North Lanarkshire Council Policy and Economic Development Services Fleming House 2 Tryst Road Cumbernauld G67 1JW

Home , Airdrie North (ward), Caldercruix, Carnbroe, Coatbridge South (ward), Condorrat, Gartcosh

PIan ni n g Ap p Ii cat io ns for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee

Committee Date : 6 September 2007

Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved

1 APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 6Ih September 2007

Page Application No. Applicant Development/Locus Recommendation No. 5 N/07/00920/FUL Mr & Mrs Robert Construction of a Refuse (P) Dent Dwellinghouse LandToTheNorthOf Request for Hillside Site Visit High Banton Road and Hearing Banton

10 N/07/00954/FUL Christine Irvine Siting of a Snack Van Refuse Site At 87 Drumcavel Road Muirhead

14 N/07/00977/FUL Mr & Mrs F Sheeran Alterations and Extension to Grant a Dwellinghouse 24 Etive Court Condorrat Cumbernauld

20 N/07/01067/FUL Ms G Toland Extension to a Grant Dwellinghouse 7 Thorniecroft Drive Request for Condorrat Site Visit Cumbernauld and Hearing

26 N/07/01265/FUL Mr D MacLean Extension to a Grant Dwellinghouse 10 Cawder Way Carrickstone Cumbernauld

31 C/07/00486/FUL Peter Smith Change of Use of Industrial Grant Unit (Class 5) to Veterinary Surgery (Class 2) at Unit 9 Laverock Road Industrial Estate. Airdrie

36 C/O7/00879/FUL North Lanarkshire Remediation and Associated Grant Council Works Request for Site Former Target Tip Visit and Hearing Hillfoot Road, Gartlea Airdrie

45 C/07/00883/FUL Mr & Mrs Armstrong Erection of Two Storey Rear Grant Extension at 1 Chapelcross Avenue, Airdrie

50 C/07/00896/FUL Ms Tracy Park Change of Use from Refuse Dwellinghouse to Children's Nursery at 99 Clark Street, Airdrie

2 56 C/07/01034/FUL Mr Kenneth Subdivision of Existing Grant McArthur Martin Dwellinghouse to Form Flats at 256 Whifflet Street, Whifflet Coatbridge

61 C/07/0 149/AMD Murlin Residential Erection of Four Grant Dwellinghouses At Home Farm, Station Road Caldercruix

67 C/07/0 164/OUT Robert Speirs Two Storey Flatted Grant Development Containing 6 Flats at 14 Lauchope Street Chapelhall

74 C/07/01169/FUL Messrs Brown Construction of Storage Unit Grant for Slurry at Gaindykehead Farm at Yetts Hole Road, Greenfoot Airdrie

79 C/07/0127O/FUL Mr J Rea Construction of Attached Grant Garage and First Floor Balcony to Dwellinghouse at 18 Heathery Lea Avenue Carnbroe, Coatbridge

85 C/07/01294/FUL lzzy Mcllduff Part Change of use of Refuse Dwellinghouse to Childrens Request for Site Nursery at 37 Killearn Visit & Hearing Crescent Plains

92 S/06/02050/FUL Greg Connor Alterations to Dwellinghouse Grant Conversion of Farm Steading to form 3 Dwellinghouses Springhill Farm, Springhill Road Stane. Shotts

100 S/07/00110/OUT Chris Glendinning Erection of Dwellinghouse Refuse Adjacent to Existing Dwellinghouse (In Outline) 128 Clydesdale Street New Stevenston Motherwell

106 S/07/00891/FUL Mr & Mrs Colin Erection of a Two Storey Grant Smith Side Extension 1 Money Grove Motherwell

3 111 S1071009601FUL GM Erection of a Detached Refuse Dwellinghouse St Andrews Scottish Episcopal Church Belhaven Terrace Wishaw

118 S107/01048/FUL Mr & Mrs S Erection of Two Storey Grant McGinney Extension to Rear of Dwellinghouse and Alterations to Existing Extension 234 Main Street, Holytown Motherwell

124 S/071012151FUL Antonia Welsh Erection of Two Single Grant Storey Extensions, Formation of Balcony, Integral Garage Conversion and Dormer Extension to Dwellinghouse 3 Jordan Place, Cleland

129 S/07/01292/FUL Nisa Installation of ATM Machine Refuse 280 Bellshill Road, Forgewood Motherwell

134 S1071013081FUL Mr & Mrs Lyndsey Single Storey Rear Refuse Extension 20 George Street Motherwell

140 S1071013331FUL T-Mobile (UK) Installation of 14.7 Metre Grant Limited High Monopole Mast and 2 Ancillary Equipment Cabinets Footpath Location, Bellshill Road Motherwell

4 Application No: N/07/00920/FUL

Date Registered: 22ndJune2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Robert Dent Hillside High Banton Kilsyth G65 ORA

Development: Construction of a Dwellinghouse

Location: Land to the North of Hillside High Banton Road Banton G65 ORA

Ward: 1- Kilsyth : Councillors Griffin, Jones & Key

Grid Reference: 274954 680031

File Reference: N/07/00920/FUL

Site History: None of any relevance

Development Plan: Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 - Policy GB2 ( Green Belt Development)

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Comments) Scottish Water (No objections)

Representations: One letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 27th June 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:-

1. In the interests of the proper planning of the area in that residential development would constitute inappropriate new development in the Green Belt and as such would be contrary to Scottish Executive Planning Policy (Scottish Planning Policy 3), Scottish Executive Planning Policy (Scottish Planning Policy 21), the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000(Strategic Policy 1) and the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 (Green Belt Policy GB3).

2. In the interests of amenity in that the residential development would adversely affect the existing rural character of the site and general area.

3. That should planning permission be granted for this development a precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other similar applications.

5 6 NOTE TO COMMITTEE : If granted, this application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 because the proposed development falls within an area of land designated as Green Belt.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 29th May 2007

Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 23rd July 2007 Memo from Traffic & Transportation (Northern Area) received 29th June 2007 Memo from Head of Protective Services received 18th July 2007 Letter from Owner/Occupier, Glenhead Cottage, High Banton Road, Banton received 18'h July 2007

Kilsyth Local Plan 1999

Scottish Executive Planning Policy (Scottish Planning Policy 3)

Scottish Executive Planning Policy (Scottish Planning Policy 21)

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 (Strategic Policy I).

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Gavin Forrest at 01236 616466. DATE: 28Ih August 2007

7 AP PLI CAT 10 N NO. N/07/00920/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks permission for the construction of a detached I% storey house on land to the north of Hillside, High Banton Road, Banton. The area is currently garden ground and is situated to the north of an existing house. There are a number of houses within the area, most of which have a cottage-style appearance. There is a distinct boundary at the rear of the properties. The site is situated within the Green Belt.

1.2 The proposed development will create a new access off High Banton Road. There will be a parking area to the front of the house, There will be a garden area at the front with a larger garden to the rear. The house itself will have 4 bedrooms and will be of traditional appearance.

2. Development Plan/National PlanninR Policies

2.1 Scottish Planninq Policy 3 "Planninq for Housinq"

Key themes are promoting development in brownfield rather that Greenfield locations and seeking to maintain the effectiveness of existing Green Belts and Safeguarding the character and amenity of the countryside.

2.2 Scottish Planninq Policv21 "Green Belts"

The three main purposes of the Greenbelt are: to maintain the identity of towns by establishing a clear definition of their physical boundaries and preventing coalescence; to provide countryside for recreation or institutional purposes of various kinds; and to maintain the landscape settings of towns.

2.3 Kilsvth Local Plan 1999

This site is covered by Policy GB2 (Green Belts) of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 which seeks to ensure that there is a presumption against new development in the Green Belt unless required for agriculture, forestry, horticulture, nature conservation, appropriate countryside recreation and tourism dependant upon a countryside location and other development such as telecommunications development, which can be shown to require to be located within the Green Belt. Policy GB3 states that there is a presumption against residential development in the Green Belt unless it is shown to be necessary for furtherance of agriculture, forestry and horticulture or other uses appropriate only to a rural area.

2.4 Glasqow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000

Policies relevant to the proposed development and its Green Belt setting are summarised as follows:-

Strategic Policy 1 - Strategic Development Locations: The Metropolitan Development Strategy requires the continued designation and safeguarding of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt within which there is a presumption against the spread of built up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside. Local Plans shall define the detailed boundaries and policies to safeguard the greenbelt;

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 SEPA and Scottish Water were both consulted and no objections were raised regarding this development. However issues were raised regarding service connections, septic tanks and surface water drainage. These matters could be addressed through planning conditions.

3.2 My Traffic & Transportation, Geotechnical and Protective Services Sections were all consulted.

8 No objections were raised although issues were raised regarding parking and access and the need for a site investigation (there is a history of mining in this area). Again these matters could be addressed through the imposition of planning conditions.

3.3 One letter of representation has been received from the occupiers of Glenhead Cottage, High Banton, Kilsyth. The objections and my comments thereon are as follows :-

High Banton is a very rural area being a hamlet consisting of a small number of low elevation dwellings, all with a cottage appearance. The above proposal will be out of keeping with this tenor as the plans depict a modern, large, two storey house. The proposed building takes up the majority of the plot, which will result in a "crowded" look.

Comments The proposed development site is situated to the side of Hillside. The plot is of acceptable size and the proposed house occupies an acceptable proportion of the plot. The proposed 1% storey house is of traditional design and appearance. Despite being of acceptable design, the erection of a dwelling in this area will lead to the erosion of the openness and character of the area and would set a precedent for similar developments.

Given that the proposed house is adjacent to our property we are concerned about potential "creep". We would need our line very clearly delineated prior to commencement of work and, if there were intrusions to enable the build, assurances that the land would be returned to a proper state.

Comments The detailing of boundaries and access to the land are legal issues and not deemed material planning considerations.

It is also rather ironic that much has been made during informal discussions with yourselves about the listing of our property and what can and can't be altered. I hope this house's listed status is taken into account when making a decision on the proposals to build a new, large house of modern appearance immediately adjacent to it.

Comments It is considered that the building of the proposed house would affect the setting of the listed building (Glenhead Cottage is C (S) listed). Although the application site is situated approximately 30 metres away from Glenhead Cottage the development of the application site would erode the openness of the area and thereby adversely impacting upon the character of the area. This in turn would impact upon the setting of the listed building.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Under Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case Policy GB3 (Green Belt) of the Kilsyth Local Plan 1999 does not support the proposed development. This Policy states that there will be a presumption against new development in the Green Belt unless required for agriculture, forestry, horticulture, nature conservation, appropriate countryside recreation and tourism dependant upon a countryside location, and other development such as telecommunications development, which can be shown to be located in the Green Belt. No such justification has been provided.

4.2 This development is considered to be detrimental to the character of the Green Belt, eroding the openness of the Green Belt and setting a dangerous precedent that would make it difficult to refuse similar planning applications. Despite the sympathetic design of the proposed dwelling, there are not considered to be any material considerations in this case that would justify setting aside the policies of the local plan. As such it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

4.3 Please note that in terms of the Town & Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007, which came into force on 1" July 2007, if the Committee refuses the above recommendation then the application will have to be notified to the Scottish Ministers since the proposed development falls within an area of land designated as Green Belt.

9 Application No: N/07/00954/FU L

Date Registered: 4th June 2007

Applicant: Christine lrvine 67 Berryhill Road Seafar Cumbernauld

Development: Siting of a Snack Van (In retrospect)

Location: Site Adjacent to at 87 Drumcavel Road Muirhead

Ward: 5 - Strathkelvin: Councillors Hogg, McGlinchey, Shaw & Wallace

Grid Reference: 268887669140

File Reference: N107100954/FUL

Site History: N/07/00449/LUC Certificate of Lawfulness - Area to be Used for ParkingEtorage of Motor Vehicles

Development Plan: The site is covered by policy HG3 in Northern Corridor Local Plan 1993.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Not required

Representations: I letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 13th June 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. In the interests of pedestrian and road safety as the development does not have any dedicated off road parking associated with it and given the position of the snack van relative to the existing parking area is likely to encourage customers to stop either on the classified road or to bump up on the public foot way. This will lead to road users having to overtake parked vehicles at a point where road users would not be expected to encounter parked cars to the detriment of road safety and force pedestrians onto the public road to negotiate vehicles parked on the foot way to the detriment of pedestrian safety.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 4th June 2007

Memo from Traffic & Transportation Team Leader (Northern Area) received 21st June 2007 Letter from Mr Andrew Graham, 83 Drumcavel Road, Muirhead, Glasgow, G69 9EP received 19th June 2007. Email from Ms Christine Irvine, 67 Berryhill Road, Cumbernauld, G67 1LZ received 18'h July 2007. Email from Ms Christine Irvine, 67 Berryhill Road, Cumbernauld, G67 1LZ received 17'h August 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alan Graham at 01236 616394

Date: 28'hAugust 2007

10 11 APPLICATION NO. N/07/00954/FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The applicant seeks retrospective consent for the siting of a mobile snack van on land adjacent to 87 Drumcavel Road, Muirhead. The van is adjacent to Gartcosh Motors at 87 Drumcavel Road on an area of private footway and takes the form of a modern white trailer. It operates between the hours of 7am and 3pm, Monday - Saturday. Development Plan

The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

Within the adopted Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005, the application site is located within an area covered by Policy HG3 which states that: The Council will seek to protect fhe esfabltshed characfer of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompa fible with a residenfial setting or adversely affecfs the ameniw of es fablished housing areas.

Consultations and Representations

My Traffic and Transportation Section have recommended refusal on grounds of road safety given that the development has no dedicated off road parking associated with it and is likely to encourage customers to stop on the classified road where road users would not be expected to encounter parked cars. This will lead to road users having to overtake parked vehicles to the detriment of road safety.

One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 83 Drumcavel Road. The letter of representation raises the following objections:-

* Increased litter

Comments: Litter is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in determining an application. It is accepted, however, that litter is often a problem with snack vans.

Increased traffic

Commenfs My Traffic and Transportation Section confirm that the proposed van would result in an increase of traffic at the location, which would be to the detriment of road safety and in turn recommend refusal.

Congregating youths

Comments: Congregating youths is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account in determining an application, although such activity is not uncommon with snack vans.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

12 4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The applicant made a written request dated 18'h July 2007 that the application be removed from the agenda of the Planning & Transportation Committee to be held lgthJuly 2007, in order to allow additional time to provide information relating to parking provision. I wrote to the applicant requesting that she provide plans detailing proposed parking layout for the site and identifying the number of parking spaces for Gartcosh Motors at 87 Drumcavel Road and those for the proposed snack van. This information would allow my Traffic and Transportation section to give further consideration to the proposed development.

4.3 The applicant sent an email dated 16'h August 2007 stating that although there is no designated parking for the snack van, the shared parking area with Gartcosh Motors provides 30 spaces. The applicant argues that this is more than sufficient for the two uses and is indeed a better situation than other business uses in the immediate area. The applicant has not submitted a plan to demonstrate designated spaces or to prove that 30 spaces indeed do exist.

4.4 Having considered the further information provided by the applicant my Traffic and Transportation Section confirm that their view remains that the application should be refused. The applicant has not been able to demonstrate control over any designated parking that would serve the snack van. The position of the snack van in relation to the existing parking area on the garage forecourt is such that, even if this could be done, it is likely that vehicles would take the easy option and park on the public road adjacent to the snack van. Moreover, a large proportion of the traffic attracted by snack vans tends to involve larger vehicles (vans and lorries) and these vehicles are more likely to park on the road.

4.5 I share the view of my Traffic and Transportation section that the position of the proposed snack van is likely to encourage customers either to stop on the classified road or to bump up on the public footpath which is wider at this point. The net effect being that the snack van will have an adverse impact on pedestrian and road safety. With regards to pedestrian safety it should be noted that the snack van is already operating from the site and it is evident from monitoring the site that on occasions pedestrians are being forced to step onto the public road because of the number of vehicles parked on the pavement in front of the snack van.

4.7 Having taken account of all relevant material considerations, and the concerns raised by the neighbouring proprietor at No. 83 Drumcavel Road, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the siting of a mobile snack van on land adjacent to 87 Drumcavel Road, Muirhead.

13 Application No: N/07/00977/FUL

Date Registered: 6th June 2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs F Sheeran 24 Etive Court Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4JA

Agent Northpark Design 25 Lochmaben Road Gartcosh G69 8LA

Development: Alterations and Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 24 Etive Court Condorrat Cumbernauld G67 4JA

Ward: 3-Cumbernauld South: Councillors Carrigan,Goldie,Homer,McElroy

Grid Reference: 273987672924

File Reference: N/07100977/FUL

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993. Policy HG4 applies

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: I letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

14 Extension to a Dwellinghauss .k Represaritation

15 3. That before any works commence on site, a scheme to replace or alter the planter highlighted in yellow on the approved plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall detail either the alterations to be undertaken to the planter itself or alternative proposals for its replacement with the aim being to ensure that a barrier is retained at the front entrance of the house at number 22 Etive Court.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

4. That the scheme approved under the terms of Condition 3 above shall be implemented prior to any works commencing on the extension to the garage.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 6th June 2007

Letter from Anne Currie & David Currie, 22 Etive Court, Condorrat, Cumbernauld, G67 4JA received 15th June 2007.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 616464.

Date: 28th August 2007

16 APPLICATION NO. N1071009771FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application site is the curtilage of a 2 storey mid terrace property at 24 Etive Court, Condorrat. All the properties in this block have an integral garage. There are three large planters located between No.18 to No.28 Etive Court. The planters are positioned in such a way that allows access to the integral garages. The end terrace properties allow access for one car whereas the mid terrace properties allow access for two cars. Although the levels are the same, the parking spaces have a cobbled surface compared to the tarmac road, this distinguishes each use.

1.2 The applicant proposes to demolish the planter in front of the dwellinghouse, extend the garage out towards the road by approximately 1.2 metres and erect a canopy to the rear of the property measuring approximately 2.2 metres wide X 1.1 metre deep. The canopy would be erected around the rear door.

2. Development Plan

2.1 This proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against local plan policies.

2.2 In the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the site lies within a defined residential area where policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) applies. This policy seeks to protect residential amenity from inappropriate development.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Traffic and Transportation Section were consulted and responded with a recommendation for refusal of this application. Their comments can be summarised as follows:

“The proposals for the extension of the garage reduce the length of the cobbled area of road (therefore parking space) in front of the garage. The existing length of cobbled road in front of the garage is 5.3 metres; the proposal would reduce this to 4. I metres long which is too short to be considered a parking space. This section would recommend refusal as the proposals take away aparking space in an area that is already short of parking spaces I’

Comment I concede that if the garage is extended as proposed, a car may overhang the cobbled area that serves the parking spaces, however it is considered that there is still adequate space for cars to pass through the road and an over hanging car would not interfere with this. Furthermore, the property is located towards the bottom end of Etive Court which is not a through road. As such, cars that pass by the application property would only be doing so to access the on street parking area.

3.2 One letter of representation has been received from the occupier of neighbouring property No.22 Etive Court. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

By demolishing the planter in front of my property, the original safety feature would be lost which at present acts as a buffer between the road and the front doors.

Comment It is considered that the use of different materials define the road from the parking bays. It is considered that the purpose of the planters it to prevent car users from parking in front of the access doors to the properties. The space between the planters allows car users to

17 park in front of the garages. In any event, a condition has been attached securing the retention or replacement of the planter in front on No. 22 Etive Court.

If the planter is removed, this could become a communal parking zone when not in use by the owners.

Comment: The Planning Authority have no control over where car users decide to park.

The access path immediately in front of the properties which extends the full length of the row of six properties would be blocked by the extension.

Comment: The area in front of the planters and immediately in front of the access doors is not considered a path that links No.18 to No.28. When cars are parked in front of their garages, it is not possible for individuals to walk between the properties without accessing the public road.

As terraced houses are linked, damage to rough cast and brickwork on my property may occur when building the extension.

Comment: It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that no damage occurs to neighbouring properties and if this does occur then the damage should be repaired. Notwithstanding this comment, the above objection is a legal issue between the applicant and the neighbouring properties owners.

The proposal is not in keeping with the character of the area.

Comment There are no similar developments nearby, however I consider that the projection of the garage by 1.2 metres would not significantly or detrimentally affect the existing character of Etive Court or the surrounding area.

The extension would de-value my property

Comment; De-valuation of property is not a material planning consideration and should not be given any weight in determining this application.

0 The erection of a canopy to the rear of the application property would shade my dining area and destroy climbing plants at the fence when being erected.

Comment; Since the objection letter was received, amended plans have been submitted by the applicant and the proposed rear canopy would be approximately 3 metres high, 2.2 metres wide X 1.1 metre deep, covering the rear access door. As the canopy would be approximately 4 metres from the window of No.22, it is considered that the proposal would have no overshadowing repercussions. Furthermore, the canopy would be approximately 2.5 metres from the mutual boundary fence with No.22 and as such, I consider that the boundary fence would not be affected. If any damage to the fence did occur during the construction period then this would be a legal issue between the applicant and the objector.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal complies with policy HG4 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

4.2 The removal of the planter, the extension to the garage and the erection of the rear canopy are considered acceptable from a planning perspective.

18 4.3 The existing car parking space would be reduced by approximately 1.2 metres and as such a car, depending on its length may overhang onto the public road. Due to the location of the dwelling, the fact that Etive Court is not a through road, and that the garage extension would project by only 1.2 metres, I consider a small extension to be acceptable. It is worth noting that a larger vehicle such as a van or a 4x4 may currently overhang the cobbled area. It could be argued that an extension would worsen this situation. If however, for instance, a 6 metre long car was parked in front of the extension, this would leave 5 metres in width of public road to access the communal parking area at the end of the Etive Court. I consider this would not impact greatly on the operational car movements of this street.

4.3 Having considered the merits of this case and notwithstanding the objection received, it is considered that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

19 Application No: N/07/01067/FUL

Date Registered: 20th June 2007

Applicant: Ms G Toland 7 Thorniecroft Drive Condorrat Cumbernauld Glasgow G67 4JT

Agent Kenneth Wotherspoon 1 Holm Court Crossford ML8 5GR

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 7 Thorniecroft Drive Condorrat Cumbernauld Glasgow G67 4JT

Ward: 3-Cumbernauld South:Councillors Carrigan,Goldie,Homer,McElroy

Grid Reference: 274236672887

File Reference: N/07/01067/FUL

Site History: No relevant history

Development Plan: Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, policy HG4 applies

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: I letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

20 21 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th June 2007

Letter from lan & Ann Stewart, 5 Thorniecroft Drive, Condorrat, Cumbernauld, G67 4JT received 3rd July 2007.

Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Erin Louise Deeley at 01236 616464.

Date: 28th August 2007

22 APPLICATION NO. N/07/01067/FUL

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The application site is the curtilage of a 2 storey mid terrace property at 7 Thorniecroft Drive, Condorrat. There is a detached garage located at the bottom of the rear garden that is accessed from Thorniecroft Place. There is adequate mutual boundary screening between the application property and neighbouring properties No. 5 and No. 9 Thorniecroft Drive.

The applicant proposes a single storey rear extension measuring approximately 5.5 metres wide (almost the width of the dwelling) X 5.3 metres deep. No side elevation windows are proposed. The proposed window faces towards the rear garden. The proposed roof type is pitched. The extension is designed to accommodate the needs of a disabled family member.

Development Plan

This proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against local plan policies.

In the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the site lies within a defined residential area where policy HG4 (Residential Amenity) applies. This policy seeks to protect residential amenity from inappropriate developments.

Consultations and Representations

No consultations were required in respect of this application.

Three letters were received from the occupiers of No. 5 Thorniecroft Drive which is attached and positioned to the north of the application property. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

My property is north of the applicant's and therefore any extension will overshadow and reduce the availability of sunlight into my rear windows and garden.

Comment The proposal passed the relevant sunlightlovershadowing impact test. It has been concluded that although there will be an impact on N0.5 Thorniecroft Drive, it is not so significant as to justify a refusal of planning permission.

0 The extension would make it impossible to cultivate the area of garden that would be affected by the extension.

Comment The impact on the area of garden adjacent to the rear windows would be minimal. Furthermore, in terms of sunlight availability and overshadowing, impact on garden ground should not be given the same consideration as an impact on windows and in this case, the latter is considered acceptable.

The proposal will reduce any feeling of spaciousness in our garden

Comment: Any extension will alter the current outlook of the property and will give the perception of the garden being more enclosed, however the proposal has a pitched roof that slopes away from the objector property and the outer wall measures approximately 3 metres in height. This is only approximately 1 metre higher than the current boundary wall. It should also be noted that the applicant could erect a 16 square metre extension on the boundary with the objector's property and this would not require planning permission.

23 e The extension will have an adverse affect on the re-sale of out property.

Comment De-valuation of property is not a material planning consideration and should not be given any weight in determining this application.

The extension would be out of character for the area.

Comment There are many rear extensions in Thorniecroft Drive, notably No. 28,68,70,84 and 90. It should be noted however that these are detached and semi-detached properties and therefore the potential impact on neighbours can be less. This application is the first for a terraced property in Thorniecroft Drive.

Notwithstanding the above comment, many applications for single storey rear extensions to terraced properties have been considered acceptable and approved throughout North Lanarkshire.

e Water-logging may be an issue if the extension were to be built.

Comment: A building warrant is required for the extension and is currently being considered. Drainage proposals will be evaluated through the building warrant application.

0 I would not be prepared to allow access into my property to enable the extension to be built

Comment This is a legal matter and as such is not a material planning consideration and should not be given weight when determining this application. It should be noted that the applicant has verbally been made aware of the objector's position.

There will be dirt, dust and debris if building works were to commence.

Comment: As with any extension, there is a level of inconvenience to be expected. If an extension were to be built using permitted development rights, the same level of inconvenience would occur.

Noise during construction would be excessive

Comment; The development will result in an increase in noise levels. Should excessive noise levels during the construction phase occur, then my pollution control section may impose time restrictions on building works.

Additional vehicles associated with the development would use the rear access road which is already congested.

Commefft Should residents not be able to access their driveways or enter and exit the street, then this may be an issue for the police. With any extension to a property, delivery vehicles dropping off materials and work vans can be expected.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In terms of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning applications must be determined in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case, the proposal complies with policy HG4 of the Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993.

4.2 The proposed extension is considered acceptable from a planning perspective. The overshadowing/sunlight impact is acceptable: the proposed windows would not impact on neighbouring privacy and there would be adequate garden ground remaining.

24 4.3 Notwithstanding the objection, I recommend that planning consent be granted subject to conditions.

4.4 It should be noted that the objector has requested that the Planning and Transportation Committee carry out a site visit and a hearing prior to the determination of this application.

25 Application No: N/07/01265/FUL

Date Registered: 23rd July 2007

Applicant: Mr D MacLean 10 Cawder Way Carrickstone Cumbernauld G68 OBQ

Agent Plansanddrawings.com 5 Station Road Stepps G33 6HB

Development: Extension to a Dwellinghouse

Location: 10 Cawder Way Carrickstone North Lanarkshire G68 OBQ

Ward: 2 - Cumbernauld North : Chadha, McCulloch, Murray and O’Brien

Grid Reference: 2751 29 676064

File Reference: N/07/012651FUL

Site History: No recent history

Development Plan: The site is covered by policies HG5B, PS2 and PS6 in Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Not required

Representations: One letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

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

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

26 27 3. That before the development hereby permitted is completed; a 1.8 metre high solid boarded screen fence shall be erected along the boundaries marked green on the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 23rd July 2007

Letter from Mr J Saunders, 8 Cawder Road, Carrickstone, Cumbernauld, G68 OBF received 2nd August 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Jennifer Thomson at 01236 616473.

Date: 28/08/07

28 APPLICATION NO. N/07/01265/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The applicant seeks consent for the construction of a single storey rear extension at 10 Cawder Way, Cumbernauld. The property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse situated within a modern housing estate. The proposed extension measures 42 square metres, 3.5 metres in height with a pitched roof. The extension would be located around the southern corner of the property and would provide a dining room and a study. There are three parking spaces within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, which is sufficient for a four bedroom property. No additional bedrooms have been proposed.

1.2 There have been no previous planning applications at this address,

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 Within the adopted Cumbernauld Local Plan 1993, the application site is located within an area covered by policies HG5B (sites for new housing development) PS2 (new community facilities) and PS6 (relating to reserved primary school sites). Having been developed for housing these policies no longer apply.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required in this case.

3.2 One letter of representation has been received from the neighbour at 8 Cawder Road. The letter of representation raises the following objections:-

* Extension is too large

Comments: Sufficient side and rear garden ground would remain (approximately 182 square metres). The proposed extension is single storey with a shallow pitched roof, in keeping with the scale of the original dwelling and would not be considered overdevelopment of the rear garden.

Extension is too close to the boundary fence

Comments; The proposed extension is 2.2 metres from the boundary fence at its closest point. The distance between the proposed windows on this closest elevation to the rear windows of 8 and 10 Cawder Road is approximately 12 metres. Currently a 1.8 metre high wooden fence lies along the boundary between the applicant's rear garden and the rear gardens of 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 Cawder Road and a and 1 metre high spaced wooden fence between neighbour at 8 Cawder Way. A condition requiring a solid screen boundary will be applied to increase privacy of the adjoining properties (this will involve the upgrade of the existing rear boundary fence from a close boarded fence to a solid fence)

Extension will block view and keep out light to rear garden.

Comments: The proposed extension is located north of the objector's property; therefore it will not cause overshadowing of the objectors property or garden. Due to distance between the objectors and the applicant's property, it is not possible to carry out the relevant sunlight / daylight calculation. The proposed development will not impact on the sunlight / daylight that is currently enjoyed by the residents at 8 Cawder Road.

29 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposed extension is not contrary to the Local Plan.

4.2 The design and scale of the extension are in keeping with the existing house and surrounding area and will create no significant adverse effects on neighbouring residents.

4.3 Having taken account of all relevant material considerations, and notwithstanding the concerns raised by the neighbouring proprietor No 8 Cawder Road, it is recommended that planning permission be granted for a single storey rear extension at 10 Cawder Way.

30 Application No:

Date Registered: 2nd April 2007

Applicant: Peter Smith School House Annathill Coatbridge ML5 2QQ

Development: Change of Use of Industrial Unit (Class 5) to Veterinary Surgery (Class 2)

Location: Unit 9 Laverock Road Industrial Estate Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 7UD

Ward: 7 Airdrie North Councillors Cameron, Coyle, McGuigan and Morgan

Grid Reference: 277061667027

File Reference: C/P L/AIL262/U9/CM I/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The site is covered by policy ECON 2 Existing General Industrial Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: No letters of representation.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 18th April 2007

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That notwithstanding the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the permitted change of use from Class 2 to Class 1 is hereby removed.

31 Planning Application No. C/07/00486/FUL

Change of Use of Industrial Unit to Veterinary Surgery nR

Unit 9 Laverlock Road Industrial Estate, Airdire Not to Scale

32 Reason: To define the permission and protect the integrity of the site as an industriaVbusiness location.

3. That, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, the premises shall be used as a veterinary surgery and for no other purposes (including any other purpose in Class 2; of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997).

Reason: To define the permission and protect the integrity of the site as an industriallbusiness location.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th March 2007

Memo from Transportation Section received on 13'h July 2007 Memo from Protective Services received on 24'h April 2007

Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, 8 & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss Charmaine Mills at 01236 812381.

Date: 28 August 2007

33 AP PLlCATlO N NO. C/07/00486/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This planning application seeks permission for a change of use of an Industrial Unit to Veterinary Surgery. The application site is located at 9 Laverock Road, Airdrie within an existing industrial estate.

1.2 The property concerned is an existing industriallbusiness unit with the main access to the units taken from Laverock Road, with car parking spaces located to the front and rear of the unit. Supplementary information has been provided with the application detailing that clients would be seen by appointment only at 10 or 15 minute intervals between 9am and loam, 2.30pm and 4pm and 5.30pm to 7.00pm and on Saturdays 9.00am to 11.20am. The applicant expects to see approximately 15 clients per day and perform 3-4 surgical procedures a day. Only three members of staff will be present at any one time with this increasing to five if the practice is successful.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The application site is zoned as ECON2 (Existing General Industrial Areas) within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Transportation have advised against the proposal as it would result in a mix of industrial and retail/domestic/residential traffic. Although the applicant has stated that a precedent has been set for a mix of industrial and retail/domestic/residential traffic by the plumbing centre and previously with Unique Fashions, these outlets are or were industrial uses with an ancillary retail function.

3.2 Protective Services have no objections provided that the noise level is acceptable.

4. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions 4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other relevant material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy Econ 2 as zoned in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

4.2 While policy ECON 2 seeks to encourage the retention of the predominantly industrial character of an area, provision is made through that policy for a change of use if there are justifiable circumstances. On assessing the detailed proposals against the relevant policy and guidance, it is considered in relation to the application site there has been evidence submitted to confirm there is a surplus of workshop units within the immediate area and that the unit has been marketed for almost 1.5 years. There are no current competitors for the unit wishing to use it as workshop premises and as such, there does not appear to be a conflict with the veterinary practice, or significant demand for workshop use, that cannot be met by the availability of the other units vacant. Furthermore, given the relatively small dimensions of the unit and self

34 contained nature of the block of units, any effect on the land supply will be negligible. The Council's Property Services have advised that the unit has been vacant for at least 18 months with at least another two vacant units within the industrial estate. The applicant has also advised that for upwards of 25 years there have been only two veterinary practices within the AirdrielCoatbridge area serving both towns and the surrounding villages. It is considered that the proposed change of use will not have a detrimental effect on the existing character of this industrial area given the size of the unit and the nature of the intended use.

4.3 With regard to Transportation comments it is considered that due to the nature of the business and the staggered times in which clients will be visiting and there is adequate parking provision to serve this proposed change of use. A precedent has been set with the mix of uses within this estate and the proposed veterinary practice will not have a significant effect on the existing traffic situation.

4.4 In conclusion, having regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions stated.

35 Application No: C1071008791FUL

Date Registered: 31st May 2007

Applicant: North Lanarkshire Council Policy And Economic Development Services Fleming House 2 Tryst Road Cumbernauld G67 1JW

Agent Jacobs UK Limited 95 Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 7HX Development: Remediation and Associated Works

Location: Former Target Tip Hillfoot Road Gartlea Airdrie North Lanarkshire

Ward : 11 Airdrie South Councillors Coyle, Curley, Love and Fagan

Grid Reference: 276690664214

File Reference: C/PL/AIH3991SMVLR

Site History: 821445 Rehabilitation of Derelict Land to form golf course granted 27'h January 1983. 861419 Erection of Golf Clubhouse and Community Facilities granted 27'h November 1986 941388 Erection of Football Stadium, Formation of car & coach parking area and upgrading of existing access road (in outline) refused gth February 1995. 941580 Formation of 2.5 metre wide cycle1pedestrian path granted 2"d February 1996. 951622 Redevelopment of land to provide 18 hole Golf Course, Residential and Commercial Development (in outline) granted 2gth March 1996. 971042 Variation of condition 2 of planninghconsentC1951622 to change residential component granted 28 February 1997. C/03/00731/NID Erection of Community Centre with Associated Parking granted 8'h July 2003.

Development Plan: The site is zoned LRI 1 Improve Public Open Space & LR 611 & CU 1 Safety Restraint Areas in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (no objection) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (objection) Scottish Water (no objection)

Representations: 3 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 13th June 2007

36 Planning Application No C/07/00879/FUL Remediation and Associated Works

Former Target Tip, Hillfoot Road, Airdrie N Representations Received from Monkland Glen Community Council and Robert Paterson Holdings Ltd Nd 10 Scale

37 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That the works hereby permitted shall be completed within 3 years of the commencement of the works. Written confirmation of the start date shall be provided in writing to the Planning Authority at least 7 days prior to works commencing on site. For the avoidance of doubt, the completion of the approved works includes the reinstatement of the existing path network to its previous condition and any repairs as necessary.

Reason: To ensure the works are completed within a satisfactory timescale in the interests of amenity.

3. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the location of the temporary contractors' site compound and all temporary stockpiles of soils and any other materials shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its prior approval.

Reason: To define the permission and in the interests of protecting the visual amenity of the area.

4. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include:-

(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, grass seeding and turfing (for the avoidance of doubt the grass seeding areas shall include native wild flower mix to improve the biodiversity of the area); (b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted (for the avoidance of doubt the tree planting shall be of native species of local provenance an din line with Zone 107 of the Forestry Commissions Zoning Scheme); (c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development (d) a detailed schedule for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried out contemporaneously with the development of the site.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail in the interests of visual amenity.

5. That the removal of any trees and shrubs shall only be carried out between October and March inclusive.

Reason: To ensure that works are carried out outwith the bird-breeding season in the interests of nature conservation.

6. That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 4(d) above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved schedule and under the terms of condition 2 above, 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 hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping is carried out timeously and to protect the visual amenity of the area

7. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed footpaths;

38 (b) the proposed venting trenches and stacks; (c) the proposed wetland area; (e) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas; (f) the proposed access track

Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail in the interests of amenity.

8. That the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 7 shall be in operation prior to the completion of the works as agreed under conditions 2 and 4(d) above.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

9. That no works shall start on site until additional information is provided, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA, in relation to the operation, layout and design of the proposed wetland area.

Reason: To ensure that the proposal meets the terms of SEPA's requirements with regard to the safeguarding adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

10. That hours of operation shall be restricted to Monday-Friday between 0700 and 1900 and Saturday from 0700 to 1200. For the avoidance of doubt, there shall be no working outwith these times or on Public Holidays. Any essential maintenance of plant or machinery shall not take place outwith these times unless agreed in writing in advance by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the permission and to protect the amenity of nearby communities.

11. That before any works commence on site, details of the location and specification of a wheel wash facility, for use by lorries leaving the site shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its written agreement and this facility shall be in place and available for use for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To assist in the prevention of loose material being deposited onto the public road in the interests of road safety.

12. That all vegetation to the right of the proposed site access road shall be cut back to maximise achievable visibility to the right.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

13. That prior to works starting on site a revised plan of the access road shall be submitted for approval of the Planning Authority and it shall incorporate the following: 0) The proposed haul road shall be a minimum of 6 metres wide over the first 20 metres to permit 2 way operation of HGVs. (ii) Passing places shall be provided over the remainder of the road. These shall be 2.5m wide and 11 m long with a 30 degree splay at each end. They shall be intervisible and be placed not more than 150m apart. (iii) The gradient of the road shall provide a maximum gradient of 2% over a distance of 15 metres measured back from the give way line. (iv) That appropriate turning facilities shall be provided within the site to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in forward gear.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

14. That the licensing requirements for the outlier badger sett shall be investigated and processed as necessary prior to works starting on site.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.

39 15. That prior to works starting on site details of noise and dust mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Planning Authority, for its written approval, and shall remain in place for the duration of the works.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21st May 2007

Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000

Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 17th July 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 21 st August 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 11 th June 2007 Memo from Transportation received 10th July 2007 Memo from Protective Services Section received 14th June 2007 Memo from Conservation & Greening Section received 27'h August 2007 Letter from Robert Paterson Holdings Ltd, C/o Biggart Baillie Solicitors, Dalmore House, 310 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5QR received 4th June 2007. Letter from Dr I A Glen, Chairman, Monkland Glen Community Council, 21 Monks Road, Airdrie, ML6 9QW received 2nd July 2007. Letter from Montgomery Forgan Associates, Eden Park House, Cupar, Fife, KY 15 4HS received 21st August 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374.

Date 28 August 2007

40 APPLl CAT1ON NO. C/07/00879/F UL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for remediation and associated works at the Former Target Tip, Hillfoot Road, Airdrie. The site is an open area of rough grassland with pockets of trees. The site is slightly undulating and extends to an area of approximately 28Ha. There is a disused bing within the site area. The Browns Burn runs through the eastern extremity of the site. The site forms part of a larger area of open space which is bounded by the CalderbanWBrownsburn Road to the south, the Brownsburn Industrial Estate to the east, Hillfoot Road and Mossview Crescent to the north and Ayr Drive to the west.

1.2 Jacobs are working in partnership with the Pollution Control Team and Policy and Economic Development on a scheme of remediation and landscaping works for the former Target Tip landfill sire. This proposal is part of a wider scheme to improve the quality of the public open space at Brownsburn and is required to remediate the site in terms of air, water and land quality resulting from the former use of this particular area as a landfill site.

1.3 The works to the site include gas dispersion systems in the form of venting trenches and stacks, managed wetland area, access track and the importation of soil to create a barrier between waste materials and humans which involves some regrading of the site.

1.4 The gas dispersion system is designed to prevent the migration of harmful gases into areas where they present a risk to humans or the human environment. Two separate systems are proposed. One along the northern boundary of the landfill area which utilise 3 metre high gas venting stacks and one to the south of the landfill area which will take the form of venting trenches with no stacks above ground level. Following the installation of the gas venting trenches soil will be deposited over the landfill site to varying depths and regraded. As previous capping solutions have been compromised additional soil will be provided on top of the existing former landfill.

1.5 The purpose of the wetland is to provide an area where solid contaminants can be deposited and to provide a degree of natural cleansing to the burn waters after they have passed through the landfill culvert. The wetland area will have a settlement entrance structure, settlement pond, marsh area and gravel bed. The wetland area is designed in conjunction with guidance on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

1.6 An access track is required during the period of the works and to allow for maintenance of the managed wetland. Access will be taken from the existing gated entrance from the roundabout on the 8802.

1.7 On completion of the remediation works a series of landscaping works will be undertaken. The landscaping proposals are split into four zones and will provide, amenity grass, planting of shrubs and trees, and woodland planting. The landscaping will improve the amenity of the area and will integrate with the Brownsburn Park Regeneration Project masterplan.

1.8 The works including all remediation works and landscaping will be completed within a period of 3 years.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is zoned as LRll and LR 6/1 in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. A small area of the site falls within an area designated as ECON 8. The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

41 2.2 Policy LRll Improve Public Open Space seeks to protect existing public open space from inappropriate development and will upgrade existing large areas of public open space.

2.3 Policy 6/1 Develop Facilities for Golf states that the council will support the development of further golf course facilities and in particular an 18 hole municipal golf course at Gartlea, Airdrie. The site was intended for use as a golf course as confirmed by the previous planning permissions, however, this was never implemented.

2.4 Policy CU 1 Safety Restrain Areas relates to landfill gases. This application specifically relates to the treatment and management of landfill gases.

3. Consultations and Remesentations

3.1 Scottish Natural Heritage was consulted and has not objected to the proposal subject to the following conditions:

(i) Licensing requirements for outlier badger sett are investigated and processed as necessary. (ii) Any trees and shrubs to be removed or cut are done so outwith the bird-breeding season generally April to July inclusive. (iii) All tree planting is of native species of local provenance and in line with Zone107 of the Forestry Commission Zoning Scheme. (iv) The proposed grass seeding areas include native wild flower mixes to improve the biodiversity of the area.

3.2 The Protective Services Section was consulted and has no objections to the proposal.

3.3 The Transportation Section was consulted and has not objected to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the access track.

3.4 SEPA was consulted and has objected on the basis of lack of information relating to the proposed wetland area. It is believed that the lack of information can be remedied by means of a condition.

3.5 Scottish Water has no objections to the proposal.

3.6 The Conservation & Greening Section was consulted and has no objections to the proposal but has submitted comments. The comments are similar to those raised by SNH and have been incorporated into the attached conditions.

3.7 Following standard neighbour notification procedures and press advertisement 3 letters of representation have been received in relation to the application.

3.8 The first is from Monkland Glen Community Council. The Community Council does not object to the proposals but seeks reassurance on a number of points including the suitability of the gas venting system, access to the wider park area, reinstatement timetables and protection of a fingerpost sign.

3.9 The second letter is from Biggart Baillie Solicitors received on the 4'h June 2007 on behalf of Robert Paterson who has a mineral interest in the bing located within the application site. This letter objects on the following basis:

The proposed works involve the interference with and/or removal of substantial quantities of material which is the property of our clients, and also involves interference with our clients' access to the bing.

3.10 The third letter from Mongomery Forgan Associates, on behalf of Brownsburn Ltd (Robert Paterson Holdings Ltd), does not object to the principle of the development however raises specific concerns about the proposal. These can be summarised as follows:

42 (i) My clients consider that the proposal cannot be implemented as detailed in the planning application. In particular my clients do not consider that the most environmentally sustainable option has been chosen with respect to the capping solution for the Target Tip area.

(ii) 50% of the proposed wetlandslSUDS area as proposed cannot be constructed without my client’s consent.

(iii)The proposed maintenance track also encroaches onto the land in which my clients have an interest. For the same reasons as above the maintenance track cannot be completed without my client’s consent.

(iv) My client was not consulted about the design or impact of the proposals.

(v) The supporting statement states that there are no proposals affecting Target bing. This is incorrect as detailed above both the wetland/SUDS area and the maintenance track will affect the bing, albeit that part of the bing is at or below ground level.

(vi) The supporting statement states that the part of the Brownsburn Bing above ground level does not form part of the proposal for the overall site. The impact of this omission is that this area will remain as a prominent area of visual dereliction which will continue to be a magnet for anti social behaviour. It is considered that this situation will be completely at odds with the overall proposals’ aims and objectives of an enhanced open space and recreational resource.

(vii) The importation of subsoil and topsoil is not the most appropriate environmental solution for the capping process of the tip nor does it fit with the Scottish Executive’s and North Lanarkshire Council’s sustainability objectives. This is especially true as there is no mention in any of the documentation where the material will be sourced from.

(viii) The letter goes on to suggest that the most straightforward solution would be to use the material from the bing for the capping layer.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard has to be had to the development plan. In particular, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposals generally are acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy.

4.2 As access will be via the existing gated entrance from the 8802 roundabout which is currently used by pedestrians to access the site it is necessary to provide an alternative route into the site. This will be done by diverting pedestrians to the alternative entrance 120m west of the roundabout. The pedestrian access will be reinstated after the construction period. A section of the national cycle network also requires to be diverted to allow for the works. A diversion has been agreed and will be in place for no longer than 4 weeks. The original route will be fully reinstated.

4.3 The works will generate a significant level of HGVs. A Transportation Assessment has been submitted and was found acceptable by the Transportation Section. The vehicles will travel to and from the site by a designated route via Brownsburn Road, onto the A73 Carlisle Road to access the motorway network at M8 Junction 6. This route is considered acceptable.

4.4 The concerns raised by the Community Council can be addressed as follows:

(i) The remediation works have been designed in the context of supporting a safe, sustainable future use as public open space. (ii) The existing pedestrian access and path network will be fully reinstated following the construction works as part of the 3 year project. A condition has been attached to ensure that the reinstatement works are carried out timeously. (iii) The protection of the fingerpost sign is a matter of goodwill with the developer. An

43 informative has been attached requesting the developer to contact the Community Council is this regard.

4.5 The points of objections raised in the other two letters of representation are addressed as follows:

(ii) 8, (iii) this is a legal issue to be resolved between the objector and North Lanarkshire Council (iv) The objector did not require to be consulted about the design of the proposal. (v) The plans refer to the part of the bing which is visible above ground level. Any alterations to bing material below ground level ( eg for the wetland area) will not visually alter the bing and will not be significant in planning terms. (vi)&(viii) The bing is not within the full control of NLC. The redevelopment of the part of the bing above ground would require to be the subject of a separate application. The use of the bing as infill material across the site would also be the subject of a separate application. It is understood that the objector is in discussions with NLC with regards to the bing material. (vii) The applicant has advised that the appointed contractor will be responsible for sourcing the sub and top soil which is standard practice.

4.9 Taking into account the foregoing it is considered that the proposals accord with the provisions of the local plan and will result in an environmental improvement to the area. It is acknowledged that the works will result in a period of disruption and visual disamenity, however, this period will be limited to 3 years and the benefits are considered to outweigh this. Due consideration has been given to the points of concern and objection raised in relation to the proposals, however, these were found not to be so significant as to merit the refusal of this application. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

4.10 As this application has been submitted by Jacobs on behalf of North Lanarkshire Council consideration has been given to planning circular 05/07 and PAN 82 (Local Authority Interest Developments) to ascertain as to whether this application requires to be referred to the Scottish Executive should the Planning and Transportation Committee be minded to grant permission. It is considered that this development is in accordance with the policies of the Monkland District Local Plan 1991 and that there is not a significant body of objection to the proposals. Therefore it is concluded that this application does not require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers.

4.11 Committee is asked to note that an objector has requested that a hearing be undertaken prior to any decision being made on this application.

44 Application No: C/07/00883/FUL

Date Registered: 23rd July 2007

Applicant: Mr 8, Mrs Armstrong 1 Chapelcross Avenue Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 6PT

Development: Erection of Two Storey Rear Extension

Location: 1 Chapelcross Avenue Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 6PT

Ward: 8 Airdrie Central Counillors Devine, Logue and Stocks

Grid Reference: 276215666077

File Reference: C/PL/AIC3620000 1/SMI/LR

Site History:

Development Plan: The application site is located in an area designated as HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: I letter of representation.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 1st August 2007

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall complement in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the existing building and thereby maintains the visual quality of the area.

45 Planning Application No. C/07/00883/FUL

Erection of Two Storey Rear Extension

1 Chapelcross Avenue, Airdrie * Representation

46 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 21st May 2007 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Letter from Mr Christopher and Mrs Pauline McGoldrick, 3 Chapelcross Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 6PT received 14th August 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374.

Date: 28 August 2007

47 APPLICATION NO. C/07/00883/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and ProDosal

1.I Planning permission is being sought for the construction of a two-storey rear extension at 1 Chapelcross Avenue Airdrie. The application site is a two-storey end terrace dwellinghouse located within an established residential area.

1.2 The applicant proposes to construct a two-storey rear extension measuring 4m by 6.4 (25.6 square metres) with a pitched roof 6.7 m in height. The extension will be finished in materials to match the existing dwellinghouse.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The application site is located in an area designated as HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2.2 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required.

3.2 Following standard neighbour notification procedures 1 letter of representation has been received from the adjoining dwellinghouse. The points of objection are as follows:

The erection of a two storey extension will have a dramatic effect on the amount of daylight and sunlight received to my property and garden. Particularly to my existing rear extension. The size, proportion and positioning of the extension is incompatible with the existing housing in our estate and it will have an impact on the street scene. The dimensions of the extension will reduce the area of the existing garden ground to an extent which is out of proportion to the existing house type. Repair works to the gable of the proposed extension by the present or any future owner would have to be carried out from my property. Can you confirm that permission was granted fro the common ground to the left of the property to be used solely by No.1. We still remain un-notified of this planning application.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other relevant material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy HG9 as zoned in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and the associated design guidance on house extensions.

4.2 It is acknowledged that the extension is large however it will not be seen from Chapelcross Avenue and will not overwhelm the existing character of the dwellinghouse. The extension will reduce the rear garden area, however, this is considered acceptable as there is an area of open space to the rear and there is a large garden to the side of the property. The extension passes the standard sunlightldaylight test in relation to the adjoining property.

48 4.3 The objections raised are addressed below:

(a) The standard sunlightldaylight test was carried out in relation to the rear elevation of the neighbouring property at N0.3. The existing rear conservatory at No. 3 projects approximately 3 metres from the rear elevation and has a fire wall adjacent to the boundary with the application site. Taking account of the firewall means that the extension passes the standard sunlight daylight test in relation to the rear conservatory and ground floor rear elevation. The proposed extension will have an impact on one of the first floor bedroom windows, however, as this is not considered to be a habitable room the impact is not considered so significant to merit the refusal of this application. (b) It is acknowledged that this is a sizeable extension; however, it is located to the rear and will not be seen from Chapelcross Avenue. (c) The extension will reduce the rear garden length and area, however, the current length is less than the recommended 10 metres, there is an area of open space immediately to the rear and there is a large mature garden area to the side of the dwellinghouse which will offset any loss of rear garden. (d) Under planning legislation an applicant can build hard up to the boundary. Access for the maintenance of the extension is not a material planning consideration and is a matter to be resolved by the applicant. (e)The planning department does not hold a record of land ownership. The side garden appears to be fairly mature and the applicant has confirmed that it is within their ownership on the planning application form. (f) The applicant has stated on the application form that No.3 Chapelcross Avenue was neighbour notified at the time of submission of the application. Both the applicant and the agent have verbally confirmed that neighbour notification was carried out in accordance with the application form. In addition the application was advertised in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser as the open area to the rear was unknown.

4.4 The extension has been assessed in relation to the design guidance on house extensions and is found to be acceptable in terms of size, scale and design. Due consideration has been given to the concern raised by the objector however these were not considered so significant as to merit the refusal of the application. In conclusion taking the foregoing into consideration it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

49 Application No: C/07/00896/FU L

Date Registered: 23rd May 2007

Applicant: Ms Tracy Park 10 Marybank Close Preston PR2 9QW

Development: Change of Use from Dwellinghouse to Children's Nursery

Location: 99 Clark Street Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 6DU

Ward: 8 Airdrie Central Councillors Devine, Logue & Stocks

Grid Reference: 277008665530

File Reference: C/PL/AIC456000099/SM I/LR

Site History: 05/00626/TPO Felling of 3 No. Trees and Topping of 6 No. Trees granted 15'h June 2005 0 05/01026/FUL Double Garage to Rear of Dwellinghouse granted on 29 July 2005

Development Plan: The application site is zoned as HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) and falls within the boundary of the Drumgelloch Conservation Area (ENV 15) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Consultations:

Representations: 3 letters of representation.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 6th June 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to Policy HG9(1) of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 in that it fails to meet the Design Guidance on Nurseries which states that nursery provision should be secondary to residential use of a property, where located in a residential area.

2. That the unacceptable shortfall in parking provision within the curtilage of the site is likely to result in on-street parking and vehicle manoeuvres along Clark Street (A89), a busy distributor road, to the detriment of road safety.

50 Planning Application No. C/07/00896/FUL Change of Use from Dwellinghouse to Childrens Nursery

99 Clark Street, Airdrie N

* Representations Not to Sale One Representatlon outwith Map Area

51 3. The proposal is contrary to the aims of the Conservation Area in that the loss of the entire front garden area to car parking would adversely impact on the character of the surrounding streetscape and conservation area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 23rd May 2007 Monklands District Local Plan 1991 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000

Letter from L Scoular, Lingley Lodge, 101 Clark Street, Airdrie, ML6 6DU received 5th July 2007. Letter from Mr And Mrs W Brooks, Lingley Lodge, 1 Springwells Avenue, Airdrie, ML6 6EA received 4th June 2007. Letter from Mr And Mrs J McNamee, Beechcroft, 120 Motherwell Street, Airdrie received 27th June 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374.

Date: 23" August 2007

52 APPLICATION NO. C/07/00896/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning permission is being sought for the change of use of an existing dwellinghouse at 99 Clark Street, Airdrie. The dwellinghouse is a traditional two storey dwellinghouse and extends to approximately 190 square metres floor area over two and a half storeys. There is a large front and rear garden and a double garage which was granted permission in 2005. There is a single access onto Clark Street A89 framed by stone gate piers on either side.

1.2 The applicant proposes to also convert the double garage into a playroom. The supporting statement submitted with the application indicates that if utilised to its full capacity there could be 71 children with approximately 13 staff members. The proposed opening hours are 7.30am to 6pm.

1.3 The plans show that the entire building will be used as a nursery with 7 rooms set a side for use. On the ground floor of the main building there would be a reception room, 2 baby rooms (up to 16 babies), 1 toddler room (up to 6), kitchen, toilet and garage. The half landing would have one 1 toddler room (up to 6) and toilets. The first floor would have 2 pre school rooms (up to 26) and toilets. The separate double garage is to be converted to accommodate a pre-school room 17. The site layout plan shows 13 parking spaces to the front of the dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The application site is zoned as HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) and falls within the boundary of the Drumgelloch Conservation Area in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section was consulted and has objected to the proposal on the basis of lack of parking provision. Due to the potential capacity of the nursery they advise that off-street parking should be provided at a minimum level of 1 space per 2 children (this ratio also allows for staff parking). On the basis of 71 children there should be approximately 36 spaces. They have also advised that of the 13 spaces shown within the front garden only 11 are useable. Therefore the shortfall in parking provision is 25 spaces which is unacceptable.

3.2 It is not possible to accommodate the required level of parking within the site curtilage. This would result in a substantial number of vehicles stopping on both sides of the A89 Clark Street during the peak period, which is a main distributor road and carries a significant volume of traffic. This may also result in pedestrians crossing the A89 Clark Street and may also result in vehicles making unsafe manoeuvres to access the site. There are no dedicated pedestrian crossing facilities or vehicle parking facilities at this location. This would introduce a road safety hazard.

3.3 In addition the existing site is accessed by a 3 metre side dropped kerb pedestrian/ vehicular shared access. Due to the anticipated number of vehicle trips likely to be generated by the

53 development a 5 metre wide vehicular access would be required to permit 2 way vehicular traffic with a segregated pedestrian access also provided.

3.4 Protective Services have been consulted and has not objected to the proposal but has requested a site investigation be carried out.

3.5 Learning and Leisure were consulted and have not commented

3.6 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures and press advertisement 3 letters of representation were received. The main objections can be summarised as follows:

The proposal will result in traffic congestion, parking and access. Clark Street is a very busy road and at rush hour (8-9.30 and 4.30 to 6) the road becomes very busy at the approach to the terminus roundabout. It is not in-keeping with the residential ambience of the area. There will be additional noise created. Insufficient parking provision for staff and children and there is no provision for drop off and collection. There is not a need for an additional nursery in the area as the needs of the local community are being met by existing nurseries in the area of which 6 are operated by NLC. Contrary to the local plan as it is in a Conservation Area. The drainage surrounding the properties is very old and is already struggling to cope with a couple of new houses build further up the hill, This has caused blocking in the past and Scottish Water regularly have to clear the drains as they overflow and cause flooding onto Clark Street.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other relevant material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy HG9 as zoned in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and local plan policy Envl5 Conservation Areas is also relevant.

4.2 Policy HG9 acknowledges that nursery schools can be considered as ancillary developments in relation to residential areas and may be permitted subject to the development satisfying such as amenity other local plan policies and proven need for the facility. Point (I) states that developments shall conform to the relevant Development Control Advice established by the Council. In this instance the Design Guidance on Nurseries is relevant and states that nursery provision should be secondary to residential use of a property, where located within a residential area. It is therefore considered that this proposal is contrary to policy HG9 of the Monklands District Local Plan and therefore this application should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.3 The significant shortfall of parking provision by 25 spaces is unacceptable as it is likely to result in on-street parking and vehicle manoeuvres along Clark Street (A89), a busy distributor road, to the detriment of road safety.

4.4 As noted in the design guidance on conservation the purpose of the Conservation Areas is not to forbid any changes but to protect valuable heritage by ensuring the retention of the unique character of these areas. In this case it is considered that the loss of the front garden to a parking area would detrimentally impact on the setting of the dwellinghouse and the character of the surrounding street scene.

54 4.5 In relation to the grounds of objection these are addressed as follows:

(i) & (iii) The Transportation Section has advised against the proposal due to the lack of in curtilage car parking provision which is likely to result in parking on both sides of Clark Street. Therefore it is accepted that such a development may cause unacceptable level of traffic congestion and on street parking all to the detriment of road safety.

(ii) It is acknowledge that the use of a children’s nursery will introduce a level of noise above that of a standard residential dwelling. However protective services did not object to the proposal and the use of a dwelling as nursery can be considered as ancillary within a residential area. (iv) A private nursery operates as a business and offers a choice to parents. (v) This matter is discussed in paragraph 4.3 above. (vi) This is not a material planning consideration. 4.5 In conclusion it is acknowledged that children’s nurseries can be regarded as ancillary development within residential areas. However, in this case the proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of HG9(1), and therefore the Development Plan, in that it fails to meet the Design Guidance on Nurseries which states that nursery provision should be secondary to residential use of a property, where located in a residential area. There are no material considerations which would justify the departure from this policy as the proposal represents a significant intensification of use, shortfall in parking provision and would adversely impact on the surrounding streetscape and to the detriment of the conservation area. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

4.6 Committee is asked to note that an objector has requested that a site visit be undertaken prior to any decision being made on this application.

55 Application No: C/07/01034/FUL

Date Registered: 13th June 2007

Applicant: Mr Kenneth McArthur Martin Craigewan 256 Whiff let Street Coatbridge ML5 4SH

Development: Subdivision of Dwellinghouse to Flats

Location: 256 Whifflet Street Whifflet Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 4SH

Ward: 10 Coatbridge South Councillors Brooks, Ferrie & Higgins

Grid Reference: 273369663080

File Reference: C/PLICTW7 5 02 56000/l J/LR

Site History: 06/01762/FUL Change of Use of Dwellinghouse to Accommodation Ancillary to Adjacent Hotel - Withdrawn

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - The site is covered by Policy HG9:Housing Policy for Existing ResidentialAreas

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Water (No objections) British Gas (No objections) Scottish Power (No objections)

Representations: I letter of representation.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within 5 years of the date of this permission.

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

56 Planning Application No. C/07/01034/FUL

Subdivision & Extension to Existing Dwellinghouse to Form 4 Flatted Dwellinghouses

256 Whifflet Street, Coatbridge * Representation

57 2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the proposed internal layout of the dwellinghouse shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

3. That before the development 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.

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, details of the design, location and construction of the proposed vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the site, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

5 That the number of flats to be created within the site shall number no more than four.

Reason: To define the extent of the permission granted.

6. That, for the avoidance of doubt, the indicative layout proposals showing a possible rear extension area, on the plan dated 6'h June 2007, is considered for information purposes and does not form part of this permission.

Reason: To define the permission.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th June 2007

Letter from Scottish Water received 22nd June 2007 Letter from British Gas received 26th June 2007 Letter from Scottish Power received 22nd June 2007

Memo from Transportation Section received 27th July 2007 Memo from Protective Services Section received 6th July 2007

Letter from Mrs Cunningham, C/o Miller Beckett And Jackson, 190 St. Vincent Street, Glasgow, G2 5SP received 26th June 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382.

Date:28 August 2007

58 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01034/OUT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I The application site is addressed as 256 Whifflet Street, Coatbridge, measure 0.15 hectares, is flat and rectangular in shape, and currently accommodates a large detached dwellinghouse set within large garden grounds, The surrounding uses are predominantly residential in nature while Rosehall Industrial Estate is located immediately to the north west of the application site.

1.2 Planning permission is being sought for the sub-division of this existing dwellinghouse to form flats. An indicative layout has been submitted showing the building extended towards the rear of the site should the internal accommodation be insufficient to accommodate the number of flats required, this does not form part of the current submission and all such detailed matters, including the final internal layout and any proposed rear extension would require the submission of a further application.

1.3 The only known factors at this stage is that the existing dwellinghouse will be retained and that the sole means of access into the site, both vehicular and pedestrian, will be taken from Whifflet Street.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The site is covered by policy HG9:Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas. The proposal raises no strategic issues.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Scottish Power, Scottish Water and British Gas offered no objection to this proposal.

3.2 The Transportation Section have objected on the ground that the site accesses onto Whifflet Street which is a main distributor road and as such direct access to a road of this nature would not be permitted. In addition, drivers cannot exit the site southwards and this intensification of use may encourage u-turn manoeuvres on Whifflet Street.

3.3 Following the standard neighbour notification procedures one letter of objection was received against this proposal. The relevant points of objection are as follows: a. The indicative plans of the extension is of a design out of keeping with the surrounding properties and would materially adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring subjects. b. The proposal will have a detrimental impact on trafficlroad safety with access being taken off a busy dual carriageway near a roundabout. c. On street parking is currently a problem and the situation would be made worse through this development. d. The proposed design will introduce an increased number of windows on the side elevation of the extension which would cause an overlooking, privacy conflict with existing properties.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard has to be had to the development plan. In particular, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the development is not of strategic significance therefore the Structure Plan is not relevant in the assessment of the application.

59 4.2 In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site is located within an area covered by policy HG9:Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas which presumes against any development that would adversely affect the amenity of residential areas. The proposal under consideration is therefore acceptable in policy terms.

4.3 In terms of site layout, design etc. it is not possible at this stage to consider these issues in terms of their compliance with the appropriate Design Guidance on House Extensions (as contained within the Local Plan) as the current application is only for the subdivision of the existing dwellinghouse and while the submitted plan shows an indicative rear extension this element does not form part of the current planning application. Matters such as the internal design of the flats within the existing dwellinghouse together with any extension to the building would be the subject of a further planning application should the current submission be considered accepted. The indicative sketch submitted with the application is for information purposes and solely expresses how the site could be developed to accommodate additional floorspace if it is required.

4.4 While the concerns of the Transportation Section are noted, the application site is currently served from Whifflet Street for accesdegress purpose as are the adjacent residential properties and all other uses (including public house, petrol station, industrial premises) along the western side of Whifflet Street and to the north of the application site. The introduction of a limited number of additional vehicle manoeuvres onto the road from the application site would not in itself create a danger to traffidpedestrian movement on Whifflet Street and the situation could be assisted through the opportunity for improved visibility arrangements within the application site itself. There is no known problem with u-turn manoeuvres at Whifflet Cross and there are no parking restrictions on the sections of Whifflet Street to the north and south of the application site. Notwithstanding this any on street parking near the application site is associated with the adjacent residential properties and the application site is of sufficient size to accommodate the required increased level of parking resulting from this development.

4.5 As regards the points of objection raised I would offer the following comments: a. and d. As stated in Par.4.3 above the submitted sketch layout indicating a rear extension to the dwellinghouse does not form part of this current submission and therefore matters of detail such as scale, overlooking windows etc. as highlighted by the objector would be considered at a further planning application stage. It is however beneficial to establish potential areas of concern as this allows the developer to address these issues prior to the submission of any further detailed applications. b. and c. these issues have been addressed in Par. 4.4 above.

4.6 Having regard to the foregoing it is considered that in policy terms the proposed subdivision of the existing dwellinghouse is considered acceptable. The detailed aspects of any possible extension, as shown on the submitted indicative plan, would however require to be assessed fully as part of a separate planning application although in terms of site size, the site is of sufficient dimensions to accommodate the indicated level of new build. The points of objection do not merit a recommendation of refusal of the application and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions.

60 Application No: C/07/01149/AMD

Date Registered: 3rd July 2007

Applicant: Murlin Residential Unit 12 Larkhall Industrial Estate Larkhall ML9 2PA

Agent Caldwell Lindsay Associates 91 Bothwell Road Hamilton ML3 ODW

Development: Erection of Four Dwellinghouses

Location: Home Farm Station Road Caldercruix North Lanarkshire ML6 7QN

Ward: 7 Airdrie North Councillors Cameron, Coyle, McGuigan & Morgan

Grid Reference: 281671 667929

File Reference: C/PL/CC5676/1J/LR

90/640 Erection of Plotted Residential Development (in outline) Site History: Granted 1990 05/01580/REM Erection of 17 Dwellinghouses (Phase 5) Granted November 2005 06/00682/AMD Erection of 14 Semi-Detached Dwellinghouses and 16 Flatted Dwellings Withdrawn May 2006 06/00940/AMD Erection of Twenty semi-Detached Dwellinghouses Granted September 2006

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG3/25:New Private Sector Housing and HG9 :Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: 2 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

61 ,I ...... / '. '...... e... .-.. , .--...... n_; .... i

62 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1I 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, positioning or external finishes shall take place without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the permission.

3. 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 details of retaining walls proposed to the rear of plots 20 to 25,and at the shared boundaries with 7 & 9 Glen Terrace, All fences and walls shall be constructed prior to the occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved.

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

4. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, for the area hatched green on the approved plans, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and this 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) proposals for tree planting at the rear of 7 Glen Terrace

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

5. That prior to the occupation of the fourth dwellinghouse hereby approved all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 4 above, shall be completed in accordance with the approved details, 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 hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

6. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped area hatched green on the approved plans;

Reason: In the interests of amenity

7. That prior to the occupation of the fourth dwellinghouse hereby permitted, the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 6 shall be in operation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity

8. That before the development hereby approved starts, a report which adheres to guidance given in BSI01 75.2001 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, Code of Practice, and describes the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority,

63 and shall include proposals to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.

Reason: To ensure the proper treatment of the site in the interests of health and safety.

9. That following the completion of all or any of the works required under the terms of condition no. 8 above, a certificate from a suitably qualified person or body shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that all necessary works have been carried out in full and to a satisfactory standard.

Reason: To ensure the compliance with condition no. 6 in the interests of health and safety.

10. That before any works commence on site, a detailed plan showing proposed ground and finished floor levels (where appropriate) within the site shall be submitted to the Planning Authority, and these proposed levels shall be agreed by the Planning Authority. This plan should show the proposed dwelling houses relative to those adjacent and their relationship to the adjacent landscaped area. Any additional drainage required as a result of level difference shall be provided prior to the occupation of the fourth dwellinhouse within the development.

Reason: To ensure the submission of relevant information and to ensure that the proposed ground levels are properly integrated into the surrounding area and to ensure a safe and attractive development.

1 1. That no dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be occupied until the road and footpath adjacent to it have been constructed to basecourse standard and the road and footpath shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the construction phase.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

12. That before the last of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, the road and footways fronting the dwellinghouses shall be completed to final wearing course.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.

13. That before any of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted are occupied 2 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of each plot and outwith the public road or footway, and thereafter be maintained as parking spaces.

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

14. That no velux roof lights shall be incorporated within the rear roofslopes of the dwellinghouses hereby approved.

Reason: To protect the amenity of adjacent residents

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 28th June 2007 Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 Letters from B Woods, 7 Glen Terrace , Caldercruix, ML6 7PY received 1 1th July 2007 and 27'h August 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382 Date: 24 August 2007

64 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01149/AMD

REPORT

Description of Site and Proposal

The application site is located off Station Road, Caldercruix, measures 0.22 hectares approximately, is predominantly rectangular in shape and slopes slightly downwards in a north south direction. The site was previously grassed and contained a number of large mature trees which have now since been removed. The site forms part of a larger residential development site (Holm Farm) which is in its final phase of construction and the application site itself was set aside under previous related planning permissions for open space amenity purposes associated with the surrounding residential development.

The current submission seeks to develop the application site to accommodate 4 semi-detached dwelling units, 2.5 storeys in height and positioned in a north south direction fronting onto a new 5.5 metre wide access road with footways linking onto Station Road at the site’s most northerly point. The style and external appearance of the new build will be similar to the dwellinghouses currently under construction (by the same developer) on the site directly adjacent. Dormer windows incorporated within the roof area of the dwellings will front towards the new access road while a small landscaped amenity area will be sited at the southern most part of the site.

Development Plan

The site is covered by policy HG3/25:New Private Sector Housing in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and HG9 (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) also applies. The proposal raises no strategic issues.

Consultations and Representations

The Transportation Section offered no objection to the proposal. Land Services have (verbally) advised that the site was specifically identified to accommodate amenity space as part of the larger surrounding development and the non provision of any amenity provision would be detrimental to the overall Holm Farm development. NLC Pollution Control Section has recommended the submission of a Site Investigation Report.

Following the standard neighbour notification procedures one letter of objection was initially received from an adjacent resident. The main points of objection were as follows: a. The height of the dwellings (2.5 storey) would dwarf the existing bungalow type properties on Glen Terrace and would cause overshadowing and block out light from the rear of those properties. b. The site currently suffers from drainage problems and is constantly flooded. The objector has subsequently formally withdrawn the objection following discussions with the developer.

Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

This application requires to be considered against both the terms of the development plan and any other material considerations.

In terms of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 the application site, together with the surrounding land around Holm Farm, are located within an area specifically designated for Private Housing purposes under policy HG3/25. Taken that those surrounding area has been developed in a phased manner for residential purposes as a result of previous planning permissions then the proposal under consideration is seen as acceptable in policy terms.

65 4.3 Notwithstanding the above however it should firstly be noted that the application site forms part of a larger development site around Holm Farm that was granted outline planning permission (ref:90640) in 1990 for the “erection of 67 individual house plots and internal road layout”. As part of that approval the current application site was identified for retention as an amenity open space area to serve the overall development. The subsequent detailed planning applications for individual plots have been built broadly in accordance with the outline permission in a sequence of 5 phases around the approved road layout while excluding the open space area from development.

4.4 The current approved design Guidance on “Developer’s Guide to Open Space” specifies that Medium Scale Developments (30 - 99 dwellings) should incorporate a total minimum play space of 1,500 square metres with at least 500 square metres of equipped play space. The Play Services section reinforces that for a development consisting of 65 dwellings then 1,500 sq. metres of total play space should be provided with a minimum of 650 sq. metres of equipped play space. However, under the terms of planning application P90640 no dedicated equipped play area was set aside (as the Design Guidance post dated the permission) although approximately 1,000 sq. metres of general amenity space (the current planning application site) was identified and considered acceptable. The current submission seeks to retain approximately 400 sq. metres of that previously dedicated amenity space as a communal landscaped area. Given that there was no prospect of the original large amenity area being properly laid out with an agreed scheme of maintenance, the limited development now being suggested would appear to be the best option with a token area retained for which maintenance will be agreed with the developer prior to the implementation of the development.

4.5 While the current applicant has initially intimated that he may be willing to make a financial contribution to the Council in lieu of the non provision of any landscaped areas or equipped play area provision within his development proposals, this option is not considered acceptable as there are no other areas within the general vicinity that could be utilised, in the form of amenity landscaped areas, which would immediately benefit the existing houses.

4.6 While an objection had initially been submitted in respect of this proposal that objection has now been withdrawn. It is however appropriate to comment on the initial points of objection as follows: a. While the outline planning permission (ref:90640) initially sought to develop the overall site as individual plots, this principle was subsequently deviated from following a recent planning permission to allow an element of 2.5 storey semi-detached units (phase 5 - C/06/00940/AMD) on the lands bounding the current application site to the north. The acceptability of 2.5 storey housing is therefore established within the overall Holm Farm site and in design terms, the proposal is acceptable. The position of the new built will, as agreed with the objector, be in excess of 23 metres away from the nearest property on Glen Terrace and any velux windows will be removed from the roof area of the new build fronting towards Glen Terrace. These proposals remove the concern over any overshadowing between properties or the blocking out of light to properties on Glen Terrace.

b. These has been no recent issue raised within the application site of flooding and taken that the current ground levels within the site will be retained, irrespective of development use, then it is unlikely that flooding would occur. Level details are being requested as a safeguard.

4.7 The style, height and external finish of the proposed new build currently exists within the adjoining phase of Holm Farm development and is therefore acceptable within this overall development. The initial concerns of an objector, now withdrawn, have been satisfied and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions.

66 Application No: C/07/01164/OUT

Date Registered: 4th July 2007

Applicant: Robert Speirs 31 Merlin Avenue Bellshill ML4 1LA

Development: Two Storey Flatted Development Containing 6 Flats

Location: 14 Lauchope Street Chapelhall Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 8SR

Ward: 11 Airdrie South Councillors Coyle, Curley, Fagan & Love

Grid Reference: 278131663106

File Reference: C/PL/CHL195/SMI/LR

Site History: 02/00822/OUT Demolition of House and Erection of 6 Flatted Dwellinghouses (In Outline) granted on the 11 September 2002.

Development Plan: The application site is located in an area designated as ECON 8 (General Urban Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency British Telecom Scottish Power British Gas Scottish Water

Representations: I letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started, either within 5 years of the date of this permission, or within 2 years of the date of 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.

2. For the avoidance of doubt, no approval is hereby given for the indicative details submitted with the planning application.

67 Planning Application No C/07/01164/OUT Two Storey Flatted DevelopmentContaining 6 Fiats

N 14 Lauchope Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie A * Representation NdtO Scale Site Area 0 12 HA

68 Reason: To define the permission.

3. 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 details of the hard and soft landscaping of the site (9 details of existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained; (9) details of existing and proposed site levels. (h) dropped kerb details

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

4. That within three years of the date of this permission, an application for approval of the reserved matters, specified in condition 3 above, shall be made to the Planning Authority.

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

5. That notwithstanding the details submitted in respect of condition 2 above the access to the site taken shall

(i) be taken from Lauchope Street, (ii) be a minimum of 40 metres from the Junction with A73 Main Street (iii) be via a 5.5 metre wide drop kerb footway crossing arrangement. (vi) be paved for the first 2 metres behind the heel of the footway

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

6. The corner radii at the junction of Lauchope Street with A73 Main Street shall be increased to 10.5 metres.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

7. That prior to the flats hereby permitted first being occupied the existing access from A73 Main Street shall be stopped up and reinstated to a conventional footway arrangement, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of traffic and pedestrian safety.

8. The developer shall provide a 2.5 metre wide footway over the full frontage of the site along Lauchope Street.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 5 above a visibility splay of 4.5 metres by 120 metres, measured from the road channel, shall be provided from the vehicular access to the right and a splay of 4.5 metres to the Junction of Lauchope Street with Main Street shall be provided to the left.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety.

10. No pedestrian access shall be formed onto the A73 Main Street.

69 Reason: To remove the likelihood of vehicles parking at, or close to, the junction of Lauchope Street with the A73 Main Street in the interest of traffic safety.

11. Notwithstanding the requirements of condition No. 2 above as part of the reserved matters application, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted and for the approval of the said authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the principles of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) in terms of the relevant ClRlA Manual and other advice published by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA).

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater, and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site respectively.

12. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a desk top study describing the soil and ground conditions prevailing over the application site (including details of the nature, concentration and distribution of any contaminants), shall be submitted to the Planning Authority and the works required in order to remove or render harmless these contaminants, having regard to the proposed use of the site, shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and development shall not be commenced until these works have been completed.

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

13. That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 12 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a responsible Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 4th July 2007

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991

Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 6th August 2007 Letter from British Telecom received 23rd July 2007 Letter from British Gas received 19th July 2007

Memo from Transportation Section received 14th August 2007 Memo from Protective Services Section received 19th July 2007

Letter from Mr & Mrs Nicholl, 38 Main Street, Chapelhall, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 8SA received 17th July 2007.

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374.

Date: 28 August 2007

70 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01164/0UT

1. Descriution of Site and Proposal

1.1 Outline Planning permission is being sought for a two storey flatted development containing 6 flats at 14 Lauchope Street, Chapelhall. The application site is located at the junction of Lauchope Street and Main Street and extends to 0.12 ha. 1.2 The existing house and other buildings on site will be demolished. Being in outline there have been no detailed plans submitted as these matters would be considered at a subsequent ‘reserved matters’ stage should this present submission be considered favourably. An indicative layout plan has been provided showing 2 blocks of flats and 6 separate garages. 1.3 Outline permission (C/02/00822/OUT) was granted for the same proposal in 2002. This permission has expired and the applicant is seeking a fresh permission.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site is located in an area designated as ECON 8 (General Urban Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2.2 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section was consulted and has not objected to the proposal subject to conditions. Amongst the conditions are junction improvements, alterations to the access and visibility splays, the removal of the pedestrian access gate onto Main Street.

3.2 Scotland Gas Networks was consulted and has not objected to the proposal but has advised that there are gas pipes running along both Lauchope Street and Main Street. An informative will be placed on any permission advising the applicant to contact Scottish Gas Networks.

3.3 SEPA was consulted has not objected to the proposal but has advised that if surface water cannot be discharged into the public sewerage system then a scheme must be designed in accordance with the principles of SUDS. This can be placed on as a condition. SEPA also provided comments on construction/demolition, pollution prevention and domestic waste issues.

3.4 Pollution Control was consulted and submitted comments. They requested that a site investigation be carried out in relation to potential site contamination and advised that best practicable means should be adopted to control site generated dust and provided details of standard operating hours.

3.5 Following standard neighbour notification procedures 1 letter of representation was received the points raised in the letter are summarised as follows:

1 Appearance: - The development is out of character with the surrounding properties on the street which are mainly bungalows and 1.5 storey villas. Therefore it will dwarf the other properties and overshadow. There is no privacy at the front of our property and the development will allow at least 3 other properties to overlook into our rear garden. Daylight will be blocked by the garages and by the roof of the buildings. 2 Traffic: - The area is already heavily congested throughout the day so much so that SEPA have introduced environmental monitoring of the air pollution content. There have been numerous accidents at the Traffic Lights with cars turning right being hit by cars driving towards

71 Airdrie there have been at least 6 in the last 6 months, this will increase with more cars turning this corner. 3 Parking; - The parking is not sufficient as most households now contain 2 cars and therefore any visitors will have nowhere to park. The area which is to be monobloced onto the Main Street will be used as additional parking. There is an existing problem with parking on this area at present. Vehicles regularly block access to our property. The Main Street Access gate will allow people to use this as a shortcut to Lauchope Street and invite unwanted youths to the area as well as promote illegal parking. 4 Access: - Access to the property will cause congestion for traffic turning into Lauchope Street increasing pollution in this area. The proposer suggests that residents can only turn into and out of the development in a particular manner but there is no way to control this. 5 Noise: - The proposal will result in additional noise to the area in terms of cars, garage doors, refuse trucks and possibly dogs. 6 Environment: The increase of people and cars will increase the pollution in this area. There has already been outline planning for the property at 35 Main Street and the road and environment are seriously going to deteriorate with the increase of residences in this area. 7. Other:-The proposer intends to build onto 2 boundary walls of my property, 1 of which retains the garden. The proposer intends to extend the current boundary wall on Main Street out further than the existing boundary which I do not think is legal and would cause disruption to services in the area.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application site is located in an area designated as ECON8 (General Urban Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991. Policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) and HGIO (Policy for Housing Development Outwith Defined Residential Areas) are also relevant as is the associated design guidance on infill housing and open space around dwellings.

4.2 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

4.3 The principle of mixed uses is accepted in Genera Urban Areas and whilst the previous outline permission has now expired it did establish the suitability of residential development within the site. The site is surrounded by predominantly residential properties along both Main Street and Lauchope Street. It is considered that a two storey development would be acceptable within the streetscape. Whilst the layout plan is only indicative it does show that the site can accommodate 6 flats together with acceptable levels of open space and parking provision. The details of this will be assessed as part of the reserved matters application in the future.

4.4 The points raised by the objector are addressed as follows:

1. This application is in outline and therefore no elevational details are available all that is known is that the buildings will be two storey in height. It is acknowledged that there is a mix of bungalows and 1% storey properties adjacent to the site. The dwellinghouse at 38 Main Street immediately adjacent to the site is 1% storeys. The properties diagonally across the junction from the site are two storey as are those on the opposite side of Main Street. There are single storey properties on the opposite side of Lauchope Street and to the west of the site along Lauchope Street. It is considered that the single storey properties are located far enough away from the proposed buildings so as not to appear dwarfed and will not be overshadowed. Similarly it is considered that the 1% storey property will not be dwarfed by a two storey property and due to the positioning of the proposed buildings within the site is unlikely to be overshadowed.

2. It is acknowledged that the Main StreeVLauchope Street junction is busy; however it is

72 considered that the proposed development is unlikely to significantly increase these levels. It is noted that the Transportation Section has not objected to the proposal.

3. The layout is indicative, however is does show that 10 parking spaces can be provided within the curtilage of the site. The required level of parking for a flatted development is 165% which is met in the layout. The transportation section has advised that the pedestrian access to Main Street be removed in order to prevent parking on Main Street. This has been attached as a condition.

4. The transportation section has not objected to the proposal, however has listed conditions in relation to the access to the site which can be attached as planning conditions to be addressed in a reserved matters application.

5. It is inevitable that there will be residential noise levels associated with any flatted development. However, there is an existing business operating from the site which currently generates a level of noise as do the busy main roads adjacent to the site.

6. Any issue of increased pollution would be dealt with under separate legislation

7. The applicant requires to satisfy themselves in relation to the construction and positioning of the boundary walls. The details of the boundary treatment would be considered as part of a reserved matters application.

4.5 The proposal has been assessed against the local plan policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan and relevant design guidance. It is concluded that the proposal accords the objectives of the policies and guidance. Due consideration has been given to the concerns raised by the objector however these were not considered so significant as to merit the refusal of the application. In conclusion taking the foregoing into consideration it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

73 Application No: C/07/01169/FUL

Date Registered: 5th July 2007

Applicant: Messrs Brown Gaindykehead Farm Yetts Hole Road Greenfoot Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 OPW

Agent Mr Hugh A. McRorie 1 Corsehill Park AY r KA7 2UG

Development: Construction of Storage Unit for Slurry

Location: Gaindykehead Farm Yetts Hole Road Greenfoot Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 OPW

6 Coatbridge North Councillors Clarke, McWilliams, Shields & & Glenboig Wilson

Grid Reference:

File Reference: C/PL//GMY099/CMN/LR

Site History: 0 97/05447/FUL Erection of Dwellinghouse

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 GBI Restrict Development in the Greenbelt

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (comments)

Representations: No letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 18th July 2007

74 Planning Application No. C107/01169/FUL

Construction of Storage Unit for Slurry

Gaindykehead Farm, Yetts Hole Road, Greenfoot, Airdrie

75 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 5th July 2007

Memo from Protective Services Section received 25th July 2007

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000

Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236 812375.

Date: 28 August 2007

76 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01169/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The site to which this application relates is a field to the north of the existing farmhouse and associated buildings at Gaindykehead Farm, north of the settlement of Greenfoot. The policy relevant to this application is GBI (Restricted Development in the Greenbelt) in the adopted Monkland Local Plan 1991. The site is distant from any public road. The nearest properties are farms however these are not considered as protected buildings. The nearest residential 'protected building' is some 360 metres to the north of the proposal. Usually a development Of this kind would require the applicant to provide prior notification and not seek full planning permission, however in this case there is a protected building within 400 metres of the proposal. Although it is not visible from the site.

1.2 Planning permission is sought for the construction of a storage tank for slurry to the north of the dwellinghouse at Gaindykehead Farm, Greenfoot. The proposal would be sited within an unused field 20 metres north of the nearest farm building and some 68 metres from the existing smaller slurry tank. The tank would be circular in shape and 24.688 metres in diameter. It would be flat topped to a height of 6.096 metres. It would be used to store slurry. There is an existing slurry store on site but the applicant has stated that it is old and the proposal would essentially replace it although no details concerning removal of the existing have been proposed. The footprint of the development would be 478m2. No screening or external materials were proposed.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The development plan is the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

2.2 Policy GBI of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 is of relevance to the determination of this application. It states that within areas designated as Green Belt no development will be permitted except for:-New houses for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture; non residential developments in connection with forestry or agriculture; uses requiring a rural location; and areas identified as having a substantial development potential.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) were consulted and made comment. They had no objections subject to the slurry tank complying with the measures detailed in the Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil)(Scotland) Regulations 2003.

3.2 Pollution Control responded and noted that the site was adjacent to Greenfoot Quarry and that subsidence may be an issue.

3.3 Following advertisement in the local press no letters of objection have been received. There were no neighbours within the notification area.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

77 4.2 It should be noted that the principle of a non residential agricultural use raises no strategic or local planning issues.

4.3 The application was advertised under Article 12(5)(b) - Bad Neighbour Development as the proposal involves effluent storage but there were no representations submitted as a result. The GBI policy allows for non residential development in connection with agriculture and a slurry storage tank would fit this description. Following the site visit it is clear that the ‘protected building’ that has triggered the requirement for the application is not likely to be affected by the development. It will have no visual impact since it is unsighted by the crest of a hill to the north of the proposal. Verbal discussions with SEPA about concerns surrounding smell nuisance were allayed by assurances that the tank would require to be sealed so that there should be minimal smell release.

4.4 An informative highlighting that the development must comply with the Control of Pollution (Sillage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil)(Scotland) Regulations 2003 for which SEPA has a remit should be appended. A second informative emphasising that the applicant should satisfy themselves of the ground stability of the site should also be appended. Taking the forgoing into account, it is concluded that the proposal would not harm the amenity of the area and would not cause significant smell nuisance to the nearby protected building. Therefore I recommend that the application be granted subject to conditions.

78 Application No: C/07/0 1270/FUL

Date Registered: 20th July 2007

Applicant: Mr J Rea 18 Heatherylea Avenue Coatbridge ML5 4JT

Agent IFT Partnership Ltd Fountain Business Centre Ellis Street Coatbridge ML5 3AA

Development: Construction of Attached Garage and First Floor Balcony to Dwellinghouse

Location: 18 Heathery Lea Avenue Carnbroe Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 4JT

Ward: 10 Coatbridge South Councillors Brooks, Ferrie, & Higgins

Grid Reference: 274884663110

File Reference: C/PL/CTH200018000/WS/LR

Site History: 03/01657/FUL Single and Double Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse, Formation of Bay Window and Conversion of Garage to Habitable Room 0 04/01836/AMD Amendment to C/03/01657/Ful (Single and Double Storey Extension Rear Extension, Formation of Bay Window and Conversion of Garage to Habitable Room) to Include a Single Storey Lounge Extension 07/0127O/FUL Construction of Attached Garage and First Floor Balcony to Dwellinghouse

Development Plan: Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996 Formerly zoned GBI (Greenbelt) now established housing area.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations:

Representations: One letter of representation

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

79 Planning Application No. C/07/01270/FUL

Construction of Attached Garage and First Floor Balcony to Dwellinghouse

18 Heathery Lea Avenue, Carnbroe, Coatbridge Not to Scale J( Representation

80 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

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.

That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall complement in colour and texture those of the existing adjoining building.

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

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

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

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: To safeguard the residential amenity of the area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 20th July 2007

Letter from Mr & Mrs J Martin, 20 Heathery Lea Avenue, Carnbroe, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 4JT received 31st July 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 812231

Date: 28 August 2007

81 APPLlCATlO N NO. C/07/01270/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application is for the construction of an attached garage and the erection of a first floor balcony on a dwellinghouse at 18 Heathery Lea Avenue, Carnbroe, Coatbridge. The dwellinghouse is located within a relatively new residential area of Coatbridge. The property is located at the end of Heathery Lea Avenue where it is accessed by a communal driveway shared by 20 Heathery Lea Avenue. The dwelling faces east onto Carnbroe Road and is located within a predominantly residential area.

1.2 The applicant proposes to remove a high wall which is attached to the side of the house and the northern boundary fence and replace it with a garage. The proposed garage would be 3.4 metres wide and 6.4 metres in length. There would be a small gap (800mm) between the boundary wall and the garage itself to allow for access and maintenance. The applicant also intends to put a balcony leading from a first floor bedroom window at the south east corner of the house.

1.3 Previously planning permission was granted in 2003 for a single and double storey rear extension to dwellinghouse, formation of bay window and conversion of garage to habitable room. This was amended in 2004 to include a single storey lounge extension which was also approved.

1.4 Condition 11 of the original Planning Permission for the estate (C/PL/95/00028/FUL) states that any garages that intend to be built, require planning permission and that they should be constructed in facing brick and shall have a pitched roof. The current proposal needs to comply with this condition

2. Development Plan

2.1 The relevant development plan is the approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991, There are no strategic implications.

2.2 Whilst the site is located within an area covered by Policy GB1 of the Adopted Monklands Local Plan 1991, the entire area was released for housing purposes some time ago. The proposals relate to a householder development and require to be assessed under the terms of policy HG9 (C) which states that house extensions will generally be permitted so long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the Council.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section had no objections

3.2 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure 1 letter of representation was received. The terms of objection can be summarised as follows:

a) A previous planning permission for an extension has reduced the percentage of space available for parking and therefore has caused vehicles to overhang the access drive shared with 20 Heathery Lea Avenue.

b) Consequently the inclusion of another development (garage) would escalate the problem as previous garages have not been used for parking.

82 c) In front of the proposed garage there would be limited space left to manoeuvre any veh icles,

d) If a car was parked in front of the garage then a car could possibly overhang the shared access road.

e) There is a concern that the balcony would overlook 20 Heathery Lea Avenue causing a privacy problem. 9 The balcony does not conform to others in the area.

g) The balcony will devalue the neighbouring property.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 In assessing this proposal it is important that the development does not affect the amenity of the area. In this instance an assessment under the Monklands District Design Guidance 'House Extensions' is appropriate here. In this guidance it is stated that garages should be set back 6 metres from the pavement to allow space for a car to park in the driveway in front of the garage. There is also a preference towards pitched roofs and matching external materials, styles and proportions.

4.3 Following consideration of the application details it is considered that the garage and balcony would accord with the guidance and would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area for the following reasons.

4.4 Firstly, the garage would provide an additional car parking space which is at present not available due to the wall which extends from the house to the boundary fence. There would be adequate space for the parking of two cars within the curtilage of the property with the addition of the garage. By being built in materials which match the existing dwelling house it will not have an adverse visual impact on the residential area. There will be sufficient space for another car to be parked in front of the garage and still allow access to 20 Heathery Lea Avenue. This proposal therefore meets all the requirements of the Local Plan policy and the Design Guidance for 'House Extensions'.

4.5 Secondly, it is considered that the provision of an upper balcony would not adversely affect the amenity of the area. Although there are no similar structures in close proximity, the balcony would not be directly looked onto by any other housing within 20 metres and will not directly overlook the neighbouring property therefore the impact on privacy would be minimal. The proposed balcony would not affect the existing residential amenity of the area.

4.6 With regard to the grounds of objection, the following comments can be noted:

a) It is felt that the construction of the garage would not cause further parking problems. The garage would provide an additional parking space that at present is not available. There is sufficient driveway and garden area in which to park a second car without causing access problems to 20 Heathery Lea Avenue.

b) The concern over the garage not being used for parking has been noted but is outwith the remit of planning control. It has been noted that other residential garages have been converted to habitable rooms and due to this a condition would be included with any granting of planning permission to ensure that the garage serves as part of the parking

83 provision and is not removed without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.

c) At no point would the original building line of the house be encroached and therefore the same manoeuvring area would be available as was first stipulated in the original plans.

d) There would be sufficient room (6 metres) to accommodate another vehicle parked in front of the garage and still allow access to the neighbouring property.

e) The proposed balcony would face east over Carnbroe Road and overlook, to a degree the front garden of the house to the South. Therefore the balcony will not look onto any habitable room windows and would have no significant impact on the privacy of any neighbouring properties.

9 There are no other examples of balconies in the area and therefore it is difficult to assess whether it conforms with other balconies in the area. However it is considered that the balcony would have little impact on the resident amenity of the area.

g) The claim that property values would be reduced as a result of development is not a material planning consideration.

It is considered that the terms of objection cannot be sustained.

4.7 In conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area in that it satisfies the required criteria set down in the appropriate design guidance in respect to the scale, design and visual appearance. The parking provision would be not be made any worse by the creation of the garage and it could be argued that an additional parking space would be created which would enhance the parking provision. There were no objections from the Transportation Section and the terms of objection cannot be sustained. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

84 Application No: C/07/01294/FUL

Date Registered: 24th July 2007

Applicant: luyMcllduff 37 Killearn Crescent Plains Airdrie

Development: Part Change of use of Dwellinghouse to Childrens Nursery

Location: 37 Killearn Crescent Plains Airdrie

Ward: 7 Airdrie North Councillors Cameron, Coyle McGuigan & Morgan

Grid Reference: 279364 667061

File Reference: C/P L/P LK454/037/CM I/L R

Site History:

Development Plan: The application site is zoned as HG3 (New Private Sector Housing Development) within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Fire Safety Officer (No Response)

Representations: 5 letters of representation,one enclosing petition with 32 signatories.

Newspaper Advertisement: 1'' August 2007

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That the proposed nursery development at this location within an existing residential estate, owing to the inadequate provision of car parking spaces which is likely to result in additional on- street parking, would constitute a danger to road safety and to pedestrian safety, particularly of children.

2. The proposal is contrary to local plan policy HG9 in that the use of this dwellinghouse as a childrens nursery will have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area by virtue of noise and general disturbance through the introduction of an inappropriate use to the area in terms of the increased noise levels.

85 Part Exchange of Use of Dwellinghouse to Childrens Nursery .I

111 37 Killearn Crescent, Airdrie * Representations & Petition from Residents Beverley Park Plains

86 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 9th July 2007

Letter from Transportation received 20th August 2007 Letter from Head Of Protective Services received 8th August 2007 Letter from Education received 6th August 2007

Letter from Mr & Mrs Peter McAllister, 35 Killearn Crescent, Plains, Airdrie, ML6 7UN received 9th July 2007. Letter from A McCutcheon, 26 Killearn Crescent, Plains, Airdrie, ML6 7UR received 18th July 2007. Letter from Martin & Suzanne Creaney & Signatories, 12 Cromlix Grove, Plains, Airdrie received 18th July 2007. Letter from D Esson, 19 Killearn Crescent, Plains, By Airdrie, received 11th August 2007. Letter from resident received 1!jth August 2007.

Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss Charmaine Mills at 01236 812381.

Date: 23 August 2007

87 APPLICATION NO. C/07/01294/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning permission is sought for the part change of use of an existing dwellinghouse at 37 Killearn Crescent, Plains to children’s nursery. The dwellinghouse is within a new housing estate and is two-storey with 2 off-street parking spaces to the front of the dwelling and an integral garage. As part of the proposal the integral garage would be converted into a playroom. The applicant is proposing to use the ground floor of the dwellinghouse as the nursery and live on the first floor of the dwellinghouse.

1.2 In a supporting statement the applicant initially proposes to offer places for 25 children with approximately 8 members of staff being employed if the nursery is utilised to its full capacity. It will be open from Monday to Friday and the opening hours are proposed to be 7.15am to 5.45pm. The application proposes no changes to the exterior of the building.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

2.2 The application site is zoned as HG3 (New Private Sector Housing Development) and policy HG9 (Existing Residential Areas) is also relevant within the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation section have concerns regarding the off street parking provision. They advise that off-street parking should be provided at a minimum level of 1 space per 2 children (this also allows for staff parking). With 25 children this would equate to approximately 13 spaces. In addition to this the applicant would have to provide 2 off street parking spaces for the existing residential use. Therefore 15 spaces would be required. As the applicant is only proposing 3 spaces this is substandard.

3.2 Protective Services have been consulted and have advised that the proposal may give rise to an increase in the ambient noise level and an erection of an acoustic barrier maybe required.

3.3 Learning and Leisure have been consulted and have no objections to the proposal.

3.4 Following the standard neighbour notification and public advertisement procedures five objection letters (one anonymous) and one petition with 32 signatories was received. The main reasons for objection are as follows:

(i) The proposal submitted stated that the nursery would only be accepting 6 children however the notice to neighbours states working towards a 25 place nursery.

(ii) There is concern over road safety, especially with children and the increased traffic flow with parents and staff driving to the nursery. This would also have an impact on parents allowing their children to play free in the street due to the traffic safety concerns especially as there is no traffic calming measures in the street.

(iii) There are existing traffic problems within Killearn Crescent and this proposal will intensify this issue. The increase in traffic would encourage double parking and possibly block of

88 residents driveways especially in wet weather as parents will want to park as close as possible.

(iv) With a nursery in a residential area (especially at the busier peak times) there is a major issue with noise and the disruption to the residents.

(v) There must be regulations against using a residential property as a business especially in this manner.

(vi) All child-care services with the exception of a childminder service must be registered with the Care Commission.

(vii) In the missives for the properties in Killearn Crescent it clearly states that you are not permitted to run a business from your home and granting planning permission would be in breach of the terms and conditions laid out in the missives.

(viii) The notice to neighbours was served on 5'h July 2007 however the notice is dated 21" January 2007.

(ix) The residents residing in close proximity to where the proposed nursery did not receive any notification of the intent of the property being used as a nursery and where not given adequate notice to air any concerns/objections at an earlier date.

(x) There is a large Husky dog within the application site which is not kept under control.

(xi) The park behind the application site is used as a race track for dirt and quad bikes and the noise levels are unacceptable. This problem along with a nursery will be detrimental in terms of noise impact on residents who may also work shifts.

(xii) Having a nursery within the estate could put off potential buyers.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies. The proposals require to be assessed under the terms of the development plan and any other relevant material considerations. In this instance the proposals require to be assessed under policy HG3 as zoned in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and local plan policy HG9 is also relevant.

4.2 As the residential development has been approved and is currently under construction local plan policy HG9 is relevant in this instance. Policy HG9 states there will be a presumption against development which is likely to adversely affect the amenity of the area or is not clearly of nature ancillary to housing. The application site is a detached dwellinghouse on the Beverly Park estate in Plains which is still currently under construction. The dwellinghouse is located under two metres from the property boundaries of neighbouring properties 35 and 39 Killearn Crescent. The front of the existing building which would be the entrance and exit to the nursery would face towards residential properties on the opposite side of Killearn Crescent. Furthermore only the public road at Killearn Crescent, which measures 10 metres in width, separates the front of the building from the front of the residential dwellings along Killearn Crescent. This proposal introduces a business use where currently there are none and members of the public attending the nursery either by via pedestrian routes or by car are likely to result in increased levels of noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenity of the surrounding residents. The Council's Protective Services have also advised that the proposal may give rise to an increase in the ambient noise level and an erection of an acoustic barrier maybe required.

89 However as there are residential properties surrounding the application site it would be difficult to erect an acoustic barrier that would suitably control the rise in noise levels. In addition to this policy HG9 seeks to encourage developments of an ancillary nature, such as nursery schools, near other ancillary facilities such as local shops and schools. The application site is central within a residential estate and is not sited near other ancillary facilities. I consider this to be an inappropriate location for a children's nursery and contrary to the aims of policy HG9.

4.3 A total of 25 car parking spaces are required to serve this development and this is unachievable. In the supporting statement the applicant has advised that there is a car park to the rear of her property and that her driveway holds 4 cars comfortably. She has also advised that she will encourage parents to car share and she herself has a 7 seater car and may introduce a pickup service. Firstly, it should be noted that the car-park mentioned in the supporting statement from the applicant is to the rear of the property and due to the nature of the business, clients are very unlikely to park in a public car park further away. The Council's Transportation Section have advised that the front driveway can only hold 3 cars by their measuring standards and not 4 cars as suggested by the applicant. With regard to the applicant arranging a pickup/drop off service and setting parents allocated times for arrival and departure this cannot be guaranteed and inevitably if approved, this development would result in significant on street parking at this location. In addition to this Killearn Crescent has traffic calming measures in the way of build outs which prevents people from parking on the street so any significant increase in traffic at this location, especially a business of this nature, would be to the detriment of road safety at this residential location. Therefore it is considered that there is no change in circumstances that would alter the Transportation Sections recommendation.

4.4 With regard to the supporting statement provided by the applicant this states that the nursery is for 24 children. However the applicant also states that her registration with the Child Care Commission is for 12 children but she has 32 children on a waiting list. The applicant has proposed to start with 6 children, however the applicant has advised that for the business to be profitable there would need to be at least 12 children in the nursery. Therefore if granted planning permission for a smaller number of children there is no way of controlling the situation or the enrolment of further children into the nursery.

4.5 In relation to the grounds of objection these are addressed as follows:

0) This issue is addressed in paragraph 4.4 above.

(ii& i ii) The Transportation Section have advised against the proposal due to the lack of any dedicated parking provision for the proposal which would encourage short-term parking on the roads around the site. Therefore it is accepted that such a development at this location may cause an unacceptable level of traffic congestion and on street parking all to the detriment of highway safety.

(iv) A 'Bad Neighbour' development of this type is unsuitable within such close residential surroundings. It is accepted that the introduction of this type of facility will increase the level of public concentration around the site during the day and it is accepted that during the nursery's opening hours the increased noise levels may be more evident to the nearby residential properties.

(v&vi) This issue is the responsibility of the applicant to liaise with the relevant statutory bodies and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

(vii) This is a legal issue and is not a material consideration and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

(viii&ix) The neighbour notification carried out was done so as per statutory requirements. Although the date was incorrect the applicant did carry out the neighbour notification

90 twice and in addition to this the application was advertised as a 'Bad Neighbour' in the local press. The level of objection received would suggest that the surrounding neighbours were neighbour notified and in turn given adequate time to make representations.

(x) This is not a material consideration and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

(xi) With regard to the ongoing anti-social behaviour problems in the nearby park this is not a material planning consideration and cannot be assessed as part of this application. The noise issue has been addressed in point iv above.

(xii) This is not a material consideration and cannot therefore be assessed as part of this application.

4.6 In conclusion it is considered that the proposal is contrary to policy HG9 as the proposal would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the surrounding residential area by virtue of noise and general disturbance through the introduction of an inappropriate use to the area and could pose a traffic hazard.

91 Application No: S/06/02050/FU L

Date Registered: 8th January 2007

Applicant: Greg Connor 27 Clyde Drive Torbothie Shotts

Agent A & A Neil Architects 72 Berkeley Street Glasgow G3 7DS

Development: Alterations to Dwellinghouse, Conversion of Farm Steading to form 3 Dwellinghouses

Location: Springhill Farm Springhill Road Stane Shotts ML7 5DP

Ward: 12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson

Grid Reference: 2891 72 659156

File Reference: SIPLI BFl17/55lEM/GF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as a Rural Area in the adopted Shotts Local Plan 1982 The site is zoned as ENV 8 Countryside Around Towns in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Scottish Natural Heritage (No Objections) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (No Objections) Scottish Water (No Objections)

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Advertised on 17th January 2007

92 €6 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of all external materials to be used in construction, including walls, roofs, windows, doors, gutters and downpipes, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

3. That the roof shall be finished in slate or and synthetic slate, details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.

4. That the windows shall be timber sash and case, with any cills and lintels being finished in stone or synthetic stone. Full details of which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development on site.

Reason: To conform with the terms of the application and to enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail.

5. That the maximum achievable visibility splay of 2.5m by 144m to the east and 2.5m by 40m to the west, measured from the road channel, shall be provided on both sides of the access onto Springhill and Leadloch Road, and before the development hereby permitted is 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 the road channel level shall be planted, placed, erected or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.

Reason: To ensure adequate visibility for vehicles leaving the site.

6. That access to both the new and the existing dwellings shall be via a 6 metre wide dropped kerb arrangement, hard surfaced for the first 5 metres behind the heel of the footway.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and vehicular safety and to prevent deleterious material being carried out onto the highway.

7. That before any dwelling hereby permitted is occupied all the access, 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 access, parking and manoeuvring areas.

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

8. That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

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

9. That PRIOR to any works commencing on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the

94 Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland published by ClRlA in March 2000.

Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental and amenity protection.

10. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the drainage scheme must comply with the requirements of the publication titled 'Drainage Assessment: A Guide for Scotland' and any other advice subsequently published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) or the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party (SUDSWP). The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve the aquatic habitat. SUDS shall still be provided even where discharges are proposed to.public sewers notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water. If the area of ground illustrated on Drawing No. 353/15B for the SUDS is inadequate for the purpose, a revised layout drawing for this part of the proposed development shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Planning Authority prior to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the said Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future residents within the development site.

11. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of Condition 10; shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical and shall be completed before the first house is occupied. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant ClRlA Manual and the approved plans.

Reason: To safeguard adjacent watercourses and groundwater from pollution and in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of existing and future residents adjacent to and within the development site.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 13th December 2006, 1gth April 2007 and 8'h August 2007.

Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 22nd January 2007 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 23rd March 2007 Letter from Scottish Water received 24th January 2007 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 24th April 2007 Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 20th April 2007

Memo from Head of Protective Services received 17th January 2007 Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 7th August 2007 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) SPP3 Planning For Housing, February 2003 SPPl5 Planning for Rural Development, February 2005

95 Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01698 302 137.

Date 23rd August 2007

96 APPLICATION NO. S/06/0205O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Detailed planning permission is sought for alterations to the existing dwellinghouse and conversion of a farm steading to form 3 additional dwellings.

1.2 The application site is situated at Springhill Farm, Torbothie Road on the western edge of Shotts. The site comprises an existing two storey farmhouse with both attached and unattached outbuildings forming a courtyard arrangement to the rear. The site lies in relative isolation within the countryside and extends approximately 2250 square metres in area.

1.3 The proposed development comprises the refurbishment of the existing dwellinghouse, conversion of the steading buildings into three additional dwellings, and formation of access and parking courtyard to service the development. The refurbishment of the main dwelling will include the addition of a two storey front porch to replace the existing single storey timber porch and the replacement of the existing windows. The steading conversion will include small porch extensions and will be finished in materials to mach the existing dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application does not require to be assessed against the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 as no strategic issues are raised.

2.2 The site is zoned as a Rural Area in the adopted Shotts Local Plan 1982.

2.3 The site is within an area designated as ENV8 (Countryside Around Towns) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader does not support the application. The proposed development takes access onto an unlit de-restricted rural section of the B7010, Springhill Road with no footways. The required visibility splays from the access onto the 67010 cannot be achieved and therefore Transportation recommends refusal of the application.

3.2 My Protective Services Section has no objection to the proposed development subject to the requirement for a site investigation report.

3.3 My Geotechnical Team Leader has no objection to the proposed development subject to imposition of suitable drainage conditions.

3.4 Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has no objection to the proposed development following the submission of a protected species survey which indicated that no protected species were present and subject to the recommendations of the findings of the survey.

3.5 Scottish Water have offered no objections to this application but have stated that the applicant will be required to contact Scottish Water Development Planning Team prior to the commencement of any development on site, and that non objection does not guarantee connection to Scottish Waters infrastructure. A SUDS drainage system will be required.

3.6 SEPA have offered no objections to this application.

97 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.2 It should be noted that the application raises no strategic issues and therefore does not require to be assessed under the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan. This application must be assessed against the relevant development plan policies together with other material considerations.

4.3 In the adopted Shotts Local Plan 1982 the site is zoned as a Rural Area. A more up to date policy position is contained within the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

4.4 The site is identified as Policy ENV 8 (Countryside Around Towns) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 & 2005). Policies HSG 12 (Housing in the Green Belt and Countryside) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) are alSO relevant to this application.

4.5 Policy ENV 8 states that the Council will not normally permit development other than that directly associated with an appropriate rural use. In this case as the proposal relates to alterations and extension to an existing property and outbuildings the more detailed policy relevant to the consideration of this application is Policy HSG 12. This states that the conversion of existing buildings to residential use in the countryside will be considered favourably where they are worthy of preservation, are substantially complete, and do not result in a significant increase in floorspace. It is considered that the proposed alterations and conversions meets all the criterion set out in policy HSG 12 as the buildings are substantially complete, worthy of preservation and will include only very small porch additions to the floor space. It is considered that the proposed conversion can be accommodated without detriment to the character of the existing building or the surrounding area. The proposed design is compatible for the rural location and incorporates many traditional design features and external finishes including a slate effect roof and sash and case windows. I consider that the site also benefits from adequate access and the applicant has submitted adequate drainage details with respect to the proposals. The transportation issues will be assessed more fully in section 4.6 below. The application therefore is considered to be in accordance with the relevant countryside policies in the Southern Area Local Plan.

4.6 In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TR 13 applies. This policy requires assessment of the proposal against various criteria including: the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses; the scope to integrate development proposals with existing public transport facilities; impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety; and provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. My Transportation Section has recommended refusal of the application given the proposed substandard nature of the access and failure to meet the required visibility splays. However the existing dwelling and former farm operation would have been serviced by the existing access onto Torbothie Road and it is considered that the conversion of the outbuildings to form three additional dwellings coupled by the access and parking improvements will result in a minimal impact on the transport implications and level of traffic generated in the area. The access, parking and manoeuvring facilities within the site are considered acceptable subject to suitable conditions.

4.7 Relevant national planning policy is contained firstly in Scottish Planning Policy 15 (Planning for Rural Development) which states (paragraph 23) that opportunities to replace run down housing and steadings should be embraced. Planning Authorities should not unreasonably constrain

98 such modernisation and steading conversion within the original footprint or height limit unless there are compelling design or conservation reasons for doing so. Scottish Planning Policy 3 (Planning for Housing) states (paragraph 56) that buildings in the countryside no longer required for their original purpose can offer opportunities for conversion to dwellings. Residential conversions are a way of retaining buildings, which contribute to local character and can result in distinctive assets to the local environment. Planning authorities should look sympathetically at proposals for the sensitive re-use, conversion or rehabilitation of buildings, which can be accessed and readily serviced. The proposed development meets the criteria set out in both SPP15 and SPP3 and as such is considered to accord with this national planning policy.

4.8 In terms of the other consultation responses conditions are recommended to cover the SUDS issues raised by Geotechnical and the site investigation report required by Pollution Control. It should be noted that in this instance, the site circumstances and the proposed development are such that these conditions are acceptable.

4.9 SNH have no objections to the proposed development following the submission of a protected species survey and Protective Services, Scottish Water and SEPA have offered no objections to the proposed development.

4.10 It is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of local plan and national planning policy in that the impact of the conversion on the site and surrounding area, as well as the access and transportation implications, can be accommodated without significant detriment to the surrounding countryside area. The proposed development will utilise otherwise vacant derelict buildings and will result in the improvement of this rural location with a use which will provide overall benefit to the visual appearance of the site. Therefore, taking into account the local plan, national planning policy and other material considerations, I recommend that this application be approved subject to conditions.

99 Application No: S10710011 OIOUT

Date Registered: 24thJanuary 2007

Applicant: Chris Glendinning 128 Clydesdale Street Bellshill ML4 2RS

Agent lan Keachie 72 North Orchard Street Motherwell MLI 3JL

Development: Erection of a One and a Half Storey Dwellinghouse adjacent to existing dwellinghouse (in outline)

Location: 128 Clydesdale Street Bellshill

Ward: 015 Mossend and Holytown Councillors Coyle, Delaney, McKeown

Grid Reference: 275554659935

File Reference: SIP L/B/5/32

Site History: 04100647 Upper side extension and lower front extension to dwellinghouse including installation of new front and rear dormer extensions. Approved 1/7/2004

07/00109 Erection of double detached garage. Approved 21/3/2007

Developmen t Plan: The site is zoned for Residential Use on the adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985 and as Established Housing Areas within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: None

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to Policies HSG 8 and HSG 11 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the proposal has inadequate garden ground and will have an unsatisfactory impact upon the established character and amenity of the area and if approved would set an undesirable precedent for similar development proposals

2. That the proposed development is contrary to Policies HSG 8, HSG 11 and TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the required visibility sightlines of 9 metres by 90 metres are not provided and that the development will therefore compromise road safety.

100 .

omduced by UOnh LaPaikshire Co~ncil Planning an0 Ewironnent Dapt ifemin5 House 2 TytRmd CIITrberlauId 067 1Jw 91 01236818210 Planning Application No. S I07 / 001 10 / OUT 'eax 05238616212 LI

101 Background Papers:

Application from and plans received 24'h January 2007

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 23rdJuly 2007 Memo from Pollution Team Leader received 13'h February 2007

Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan adopted 1985. Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698 302085.

Date: 23'' August 2007

102 APPLICATION NO. S/07/00110/OUT

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 The application seeks outline permission to erect a single detached house within an area of garden ground to the side of 128 Clydesdale Street, Bellshill. The proposal site is located within a residential area and the site is bordered to the east by existing housing and to the west by an existing builders yard. Located to the south of the site is a brownfield area which is identified for potential housing and to the north of the site is the railway. The site sits at the junction of Coronation Road and Clydesdale Street.

1.2 The site is currently garden ground of the house at 128 Clydesdale Street. It is grassed but has several mature trees fronting the corner of Clydesdale StreetCoronation Road and is bordered by a wall/hedge that reaches a height of approximately between 1 metre to 1.5 metres. The site is broadly triangular in shape with a frontage onto Clydesdale Street of 18 metres. Indicative plans show a 1% storey house with access taken to the rear towards the south western edge of the site.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and The Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is identified as an Existing Residential Area in the adopted Bellshill and Mossend Local Plan 1985. The site is covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader has no objections to this application subject to conditions. Junction visibility of 9 x 90 metres would require to be achieved from Coronation Road onto Clydesdale Street and would require any land affecting the required site lines to be within the applicants control to ensure that no items within the visibility splay are above 1.05 metres. The brownfield site to the south of this site is to be redeveloped and as part of this a mini-roundabout would be installed at this junction negating the requirement for such visibility sightlines at that location. However this has yet to implemented and the proposal should be assessed with regard to the present layout of the road. Also required are two off street parking spaces.

3.2 My Pollution Control Team Leader has indicated that a site investigation requires to be carried out prior to any development starting on the site to assess if any remediation work is required.

3.3 No objections were received with regards to the neighbour notification process undertaken as part of the application.

103 4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 The application raises no strategic issues and therefore can be assessed in terms of the Local Plan and any other material considerations.

4.2 Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas), HSG 11 (Infill Housing Development) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) are relevant to the consideration of this application. Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing and new housing areas by opposing development which is incompatible with a residential setting or adversely affects the amenity of Established Housing Areas. Policy HSG 11 requires the assessment of (1) overall impact of a proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding areas; (2) dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated private garden ground; (3) effect of infill on garden space, privacy and sunlight received by surrounding properties; (4) consideration given to scale, materials, roof heightlpitch, window patterns and (5) the provision of vehicular access and parking arrangements.

4.3 The ground to the rear of the proposed house is triangular in shape measuring 12 metres at the longest side with an average depth of 8 metres. However a large area of the rear plot would be taken up by parking requirements and would not be usable garden ground. The amount of rear garden ground is approximately 40 square metres, well below the minimum requirements. The front garden depth of the existing and proposed houses is approximately 4.5 metres in depth. The building line varies at this part of Clydesdale Street and such a front garden depth would therefore be acceptable. However it should be noted that most of the adjacent dwellinghouses have substantial rear gardens. The distance from the proposed house to the side garden of the existing house is only 1 metre however this should be at least 2.5 metres. A small triangular area of ground exists at the other side of the proposed house on the indicative plans. Any house could be positioned further west to meet the required distance between the houses however that would remove any potential garden ground at that side of the plot. A sufficient amount of garden ground would remain for the existing house at 128 Clydesdale Street. The proposed house plot cannot accommodate a dwelling that would meet the Council’s guidelines on open space with respect to the garden ground and the distance from the site boundaries. The development would therefore adversely affect the character of the established housing area.

4.4 The existing house at 128 Clydesdale Street w ould be unlikely to be adversely affected as a result of the proposed development in terms of overlooking, sunlight and daylight, given the gables of the buildings would border one another. No other houses would be affected due to the location of the site. Design details would be controlled at the full planning stage.

4.5 The western side of the plot as indicated in paragraph 1.3 has some mature trees; their removal would be required to form any visibility splay at the site. This would also require the loss of an established stone wall. The trees provide an element of screening from eastbound traffic on Clydesdale Street as they reach a height of 6-10 metres. Removal of the wall, hedge and trees would leave an open aspect of the site to Clydesdale Street making it very prominent. With its location on a corner site the dwellinghouse would be out of character and lacking in private garden ground. As such any dwellinghouse at this prominent location would be out of character in the street scene.

4.6 The proposal fails to comply with the criteria set in policies HSG 8 and HSG 11

4.7 Policy TR 13 requires a number of criteria be taken into account including: level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses, impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety, and provisions made for

104 access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The proposed vehicular access arrangements to the site from Coronation Road are sub-standard in terms of sightlines due to the required sightline being outwith the applicant's control. As the required sightlines are not provided, the proposed development is likely to adversely affect road safety and is therefore contrary to Policy TR 13.

4.8 Matters raised by my Pollution Control Team Leader could be addressed through planning conditions.

4.9 In conclusion, the rear garden ground available cannot be increased due to the shape and configuration of the plot and required access position. It is significantly short of the minimum standards required. The proposed dwellinghouse would be out of character with the area at this prominent location and create an undesirable precedent for similar development proposals in the future. Furthermore, required visibility sightlines from the proposed driveway can not be achieved. The proposed dwellinghouse is therefore contrary to Policies HSG 8 and 11 and TR13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). I recommend that planning permission be refused.

105 Application No: SlO71008911FUL

Date Registered: 9th July 2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Colin Smith 1 Money Grove Motherwell MLI 2JN

Agent lan McConville Interesting Designs 65 Ayton Park South East Kilbride G74 3AU

Development: Erection of a Two Storey Side Extension

Location: 1 MoneyGrove Motherwell MLI 2JN

Ward: 18 Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig: Councillors Harmon, Lunny, McKay and Valentine

Grid Reference: 276991 655586

File Reference: S/PL/BF/l 1/17/GS/GF

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 3 letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwellinghouse.

106 Produced by North Lanarkshire Council ~lenntngand EnvironmentDePt Flerning HOUS~,2 Tryst Road Cimbe~naulrlG67 l.lW Planning Application No S / 07 / 00891 / FUL te 01236 616210 fax 01236 816232 Erection of a Two Storey Side Extenslon N

1 Money Grove, Motherwell, MLI 2JN * Representatlon

107 Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.

3. That before the development starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

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

4. That the first floor bathroom window on the rear elevation shall be finished in opaque glass and thereafter be retained as such to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of privacy of neighbouring properties.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 2 1st May 2007

Letter from E Stronach, 44 Nelson Crescent, Motherwell, MLI 2JP received 6th June 2007 Letter from lrene Donnelly, 46 Nelson Crescent, Motherwell, MLI 2JP received 26th June 2007 Letter from David Lister, 48 Nelson Crescent, Motherwell received 26th June 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081.

Date 20th August 2007

108 APPLICATION NO. S/07/00891/FUL REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I Planning consent is sought for the erection of a two storey extension to the side of the dwellinghouse at 1 Money Grove, Motherwell. The property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse located within an established residential area and is bound by dwellings on all sides. The site of the extension currently comprises side garden ground and is level. Due to the configuration of the dwellinghouses on Money Grove, this property has a larger than average side garden (7.5 metres) which extends to the rear garden boundary of properties on Nelson Crescent.

1.2 The extension will create a utility room and family room on the ground floor and an ensuite master bedroom on the first floor, The extension will project 3.3 metres from the side of the dwellinghouse and will maintain the front and rear building line. The roof would be pitched and will tie in with the roof on the existing dwellinghouse.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 Three letters of objection were received from the owners from 44, 46 and 48 Nelson Crescent, Motherwell. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

I. The extension would result in an overshadowing of the garden ground at 44, 46 and 48 Nelson Crescent. II. The proposed extension would be intrusive and invasive to 44, 46 and 48 Nelson Crescent and would result in a loss of privacy of these properties. iii. The proposal reduces the space between the applicant's dwellinghouse and those of the objectors causing a 'hemmed-in' effect.

4. Planninq Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas).

4.2 Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (Established Housing Areas).

4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight is also considered as is parking provision and access.

109 4.4 The proposed extension to the side of the property is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, size and scale and it is considered that it will integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse. The proposal retains approximately 100 square metres of private garden ground which is an acceptable amount. Due to the configuration of dwellingohuses on this section of Money Grove, the property has a large side garden and I consider that the increase in width of the property sits comfortably within the plot and in relation to the streetscene.

4.5 With regards to the impact on privacy of the neighbouring properties at 44, 46 and 48 Nelson Crescent there is a first floor window on the rear elevation which is marginally substandard in terms of minimum window to window distances in relation to 48 Nelson Crescent. However, this is a bathroom window. A condition can be attached that requires the glass on this window to be obscure. There is also a window on the rear elevation ground floor but the 1.8 metre boundary fence at the rear will provide a sufficient amount of screening not to have any adverse overlooking effects. The windows to the front will be overlooking windows across the other side of Money Grove but the window to window distances will be an acceptable level to avoid adverse overlooking. With regards to the impact of the proposal on daylightlsunlight currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties the location and orientation of the extension ensures that there will not be an adverse impact on the dwellinghouses.

4.6 At present the property has a driveway that can accommodate two off street car parking spaces within the site. This driveway will not be affected by the proposal and the property will retain an acceptable amount of parking within the site.

4.7 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

I. With regards to the overshadowing of garden ground this is not a material consideration. As indicated in paragraph 4.5 the location and orientation of the extension ensures that there will not be an adverse impact on the daylightlsunlight currently enjoyed by the dwellinghouses on Nelson Crescent. 44 Nelson Crescent is approximately 9 metres from the extension, 46 Nelson Crescent is approximately 9.5 metres from the extension and 48 Nelson Crescent will be approximately 16 metres away. It is considered that the proximity of the above mentioned dwellinghouses and distance they are from the development ensures that they will not be adversely affected.

ii. As indicated in paragraph 4.5 I do not consider that the extension will result in a loss of privacy for 44, 46 and 48 Nelson Crescent. The window to the rear on the first floor will not be in a habitable room and the window on the ground floor will not directly overlook any windows due to the screening provided by the 1.8 metre high boundary fence. While the extension will project towards the properties to the side there will still be a minimum post development distance of 9 metres between houses. This distance means that the development is not considered to be intrusive or invasive. ... 111. Given the level of side garden ground remaining (4.5 metres) in addition to the rear garden depths of properties on Nelson Crescent, I do not consider that the proposal is overdevelopment or causes any 'hemmed-in' effect as highlight through the third point of objection.

4.8 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extensions are acceptable from a planning viewpoint and the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

110 Application No: S/07/00960/FU L

Date Registered: 1st June 2007

Applicant: GM clo DTA Chartered Architects 4 Stuart Street The Village East Kilbride G74 4NG

Agent DTA Chartered Architects 4 Stuart Street The Village East Kilbride G74 4NG

Development: Erection of Detached Dwellinghouse

Location: St. Andrews Scottish Episcopal Church Belhaven Terrace Wishaw

Ward: 20 Wishaw: Councillors Adamson, Love, McKay and Pentland

Grid Reference: 279430 655183

File Reference:

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as CS 2 (Established Community Facilities) on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: Historic Scotland - (Comments)

Representations: 1 letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reason:

1. That the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to Policy ENV 18 (Listed Buildings) in that it would be out of character with and have a significant detrimental impact upon the setting of St Andrews Scottish Episcopal Church due to the loss of associated landscaped grounds, the loss of the established boundary wall and railings and due to it's design, scale and proximity to the main Church Building.

2. That the proposed dwellinghouse is contrary to Policy HSG 1l(lnfill Housing Development) as it would be out of character with the wider streetscene on this section of Belhaven Terrace due to it's design and proportions, its position within the plot and the lack of appropriate frontage.

111 Planning Application No, S / 07 I00960 / FUL

Erection of a Detached Dwellinghouse St Andrews Scottish Episcopal Church, 1 Belhaven Terrace, Wishaw, ML2 7*Y * Representation A

112 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 1st June 2007

Consultation response from Historic Scotland received 21st June 2007

Letter from C.A. Goudie, 34 Belhaven Terrace, Wishaw, ML2 7AY received 14th June 2007

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698 302085.

Date 22nd August 2007

113 APPLICATION NO. S/07/0096O/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Detailed planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey detached dwellinghouse at land within St Andrews Scottish Episcopal Church, Belhaven Terrace, Wishaw. The site comprises landscaped garden grounds to the south of the Church building and is generally flat throughout, albeit raised up from Belhaven Terrace (street level) by approximately 1 metre. The site is bordered to the north by the aforementioned Church building and to the south by 2 metre high hedging and some mature trees which separate the site from residential properties on Belhaven Terrace to the east, the site is again bordered by a 2 metre high hedge which separates it from the rear garden of 39 Belhaven Terrace. The site is bordered by Belhaven Terrace to the west beyond which is further established dwellinghouses and a public car park. The boundary along Belhaven Terrace comprises a stone boundary wall with iron railings.

1.2 The proposal is for a two-storey house fronting onto Belhaven Terrace. A 6 metre wide access is proposed from Belhaven Terrace, through the existing boundary wall and railings after which the plot widens.

1.3 The St Andrews Church is a C(s) Listed Building and this not only includes the church building but also it's curtilage, including the boundary wall which is located around the perimeter of the site as well as the gatepiers, gates and railings.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is covered by Policy CS 2 (Established Community Facilities) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Rewesentations

3.1 My Transportation Team Leader has no objections subject to conditions that access should be via a dropped kerb footway crossover and that the proposed driveway be paved or surfaced for the first 2 metres from the heel of the footway. The developer should also ensure that there are no surface water issues from the driveway onto the public road.

3.2 Historic Scotland has expressed concerns with regard to the location of the dwellinghouse within the grounds and directly adjacent to a C(s) Listed Building. Historic Scotland has stressed that the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the setting of the listed building and would also represent overdevelopment of the church's historic curtilage. They note that guidance on such matters indicates that the listed building must remain the focus of its setting.

3.3 One letter of objection was received from the owners of 34 Belhaven Terrace, Wishaw. The objection can be summarised as follows:

1. The proposal would result in the loss of trees bordering 39 Belhaven Terrace and may affect wildlife that the trees may support. 2. The access to the site is almost opposite the access to the nearby public car park and may cause traffic issues with regard to vehicles accessing and leaving the site and also traffic congestion. 3. The proposal site is not 'vacant' land and is regularly used by groups that use the church. The development would result in a loss of ground for outdoor

114 activities and have a detrimental effect on those who utilise the site. 4. The site is located near mining works and the proposal may affect ground stability. 5. The proposal does not allow for vehicular access to the church hall or provide safe evacuation space for the church. 6. The appearance of the dwellinghouse is out of character with the existing listed church building.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant where the site is zoned as CS 2 (Established Community Facilities).

4.2 Policy CS 2 seeks to protect established community facilities by improving the quality of Council operated facilities through a programme of upgrading and refurbishment, resisting the loss of established community facilities where a shortfall in provision for that locality will result, The proposed dwellinghouse would not affect the current use of the church however it would result in the loss of some of the established landscaped grounds.

4.3 Policy ENV 18 (Listed Buildings) indicates that the Council will resist proposals which would harm the historic or architectural interest of a Listed Building. The proposal is located within the grounds of and directly adjacent to a C(s) listed Church. As detailed in paragraph 4.5 below, it is considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact on the character of the listed church and it's setting.

4.4 In considering applications for infill residential developments on suitable gap sites, Policy HSG 11 applies and states that consideration is to be given to the:

1. Overall impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, 2. Dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated garden ground, 3. Effect of infill on the garden space, privacy, and sunlight received by surrounding properties, 4. Scale, materials, roof heightlpitch and window patterns, and 5. Provision of vehicular access and parking arrangements.

4.5 In assessing the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the listed Church and surrounding area, it is considered that the proposed development is unacceptable in this setting. The dwellinghouse and associated garden ground would effectively displace all the open landscaped ground which is presently associated with the Church and therefore seriously impacts upon its setting. The proposal would also require the partial demolition of the established stone boundary wall and iron railings which are an important feature of the Church's setting and require significant earthworks to ensure appropriate levels are achieved. Historic Scotland remain a fundamental source of advice on developments impacting upon C(s) listed buildings and have stressed major concerns regarding the proposal, stating that the dwellinghouse would be to the detriment of the setting of the listed building. They also consider that the proposal represents significant overdevelopment of the Church's historic curtilage. The proposed dwellinghouse as well as displacing landscaped grounds and boundary walls, is also located only 5 metres from the Church Building itself and pays no regard to the Church in terms of design. Historic Scotland's 'Memorandum of Guidance' states that "at all times the listed building should remain the focus of its setting". Attention must never be distracted by the presence of any new development whether it is within or without the curtilage". I consider that these principles cannot be achieved by any subdivision and separate development of this ground.

115 4.6 In respect to the impact of the proposal on the character of the wider area, the site is bounded by residential dwellings to the south and west however these are of a traditional stone appearance and are one and a half storeys in style. The applicant proposes to construct a relatively narrow detached two storey dwelling of more modern proportions. This is considered to be out of context with the existing dwellinghouses on Belhaven Terrace, not least the Church, adjacent to which it would sit. I also consider that the proposal is out of keeping with the surrounding area due to it's position within the plot. The dwellinghouse would be set back from the established building line of the church and properties at 39 and 41 Belhaven Terrace by approximately 6 metres and the plot is afforded no frontage other than the 6 metre wide parking/manoeuvring area. In this respect, the dwellinghouse would be out of character with the streetscene. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policies ENV 18 and HSG 11 (1 and 4).

4.7 There will be no privacy issues or detrimental impact on the amount of daylightlsunlight received by surrounding dwellings given the configuration of and sufficient distance between the existing dwellings and this proposal. There would be no overlooking issues as there are only two windows on the side gable, the ground floor window would be screened by a two metre high, thick mature hedge to 39 Belhaven Road and the upper gable window is for a bathroom and this would use obscure/opaque glazing. In terms of proposed garden ground dimensions, these comply with the Council's adopted Open Space Guidelines. Although I do not consider that the dwellinghouse is afforded adequate space standards in relation to the context within which it is set. The provision for vehicular access and parking arrangements are considered in the following paragraph.

4.8 In assessing transportation matters, Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) is relevant and states that the Council will take account of various criteria including the impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety and the provision made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The applicant proposes a 6 metre wide parking/manoeuvring area accessed directly from Belhaven Terrace. The applicant has provided details showing a turning area to be located to the front of the proposed dwellinghouse which will allow for manoeuvrability within the site allowing vehicles to enter and leave in forward gear. The driveway has a length of 14 metres which would provide sufficient parking. My Transportation Section confirmed they have no objections to this arrangement subject to conditions. All matters raised could be addressed through the imposition of planning conditions. While it is considered that the application complies with Policy TR 13, the new access does however require the partial demolition of the listed established stone boundary wall and iron railings. This is not considered to be acceptable.

4.9 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

1. In relation to the points made on boundary vegetation, the mature trees referred to are located within the garden ground of 39 Belhaven Terrace albeit they overhang the development site. Further consultation on this matter would be required to ascertain the potential impact of development on the trees, however, given the wider issues relating to this application this has not been requested. 2. In relation to concerns over traffic and access issues my Transportation Team Leader has indicated that a satisfactory access can be provided and that the proposal will not result in traffic congestion. 3. The loss of church grounds for outdoor activities would not be a material consideration and this could not be considered as a reason to refuse the application. I do however have concerns about the loss of the grounds for the reasons detailed in this report. 4. The mining works indicated in the objection and potential effect on neighbouring ground is not sufficient reason to refuse the application. The developer would require to take appropriate technical advice in this matter and ensuring that all appropriate remediation works were carried out. 5. In respect to the impact on the character of the Church, I concur that the proposed dwellinghouse would detract from this listed building.

116 4.10 It is considered that the proposed the dwellinghouse would be likely to have a significant impact upon the character and setting of St Andrews Church and the wider area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policies ENV 18 and HSG 11 of the Southern Area Local Plan (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as such it is recommended that planning permission be refused.

I17 Application No: S/07/01048/FUL

Date Registered: 11th July 2007

Applicant: Mr 8, Mrs S McGinney 234 Main Street Holytown Motherwell ML1 4TP

Agent Eddie Hawke Associates 6 Cadzow Street Hamilton ML3 6DG

Development: Erection of Two Storey Extension to Rear of Dwellinghouse and Alterations to Existing Extension

Location: 234 Main Street Holytown Motherwell MLI 4TP

Ward: 15 Mossend and Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and McKeown

Grid Reference: 276934660671

File Reference: S/PL/BF/5/ 12/GS/G F

Site History: None

Development Plan The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: I letter of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

118 Planning Application No. S I07 I01048 I FUL

Erection of Two Storey Extension to Rear of Dwellinghouse and Alterations to Existing Extension

T~ISmap is repmd,cedfroliOidnanceSuivey 234 Main Street, Holytown, Mothewe4 ML1 4TP mteriai Mth the permiss,on of Orananca Suwey on behalf afthe Contioller of Her Majeslfs StatiOneiy eftlce0 t,ownCopyrlght Unaiithoiled Jc Representation iepiOdULflon mfiiirger Crow copyright and may lead to prosecutton or civil proceedings Nmh Lararkshire Council 100023396 2004

119 That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwellinghouse.

Reason: To ensure that the extension matches the external appearance of the existing dwelling house.

That before the development starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

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

That the workroomlstore detailed on the approved plans shall be for domestic use only ancillary to the residential enjoyment of the dwellinghouse and for the avoidance of doubt shall NOT be used for any business or commercial operations.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 14th June 2007

Letter from Quentin Kelly, 1 Stuart Quadrant, Holytown, Motherwell received 26th June 2007

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081

Date 22nd August 2007

120 AP PLI CAT I0 N N0. S/07/01 048/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning consent is sought for the erection of a two storey extension to the rear of the dwellinghouse and various alterations including conversion of an existing attached garage to a workroom/store, the formation of a pitched roof above (the garage is currently flat roofed) and installation of new windows at 234 Main Street, Holytown. The property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse located within an established residential area and is bound by dwellings to the north, west and south, with open space to the east. The property is accessed from a shared private access at Stewart Quadrant. The site of the extension currently comprises rear garden ground and is raised slightly from street level at Stewart Quadrant. 1 Stewart Quadrant is the only other property accessed at this location and is positioned in a way that it sits at an angle partially facing the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse subject of this application.

1.2 The proposed two storey extension extends 1.2 metres from the existing rear elevation, is 4.3 metres in width and will house a new staircase to the first floor of the property. The extension has a mono-pitch design with a small pitched roof at the existing eaves level of the dwellinghouse. Stairwell windows are proposed on 2 elevations. Also proposed is a new ground floor lounge window on the south elevation (and replacement windows throughout) albeit these works could be implemented without any requirement for formal planning permission. Similarly, as no restrictive condition was placed on the original dwellinghouse, conversion of the garage to a workroom/store and the replacement of the garage door with a new wall and windows also requires no formal planning permission. The formation of the pitched roof however does, and will increase the height of the exiting garage by approximately 2 metres. It is proposed to finish the alterations with render and concrete rooftiles.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 1 letter of objection was received from the adjacent property at 1 Stuart Quadrant. The objections can be summarised as follows:

I. The new window for the workshoplstore and two proposed windows on the southern elevation will be directly overlooking the objectors living room window which will result in a loss of privacy. ii. Uncertainty over the kind of workshop proposed and any requirement for a change in use. ... Commercial workshop is inappropriate in this residential area. Ill. The commercial workshop will have an unacceptable impact in terms of traffic generation and parking on Stewart Quadrant. There will also be a danger due to the traffic on Stewart Quadrant which is a quiet dead end street and at the junction with Main Street. IV. Different rates will be required if this is to be used as a place of business.

121 4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

4.4 The proposed extension to the rear of the property is considered to be acceptable in terms of design, size and scale and it is considered that it will integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse. I would note that the extension is small in size and located to the rear. Subject to materials, which can be a condition of any consent granted, this will tie satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse. The proposal retains a substantial level of private garden ground. The formation of the pitched roof over the garage and the blocking up of the door and installation of windows is also considered to be acceptable. Again, finish material can be controlled via a planning condition to ensure these are matching. Due to the configuration of dwellinghouses on this section of Main Street and Stewart Quadrant, the property has substantial garden ground and I consider that the extension and works to the garage will sit comfortably within the plot and in relation to the wider streetscene.

4.5 With regards to the impact on privacy of the neighbouring property at 1 Stewart Quadrant, there is a mid floor window on the rear elevation of the extension which is marginally substandard in terms of minimum window to window distances. However, this is a stairwell window as opposed to serving a habitable room. I also note that 1 Stewart Quadrant sits at an angle reducing the intrusion of privacy further. On balance this is considered to be acceptable. In relation to the new window on the workroom/store (also on the southern elevation), this achieves the minimum standard of 18 metres from the objectors property and is again considered to be acceptable. The new ground floor lounge window does not require planning permission (although also achieves privacy standards) and the second stairwell window does not face any other property. With regards to the impact of the proposal on daylightkunlight currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties the location and orientation of the extension and the new pitched roof over the existing garage ensures that there will not be an adverse impact.

4.6 At present the property has a driveway and garage that can accommodate two off street car parking spaces. This driveway will not be affected by the proposal although the garage conversion results in the loss of 1 space. The remaining driveway is substandard in providing two full off-street parking spaces. Given there are no previous conditions within the site to retain this level of parking provision, it is unreasonable to refuse the application on these grounds. The driveway is accessed from a private road, shared by only one other property, as opposed to the public highway which reduces impact on public safety. Furthermore, the configuration of the drive is such that it can achieve parking for two vehicle albeit tight and the garden is large enough to extend parking provision should the applicant chose to do so.

4.7 On the grounds of the objections raised, I would comment as follows:

I. In regard to the proposed windows resulting in a loss of privacy, I refer to paragraph 4.5 above. I do not consider there will be any significant loss of privacy. II. In regard to the uncertainty over the kind of workshop proposed and any requirement for

122 a change in use, I would confirm that any commercial activity from this site would require a separate formal application. I would also acknowledge that it is a predominantly residential area and that commercial operations would be unlikely to be acceptable unless they were extremely low-key and had no adverse impact on residential amenity. I propose a restrictive condition that will strengthen control over this ... issue. 111 In regard to the commercial workshop having an unacceptable impact in terms of traffic generation and parking on Stewart Quadrant and the danger due to the traffic on Stewart Quadrant and at the junction with Main Street I refer to paragraph 4.6 and point (iii) above. No commercial operation is proposed and the circumstances are such that in this instance it would be unreasonable recommend that the application be refused due to substandard parking. iv. In regard to different rates being required due to proposed business operations I refer to points (ii) and (iii) above. This objection however is not material to the planning assessment.

4.3 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension and alterations are acceptable from a planning viewpoint and the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

123 Application No: SI0710 12 15lFUL

Date Registered: 23rd July 2007

Applicant: Antonia Welsh 3 Jordan Place Cleland ML1 5GB

Agent David Bartley 3 Jordan Place Cleland MLI 5GB

Development: Erection of Two Single Storey Extensions, Formation of Balcony, Integral Garage Conversion and Dormer Extension to Dwellinghouse

Location: 3 Jordan Place Cleland Ward: 019 Murdostoun. Councillors Martin, Taggart, Shevlin, McKendrick

Grid Reference: 280052 659069

File Reference: SlPLlBFI4l21

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) on the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 1 letter of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

124 1 DWI ,sd Planning Applica:ion No. S / 07 01215 i FLIL

Erection of "'WO Slrgle Storey Extensians, Integral Garage Colversion and Dormer Extonslon to Dwellinghouse

3 Jordan Place Cleland * Represcqtation A

125 Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission

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

2. That the facing materials to be used for the external walls and roof shall match in colour and texture those of the existing dwellinghouse.

Reason: To ensure that the development matches the external appearance of the existing dwellinghouse.

3. That before the development starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority.

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

4. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use a 1.5 metre high screen panel shall be erected along the handrail of the balcony where marked ORANGE on the approved plans, details of which shall first be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be retained to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property at 1 Jordan Place.

5. That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence shall be erected along the boundary of 3 and 5 Jordan Place where marked GREEN on the approved plans, details of which shall first be approved in writing by the Planning Authority. AWAITING APPLICANT TO REMOVE WINDOW FROM PLANS

Reason: To protect the privacy of the neighbouring property at 5 Jordan Place.

6. That the proposed double width driveway as shown on the approved plans shall be retained within the site at all times to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

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

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 10th July 2007

Letter from L Cowling, 5 Jordan Place, Cleland, Motherwell, MLI 5GB received 10th August 2007.

Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081.

126 APPLICATION NO.5/07/01215/FUL REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 Planning consent is sought for the erection of a single storey extension to the front with balcony above, single storey extension to the rear, conversion of integral garage and formation of dormer to the rear to 3 Jordan Place, Cleland. The property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse. The application site is bound by dwellings to the north, east and west with an area of open space to the south.

1.2 The extensions would create a tv room, utility room and sun room on the ground floor and an ensuite to the upstairs bedroom and balcony area to the front on the first floor. The front extension would project 3.7 metres from the front of the dwellinghouse but would not project past the front building line as the house is currently L Shaped. This extension would not project beyond the side of the existing house. The roof would be flat creating a balcony on the first floor with french doors and a 1.1 metre high handrail. The rear extension would project 3.4 metres from the back of the building and would be 3.8 metres in width. It would have a sloped roof that would be 3.6 metres in height from the highest point and 2.4 from the eaves. The dormer extension would project 3.5 metres from the rear roof and would be 2.5 metres in height. It would not project above the roofline and would be 3.3 metres in depth. The existing integral garage would be converted into a habitable room. The only other external change this would involve a window inserted onto the side elevation.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No consultations were required.

3.2 One letter of objection was received from the owners of 5 Jordan Place, Clelland. Their objections can be summarised as follows: The side elevation of the proposed sun room to the rear contains a large window that will look directly into a window on a habitable room and rear patio area at 5 Jordan Place. The proposed window would result in a restriction of privacy for 5 Jordan Place as the boundary fence to the side is only a metre high and this would not provide sufficient screening.

4. Planning Assessment and Conclusions

127 size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the streetscene. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylight and sunlight is considered, as is parking provision and access.

4.4 The proposed extensions to the front and rear are considered acceptable in terms of design, size and scale and it is considered that they will integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwellinghouse. Similarly, the proposed dormer to the rear is well screened and will not be out of character with neighbouring properties. All materials can be controlled by conditions to ensure they are matching. The proposal retains an acceptable amount of private garden ground.

4.5 With regards to the impact on the privacy of 5 Jordan Place there is a window on the side elevation of the proposed Sun Room to the rear of the dwellinghouse that will directly overlook the window on the side elevation of a projecting section at the rear of this neighbouring property. The boundary fence that separates the two properties does not provide adequate screening and therefore the applicant was requested to omit the window from the proposal. Amended Plans have been submitted that do not contain a window on the south west side elevation of the sun room - TO COME. With regards to the impact on privacy of 1 Jordan Place there is a window on the side elevation of the sun room and another on the gable of the dwellinghouse. It is considered that the 1.8 metre high boundary fence that separates the two properties here provides an adequate level of screening not to have an adverse impact on privacy at ground floor level. With regards to the balcony to the front this could potentially result in a loss of privacy for the windows on the ground floor of the side elevation of 1 Jordan Place. A condition will be attached that requires a suitable screen panel of an appropriate height along the east side of the handrail on the balcony. Upper floor windows on the same side elevation are bathroom windows. The balcony will face onto the rear of a row of houses along Rodger Way. However, it is not considered that this will result in a loss of privacy as the rear elevation of these buildings will be an acceptable distance away. With regard to the effect of the dormer extension on the privacy of the neighbouring properties this will be located to the rear and will be overlooking an area of open space therefore this is considered to be acceptable. The rear extension passes the sunlightldaylight test with regard to its effect on the adjacent house at 5 Jordan Place. The height of the extension and distance between it and the windows on the neighbouring dwelling ensures that there will be a minimal effect on overshadowing on this neighbouring property. The front garden is north facing therefore the single storey extension to the front will not adversely affect the dwellinghouse at 1 Jordan Place.

4.6 There is currently an integral garage and a driveway that is 10 metres in length. The proposal involves converting the garage and reducing the length of the driveway by extending to the front. The width of the driveway will be increased in order to provide adequate space for two side by side car parking spaces. A condition is recommended in order that the proposal maintains an adequate level of parking provision within the site.

4.7 On the grounds of the objection raised, I would comment as follows: In relation to the impact on the privacy of 5 Jordan Place, as indicated in paragraph 4.5, the original proposal contained a window on the side elevation of the Sun Room which was considered to result in a loss of privacy for this property. The applicant agreed to omit this from the plans and the revised layout without the window is not considered to result in a loss of privacy for this neighbouring house.

4.8 In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the proposed development is are acceptable from a planning viewpoint and the proposal is therefore in compliance with the development plan. Notwithstanding the objection raised by the neighbours and for the reasons stated above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

128 Application No: S/07/01292/FUL

Date Registered: 23rd July 2007

Applicant: Nisa 280 Bellshill Road Motherwell MLI 3SQ

Agent Sigma Back Grove Farm Estate Bullslane Wishaw Sutton Coldfield 676 9QW

Development: Installation of ATM Machine

Location: 280 Bellshill Road Motherwell Lanarkshire MLI 3SQ

Ward: 16 Motherwell West: Councillors Kelly, Ross and Valentine

Grid Reference: 274675 657991

File Reference: SIP L/B/13/ 16/SMCC/G F

Site History: None

Development Plan: The site is covered by Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: No external consultations required

Representations: None received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. The proposal would be detrimental to Policy TR 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as it will increase the level of on- street parking on Bellshill Road resulting in greater obstruction of vehicular manoeuvres and the parking of vehicles would be detrimental to road safety and could result in increased accidents at this sensitive location.

129 N

130 Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 23rd July 2007

Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 8th August 2007

Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698302085

Date: 21 st August 2007

131 AP PLlCAT1 ON NO. S/07/01292/FU L

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.I This application seeks planning permission for the installation of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) attached to the front of the retail premises at 280 Bellshill Road, Motherwell. The application site is part of a retail unit, which fronts onto Bellshill Road and is within a row of commercial units which include two hot food takeaways and hairdressers. The surrounding area is a mix of uses with residential to the west beyond an established railway line and the Braidhurst Industrial Estate to the east. To the south of the shop is a car saleskar wash opposite on Bellshill Road. To the north is the yard behind the shops. Bellshill Road serves as a busy main road linking Motherwell to Bellshill.

2. Development Plan

2.1 The application site lies within an area covered by Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Team Leader has recommended refusal of this application as the existing shop associated with this proposal has no parking for customers who, therefore, park on-street at a very busy section of Bellshill Road. The introduction of an ATM at this location will increase this parking and result in obstruction to vehicle manoeuvres. Parking would also be detrimental to road safety and could result in increased accidents at this sensitive location.

3.2 No other objections were received with regards to the neighbour notification process undertaken as part of the application.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In assessing the application reference is given to the Development Plan and any other material considerations. In the Development Plan context, the proposal is not of strategic significance and should be assessed against local plan policies. The site lies within an area covered by Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), the Council indicate that they will accept the continuation of such uses whilst any changes of use or proposed new uses will be considered in light of the other policies contained within the Local Plan, particular regard should be given to their potential compatibility with surrounding land uses. This proposal is considered to be compatible in terms of its general nature and suitability in relation to surrounding uses.

4.2 Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) is of more relevance in this case. This requires an assessment of various matters to be taken into account including:- the level of traffic generated from the proposal; the impact a development will have on road traffic circulation and road safety and; the provisions made for parking and vehicle manoeuvring. There is currently no off-street parking areas serving the site. This application relates to a development which would be used by people many of which would undoubtedly be travelling to the ATM machine by private car and parking on a busy street due to the lack of an allocated parking area. In view of this I consider that this proposal would be contrary to the Policy TR

132 13 as due to the lack of off street parking, it is likely to result in increased parking and congestion at a busy junction on a main route to and from Motherwell. It is considered that vehicles parking on the street to use the AIM would cause an increased risk to road and pedestrian safety and could result in increased accidents at this sensitive location. As indicated at Paragraph 3.1 above, this view is further highlighted by my Transportation Team Leader who recommended that planning permission be refused.

4.3 Taking all aspects into account I consider that the installation of the ATM would encourage motorists to park for short periods on Bellshill Road resulting in a hazardous situation for motorists and pedestrians. On this basis, I recommend that permission be refused for this application.

133 Application No: S/07/01308/FUL

Date Registered: 25th July 2007

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Lyndsey 20 George Street Motherwell ML1 2QG

Agent Precise Plans Ltd Unit 19 Hillhouse Workshops 37 Argyle Crescent Hamilton ML3 9BQ

Development: Single Storey Rear Extension

Location: 20 George Street Motherwell ML1 2QG

Ward: 01 8 Motherwell South East And Ravenscraig Kaye Harmon, Thomas Lunny, Linsey McKay, Alan Valentine

Grid Reference: 275521655854

File Reference: S/PL/B/I2/21/GS/LGR

Site History: S/05/01875/FULErection of 1 1/2 Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse Approved 14'h March 2006 S/06/01060/AMD Erection of One and a Half Storey Rear Extension (Amendment to S/05/01875/FUL) Approved 2gthAugust 2006

Development Plan: The site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: 3 letters of representation received.

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

134 Produced by North Lanarkshire Council Planning and Eniiianrnent Dept Fleming House 2Tiyst Road CurnbewauliJ Ge7 1JW :e1 51236610210 Planning Application No. S I 07 I01308 I FUL bx0'236~316232

This map is reproduced from OidilanceSuwey Single Storey Rear Extension material mth the peimtssion of Ordnance Suniey on behalf ofine ianlroller of Her h1a)esI)'s swtlonriyonlce 0crmiuncopyiight linaolhorised 20 George Street, Motherwell, ML1 2QG reprodunion m'iiiiges Ciom Copyright and may lead to prosecitan or ci~ilproceedings Nanh tararbh,re council10002339a 2004 *Representation

135 Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reason:-

1. That the proposed development is contrary to Policies HSG 8 and HSG 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the extension (combined with the previous extension) is considered to represent overdevelopment by virtue of its size and design in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding plots and will adversely affect the character of the existing dwellinghouse and wider area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 25th July 2007

Letter from Mr & Mrs J Cumming, 18 George Street, Motherwell, MLI 2QG, received 6th August 2007. Letter from G Paterson, 44 Adele Street, Motherwell, MLI 2QF, received 10th August 2007. Letter from Mrs Annie McNeil, 22 George Street, North Lodge, Motherwell, MLI 2QG, received 16th August 2007.

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081

Date: 22nd August 2007

136 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01308/FUL

REPORT

1. DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of an existing 2 storey rear extension at 20 George Street, Motherwell. The property is a 1 % storey semi-detached dwellinghouse located in an established residential area. The application site is bound by dwellinghouses on all sides, all of which are characterised by long rear gardens. The levels within the garden decline slightly to the rear. The common property boundaries to other gardens adjoining the site are marked by a mix of fences of varying heights. There are a range of extensions to the other properties in the immediate vicinity.

1.2 The proposed extension comprises a single storey sunroom finished with roughcast and concrete roof tiles. The proposed roof is pitched and hipped and reaches a maximum height of 4.4 metres. This would extend a further 5 metres from the rear of an existing 2 storey extension and span 4 metres in width. Windows are proposed on all elevations. The combined length of the previous 2 storey extension and the extension subject of this application is 11 metres.

1.3 It is useful to briefly consider the history to this application. Planning permission was granted in 2006 for the erection of a 1 % storey extension to the property (S/OS/Ol875/FUL). This was subsequently amended though application (S/06/01OGO/AMD) in 2006 which changed window positions and the style of the extension to a 2 storey design, albeit remaining within the height of the existing 1 % storey dwellinghouse. The amended consent was thereafter implemented and this current application proposes a further extension to this.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.

2.2 The site is covered by Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 No Consultations were required in this case.

3.2 3 letters of representation were received from adjoining properties. Their objections can be summarised as follows:

i. The proposal is a form of overdevelopment. The erection of a sunhouse to an already incongruous extension would be entirely inappropriate and that less than 70% of the narrow garden of the property would remain. Furthermore, at 11 metres the combined extensions more than doubles the width of the original house. ...ii. The existing extension is already 'misplaced'. 111. The loss of light caused by the existing extension will be made worse and the quality of time spent in the neighbouring garden and conservatory will be further diminished. iv. Through the building of the previous extension, construction was a major disruption to neighbours with mess and debris, noise, dust, restriction of access to rear gardens, restriction of access to rear doors and damage to slabs and fencing.

137 v. It is reputed that neighbours have been advised that their objections will make no difference due to the applicant’s contacts. vi. It is reputed that not all adjoining neighbours have been notified (notably to the rear). This was common to the previous applications detailed in the history section of this report. vii. Neighbour notifications were received 8 days after the date detailed on the form leaving little time for objection. viii. A letter to the Council on the previous extension has not yet been replied to.

4. Planninn Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material considerations. In this instance the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) is relevant. The site is zoned as policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas).

4.3 Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the design, size, proportion and position of extensions, the effect on the amount of garden ground retained and the impact on the character of the wider area and streetscene . The impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties is also considered including the effect on privacy, daylight and sunlight as is the impact of the proposal on parking provision and access.

4.4 With regards to the proposed extension, this is considered to be excessively large in comparison to the existing dwelling, taking into account that the property has already been extended. A proposed footprint increase of approximately 44 square metres to a house that originally covered approximately 35 square metres, represents an increase in footprint of over 100%. The combined extensions would extend 11 metres from the rear elevation of the original dwellinghouse, spanning effectively the entire width of the garden (which is 6 metres in width). This overshadows the scale and context of the original dwellinghouse and other houses on the street and will result in a building which is out of character and oppressive when viewed from directly neighbouring properties. It is considered that the position and overall large scale of the extensions combined will adversely affect the visual appearance of the existing dwellinghouse and would not be in keeping with the surrounding residential area or streetscene. I also consider the design of the extensions combined to be unacceptable and completely out of character with the original dwellinghouse and other properties in the area. This form of over development, if approved would also set a dangerous precedent for future development proposals.

4.5 Notwithstanding the unacceptable scale of the proposal, this property has a large garden area and overall plot size with a rear garden length of 15 metres remaining after the proposed extension and retaining approximately 90 square metres private garden ground. It is considered that while the extension itself is a considerable size there will still be an acceptable area of garden ground retained.

4.6 With regards to the impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties, the windows on the side elevation of the rear extension will face directly onto the adjoining gardens with approximately only 1 metre separation from the boundary. Currently there is low level fencing which would require to be replaced by 2 metres close boarded fencing to prevent any unreasonable loss of privacy. The matter could be conditioned but I would re-iterate the wider issues of over development already discussed. With regards to the effect of the proposal on the daylight and sunlight currently enjoyed by surrounding properties there will be no significant difference to the current circumstances. The elevation to be extended is north facing and the sunroom will have a marginal impact compared to the existing extension. I do however consider the impact of the

138 extensions combined to be unreasonably oppressive when viewed from the neighbouring property by virtue of their length, proximity and design.

4.7 Extending to the rear, there is no impact on any parking provision or access.

4.8 On the grounds of the objection raised, I would comment as follows:

I With regards to the proposal being a form of overdevelopment,this issue is addressed in paragraphs 4.4 to 4.6 above. I agree that the erection of the sunhouse in combination with the existing extension would be incongruous in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and neighbouring properties. While less than 70% of the narrow garden of the original property would remain, the properties at this location are characterised by large gardens and a significant length of garden would remain. The overall extension to the original dwellinghouse is however, also unacceptably long and wide and out of character with properties in the area. 11. While it is stated that the existing extension is already 'misplaced', this particular development has already been assessed through the planning process and has formal consent. ... Ill. In regard quality of time spent in the neighbouring garden and conservatory being diminished further, I would note that the new extension will not have a significant effect on the amount of sunlighffdaylightcurrently received by neighbouring properties. I do however acknowledge that the extensions combined are unacceptably long along neighbouring garden boundaries, oppressive, out of character and will therefore have a detrimental effect on residential amenity. IV. While it is noted that construction of the earlier extension was a major disruption to neighbours with mess and debris, noise, dust, restriction of access to rear gardens, restriction of access to rear doors and damage to slabs and fencing, this is not material to the planning assessment of the proposal. Use of neighbouring land for construction purposes is a private matter. V. While it is reputed that neighbours have been advised that their objections will make no difference due to the applicant's contacts, this is not material to the assessment of the application. All formal representationsare taken into account as part of the assessment of all applications. vi. While it is reputed that not all adjoining neighbours have been notified (notably to the rear) and that this was common to the previous applications, the neighbour notification certificate has been correctly completed, including all relevant neighbours and the declaration has been signed. vii. While neighbour notifications were received 8 days after the date detailed on the form it is the practice of the Council to accept representations right up to the point that an application is considered at Committee. I do not consider that the process has been prejudiced. viii. While it is noted that a letter on the previous extension has not yet been replied to, this will be rectified separately. ix. While the value of neighbour's properties are not material to the planning assessment the residential amenity of an area can have an impact on quality of life and I acknowledge that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

4.9 In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policies HSG 8 and HSG 13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The proposed extension (combined with the previous extension) is considered to represent overdevelopment by virtue of its size and design in relation to the existing dwellinghouse and surrounding plots and will adversely affect the character of the existing dwellinghouse and wider area.

139 Application No: S1071013331FUL

Date Registered: 30th July 2007

Applicant: T-Mobile (UK) Limited Clo Agent

Agent Stappard Howes 122 Dundyvan Road Glasgow G11 5AX

Development: Installation of 14.7 Metre High Monopole Mast and 2 Ancillary Equipment Cabinets

Location: Footpath Location Bellshill Road Motherwell

Ward: 16 Motherwell West: Councillors Kelly, Ross and Valentine

Grid Reference: 272016668573

File Reference: SIPLIB11311 4lKD/GF

Site History: None Relevant

Development Plan: The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in which policies ENV 6 (Greenbelt), ENV 14 (Nature Conservation Sites), L2 (Leisure Development) and L8 (Strathclyde Country Park) apply. Also relevant is Policy CS 6 (TelecommunicationsDevelopments).

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Consultations: None

Representations: No letters of representation received

Newspaper Advertisement: Not Required

Recommendation: Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be started within five years of the date of this permission.

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

2. That in the event that the telecommunications equipment, supporting structure or the apparatus within the site becomes redundant it must be removed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of becoming redundant. If the site ceases to be used for telecommunications transmission, it must be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within six months of cessation.

140 Produced by North Lanarkshire Councl! P!anning and Envmnment Dept ilemi~gHouse. 2 Tiyst Road CuP'barnauld G07 IJW tel 01236616210 fax 01236 616232 Planning Application No S I07 / 01333 / FUL

Th 5 map is reproduced from OrdnanceSuNey mater ill wth the permisson of Ordnance SUNBY Installation of 14 7 Metre High Monopole Mast and on behalf ofthe Contialierof Her Majestyc Stationery Office b Crwn copyi ght lnauthoiised 2 Ancillary Equipment Cabinets iepiOdURion nk inges Crown copyright and may Lead to prosecution or civil proceedings North Lsrarkshire Ceunc I100023586 1004 Footpath Location Bellshill Road, Motherwell A

141 Reason: To minimise the level of visual intrusion and to ensure the reinstatement of the site to a satisfactory standard.

3. The proposed monopole and antennae shall be painted to match the colour of the adjacent street lighting columns.

Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

Background Papers:

Application form and plans received 30th July 2007

Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) NPPG 19 - Telecommunications Development PAN 62 - Radio Telecommunications

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01698 302104.

Date: 21st August 2007

142 APPLICATION NO. S/07/01333/FUL

REPORT

1. Description of Site and Proposal

1.1 This application seeks permission to install a 14.7 metre high slimline telecommunications monopole with 3 antennae and 2 associated ground-based cabinets.

1.2 The application site lies to the immediate north of Nethan Street in the Forgewood area of Motherwell and located within the boundary of Strathclyde Park. The site lies on the grass verge on the east side of Bellshill Road; with residential properties located approximately 90 metres to the south.

1.3 The applicant has supplied a supporting statement that indicates the need for a mast within this area to meet a shortfall in coverage, which will be of general benefit to business, and domestic users in the area. An ICNIRP compliance certificate was also submitted confirming that the mast is within public health guidelines.

2. DeveloDment Plan

2.1 The proposal raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.

2.2 The site lies within the Green Belt (ENV 6) and Strathclyde Country Park (L8) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).

3. Consultations and Representations

3.1 The Transportation Section raised no objections to the proposals.

3.2 Following the standard neighbour notification procedure, no representations were received.

4. Plannina Assessment and Conclusions

4.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

4.2 The emerging Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) zones the site as L8 ‘Strathclyde Country Park’ and ENV 6 ‘Greenbelt’. This policy states that the Council will seek to maintain and further enhance Strathclyde County Park as well as safeguarding the character and function of the Green Belt, within which there will be a presumption against development or change of use other than that directly associated with and required for agriculture, forestry, renewable energy, telecommunications, or other appropriate rural uses. It is considered that the monopole will cause very little impact on the character of the Strathclyde Country Park and wider area given its discrete, slimline proportions and as such the existing visual amenity will be safeguarded. In terms of the Green Belt policies, the proposal is acceptable.

4.3 Policies ENV 14 (Nature Conservation Sites) and L2 (Leisure Development) also apply to Strathclyde Park. Due to the location of the proposed telecommunications installation being adjacent to the Bellshill Road and on the north eastern boundary of Strathclyde Country Park,

143 the proposed monopole will not conflict with the motives of these policies.

4.4 Policy CS 6 (Telecommunications Development) is also relevant in this case. This policy indicates that telecommunications developments will be considered using a precautionary approach and the Council will seek to locate such developments outwith densely populated areas or areas where there are sensitive uses. Proposals in Green Belt locations should be sited and designed to minimise the visual impact of the apparatus. The policy outlines the following criteria which should be taken into account when considering applications for telecommunications equipment:

. The proximity of the equipment to housing or public buildings; . The design and visual impact of the apparatus; . The extent to which more suitable alternative sites exist; . The scope for sharing existing facilities, buildings and other suitable structures.

4.5 The nearest residential properties lie approximately 90 metres to the south of the site, and due to the aspect and orientation of these properties, and the difference in ground levels, no windows will look directly on to the proposed mast thus causing no detrimental effects to residential or visual amenity. The proposed mast is 14.7 metres in height and is a slimline design. The lampposts on Bellshill Road are approximately 8 metres in height and there are a number of trees adjacent to the site, measuring approximately 13 metres high. Therefore the visual impact of the installation will be minimal due to the presence of existing street furniture and the fact that the proposed mast would not be an incongruent feature at this location due to the existing landscaping. The applicant has provided a supporting statement relating to the siting of the proposed mast and this site was chosen to provide the appropriate network coverage. Details of other sites considered and reasons for discounting them was also provided. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy CS 6.

4.6 NPPG 19 and PAN 62 provides support for telecommunications development where the applicants have demonstrated the ability to carefully consider the siting and design options, and where the possible environmental effects have been minimised. It indicates that where the applicant has taken all these factors into consideration, refusal is unlikely to be warranted. The applicant has satisfied the criteria set out in both NPPG 19 and PAN 62. Overall, the proposal is in accordance with all relevant national planning policy and the applicant has submitted the ICNIRP compliance certificate.

4.7 In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Local Plan policies. It is considered that in terms of siting and design the proposed development is acceptable and it should not significantly impact on the amenity of the adjacent areas. The proposed development is in accordance with national policy guidance in PAN 62 and NPPG 19 Radio Telecommunications, and meets the criteria stipulated in local plan policy CS 6. Taking into account the development plan and all material considerations including national and local policies, I recommend that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.

144