops approximately 40% of the total rear garden area. It is therefore considered that due to the size, massing and position of the extension on the adjoining boundary and its proximity to the existing large garage, the development constitutes over development. As a result it would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the corner site and would be visually incongruous in the area to the detriment of the residential and visual amenity of the neighbouring properties and surrounding area.

3.6 It is also considered that, due to the design, scale and massing, the two storey flat roof building would be out of keeping with the integrity of the original single storey pitched roof building. As a result the proposed extension would not be subservient and would dominate the existing dwelling house to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.

3.7 Calculations indicate that the proposed extension complies with the accepted good practice guidelines on loss of Daylight to habitable rooms. However, due to the position on the boundary, the size of the proposal, and the existing large garage, it is considered that the proposal would result in a significant reduction in the amount of sunlight available to the rear garden area of the adjoining north east property, to the detriment of the residential amenity of the occupants.

3.8 The applicant has been requested and advised of steps required to be undertaken to make the proposal acceptable to the department. However, they have not taken on board these requirements. Therefore, taking into account the development plan and other material considerations, I recommend that this application be refused. Application No: S/02/00198/OUT

Date Registered: 14th March 2002

Applicant: Bett Homes Upper Floor Argyle Court Castle Business Park Stirling FK9 4TT

Agent Mr S Beebe Beebe Planning 6a George Square Greenock PA15 IQP

Development: Alteration and Improvement to the Existing Golf Course and Proposed Residential Development

Location: Colville Park Golf Course Jerviston Road Motherwell Lanarkshire

Ward: 2: Calder Valley Councillor Vincent Mathieson

Grid Reference: 276040658073

File Reference: S/PL/5/1 PW

Site History: None Relevant

Development Plan: The site is zoned within Policy ENV6 (Greenbelt) and Policy ENV14 (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 200) The site is also zoned within an Inner Greenbelt Sensitive Wedge in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: NLC Protective Services (Cornmen ts) NLC Community Services (Commen ts) Scottish Water (Comments) S.E. P.A.(West) (Comments) The Coal Authority (Comments) Scottish Power (Comments) British Gas Transco (Comments) British Telecom (No Response) Telewest Ltd (No Objection) Forgewood Community Council (No Response) SportScotland (0bjection) Central Scotland Forest Trust (No Response) Scottish Natural Heritage (Objection)

Representations: 38 Representation Letters 56 Signature petition (17 addressed, 5 of which wrote separate letters) Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 12th April 2002

Comments:

This application seeks consent in outline for residential development within Colville Park Golf Course, Motherwell. The applicant proposes to develop housing along the eastern side of the golf course bounded by Jerviston Road, in two separate phases having a total site area of 7.2 hectares (approx 17 acres). All land within the application site lies within the Greenbelt in Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). As the proposal involves building houses on existing parts of the golf course, the applicant proposes to provide replacement golf holes. Approximately, half of the ground intended for replacement holes lies within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and is bounded to the south by the Calder Water Important Wildlife Corridor (IWC). Additionally, an ancient woodland and two grass sports pitches lie within the ground intended for replacement golf holes. Objections have been received from Scottish Natural Heritage on the grounds that the proposal is unjustified in the Greenbelt and could detrimentally effect the SINC and IWC. Sportscotland have also objected to the loss of two football pitches. It is considered that there is no justification for housing development at this location and that it is contrary to the Development Plan in terms of Greenbelt Policy. This application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

The proposal is contrary to the aims of Strategic Policy 9 - Assessment of Development Proposals in The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, which seeks to promote urban regeneration by safeguarding the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Greenbelt, through directing development, where a need has been established, to appropriate locations. The proposal fails to meet the criteria set down in the policy and would exceed the relevant threshold within schedule 9. As such the development would not be appropriate in terms of the requirement to safeguard the Greenbelt and would introduce isolated and sporadic development of significant scale in the Greenbelt.

2. The proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 10 in The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000, as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development is a justifiable departure from the plan, in terms of criteria A ii, A v, B i, B ii, and B iii of Strategic policy 10, as the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposal fulfils a shortfall in housing land supply, specific locational need; or would result in economic, social and environmental benefit to the area, which could outweigh the inappropriateness of the proposed development in this Greenbelt location.

3. The proposal is contrary to policies ENV5, ENV6 and ENV14 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001), as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not inflict an unacceptable impact on the environment including the Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and has also failed to demonstrate that the proposal is associated with or required for agriculture, forestry, outdoor recreation or other appropriate rural uses. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not adversely affect the character and function of the Greenbelt by cumulative and incremental development.

4. The proposal is contrary to policies HSGI, HSGIO and HSG12 in the Southern Area Finalised Draft Local Plan (Modified 2001), as it would involve the development of a greenfield location with no proven justification in terms of operational need or identified housing provision shortfall within the local plan area.

Note to the Committee:

Should it be the decision of the Council to grant planning permission, the application will require to be notified to the Scottish Ministers as a significant departure from the provisions of the Development Plan under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997. Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th February 2002 Supporting Statement prepared by agent dated February 2002. Transportation Statement dated 24'h September 2002 Ecological Assessment dated September 2002 The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft ( Modified 2001) Circular 24/1985 (Development in the Countryside and Greenbelts) NPPG 14 (Natural Heritage) Planning Advice Note 43 (Golf Courses and Associated Development) Memos from Protective Services received 27th March and 7'h May 2002 Memo from NLC Community Services received 22nd January 2003 Letter from Scottish Water received 20th May 2002 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 23rd April 2002 Letter from The Coal Authority received 4th April 2002 Letter from Scottish Power received 5th April 2002 Letter from British Gas Transco received 3rd April 2002 Letter from Telewest Ltd received 16th April 2002 Letters from Scottish Natural Heritage received 30th April 2002 and 26'h March 2003 Letter from Sportscotland received 6'h September 2002 Memo form NLC Transportation Section received 20 March 2002 56 signature petition Letter from The Occupier,106 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 27th February 2002. Letter from Mr W. S.Watson,82 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 28th February 2002. Letter from Mrs H. Higgins,2 Jerviswood, Motherwell, M1 4AB received 4th March 2002. Letter from Miss L. G. Anderson,l28 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 4th March 2002. Letter from Mr and Mrs Lees / Mr and Mrs Coia,c/o Marshall Ross and Munro, 106 Hamilton Road, Motherwell, MLI 3DG received 4th March 2002. Letter from Mr and Mrs ROe,4 Jerviswood, Motherwell, MLI 4AJ received 5th March 2002. Letter from Miss M. Lindsay,l38 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 5th March 2002. Letter from S. R. and M. W. Davis,92 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 5th March 2002. Letter from Mr J. Knox,86 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 5th March 2002. Letter from Mr and Mrs R. McKellar,l24 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 5th March 2002. Letter from Mrs D. Irvine,l40 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 5th March 2002. Letter from Mr W. S.and E. C. Smith,144 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 5th March 2002. Letter from Mr B. Kirk,l32 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 6th March 2002. Letter from Mr Q. Wright,88 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 7th March 2002. Letter from Mrs M. Wright,88 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 7th March 2002. Letter from Mr G. R. McLachlan,70 Manse Road, Motherwell, MLI 2PT received 7th March 2002. Letter from L. lnnes,406 Ladywell Road, Motherwell, MLI 3HW received 8th March 2002. Letter from Mr J. Watson,l34 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 8th March 2002. Letter from Mrs A. Watson,l34 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 8th March 2002. Letter from Mr J. Jardine,l08 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 8th March 2002. Letter from Mr P. and Mrs E. McLelland,Tara, 40 Jerviston Street, Motherwell, MLI 4BL received 11th March 2002. Letter from Mr T. Carrigan,SO Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AB received 1Ith March 2002. Letter from R. G. Spiers,lGO Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD, received 1Ith March 2002. Letter from Mr and Mrs Mosley,Burnside, 50 Jerviston Street, Motherwell, MLI 4BL, received 1Ith March 2002. Letter from Mrs I. Kavanagh,80 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MII 4AB received I1th March 2002. Letter from Mr John Dobbin,l Burnside Quadrant, , MLI 4RB received 8th April 2002. Letter from Mrs S. Keir,lO4 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, ML2 4AB received 9th April 2002. Letter from Mr K. R. McGregor,26 Elvan Street, Motherwell, MLI 3EL received 10th April 2002. Letter from Mrs I. McGregor,26 Elvan Street, Motherwell, MLI 3EL received 11th April 2002. Letter from E. G. Hurlbert,6 Cullen Road, Greenacres, Motherwell, MLI 3YL received 12th April 2002. Letter from Mr J. Mitchell,152 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 19th April 2002. Letter from Mr and Mrs Gordon,594 Merry Street, Motherwell, MLI 4BW received 18th April 2002. Letter from Mr W. Lowe,l2 Coursington Crescent, Motherwell, MLI INS received 29th April 2002. Letter from Mrs Marion Black and Mr John Black,41 Woodside Street, , MLI 4JT received 19th April 2002. Letter from Robert and Jean Perrie, 154 Jerviston Road, Motherwell, MLI 4AD received 20th May 2002 Letter from Frank Roy MP received 4'h April 2002 Letter from Jack McConnell MSP received 2gthJanuary 2003

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Paul Williams at 01698 302091. APPLICATION NO. S/02/00198/OUT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks consent for a residential development in outline at Colville Park Golf Club. The applicant, Bett Homes, intend to develop housing in two phases along the eastern edge of the golf club site, which is bounded by Jerviston Road, and re-model the golf course and provide the replacement holes required as a result of the lost holes incurred by the housing development. Vehicular access to the housing development would be from Jerviston Road.

1.2 The site of the proposed relocated holes lies partially within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, which includes ancient woodland. It is bounded to the north by a disused railway embankment, which once served the steelworks, to the south by the Calder Water and to the west by a cemetery. The proposal also involves the upgrading of existing clubhouse facilities and ground drainage improvement works to the existing golf course.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site lies within the Greenbelt (Policy ENVG) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) and lies within an Inner Greenbelt Sensitive Wedge which forms part of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Greenbelt as identified in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

2.2 The majority of the western edge of the site lies within a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, policy ENV14 in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). Significant proportion of this area is bounded by the Calder Water Important Wildlife Corridor.

2.3 The proposal should also be assessed against policy ENVS, which seeks to protect the natural environment and policies HSGI, 10 and 12, which are the relevant policies relating to housing proposals of this nature.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No objections and standard comments have been received from Railtrack, SEPA, Scottish Power, Scottish Water. NLC Community Services has expressed concerns regarding the possible effect that the proposal could have in the SINC. Transco have indicated that Transco underground pipes would have to be re-routed at cost to the developer in order to accommodate the proposed housing. The Coal Authority has advised that the developer should seek professionaVtechnica1 advice regarding ground stability. The Council’s Protective Services Section has also advised that the applicant should submit a history of past usage on the site in order to determine any possible levels of contamination.

3.2 Scottish Natural Heritage have objected to the proposal on the grounds that proposal will have significant adverse impacts on important habitats and species within the SINC and along the Important Wildlife Corridor. These habitats and species are identified within an Ecological assessment submitted by the applicant dated September 2002. Their objection also relates to loss of tree cover and the detrimental effect that the proposal will have on the landscape character of the surrounding area.

3.3 Sportscotland have objected on the grounds that the area of ground intended to provide the replacement golf holes currently accommodates two grass football/hockey pitches and the developers have not indicated how these sports pitches will be replaced. 3.4 A total of 38 letters of objection have been received, two of which, have come via the local M.P. and M.S.P. Furthermore, a 56 signature petition has been received, 17 of which provided addresses and 5 of which have written separate letters. This means that a total of 89 separate representations of objection have been received, 55 of which have provided addresses. The objections are on the following grounds :-

The site lies within the Greenbelt with no justification for the proposed housing The proposal will have an adverse effect on the natural environment The site was a gift from the Colville family to the steelworkers and therefore morally should not be used for private housing There is no need for additional housing in this area, especially in the light of the proposals The proposal will generate additional traffic to the detriment of road safety 0 Loss of residential amenity Lack of existing infrastructure 0 Loss of view Increase in pollution The proposal could lead to methane gas emissions The proposal could effect the structural integrity of existing dwellings due to mineworkings The proposal could effect existing ground drainage characteristics of adjacent areas

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 This application has to be assessed in terms of the relevant local plan zoning which reflects the zoning of the site within the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and any material considerations. NPPG 14 states the importance of protecting ancient woodland and this proposal would result in the clearance of part of an ancient woodland contained within the SlNC in order to provide replacement golf holes. Circular 2411985, deals with development in the Greenbelt. This circular stresses the importance of preserving the existing designated Greenbelt and the need to establish confidence in the permanence of the Greenbelt. The circular also states that two of the main purposes of greenbelts is to maintain the identity of towns by establishing a clear definition of their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence and to maintain the landscape setting of towns.

4.2 Planning Advice Note 43, which deals with ‘Golf Courses and Associated Developments’ states that new housing developments associated with golf courses are likely to be incompatible with Greenbelt policies unless such sites can be justified as part of an overall strategic appraisal of housing land requirements in a structure plan and where they do not undermine the continued overall effectiveness of the Greenbelt.

4.3 In terms of the structure plan, the proposal is considered to be a significant departure, as it would result in more than 10 dwellings outwith an established urban expansion area as outlined in schedule 9. Furthermore, it is considered that there is no shortage of housing land supply in this area that would make this proposal a justified exception. Strategic Policy 9 within the structure plan seeks to promote urban regeneration by safeguarding the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Greenbelt, through directing development, where a need has been established, to appropriate locations. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the aims of Strategic Policy 9. The structure plan also seeks to safeguard the Geenbelt and prevent isolated and sporadic development which could effect landscape character, merging of settlements and also seeks to support the development of green corridors, of which, this application site forms part. 4.4 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a shortfall in existing housing land supply for this area or that there is a specific locational need for the proposed housing at this location. Furthermore, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would result in economic, social and environmental benefit to the area which could outweigh the inappropriateness of the proposed development in this Greenbelt location. This application is therefore considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 in the structure plan.

4.5 The site is zoned within the Greenbelt (Policy ENV 6) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001). This policy states that the Council will safeguard the character and function of the Greenbelt, as defined and that there will be a presumption against proposals that are not directly associated with or required for agriculture, forestry, outdoor leisure and recreation or other appropriate rural uses. Although the proposal relates to an existing golf course, in that it is sited within an existing golf course, it is considered that the proposed housing is not required for the golf course outdoor recreation use, which already exists, and that there is no justification in terms of the above criteria. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy ENV 6, Greenbelt in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised draft (Modified 2001). It is further considered that the proposal is contrary to the aims of NPPG 14 and Circular 24/1985 as outlined in paragraph 4.1.

4.6 A significant proportion of the application site lies within a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (Policy ENV 14) in the local plan and approximately half the site required for the replacement golf holes lies within this SlNC area. This policy states that no development would be allowed that would adversely effect the SINC. Scottish Natural Heritage has objected on the grounds that they consider that the proposal will adversely effect the SlNC and its biodiversity and also result in the loss of part of an ancient woodland. Similarly. Policy ENV 5 presumes in favour of proposals where it can be demonstrated that it will not inflict an unacceptable impact on the environment. It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the SlNC and as such this application is considered to be contrary to both policies ENV 5 and ENV 14. This can also be argued in terms of the objection from Sportscotland relating to the loss of two sports pitches, where the applicant has provided no detailed information about their replacement.

4.7 Policy HSG 1 seeks to direct new housing to brownfield sites, a policy, which this proposal clearly contravenes. Policy HSG 10 also states that the Council when assessing housing proposals should take into account the impact of the proposed development on the existing built and natural environment, which links into the aims of policy ENV 14. Additionally, policy HSG 12 states that new housing in the Greenbelt should only be permitted where there is a proven operational need in accordance with policy ENV 6, as there is no shortfall in housing land supply in the Motherwell area and the applicant has failed to demonstrate such a need, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy HSG 12 in the local plan.

4.8 In terms of objections received, the objections relating to loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The objections relating to residential amenity, methane gas emissions, structural integrity/mineworkings and drainage are all issues, which can be addressed at a detailed planning application stage. The objection relating to lack of existing infrastructure does not specify which particular elements of infrastructure and again most issues relating to this can be dealt with at a detailed stage or are outwith the planning remit. The objection relating to pollution is also considered to be outwith the planning remit.

4.9 The objections relating to the Greenbelt, effect on the environment and lack of need for more housing in the area are considered to be valid objections for the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs. The objection relating to traffic and effect on road safety is not considered to be valid as the proposed access point is considered to be acceptable and it is further considered that the additional traffic can be adequately accommodated by the road network. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a Transportation Assessment which substantiates this view. The objection relating to the status or otherwise of the ground in question as a gift, is not a material planning consideration, but a matter for the landowner and developer.

4.10 It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is a specific locational need for the proposed housing or that it is should be assessed comprehensively in relation to the existing golf course and has provided no Greenbelt justification. Additionally, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not significantly impact on the existing environment in terms of the SINC. Therefore, for the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Strategic policies 9 and 10 in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. Similarly, for the reasons previously outlined, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies ENVS, 6, 14 and HSGI, 10 and 12 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001), and as such, this application is recommended for refusal. Application No: S/02/00905/FU L

Date Registered: 1st October 2002

Applicant: Mr I More 149 Waverley Drive Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 7DW

Development: Erection of Garage for the Parking of Commercial Vehicle

Location: 149 Waverley Drive Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 7DW

Ward: 7: Belhaven Councillor Samuel Love

Grid Reference: 280310.655574.

File Reference: SlPLlBl012lRT

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: The application site is covered by residential policies within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 2 Representation Letters

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a garage for the parking of a commercial vehicle and the formation of a drivewaylparking space at a flatted dwellinghouse in Waverley Drive, Wishaw. Two letters of objection have been received in connection with the proposal from adjoining neighbours in relation to the application and the comments are detailed in my report. In addition it should be noted that both components of this planning application raise roads issues with the more serious issue being related to the retrospective parking space which has been installed on the corner of Waverley Drive and Abbotsford Road, Wishaw. For reasons contained in my report it is recommended that the retrospective garage be granted with no action being taken over the driveway provided the applicant reinstates a boundary fence to prevent the use of the area for the parking of a vehicle.

I would also take this opportunity to note that it may be necessary to take enforcement action on part of this unauthorised development if the applicant continues to use the area for parking a vehicle.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the public footpath forward of the garage shall be kept clear at all times from vehicles.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

2. That for the avoidance of doubt the use of the garage hereby permitted shall be restricted to the parking of the commercial vehicle only and no commercial activity shall be carried out, in, or from, the garage.

Reason: In the interests the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

3. That within one month from the date of this permission the driveway/hard standing area shall have a 1 metre high boundary fence/wall reinstated along its entire width adjacent to Waverley Drive and shall not be used at any time for the parking of a vehicle.

Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th June 2002

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 18th February 2003 Letter from Mr & Mrs McMonagle,l51 Waverley Drive, Wishaw, ML2 7DW received 7th February 2003. Letter from Mrs Margaret Watson,4 Abbotsford Road, Wishaw, ML2 7DN received 10th February 2003.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Rosaleen Toal at 01698 302104. APPLICATION NO. S1021009051FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This planning application is seeking retrospective planning permission for the erection of a garage to house a commercial vehicle and the formation of a driveway/parking space to a flatted dwellinghouse at 149 Waverley Drive, Wishaw.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This planning application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) the site lies within an area zoned as policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas). Within the policy the Council will seek to protect the established character of the existing housing areas.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section have recommended that permission be refused for both elements of this proposal as the driveway which forms the access to the garage is substandard at 4.5 metres long which may lead to vehicles overhanging the footway or waiting/parking on Waverley Drive. In addition the location of driveway/parking space to the front of the property is unacceptable as it is located on the radius of the crossroad junction and any manoeuvring to and from the driveway is detrimental to road safety.

3.2 Two letters of representation have also been received from adjoining neighbours in relation to the retrospective driveway/parking space. The main points of objection relate to an invasion of privacy in that the car is parking close to bedroom windows and in the interest of road safety as the car is entering and leaving the site on a dangerous curve where traffic speeds up coming along Waverley Drive. The objector is also concerned that a heavy vehicle could crash into the parked car and cause it to go on fire.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 On detailed assessment of the proposals and taking into account both the Transportation Sections comments and letters of objection to both the retrospective components I would make the following comments:

(a) In terms of planning assessment, the garage element of this proposal is considered acceptable in terms of design and material finish, although it is disappointing that the applicant has erected it before the outcome of a planning decision. The main issue on this element lies with the substandard driveway, however it is considered that provided no vehicles overhang the public footway in front of the garage at any time the proposal can be considered acceptable. I have therefore attached a condition to the planning permission to ensure the applicant does not allow any vehicle to overhang the footway at any time. Furthermore it should be noted that the Transportation Section are concerned that the garage may encourage a vehicle to waitlpark on Waverley Drive. In response to this issue it should be noted that Waverley Drive does not have any waiting or parking restrictions imposed, as such any vehicle at any time could stop and wait along this section of road. (b) With regard to the retrospective drivewayiparking space element of the proposal and to reiterate the Transportation Section comments, I would agree that there are serious concerns over the location of this development. Any car using the parking space requires to take access over the radius of the cross road junction of Waverley Drive, Woodstock Drive and Abbotsford Road and any manoeuvring to and from the parking space is detrimental to road safety. In addition the local member has recently expressed concern over the safety of this particular junction. It should also be noted that an accident has recently take place one junction up from this location at the junction of Ryde Road and Waverley Drive. As such I feel that this element of the proposal has serious traffic issues and would be detrimental to pedestrian and road safety if approved. Given that the development is retrospective I have attached a condition to this permission requesting that within one month of the date of this permission, a 1 metre high boundary fence/wall shall be reinstated along its entire length and the site shall not be use at any time for the parking of a vehicle.

4.2 Taking the above into account I would recommend that approval is granted for the garage, the driveway/parking space use is discontinued and the necessary enforcement action be considered if required to reinstate a fence along the driveways entire width. Application No: S/03/00182/AMD

Date Registered: 13th February 2003

Applicant: Hugh Pollock 12 Belhaven Park Muirhead Glasgow

Development: Erection of 1 and a half Storey Detached Dwelling-House

Location: Land East Of Heathfield Wishaw Road Wishaw Lanarkshire

Ward: 15: Garrion Councillor John Pentland

Grid Reference: 281680 653531

File Reference: PLISIB2161IRT

Relevant Site History: WO1 005590UT Demolition of Existing Stables and Erection of Detached Dwellinghouse - Granted 10th September 2001 S/0200179FUL Erection of Detached Dwellinghouse - Granted 25th July 2002

Developmen t Plan: The site is covered by both the Green Belt and Area of Great Landscape Value policies within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: S.E.P.A.(West) (comments) Scottish Water (no objections) The Coal Authority (com ments)

Representations: 1 Representation Letter

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This planning application is seeking planning permission for the erection of a one and a half storey detached dwellinghouse on land at Heathfield, Waterloo, Wishaw. Both outline and detailed planning permission has already been approved for the site and this application is now seeking an amendment to the house type approved under the detailed permission.

One letter of objection has been received from the adjacent neighbour in relation to the type of sewerage treatment proposed with the development. However for reasons contained in my report it is recommended that planning permission is granted subject to the attached conditions.

Recommendation: Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started not later than 28 August 2006.

Reason: To accord with the outline planning permission.

2. That notwithstanding the plans hereby permitted and agreed with the applicant the material finish for the dwellinghouse shall be Lomond Buff Brick and Marley Monarch roof tiles with a sample panel of the dry dash for the dwellinghouse to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any works begin on site.

Reason: In the interest of amenity of the dwellinghouse and surrounding area.

3. That the use of the garage 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: In the interests of the residential amenity of the dwellinghouse and surrounding area

4. That the integral garage shall not be altered for use as a habitable room without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.

5. That before the occupation of the dwellinghouse the 1.8 metre high timber pallisade boundary fence detailed on the plans hereby permitted shall be erected.

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

6. That the first 2 metres of the driveway, beyond the limit of the adjoining road shall be surfaced in an impervious material.

Reason: To prevent deleterious material being carried onto the road.

7. That a visibility splay of 2.5 metres by 20 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the vehicular access and before the development hereby permitted is completed, everything exceeding 1.05 metres in height above the road channel level shall be removed from the sight line areas and, thereafter, nothing exceeding 1.05 metres in height above road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

8. That notwithstanding the plans hereby permitted the vehicular access to the site shall be widened to 5.5 metres along its full length.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety. 9. That any alterations to the biological treatment plant hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing before the commencement of any works relating to the treatment plant begin on site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the surrounding area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 12th February 2003

Memo from NLC Transportation Section received 25 February 2003 Letter from S.E.P.A.(West) received 12th March 2003 Letter from Scottish Water received 3rd March 2003 Letter from The Coal Authority received 21st February 2003 Letter from Mr & Mrs McGurk, Rhiconich, Gillhead, Waterloo, ML2 8HD received 20th February 2003.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Rosaleen Toal at 01698 302104. APPLICATION NO. S1031001821AMD

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application site is a vacant area of land, which previously accommodated a stable block on land to the east of Heathfield, Gillhead, Wishaw.

1.2 This application is seeking an amendment to a detailed planning permission granted on 25 July 2002. The dwellinghouse proposed is of a smaller scale than that original approved on the site. The dwellinghouse will consist of a one and a half storey detached dwellinghouse consisting of a lounge, dining room, sitting room, kitchen, hall and double garage on the ground floor with four bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper floor of the dwellinghouse. The style and material finish of the dwellinghouse is also considered acceptable.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore the Development Plan is established through the Local Plan.

2.2 Within the Southern Area Local Plan the site is within an area zoned as ENV 6 (Green Belt) and ENV 15 (Area of Great Landscape Value) within which the Council will safeguard the character and function of the green belt as well as resisting any proposals which would have a significant adverse effect on the character and quality of the environment.

2.3 As noted above both outline and detailed planning permission have been approved for this site. The principle of housing has been established on this site, as such it is considered that this application for an amendment to the house type is not contrary to the development plan in this particular case.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section recommended refusal of the proposal as the existing access to the site is substandard. However given that detailed planning permission has already been approved for a dwellinghouse on the site and the principle established the Transportation Section have agreed to recommend conditions to be attached to the permission.

3.2 Scottish Water and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency have no objections to the proposal and The Coal Authority have advised that the property is within the likely zone of influence on the surface from workings in 2 seams of coal at 70 metres to 100 metres depth.

3.3 One letter of representation has been received in connection with the proposal. The letter clearly stated that the concerns lie with the drainage and sewerage system for the proposal as a septic tank and soak away system may not be sufficient due to the clay content in the soil.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In considering this application account would normally be taken of the relevant Development Plan policies. However the Green Belt designation of the site has been overtaken by events and the determining issues narrow down to whether the dwellinghouse with the associated drainage and sewerage system are considered acceptable. 4.2 In response to the representation received I would advise that the applicant is proposing to install a biological treatment plant which discharges to an engineered mound system rather than a traditional septic tank and soak-away system. Furthermore the details of the biological treatment plant have been fully assessed by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency who have advised that they have no objections to the proposal.

4.3 Taking the above into account as well as the previous relevant planning history of the site, I recommend that planning permission is granted subject to the attached conditions. Application No: S/03/00294/F UL

Date Registered: 3rd March 2003

Applicant: Gary Black 6 Thrashbush Road Wishaw ML2 8LL

Agent lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell MLI 3JL

Development: Erection Of Rear Conservatory Extension (Retrospective)

Location: 6 Thrashbush Road Wishaw Lanarkshire ML2 8LL

Ward: 9: Cambusnethan Councillor Thomas Selfridge

Grid Reference: 280771.655483.

File Reference: S/PL/B/3/2(232)/FM

Site History: No relevant site history

Development Plan: The site is covered by residential policies in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None Required

Representations: 1Letter of Objection / Representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Comments:

This application seeks permission for the erection of a rear conservatory extension in retrospect at 6 Thrashbush Road. Cambusnethan.

One letter of objection has been received from the owner of the adjoining property in relation to this application and the comments are detailed in my accompanying report. For reasons contained in my report it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Recommendation: Grant PLANNING APPLICATION No. S/03/00294/FUL PIoducsd by Rsnnlng and Elvironmsn! Hemdqmrter. ERECTION OF REAR CONSERVATORY EXTENSION (RETROSPECTIVE) S~I!e501.Flaming House 2TryLRoad CUMBERNAUW 067 IJW 6 THRASHBUSH ROAD, WlSHAW 01236 616210 FLIX.oim 618232 Os License LA09041L * Representations Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 26th February 2003

Letter from Mr and Mrs Goodsir, 8 Thrashbush Road, Wishaw, ML2 received 3rd March 2003.

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Fraser Miller at 01698 302102. APPLICATION NO. S/03/00294/FUL

REPORT

I. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application site is a semi-detached two-storey dwellinghouse bounded by a local shop to the south and dwellinghouses to the north, east and west.

1.2 The applicant is seeking permission in retrospect for the erection of a rear conservatory extension on the boundary of the application site and number 8 Thrashbush Road. The rear conservatory extension projects 3.4 metres from the rear of the dwellinghouse and measures 3.6 metres in width. The height of the conservatory measures 3.6 metres to the ridge of the pitched roof and 3 metres to the top of the firewall in line with the eaves. The conservatory is constructed using white UPVC framing and the base wall and firewall is finished in facing brick. The conservatory is not constructed on the boundary line however due to its proximity with the boundary a firewall has been constructed in accordance Building Regulations.

2. Development Plan

2.1 Within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001) the site is within an Established Housing Area and is covered by Policy HGS 8 which seeks to protect the established character of the existing housing area.

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 No consultations have been carried out in respect of this application.

3.2 One letter of objection has been received from the owner of the adjoining property in relation to this application. The objection was received on the following grounds:

(a) The firewall of the conservatory will obstruct light and sunlight from the objector’s patio and dining room. (b) The view from the dining room and patio will be obstructed (c) The proposed firewall of the conservatory will be about 1 metre from the objector’s dining room window. (d) The firewall is unsightly and will reduce usage of the patio.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 This development raises no strategic issues and as the site is within a residential area the main assessment needs to be given to the proposals to design and its impact in the surrounding area, and the concerns raised by the objector.

4.2 With respect to the objections raised it should be noted that the proposed extension is only approximately 12 square metres and would normally be considered permitted development. However due to the erection of a garage in the garden in this instance planning permission is required. Given the rear extensions close proximity to the objectors living room window, the sunlight and daylight test was carried out for a Building Research Establishment Report “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice”. The result showed that although the extension will reduce both the sunlight and daylight to the objector’s dining room window, the living room window will still receive over the minimum standards recommended. It is considered that the majority of the overshadowing of the property is due to the rear garden of the property being east facing and the shadows being cast by the dwellinghouses themselves. 4.3 It is considered that the impact of the proposal on the neighbouring property is insufficient to justify refusing the application and as the design, scale and materials are all acceptable, it is recommended that permission be granted.