AGENDA ITEM No.

Application No: Proposed Development:

13/008621PPP Proposed Foodstore (5453m2 GFA) (Class 1), Petrol Station, Car Parking and additional Mixed Use Options including: Retail (Class 1); Financial, Professional or Other Services (Class 2); Restaurant (Class 3); Hotel (Class 7); Assembly & Leisure Uses (Class 11); Non−Residential Institution (Class 10); and/or Sui Generis Uses (eg Hot Food Takeaway I Drive Thru), Landscaping, Access and Associated Works. (Planning Permission in Principle)

Site Address:

Land North Of Westfield Road Westfield G68 9AD

Date Registered:

21st May 2013

Applicant: Agent: Optimisation Developments LTD Smith Design Associates Hilimore House do16 Lynedoch Crescent Gain Lane Bradford G36EQ BD3 7DL

Application Level: Contrary to Development Plan: Major Application Yes

Ward: Representations: 002 83 letters of representation received. Balwant Singh Chadha, Alan Masterton, Barry McCulloch, Alan O'Brien,

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed retail and mixed use developments are not considered acceptable in terms of the principles of the approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012 or the criteria set out in the relevant policies of the adopted Local Plan 2012. The proposed food store and other mixed use options are of a scale that undermines planning policies directing such development to the Network of Centres and is likely to adversely affect the vitality and viability of the Network of Centres identified for protection under policy RTC1.

5 617 ;1 5... / 5' I•. .../ Garage V., −− −

CRAIGUNN OUNDABOU

− −.DGO

Stand

Subw

4

Games Court

8ROAOVOOD

:1...

J1.

7/

\ St Maurices High Scht 83 Representations Received

PLANNING APPLICATION 13/008621PPP

Proposed Foodstore (5453m2 GFA) (Class 1), Petrol Station, Car Parking and additional Mixed Use Options including: Retail (Class 1); Financial, Professional or Other Services (Class 2); Restaurant (Class 3); Hotel (Class 7); Assembly & Leisure Uses (Class 11); Non−Residential Institution (Class 10); and/or I PTOdUcSedtSy Re;mdumd by P'S Sui Genens Uses (eg Hot Food Takeaway/Drive Thru), NI of ft Ord—Seyon l a Regeneration 4 brtofttSO Landscaping, Access and associated Works IIII RegerreratonEMnmale£ ntot SeMces Ccpygri .'4 NorthrCnenanOLanarrtre 2012 ALI (Planning Permission in Principle) FnrHOuse Ore,_•. S,re 2TryaRoad 132396 Land North Of Westfield Road, Westfield, Cumbernauld AI 0671.1W 6 Recommendation:Reasons:−The Refuse for the Following

proposed retail and mixed use development is not supportive of the principles of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012 as set out in Diagram 3 and 4, as there is no known need/demand established in the development plan and the supply−side assessment indicates that it represents an unsustainable location in terms of its relationship with the identified network of centres, particularly Cumbernauld Town Centre, Westway Retail Park, Auchenkilns Leisure Park and Craigmarloch Neighbourhood Centre.

That the proposed development is contrary to policy RTC3 (Assessing Retail Out−of−Town Centre Development) of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 as the scale of the development does not reflect any identified need and it is likely to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the existing network of centres set out under policy RTC1 Centre Network

That the proposed retail and mixed use development is contrary to policy DSP1 B (Amount of Development: Potential additions to planned land supplies) of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 as it would result in an additional retail development on land located outside Cumbernauld Town Centre, which cannot be justified in terms of need or benefit and is likely to undermine the catchment and role of the town centre to the detriment of its vitality and viability.

4. The proposed development is contrary to Policy DSP 2 B (Location of Development: Potential additions to planned land supplies) of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 as the proposed retail and mixed use development is not consistent with the following DSP2 location criteria 6 (Town Centres) as the proposals would not safeguard the vitality and viability of RTC1 A Centre Network or support their diversification or improve their respective environments.

Background Papers:

Consultation Responses:

The Coal Authority received 28 1hMay 2013. Rathmell Archaeology Limited received 29th May 2013. NLC Greenspace Development (Biodiversity and Access) received June, 23rdSeptember and 10th December 2013. NLC Protective Services received 27th May and 5th June 2013 and 20th March 2014 NLC Greenspace Development (Landscape) received 2nd July 2013 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport received 25th July 2013. Scottish Natural Heritage received 19th September 2013 Scottish Water received 18th November 2013. NLC Roads Operations received 9th January 2014. Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 14th January 2014

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Cohn Marshall at 01236 632497

Report Date:

24th April 2014

7 APPLICATION NO. 131008621PPP

REPORT

Site Description

1.1 The application site comprises of an area of undeveloped land that extends to some 4.83 hectares and consist of a raised landform situated to the east of Broadwood Stadium. The site is directly bounded to the north by Ardgoil Drive (access road to Broadwood Stadium) and to the east and south by the Craiglinn Roundabout and Westfield Road (13802) respectively. St Maurice's High School and Broadwood Farm Public House/Restaurant are situated to the south side of Westfield Road (13802) and Craiglinn Roundabout respectively. There is an isolated mix of small scale light industrial uses situated further to the north of the site which is accessed from the B8046. To the south west of the site boundary there is another area of undeveloped land that has planning consent for a residential development (114 houses) that has not yet commenced.

1.2 Most of the established residential areas in this part of Cumbernauld are situated in the following outlying peripheral locations. The Smithstone housing estate is located around 0.6km to the north of the site; the Craiglinn and Balloch residential areas are around 0.6km to the east of the site; the Westfield residential area is about 0.8km to the south and the Blackwood residential area is around 0.8km to the west of the site. Whilst none of these outlying residential areas are directly adjacent to the application site, vehicular and pedestrian access links between the site and these residential areas are available via the existing distributor road network and via the segregated network of footpath/underpass links that traverse this part of Cumbernauld. Walk−in distances from these residential areas to the application site are estimated to be around 200m−800m and some parts of the Blackwood, Westfield, and Balloch residential areas would have a walk−in distance of up to 1.6km.

1.3 In an even wider context the application site is located around 4.8km to the west of Cumbernauld Town Centre, 1 .6km to the south west of Craigmarloch Neighbourhood Centre and 0.9km to the north of Condorrat village. The is situated 0.9km to the south of the application site.

1.4 In terms of the site's appearance and previous uses it can be noted that part of the application site was previously used as a local authority landfill site. Its level surface (as restored) falls sharply to the western extent of the site towards the lower lying Broadwood Stadium car park. The site is also characterised by its overgrown appearance with self seeded scrubland and there are areas of mature tree planting located along its eastern and southern boundary with Westfield Road. Another mature tree belt area is located to the south west corner of the proposed development area. Most of the application site area is screened from the distributor road network by these mature tree planting areas found along the southern boundary of the application site.

1.5 The application site is also traversed in a north−south direction by an unmade pedestrian route that links Westfield Road with Ardgoil Drive.

2. Proposed Development

2.1 Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) is sought for a mixed use development comprising the following:

Class 1 Retail Food store (GFA 5,453m2) to be occupied by Morrisons Petrol Filling Station 2 Commercial Units (circa 256m2 and 586m2 respectively) with optional mixed commercial/leisure uses including: Retail (Class 1); Financial, Professional or Other Services (Class 2); Restaurant (Class 3); Hotel (Class 7); Assembly & Leisure Uses (Class 11); Non−Residential Institution (Class 10); and/or Sui Generis Uses (eg Hot Food Takeaway / Drive Through Restaurant)

8 2.2 Although the applicant seeks planning permission in principle only, optional indicative layout plans has been submitted to demonstrate how the site may accommodate the level of development as proposed. The indicative site layout scenarios suggest the site could accommodate a major food−store/petrol−station development and 2 additional commercial/leisure units which may be occupied by an optional range of commercial/leisure uses as set out in the proposal description.

2.3 northThe−westindicative layout plans suggest the supermarket could be positioned to either the or north−east corner of the site, with a single vehicular access taken from the St Maurice's roundabout on Westfield Road which would accommodate customer and service vehicles. The associated petrol filling station proposal would be positioned to the south west of the site, closer to the site entrance. The indicative site layout plans also include a large car parking area to accommodate supermarket shoppers and visitors to the optional commercial/leisure proposal. The applicant also proposes to improve pedestrian access facilities to the site and may undertake minor improvements to the road network (as required) including upgrades to existing traffic lights currently serving the local roads network.

3. Applicant's Supporting Information

3.1 Due to the size of the application site, which is over 2 hectares, this proposal is classed as a Major Application as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Hierarchy of Development) () Regulations 2009 and as such the applicant has carried out a pre−application public consultation exercise, details of which are contained within the Pre−Application Consultation report document. The applicant also sought a screening opinion from the Council under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011. Whilst it was determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required, the applicant has provided support information to mitigate potential impacts on the local environment.

3.2 The following documents were submitted in support of the planning application.

• Planning Statement and Retail Assessment • Transportation Assessment • Design and Access Statement • Pre−Application Consultation Report (PAC) • Preliminary Appraisal Report on Ground Conditions • Level 1 Flood Risk Assessment • Drainage Strategy • Acoustic Impact Assessment • Air Quality Impact Assessment • Ecological Survey

4. Site History

4.1 Part of the application site has previously been used for landfill purposes as noted above.

4.2 Planning permission PA95/65 was issued by the previous planning authority (Cumbernauld and District Council) in August 1995 for a food retail development of some 2044m2 in floor area. This retail development was not implemented and the planning permission has now lapsed.

5. Development Plan

5.1 Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012: Due to the overall scale of the proposed retail and mixed commercial development in terms of the indicative gross floor space and site area it is considered that the application for this mixed use retail and commercial development would be considered to be of strategic significance as it would exceed the respective thresholds set out in the SDP schedule of Strategic Scales of

9 Development approved in 2013. Therefore the proposals require to be assessed against diagrams 3 and 4 of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Strategic Development Plan 2012.

5.2 North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012: The site is zoned HCF 1 Bi Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities in the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. Policies DSP 1, 2, 3 and 4 and policies RTCI, and 3 would also be relevant in assessing this proposed retail and mixed commercial/leisure use development.

6. Consultations

6.1 There was no objection from the Coal Authority, Rathmell Archaeology or SNH.

6.2 NLC Protective Services had no objection to the proposals in terms of impacts on air quality or from increases in noise levels but subject to conditions setting out a need for a comprehensive site investigation report, maximum noise levels and measures to minimising obtrusive flood lighting impacts on any new residential developments that may be constructed near the boundary of the application site.

6.3 NLC Greenspace (Biodiversity) had no objections subject to further ecological surveys being updated at any detailed planning stage and that any agreed mitigation measures be fully implemented by the developer.

In terms of access issues, Greenspace considered this proposed out of town retail site, whilst having good vehicular access, should include viable and safe pedestrian links to local residential areas and to the public transport network but noted that both the indicative proposed layouts would maintain pedestrian access to the south at Westfield Road and north to Ardgoil Drive.

6.4 NLC Greenspace (Landscape) had no objections subject to further landscape details for the site and that the existing periphery screen planting along the eastern extent of the site is retained as part of any landscape scheme for the development.

6.5 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) had no objection subject to conditions requesting further details of new bus stops and shelters in the vicinity of the development. SPT further advised the developer should also provide bus/taxi pick up points and bus information display screens within the site.

6.6 Scottish Water had no objections subject to conditions requesting the developer to provide further site drainage design information for their approval that incorporates an appropriate level SUDS treatment to Scottish Waters requirements.

6.7 NLC Roads Operations had no objection subject to conditions and requirement to undertake off site traffic management upgrading works as set out in the accompanying Transportation Assessment before any part of the development is brought into use. These mitigation works set out in the TA would include:

• Minor works to the Balloch and Back O'Hill Roundabouts. • Optimisation of signal timings at an existing traffic signal control system of Westfield Road at Craiglinn Roundabout. • Improvements to the visibility splay at the site entrance that would be taken off the existing roundabout at the junction of Westfield Road and North Road • Construction of a footway along the northeast side of Westfield Road • Provision of a controlled pedestrian crossing (Puffin) should be provided on Westfield Road, northeast of the proposed site access. • A bus stop lay−by should be provided on both sides of Westfield Road to the north east of the proposed access.

NLC Roads Operations also requested additional conditions to ensure the application site could be provided with adequate servicing and parking provisions including internal footway links, segregated service facilities, an acceptable level of parking with appropriate allocation 10 for visitors with disabilities. Cycle parking facilities were also requested. These requirements could be covered by planning condition if planning permission in principle is granted for this proposed development.

Representations

7.1 There were a total of 83 letters of representation received. Of these there were 3 separate letters of objection received from Cumbernauld Retail Park Ltd (do Turley Associates, , BP (do Graham + Sibbald, Glasgow) and Malthurst Petroleum Ltd, owners of the existing BP petrol station located at Back o Hill Roundabout.

There were 80 letters of representation received which expressed support for the development including 56 pro−forma support letters and an individual letter of support from Jamie Hepburn MSP. Further letters of support were also received on behalf of members of Westfield Community Council, Cumbernauld Community Forum and Etive Neighbourhood Watch.

7.2 Supporting Representations: In summary the supporting letters of representation highlighted the following benefits:

• Need for additional shopping opportunities to serve the local residential areas in this part of Cumbernauld. • Potential for the creation of up to 300−400 local jobs. • The site has been previously been designated for retail uses. • Survey of local opinion (undertaken by J. Hepburn MSP) concluded that over 80% of local residents supported the proposed development as it would benefit the local area with little impact on the local environment. Only 33% of local residents considered there would be a negative impact from additional traffic but that such concerns could be mitigated by the developer's proposals to undertake improvements to the local roads network. • Local public transport facilities would be improved. • The site is already identified as a "Retail Park" on an existing roadside direction sign positioned on the southern approach road to St Maurice's roundabout and as such must be considered as an appropriate site for the proposed development. • The investment in this area by Morrison's would be a welcome asset and benefit to the area by offering more retail choice and creation of around 300 jobs. • Tesco and ASDA have too much of a stronghold in the town centre and the new Morrison's development would bring more shoppers to Cumbernauld. • The new food store would enable a local employee to carry out shopping within their lunch hour. • The proposed development would hopefully offer an alternative to some Bonnybridge residents who normally travel to to shop and buy petrol. • The proposed development would include a petrol station which would offer welcome competition to the existing BP petrol station in this area. • The Westfield area is very poorly served by local shops and public transport links the local Tesco Store at Craigmarloch are limited particularly if you don't drive. Public transport to Cumbernauld Town Centre is reasonable however return journeys with weighty shopping is difficult. • The proposed development would be of benefit to the local residents but if approved, NLC must ensure the mitigation measures set out in the TA are implemented as the traffic management system and road layout around the site are already at capacity. Developments which generate additional traffic volumes should address this issue as part of their proposals. • The proposed development would improve amenities for the recent residential developments in the area.

7.3 Objection Representations: The points of objection can be fairly summarised as follows:

11 • The description of the proposed development should reflect more accurately the full scope of the proposals. • The application site boundary is larger than the area assessed under the EIA regulations and PAN. • The Retail Assessment should have also included an assessment of impact of the proposed leisure type use on existing centres where such use classes are considered acceptable • Westway Retail Park was not considered as a potential site for the proposed food store. • The identification of Morrisons as the potential developer of this site should not be given any extra weight. • The RA significantly underestimates the comparison turnover of the proposed food store and the assumption that 38% (9m) of trade draw would be from out with the catchment is unrealistic particularly when compared against an estimated £7m trade draw from the ASDA and TESCO stores in Cumbernauld Town Centre. • The derived trade figures are unrealistic particularly for local shops where local shops in Cumbernauld Town Centre are apparently trading up to 1525% over expected levels. • The site should remain available for any future community facilities in accordance with policy HCF 1 BI. • Any vacant or derelict land designation should not infer the site is suitable for this type of development • The proposed commercial development would not integrate successfully within the surrounding area and would set an unfortunate precedent for further developments which would erode the land allocated for community facilities. • The non−food class 1 elements of the proposal could be accommodated within Westway Retail Park • The proposals are considered contrary to policies HCF 1 Bi; RTC 1, RTC 3 and DSP 4. • The proposal is contrary to SPP as the proposal is not deemed to be a preferable location for a significant retail development. • The Network of Centres would be negatively impacted due to the anticipated trade diversion of available expenditure in the catchment. • The proposed uses should be directed towards more appropriate locations: • Town Centre for convenience retail and Commercial Centres could support the other retail, comparison and leisure uses. • Due to its remote location and poor public transport links the proposals are considered contrary to DSP 2 as it does not respect the hierarchy of walking/cycling/public transport/private vehicle use. • There is no justification in terms of need for an additional petrol station at this location and it would be detrimental to the viability an existing petrol station located only 300m from the application site.

8 Planning Assessment

8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 In this case the development plan is considered to be the Approved Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2012 and the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan (NLLP) 2012.

8.3 The Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority (GCVSDPA) produced and approved a schedule of Strategic Scales of Development (approved in 2013) which sets out what type and scale of development proposal is likely to be of strategic significance. The schedule sets out that proposed retail developments 5,000m2 within 2,000m2 over or out with the network of strategic centres identified in Schedule 12 (Network of

12 Centres) would be considered significant. In this regard it is noted the proposed food store, petrol station and 2 additional commercial units would exceed these thresholds therefore the proposals are considered to be of strategic significance and require to be assessed under the SDP.

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan 2012 (SOP)

8.4 The Strategic Development Plan (SDP) sets out a long term spatial vision and development strategy to determine the geography of development in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley region to 2035. The SDP sets out (at a strategic level) to support economic competitiveness and social cohesion, within a sustainable environmental approach. To do this, the SDP also sets the framework for local authorities in producing their Local Development Plans which subsequently form the basis for decision making at local levels.

8.5 The fundamental principles of the strategic development plan seek to promote developments that would give support to the Spatial Development Strategy (SDS). This strategy is set out in Diagram 3 of the plan, including (among other things), support for a network of centres to provide a range of services and facilities. Schedule 12 (Network of Strategic Centres) includes Cumbernauld as a strategic centre which is expected to continue to provide a range of town centre and related functions including civic and community, employment, education, retail and business functions. It should be noted that Cumbernauld Town Centre is recognised in the SDP to be facing the challenge of retail contraction due to its proximity to other existing major retail centres.

8.6 Diagram 4 (Sustainable Location Assessment) provides guidance on criteria for assessing the suitability of other locations in relation to known demand/need and sustainability. In particular, it indicates that the scale of development proposal should support and respect the scale of the Network of Centres as identified in Schedule 12.

8.7 The application site is located in the Westfield area of Cumbernauld, north of the M80 and some 3 miles west of Cumberriauid Town Centre. The application site does not fall within one of the Network of Centres identified in the SDP and is located out with identified retail centres. Therefore it is considered that the principle of a mixed retail and commercial type development proposal of this scale and at this out−of−centre location would not accord with the Diagram 3 Spatial Development Strategy (SDS).

8.8 Where proposals do not reflect the Spatial Development Strategy and its related frameworks they require to be considered on their own merits by the local planning authority's devolved local plan policies, which in this case would include policy RTC 3 A (Assessing Retail and Commercial Leisure Development) of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. However at this broader strategic level of assessment, Diagram 4 also sets out criteria which local authorities are expected to consider in their assessment and decision making processes. These criteria reflect the philosophy and policy direction of the Strategic Development Plan and are addressed in turn below.

Supply−side: Sustainable Location Assessment

8.9 Diagram 4 (Sustainable location assessment) sets out a range of factors that require to be considered to determine if the proposed development would contribute positively to the Spatial Development Strategy in the following respects:

Climate Change

Minimising the development footprint of the city−region? The proposals would involve the physical development of 4.83 hectares of undeveloped land and would thereby result in an actual increase to the current development footprint of the city−region.

Minim/sing the carbon footprint of the city−region? Whilst the journey times of some locally based shoppers could be shorter, this is not considered to over−ride the wider strategic approach of the SDP in directing development to the most appropriates sustainable locations,

13 particularly, where it is considered that any retail/commercial proposal may impact adversely on the defined Network of Centres (as discussed in detail later).

Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions? The proposed retail and commercial development is unlikely to reduce dependency on private vehicles due to the site's relatively isolated location within this part of Cumbernauld where the indicative walk−in distances may be prohibitive even to local residents. It is anticipated that even locally based residents would still need to travel to Cumbernauld Town Centre for its wider range of civic, community, employment and retailing facilities and services.

Low carbon Economy

Supporting sustainable economic competitiveness? The application site is not located within any of the strategic economic investment locations (SElLs) as set out within Schedule 2 of the SDP. The key focus of the SDP here is to encourage investment in these areas and improve sustainable transport links between Glasgow city centre and its constituent outlying communities in the city−region area. In this regard the proposed development would not directly support the sustainable economic competitiveness of the city−region area.

Supporting key economic sectors and new environmental technology sectors? Retail development is not considered to be one of the key economic drivers identified in the SDP. The site also sits out−with any strategic economic investment location and any of the locations identified in respect to low−carbon master planning and therefore would not contribute positively to the key economic sectors or new environmental technology sector.

Supporting the farming and rural economy? Whilst most of the large scale supermarket operators support local farming and rural economy through the stocking of locally produced products, retail developments are not directly associated with or represent rural diversification or regeneration.

Sustainable transport

Supporting sustainable access and active travel? Providing appropriate public transport access? Supporting future public transport services? It is considered that the proposal does not conflict with the policies supporting appropriate and future public transport services as the currentlay−bys (limited) bus service facilities could be improved via the provision of additional bus and shelters as set out in the TA.

Green Network

Developing green infrastructure? Supporting greenbelt objectives? The proposal does not conflict with the Green Belt objectives contained in Strategic Framework 2. Furthermore, the proposal does not conflict with the policies supporting the development of green infrastructure, nor impact upon existing biodiversity networks and designations.

Water Environment

Managing flood risk? Improving and safeguarding water quality? It is considered that the proposal broadly supports the water environment principles in Spatial Framework 4: Infrastructure as the drainage strategy for the site incorporates the principles of SUDS. It is accepted that appropriate drainage could be developed and that the flood risk is considered to be low.

Network of Centres

Respecting the scale of the centre? Supporting the network of centres? Cumulative Impact of Glasgow City Centre?: The proposed development does not satisfactorily respect the scale of the town centre, or support the wider network of retail and leisure parks, neighbourhood or local centres as it would directly compete with them for available trade expenditure and shopper/visitor footfall to the detriment of vitality and viability of the Centre Network. The

14 proposed development would be located in an out−of−centre location and therefore does not comply with the wider principle of supporting the centre network. There would be a notable draw of trade from Cumbernauld Town Centre (27%) and Craigmarloch neighbourhood centre (33%). Whilst the applicant's Retail Assessment (RA) argues that these impacts are not significant as most trade would be drawn from out with the catchment (38%) these impacts are nonetheless negative impacts which indicate that, fundamentally the proposals do not support the respective centres and therefore the wider strategic network of centres. With specific regard to any cumulative effect on Glasgow City Centre, it is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impact.

Low Carbon energy

Developing green energy and or energy smart grids? Contributing to a low carbon energy and technology future? In terms of Spatial Framework 4 (Infrastructure), although in principle only, the proposal could reflect the broad principles of low carbon energy in incorporating sustainable development measures.

8.10 Whilst the proposed development does not conflict with all of the criteria, and actively supports some aspects, its out−of−centre location does not support the Strategic Network of Centres. This is a fundamental issue in assessing the proposal and as such considerable weight must be attributed to this factor. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development would be constructed in an unsustainable location when assessed against the Strategic Development Plan.

Demand−side: Is there a known demand/need established in the Development Plan?

8.11 There is currently no identified need or demand for further retail development out−with the identified Network of Centres in the Approved Strategic Development Plan or the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Whilst the applicants have acknowledged this, they consider the proposed development can be justified as a departure from the development plan due to identified deficiencies in qualitative and quantitative shopping provision in the local area. The applicants also consider that demand for such a proposal is demonstrated by the level of supportive responses received from local residents at the pre−application consultation stage.

8.12 The effects and impacts of the proposed retail/commercial development are discussed in more detail below under the suite of relevant policies set out in the NLLP where it is concluded that the proposed retail and commercial development is likely to have a detrimental effect on the vitality and viability of the RTC 1 Centre Network, particularly Cumbernauld town centre and Craigmarloch neighbourhood centre. As such the proposals would be considered contrary to the SDP.

8.13 To conclude consideration of the proposals against Diagram 3 and 4 of the SDP, it is considered that the site for the proposed retail/commercial development is not included in Schedule 12 Network of Centres in the SDP and therefore is not in line with the Spatial Development Strategy. The Supply−side assessment under Diagram 4 indicates that the proposed development site would represent a new development within an unsustainable location in terms of its relationship with the identified Network of Centres. Furthermore, from the demand−side assessment there is no 'known demand/need' established in the development plan and it is not considered that the case made by the applicant (including perceived benefits) is sufficient to otherwise support the application. The proposed development is therefore not supportive of the Spatial Development Strategy, would be situated in an unsustainable location where there is no known demand/need. As such the proposals are considered to be contrary to the Strategic Development Plan.

8.14 The Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 forms part of the development plan along with the SDP and an assessment is carried out against the following respective policies of the local plan.

15 North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 (NLLP)

8.15 The adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan zones the proposal site as HCF 1 Bi (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities). Other relevant policies which need to be considered are as follows.

• RTC 1 A (Protecting the North Lanarkshire Centre Network) • RTC 3 Al (Assessing Retail and Commercial Leisure Development: Location of Development) • RTC 3 A2 (Assessing Retail and Commercial Leisure Development: Impact of Development) • RIG 3 B (Assessing retail and Commercial Leisure Development: Bad Neighbour Development) • DSP1 − Amount of Development • DSP 2 − Location of Development • DSP 3 − Impact of Development • DSP4 − Quality of Development 8.16 HCF I BI (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities). This policy seeks to protect existing levels of community well−being in residential areas by protecting existing community facilities identified on the proposals map. However most of the application site area is currently utilised as an ad−hoc passive open space area traversed by a public footpath link and offers limited benefit to the peripheral residential areas. As such it is considered that the proposals would not result in any significant loss of residential amenity in this regard should the site be developed. However this does not otherwise infer that the site is suitable for a mixed retail/commercial development of the scale proposed.

8.17 RTC I A (Protecting the North Lanarkshire Centre Network): Reflecting national policy and policy set out in the SDP (discussed earlier) at a local level, policy RTG1 A aims to protect the Network of Centres in North Lanarkshire as the continuing focus of retail, leisure, civic and community uses and sets out appropriate use classes within each type of centre. As the proposed development would not be located within any of the centre locations set out under policies RTC 1 A (Town Centres: Cumbernauld Town Centre), RTC 1 B (Commercial Centres: Westway Retail Park or Auchinkilns Leisure Park) or C (Neighbourhood and Local Centres: Craigmarloch Neighbourhood Centre) the proposals would be considered contrary to the terms of policy RTGI unless it could be justified under the assessment criteria of policy RTC 3. The applicant has acknowledged that the proposals require to be assessed under RTC 3 and has provided a retail impact assessment which is discussed later in the report.

8.18 RTC 3—Assessing Retail Out−of−Town Centre Development: Proposals which are covered by policy RTC 3 require to be considered against the location and impact of the development − the key being the protection and enhancement of the Network of Centres.

8.19 The suite of retail policies (RTC 1 to 3) generally seek to protect the established network of centres as the continuing focus for retail and leisure development. The location of the proposed development makes it an out of centre proposal and the application therefore needs to demonstrate the proposals' suitability, firstly, in terms of the sequential approach, integration with surrounding land uses and accessibility by a range of transport modes (RTC3 A(l)). Secondly, the application must also show no significant adverse impact on the vitality, viability and environment of established centres, town centre action plans or the road network (RTC3 A(2).

8.20 RTC 3 A(1) Location of Development: The applicant has undertaken a sequential approach which indicates that there are no suitable sites within Cumbernauld town centre, Kilsyth town centre or any of the neighbourhood or local centres that could accommodate a mixed retail/commercial development of the scale and size proposed. The exception in terms of available site area, would be the remaining undeveloped part of the existing out−of centre Westway Retail Park that supports use classes 1 (Retail); 3 (Food and Drink); and 11 (Assembly and Leisure). However, planning conditions covering this retail park would not 16 allow any class 1 convenience retailing such as a food store but could accommodate the proposed optional commercial developments within classes 3 and 11. It is therefore accepted in this regard that there are no obvious development opportunities within the Network of Centres that could accept the scale of the mixed use development as proposed.

8.21 Under this policy retail development proposals (if justified under the sequential test) must be proven by the applicant to integrate with surrounding land uses and avoid sporadic development and must be in locations that are readily accessible by a variety of transport modes and not predominantly accessible by private car.

8.22 In these regards there are some concerns that the proposed development site would be located within a relatively isolated part of the Broadwood area as described under paragraph 1.2 above. Whilst part of the local distributor road network at Craiglinn and St Maurice's roundabouts lead past the eastern boundary of the site and is used as a bus route, almost all of the established large scale residential areas within this area of Cumbernauld are situated in outlying peripheral areas some distance from the site and as such the site is not that accessible as most local residents (potential shoppers/visitors) from the Smithstone, Craiglinn, Balloch, Westfield and Blackwood housing areas (situated some 400−800 m from the site) would have lengthy walk−in distances and are likely to continue to make use of private car to visit the proposed food store and the other proposed commercial uses.

8.23 As such it is considered that the proposed development site is not in an appropriate or suitable location that would allow integration with the surrounding residential areas and is unlikely to discourage shoppers from using their private vehicles. Whilst improvements to the local bus routes are possible through provision of additional bus stops and shelters, this is unlikely to discourage the use of private cars being used by visitors to the proposed retail/commercial development. It is therefore considered the proposals would not accord with policy RTC 3.

8.24 RTC 3 A(2) Impact of Development: This policy requires the applicant to provide evidence that there would be no significant adverse impact on:

• Vitality, viability, and environment of the RTC 1 Centre Network • Town Centre Action Plans • The road network.

Any such proposal would only be considered favourably if it complies with all of the RTC 3 criteria.

8.25 The submitted Retail Assessment (RA) includes an assessment of quantitative deficiency by defining a geographic catchment area and calculates approximate population levels and associated available expenditure within the catchment and considers how this is likely to change at a specified design year (2016). The RA also considers current market share for established convenience retailers to determine shopping patterns and the level of any expenditure outflow from the catchment's likely trading levels, expected market share and expected turnover of the proposed retail/commercial development. The RA also includes survey data for a larger study area that considers potential impacts on retailers currently located in Airdrie, Coatbridge, Glenmavis, Robroyston, Muirhead, Kirkintilloch, Lenzie, Falkirk, Baillieston (ie outwith the identified catchment area)

8.26 Retail Assessment: Quantitative Assessment

Catchment Area: The Retail Assessment defines a catchment area that geographically incorporates Kilsyth to the north−west, Banton and Castlecary to the north east, Cumbernauld southTown−west. Centre and to the east, Condorrat to the south and Moodiesburn to the The RA estimates that the population of this catchment area is 71,812 (2013) which may increase to 72,101 by design year 2016.

Expenditure Forecasts (convenience/comparison goods): The RA estimates that the available convenience goods expenditure levels within the identified catchment area (based on average

17 expenditure per head of the catchment's population) is approximately £1 43.98m with an estimated £145.43m of expenditure available by design year 2016. In terms of comparison goods, the RA estimates that available comparison goods expenditure across the catchment's population would increase from £210.5m to £226.27m at the 2013 and 2016 baseline and design years respectively. This reflects the RA's assumption that a slight increase in population levels is anticipated within the catchment area by 2016.

Existing Convenience Floorspace/Turnover of Existing Retailers: The RA also provides an estimate of existing average convenience turnover of all national multiples, local superstores, independent traders and local shops located within the identified catchment area. The RA estimates that total turnover of all convenience retail outlets within the defined catchment/study area is approximately £161.12m but estimates a slight reduction to £160.63m by the 2016 design year. The RA states this estimated reduction in the turnover of existing retailers takes into consideration any potential downturn in the local economy.

Trade Pattern and Market Share (2013−2016): The RA includes data derived from household surveys including Trips by Market Share and Weighted Market Share). The RA explains that a 75:25 split between main food shopping and top up shopping are an assumed industry standard appropriate to any assessment of impact.

The RA summarises the findings of the household survey data and sets out data relating to estimates of market shares for all identified existing convenience retailers located in Cum bernauld Town Centre, Westfield, Eastfield, Condorrat, Croy, Balloch, Moodiesburn, Abronhill, Kilsyth. Table 9 also identifies retailer locations which achieve an estimated market share of more than 3% as set out below. Smaller retailers generating less than 3% market share were scoped out of the assessment process undertaken in the RA as these were not seen as significant.

• ASDA Cumbernauld (Tryst Road) 29% (f42.29m) • TESCO Cumbernauld (Tryst Road) 23% (33.78m) • TESCO Craigmarloch 22% (31.71m) • LIDL Kilsyth 3% (E4.73m) • CO−OP Kilsyth 3% (3.65m)

The RA concludes that the catchment area has an estimated total expenditure value of some £143.98m but calculates that the estimated total turnover is £1 28.1 3m and states that some £15.85m (11%) of the available £143.98m is already lost to the catchment area. As noted above the data derived from the extended study area is not included as very little expenditure is spent in these stores

The RA repeats a similar assessment for design year 2016 with no significant change to the estimated percentage share as set out above with stores with the highest market shares include ASDA Cumbernauld (29%), TESCO Extra Cumbernauld (23%) and TESCO Craigmarloch (22%).

The RA also calculates turnover in accordance with Morrison stores national average turnover levels.

Scale of the Proposals: The proposed food store would have a 5453m2 (gross floor area) with 2907m2 (net floor area) with the net floor space offering a respective split between convenience goods: 2412M2 (83%) and comparison goods: 495m2 (17%).

Market Share: The available expenditure from the catchment area is estimated at around £145.43m and the RA estimates the proposed Morrison store would attract a potential market share of £27.2m for convenience sales and £1 .73m for comparison sales. The RA then assumes that 90% of this turnover would be expenditure generated from within the catchment area and 10% from out with the catchment area. The RA states this would equate to a market share of £24.72m from a turnover of convenience expenditure.

18 Quantitative Deficiency Summary: From these findings the RA suggests that there is clear evidence of an outflow of convenience expenditure from the catchment area and that this outflow would remain sufficiently high to justify the introduction of a new Morrison's food store within the catchment.

8.27 Retail Assessment: Qualitative Assessment.

The RA examines the existing convenience retail provision within the identified catchment area and makes the following observations derived from the study data:

• The larger format convenience retailers are located within Cumbernauld Town Centre • Tesco operate a second large format store at Craigmarloch which is similar in scale (to the proposed food store) but has a much larger area for comparison goods. • Mid Range convenience retailers are located in Condorrat, Moodiesburn and Kilsyth however these have a limited range of products to meet the demands of consumers undertaking main food shopping trips. • There are smaller convenience shops located through−out the catchment however the RA considers these offer mainly top up shopping due to their nature, scale and location. • The RA considers that the main convenience retailers are not evenly distributed across the catchment and therefore cannot offer a sustainable destination for many residents due to the need to travel and there therefore remains a significant gap in convenience retail offer and choice for a large portion of residents in the west of Cumbernauld (eg Eastfield, Condorrat and Croy). • The RA states that the proposal site is within relatively close proximity to the Craigmarloch Neighbourhood/Local Centre where convenience retail provision comprises a stand−alone Tesco Store with outlying smaller Premier Store mainly used for top up shopping. The RA also suggests Condorrat has a limited amount of convenience retail provision with top up shopping functions. • The RA concludes that the west of Cumbernauld lacks a modern, high quality foodstore that is capable of providing customers with a choice and range of goods that is already provided by the larger format stores located within the Cumbernauld area and that an additional food store within the catchment would enhance the convenience goods retail provision in line with current shopper expectations of a modern retail outlet. • The RA also advocates that the proposed store would also address overall deficiencies in comparison goods outlets in the catchment area.

8.28 Retail Assessment: Trade Diversion Impact Considerations.

The RA also provides information on potential trade diversions and market share as a result of the proposals and provides the following summary of the main trade diversions.

Location Diversion (%) Diversion (fm) Impact (%)

ASDA Cumbernauld Tryst Road 14 3.46 8 TESCO Cumbernauld Tryst Road 12 2.97 9 TESCO Craigmarloch 33 8.16 24 Cumbernauld Town Centre (Total) 27 6.55 8.

The potential significant impact on TESCO Craigmarloch is acknowledged by the RA but considers such an impact would be mitigated as this existing store is trading well above company average levels and would still retain a high market share even if the Morrisons store commenced trading. Predicted market shares between the existing Tesco at Craigmarloch and the proposed Morrisons store at Westfield would be similar. The RA considers the estimated impact on Cumbernauld Town Centre would only be 8% and as such the applicant considers is well within acceptable levels that the overall vitality and viability of the town centre would not be adversely affected and that market shares are relatively unchanged. The RA also states that expenditure outflow would be reduced and CTC would maintain its position as the dominant location for market share. 19 8.29 The Retail Assessment (RA) concludes the proposed retail element of the proposals would not significantly impact on the overall vitality and viability of existing retailers and retail centres within the catchment area.

8.30 Whilst the RA suggests that the proposals would be acceptable under the terms of policy RTC 3, the following comments and observations on the content of the RA raise some doubts over the significance of impact of the proposed development on the Centre Network.

8.31 The proposed Morrison's development is similar in size to the existing Tesco store at Craigmarloch. However, the existing Tesco store has a much larger area of floor space in use for comparison sales and forms part of a neighbourhood shopping centre with other traders and uses. It is considered that the proposed Morrisons store would have a greater impact than suggested in the RA.

8.32 The RA argues that shops suitable for a main food shopping trip are not evenly distributed across the catchment and therefore do not offer a sustainable destination for many residents within the catchment due to the need to travel. In particular, the RA argues that there is a significant gap in convenience retail offer and choice and therefore a qualitative deficiency for residents in the west of Cumbernauld including Eastfield, Condorrat & Croy. In response to this claim it can be noted that the Cumbernauld area is considered to have access to good quality retail provision and there are good public transport networks between the town centre hub and surrounding and outlying residential areas it serves. It is therefore debatable whether the location of the new development provides a more convenient destination for residents within the catchment who already have good access to local retail facilities at Craigmarloch and to the major convenience and comparison shopping opportunities at Cumbernauld town centre.

8.33 The applicant has not identified the existing retail provision available in the Stepps Moodiesburn or Chryston area within the submitted retail assessment despite the figures in the shopper survey annex supporting this position. In this regard, the RA indicates that 38% of trade, (approximately £9.34 m) would be derived from other areas outside the proposal's catchment It should be noted that such trade diversion is than the proposed area . a more retail store is expected to divert from the existing Tesco at Craigmarloch (33%) and from all of Cumbernauld Town Centre (27%). It seems anomalous that such a significant proportion of trade should be diverted from outside the catchment where it would more reasonable to expect trade from out−with the catchment to be around 10%. The trade draw from outside the catchment area is not supported by the shopper survey and no other explanation has been provided. Subsequently, if it assumed that the trade draw from outside the catchment was actually closer to 10% this would suggest that the RA impact figures on the existing network of centres underestimate the impact on these RTCI locations.

8.34 The submitted RA suggests 60% of trade for the proposed supermarket will be diverted from the existing network of centres (ie 27% from Cumbernauld Town Centre plus 33% from the Craigmarloch Neighbourhood centre), amounting to £14.71m of trade diversion to the new store. For reasons discussed above, these figures are considered to underestimate impact on these locations.

8.35 The RA does not appear to take into account an existing planning approval for a development which included a supermarket with a gross floor area of 6,376m2 at Buchanan Business Park Stepps. In January 2012, NLC were minded to grant planning permission in principle 1 11006371PPP (Mixed Retail/Business/Residential Development) subject to a legal agreement and this was issued in July 2013. The outline approval for this retail store at Stepps questions the validity of the supposition that 38% of the trade for the proposed store would be from outside the catchment area (note that even without an approval at Stepps the validity of 38% is still questionable). This is particularly relevant to the G69 0 postcode area (Moodiesburn/Chryston area) which was the only postcode area within the proposed stores catchment which currently undertakes a notable portion of their main food shopping out−with the catchment. A new superstore at Stepps would (if developed) directly serve this postcode area and would also improve any alleged qualitative deficiency in the west of Cumbernauld.

20 8.36 In addition there is no identified shortage in convenience or comparison retail provision within the NLLP area. The NLLP directs retail development of the scale proposed to town centre locations.

8.37 Policy RTC 3A(2) also requires any justified out−of−centre retail development to be acceptable in terms of local impacts and accessibility. In this regard the following observations should be noted.

8.38 The application site is not considered to benefit from good accessibility for pedestrians as it is an out of centre location which does not have direct and convenient access to surrounding residential areas and therefore shoppers/visitors would rely on access by private car. While the application site is connected to segregated pedestrian infrastructure, the site is relatively isolated from adjacent uses as described above. Excepting a small housing area to the south west, there are no residential areas within a 400m (approximately 5 minute walk), only 2 bus stops and the immediate land uses include St Maurice's High school and areas of open space which are difficult to permeate.

8.39 The Transport Assessment prepared by SKM Cohn Buchanan provides an illustrated walking catchment but notes that these catchments are as the crow flies. Subsequently the estimated walking/cycling times to the site will be slightly longer as demonstrated by NLC Indicative Walk−in Catchment plan.

8.40 The indicative walk−in catchment plan included in the TA illustrates that at 800m or a 10 minute walk, the isochrone catches the periphery of residential areas at Westfield, Balloch, and Smithstone. The majority of these residential areas are more than a 10 minute walk away and access would be via isolated footpaths. The site is considered to be reasonably accessible by bicycle, however (due to the restrictions of the nature of this mode of transport) is unlikely to cater for anything more than top−up shopping or locally employed staff. It is noted that more accessible location to the north of Broadwood Stadium may have allowed more direct access to residential areas and realistic access for pedestrians.

8.41 In concluding this part of the assessment, the proposals are considered to be contrary to the terms of RTC 3 for the following reasons:

• The main justification for the proposed supermarket is based on an alleged deficiency in provision and choice to the west of Cumbernauld. This presumption is not supported. • The soundness of the figures and therefore assumptions of the Retail Assessment are open to question. • The Retail Assessment does not appear to take into account a recent supermarket approval in Stepps. • The proposed development is expected to divert 29% of its trade equating to approximately £7.05m from town centres within North Lanarkshire (27% from Cumbernauld and 2% from Kilsyth). There are concerns that these figures underplay the likely effect should the mixed use development be approved. • The proposed development is expected to divert 33% of its trade equating to approximately £8.16m from the Craigmarloch neighbourhood centre. There are concerns that these figures underplay the likely effect if the proposed development is approved. • The application site is considered to be poorly located in terms of being accessible by walking.

8.42 RTC 3 B Assessing Retail and Commercial Leisure Development: The proposals include optional commercial and leisure developments that would fall within a range of use classes that are generally considered as Bad Neighbour uses as defined under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(Scotland) Order 1992. Permission for such uses can only be granted when it can be demonstrated by the applicant that amenity would not be adversely affected by such proposals. Cumulative impacts from such developments would also need to be assessed. There was no objection from NLC Protective Services in this 21 regard in terms of noise or air quality impacts presumably assisted by the fact there are no sensitive residential properties located close to the application site. As such the proposals would accord with the terms of RTC 3B.

DSP Policies

8.43 DSPI Amount of Development − Under this policy, (for proposed additions to planned land supplies), the proposed development exceeds the land use threshold for retailing (2,000 sqm comparison or 1,000 sqm convenience) and therefore needs to be justified by a supply and demand assessment. The associated Demand Assessment Criteria requires to be based on available catchment expenditure and centre impact. As discussed above, it is considered that the Retail Assessment has not sufficiently demonstrated justification for the proposed supermarket use and as such the proposal is considered contrary to this DSP1. Developments not clearly justified through supply and demand assessments are development plan departures and thereafter require to be considered in terms of both need and benefit. For the reasons concluded in this report, it is not considered that there is sufficient justification to otherwise merit a departure from development plan policy.

8.44 DSP 2 (Location of Development): An assessment under DSP 2 needs to be based on the locational criteria set out within the policy. It is acknowledged that DSP 2 (B) 1 supports the development insofar as it would contribute to urban regeneration by using a vacant brownfield site that was previously used for landfill purposes. There is however a conflict with locational criterion DSP 2 (B) (6) Town Centres in that the proposal does not support the RTC 1A Centre Network, nor safeguard the vitality and viability of the network of centres. It is considered that the proposed development is contrary to policy DSP 2 as it does not accord with the basic locational policies established in the plan to support town centres, particularly taking into account the conclusions of this report in respect to need and impact. The policy states that developments which are not consistent with the locational criteria are considered as a departure to the development plan and require to be justified in terms of both need and benefit as set out in the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan − Strategic Policy 10. The former Structure Plan has since been superseded by the SDP: however its consideration of need and benefit is still useful in identifying any material reasons that would otherwise support a departure from policy.

8.45 DSP 3 (Impact of Development): It can be noted that whilst the proposed retail and mixed commercial/leisure development will require additional drainage upgrading works (SUDS) and some improvements to the local roads network (Upgrade to existing Traffic Lights and some minor re−alignment works to the road network), the developer would be obliged to make such provisions should planning permission in principle be granted and that such provision could be secured via condition or legal agreement. As such the proposed development would accord with DSP 3.

8.46 DSP4 (Quality of Development): This policy sets out criteria to enable an assessment to be carried out on whether high standards of site planning and sustainable design could be achieved. In this regard it is considered that the developer has undertaken the appropriate appraisal of the site, has agreed to provide additional information to address any ground contamination issues and that potential impacts from the development on infrastructure and that sensitive ecological resources would be effectively mitigated at the detailed planning stage (MSC) should permission be granted in principle.

Development Plan Conclusions

8.47 Taking the above matters into account it can be concluded that the proposed mixed retail/commercial development would be contrary to the terms of the development plan for the following reasons:

The applicant's main justification for the proposed supermarket element of the proposals is based on an assumption that the proposed development would address an existing deficiency in provision and choice of retail offer in this part of Cumbernauld.

22 • The application site is considered to be poorly located in terms of accessibility by walking and public transport • The soundness of the figures and therefore the assumptions of the Retail Assessment (RA) are not robust and are questionable as set out above. • The RA does not consider the potential influence that a recent supermarket consent in Stepps may have on the catchment area. • The proposed development is expected to divert 29% of its trade (equating to approximately £7.05m from town centres within North Lanarkshire (27% from Cumbernauld and 2% from Kilsyth) and there are concerns that these figures underplay the likely trade draw effect if the proposed development is approved. • The proposed development is expected to divert 33% of its trade (equating to approximately £8.16m) from the Craigmarloch neighbourhood centre and as such these figures also underplay the likely trade draw effect. • There would be an unacceptable individual impact on the viability of the network of centres, the site has a limited walk−in catchment and does not meet any quantitative or qualitative indentified in the development plan.

Accordingly the planning application must be refused planning permission unless material considerations otherwise indicate that an acceptable departure could be justified.

Material Considerations

8.48 Scottish Planning Policy 2010 (SPP): The SPP (paragraph 45) offers merit to the proposals in terms of potential economic benefits to the area however the localised beneficial effect of the creation of jobs may be neutralised in part by reduced employment levels in existing retail businesses affected by the proposal.

The SPP (paragraphs 62−65) relate to the assessment of retail uses. As discussed above the proposals would not accord fully with SPP as they would conflict with the objectives set out in the development plan. The proposals would have an unacceptable individual impact on the viability of the identified network of centres, has a limited walk−in catchment due to the site's relatively isolated location and would not address any quantitative or qualitative deficiency needs identified in the development plan.

8.49 Consultation Responses: As noted above there was no objection from the Coal Authority, Rathmell Archaeology or SNH, thereby it is agreed that the proposed development would have no impact on archaeology or nationally important ecology resources. NLC Protective Services requirements in terms of ground investigation, noise and lighting impacts could be covered by condition. NLC Greenspace (Biodiversity and Landscape) had no objections subject to conditions. SPT had no objections subject to conditions requiring additional bus stop facilities near and within the site. Scottish Water had no objection subject to conditions requiring an appropriate level of SUDs treatment and the specific improvements to off−site traffic management apparatus and road network improvements requested by NLC Roads could be covered by legal agreement. Detailed site layout requirements in terms of access roads and parking requirements could be covered by condition should planning permission in principle be granted.

8.50 Representations (Support): As noted above there were 80 support representation letters (including letters from Jamie Hepburn MSP, Westfield Community Council and other local community groups) received in support of the proposed development. This reflects locally based views that an additional supermarket development would be beneficial to the local area residents in terms of providing additional competitive shopping opportunities beyond those offered by the town centre based TESCO and ASDA, potential job creation, improvements to the roads network and public transport facilities. Additional supporting comments welcomed the additional petrol station development which may lead to more competition and reduced prices and improvement to amenities in the area.

Whilst the application site may be identified as a "Retail Park" on road direction traffic sign installed on the southern approach road to St Maurices Roundabout, this cannot be used to justify or support the current proposals. Moreover the previous planning permission PA95165 23 for a Food Retail Unit at this location was issued in August 1995 and has now lapsed. Moreover this lapsed permission was considered by a former Planning Authority under the terms of a now superseded development plan and should not be given weight in the determination of this current proposal. The proposed development (if approved) would result in some minor improvements to the local roads network (as set out in the TA and agreed by NLC Roads).

These support representations can be noted however they would not overcome significant concerns over the potential impacts on the network of centres and could not be given sufficient weight to justify an acceptable departure from the terms of the development plan.

8.51 Representations (Objections): As noted above there were 3 letters of objection to the proposed retail and commercial development. The following observations and comments can be taken into account on the terms of objection.

• The proposal description as set out above accurately reflects the scope of the proposed development. As noted the developer requires permission for a range of use classes to cover optional commercial development of the site. • Whilst the application site boundary is slightly larger than the site boundary identified at the earlier pre−application EIA Screening and PAN stages, it is considered that an appropriate level of supporting information has been submitted and that there would be no detriment to the consideration of the planning application details by the Planning Authority or any third party interest. • The impact of the proposed leisure uses were not considered in the Retail Assessment as they do not include any class 1 retail impacts. Nevertheless, these leisure uses were considered under the terms of policy RTC313 (Bad Neighbour Development. • Westway Retail Park was not considered as a potential site for the proposed foodstore as Westway is restricted to a comparison retail role as set out under RTC 1 • It is agreed that the identification of Morrison's as the potential developer of this site should not be given any extra weight. • The criticism of the scope and content of the submitted Retail Assessment can be noted and generally concurs with the planning assessment set out above particularly with the trade draw estimates from outwith the catchment. • Policy HCF 1 Bi is not considered relevant enough to justify any refusal based on impact on existing community facilities as the site has not been developed as a community facility. • Whilst part of the application site is currently included on the Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey, it is agreed that any vacant or derelict land designations should not necessarily infer the site is suitable for this type of development. • Given the relatively remote isolated location it is agreed the proposed commercial development would not integrate successfully within the surrounding area. However it is not agreed this would set a precedent for further developments • It is agreed the non−food class I elements of the proposal could be accommodated within Westway Retail Park in accordance with RTC1 • It is agreed that the proposals are considered contrary to the development plan • It is also agreed the proposal is contrary to SPP as the proposal is not deemed to be a preferable location for a significant retail development. • It is agreed the Network of Centres would be negatively impacted due to the anticipated trade diversion of available expenditure in the catchment. • It is agreed that the proposed uses would have been more acceptable if they were directed towards more appropriate locations. • The proposed development is considered contrary to DSP 2 in respect of its relatively poor accessibility to outlying residential areas and would rely on shoppers using private vehicles to access the proposed development. • Whilst the development plan indicates that there would be no need for the proposed mixed use development, an assessment of potential impact on existing petrol station under policy RTC 3 would not be appropriate as the existing BP filling station at Back o' Hill Roundabout is not included in the centre network schedule.

24 8.52 Following consideration of the representations it can be concluded that whilst the level of local support is understandable as the proposed development may benefit residents in the peripheral neighbourhoods, this would not overcome significant concerns over the impact on the existing centre network. It is therefore considered that the supporting comments, if taken together would not justify an acceptable departure from the terms of the development plan. However the some of the terms of objection can be sustained and concur with the above assessment and conclusion set out below.

9 Conclusions

9.1 Taking into account the foregoing assessment it is considered that the proposed development would represent a significant unacceptable departure from the terms of the development plan. In terms of the Strategic Development Plan, it is considered that the principle of a mixed retail and commercial type development of this scale at this location would not accord with the Spatial Development Strategy and would not accord fully with the SDP Diagram 4 Supply or Demand assessment criteria as discussed above (paragraphs 8.3 to 8.25 inclusive) as the proposed development would represent a new development within an unsustainable location in relationship with the identified Network of Centres. It is therefore considered that the proposal is not supportive of the Spatial Development Strategy within the SDP and as such represents a departure from the development plan in this regard.

9.2 In terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan the proposals are considered to conflict with the outterms−with of policy RTC 1 as it represents a significantly sized unjustified retail development the supported network of centres. The application then fails to meet the terms of policy RTC3 as the scale of the development does not reflect any identified need and it is likely to have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the Network of Centres, and this would have a particularly significant impact on the local neighbourhood centre at Craigmarloch. Whilst the proposed development may result in some minor improvements to the surrounding roads network, including additional bus stops these do not carry sufficient weight to justify a departure from the development plan. The proposals are also considered contrary to the terms of Policies DSP 1 and 2 which seek to control appropriate amounts of development, their location and to support the RTC 1A Centre Network. It is accepted that the proposals would be able to meet the terms of DSP 3 (infrastructure provision) and DSP 4 (quality site design) however this aspect would not outweigh the other policy considerations summarised at paragraph 8.58 above.

9.3 With respect other material considerations it can be noted that the proposals would not accord with Scottish Planning Policy aims as the development would have an unacceptable individual impact on the viability of the protected network of centres, has a limited walk−in catchment area and would not address any identified quantitative or qualitative deficiency in the development plan. Rather the proposed retail element of the development would have a significant impact on the Craigmarloch neighbourhood centre.

9.4 The responses received from internal and external consultees can be noted. Whilst most detailed site design matters could be covered by condition or legal agreement, concurrence on site design issues would not out−weight the contrary nature of the principle of the proposed development.

9.5 Consideration has also been given to the letters of representation received in arriving at this recommendation.

9.6 Drawing all these matters together, it is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

25