AGENDA ITEM NO...... *...... -L Application No. S/O1/00607/AMD Date registered 30 May 2001 APPLICANT HOMES LTD. C/O AGENT Agent Skirliiig Design Studio, Balmoral Court, West End, Carnwatli ML11 8RX DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE DETACHED DWELLINGHOUSES LOCATION , HAGEN DRTVE,

Ward No. 5 Grid Reference 2781 12 658003

File Reference S/PLB/5/50(324)/DA/AH

Site History February 2001 - Permission refused for construction of five detached dwellinghouses February 1997 - Golf driving range granted perinission as part of sportsfield alterations February 1994 - Site included in outline permission - site for upgrading of outdoor sports facilities, golf course and 175 house plots

Development Plan Strathclyde Structure Plan - Policies GB 1, GB 1A, RES 1 and RES 1A Northern Area Local Plan - Policies El, E2 and E3 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) - Policies ENV6 and HSG12

Contrary to Development Plan Yes

CONSULTATIONS

Objection No Objection West of Water, Coal Authority Conditions Scottish Natural Heritage No Reply Scottish Environment Protection Agency

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours No Response Newspaper Advertisement No Response

COMMENTS The applicant seeks planning perinission to construct five large single and two storey detached dwellinghouses on the site of the driving range within the grounds of Dalziel Park, off Chapelknowe Road, Motherwell. The site is within the Green Belt. The proposal is a revised version of one refused planning permission by Corninittee in February this year. The revised proposal is substantially the same as the original although further information regarding screening and access have been provided. Nevertheless, it is recommended that planning permission be refused, although should Committee disagree with my recommendation, referral to the Scottish Executive would be required in that the development would be contrary to the Development Plan. The applicant has formally

requested that a site visit and special hearing take place before the application is determined.

RECOMMENDATION Refuse, on the following grounds:-

1. That the proposed dwellinghouses are contrary to policies GB 1, GB 1A, RES 1, RES 1A of the Strathclyde Structure Plan; policies El, E2 and E3 of the Northern Area Local Plan, and policies ENV6 and HSG12 of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) in that there is no justification to permit such a Green Belt release.

2. That the proposed dwellinghouses could have their residential amenity adversely affected by floodlighting and noise from the adjacent pitches.

List of Background Papers

Application form and plans registered on 30/5/01 Supporting statement from applicant Strathclyde Regional Council Structure Plan, 1995 Motherwell District Council, Northern Area Local Plan North Council, Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 200 1) Letter from West of Scotland Water, dated 11/1/01 Letter from Coal Authority, dated 10/1/01 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage, dated 25/6/0 1

Any person wishing to inspect the above background papers should telephone Motherwell 302090 and ask for Mr Ashman. APPLICATION NO. WO1/00607/AMD

REPORT

1. APPLICATION AND SITE

1.1 The applicant seeks planning permission to construct five large single and two storey detached dwellinghouses within the grounds of Dalziel Park, off Chapelknowe Road, Motherwell. The dwellinghouses are 8- 10 apartment, set in grounds of nearly an acre each.

1.2 The application site is located at the end of Hagen Drive, the long access road which serves tlie sports fields and the Golf and Country Club. The road narrows to 3.5 metres width at the end of Hagen Drive and access to the plots would be via the car park for the driving range. This car park also acts as an overspill car park for events staged within the Club. The application site is currently the driving range for the golf club.

1.3 A supporting statement has been produced by the applicant. This largely refers to the reasons for refusal by Committee in February of this year of an almost identical proposal at this site. The statement acknowledges the site is within the Green Belt but considers that the proposal should be approved in the context of the overall “Development Plan” for Dalziel Park, wliicli already has planning approval. This “Development Plan” is not the development, plan, in its truest planning sense, but tlie plan for development of Dalziel Park put forward by the developer in 199 1, This plan established the relationship between the upgrading of the sportsfields aiid the housing development.

1.4 It should be pointed out that this “Development Plan” was refined by the subsequent planning permissions and development and design brief associated with Dalziel Park and that development of housing on the application site was not shown on the indicative plan forming part of the “Development Plan”. Nevertheless, in his supporting statement, the applicant makes it clear that he considers his “Development Plan” to have overtaken the Green Belt designation of the site. On this basis, he considers that the proposal would be in accordance with his “Development Plan”, would be within the scale of approved development within the Estate without harm to any interested party, and would continue the partnership approach of tlie overall development between the Dalziel High Scliool War Memorial Trust, the Couiicil aiid tlie applicant. In respect of the latter point, the applicant considers finance raised froin tlie sale of these plots will assist with tlie completion of road surfacing and proposals by the Trust to extend their grandstand.

1.5 Tlie more tecliiiical issues previously raised are also largely addressed. The applicant indicates that the road leading to the site will be brought up to the “required” standard and a footway provided. He considers floodligliting and noise issues not to be a problem as the distance from the proposed dwellinghouses to the pitches is similar to that of the existing dwellinghouses backing onto Hagen Drive.

1.6 The applicant’s supporting statement also refers to a previous appeal decision elsewhere within Dalziel Park wliicli allowed a bedroom block to be built. Tlie reporter considered that the 1994 outline planning permission overtook the Green Belt designation of tlie site and tlie applicant considers that tlie same principle should apply in this instance.

1.7 It should be noted that the applicant has requested a site visit and special hearing of the Committee before a decision is made. 2. CONSULTATIONS

2.1 The only consultation carried out in addition to those on the previous application was with Scottish Natural Heritage. The responses to the previous application are reproduced below as circumsta~iceshave not significantly varied.

2.2 West of Scotland Water - both water and sewerage connections may be made without significant complications.

2.3 Coal Authority - there are no indications of mineshafts or other potential undermining features where settlement has not already occurred.

2.4 Scottish Natural Heritage - no objections, although conditions are suggested to secure protection of adjacent natural areas.

2.5 Scottish Environment Protection Agency did not respond.

3. DEVELOPMENT PLAN

3.1 The development plan for this site consists of the Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995, as modified, and the Northern Area Local Plan, 1986. The most relevant up to date Local Plan is the Council Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (modified June 200 1). Both of the latter plans allocate the site as Green Belt and, on this basis, there are relevant Structure Plan policies.

3.2 The relevant policies of the Structure Plan are as follows:-

Policy GB 1

The spread of built up areas and the encroachinent of developinent into the countryside within a “Green Belt” around the conurbation and AyrPrestwicWTroon, as indicated on the Key Diagram, shall not accord with the Regional Development Strategy.

Policy GB 1A

Proposals for development within the Green Belt shall require to be justified against the following criteria:

(a) economic benefit (b) specific locational need (c) infrastructure implications, and (d) environmental impact.

Policy RES 1

The Regional Development Strategy requires that preference shall be given to residential development on “brownfield” infill or redevelopment sites within urban areas (excluding zoned and other valued and functional open space), rather than “greenfield” sites.

Policy RES 1A

Proposals to extend the “greenfield” supply of land for residential development shall require to be justified against the following criteria: (a) clear evidence of a shortfall in effective housing land supply in tlie relevant housing market area; (b) the evidence of need for social or rented housing established in tlie relevant local authority’s approved housing plan; (c) accessibility to the public transport network and town centre; (d) infrastructure implications, and; (e) impact on environmental quality and policy for the Green Belt, Greeiiing the Conurbation, or the Countryside Around Towns.

3.3 The relevant policies of tlie Northern Area Local Plan are as follows:

Policy El - Green Belt

Within areas defined as Green Belt, only development which is clearly required in connection with agriculture, forestry, outdoor sports and open space uses will be allowed. The exception will be opencast extractioii of ininerals which is the subject of a separate policy.

Policy E2 - Urban Fringe

At the boundary of the Green Belt and the built up area, action will be taken to reduce urban pressures on the contiguous agricultural areas.

Policy E3 - Improvement of Derelict and Under-used land within the Green Belt.

Motherwell District Council, through the inechanisin of the Central Scotland countryside Trust will encourage private landowners to improve derelict and underused areas within tlie Green Belt through woodland planting and management schemes.

3.4 Finally, the relevant policies of the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001) are as follows:

Policy ENV6 - Green Belt (extract)

The Council will safeguard the character and function of tlie Green Belt, as defined on tlie Proposals Map, within which there will be a presuinption against development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, the generation of power from renewable energy sources, outdoor leisure and recreation, telecoinmunications or other appropriate rural uses, such as mineral extraction, where proposals accord with other relevant policies within this plan.

Policy HSG 12 Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside (extract)

In determining applications for new houses tlie Council will take account of the following criteria, amongst others:

(1) new houses, which do not form replacement dwellings, will only be permitted where there is a proven operational need in accordance with Policies ENV6 Green Belt and ENV8 Countryside Around Towns (2) the visual prominence of the site (3) the compatibility of the design to a rural location (4) the incorporation of traditional design features and external finishing materials, and (5) tlie provision made for vehicular access and site drainage. 4. ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSAL

4.1 Tlie proposed development is within the grounds of Dalziel Park, which lies between and Cleland. Planning permission was granted in 1994 for the upgrading of tlie sports facilities, development of a golf course and the construction of 175 dwellinghouses. Tlie dwellinghouses were to be an essential element of the financial package for the upgrading of tlie sports facilities. Tlie last element of tlie sports facilities, the grandstand for the feature rugby pitch, has been constructed. Furthermore, all of the dwellinghouses have either been built or have planning permission. Therefore, the aims of tlie original permission, which are similar to tlie applicant’s “Development Plan” have been achieved. The application currently under consideration does not contribute to the original “package” associated with the outline planning permission granted for Dalziel Park. Roads should be completed under tlie current permissioiis and the proposed extension to the grandstand is an additional matter not covered by existing permissioiis.

4.2 Although the applicatioii site was included in the outline planning permission, it has been regarded as Green Belt as it forms part of tlie sports facilities. It lies distinct from the areas identified within the Dalziel Park master plan for housing development. Tlie master plan is reflected in the land use zoiiiiig contained within the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001). This local plan re-affirms the designation of the site in the adopted local plan, the Northern Area Local Plan, as Green Belt. Assessment of the proposal therefore starts from tlie designation of the site as Green Belt and whether or not there is justificatioii for its release for residential use.

4.3 Due to the Green Belt designation, the proposed development is contrary to tlie aims of policies GB 1, E 1 and ENV6 above. In terms of justification for departure from these policies, particularly policy GB 1A above, the proposal offers no outstanding economic benefits, other than short term construction jobs and, arguably, a contribution to construction of an extension to the grandstand. Thus far, no formal notification of this proposed extension has been received.

4.4 No specific locatioiial need for the dwellinghouses to be so located has been provided. On the other hand, infrastructure implications are not significant and would have to be addressed by the applicant. Tlie relevant service providers have indicated that this can be achieved. Environmental impact would be ininimal due to the low lying location of the proposed dwellings.

4.5 With respect to policy RES1, this site is not regarded as mainly brownfield due to the lack of a built site history. Only tlie driving range building could realistically be regarded as brownfield and this forms an incidental part of the overall site. On this basis, justification has to be provided, under policies RES 1A and HSG12, as to why tlie greenfield supply of land for residential development should be extended.

4.6 There is no evidence, and none has been provided by the applicant, of a shortfall of effective housing land supply in this housing inarltet area. Indeed, future housing demand in the area should be well catered for by developments at Carfin Village, Bernadette Crescent, plotted development at Low Road, Cleland and, later, . The proposed dwellinghouses are all owner occupied and are therefore not social or rented. Furthermore, accessibility to the public transport network and town centres is poor from Dalziel Park.

4.7 I therefore consider that the proposed development does not satisfy all the criteria set out in policies GB 1A, RES 1A and HSG 12 above. Accordingly, there is no justifiable reason to release this site from the Green Belt to allow further housing development. 4.8 With reference to the applicant’s referral to the previous bedroom block appeal decision, I regard this as a separate matter and observe the principle that each application has to be treated on its merits. I also consider that the modified draft local plan addresses previous inconsistency in Green Belt designation issues.

4.9 Whilst I am satisfied that the proposal is not justified relative to the development plan, there are other issues which have been taken into account in recommending refusal of the application. Firstly, the principle of accessing a housing site via a car park is not one I would wish to encourage due to the traffic conflicts which could occur. The applicant’s offer to increase the width of the access road, provide a footway adjacent to it and illuminate part of the access road with light columns would help to address some safety concerns and eliminate some potential pedestridtraffic conflicts compared to the previous proposal for the site. However, Hagen Drive has not been built to an adoptable standard and although the improvements in access to the site would be welcome, it would remain a private access road not adopted by the Council.

4.10 I retain concerns regarding exposure to the floodlights of the most commonly used pitches at Dalziel Park. The applicant’s proposal to raise the height of the intervening bund by 2.5 metres with the planting of 2 metre high hardwoods could help the situation but would not, in my opinion, wholly address my concenis. At the mid-point of the site, 13 floodlighting columns are currently visible with 6 of the sets of lights directly illuminating or partially illuminating the application site. The situation is not quite the same as the existing dwellinghouses baclting onto Hagen Drive as the intervening trees are considerably denser, more mature, and the overall width of the tree belt is greater.

4.1 1 The impact of noise from the adjacent pitches is also a concern, especially from the synthetic pitches, which are intensively used and have previously been reported to me as the source of some “choice” language. It is noted that an increase in the height of the bunding is proposed which may help the situation. Nevertheless, I remain concerned over this aspect of the proposals.

4.12 Finally, I would coinment’that, should the golf driving range be abandoned, its replacement with a built form of development is not the only solution. Policy E3 of the Northern Area Local Plan, noted above, encourages involvement of the Central Scotland Countryside Trust in woodland planting and management of such sites.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 In conclusion, I consider that there are insufficieiit grounds for supporting a departure from the development plan. This is given added weight by the fact that it was only in June 2001 that Committee accepted the designation of the site as Green Belt and earlier this year dismissed the previous application for residential development. I do not believe the proposed development has substantially changed in the time elapsed since these decisions were made. I also remain concerned that future residents could have their amenity adversely affected by floodlights and noise from the adjacent pitches, notwithstanding the increased bund height and associated planting. I therefore recommend that planning permission be refused. Should Committee disagree with iny recommendation, referral of the application of the Scottish Executive would be required as the proposed development is contrary to the Development Plan.