Norfh Lanarkshire Council

Transcription

Norfh
Lanarkshire
Council
Planning Applications for consideration
of Planning and Transportation Committee
Committee Date : IIOctober 2007
Ordnance Survey maps reproduced from Ordnance Survey
with permission of HMSO Crown Copyright reserved
APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
1l'h
October 2007
Page
No
4
Application No.
Applicant
DevelopmentlLocus
Recommendation
N/07/01372/FUL
Dr. Ghoshal
Construction of Two
Dwellinghsouses
61 Old Gartloch Road
Gartcosh
Grant
11
C/07/0082O/FUL JWR Holdings Ltd
Erection of 4 Industrial Units Grant
and Vehicle Display Area at Request for Site
Land At Block 1 Piper Road Visit and Hearing
Brownsburn Ind Est Airdrie
19
C/07/01066/FUL
In-Ex Properties
Scotland Ltd
Change of Use from Open
Space to Vehicle Storage
Yard, Erection of Fencing
and Creation of Gated
Access at Block 2
Greenhill Industrial Estate
Coatbridge
24
C/07/01140/FUL
Andrew Morrison
Creation of Parking Area in Grant
Front Garden at 3 Highcross
Avenue, Coatbridge
29
C/O7/01200/FUL
Alan Robertson
Two Storey Rear Extension
to Dwellinghouse at 12
Woodvale Avenue, Airdrie
34
C/07/01335/FUL
Rea Property
Developments
Construction of 14 three
Grant
Storey Flats at Clock Bar, 87
Dundyvan Road, Coatbridge
41
C/07/01525/FUL
Mrs McKeown
Rear Extension to
Dwellinghouse with Raised
Deck and Formation of
Ramped Access at 15
Espieside Crescent
Coatbridge
Grant
47
S/06/00606/FUL
H J Banks & CO Ltd
& Regency Homes
Erection of 153 Flatted
Dwellings
Land to the South of
Park Street and East of
Albert Street, Motherwell
Refuse (P)
Refuse
Grant
Request for Site
Visit and Hearing
56
S/06/02113/FUL
Mr K O'Mara
Land Adjacent To 17
Bellside Road, Bellside,
Cleland
64
S/O7/00288/FUL
Mr & Mrs E
McAllister
Erection of Extension to Side Grant
and Rear of Dwellinghouse
39 May Gardens, Wishaw
Grant
71
S/07/00413/REM Stephen Boyd
Erection of Detached
Dwellinghouse
151/153 Station Road
Shotts
Grant
78
S/07/00591/FUL
W Livingstone Ltd
Erection of Garage
Workshop
34 New Edinburgh Road
Uddingston
Grant
85
S/07/00821/OUT
Morningside
Properties
Use of Land For Business
Use (Class 4) General
Industrial Use (Class 5) and
Distribution I Storage Use
(Class 6)
Land West of Morningside
Road
Morningside, Newmains
Refuse (P)
95
S/O7/00898/FUL
James Campbell
Grant
Siting of Mobile Snack Van
638 Merry Street, Motherwell
100
S/07/01081/REM Prologis
Developments Ltd
Grant
Proposed 4 Unit
Warehouse/Distribution
Development (Class 6) with
Associated Landscaping
Access, Parking and
Servicing Areas
Land South West of Jct 6 M8
Edinburgh Road, Newhouse
108
S/07/01084/REM Prologis
Developments Ltd
Grant
Proposed 6 Unit
Warehouse/Distribution
Development (Class 6) with
Associated Landscaping
Access, Parking and
Servicing Areas
Land South West of Jct 6 M8
Edinburgh Road, Newhouse
116
S/O7/01444/FUL
Refuse
Increase to the Height of
Rear Roof and Creation of a
Flat
Site Visit and
64 West Main Street, Harthill Hearing Requested
Mrs M McNee
S/O6/00606/FUL If granted, refer to Scottish Ministers (Contrary to Policy)
S/07/00821/OUT If granted, refer to Scottish Ministers (Contrary to Policy)
Application No:
N/07/01372/FUL
Date Registered:
15th August 2007
Applicant:
Dr Ghoshal
Gartcosh
G69 8ET
Agent
Seonaid Withey
19 Earl's Hill
Balloch
Cumbernauld
Development:
Construction of Two Dwellinghouses
Location:
Gartcosh
G69 8ET
Ward:
5 - Strathkelvin : Councillors Hogg, McGlinchey, Shaw and Wallace
Grid Reference:
269594667964
File Reference:
N/07/01372/FUL
Site History:
0
0
0
0
0
TP/80/495 - Subdivision of house and outbuildings (in outline)
refused 15 September 1980
TP/87/98 - Erection of 2 dwellings refused 10 June 1987
TP/87/586 - Erection of dwelling granted 8 March 1988
TP/88/403 - Subdivision of site and erection of dwelling granted
9 November 1988
TP/95/76 - Subdivision of dwelling to form two flats granted 27
April 1995
Development Plan:
The site is covered by Policy HG3 (Residential Amenity) of the
Northern Corridor Local Plan 2005
Contrary to Development Plan:
No
Consultations:
Scottish Water
Representations:
2 letters of representation received.
Newspaper Advertisement:
Not Required
(No objections)
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 PRIOR to any works commencing on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the
Planning Authority that the foul drainage can be connected to the public sewer in accordance with
the requirements of Scottish Water. The surface water must be treated in accordance with the
principles of the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern
Ireland published by ClRlA in March 2000.
Reason: To prevent groundwater or surface water contamination in the interests of environmental
and amenity protection.
3.
That before the development hereby permitted starts detailed plans shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Planning Authority showing the access arrangements for the three
houses according with the following requirements of the Council as Roads Authority :-
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
All three connections to the road shall be by means of a 5 metre wide dropped-kerb
vehicular access, leading to a 5 metre wide driveway a minimum of 6 metres long.
In-curtilage parking shall be provided for all three houses at the following rates :- 2 spaces
for 1-2 bedroom houses, 3 spaces for 3-4 bedroom houses and 4 spaces for 5+ bedroom
houses (garages will only count if internal dimensions are 3 metres wide by 6 metres long)
The first 2 metres across the entire width of each of the driveways from behind the footway
/ service verge (but preferably the entire length of driveway) shall be paved to prevent
deleterious material (eg loose chipping’s) being carried on to the public road.
Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, visibility splays of
2.5 metres x 60 metres in both directions shall be provided at each of the driveway’s
connection to the public road into which nothing higher than 1.O metre should be allowed to
encroach. (ie walls, vegetation etc..)
A 2 metre wide footway shall be provided the entire length of the development adjacent to
Old Gartloch Road.
Adequate site drainage shall be installed to ensure that no surface water runs on to the
public road.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and road safety.
4.
That the access details approved under the terms of Condition 3 above shall be implemented on
site before either of the two new houses hereby approved are occupied with the footway upgrade
being completed before the occupation of the first new house.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and road safety
5.
That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped, felled, or otherwise affected,
without the approval in writing of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of the environment and visual amenity of the area
6.
That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance
with British Standard BS 5837 shall be erected along the drip line of the trees, as shown on the
approved plans, and shall not be removed without the approval in writing of the Planning
Authority.
Reason: To protect the mature trees around the boundary of the site
7.
That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the design and location of
all fences and walls to be erected on the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the
Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area.
8.
That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be
used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning
Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved
under the terms of this condition.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area
9.
That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the alterations (including
the timings of the demolition works) to the existing house and garage shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
10.
That the scheme approved under the terms of Condition 9 above shall be implemented in
accordance with approved details and agreed timescales
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 9th August 2007
Letter from Scottish Water received 5 September 2007
Memo from NLC Traffic and Transportation Section dated 3 September 2007
Memo from NLC Pollution Control Section dated received 14 September 2007
Letter from Elaine McFarlane 8, Graham Busby, 78 Old Gartloch Road, Gartcosh, G69 8ET received
16th August 2007.
Letter from Mrs B Macaloney, 55 Old Gartloch Road, Gartcosh, G69 8ET received 20th August 2007.
Northern Corridor Local Plan, 2005
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graeme Lee at 01236 616474
DATE : 27'h September 2007
APPLICATION NO. N/07/01372/FUL
REPORT
1.
Description of Site and Proposal
1. I
The application site includes the existing house and garden ground of 61 Old Gartloch Road,
Gartcosh. The property sits to the south of Old Gartloch Road which is a ‘no-through-road’. To
the rear of the site is the Glasgow to Falkirk rail line. The application site is within an established
residential setting and on a street with a range of property types. There are mature trees along
the rail line boundary and around the boundaries of the triangular area of ground at the western
end of the site.
1.2
The application proposes the partial demolition of part of the existing house and the demolition
of the garage. Two plots are then to be formed on either side of the existing house. To the west
it is proposed that a one-bedroom bungalow will be constructed on a similar building line to the
existing house. To the east it is proposed to construct a two-storey four-bedroom house in a
position set back from the main house and pushed to the rear of the plot. Visually this house will
perhaps relate more to the buildings on the adjacent site.
2.
Development Plan
2. I
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
The site is covered by Policy HG3 (Residential Amenity) of the Northern Corridor Local Plan
2005. This policy seeks to protect established residential areas from inappropriate
developments.
3.
Site History
3.1
There is a long history of applications relating to different development proposals for this
property the most recent being in 1995 for the subdivision of the existing house to form two
flats. There have also been different approvals for the construction of an additional house
within the site (both on the plot to the east of the house, with the proposed house being
positioned immediately adjacent to the existing house).
3.2
In June 1987 a planning application was submitted to Strathkelvin District Council that proposed
alterations to the existing house and seeking outline planning permission for two dwellings
within the site. The proposed house to the west of the existing house was refused because it
was felt that the size and shape of the plot would not permit a development that would be
compatible with the surrounding area; the development would lead to a loss of trees and it
would set an undesirable precedent. The proposed house to the east was approved subject to it
being moved forward on the plot to mirror the building line established by the existing house.
4.
Consultations and Representations
4.1
Scottish Water has advised that it has no objections to the proposed development but point out
there are known constraint issues regarding their networks in this area. A SUDS drainage
scheme is also recommended.
Comment A planning condition can require a SUDS drainage scheme.
4.2
My Traffic and Transportation Section has no objections subject to a condition being imposed
requiring the creation of suitable access driveways and upgrades to the footway.
Comment These issues can be secured by a planning condition.
4.3
My Pollution Control Section recommends that a site survey be carried out because historical
data has shown the presence of potentially contaminated land onhear the site.
Comment This request has been triggered due to the proximity of the site to the railway line.
The line is in a cutting at this point, and given that this development will take place in garden
ground it is not reasonable to require such a survey. The ground conditions will be assessed as
part of the Building Warrant applications.
4.4
Two letters of objection have been received. The points of objection and my comments thereon
are as follows:
Appearance, parking and noise and disruption.
Comment The proposed houses are considered to be acceptable in this location. A small
bungalow to the west of the existing house and a two storey building to the east of the existing
house is considered to be an appropriate form of development. Planning conditions will ensure
that the buildings are constructed in materials sympathetic to the surroundings. The retention of
established trees will also ensure an attractive development. Sufficient parking will be provided
within the grounds of each of the houses. During the construction phase of the development
there will be an impact on amenity but this will be temporary only and not something that would
justify refusing planning permission.
0
Height of house proposed adjacent to 55 Old Gartloch Road will cause overshadowing
Proximity of the house adjacent to 55 Old Gartloch Road will cause loss of privacy and
overlooking
Comment The proposed house lies to the north of the house at 55 Old Gartloch Road. This
fact, combined with the distance between the two (9 metres at the closest point) means that it is
unlikely to cause any overshadowing or loss of sunlight to the existing house. There may be a
slight impact on the garden. Any impact would not be so significant as to justify refusing
planning permission. The positioning of the proposed house and the distance between it and 55
Old Gartloch Road is such that it will have a negligible impact on the amount of daylight
received at this property.
Where houses are directly in alignment there should be 18 metres between the windows of
public rooms. This distance can be reduced where the buildings and the windows are offset and
at an angle to each other. In this instance, the angle between the nearest corner of the house at
55 Old Gratloch Road and the closest corner of the proposed house is 50 degrees. In such
instances, the window to window distance can be reduced to 9 metres. Accordingly, it is not
considered that the new house will have such and impact on privacy as would justify refusing
planning permission.
5.
Planning Assessment and Conclusions
5.1
Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that
planning decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. In this case I am satisfied that the proposed development is
acceptable in planning terms. Circumstances have changed since 1987 when a similar
development was considered by Strathkelvin District Council. The proposed house to the west
of the existing house has been positioned so as to ensure there is no impact on the existing
trees. Although the house to the east is pushed towards the rear of the plot, its positioning is
acceptable and when viewed from Old Gartloch Road will reflect the positioning of the buildings
in the adjacent development.
5.2
The proposed new houses will have more than adequate garden ground and the existing house
will be left with an acceptable garden (all three will be in excess of the minimum standards set
by the Council for open space around new houses). Any overlookinglprivacy issues have been
addressed through the design of the houses and their positioning on the plots. With conditions
to require the retention of existing planting, I am satisfied that the new houses will sit well on the
site.
5.3
Notwithstanding the objections received in respect of this planning application, it is
recommended that permission be granted for the construction of two dwellinghouses at 61 Old
Gartloch Road, Gartcosh.
Application No:
C/O7/00820IFUL
Date Registered:
26th June 2007
Applicant:
JWR Holdings Ltd
52 Southburn Road
Airdrie
ML6 9AD
Agent
Dalziel Design
136 Coursington Road
Motherwell
MLI 1PW
Development:
Erection of 4 Industrial Units and Vehicle Display Area
Location:
Land At Block 1
Piper Road
Brownsburn Ind Est
Airdrie
North Lanarkshire
ML6 9SE
Ward:
11 Airdrie South
Grid Reference:
277176664252
File Reference:
CIPLIAlB771ISMIILR
Councillors Coyle, Curley, Fagan & Love
Site History:
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial Areas) in
the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
No
Consultations:
Scottish Water (comments)
SEPA (no response)
Representations:
Advertised on 4th July 2007
Recommendation:
1.
Approve Subject to the Following Conditions:-
permission.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2.
That the permission granted for the vehicle display area is for the display of vehicles available to
rent from T.0.M Airdrie Itd only.
Planning Application No. C/07/0082O/FUL
Erection of 4 Industrial Units and Vehicle Display Area
Land At 1 Piper Road, Brownsburn Industrial Estate, Airdrie
*
Representations
Representations Received from Monkland Glen Community Council
Calderbank Conservation Society and
South Airdrie Group for Environment and Sport
A
Not to Scale
Reason: To define the permission.
3.
That before the development hereby permitted starts, a scheme of landscaping, including
boundary treatment, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority,
including any modifications as may be required, and it shall include:(a) details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, grass seeding and turfing;
(b) a scheme of tree and shrub planting, incorporating details of the location, number, variety and
size of trees and shrubs to be planted;
(c) an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, plus details of those to be retained, and
measures for their protection in the course of development
(d) details of the phasing of these works.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity
4.
That prior to the occupation of the first industrial unit; within the development hereby permitted, all
planting, seeding, turfing and earth moulding included in the scheme of landscaping and planting,
approved under the terms of condition 3; above, shall be completed; and any trees, shrubs, or
areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased within two years of the
completion of the development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar
size and species.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
5.
Notwithstanding condition 3 above, prior to any works starting on site, a layout and landscaping
scheme including the number of vehicles to be displayed, shall be provided for the vehicle display
area.
Reason: In the interests of visual 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:(a) the proposed landscaped areas approved under the terms of condition 3 above.
(b) the proposed vehicle display area approved under the terms of condition 5 above.
7.
That prior to the occupation of the first industrial unit within the development hereby permitted, the
management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 6 shall be in
operation.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity of the area.
8.
That the following visibility splays, measured from the road channel, shall be provided:
(i) 9.0m by 120m from the junction of Brownsburn Road to the left along A73 Carlisle Road.
(ii) 9.0m by 90m from the junction of Ninian Road to the left along Brownsburn Road.
(iii) 4.5m by 60m from the access in both directions along Ninian Road.
And that before the first unit is occupied 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.
Reasons: To ensure satisfactory visibility in the interest of traffic safety.
9.
That no pedestrian linkage shall be provided from either A73 Carlisle Road or Brownsburn Road.
Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety
10.
That access to the site should be a minimum of 6 m wide and paved for the first 10 metres from
the junction on Ninian Road.
Reason: In the interest of traffic safety
11.
Planning Authority that the drainage arrangements to be provided are to the satisfaction of the
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). Drainage from the following sources must be
connected to the public foul sewer in accordance with the requirements of Scottish Water :a) Domestic sewage;
b) Any trade effluent such as vehicle wash bay drainage; and
c) Drainage from workshop floors and other surfaces which may be prone to contamination
Where applicable, advice contained within the following Pollution Prevention Guidance Notes
should be followed :PPG08 : Storage and Disposal of Used Oils
PPG13 : High Pressure Water & Steam Cleaners
PPGIO : Garages and Vehicle Service Centres.
If surface water arising from non-high risk areas on the site cannot be taken to the public sewer,
then 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.
12.
That before the development hereby permitted starts, a desk top study describing the soil and
ground conditions prevailing over the application site (includingdetails 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.
13.
That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of condition 7
above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. A certificate (signed by a
Chartered Environmental Engineer) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that
any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the Remediation
Strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the site is free of contamination in the interests of the amenity and
wellbeing of future residents.
14.
That PRIOR to any works starting on site, the applicant must confirm in writing to the Planning
Authority that the development can be connected to the waste water network in accordance with
the requirements of Scottish Water.
Reason: To ensure adequate infrastructure provision
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 14th May 2007
Monklands District Local Plan 1991
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000
Memo from Protective Services received 9 July 2007
Memo from Transportation received 30th July 2007
Letter from Scottish Water received 26'h September 2007
Letter from Mr And Mrs A McDougall, 1 Etive Drive, Airdrie, ML6 9QQ received 24th May 2007.
Letter from Dr James E Mclntyre, "Glenesk", Brownsburn Road, Airdrie, ML6 9QG received 24th May
2007.
Letter from Monkland Glen Community Council, Mrs E McEwan (Secretary), 12 Monks Road , Airdrie,
ML6 9QW received 29th May 2007.
Letter from Alastair Miller, South Airdrie Group For Environment And Sport, 68 Monks Road,
Brownsburn, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, ML6 9QF received 27th June 2007.
Letter from Caldrbank Conservation Society, 103 Park Road, Calderbank, Airdrie, North Lanarkshire,
ML6 9TD received 10th July 2007.
Letter from Dr I A Glen, Chairman, Monkland Glen Community Council, 21 Monks Road, Airdrie, ML6
9QW received 19th July 2007.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374
Date: 2"d October 2007
APPLICATION NO. C/07/0082O/FUL
REPORT
1.
1.1
Planning permission is being sought for the erection 4 industrial units and a vehicle display area
at Land adjacent to Unit 1 Piper Road, Brownsburn Industrial Estate.
1.2
The 4 industrial units range in size from 270 sqm to 390 sqm. Unit A has a floor area of 270
sq.m (15m by 18m), Unit B has a floor area of 300 sqm (20 by 1% Unit C 390 sqm (26m by
15m) and Unit D 300sqm (20m by 15m).
1.3
The proposed vehicle display area is to be located to the rear of the existing units adjacent to
the A73. The display area will be used to display rental vehicles of T.0.M Ltd who occupy a site
within the industrial estate and who own the application site. In order to accommodate the
display area some infilling will be required to level a section of the site adjacent to the A73.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The site is zoned as ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial Areas) in the Monklands District Local
Plan 1991. This application raises no strategic issues.
3.
3.1
The Transportation Section was consulted and has not objected to the proposal subject to
conditions. The conditions include the level of parking provision, access width, visibility splays
and that no pedestrian access into the site be permitted from either Carlisle Road or
Brownsburn Road.
3.2
Scottish Water was consulted and does not object to the development, however they have
advised that there are some known waste water network issues which serves the development.
It will therefore be necessary for the developer to ensure that the development will not have any
detrimental impact on the water services that Scottish Water currently provide. The developer
will be required as part of any network upgrading work to provide a solution that would prevent
or mitigate any further impact.
3.3
SEPA was consulted and has not commented
3.4
Following standard neighbour notification procedures 6 letters of representation have been
received. The mains points of concern can be summarised as follows:
(i) Additional traffic. The junction of the industrial estate with Carlisle Road already cannot cope
with the volume of traffic. The proposed Display Area for vehicles on the Carlisle Road would
create a safety hazard.
(ii)The proposed development of four units is overdevelopment.
(iii) The Brownsburn Area is essentially a residential zone.
(iv) JWR holdings already occupy a massive site opposite my home in which they use to display
their second hand commercial vehicles. This is a total eyesore and any attempt to mitigate it
with landscaping has been ignored by the company. The use of the display area for second
hand vehicles will be unsightly.
(v) The Monkland Glen community council has long argued for the removal of this rundown
industrial estate and its replacement with affordable housing. The issue has been raised on
several occasions with NLC Planning Department. This revision in land use would also give the
opportunity for the proper treatment of the slag and colliery waste on which the estate is built.
(vi) The proposal for factory expansion adjacent to a communityhature park, for which sizeable
sums have been allocated by the Scottish Executive, is inappropriate development and
environmentally unacceptable. The place for an industrial estate, which is so motor vehicle
dependent is at a site adjacent to the M8 Corridor as at Eurocentral and not between a
residential area and a communityhature park.
(vii) Reduction of green space is unacceptable and should be prevented.
(viii)Noise and disruption during construction
(ix) The Monkland Glen Community Council have commented on five strategies which the
Scottish Administration has pledged ‘to transform environmental performance and make
Scotland greener’. They comment on the five broad themes, which include placing climate
change at the centre of economic decision making, healthy communities and healthy places,
people and nature, tackling waste and people and landscapes, and relate them to the proposed
development. The site specific issues contained in the letter can be summarised as increased
traffic and road safety, reduction in green space, deterioration in landscaping of the whole
industrial estate and that the industrial estate would be better located elsewhere in the area.
4.
Planninq 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.
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
Policy ECON 2 Existing General Industrial Areas supports the retention of a predominantly
industrial character of the areas indicated on the proposals maps and the continuation of
industrial use where existing industrial premises and or land in these areas redeveloped.
4.4
The 4 industrial units can be accommodated within the site together with associated parking. At
present there are two industrial units on the site with large areas of un-marked hard surfacing
facing onto Piper Road. It is acknowledged that there are some areas of green landscaping
bounding the site at present, however, these are not considered to be areas of high landscape
value. Should permission be granted a condition should be attached requiring the submission
of a landscaping scheme for the development including boundary treatment to ensure some
screening of the site from Brownsburn Road.
4.5
The Transportation Section has advised that 34 spaces should be provided within the site for
the 2 existing industrial units within the site and the 4 proposed units. The plans submitted
show 39 parking spaces. The Transportation Section advised that 12 additional spaces be
provided in association with the vehicle display area. However, the vehicle display area is for
the use of T.0.M Airdrie Ltd who currently occupy an industrial unit on the opposite side of
Ninian Road. It is considered that the vehicle display area will not generate traffic to the
application site and therefore it is not considered appropriate to request an additional 7 spaces.
4.6
The objections raised in the letters of representation are addressed as follows:
It is acknowledged that both the A73 and Brownsburn Road are busy main thoroughfares
and that there is a large volume of traffic which passes through the junction between them.
As discussed above the Transportation Section was consulted and has no objections to the
proposed development.
(ii) The 4 units and adequate parking can be accommodated within the site and therefore it is
not considered overdevelopment.
(iii) The site falls within an area designated as ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial Areas) in
the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 therefore the principle of erecting industrial units is
(i)
acceptable. It is acknowledged that there are residential areas in close proximity.
(iv) Should planning permission be granted a condition requiring the submission of the
landscaping of the display area and a restriction of vehicle numbers would be attached.
There are other vehicle sales areas with displays located on Carlisle Road.
(v) As noted above the application site is within an established industrial area. Any alteration
to the zoning of the wider site would be considered as part of the local plan review process.
Whilst little weight can be given to the consultative North Lanarkshire Draft Local Plan 2007
the application site will fall within an area it designates as an area to protect existing
industrial uses.
(vi) The application site is located within an established industrial estate and is therefore
considered acceptable.
(vii) It is acknowledged that there is some landscaping around the boundaries of the site
however these are not considered as areas of open space. The applicant will be requested
to submit landscaping details, boundary treatment details and details of the proposed
vehicular display area through conditions should permission be granted. This will ensure
that the site will be landscaped.
(viii) Construction noise and general disruption of construction works are not a material planning
consideration and are controlled under separate legislation.
Each of the site
(ix) The five broad themes raised by the Community Council are noted.
specific points have been addressed above.
4.7
In conclusion, due consideration has been given to the points of objection raised in the letters of
representation, nevertheless, no reason was found to uphold these.
The proposals are
considered to accord with the provisions of the Monklands District Local Plan 1991 and, subject
to appropriate conditions, are found to be acceptable. It is therefore recommended that
planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
4.8
Committee is asked to note that an objector has requested that a site visit and hearing be
undertaken prior to any decision being made on this application.
Application No:
C/07/01066/FUL
Date Registered:
12th July 2007
Applicant:
In-Ex Properties Scotland Ltd
Block 2, Green Hill Industrial Estate
Coatbridge
ML5 2AG
Development:
Change of Use from Open Space to Vehicle Storage Yard,
Erection of Fencing and Creation of Gated Access
Location:
Block 2
Greenhill Industrial Estate
Greenhill
Coatbridge
North Lanarkshire
ML5 2AG
Ward:
6 Coatbridge North And Glenboig
Grid Reference:
273316 666265
File Reference:
C/PL/CTG91O/SMI/LR
Site History:
C198/0051O/FUL Part Change of Use of Industrial Unit (Class 4) to
Indoor Market (Sunday Operation Only) including alterations to
building granted 17thJune 1998
Councillors Clarke,
McWilliams, Shields and
Wilson
Development Plan:
The site is designated as ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial
Areas) in the Monklands District Local Plan 1991.
No
Consultations:
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (no objection)
Representations:
No letters of representation received
Advertised on 25thJu17 2007
Recommendation:
Refuse for the Following Reasons:-
Refuse for the reason that the operations would encroach onto an area designed as a landscape buffer
between the industrial estate and Coltswood Road and would have an adverse impact on Coltswood
Cemetery and the amenity of future residents within the approved residential development area to the
west of Coltswood Road in that it would generate unacceptable levels of poor visual amenity, noise, dust
and disturbance.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 19th June 2007
Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 16th August 2007
Memo from The Transportation Section received 14th August 2007
Memo from Protective Services Section received 24th August 2007
Monklands District Local Plan 1991
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Susan Miller at 01236 812374.
Date: 2"' October 2007
APPLICATION NO. C/07/01066/FUL
REPORT
1.
1.1
Planning permission is sought for the change of use from open space to vehicle storage yard at
Block 2, Greenhill Industrial Estate, Coatbridge. The industrial unit is located in Greenhill
Industrial Estate which is well established and is located adjacent to Coltswood Road,
Coatbridge.
1.2
The applicant who operates from within the industrial unit intends to form a hard surfaced yard
to the front of the existing building for the storage of scrap vehicles. This area of approximately
0.77 ha is within the applicant's control, is predominantly grassed but accommodates a tarmac
line of car parking for the building. The grass is untidy and overgrown.
1.3
In order to form the yard the applicant proposes to fence off the site which would require the
stopping up of an estate road which runs through the site to the front and north side of the
existing building.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The site is designated as ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial Area) in the Monklands District
Local Plan 1991.
3.
3.1
SEPA was consulted and has no objection. They advised that the site is already covered by the
existing waste management license.
3.2
The Protective Services Section was consulted and has no objection to the proposal, however,
commented that the development should not give rise to noise nuisance in terms of the section
79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and advised that workers should take health and
safety precautions when carrying out the work and report any unexpected ground conditions
encountered.
3.3
The Transportation Section was consulted and has no objections to the proposal subject to
conditions. The conditions include the retention of car parking provision, visibility splays and
turning facilities. As the estate road forms part of the public road network a stopping up order
would require to be promoted prior to any works being implemented.
3.4
Following standard neighbour notification procedures no letters of representation have been
received.
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 ECON 2 Existing General Industrial Areas contained in the Monklands
District Local Plan 1991,
4.2
Policy ECON 2 supports the retention and continuation of industrial uses unless this is proven to
be impractical. The application site falls within Greenhill Industrial Estate which is listed as an
area for general industrial use within policy ECON 2. As this application seeks the extension of
an existing yard which is ancillary to the industrial use of the premises it is considered that the
proposals are in accordance with policy ECON 2.
4.3
The proposal also involves the erection of fencing and gates to close off the public road which
currently runs through the site. The Transportation Section was consulted and has no
objections to this element of the proposal on the basis that the necessary stopping up order is
promoted.
4.4
There is concern over the potential amenity issue raised by this proposal. While the use is
compatible with the industrial zoning, the area into which the operator is proposing to extend
was an area intended to separate the industrial uses from the adjacent Coltswood Road. While
it is accepted that the area suffers from fly tipping at present, this can be remedied by the
owner. While there is screening by a high hedge, the nature of scrapyard operations means a
potential for noise nuisance through the movement of vehicles by fork lift trucks and crushing
operations. The site is immediately opposite Coltswood Cemetery and the site of the former
Castle Cement Works which is currently being remediated.
4.5
Outline planning permission (C/04/01244/OUT) was granted for a residential development on
the Castle Cement site on Coltswood Road in November 2006. The reserved matters
application (C/07/00934/REM) is currently under consideration. Whilst separated by Coltwood
Road it is considered that the formation of the yard to the front of the building will significantly
diminish the landscape buffer to the industrial estate and will generate noise, dust and
disturbance to the detriment of the future residents of the residential development. It is
considered that this adverse impact on future residential amenity merits the refusal of this
proposal. On this basis it is recommended that planning permission be refused.
Application No:
C/07/01140/FUL
Date Registered:
20th July 2007
Applicant:
Andrew Morrison
3 Highcross Avenue
Coatbridge
ML5 5NT
Development:
Creation of Car
(Retrospective).
Location:
3 Highcross Avenue
Old Monkland
Coatbridge
North Lanarkshire
ML5 5NT
Ward:
9 Coatbridge West
Grid Reference:
271864 663689
File Reference:
CTH00030001JC
Site History:
8
Parking
In
Front
Garden
of
Dwelling
Councillors Smith, Maginnis, Welsh
04/00926/FUL Erection of Shed For Use as Pigeon Loft (In
Retrospect) - Granted 2gthJuly 2004
Development Plan:
Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First
Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG9: Housing Policy
for Existing Residential Areas
No
Consultations:
Representations:
I letter of representation received
Not Required
Recommendation: Grant
Planning Application No. C/07/01140/FUL
Creation of Parking Area in Front Garden
3 Highcross Avenue, Coatbridge
*
Representation
Background Papers:
Letter from M Stirrat, IHighcross Avenue, Old Monkland, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, ML5 5NT
received 25th June 2007.
Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Julie Crichton at 01236 812378.
Date: 2 October 2007
REPORT
I.
1.1
This application relates to a ground floor four in a block dwelling house addressed as 3
Highcross Avenue, Coatbridge which is located within a predominately residential area in the
Old Monkland part of Coatbridge. The property is south facing onto Highcross Avenue and is
bounded to the west by Woodside Street from which access is currently taken to a single
domestic garage located within the rear garden of the application property.
1.2
Permission is being sought, in retrospect, for the creation of a driveway within the front garden
area of the application property. The driveway would utilise the eastern part of the applicant's
front garden area while the western part would be retained as a small amenity grassed area.
The driveway has been formed by two rows of concrete slabs set between stone chips. The
driveway is required to accommodate the existing disabled resident of the property.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The property is assessed on the HG9: Housing policy for Existing Residential Areas of the
adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The proposal raises no strategic issues.
3.
3.1
The Transportation Section has offered no objections to this proposal subject to conditions.
3.2
Following the standard neighbour procedures a letter of objection was subsequently received
and the relevant points of objection are as follows:
a. there is no reason to put a driveway at the front of the property as there is a garage to the
rear of the property which would hold three cars.
b. the provision of the driveway would reduce available on-street parking for adjacent residents
and visitors.
4.
4.1
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 area is covered by policy HG9 which seeks to
retain the residential character of the area while presuming against any development likely to
adversely affect the amenity of the area. In terms of layout the driveway has been constructed
to an acceptable standard and a sufficient level of amenity grassed area has been retained
within the front garden of the applicant's cartilage. From an amenity point of view the proposal
will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties and therefore accords with the
principles of the Local Plan policy.
4.2
In relation to the points of objection raised my observations are as follows:
a. The applicant currently has a concrete garage within his side garden area that is located
directly adjacent to the Woodside Street footway from where it is accessed. Taken the
positioning of the garage there is no provision for vehicle parking in front of the garage.
Notwithstanding this the applicant currently has a disabled parking bay on Highcross
Avenue in front of his property due to his medical condition and taken the obvious
difficulties associated with a disabled person parking a vehicle at the garage location on
Woodside Street then there is clear justification for minimising the walking distance
between the parking facility and the applicant's residence.
b. The Transportation Section has recommended that the applicant's current dedicated
disabled parking space on Highcross Avenue would require to be removed should planning
permission be granted for the in-curtilage driveway. This being so the objectors concerns
over a reduction in available on street parking are not founded.
4.3
Having regard to the above it is considered that there is justification for this driveway both in
terms of satisfying a specific medical need and also that the proposal would not have a
detrimental effect on the amenity either of the application property or the surrounding area.
While the points of objection are noted it is not considered that these merit the refusal of this
application. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the
stated conditions.
Application No:
C/07/01200/FUL
Date Registered:
27th July 2007
Applicant:
Mr Alan Robertson
12 Woodvale Avenue
Airdrie
ML6 8RW
Agent
Mr Mark McHenry
7 Craigvale Crescent
Airdrie
ML6 8EP
Development:
Two Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse
Location:
12 Woodvale Avenue
Airdrie
North Lanarkshire
ML6 8RW
Ward:
11 Airdrie South
Grid Reference:
277481 663769
File Reference:
C/PL/AIW9 10012000/CMN/LR
Site History:
None
Development Plan:
There are no strategic implications and the application will therefore
be considered in relation to Local Plan Policy which is HG9 Housing
Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands District Local
Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B & C September
1996
No
Councillors Coyle, Curley, Fagan & Love
Consultations:
Representations:
2 letters of representation
Not Required
permission.
PlanningApplication No C/07/01200/FUL
Two Storey Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse
N
12 Woodvale Avenue Airdne
Jlr Representations
A 4-
Not to Scale
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.
3.
That the single window from the study on the southwestern gable wall, hereby permitted, shall be
fitted with obscured glass to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and that any replacement
with clear glass shall be subject to the written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure adequate privacy and to protect residential amenity.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 10th July 2007
Letter from Mrs Eleanor Arthur, 14 Woodvale Avenue, Monks Glen Estate, Airdrie, ML6 8RW received
24th July 2007.
Letter from Mr David Arthur, 14 Woodvale Avenue, Monks Glen Estate, Airdrie, ML6 8RW received 24th
July 2007.
Monklands District Local Plan 1991, Including Finalised First Alterations A, B 8, C September 1996
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Christopher McNey at 01236
812375.
Date: 2"dOctober 2007
APPLICATION NO. C/O7/01200/FUL
REPORT
1.
1.1
The property to which this application relates is a two storey detached house and its garden
ground. The building is located within a predominantly residential area. The property is bounded
to the southeast by Woodvale Avenue, to the northeast by an area covered by a tree protection
order and by neighbouring residential properties to the remaining. The house is orientated so
that it faces southeast. It is one of many detached properties within the street. The site has a
side (northeast) paved drive and is on a level neighbouring properties. The external materials
are buff facing brick on the ground floor with Tudor style detailing on the first floor. The roof tiles
are profile red concrete tiles.
1.2
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey extension to the rear
(northwest) elevation of the dwellinghouse at 12 Woodvale Avenue, Airdrie. The proposed
extension would project 4 metres from the rear of the dwelling, and would be 7.16 metres wide
matching the existing dwelling width. The roof would be double pitched and perpendicular to the
existing roofline sloping down to the sides. The maximum height of the apex would be 7.8
metres sloping down to 5.4 metres at the sides. The overall footprint created would be 28.64
square metres. The extension would provide a sitting room and dining room on the ground floor
with two bedrooms on the first floor. There would be two large windows from the first floor with a
large window and patio doors from the sitting room and dining room respectively. There would
be one window created from the first floor of the existing building on the gable facing the
southwestern neighbour and a large window from the kitchen on the ground floor of the
northeastern gable. There would be no changes to the existing car parking arrangements. The
finishing materials proposed would match the existing.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
There are no strategic implications and the application will therefore be considered in relation to
Local Plan Policy which is HG9 Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas in the Monklands
District Local Plan 1991.
3.
3.1
Two letters of objection have been received from the occupants of the property to the southwest
at 14 Woodvale Avenue. The objection can be summarised as follows:
Loss of privacy from gable window
Effect on sale value of objector's property
0
The proposal would prevent the objector from extending in the way they want in the future
4.
4.1
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application
be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations
indicate otherwise. Of particular relevance is the design guidance noted below.
4.2
Policy HG9 of the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991 is of relevance to the
determination of this application. It states that house extensions will generally be permitted so
long as they comply with the Development Control Advice outlined by the District Council.
4.3
The Development Control Advice design guidance for 'House Extensions' is of relevance to the
determination of this application. The advice states that extensions should relate to the scale
and design of the original house and should not affect the amenity of neighbours. It should
integrate into the surroundings by virtue of its scale, form, proportions and materials and it
should not result in any significant loss of daylight, sunlight or privacy to adjoining properties as
a result of overshadowing or overlooking. In the case of an extension its positioning and
proportions should be in keeping with the existing building and should be finished in materials
with colours and textures which complement the existing building and other buildings in the
locality. The guidance also states that side extensions should leave garden ground appropriate
for the size of the house and plot and access to the rear should be maintained.
4.4
In response to the above points of representation;
4.5
Privacy
The concerns about privacy are noted since the proposed study gable window faces directly
onto the gable of the southwestern neighbour. However, it would not look directly onto any
habitable rooms. The gable of the objector includes a small bathroom window on the first floor
and a door on the ground floor. The proposed window would allow light into what is a bedroom
but which would form a study. It may be worth noting that an alteration of this sort done
independently of the extension (i.e. formation of a window) would not normally require formal
planning permission. The northeastern kitchen gable window would be oblique to the
neighbouring property at 10 Woodvale Avenue.
4.6
Value of Neighbouring Property
This is not a material consideration.
4.7
Prevention of Extension to Neighbouring Property
Each application is judged on its own merits against the conditions at the time. It would be
inappropriate to argue that this proposal should be refused so that a future proposal by the
objector would be more likely to be approved.
4.8
In its proposed position the extension would be in the northwestern rear garden of the
applicant's house. By virtue of its size, scale, architectural form and positioning on the rear of
the house the proposed extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the
house or of the character and appearance of the area. The proposed extension would not
constitute an overdevelopment of the house plot as the resultant garden area would be
acceptable. The parking arrangements would be retained and there would continue to be
adequate access to the rear from either side of the house. The external materials proposed
would match those existing on site. Therefore it is considered that this proposal would integrate
satisfactorily with the adjacent properties, and would cause no adverse amenity effects in
relation to sunlightldaylight or privacy and it is recommended permission be granted subject to
the recommended conditions.
Application No:
C/07/01335/FUL
Date Registered:
7th August 2007
Applicant:
REA Property Developments
Hagen Drive
Dalziel Park
Motherwell
MLI 5RZ
Agent
JRP Architects
Anderson House
Dundyvan Road
Coatbridge
ML5 IDB
Development:
Construction of 14 Three Storey Flats with 4 Integral Garages
Location:
Clock Bar
87 Dundyvan Road
Dundyvan
Coatbridge
North Lanarkshire
ML5 1EA
Ward:
9 Coatbridge West
Grid Reference:
272852 664418
File Reference:
C/PL/CTD6860091/IJ/LR
Councillors Smith, Maginnis & Welsh
Site History:
Development Plan:
Alterations A, 6 & C September 1996
Policy ECON 2 (Existing General Industrial Areas)
Yes
Consultations:
SEPA
Scottish Water
British Gas
Scottish Power
Representations:
1 letter of representation.
22"d August 2007
(No objection)
(Comments)
(No objection)
(No objection)
Constructionof 14 Three Storey Flats at Clock Bar
87 Dundyvan Road Coatbridge
Site Area 0.14HA
permission.
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. 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 prior to any works of any description being commenced on site, unless otherwise agreed in
writing with the Planning Authority, full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning 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 that 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 be provided even when discharge is proposed to the public sewers
notwithstanding any conditions imposed by Scottish Water.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the proposed drainage system
complies with the latest SEPA guidance.
5.
That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of condition 4.
above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably
practical. Following the construction of the SUDS, a certificate (signed by a responsible Civil
Engineer) 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.
6.
Notwithstanding the terms of Condition 4. above, a Flood Risk Assessment shall be submitted to
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. For the avoidance of doubt, the
Flood Risk Assessment must take account of Scottish Planning Policy 7 (SPP 7): Planning &
Flooding and Planning Advice Note 69 (PAN 69): Planning & Building Standards Advice on
Flooding.
Reason: In order that the Planning Authority might be satisfied that the proposed development will
not give rise to flooding within the application site and will not increase the flood risk elsewhere.
7.
That any flood mitigation works identified in the Flood Risk Assessment approved in terms of
Condition 6 above shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is
reasonably practical. Following the construction of all the flood mitigation works, a certificate
(signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in flood mitigation) shall be submitted to the
Planning Authority confirming that the flood mitigation works have been constructed in
accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: To ensure that the development site and adjacent land and property will not be
subjected to unacceptable flooding in the interests of public safety and amenity.
8.
That visibility splays of 4.5m by 35m to the left and 4.5m x junction with Dundyvan Road to the
right, measured from the heel of the footway, shall be provided from the proposed site access
along Luggieburn Walk and before the development hereby permitted is completed, or brought
into use, everything exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the footway level shall be removed
from the site line areas and thereafter, nothing exceeding 0.6 metres in height above the footway
level shall be planted, placed, erected, or allowed to grow, within these sight line areas.
Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities
9.
That access to the site shall be via a 5.5 metre wide drop kerb footway crossing arrangement
taken from Luggieglen Walk and the parking court shall be paved for the first 2 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.
10.
That all car parking bays within the parking court shall be 5 metres long by 2.5 metres wide and
accessed via a 6 metre (minimum) wide aisle.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site.
11.
That before the development hereby permitted starts, details of the surface finishes of all parking
and manoeuvring areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail..
12
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;
(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) a detailed schedule for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works being carried
out contemporaneously with the development of the site.
13. That prior to the occupation of any of the flats hereby approved, all works included in the scheme
of landscaping and planting, approved under the terms of condition 12 above, shall be completed
in accordance with the approved schedule, 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 safeguard the residential amenity of the area.
14.
That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance
scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall
include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:(a) the proposed footpaths shown on the approved plans;
(b) the proposed parking areas shown on the approved plans;
(c) the proposed external lighting provided for the area(s) shown on the approved plans;
(d) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas shown on the approved plans;
(f) the proposed fences to be erected along the boundaries marked shown on the approved plans
15.
That prior to the occupation of any of the flats hereby permitted, the management and
maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 14, above shall be in operation.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 30th July 2007
Letter from Scottish Water received 12th September 2007
Letter from British Gas received 27th August 2007
Letter from Scottish Power received 17th August 2007
Letter from Councillor Paul Welsh received 18th August 2007
Memo from Local Plans Section received 5th September 2007
Memo from Transportation received 29th August 2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr lan Johnston at 01236 812382.
Date:3 October 2007
REPORT
1.
DescriDtion of Site and ProDosal
1.I
The application site measures 0.14 hectares and is currently addressed as 87/89 Dundyvan
Road, Coatbridge. The site currently accommodates a large two storey licensed premises with
adjoining single storey bookmakers that both front directly onto Dundyvan Road. The upper
floor of this property is in residential use. The site is bounded to the north by a former railway
line that has been utilised to accommodate a section of the Glasgow to Edinburgh Cyclyepath
(Route 75), to the south by a new housing estate road (Luggiebank Walk), to the west by
Dundyvan road and to the east by the new housing development, Heritage Gate.
1.2
The proposal seeks to redevelop the site, through the demolition of all existing buildings to
accommodate a three storey residential block which will provide 14 individual flatted properties.
The building will be located towards the Dundyvan Road frontage and will provide 4 units on the
ground floor and 5 units on each of the upper floors. All pedestrian entry to the building will be
taken from the rear parking court which will access directly onto Luggieburn Walk near its
junction with Dundyvan Road.
2.
Develocment Plan
2.1
The site is covered by policy ECON 2: Existing General Industrial Areas in the Monklands District
Local Plan 1991. The proposal raises no strategic issues.
3.
3.1
Scottish Power, Scottish Water and British Gas offered no objection to the proposal. SEPA also
offered no objection subject to the standard SUDS requirements being met.
3.2
The Transportation Section raised concerns over the proximity of the site access to the adjacent
junction of Luggieburn Walk and Dundyvan Road and have stipulated conditions that should be
attached to any planning permission given.
3.3
Councillor Welsh has highlighted that the site is near a busy built up area for traffic and that
there should be a sufficient level of parking within the site to accommodate the proposed level
of development.
4.
4.1
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that in making any
determination under the 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.
4.2
The application site is located adjacent to the redeveloped former steelworks (Martins of
Dundyvan) which lay vacant from 1992 following closure and prior to its eventual demolition
and redevelopment for residential purposes. While in terms of the development plan the
application site is located within a larger area (which covered Martins of Dundyvan site)
designated for Industrial purposes under policy ECON 2 of the Monklands District Local Plan
1991, the principle of residential use on the former industrial land has been established by the
granting of outline planning permission for residential development (ref:C/O 1/00566/OUT) in
September 2001. The subsequent “reserved matters” applications (ref:C/03/00244/REM,
C/05/00112/AMD & C/05/01522/FUL) established an acceptable standard of design and layout
for 73 & 68 detached dwellinghouses respectively. While the proposed use for the application
site is contrary to the development plan in terms of its present zoning, that zoning is now
untenable due to the scale of the housing development that has emerged around the application
site. Residential development on the application site is therefore considered acceptable in
principle.
4.3
In terms of design, external finish and visual appearance the proposed layout is considered
acceptable in that a three storey structure as proposed will complement the height of the
adjacent railway bridge, the design on the new build will introduce an attractive feature at a
prominent road frontage and the visual finish is of an acceptable standard. The concerns raised
by the Transportation Section have been addressed by the applicant and appropriate
amendments, including the required levels of parking, have been made to the submission.
4.4
Having regard to the history of the land around the application site in terms of previous planning
permissions, the current submission, while contrary to the Local Plan in policy terms, is
considered acceptable and complementary to the adjacent recent residential developments.
The design and general layout of the new build is also seen as acceptable at this specific
location and no objections have been received against the proposal. I therefore recommend that
planning permission be granted subject to the stated conditions.
Application No:
C/07/01525/FUL
Date Registered:
10th September 2007
Applicant:
Mrs McKeown
15 Espieside Crescent
Coatbridge
ML5 2HJ
Agent
lan Reid
9 Dillarsview
Lesmahagow
ML11 OFD
Development:
Rear Extension to Dwellinghouse with Raised Deck and Formation
of Ramped Access
Location:
15 Espieside Crescent
Espiside
Coatbridge
North Lanarkshire
ML5 2HJ
Ward:
6 Coatbridge North And Glenboig
Grid Reference:
272113665597
Clarke, Shields, Wilson,
McWilliams
File Reference:
Site History:
Development Plan:
Alterations A, B & C September 1996 - Policy HG9:Housing Policy
for Existing Residential Areas.
No
Consultations:
None
Representations:
I letter of representation received.
Not Required
permission.
eM 98 47m
I
I
Planning Application No C/07/01525/FUL
Rear Extension to Dwelllnghouse wlth Raised Deck and Formatlon of
Ramped Access
I S Espleside Crescent, Coatbrtdge
Representation
~r
,I
5"
That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the facing materials
to be used for the external walls and roof of the extension shall match in colour and texture those
of the existing adjoining building.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
That the facing materials on the ramp shall match in colour and texture those of the existing
adjoining buiIding.
Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
That a 2m screen fence be erected along the decking boundary marked blue on the approved
plan prior to the decking being brought into use.
Reason: To ensure the privacy of adjacent residents is retained.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 10th September 2007
Letter from RE/MAX Central Estate Agents, C/o Mr & Mrs Higgins, 18 Main Street, Coatbridge, ML5
3AE received 13th September 2007.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 812231.
REPORT
1.
1.I
The application is for the construction of a rear extension with raised deck and the formation of
a permanent ramped access to dwellinghouse at 15 Espieside Crescent. The property is a
flatted dwellinghouse in a predominantly residential area defined as HG9 in the Monklands
District Local Plan. The site slopes downward in a southern direction. This means that the public
footpath at the front of the property is at a higher level than the foundations of the
dwellinghouse. Furthermore the access door on the East side of the house is 1.4 metres above
the ground level meaning that there is a requirement for steps or similar to reach the door. The
applicant for this development has mobility problems.
1.2
The applicant proposes to construct a permanent ramped access to their raised doorway. At
present there is already a ramped access however is constructed of metal and is unsightly. The
ramp would begin 2 metres in from the public footpath and would slope slightly for 8 metres to a
landing which would be approximately 1.4 metres above the ground level. This landing would be
the accessway to the door into the dwellinghouse. Beyond the landing there will be steps. The
applicant also proposes to erect a raised decking area with porch to the rear of the property
south. This would be accessed via a rear door which is to be created where a rear window is
presently situated. The porch would lead out to a raised deck area. Due to the bottom of the
windows to the rear being 2.4 metres above ground level the decked area would need to be 1.6
metres above the ground. The porch would be 2.8 metres in width and 3 metres in length. The
roof would be 4.6 metres above the ground level, however the porch itself will only be 3 metres
high. The raised deck would be 3 metres in width and 3.2 metres in length. The applicant has
not stated the type of materials that would be used.
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.
2.2
The dwellinghouse is located within an area covered by the HG9 policy of the adopted
Monklands Local Plan. The HG9 policy (Housing Policy for Existing Residential Areas) states
that all planning applications in existing residential areas shall conform to the relevant
Development Control Advice.
2.3
The Monklands District Council design guidance 'house extensions' is also relevant here. It
states that extensions should not affect the amenity of the area and therefore should be similar
in use of materials, scale and design of the original house. The roofing material (of the
extension) should also match as much as possible the existing roof.
3.
3.1
The transportation section was consulted but did not respond
3.2
Following the standard neighbour notification procedure 1 letter of representation was received.
The terms of objection can be summarised as follows:
(a) The ramp prevents them from being able to park a car in the driveway
(b) There is no objection to the structure remaining in place on a temporary basis so that it may
be removed in the event of the owner moving from 15 Espieside Crescent.
(c) The proposed extension would project outwards by 3 metres which will extend into an area
shown in the title deeds as being communal.
(d) The proposed extension would overshadow the garden of 13 Espieside Crescent and
believe this to be a privacy infringement.
4.
4.1
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that the application
be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
4.2
The ramped access is required for this property due to the owner of the dwellinghouse having
mobility problems. This type of structure is required due to the fact that the doorway to the
property is 1.4 metres from ground level and therefore a raised access will be needed to gain
entry to the property from the public footway as, due to the occupants condition, stairs are
inappropriate. Currently a temporary ramped access exists (albeit without the benefit of planning
permission) although it is not aesthetically pleasing and visually detracts from the amenity of the
property. Due to this the replacement of this with a permanent structure would improve the
dwellinghouse visually. Although the affected area limits the space available for side garden
parking as there will only be 2 metres of driveway left, the situation on site will not change from
the current situation. The title deeds provided by the objector clearly show that the replacement
ramp will wholly be within an area owned by the applicant.
4.3
The creation of the rear extension would raise no problems in terms of residential amenity. The
size, scale and design of the proposed extension would not have an adverse affect on the
amenity of the surrounding properties or indeed the general area. Due to the position of the rear
extension in relation to the neighbouring windows there would be no issues with overshadowing
or privacy. The applicant has not stated the type of materials that shall be used although an
appropriate condition on any planning consent shall require these to match those on the existing
property.
4.4
In relation to the grounds of objection, the following comments can be noted:
(a) It is accepted that the provision of a formal driveway (3 metres wide) along the side of the
dwellinghouse would be impractical through the construction of a ramp serving this property.
However, the situation currently exists on site through the presence of a temporary ramp and it
is relevant to note that the side garden area is not wholly under ownership of 13 Espieside
Crescent whereas the ramp has been built on land owned by the applicant. The right to park in
the side garden driveway is in itself a legal issue. The construction of the ramp will still allow
access to the rear garden and will still allow 2 metres for driveway parking. Furthermore, for the
applicant to access their dwellinghouse a structure of some type will be needed as stairs are
unsuitable, thereby inevitably some of the driveway will be obstructed by an access structure.
(b) The objector states that they do not object to the structure if it is only temporary so that it
could be removed when Mrs McKeown moves on. However, the present temporary structure is
unsightly and it is felt that no temporary structure would match the existing property. If Mrs
McKeown was to move, it may be that the next individual may need or prefer a ramp to access
the dwellinghouse. Furthermore, the construction of the proposed ramp does not necessarily
have to be permanent. If needed the proposed ramp could be removed without adversely
affecting the structure of the building.
(c) Although the rear extension shall extend three metres from the building, this will not extend
into the 'communal area' as suggested on the letter of objection. The communal area is more
than three metres from the building at approximately 3.5 metres, therefore there should be no
issue with this.
(d) Although the rear extension will overlook the shared garden, the garden is not a habitable
room and therefore cannot be considered for privacy issues. Furthermore the raised deck area
can be seen as an amenity area in which an individual is entitled to have in their garden. Due to
the size and positioning of the deck and extension there would be no overshadowing effect on
the neighbouring windows. No objections have been raised against the proposal from the
neighbouring properties at 9 & 11 Espieside Crescent.
4.5
in conclusion, having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in
terms of the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The developments scale and appearance
would not adversely affect the amenity of the area. Although the access ramp would cause
some parking issues there is no other workable solution to allow the individual to access their
property and according to the title deeds the neighbour does not own this part of the driveway. It
is therefore recommended that the application be granted subject to the recommended
conditions.
Application No:
S1061006061FUL
Date Registered:
10th April 2006
Applicant:
H J Banks & CO Ltd & Regency Homes
2nd Floor, Block C
Brandon Gate
Hamilton
ML3 6AU
Agent
Graeme Laing
GL Hearn
241 St Vincent Street
Glasgow
G2 5QY
Development:
Erection of 153 Flatted Dwellinghouses
Location:
Land to the South of
Park Street and East of
Albert Street
Motherwell
North Lanarkshire
Ward:
17 Motherwell North: Councillors McAuley, McKenna, Nolan and
Stewart
Grid Reference:
275536656872
File Reference:
SlPLlBFl1 211 1 12115 12125lPWlMM
Site History:
Sites currently in Industrial Use
Development Plan:
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000
Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and
2005)
Yes
Consultations:
Community Services
Education
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Scottish Water
British Gas
Scottish Power
Fire Safety Officer
Railtrack Scotland
Representations:
6 letters of representation received
Advertised on 27th April 2006
(Comments)
(Comments)
(Comments)
(No Objection)
(Comments)
(No Objection)
(No Objection)
(No Objection)
JC
6 Representations in total.
Including 4 from Forgewood
Community Council
3rodUced by
qolth Lanarkshire COunul
+ m m q and Environment Depl
-1erning House
I Tryst Road
3urnbema"M
%7 1JW
e1 01236 616210
ax01236616232
1
ERECTION OF 153 FLATTED DWELLINGHOUSES
I *
LAND TO THE SOUTH OF PARK STREET AND
EAST OF ALBERT STREET
Representatlon
Site Area ( in total ) = 1 16 ha
Recommendation:
1.
The proposed development is contrary to Strategic Policy 9 in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley
Joint Structure Plan 2000 in that there is no shortfall in housing land supply for the area which
would justify the loss of two operational industrial sites.
2.
The proposed development is contrary to Policy IND 8 in the North Lanarkshire Council
Southern Area Local Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as it would result in the
loss of established industrial uses without justification.
3.
The proposed development is contrary to Policy HSG 10 in the North Lanarkshire Council
Southern Area Local Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) as it would result in a substandard development in terms of unacceptable design and an unacceptably low level of
residential amenity for future residents in terms of general amenity as well as amenity relating to
industrial and railway noise pollution.
4.
The proposed development is contrary to Policy TR 13 in the North Lanarkshire Council
Southern Area Local Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005), in that the proposed
access visibility splays are inadequate and the alternatively proposed mini-roundabout accesses
are unsatisfactory and inappropriate at these locations.
5.
The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information, as requested, in order to assess all
aspects of the proposal.
6.
If approved, the application will set an undesirable precedent for other similar proposals to the
detriment of the planning process and the environment.
NOTE TO COMMITTEE
It should be noted that Forgewood Community Council has requested to be heard by Committee prior
to a decision being made.
Furthermore, if the committee is minded to grant, this application will have to be notified to the
Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Notifications of Applications)
(Scotland) Direction 1997 because the proposed development constitutes a significant departure
from the Development Plan.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 10th April 2006
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 28th June 2006
Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 14th August 2006
Memo from Head of Protective Services received 3rd May 2006
Memo from Community Services received 23rd May 2007
Memo from Education received 16th May 2006
Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 30th May 2006
Letter from Scottish Water received 4th May 2006
Letter from British Gas received 25th April 2006
Letter from Scottish Power received 4th May 2006
Letter from Fire Safety Officer received 19th May 2006
Letter from Railtrack Scotland received 10th May 2006
Letters from Gavin Nichol (Forgewood Community Council), 10 Talisman Crescent, Woodville Rise,
Motherwell received 21st, 26th April, 8th May and the 15th September 2006
Letter from William Hook Limited, 110 Park Street, Motherwell, MLI 1PF received 26th April 2006
Letter from Corus received 9th of November 2006
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000
Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Paul Williams at 01698 302091
APPLICATION NO. S/06/00606/FUL
REPORT
1.
1.I
Detailed Planning Permission is sought for the erection of 153 flatted dwellinghouses on two
separate but adjacent sites at Park Street and Albert Street, Motherwell. The applicant proposes
to develop three blocks of flats ranging between 4 and 6 storeys totalling 96 flats on the Park
Street site which is currently occupied by ‘Rivitswade’, an engineering company. Additionally,
the applicant proposes to develop two, three and four storey flatted blocks on the Albert Street
site immediately to the north, a site currently occupied by ‘McLaren Coachworks’ which deals
with car repairs and dismantling.
1.2
The Park Street site covers an area of approximately 0.6 Hectares and currently accommodates
a large steel clad building and brick built offices which comprise the ‘Rivitswade’ engineering
business. The site is relatively flat and is bounded to the southeast by a substantial
industrial/heavy engineering premises, to the south by the main railway line, to the northwest by
‘James Hook’ who specialise in cranes and lifting equipment and to the northeast by Park
Street.
1.3
The Albert Street site also covers an area of approximately 0.6 Hectares. It too is also relatively
flat. It currently accommodates McLaren Coachworks which comprises of a mixture of
dilapidated and derelict ex-industrial buildings used in conjunction with car body repairs and car
breakers use. The site is bounded to the northeast by an area of densely planted trees, to the
northwest by Albert Road, to the south by Dalzell Steel Works and a large steel shed which
covers approximately twice the area of the adjacent application site.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The application should be assessed in terms of Strategic Policy 9 terms of the Glasgow and
Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000.
2.2
Both application sites are zoned as Established Industrial and Business Areas, Policy IND 8 in
the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). This policy states
that the Council will seek to retain the existing character of the Established Industrial Business
Areas by safeguarding existing uses and supporting the development of General Industrial,
Distribution, Storage or Class 4 Business uses where appropriate.
2.3
Other policies appropriate to the assessment of the proposal are HSG 10, (Assessing
Applications for Housing development) and TR 13, (Assessing the Transport implications of
Development).
3.
3.1
Scottish Power, British Gas and Strathclyde Fire Brigade have expressed no objections to the
proposal.
3.2
Network Rail has expressed no objection in principle to the proposal, however has advised that
as Network Rail sold part of the site some years ago, title obligations exist that require the
consent of Network Rail for the erection of any buildings on the land involved.
3.3
Scottish Water has expressed no objections subject to compliance with conditions relating to
the water and wastewater infrastructure problems constraining the development being resolved.
If agreement can be reached on implementation of a suitable mitigation scheme, then a
connection to the water networks will be granted.
3.4
SEPA has expressed concerns regarding the proposal and has advised that additional
information should be provided regarding air quality and to this end, has advised that an Air
Quality Assessment should be carried out. SEPA has also expressed concerns regarding foul
drainage connection to the public sewer in that it should be determined which Waste Water
Works will treat foul drainage in order for capacity issues to be assessed. In this regard SEPA
seeks written confirmation from Scottish Water that connection to the public sewer is available
and if no connection is available then SEPA would object to the proposal. SEPA has also
requested that surface water drainage for the sites is in accordance with the principles of the
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems Design Manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland. SEPA
has also advised that a site investigation should be carried out to assess ground contamination
and identify required remediation measures.
3.5
The Geotechnical Team Leader has indicated that there is insufficient drainage detail available
from the information submitted to make anything other than general comment. He is also
unaware of any incidences of flooding in the vicinity. He has advised that a drainage strategy
should be submitted to allow for detailed assessment in accordance with SUDS.
3.6
The Environmental Health Manager has advised that a detailed site investigation is required in
order to assess levels of contamination on the sites and required remedial measures. He has
also advised that an Industrial Noise Survey should be carried out in accordance with BS 4142
due to the proximity of operation industrial uses adjacent to both sites. Furthermore, he advised
that a railway noise and vibration report is required in relation to the Park Street site. The
Environmental Health Manager has also responded to the submitted noise report saying that
the methodology of the report is satisfactory. However, the only mitigation measure for both
industrial and railway noise is the use of double glazing and with windows partially open, the
recommended criteria in Planning Advice Note 56 (Planning and Noise) (PAN 56) will not be
met. He also explained that residents would be entitled to complain to the Council in such cases
and also that PAN 56 states that ‘residents may reasonably expect to sleep with their windows
open sufficiently to provide adequate ventilation’. The Environmental Health Manager concludes
that he is therefore unable to support the application to construct flatted dwellinghouses
adjacent to this industrial area, on either site.
3.7
The Transportation Team Leader has concluded that the TransportationAssessment as
amended is satisfactory. However he has recommended that the application is refused as
visibility splays of 4.5 metres x 90 metres from both site accesses at Park Street and Albert
Street are required, however, these splays cannot be provided due to obstructions (advertising
hoardings) which are outwith the control of the applicant. No detailed comments on internal
layouts have been provided although the Transportation Team Leader has been involved in
ongoing discussions with the applicant regarding these matters and the possibility of the
improvement of the Park StreeVAlbert Street junction. In this regard, the applicant has
proposed mini-roundabout accesses on Park Street and Albert Street into both sites. The
Transportation Team Leader considers the mini-roundabout accesses to be unsatisfactory and
inappropriate at these roads.
3.8
The Countryside and Landscape Manager has commented on the proposed layouts and has
commented that there is a general lack of detail in the plans and that the proposals are
inadequate in terms of design quality with regards to site layout and landscape/planting
elements. Additionally, it was commented that the proposals were not of a suitable standard for
both sites especially in the context of setting a standard for future development. The
Conservation and Greening Manager had no objections to the proposal subject to compliance
with suggested conditions relating to loss of trees, landscape enhancement, biodiversity,
wastewater management and invasive species. Play Services has recommended that each site
should contain equipped play space of 500 square metres and has provided detailed
specifications.
3.9
The Councils Director of Education has stated that projections show that there is sufficient
capacity within surrounding schools to accommodate the proposal.
3.10
A total of six letters of representation have been received regarding the application. Four from
Forgewood Community Council, one of which contained a request for a Site Visit and Hearing.
3.1 1
The Community Councils objection is on the grounds that there are too many flatted properties
in the Motherwell area, residents would prefer affordable 2/3 bedroomed semi-detached and
detached dwellings, no thought has been given to the socio-economic impact of this kind of
development, anecdotal evidence suggest that many of these flats will end up being sub-let
resulting in absentee landlords and the expansion of new development in the area is putting
additional strain on services and utilities.
3.12
Additionally, Wlliam Hook Ltd, who specialise in cranes and lifting equipment have expressed
serious concerns about the desirability of the proposed development. Their premises are
directly to northwest of the Park Street site. Their concerns are that as the area is entirely
industrial in nature, and as such, residential development is not suitable or appropriate and
would lead to residents making complaints to the Council regarding the operational noise of
their business as well as other adjacent industrial sites including Dalzell Steel Works and Linco
Engineering who have 24 hour operations. William Hook also expressed concern about
additional traffic generation as a result of the proposal and also that account should be taken of
the adjacent railway line which is used for the transport of heavy freight as well as nuclear fuel.
3.13
A further letter has been received from Corus, then owners of the adjacent Dalzell Steel works
who stated that the proposal would conflict with the continuing operations of the steel works site
in terms of operational noise and residential amenity.
4.
4.1
Under the terms of Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 a
planning application must be assessed in terms of the Development Plan unless material
4.2
The development is of a scale that is of strategic significance and requires to be assessed
against the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. Strategic Policy 9
(Assessment of Development Proposals) identifies a set of criteria that development proposals
require to satisfy, and any proposal which fails to meet these criteria will be regarded as a
departure from the development plan then requiring to be justified against the criteria in
Strategic Policy 10. As the sites in question are not brownfield sites, assessment in terms of
housing land supply is applicable. In this regard, there is no projected shortage in housing land
supply within the area which could justify the proposal in strategic terms. Furthermore, no
evidence has been provided that the sites have been unsuccessfully marketed for industrial use
over the last five years. Indeed, it is understood that both sites have been in continuing
industrial use and are currently still operational. The proposal fails to meet the relevant criteria
in Strategic Policy 9 and is a departure from the development plan.
4.3
Thereafter, with regards to this particular proposal, consideration should be given under
Strategic Policy 10 to the appropriateness of the development having regard to a range of
criteria and any other material considerations. It is not considered that a case can be made for
the development under the terms of the relevant parts of Criteria A (Updated supply and
demand estimates, Evidence of a shortfall in existing and planned supply of land for Housing
developments and specific locational need). Therefore such a departure from the development
plan is not justified and the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 10.
4.4
In terms of local plan considerations, the relevant document is the Southern Area Local Plan
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Within this plan, both sites are zoned within
Policy IND 8 (Established Industrial and Business Areas). This policy states that the Council will
seek to retain the existing character of Established Industrial and Business Areas by
safeguarding existing uses and supporting the development of General Industrial, Distribution,
Storage or Class 4 Business Uses where appropriate. The proposed residential development of
two existing industrial sites is therefore contrary to this policy.
4.5
In terms of the location of both sites and the detailed proposals in terms of layout and design of
proposed buildings, the proposal must be assessed and considered under the criteria set out in
Policy HSG 10 (Assessing Applications for Housing Development). This policy states that
consideration should be given to the impact of the development on the existing built and natural
environment, density, layout and mix of housing, building height, positioning, landscaping,
screening, open space, play areas, access and parking amongst other things. The residential
amenity of resultant residents is implicit in this policy. Firstly, in this regard, the applicant has
failed to demonstrate that the noise and air quality that results from adjacent industrial
operations as well as railway noise and vibration will be within acceptable limits in terms of the
resultant residential amenity of future residents. This was confirmed by the Councils
Environmental Health Manager in that the developer has failed to satisfy the terms of Planning
Advice Note 56 (PAN 56), (Planning and Noise).This is because the only mitigation measure for
both industrial and railway noise is the use of double glazing and with windows partially open,
the recommended criteria in PAN 56 will not be met. He also explained that residents would be
entitled to complain to the Council in such cases and also that PAN 56 states that 'residents
may reasonably expect to sleep with their windows open sufficiently to provide adequate
ventilation'. It is therefore considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory in terms of resultant
residential amenity due to the juxtaposition of residential use with industrial uses and the railway
line.
4.6
In design terms, the applicant has submitted amended proposals in draft form for discussion
purposes as a result of numerous written requests to address and resolve outstanding design
issues. The originally submitted proposals were considered to be inappropriate and substandard in terms of scale, height, design and overdevelopment in terms of the number of units
proposed. In terms of the submitted draft amended plans, it is considered that the proposed
flats are too high, ranging from 4 to 6 storeys. Anything above 4-storeys is considered to be
unacceptable. Five and six storeys is wholly unacceptable in design and amenity terms. It is
however considered that a mixture of three and four storey blocks may be acceptable in design
terms, if sensitively designed. It is also considered that the blocks are too linear and horizontal
and as such, present large oppressive blocks in terms of massing with monotonous and
regimented grids of windows. It is considered that the massing needs to be broken up by
providing physical spaces/ vertical breaks between blocks. I also have reservations about the
wholesale use of mono-pitched roofs and would consider that a variety of roof finishes including
more traditional dual pitched should be incorporated. It is noted that the draft revised proposals
improved the element of 'fronting' at these prominent locations, however, it is considered that
more could be made of the corner aspect of the Albert Street site in terms of architectural
features and fronting.
4.7
Consultation responses from the Councils Countryside and Landscape and Conservation and
Greening Managers and Play Services have revealed that the proposals for both sites are
deficient in terms of landscape, open space and play provision.
4.8
it is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy HSG 10 in terms of general
design and residential amenity as discussed above.
4.9
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide additional information required in terms of an
amended Transport Assessment, amended Noise Impact Assessment, Air Quality Assessment
and site investigation reports, which renders detailed assessment of these issues impossible.
4.10
In terms of Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development), the
Transportation Team Leader has recommended that the application be refused, as required
visibility splays cannot be achieved. As previously mentioned, the applicant has proposed miniroundabout accesses into both sites. However, the Transportation Team Leader considers this
to be unsatisfactory and inappropriate at these locations. It is therefore considered that the
proposal is contrary to Policy TR 13 in terms of access.
4.1 1
In terms of consultation responses, it is considered that the issues raised by SEPA and Scottish
Water could be resolved. However, issues relating to landscape value, open space and play
provision could, but have not been, addressed by the developer. In terms of industrial noise
pollution, air quality and railway noise and vibration, the Environmental Health Manager has
confirmed that the proposal is unacceptable, For this reason, it is considered that the concerns
expressed by James Hook Ltd and Corus are valid and a strong material consideration in
assessing the proposal. The concerns of Forgewood Community Council regarding the
proposed flatted development have been noted, particularly with potential regard to impact on
the existing infrastructure, which is a material consideration.
4.12
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Structure Plan Policy SP 9 as
there is no shortfall in housing land supply for the area. The Proposal is also considered to be
contrary to the relevant Southern Area Local Plan policies. Policy IND 8, as it would result in the
loss of operational industrial land with no justification, Policy HSG 10 in terms of design and
residential amenity as discussed above and Policy TR 13. The proposal is also considered to be
premature in the context of the Development Plan and the evolving situation with the
Ravenscraig development. Also, the applicant has failed to provide additional information
required to fully assess the proposal and finally, if approved, this application would set a
dangerous precedent for other similar unacceptable proposals. As such, this application is
recommended for refusal.
4.13
It should be noted that Forgewood Community Council has requested that a site visit and
hearing be conducted prior to a decision being made on the application.
Application No:
S/06/02113/FUL
Date Registered:
18th January 2007
Applicant:
Mr K O'Mara
3 Braid Avenue
Dalziel Park
Motherwell
Agent
lan Keachie
72 North Orchard Street
Motherwell
MLI 3JL
Development:
Construction of Two Dwellinghouses
Location:
Land Adjacent To 17 Bellside Road
Bellside
Cleland
Motherwell
MLI 5NP
Ward:
19 Murdostoun: Councillor Martin, McKendrick, Shelvin and Taggart
Grid Reference:
280642 658386
File Reference:
S/PL/B/4/2/EMLIGF
Site History:
None
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area
Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 & 2005)
Yes
Consultations:
NLC Community Services
Scottish Natural Heritage
Network Rail
Representations:
One letter of representation received
Advertised on 7th February 2007
Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:1.
permission.
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.
Produced by
Nalfh Lanarkshire COunCll
Planning and Environment De01
Fbming House 2 Tryst Road
Currdmrndulri G 6 i i J W
fe1012366i6210
fax 01236 616232
This map is reproduced tiom Ordnance SWVeY
mm me pemissm of Ordnaoce Suwev
M behalf of the Contrdlei of Her Maiestfs
Stat~oncr)Oftice 0 Ciownrapyright UnaUthonFBd
reproducfion nfringescrown copyright and may
lead 10 picisecubon or civil PmBediW5
North LanaikshireCouncil 1030233% ?W
Planning Appllcatlon No S I 0 6 I021 13 I FUL
Constructlon of Two Dwellinghouses
Land Adjacent To 17 Bellside Road Bellside Cleland
Motheiwell
*
Representation
Site Area = 0 05 ha
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.
4.
Notwithstanding condition 3 above, before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of
a front boundary wallhailing along Bellside Road, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by
the Planning Authority. The boundary wall/railing along the frontage of each plot shall thereafter
be constructed prior to the occupation of the house on that plot.
5.
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.
6.
That before the development hereby permitted is commenced; a noise and vibration impact
assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Depending
on the results of the assessment, any remediation required as part of the above report shall be
undertaken and amended plans submitted if required, to be approved in writing by the Planning
Authority prior to the remediation being implemented.
Reason: In the interests of the residential amenity of the future occupants.
7.
That before either of the dwellings hereby permitted are occupied the proposed access hereby
approved shall be formed as a shared 5 metre wide dropped kerb footway crossing and the first
two metres of the driveway shall be finished in an impervious material.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings.
8.
That notwithstanding the plans hereby approved prior to the commencement of development on
site an amended layout including provision for a turning facility to the front of each dwelling and
the widening of the existing footway to 2 metres along the entire frontage of the site shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Before the dwellings hereby
permitted are occupied the footpath widening shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
planning Authority.
Reason: In order to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in the interests of road
safety.
9.
Notwithstanding condition 8 above, all access and turning including the area hatched PURPLE on
the approved plans shall remain communal to both properties and no parking shall take place in
these areas. Furthermore these areas shall thereafter be maintained as communal manoeuvring
areas.
Reason: In order to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear in the interests of
road safety.
10.
That before either house hereby permitted is occupied, all the associated parking and
manoeuvring areas shown approved under the terms of condition ( 8 ) above, shall be levelled,
properly drained, surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing
before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out, and shall, thereafter, be maintained as
parking and manoeuvring areas.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking and turning facilities within the site.
11.
That the low level feature wall/railings proposed along the Bellside Road (southern) boundary of the
application site shall not exceed 1 metre in height.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and in
order that adequate visibility can be achieved.
12.
That before the development hereby permitted starts full existing and proposed cross sections and site
levels shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the
development shall be constructed in accordance with the plans approved under the terms of this
condition unless otherwise agreed in writing beforehand by the Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and the proper planning of this area by ensuring that ground levels
are appropriate for the site and the general area.
13. That notwithstanding the details shown on the plans hereby approved, the front, side and roofs of the
dormers shall be finished in tiles to match the roof of the dwellinghouse.
Reason: In order that the dwellinghouse maintains a traditional appearance, in the interests of the
visual amenity of the area.
14.
That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, a
comprehensive site investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the said
Authority. The investigation must be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, such
as BS 10175: The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites, or CLR 11. The report must include
a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model.
Depending on the results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required as part
of the above report.
Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required in the interests of the
amenity of future residents.
15.
That any remediation works identified by the site investigation report required in terms of
Condition 13 above shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the
first occupation of the dwellinghouses hereby approved. 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 of future
residents.
16. Notwithstanding the submission of the protected species survey, should the development hereby
permitted commence on site more than six months from the date of the original survey a further
updated protected species report including details of any mitigation works should be submitted to
and approved by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development on site. And
any mitigation works required shall be completed before the development starts.
Reason: To ensure that no protected species are present and that any additional remediation
measures (if required) are undertaken prior to commencement of development on site.
17.
That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) (Scotland) Order 1992, no development shall take place within the curtilage of the
dwellinghouse hereby permitted, other than that expressly authorised by this permission.
Reason: To define the permission and to ensure the retention of adequate garden ground.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 18th January 2007 and amended plans received 7th August 2007
Memo from Traffic and Transportation Team Leader (Southern Area) received 21st February 2007
Memo from Head of Protective Services received 9th February 2007
Memo from Community Services received by email 7th March 2007
Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 15th February 2007, and 3rd July 2007
Letter from Network Rail, Buchanan House, 58 Port Dundas Road, Glasgow, G4 OLQ received 9th
January 2007
Protective Species Survey received 14th June 2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Edward McLennaghan at 01698
302137.
Date: 3110/07
REPORT
1.
1.I
Detailed planning permission is sought for the erection of two detached, two storey dwellings on
land at Bellside Road, Cleland. Access to the two sub-plots is proposed via a central double
driveway onto Bellside Road. The application site is located to the north side of the Bellside
Road with an existing railway line and embankment to the rear. The site is comprised of an area
of rough, uneven ground and unknown dumped material which has been in place for some time
with self-sown trees growing out of this waste material. There is a vacant plot to the west of the
proposed site, and a one and a half storey semi-detached sandstone-fronted house with dormer
windows to the east. Directly opposite is a similar vacant plot.
1.2
The original proposal was submitted to committee in March 2007 but continued to allow the
applicant to submit further information.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Structure Plan and can therefore be
assessed in terms of local plan policies.
2.2
The site is covered by Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised
Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3.
3.1
My Traffic and Transportation Team Leader has concerns regarding this proposal and
recommends refusal as the required visibility splays from the proposed accesses onto the
87029 Bellside Road are inadequate.
3.2
My Protective Services Section have requested that a site investigation survey should be
submitted and any necessary remediation work be completed prior to the commencement of
development. Additionally, they have also requested that a noise and vibration impact
assessment should be undertaken in order to assess any possible adverse effects that rail
traffic may have on the development when completed. Furthermore, they have commented that
the construction hours of noise-producing works should be limited and suitable dust measures
put in place.
3.3
NLC Community Services (Landscaping Section) have serious reservations in principle about a
development of this size on this site. They have advised that there is insufficient information to
fully comment on the development details to justify any acceptance of this proposal.
Conservation and Greening Section has no objection to the development on this site provided a
number of conditions and recommendations are incorporated into the development. They
request that a badger survey be completed with advice on mitigation subject to its findings, and
that an ecologist should assess the site for potential bat roosts and, if there is one present, that
a bat emergence survey should be carried out - again with mitigation advice subject to its
findings. Should the proposal be approved, a number of recommendations are listed to enhance
biodiversity on the site, including permeable car parking.
3.4
Scottish Natural Heritage has reserved its position until the submission of a Protected Species
Survey which details the impact of the proposal on bats and badgers. They also indicate the
need for conditions regarding the timing of tree removal.
3.5
Following the neighbour notification and press advertisement, one letter of representation from
Network Rail has been received in relation to this application, and no objections. Network Rail
note a number of standard requirements for any works adjacent to an existing railway line, and
have copied the same letter to the applicantlagent.
4.
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
4.2
The site is covered by Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local Plan, Finalised
Draft (Modified June 2001, 2004 & 2005). The proposal is contrary to the site’s current zoning in
the Local Plan. However, this site is in reality a gap site in an otherwise urban area of Cleland.
Although the application is contrary to Policy ENV 6, the proposed development would not harm
the character or function of the Green Belt at this location...
4.3
The proposal requires to be assessed in terms of Policy HSG 12 (Housing in the Green Belt and
Countryside) as it is located on a site currently zoned within the Green Belt, and this requires
account to be taken of the following criteria: the visual prominence of the site; the compatibility
of the design to a rural location; the incorporation of traditional design features and external
finishing materials, and; the provision made for vehicular access and site drainage. As indicated
at paragraph 4.2 above, the site is a gap site situated amongst other houses on Bellside Road.
It is therefore of more relevance to consider the proposal against policy HSG 10 (Assessing
Applications for Housing Development)
4.4
Policy HSG 10 (Assessing Applications for Housing Development) indicates that the following
criteria should be taken into consideration: the impact of the development on the existing built
and natural environment; detailed design elements such as building height, materials and
positioning; provision of landscaping, screening, open space, and; provision made for roads,
access and parking. Amended plans are acceptable in terms of scale and design, and the
garden area and depth to the rear is considered adequate given the open outlook to the rear.
The use of materials to match the neighbouring properties could be ensured by appropriate
conditions. In terms of landscaping and open space the proposal requires to be assessed
against the Council’s ’Developer’s Guide to Open Space’. The minimum space standards
required for garden areas around new dwellings are a rear garden depth of 10m and a front
garden depth of 6m. The proposal indicates only 7.5m and 9.6m at the longest points for the
rear gardens at Plots 1 & 2 respectively, and only 4Sm to the front for both plots. In this
instance, the application site cannot sufficiently accommodate two dwellings in terms of the
open space requirements. Although most of the houses on this side of Bellside Road, backing
onto the railway line, have less than standard rear gardens this is accommodated by larger side
gardens. In this case, however, the available side gardens would require to be taken up by
parking and turning provision. The amount of garden ground provided therefore falls short of the
minimum standards required. Although there will probably be little impact on the natural
environment as this is a relatively small site, a Protected Species Survey should be submitted
before consent is given. This has not yet been submitted. This will be addressed in relation to
Policy ENV 13 at paragraph 4.6 below. Roads , access and parking will be considered in
relation to Policy TR 13 in paragraph 4.5
4.5
Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development) requires that the
application be considered 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; the provisions made for access, parking and vehicle
manoeuvring. My Transportation Section have noted that the required visibility splays of 2.5m x
120m in both directions compared with the achievable splays of 2.5m x 105m to the west and
2.5m x 63m to the east are inadequate. While noting that they are substandard in terms of the
guidelines it is considered that they are adequate for an urban area with a 30mph speed limit
and it is noted that other properties in the area also have substandard visibility provision.
4.6
Policy ENV 13 indicates that the Council will seek to maintain and enhance the natural
resources of the plan area by the protection of habitats and species which are vulnerable and/or
specifically protected. The habitat surveys have been submitted, which SNH have deemed
acceptable.
4.7
In terms of the consultation response received from my Protective Services Section no noise
assessment has yet been submitted, the requirement for a site investigation report could be
subject to a condition and construction hours and dust can be addressed by advisory notes to
the applicant, should this proposal be granted. The issues raised in the response from Network
Rail may be addressed through the imposition of advisory notes to the applicant. Scottish
Natural Heritage require a Protected Species Survey be submitted under European legislation.
The lack of such a survey would be reason for refusal under Policy ENV 13.
4.8
In conclusion the proposal is unacceptable and would not accord with the criteria stipulated in
Local Plan Policies TR 13, ENV 6, ENV 13, HSG 10 and HSG 12, and the Council’s Open
Space Guidelines. The proposal would set an undesirable precedent, especially in terms of
Policies TR 13, ENV 13 and HSG 10. The applicant has been advised that if he wished the
application to be considered then the plans should be amended to take account of the concerns
detailed above and that the noise and habitat studies must be submitted. To date the applicant
has chosen not to do so. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.
Application No:
S/O7/00288IFUL
Date Registered:
27th February 2007
Applicant:
Mr & Mrs E McAllister
39 May Gardens
Wishaw
ML2 7PB
Agent
Sinclair Hay Sutherland Partnership
9 Kingsknowe Park
Edinburgh
EH14 2JQ
Development:
Erection of Extension to Side and Rear of Dwellinghouse.
Location:
39 May Gardens
Wishaw
ML2 7PB
Ward:
18 Motherwell South East and Ravenscraig: Councillors Vallantine,
Harmon, McKay, Lunny
Grid Reference:
279093655706
File Reference:
S/PL/BF/4/1IGSIGF
Site History:
S/01/01433/FUL 15 Flatted Dwellings and 21 Detached
Dwellinghouses Approved 8.1.2004
S/05/01616/AMD Construction of 19 Flats and Associated Parking
and Landscaping Approved 6.12.2005
SI0610 19 12lAMD Amendment to Consent SI0 1/O 1433lFUL
Comprising Adjustment to Position of Dwellings on Plots 19, 20, 21
and House Types Approved 18.7.2007
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as ENV 6 Green Belt in the Southern Area Local
Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
No
Consultations:
None
Representations:
1 letter of representation received
Not Required
Recommendation:
1.
permission.
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 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.
4.
That before the development hereby permitted is completed, the driveway and parking area shall
be provided within the site, as shown on the approved plans and shall, thereafter, be maintained
as car parking spaces.
5.
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 protect the amenity of the house on the site and the surrounding residential area.
6.
That none of the trees partly or wholly within the site shall be lopped, topped, felled, or otherwise
affected, without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area.
7.
That before the development hereby permitted starts tree protection measures in accordance with
British Standards BS 5837 shall be erected along the drip line of the trees, as shown on the
Authority.
Reason: To protect the area of woodland within the site.
8.
That within one year of the completion of the development hereby permitted, the scheme of tree
planting as shown on the approved plans, shall be completed and any trees which die, are
removed, damaged, or become diseased, within three years of the completion of the
development, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: To protect the woodland within the site.
9.
That no excavations or trenches, for the laying of services or for any other purpose, shall be dug
within the area of ground which lies below the canopy of any of the trees which are, partly or
wholly, within the site, as marked ORANGE on the approved plans.
Reason: To ensure that there is no damage to the existing trees.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 20thFebruary 2007 and amended plans received on 25'h
September 2007
Letter from Brian McCaughey, 40 May Gardens, The Fairways, Wishaw, ML2 7PB received 8'h March
2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081
REPORT
1.
1.I
This application seeks planning permission for the erection of an extension to the side and rear
of 39 May Gardens, Wishaw and conversion of the existing integral garage to a habitable room.
The property is a two storey detached dwellinghouse located in a recently established
residential area on grounds adjacent to Wishaw Golf Course and is bound by dwellings to the
east and south with the golf course to the north and west. The site is flat and there is a line of
trees along the boundary with the golf course.
1.2
The existing garage would be converted into a sitting room. The only external change involved
in the integral garage conversion would be the replacement of the door with facing brick and
windows to match the rest of the property. An additional room would be created on the first floor
of the house by extending above the existing garage. This extension will have a pitched roof
that will tie in with the existing building. A conservatory would be erected to the rear which would
lead out to a double garage. The conservatory will project 5.1 metres to the rear of the building
and will be 3.8 metres in height with a hipped roof. The garage will project 8.5 metres to the side
of the house and would be 7.5 metres in depth and 4.5 metres in height creating an L Shape.
The proposal also contains an area of decking to the rear projecting approximately 5 metres
from the house, 200mm in height and approximately 30 square metres. This is not classed as a
structure under planning legislation and does not require planning permission.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local Plan Policies.
2.2
The site is covered by ENV 6 (Green Belt) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft
(Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). This has been superseded by the original consent and Policy
HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas).
3.
3.1
One letter of objection has been received from the occupant of 40 May Gardens, Wishaw. Their
objections can be summarised as follows:
I.
The scale of the proposal is too large for a plot in a housing estate. If the proposal is approved
then the property will be out of scale with the other properties within the estate and will create an
unattractive imbalance.
The proposed design of the development and materials proposed are not suitable.
The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties within the
estate.
A dangerous precedent will be set within the housing estate if this application is approved.
The proposal will possibly involve the destruction of mature trees that have previously belonged
to Wishaw Golf Club.
II.
...
111.
iv.
V.
4.
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 ENV 6 (Green Belt) but this has been
superseded by the original consent and Policy HSG 8 (Established Housing Areas) applies. The
original consent for the estate is of relevance and must be taken into account in the
determination of this application. Condition 22 of that consent states that nothwithstanding the
provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland)
Order 1992, no development, including buildings, structures, gates, fences, walls or other
means of enclosure, shall be erected within the drip zone of the trees to be retained as shown
hatched green on the approved plans. Therefore policy ENV 10 (Trees and Woodland
Management) is also relevant to this application.
4.2
Policy HSG 8 seeks to protect the established character of existing housing areas by opposing
development that adversely affects their amenity. Applications for extensions in such areas are
acceptable subject to meeting the requirements of Policy HSG 13 (House Extensions).
4.3
Policy HSG 13 sets out various criteria for assessing such applications, including the size,
proportion and position of extensions and the effect on the amount of garden ground retained.
The impact of the proposal in relation to the streetscene is also considered as is effect on
neighbouring properties in relation to privacy, daylightlsunlight as is parking provision and
access. The design details of the extensions are also considered.
4.4
In relation to size, proportion and position, the proposed extension is considered to be
acceptable. The footprint increase is relatively large at approximately 70 square metres.
However, given this is a corner plot at the end of a row of dwellinghouses and taking into
account the larger than normal side garden ground and the L-shape formation of the extension,
I consider that the extension will sit comfortably in relation to the house, the plot and the wider
streetscene. I would acknowledge that the extension is not subservient to the existing
dwellinghouse in terms of footprint however, given the particular characteristics of the site and
proposal, as described above, I do not consider this in itself to merit refusal of the application. I
do not consider the extension to dominate the original dwelling or to be out of scale with the
original building or other buildings in the estate to a level that is unacceptable.
4.5
This property has a large garden area and overall plot size and the proposal will retain an
adequate level of private garden ground.
4.6
With regards to the proposed extension above the existing side garage it should be noted that
there are no windows on the proposed study room that will overlook windows on neighbouring
properties. With regards to the impact on the privacy of the houses to the southeast the
conservatory would be screened sufficiently enough not to cause any significant loss of privacy
for these neighbouring properties. With regards to the effect of the proposal on the daylight and
sunlight on surrounding properties there will be no impact due to the location and orientation of
the extension.
4.7
In relation to the design details and proposed materials the proposal is considered to be in
keeping with the existing dwellinghouse and those around it.
4.8
A further primary issue in the assessment of this application is the impact that the proposal will
have on the tree belt protected by the previous application. Policy ENV 10 (Trees and Woodland
Management) seeks to resist proposals that could adversely affect woodland areas and
promotes the planting of sustainable woodlands at appropriate locations. This proposal will
encroach on to the area of trees which are protected by the original consent and has already
involved the removal of one Silver Birch to accommodate the proposed garage. The council’s
tree specialist carried out an assessment of the status of the trees in the site and confirmed that
four of the trees within the site were dead and that those remaining were all stressed. The four
dead trees were subsequently felled by the applicant and they have included amended plans
that contain planting of 4 replacement trees and have already planted a line of confers along the
boundary with the golf course. The garage has also been relocated outwith the canopy spread
of the nearest existing established tree within the rear garden. It is not considered that the
proposal will be contrary to ENVIO and remains in keeping with the spirit of the restrictive
conditions on the previous consent which will remain valid post development.
4.9
On the grounds of the objections received, the following response is made:
1.
ii.
...
111.
iv.
V
4.10
As indicated in paragraph 4.4 in relation to the size and scale of the proposal I accept that
the extension is relatively large. However, due to the unique characteristics of the
application site such as the non prominent location at the end of a row of houses and Lshape design of the extension, I do not consider it will adversely affect the streetscene,
dominate the original house or create an unattractive imbalance. I also note that the
applicant has reduced the scale of the garage by omitting an upper level.
In respect to the proposed design as indicated in paragraph 4.7 I consider the design to be
in keeping with the existing house and neighbouring properties and the extension would not
look out of place. The applicant has proposed materials that match the existing dwelling and
it is recommended that one condition be attached to ensure that they match and another
that details of the materials are to be submitted for the approval of the Planning Authority.
In relation to the proposal having a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties for the
reasons stated above in paragraphs 4.4 to 4.7 I do not consider that the proposal will result
in a significant loss of residential amenity for the neighbouring houses. The extension will
not have a significant affect on the privacy or SunlighVdaylight received by surrounding
de sac. I
houses and the site is not in a prominent location in the estate at the end of a CUI
consider the visual impact of the extension to be minimal as the conservatory and extension
are to the rear and the only part of the extension clearly visible from the street would be the
garage.
With regards to the proposal setting a dangerous precedent in the area, as discussed
above I consider this proposal to be acceptable therefore there is no potential for a
dangerous precedent to be set. Future planning applications in the area will be assessed on
their own unique circumstances and merits.
W t h respect to the destruction of mature trees on the site as discussed in paragraph 4.8
the trees on this site were assessed by a specialist who confirmed that four were dead and
the others stressed. The applicant has removed the dead trees and has proposed the
planting of four replacements in addition to a line of conifers already planted. The proposed
works have also been relocated outwith the canopy spread of existing trees in the garden. I
do not consider that this proposal in itself will have a significant effect on the existing trees
within the site.
In conclusion I am satisfied that the design and impact of the extension and conservatory are
acceptable from a planning viewpoint and the proposal is therefore in compliance with Local
Plan. Notwithstanding the objections raised by the neighbour and for the reasons stated above,
it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
Application No:
S/07/00413/REM
Date Registered:
21st March 2007
Applicant:
Stephen Boyd
81 Glenshee Gardens
Carluke
ML8 4RR
Development:
Erection of Detached Dwellinghouse
Location:
151I1 53 Station Road
Shotts
ML7 4BQ
Ward:
012 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson
Grid Reference:
287301659887
File Reference:
S/PL/B/17/61/LMU/GF
Site History:
S/06/01681/0UT Erection of Dwellinghouse (Granted 29111/07)
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) within the
2005)
No
Consultations:
None
Representations:
I letter of representation received
Not Required
That the development hereby permitted shall be started no later than 29th November 201 1.
2.
authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved
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.
Produced by
North Lanarkshire Council
Planning and EnvlmnmentDept
Fkming House 2 Tryst R o d
Cuiiheinauld GB7 I J W
tel01236616210
fax 0123a b16232
This map b reproduced from Ordnance SUNey
material vdh the perm1551on d Oidnarrp Suney
on behalf of the COOr(o1leiOf Her MaFSYS
Stat~oneiyOffice 0 C i w o cop+right Unauthorised
ieprductlon nhinges Crown copyright and may
lead to prosecuton or civil proceedings
North Lanarkshire COUnc1I100023%6 3W4
Planning Appllcatlon No S I 0 7 I00413 I REM
Erection of Detached Dwellinghouse
*
1511153 Station Road, Shotts
Representation
4.
That no trees within the application site shall be lopped, topped or felled and no shrubs or
hedges, shall be removed from the application site, without the approval in writing of the Planning
Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to help preserve the character of the area
5.
That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts, tree protection measures in accordance
with British Standard BS 5837 shall be erected along the drip line of the trees, as shown on the
Authority.
Reason: To ensure that trees that are to remain are protected during construction works.
6.
That PRIOR to any works of any description being commenced on the application site, unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, a comprehensive site investigation report
shall be submitted to and for the approval of the said Authority. The investigation must be carried
out in accordance with current best practice advice, such as BS 10175 : 'The Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites' or CLR 11, The report must include a site specific risk
assessment of all relevant pollution linkages and a conceptual site model. Depending on the
results of the investigation, a detailed Remediation Strategy may be required
Reason: To ensure the site is free of contaminants
7.
That any remediation works identified by the site investigation required in terms of Condition 6,
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.
8.
That before any development commences on site written confirmation shall be submitted to the
Planning Authority that site drainage works will be carried out to the satisfaction of Scottish Water
and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and shall comply with appropriate good practice
and design guidance in respect of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and before any dwelling
is occupied written confirmation shall be submitted to the Planning Authority that these works
have been completed to the satisfaction of Scottish Water and SEPA.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and public health in relation to drainage of dwellings,
gardens and all hard surfaces.
9.
That before the development 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 parking and manoeuvring areas.
10 That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is occupied, a 1.8 metre high screen fence shall
be erected along the boundaries marked ORANGE on the approved plans.
Reason: In the interests of privacy and in order to provide a useable area of private garden
ground.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 15th March 2007
Amended plans received lgthJune 2007, 3OlhAugust 2007 and 27thSeptember 2007
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 20th April 2007
Letter from H Gardiner, 153a Station Road, Shotts, ML7 4BQ received 19th April 2007.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Laura Murray at 01698 302134
APPLICATION NO. S1071004131REM
REPORT
1.
1.I
This reserved matters application is for the erection of one dwellinghouse on currently vacant
land to the rear of 151 and 153 Station Road. The site is surrounded by residential properties to
the north, east and west with a private car park to the south at the rear of the site. The existing
buildings at 151 and 153 Station Road have established commercial units on the ground floor
with residential above.
1.2
The proposal is for a two storey, detached dwellinghouse. The proposed dwelling will measure
7.8 metres in height at the highest point of the pitched roof. The dwelling will be located 20.2
metres from the road. Access for this dwelling shall be taken from the existing 5.5 metre wide
dropped kerb arrangement off Station Road.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The site is zoned as Policy HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan,
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3.
3.1
My Transportation Section confirmed they had no objections to this proposal subject to
conditions that a dropped kerb shall be provided along the edge of the carriageway, a heel kerb
be provided over the width of the vehicular access and that the existing pillars at the entrance to
the driveway should be removed or relocated 2 metres from the edge of the carriageway in
order to achieve the required visibility splay of 2.0 metres x 120 metres and to achieve the
required footway width of 2 metres. However, they note that the proposed turning area is
inadequate as it is unlikely a vehicle will be able to turn when at least one of the parking spaces
at the eastern boundary is occupied.
3.2
There has been one objection received by email following the neighbour notification process.
The points of objection can be summarised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The objector was not aware of this site having outline planning consent and was not
notified at the time of this previous application or would have objected at that stage.
The applicant has lopped 3 large mature trees within the site which has had an impact
on the natural environment. The objector also enquired into whether the applicant
gained permission to carry out these works.
The objector confirmed following meeting with the closest 5 neighbours, that none have
received neighbour notification of this development.
This proposal will result in the objector's and surrounding neighbours being overlooked,
overshadowed and will result in an increase in the level of noise.
There is currently a problem with cars being parked on Station Road, the access
required for this development will aggravate this situation.
4.
Planninn Assessment and Conclusions
4.1
The application raises no strategic issues and therefore must be assessed against the relevant
development plan policies of the Southern Area Local Plan. Policies HSG 8 (Established
Housing Areas), HSG 11 (Infill Housing Development) and TR13 (Assessing the Transportation
Implications of Development), together with the Council's Adopted Open Space Guidelines for
minimum spacing requirements around dwellings are relevant to the assessment of this
application.
4.2
The site is zoned as HSG8 (Established Housing Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan,
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policy HSG 8 states that the Council will seek
to protect the established character and amenity of existing and new housing areas. In principle
the use of the site for residential purpose is acceptable, detailed assessment of the impact of
the proposal on the surrounding area is made against policy HSGI 1.
4.3
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Overall impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area,
Dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated garden
ground,
Effect of infill on the garden space, privacy, and sunlight received by surrounding
properties,
Scale, materials, roof heighffpitch and window patterns, and
Provision of vehicular access and parking arrangements.
4.4
In assessing the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area, it
is considered that the proposed development in terms of the overall design, scale, materials
and style is acceptable in this residential setting. The site is predominantly bounded by
residential dwellings which range from 1 and % storey to 2 storey and are finished in a mix of
materials. The applicant proposes to construct a detached, two storey dwelling which is
considered to be in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding residential area.
The proposed layout includes no formal front garden and only a minimal rear garden. However
due to the nature of the site and surrounding land this is acceptable as a garden measuring
10.2 metres in width by 9.6 to 10 metres in length is to be provided to the side of the house.
There will be no privacy issues or detrimental impact to the amount of daylighffsunlight of the
surrounding dwellings as there is a sufficient distance between the existing dwellings and this
proposal. This was confirmed by a sunlighffdaylight quicktest. The dwelling will not directly
overlook any of the surrounding dwellings given its position. It will be located so that it has a
street frontage onto Station Road albeit set back some distance. The dwelling will overlook
Station Road to the front and a car park to the rear. The upper floor bedroom window has been
reduced in size and moved west to ensure there will be no direct overlooking of the upper floor
window of existing property at 153 Station Road. Furthermore, the side ground floor utility room
window and upper level side bedroom window will have an outlook into the applicant's side
driveway and garden only. In terms of location, it is accepted that this site may be considered to
be a backland site however, it is considered that this is acceptable given that the proposed
dwelling is to be located west of the existing buildings ensuring the proposed development will
have an outlook onto Station Road. It is therefore considered that the development can
generally satisfy criteria 1 to 4 of Policy HSG 11. The provision for vehicular access and parking
arrangements are considered in the following paragraph.
4.5
In assessing the transportation implications of a development, Policy TR13 is a material
consideration and states that the Council will take account of various criteria including the
impact of the development on road traffic circulation and road safety and the provision made for
access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. The applicant proposes to access the site via an
existing access way measuring 5.5 metres in width from Station Road. Given my Transportation
Section's comments confirming that the original parking layout was inadequate due to a lack of
sufficient space for turning, an amended layout has been submitted providing sufficient space
for both the existing properties and the proposed to manoeuvre vehicles to and from the site in
forward gear. My Transportation Section have confirmed that this option is now acceptable. All
other matters raised by my Transportation Section can be addressed through the imposition of
planning conditions and as informatives to the applicant. As such, it is therefore considered that
the application complies with Policy TRI 3.
4.6
In relation to the points of objection, I would comment as follows:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
4.7
The objector’s point relating to their not being aware of this site having outline planning
consent and not notified at the time of this previous application is not material to the
consideration of the current application
It is accepted that the applicant did remove some treeslshrubs within the site. However
he has confirmed that he will not remove any further trees and a condition is
recommended to this effect.
The concerns of the objector that 5 of the surrounding neighbouring properties were not
neighbour notified of this development was investigated and found that such neighbours
were not required to be notified. According to the planning application form submitted,
all neighbour notification was carried out correctly.
The concerns that this proposal will result in the objector and surrounding neighbours
being overlooked and overshadowed has been assessed in paragraph 5.4 above. The
issue relating to an increase in the level of noise from this proposal is not a material
planning consideration.
The concern relating to cars being parked on Station Road and the access required for
this development aggravating this situation has been assessed in paragraph 5.5 above.
The proposed access way is from an existing arrangement which is currently used for
the existing building and the applicant has provided for sufficient off-street parking
provision for both the existing and proposed dwelling to ensure there will be no on-street
parking issues and such an arrangement is acceptable to my Transportation Section.
In conclusion, the application complies with Policies HSG 8, HSG 11 and TR13 of the Southern
Area Local Plan, Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in terms of the acceptability of
the design, scale, layout, access and the impact upon the character and amenity of the
neighbouring properties and the proposal is generally in line with the Council’s Adopted Open
Space Guidelines. I therefore recommend that planning permission is granted.
Application No:
Sl07l00591IFUL
Date Registered:
30* April 2007
Applicant:
W Livingstone LTD
Uddingston
G716BS
Agent:
Hypostyle Architects
49 St Vincent Crescent
Glasgow
G3 8NG
Development:
Erection of Garage Workshop
Location:
Uddingston
G716BS
Ward:
15 Mossend and Holytown: Councillors Coyle, Delaney and
McKeown
Grid Reference:
269494661342
File Reference:
SIPLIBI 9132lSMlMM
Site History:
120186 Extension to Car Showroom and Petrol Sales Kiosk
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses)
within the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001,
2004 and 2005)
No
Consultations:
Scottish Water
SEPA
Representations:
1 Representation received
Bellshill Speaker 17th May 2007
Recommendation:
1.
Comments
Comments
Grant Subject to the Following Conditions:-
permission.
2.
That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be
Authority.
A
Produced by
NO^ Lanarkshire Council
Planning and Envlronmm Dept
Flerntng House
2 Try9 Road
Cumbernauld
G67 1JW
fax01236616210
le1
01236 616232
PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I 0 7 /00591/FUL
ERECTION OF GARAGE WORKSHOP
*
34 NEW EDINBURGH ROAD, UDDINGSTON
Representation
3.
That the opening hours of the premises hereby granted planning permission shall be limited to
the hours of 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 8am to Ipm on a Saturday and no noise producing
works on a Sunday or Public Holiday.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
4.
That the design, installation and operation of any air conditioninghentilation or other plant for the
proposed development shall be such that any noise generated, when measured within any
nearby dwelling (with windows open), complies with the requirements of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 and in particular, shall not exceed the equivalent of noise rating curve,
NRC35, between the hours of 7.00am and 8.00pm and Noise Rating Curve (NRC25, at all other
times.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure ventilation proposals are suitable
and acceptable.
5.
That before the commencement of development, a comprehensive site investigation shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in accordance with the British
Standard Code of Practice BS 10175: 2001 "The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated
Sites" and this report shall include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution
linkages. Depending on the results of this investigation,a detailed remediation strategy may be
required. If so, remediation work shall be satisfactorily completed under the terms of the report
to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and once completed verification provided by a
suitably qualified person.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and public health.
6.
That before the development hereby permitted starts, full details of the location and design of
the surface water drainage scheme to be installed within the application site shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and for the avoidance of doubt the scheme
requires to comply with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency principles of Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems and with any requirements of Scottish Water. The scheme shall be
designed to ensure that it does not cause or contribute to the premature operation of consented
storm overflows. Thereafter, once completed, written confirmation, from a chartered engineer,
shall be submitted to the Planning Authority, confirming that the drainage system has been
installed in accordance with the approved scheme. Any change to the site layout as a result of
this scheme will require an amended planning application.
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 in
terms of existing and future developments adjacent to and within the development site
respectively.
7.
That before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, all 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 satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 14th March 2007
Letter from the owner/occupier 43
New Edinburgh Road, Uddingston received 18th April 2007
Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
Memo from Scottish Environmental Protection Agency received 11th June 2007
Memo from Scottish Water received 22nd May 2007
Memo from Transportation Section received 6th June 2007 and 25th September 2007
Memo from Protective Services Team Leader received 21st May and 11th September 2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698
302085.
APPLKAT10N NO.S/07/00591/FUL
REPORT
1.
Description of Site and ProDosal
1.I
This application seeks permission for the erection of a garage workshop at 34 New Edinburgh
Road, Uddingston. The site is presently in use as a car compound associated with the existing
garage workshop, MOT Centre, petrol filling station and car sales currently operating from the
site. The site is bounded to the east by residential properties. Located to the north is an area of
protected open space and residential properties on New Edinburgh Road. To the west of the
development area is the existing garage and associated uses, beyond which is open land.
Open land also lies to the south and beyond this lies the M74 motorway.
1.2
The proposed garage workshop would be used for the spray painting of vehicles. The building
would measure approximately 11 metres by 4 metres and reach a maximum height of 5.6
metres. This would incorporate 3 work bays and a spray booth. An area of dedicated parking
would be located to the front of the site, adjacent to New Edinburgh Road. Access remains as
existing.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
2.2
The site is zoned as a Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the Southern Area Local Plan
3.
3.1
My Transportation Section have no objections to the proposals subject to an amendment to the
parking layout. An amended plan has been submitted satisfactorily resolving this matter.
3.2
Protective Services indicated that due to the close proximity of adjacent dwellinghouses a noise
impact assessment was required. A report was subsequently submitted demonstrating that the
proposal would have no unacceptable impact and this has been confirmed as acceptable. No
other objections are raised subject to conditions requiring the submission of a site investigation
and technical design requirements for ventilation/air conditioning. Points are also raised with
regard to construction noise. Protective Services note that the applicant requires to liase with
SEPA due to the nature of the proposal.
3.3
Scottish Water raise no objection to the application although note that it will be necessary for the
developer to ensure there will be no detrimental impact on current services provided. It is noted
that a separate drainage system will be required and that Scottish Water supports to use of
SUDS. It is also noted that due to the nature of the proposal the applicant may require separate
consent for discharge of trade effluent.
3.4
SEPA raise no objection to the principle of the proposal on the basis that the site is operated
with due regard to SEPA guidance on pollution. Developer responsibilities are highlighted in
respect to waste discharge, oil storage and pollution prevention through construction. SEPA
also highlight that surface water run-off should be connected to the public sewer and seek
written assurance from Scottish Water that the additional flow arising from the development will
not cause or contribute to the premature operation of consented storm overflows.
3.5
One letter of objection was submitted from a residential property at 43 New Edinburgh Road.
The points of objection are summarised as follows:
1) The proposal would result in the loss of a view, specifically by displacing the current natural
environment with the workshop building.
2) The noise impact created by the proposal would be unacceptable. There is currently
already noise coming from the garage and petrol filling station which is further away.
3) The proposal will result in traffic and access issues due to bringing operations closer to
existing dwellinghouses. The objector states that there is currently a difficulty parking near
to their home, as New Edinburgh Road is very tight and busy.
4) The proposal will result in the depreciation of property value.
4.
4.1
The application raises no strategic issues and therefore can be assessed in terms of the Local
Plan Policies. In this instance, the site is zoned as Policy RTL 9 (Other Commercial Areas).
Policies IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development), RTL 11
(Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) and TR 13 (Assessing the Transport
Implications of Development) are also relevant to the consideration of this application.
4.2
Policy RTL 9 indicates that the continuation of existing commercial uses will be accepted by the
Council. The site currently forms part of a wider garage workshop, MOT Centre and car sales
operation and the area of ground in question is presently utilised as a used car compound. It is
therefore considered that the proposal remains in keeping with the spirit of the established use,
albeit more intensified. I therefore consider that the application complies in principle with Policy
RTL 9, subject compliance with policies IND 9, RTL 11 and TR 13.
4.3
Policy IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) details various
assessment criteria including, suitability to the character of the area, design elements and
provisions for servicinglparkinglaccess.
4.4
In terms of the suitability of the proposal in relation to the character of the area, the site is part of
an existing motor vehicle related operation. The land immediately to the north is protected open
space. There is a row of terrace properties to the north east, adjacent to the area of protected
open space. These properties on New Edinburgh Road are raised above the road by 2.5 - 3
metres and located 50 metres from the proposed building. A detached residential property is
located directly to the east, although this is separated by a 2 metre high boundary fence. The
land to the south of the site is classed as green belt containing mature trees, beyond which is
the M74 Motorway. In effect, this is an area characterised by a mix of uses. The building is
smaller in footprint than the existing commercial buildings and is located to the rear the site, as
far back from New Edinburgh Road and the dwellinghouses opposite as possible. A noise
assessment has been carried out which demonstrates that there should be no unreasonable
noise impact on existing residential properties in the vicinity and no other objections have been
received from the Council's Protective Services section or SEPA, subject to conditions. Given
the design and scale of the building is acceptable, I therefore conclude that the proposal will not
detract from the character of the area and would be unlikely to create any significant additional
impact to what is already there.
4.5
Policy RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad Neighbour Development) indicates that in
assessing the development regard should be given to the impact of the proposal upon the
character and amenity of adjoining properties and the surrounding environment, the design
elements of the proposal and the provision of vehicular access, servicing, parking and the
impact of the proposal upon pedestrian safety and traffic circulation. The application site is
zoned for commercial uses and as assessed in paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 above the
application is considered to be acceptable in relation to the character of the area, the impact on
adjoining properties and the surrounding environment and in respect to design elements and
provisions for access, parking and impact upon pedestrian safety and traffic circulation. The
resulting mix of retail and non-retail uses in not relevant to this application. The application
therefore complies with Policy RTL 11.
4.6
Policy TR 13 (Assessing the Transport Implications on Development) indicates that in
determining applications for new development a number of criteria should be taken into
consideration including impact on traffic generation, provision for access and parking, and
provision for access and vehicle manoeuvring. The proposal requires 12 off street parking
spaces and these are indicated within the site. The proposal requires no change to the existing
access to the site and my Transportation Section has no objections. The proposal therefore
complies with the criteria of Policy TR 13.
4.7
Turning to consultation responses, the issues raised by the Transportation and Protective
Services Section have either been resolved prior to the application being put to Committee or
can be covered by planning conditions.
4.8
Similarly, the issues raised by Scottish Water and SEPA can also be covered by planning
conditions or advisory notes to the applicant.
4.9
In response to the letter of objection I would comment as follows:
(1)
(3)
4.10
The issues of loss of view is not a material planning consideration. I would note that the
proposal displaces an existing used car compound and not a natural area of Greenfield
land.
With regards to concerns over noise issues, the proposal site is within an existing
commercial site and the business would operate within the standard operating hours.
The proposal site is also located adjacent to New Edinburgh Road which is a
reasonably busy road and as such creates noise during the daytime periods. A noise
assessment has been carried out which has demonstrated that there will not be an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of nearby residents in relation to noise.
With regard to the concerns over traffic and access issues to the site, the entrance
would not be altered in any way and the proposal incorporates a new area of dedicated
parking. It is considered that the proposal will not have a significant detrimental impact
on the road network nor contribute to any perceived existing parking problems in the
area. No objections were raised by the Transportation Section.
In conclusion, I consider that the proposed workshop is acceptable and complies with Policies
RTL 9 (Other Commercial Areas), IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business
Development), RTL 11 (AssessingApplications for Bad Neighbour Development) and TR 13
(Assessing the Transport Implicationsof Development) of the Southern Area Local Plan
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). I recommend that planning permission be
granted subject to conditions.
Application No:
S/07/00821/OUT
Date Registered:
11th May 2007
Applicant:
Morningside Properties
C/o Hydracrat Ltd
Biggar Road
Cleland
ML1 5PB
Development:
Use of Land For Business Use (Class 4) General Industrial Use
(Class 5) and Distribution I Storage Use (Class 6 )
Location:
Land West Of
Morningside Road
Morningside
Newmains
Wishaw.
Ward:
19 Murdostoun: Councillors Martin, McKendrick, Shevlin and
Taggart
Grid Reference:
282724655615
File Reference:
S/PL/BF/3/79/EM/MM
Site History:
S06/00733/OUT Business Use Class 4, General Industrial Class 5
and StoragelDistribution Class 6 (In Outline) Withdrawn 24'h August
2006.
S/04/01837/FULContinued Use of Railway Siding and Alterations &
Upgrading of Access approved 22"d December 2005.
M/6/93A Disposal of Waste Material and Restoration of Site
approved 30thSeptember 1994.
M/6/92 Formation of Bunds and lnfill Withdrawn gthDecember 1993
M/1/84 Excavation of Clay on Part of Site Granted 1'' October 1986.
59/84 Erection of Industrial Buildings for the Manufacture of Vitrified
Clay Products Approved 13'h July 1984.
M/2/77 Excavation of Coal, Fireclay and Blaes Granted 7'h June
1978.
Development Plan:
The site is zoned for Industrial Uses in the Central Industrial Area
Part Development Plan 1964.
The site is zoned as ENV6 (Green Belt) in the Southern Area Local
Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
Yes
Representations:
Scottish Natural Heritage
(Comments)
Scottish Water
(Comments)
SEPA
(No Response)
2 Letters of Representation Received.
23rdMay 2007
Consultations:
Recommendation:
1.
The proposed development is contrary to Green Belt policy set out in SPP21 (Green Belts),
Strategic Policies 1, 9 and 10 of the approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan
2000, Policy ENV 6 and IND 9 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001,
2004 and 2005) in that it constitutes an industrial and business development in the Green Belt
where there is no justification. Furthermore, approval of this industrial/businessdevelopment
would set an undesirable precedent for other developments within the Green Belt.
2.
The proposed development conflicts with SPPl5 (Planning for Rural Development) and Policies
ENVI and ENV5 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
due to the proposed siting of this commercial development being incongruous in this rural, green
belt, location. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development would have the effect
of removing an important Green Belt buffer between Morningside and Newmains and would set
an undesirable precedent for this type of development.
Note to Committee:
If granted this application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the
Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007 as a significant
departure from the development plan and as it would constitute inappropriate development in the
Green Belt.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 2nd May 2006
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Report submitted 21st August 2007
Noise and Vibration report submitted 21stAugust 2007
Protected Species Survey submitted 21st August 2007
Industrial Land report submitted 21st August 2007
Copy of letters from interested parties, confirming demand Submitted 21stAugust 2007
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 8th June 2007
Memo from Geotechnical Team Leader received 2nd June 2006
Memo from Landscape Services Manager received 24th May 2007 and 30th May 2007
Memo from Protective Services received 23rd May 2007
Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage received 29th May2007
Letter from Scottish Water received 1st June 2007
Letter from SEPA received 11th July 2007
Letter from West of Scotland Archaeology Service received 20th July 2007
SPP7 Planning and Flooding
SPP15 Planning For Rural Development
SPP21 Green Belts
PAN 56 Planning and Noise
PAN 61 Planning and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems
PAN 79 Water and Drainage
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01698
302 137.
AP PLICATI 0N N0.S/07/0082
110UT
REPORT
1.
1.1
The applicant seeks outline planning permission for Business (Class 4), General Industrial
(Class 5) and Storage/Distribution (Class 6) use at land to the west of Morningside Road,
Newmains. The application site comprises approximately 3 hectares and lies adjacent to the
roundabout at Morningside Road and the A71 to the north of Morningside. The site comprises
grassland with areas of hardstanding and is bounded by trees and the Auchter Water to the
northeast, the access and Morningside roundabout to the northwest, open space to the
southwest and a grass embankment to the southeast with housing beyond. The site was
previously used for mineral extraction and has been subject to some restoration.
1.2
Access to the site is available from an existing access track from the Newmains roundabout.
The application site sits below the residential properties of School Road, which are separated
from the site by a fairly steep grass embankment.
1.3
A supporting statement has been submitted on behalf of the applicant outlining the proposed
development, the relevant development plan policies, the wider material considerations and an
assessment of the previous application submitted. The relevant points will be assessed within
Section 4 below. The main points made in support of the application are:
Policies contained within the Development Plan and Scottish Planning Policy support
the proposed development.
The reasons for refusal outlined in the previous application (S/06/00733/OUT) were
flawed and the proposals compare favourably when assessed against development
Plan policy.
The previous uses of the site make it an appropriate site to accommodate small-scale
growth to provide much needed industrial space.
The requested additional information pertaining to Drainage Strategy, Flood Risk
Assessment, Noise Impact Assessment and Protected Species can be accommodated
by suitable conditions and submitted at the reserved matters stage.
The proposed development would help redress the localised reduction in employment
land, a trend contrary to sustainable development principles.
The development can be accommodated in a manner sensitive to the established
character of the area, which sits at the junction of urban and rural North Lanarkshire.
In addition the applicant has provided a further report from Whyte and Barrie outlining
the demand for industrial land within the North Lanarkshire area.
2.
Site History
2.1
The site has a history of permissions relating to mineral extraction. A previous permission for
industrial buildings for the manufacture of vitrified clay products was never implemented. The
site was subject to an application for landfill works and restoration, however, this development
has not yet been completed.
2.2
Planning permission (S/04/01837/FUL) for Continued Use of Railway Siding and Alterations &
upgrading of access was granted on 22"dDecember 2005. The access for the Chapel Rail
Siding runs within the application site and accesses the roundabout at the same point as the
access for this proposed development.
2.3
The committee should note an application (S/06/00653/OUT) by the same company for the
change of use of an existing industrial zoned site to residential use on land at Morningside Road
was approved 1'' March 2007.
2.4
Planning application S/06/00733/0UT for change of use to business use class 4, general
industrial class 5 and storage/distribution class 6 (in outline) was submitted on 15 May 2006
relating to this site but was subsequently withdrawn on 24thAugust 2006.
3.
Development Plan
3.1
Strategic Policy 1 in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000 is applicable in this
case. This poliicy states a presumption against the encroachment of development into the
countryside.
3.2
The site is zoned for Industrial Uses in the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964.
3.3
The site is identified as Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the emerging Southern Area Local Plan
4.
4.1
My Transportation Team Leader has no objection in principle to the proposed development
subject to suitable access, parking and servicing arrangements being provided. However it is
noted that the existing private road currently serves the railway siding and access should be
maintained should this application be granted. Transportation also note that the access which
runs through the application boundary is substandard in terms of road make up and geometry
with no pedestrian facilities and the applicant would be requested to upgrade this access to
adoptable standard. A Transport Assessment has also be requested prior to the grant of
planning consent which the applicant has failed to provide.
4.2
My Landscape Services Manager note the site's position next to the river and question the need
to lose this Green Belt to industriallstorage development. The close proximity of the proposal to
the Auchter water and its associated eco-system is a cause for concern. Very robust protection
would be required during and after the completion of any development. However, protected
species may be present at this site and appropriate surveys are required. They indicate that as
the proposals are lacking in detail they are unable to comment fully. However they recommend
that if permission is granted that conditions be imposed regarding tree protection, landscaping,
a 20 to 30 metre buffer from the burn, protection of existing wildlife, a SUDS drainage scheme
and treatment of invasive species.
4.3
My Geotechnical Team Leader has indicated that topographical information and sections of the
existing ground and river bed levels through the Auchter water should be submitted. An initial
plan of the SUDS elements would also be helpful given that only general information has been
submitted with regard to the SUDS drainage proposals for the site. Should the application
receive consent then the full or reserved matters application should include full details of the
drainage and SUDS system in accordance with PAN 61.
4.4
My Protective Services Section have no objections to the proposed development subject to the
requirement for a Site investigation Report and Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. The
applicant has submitted a noise and vibration impact assessment which Protective Services
have accepted the findings.
4.5
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) reserved its position until a Protected Species Survey was
submitted. Following the submission of this survey, they have no objections to the proposal
subject to the recommendations of the protected species report including the provision of a 30
metre exclusion zone within part of the site. In addition they recommend a condition that no tree
be removed within the bird breeding season.
4.6
Scottish Water has no objection to the proposed application but notes that there is no provision
of a drainage and water scheme to serve the development. Additionally they comment that that
there are no public sewers in the vicinity of the site and it is the applicants responsibilityto
demonstrate that there will not be an impact on Scottish Water’s assets and that suitable water
infrastructure can be put in place to support the development.
4.7
SEPA have requested that a Flood Risk Assessment be submitted. They also note the absence
of a public sewer and recommend that the applicant investigate the possibility of a connection in
accordance with current SEPA policy. They also recommend that a SUDS system be applied to
the development.
4.8
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WDSAS) have indicated the application raises no
known archaeological interests as it has been heavily disturbed in the past.
4.9
Two letters of representation have been submitted objecting to the application, both from the
occupiers of 20 School Road, Morningside. The issues raised may be summarised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Impact on the natural environment and destruction of the Green Belt.
Commercialisation/lndustrialisation of a rural setting.
Noise Impact.
Impact on views of the Green Belt.
Traffic implications of the development.
Detrimental impact on the overall quality of life of the neighbouring properties.
5.
5.1
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
5.2
The application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered
in terms of both the Structure Plan and Local Plans for the area. The site is zoned as Green Belt
in the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000. The relevant policies are
detailed below but can be summarised as follows.
5.3
The relevant policies from the structure plan are Strategic Policy 1 (Strategic Development
Locations); Strategic Policy 9 (Assessment of Development Proposals) and Strategic Policy 10
(Departures from the Structure Plan).
5.4
Strategic Policy 1 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 encroachment of development into the countryside. The proposed
development is located on a green belt site and is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 1.
5.5.
Strategic Policy 9 identifies a set of criteria that development proposals require to satisfy, and
any proposal which fails to meet these criteria will be regarded as a departure from the
development plan then requiring to be justified against the criteria in Strategic Policy 10.
Strategic policy 9 specifies that the location of the development should be appropriate in terms
of the need to; Promote urban regeneration by giving preference to the use of brownfield urban
land rather than greenfield land or open space and safeguarding the Glasgow and Clyde Valley
Green Belt. The proposed development does not satisfy criteria B(ii) (a) giving preference to
the use of brownfield urban land rather than Greenfield land or open space and (b) safeguard
the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Green Belt (Strategic Policy I ) and B(v) to avoid isolated and
sporadic developments in the Green Belt and the wider countryside. The proposal fails to meet
the relevant criteria in Strategic Policy 9 and is a departure from the Development Plan.
5.6
Thereafter, with regards to this particular proposal, consideration should be given under
Strategic Policy 10 to the appropriateness of the development having regard to a range of
criteria and any other material considerations. It is not considered that a case can be made for
the development under the terms of the relevant parts of Criteria A (Updated supply and
demand estimates, Evidence of a shortfall in existing and planned supply of land for Industrial
and Business developments and specific locational need) as the submitted justification for the
development in relation to a shortfall of land supply or specific locational need cannot be
supported and therefore would not justify such a departure from the development plan.
5.7
Similarly, when the development is considered against Criteria B (Economic Benefit, Social
Benefit and Environmental Benefit) it is not considered that a sufficient case can be made for
setting aside the development plan. The applicant has submitted no justification in terms of a
need for inward investment or details of job retention and creation, the capacity for the
development to be absorbed by the existing settlement or the protection or enhancement of
environmental resources. The proposal is therefore contrary to strategic policy 10.
5.8
In the Central Industrial Area Part Development Plan 1964 the application site is within land
zoned for Industrial Uses. Although the proposal accords with this policy given the age of this
document it is considered that the application should be addressed against the Southern Area
Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
5.9
The site is identified as Policy ENV 6 (Green Belt) in the emerging Southern Area Local Plan
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). Policies IND 9 (Assessing Applications for
Industrial and Business Development) ENVI (The Environment), ENV5 (Assessment of
Environmental Impact) and Policy TR13 (Assessing the Transport Implications of Development)
are other material considerations for this application.
5.10
Policy ENV 6 presumes against any development that will affect the character and function of
the Green Belt, other than that directly associated with an appropriate rural use. The proposed
development is not for a rural related use and would harm the character and function of the
Green Belt at this location. In particular it is considered that the proposed development would
have the effect of removing an important Green Belt buffer between Morningside and
Newmains and would set an undesirable precedent for this type of development. The applicant
has submitted a supporting statement but this does not adequately assess business and
industry supply in the area or provide evidence of the demand for industrial and business sites
in the area. The applicant has failed therefore failed to provide any additional justification for the
use of this Green Belt site for business and industrial purposes. The proposed development
does not comply with any of the policy criteria set out in policy ENVG. As no appropriate rural
justification exists the application is clearly contrary to the provisions of this policy.
5.11
Policy IND 9 (Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development) of the Southern
Area Local Plan Finalised Draft outlines the following criteria which should be taken into account
when assessing applications for Business and Industrial Developments. The proposed
development is considered to be contrary to policy IND 9 in that it is not located within an
established industrial and business area and the submitted supporting information does not
adequately assess demand for industrial units in the area. North Lanarkshire Council is
currently conducting a study of Industrial and Business Land Supply. This study is still underway
but the council already has data which shows there is a 20 year supply of industrial and
business land supply in the North Lanarkshire area. In addition there is an abundant supply of
vacant and derelict land within the North Lanarkshire council area in brownfield locations which
could also be utilised for industrial and business use. Therefore, there is no justification to
release a green belt site for an industrial I business use. The conclusion made by the applicant
that there is very little supply in the Newmains area of small industrial units is not borne out. A
section of land on the same road as the proposed development site which was zoned for
industrial and business use has just been redeveloped for housing as a result of lack of
demand. Furthermore the case made in terms of the derelict nature of the site, although not
having been formally restored, has partially regenerated and even in its present condition forms
a valuable Green Belt buffer.
5.12
Policy ENV5 (Assessment of Environmental Impact) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised
Draft is also relevant to the proposal and sets criteria for assessing the environmental impact of
proposed development. These include; suitability of the proposal to the character of the area in
which it is set; the landscape and visual impact of the proposal; the extent of traffic generation,
noise, dust, pollution and flooding risk; the loss of natural habitats and protected species. The
current application does not satisfy the requirements of this policy for reasons, which are
explained further in paragraphs, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.11, 5.14, and 5.18 as the development is
located within a green belt site and provides no justification in support of a departure from the
Development Plan. The application would also result in the loss of an important Green Belt
buffer adversely affecting the landscape of the area. Furthermore the development would result
in an increase of traffic, noise, dust and pollution into a Green Belt area and as such is
considered contrary to policy. Notwithstanding the submission of a protected species survey
and that SNH and NLC Conservation and Greening have not formally objected to the proposals,
the proposed development is considered contrary to the provisions of policy ENV5.
5.13
In assessing the transportation impacts of a development, Policy TRI 3 applies and requires the
impact of associated traffic on the environment and road safety to be assessed, as well as
provision for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring, and the provisions of a Transport
assessment in appropriate circumstances. My Transportation Section has confirmed that they
have no objection in principle but have requested the submission of a Transport Assessment.
The applicant has failed to provide a Transport Assessment and therefore the proposals are
contrary to policy TR13.
5.14
National planning policy, which is relevant to this application, is contained in SPP21 ”Green
Belts”, which states that there will be a strong presumption against inappropriate development in
the green belt. New developments in the green belt must be of a suitable scale and form for the
location and many uses will only be appropriate when the intensity is low. Where a proposed
use would not normally be consistent with green belt designation, exceptionally it may still be
considered appropriate, either as a national priority or to meet an established need. No such
justification has been established and it is therefore considered the application does not meet
the requirements of SPP21 “Green Belts”. Furthermore SPP 15 “Planning For Rural
Development” also states that Green Belts will continue to presume against most new
development and play a key role in maintaining the setting and separation of towns and cities.
Any proposals to release land for development, which is currently designated as Green Belt,
should be part of a longer term strategic policy and set out in the development plan. The
proposed development does not fall within the criteria set out in both SPP21 and SPP15 and as
such is considered contrary to this national planning policy.
5.15
Some of the consultation responses received on this application have indicated that the details
submitted are short of the required detail to offer a complete assessment of the proposals. My
Geotechnical Team Leader’s comments on drainage indicate that should planning consent be
granted suitable conditions should be included to ensure full drainage details for and full or
reserved matters submission. Other detailed points could also be addressed through the
imposition of suitable planning conditions. Landscape Services and SNH have noted that a
protected species survey is required and would have to be approved prior to any grant of
planning consent. The applicant has submitted a protected species survey which SNH have
accepted the findings and the requested stand off zones could be imposed as a condition if
planning permission was granted. Scottish Water’s concerns could also be addressed through
the imposition of suitable planning conditions.
5.16
The letters of representation received objecting to the proposed development are summarised
in paragraph 4.6 above and my responses are as follows:1&2. The point’s regarding the destruction of the Green Belt and
commercialisation/industrialisationof a rural setting is addressed above, in paragraphs
5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.11, 5.14, and 5.18 above. I share their concerns in this respect.
A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted, the findings of which have been
3.
accepted by my Protective Services Section.
4.
Impact on the views of the Green Belt by a property is not a valid planning
consideration.
My Transportation Team Leader has indicated no objection in principle to the proposed
5.
development subject to suitable access, parking and servicing arrangements being
provided and the submission of a Transport Assessment.
6.
The concern regarding the detrimental impact on the overall quality of life of the
neighbouring properties is noted and given the inappropriateness of the development
and loss of a valuable Green Belt buffer the Planning Authority share these concerns.
6.
Conclusion
6.1
Although the applicants have provided industrial supply and demand information in support of
their proposal, the information supplied does not fully explore or assess the issue of available
industrial land in the north Lanarkshire area. In addition it is considered that this Green Belt site
is of sufficient importance as a buffer between the settlements of Morningside and Newmains
that its loss would be unacceptable. Even if a case was made for additional industrial land in this
area it is considered that this particular site would not be appropriate.
6.2
The proposed development is considered to be contrary to both development plan policy and
the relevant national planning guidance and advice. The proposal is an unacceptable
development that would adversely impact upon the character and amenity of the Green Belt and
would set an undesirable precedent for other isolated developments within the Green Belt. In
view of all relevant development plan policies, national planning policy guidance and advice, I
find no justification for this proposed business/industrial development in the Green Belt. It is
therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.
Application No:
S/07/00898/FUL
Date Registered:
25th July 2007
Applicant:
James Campbell
65 Douglasdale Street
Lanark
ML11 9NG
Development:
Location:
638 Merry Street
Motherwell
ML14BP
Ward:
16 Motherwell West: Councillors Kelly, Ross and Valentine
Grid Reference:
276378657865
File Reference:
SIPLIBFI5/4IGSIMM
Site History:
S07/00916/FUL Erection of Protective Screen to Car Wash Pending Consideration
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as RTL 9 (Other Commercial Uses) in the
2005)
No
Consultations:
None
Representations:
2 letters of representation received
Advertised on 3rd August 2007
That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire on the 6'h
September 2008. Renewal of planning permission requires to be achieved by this date of expiry,
otherwise the site shall be fully reinstated to it's previous condition within 2 months from the date
of expiry, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control.
2.
That the opening hours of the snack van, for which planning permission is hereby granted, shall
be between the hours of 6am and 8pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 2pm on Sundays.
Reason: To define the permission and in the interests of amenity.
3.
That the applicant shall provide litter disposal facilities on the site and the site shall be reinstated
to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority within one month of the snack unit being removed.
Produced by
North Lanaikshlre Councll
Pianntng and Environment Dept
Planning Application No S / 07 I00898 I FUL
*
638 Merry Street Mothelwell MLI 4BP
Representation
Reason: To ensure provision of litter disposal facilities and restoration of the site to a satisfactory
standard.
4.
That prior to the development hereby approved commencing, full details of the design and
materials of the snack van shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning
Authority.
Reason: In the interest of amenity.
5.
That no vehicle shall park at any time on the access hatched BLUE on the approved plans.
Reason: To Maintain the access through to the business at the back of the site.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 23rd May 2007
2 Letters from Alex Ross, ABR Roofing Services Ltd, 640 Merry Street, Motherwell, MLI 4BP, received
23rd May and 28th August 2007.
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01698 302081.
Date: 3/10/07
AP PLICAT10N
NO.S/07/00898/F
UL
REPORT
1.
DescriDtion of Site and Proposal
1.I
Planning consent is sought for the siting of a mobile snack van situated in the grounds of the
formal petrol filling station at 638 Merry Street, Motherwell. The application site and other
surrounding land under the ownership of JB Investments contains a mixture of businesses
including an ‘in-out’ hand car wash service, a roofing business to the rear and car sales to the
east. This site is bounded by dwellinghouses to the north and east, opposite and adjacent on
Merry Street with the railway to the west and Ravenscraig development to the south beyond.
1.2
The proposal seeks planning consent for the siting of a mobile snack van providing hot food to
take away. It will measure 6 metres in length and 2 metres in width with an area set aside for
car parking.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
Structure Plan 2000 and can therefore be assessed against Local plan Policies.
2.2
The site is covered by Policy RTL 9 Other Commercial Uses of the Southern Area Local Plan
3.
3.1
My Transportation Team Leader has offered no objections to the proposed development subject
to conditions.
3.2
One letter of objection was received from the owners of 640 Merry Street, Motherwell. Their
I.
The forecourt of the car wash is already busy and this fronts the access to ABR Roofing
and the K R Tuning Yard. Access to these businesses is already problematic due to
heavy traffic along the A723 at present. The parking facilities within the site are
inadequate and vehicles, especially lorries will be forced to park on the main road to
obtain snacks and this will make access to 640 Merry Street more difficult as it will
reduce sightlines.
II.
The amended plan submitted appears to show a one way system in place, which is not
the case.
4.
4.1
Planning Applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material
2004 and 2005) is relevant, where the site is zoned as RTL 9 Other Commercial Uses.
4.2
Policy RTL 9 indicates that particular regard should be given to the potential compatibility of
proposals within this area with surrounding land uses and that proposed new uses will be
considered in light of other policies contained within the Local Plan. In principle, given the mix of
uses currently operating on this site a snack van is considered to be generally compatible,
subject to meeting the requirements of Policy RTL 11 (Assessing Applications for Bad
Neighbour Development).
4.3
Policy RTL 11 requires that consideration must be accorded to the impact of the proposal on
the character and amenity of the area, detailed design elements and the provisions made for
access, parking, servicing as well as the impact on pedestrian safety and traffic circulation. The
proposed snack van is not positioned in a particularly prominent location between the railway
and car wash business and is located to the rear of the site set back from Merry Street,
approximately 40 metres away from the nearest residential dwelling. As the surrounding uses
on the site are predominantly commercial and industrial it is considered that the snack van
provides an additional catering facility in the area which complements the nature of its
surroundings. Given its proposed position, the van can blend in visually within the mixed use
site and as such the impact on the amenity of the site is considered minimal. Furthermore given
the nature of the site, traffic already regularly passes through the car wash and for the local
businesses and taking into account distance from the nearest houses it is not considered that
there will be any significant detrimental impact in comparison to the existing situation. I would
recommend conditions, in the interests of amenity, granting only a temporary consent in order to
gauge the situation, limiting the opening hours of the snack van and requiring the provision of
litter facilities. I also propose a condition to have final details of the design and finish of the
snack van to be submitted for approval. Subject to these conditions, it is considered that the
proposal complies with Policy RTL 11.
4.4
In assessing the transport implications of development, Policy TRI 3 applies, as does the latter
criterion of Policy RTLI 1. Policy TRI 3 assesses the proposals against various transportation
criteria the relevant ones of which are (1) the level of traffic generated and its impact on the
environment and the adjoining land uses, (2) impact of the development on road traffic
circulation and road safety, (3) provisions made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring.
In relation to the original proposal my Transportation Department raised no objections subject to
one condition that the snack van should be located in a position that discourages on-street
parking, further to the rear of the site. The plans have since been amended to a position that is
considered acceptable in relation to road safety. The amended position is also preferable in
terms of the amenity of dwellinghouses opposite on Merry Street.
4.5
On the grounds of the objection raised, I would comment as follows:
4.6
i.
In relation to the traffic impact as indicated in paragraph 4.3 there is a regular flow of traffic
passing through the site at present and the it is not considered that the proposal will have a
significant impact on the amenity of the area. As detailed above in 4.4 it is considered that
the amended location of the proposed snack van will discourage on-street parking at Merry
Street and based on the recommendation of my Traffic and Transportation Team Leader I
consider the proposal to accord with Policy TR13 and the latter criterion RTLI 1 of the Local
Plan.
ii.
With regard to the one way system as shown on the plans I agree that this is not accurate.
In conclusion, I consider that in view of the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding
land uses, the proposed snack van complies with the relevant development plan policies
contained in the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). It is
therefore recommended that planning permission be granted.
Application No:
S/07/01081/REM
Date Registered:
20th June 2007
Applicant:
Prologis Developments Ltd
1 Monkspath Hall Road
Solihull
West Midlands
B90 4FY
Agent
Turley Associates
Glasgow
G2 5UB
Development:
4 Unit Warehouse/Distribution Development (Class 6) with
Associated Landscaping, Access, Parking and Servicing Areas
(Reserved Matters for Application S/06/01922/OUT)
Location:
Land South West Of Jct 6 M8
Edinburgh Road
Newhouse
Ward:
McKeown
Grid Reference:
278929661580
File Reference:
S/PL/B/6/67/AM/MM
Site History:
S/99/0101I/OUT - Erection of Mixed Use Commercial Development
Including Storage and Distribution Depots, Hotel and Leisure
Development and a Fast Food Outlet with Associated Road Works
and Landscaping, granted 4 October 2001.
S/01/00138/REM - Alterations to Roundabout at A73/A775 Junction
and Construction of Two Roundabouts on A775, Granted 4 October
2001.
S/03/00297/FUL Construction of Access Road and Roundabout
granted 9 May 2003.
S/06/01922/OUT 24 hour Operational Class 6 Storage/Distribution
Development of 102,000 square metres in floor area (In Outline)
granted 19'h April 2007.
S/06/01934/FUL Enabling Works Comprising Site Remediation,
Regrading of Land, Site Drainage, Provision of Car Park,
Landscaping and Associated Works granted lgthApril 2007.
S/07/01084/REM 6 Unit Warehouse/Distribution Development
(Class 6) with Associated Landscaping, Access, Parking and
Servicing Areas (Reserved Matters for Application S/06/01922/OUT)
pending decision.
*
/
I
Pmduced by
Nollh LanarkshireCouncil
flannmg and EnvlmnrnenlDe@
Flerning HOUSW
2 Tryst Road
CumbernauM.
G071JW
A/
I
PLANNING APPLICATION No. S I07 I01081 I REM
4 UNIT WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT
( CLASS 6 ) WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING,
ACCESS,PARKING AND SERVICING AREAS
( RESERVED MATTERS FOR APPLICATION
S I 0 6 I 0 1922 I OUT ).
LAND SOUTH WEST OF JUNCTION 6, M8 I EDINBURGH
ROAD, NEWHOUSE.
tel01236616210
fax 01236 616232
3 Representations in total.
Representation
Site Area = 21.13 ha.
Development Plan:
2005) zoned as INDl ‘Industrial and Business Development
Opportunities’ and IND8 ‘Established Industrial and Business Areas’
No
Consultations:
Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objection
Scottish Water
No objection
Representations:
One letter of representation received.
Not Required
Recommendation:
1.
That the development hereby permitted shall be started no later than 19 April 2012
Reason: To accord with the outline permission.
2.
That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme as detailed in the report by RPS Burks
Green dated June 2007 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far
as is reasonably practical and shall be completed before the last unit is brought into use. 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
3.
The developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works, detailed in the report by
Firat Archaeological Services dated 20 June 2007, is fully implemented and that all recording and
recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction
of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.
Reason: To ensure that adequate archaeological investigations are carried out and recorded, in
the interests of the history of the site.
4.
That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, shall be completed in
accordance with the approved plans, contemporaneouslywith the development of the units with
due regard to planting seasons, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed,
damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the last unit within the
size and species.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the site and the general area
5.
include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the proposed footpaths,
parking areas, external lighting, grassed, planted and landscaped areas shown on the approved
plans.
6.
That BEFORE occupation of the first unit within the development hereby permitted, the
management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 5 above shall be
in operation.
Reason: To ensure proper maintenance of the area.
7.
8.
That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland)
Order 1997, the permitted change of use from Class 6 to Class 4 is hereby removed.
Reason: To ensure that the storage/distribution warehouse(s) may not become offices, as by
reasons of increased car trips being generated, this would be detrimental to the environment with
adverse implications for the road network.
9.
That the building shown as Plot 2 on the approved plans shall not be used or occupied until the
roundabout annotated as Roundabout C on the approved ‘Proposed Master Plan’ drawing is
constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To comply with the terms of the Section 75 and to ensure satisfactory access
arrangements to the eastern part of the site.
10.
That no materials shall be stored on the site external to the buildings such that they are visible
from the A8, M8, A73 or A775
11.
That before any of the buildings on Plots 1, 3 or 4 are occupied, plans shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the planning authority, showing details of additional bus stops to be
provided on the A775 at a suitable location at the south western end of the development, subject
to the approval of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Planning Authority, the eastbound stop should include the provision of a layby and the westbound
stop should include an area of hardstanding and provision of a section of footway along the
southern kerbline of the A775, Edinburgh Road, all to the specification of the Roads Authority and
to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. In addition, bus shelters shall be provided at the
existing and proposed bus stops on A775 Edinburgh Road with appropriate facilities provided for
timetable information. The above facilities shall be provided before occupation of any of the
buildings on the site.
Reason: To improve accessibility to and attractiveness of public transport in accordance with the
recommendations of the Travel Plan.
12.
That the measures stated in Chapter 4 of the Travel Plan produced by JMP Consulting dated
June 2007 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development as far as practical.
Reason: To improve accessibility to public transport users.
13.
That should 6 months or more elapse between the completion of the remedial works consented
under application ref. 06/01934/REM and the construction of the warehouses on any plots on the
site (vis plots 1, 2 and 314) a further ecological survey shall be undertaken on the site to
determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, particularly for bats (between the
periods of April to August), and badgers, the said survey and details of any mitigation measures
proposed shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before
any development commences on the site or relevant plots. Any mitigation measures shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority before construction starts on the site or
relevant plots.
Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Amendment
(Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
Background Papers:
Travel Plan dated 11 June 2007
Drainage Design Philosophy dated June 2007
Flood Risk Assessment dated February 2007
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 17th September 2007
Memos from Geotechnical Team Leader received 15th August 2007 and 2!jth September 2007
Memo from Landscape Services Manager received 6th July 2007
Letter from Scottish Water received 13th July 2007
Letters from Scottish Power received 25thJune 2007 and 14thSeptember 2007
Letters from Mr & Mrs G Muir, 4 Pollockshill, Newhouse, MLI 5SY received 1lth
July 2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alistair Maclean at 01698 302093.
Date: 28 September 2007
APPLICATION NO. S/07/01081/REM
REPORT
1.
1.1
This reserved matters application is for Class 6 Storage/Distribution Use at land south west of
Junction 6 of the A8/M8, off Edinburgh Road, Newhouse. The approved site remediation works
are underway at present.
1.2
The site measures 23 hectares and is bound to the north by the A8/M8; to the east by the A73
beyond which is open fields; to the south by a petrol filling station, Newhouse Hotel and
residential properties; and to the west by undeveloped fields beyond which lies Newhouse
Industrial Estate.
1.3
This application involves the construction of four units of varying sizes accessed from two
roundabouts off Edinburgh Road. The western 3 units, plots 1, 3 and 4, will be accessed from
the existing roundabout on the A775, Edinburgh Road. Plot 2 will be accessed from a new
roundabout on Edinburgh Road, to the west of the Newhouse Hotel. This roundabout was
granted consent in 2001 (ref. S/OI/OO138/REM) and is currently under construction. The four
units will give a total floorspace of 93,126sq.m. All buildings will be finished with colour coated
profile sheeting. The roof style has been designed to keep the buildings relatively low in relation
to the size of the units. The development will be known as ‘Link Park’.
1.4
This application is for the same site and same type of development as application ref.
S/06/01084/REM but differs only in the amount of units and the internal layout of the eastern
side of the development.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The application raises no strategic issues as Newhouse is identified on Schedule 5b of the
Approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 as a ‘Strategic Industrial and
Business Location’. As such the application can be considered on the basis of Local Plan
policies.
2.2
The adopted Northern Area Local Plan mainly zones the site as E l ‘Green Belt‘, E2 ‘Urban
Fringe‘, and E3 ‘Improvement of Derelict and Underused Land Within the Green Belt‘.
However, the south western corner is zoned as 12 ‘Established Industrial Areas’, 14 ‘Industrial
Land Supply‘ and 15 ’Wholesale Distribution Depots’.
2.3
The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) provides more
contemporary policy guidance and mainly zones the site as INDl ‘Industrial and Business
Development Opportunities’. It is also partly zoned as IND8 ‘Established Industrial and Business
Areas’.
3.
3.1
Scottish Power objected as it has apparatus in the area and there was no indication whether the
development would affect that apparatus. The developers have now cleared up the issue and
Scottish Power has withdrawn the objection.
3.2
Scottish Water has indicated there is sufficient capacity within the Water Network to serve the
development. While there are wastewater infrastructure problems Scottish Water are in
consultation with the developer for mitigation, including a SUDS scheme, which would allow
connection to their network. SEPA is satisfied that the flood risk assessment is acceptable.
Their only concern is the diversion of the watercourse which requires authorisation from SEPA.
The Geotechnical Section raised a number of detailed points with regard to the Drainage
Design Philosophy and Flood Risk Assessment. The developers have responded to the points
raised and Geotechnical has confirmed that the proposals are acceptable subject to conditions.
3.3
Transport Scotland has confirmed that it is content with the proposals. The Transportation
Team Leader recommended that additional bus stops be provided at a suitable location towards
the western end of the development including the provision of a layby on the eastbound
carriageway and hardstanding and footway on the southbound carriageway, subject to approval
by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, The roads internal to the site are not designed to
adoptable standards thus will not be adopted.
3.4
At the Outline application stage (ref. S/06/01922/OUT), Scottish Natural Heritage and the
Landscape Services Manager confirmed that they were satisfied with the proposed perimeter
planting regime for the site and welcomed the study undertaken advocating its professional and
comprehensive nature. An ecological survey was undertaken to establish the existence of
protected species within the site, under the enabling works application (ref. S/06/01934/FUL).
Further details have been provided within this application and the Landscape Services Manager
is generally satisfied with the proposals but suggested that sitting out areas be provided and that
footpaths be set back from the access roads in some areas.
3.5
Following neighbour notification procedures, 3 letters of representation were received from an
adjoining resident. The concerns raised can be summarised as follows:1
2
3
having lived at Newhouse for over 60 years, the proposed development would affect
their way of life, the value of their house and environment; the type of development
proposed would create commercial traffic which will cause extra noise from braking and
accelerating necessitated by accessing the roundabout, and with the provision of 3
roundabouts in such close proximity would cause traffic to build up causing more noise
and pollution from exhaust fumes; the type of development proposed would result in
traffic leaving day and night and would not allow them to open doors or windows as
fumes and noise would invade their home; their daily lives would be disrupted during
the construction stage with no reprieve from traffic noise and fumes; the type of
buildings proposed would be very close to their home and would be extremely invasive.
Whilst they are aware that they’re not entitled to a view, they do not wish to have these
large buildings in their faces day and night;
the provision of the new roundabout on the A775 appears to start directly from the
entrance and egress from their property, which in itself could cause a traffic hazard due
to the close proximity of the roundabout to their driveway; and
the developer is breaching time conditions by working outwith their stated hours.
4.
4.1
While the adopted Northern Area Local Plan mainly zones the site within Green Belt and
associated policies, this is a reserved matters application and the principle of warehouse
distribution use has been established by the previous planning approvals.
4.2
The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) mainly zones the
site as INDl ‘Industrial and Business Development Opportunities’. A small part of the site is
zoned as IND8 ‘Established Industrial and Business Areas’. The development accords with both
of these policies.
4.3
Policy IND9 ‘Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development’ lists the criteria to
be taken into account in assessing such applications and includes: the suitability of the proposal
to the character of the area within which it is set; access to public transport infrastructure and
the effect on travel patterns; detailed design elements such as building height, materials and
positioning; provisions made for landscaping screening, fencing and security; and provisions
made for servicing, access, vehicle circulation, manoeuvring and parking. Outline consent has
been granted on the site for a 24 hour Operational Class 6 StoragelDistribution Development.
The site fronts a main road with a bus stop located at the south eastern corner of the site. The
layout of the buildings within the site is acceptable. All buildings will be finished with colour
coated profile sheeting. The roof style has been designed to keep the buildings relatively low in
relation to the size of the units. The landscaping includes perimeter planting to screen the
development and internal landscaping to link and complement the perimeter scheme thereby
attaining a high amenity setting for the resulting buildings which is important on this site given its
visual prominence from several vantage points, particularly the A8/M8 corridor. Transportation
matters are dealt with in para. 4.4 below. Overall, the proposal complies with policy IND9.
4.4
Policy TR13 ‘Assessing the Transport Implications of Development‘ requires account to be
taken of criteria including: the impact of development on road traffic circulation, road safety and
provision made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. A Transportation Statement was
submitted with the outline application which demonstrated that the road network could cope with
the alteration in traffic flows resulting from the development. The Transportation Section has no
objections subject to conditions and Transport Scotland has no objections. A Travel Plan
proposes the encouragement of Walking and Cycling and the use of Public Transport. Provision
of information about public transport availability including signage to existing bus stops. Within
the site the roads will not be constructed to adoptable standards thus will not be adopted by the
Council. Employee parking has been segregated from vehicle manoeuvring areas and overall
the parking and manoeuvrability within each development site is adequate. Access to each
development site is also adequate. The proposal accords with Policy TRI 3.
4.5
Scottish Water and SEPA have advised they are generally satisfied with the proposal and
matters such as the implementation and adoption of the SUDS scheme can be dealt with by
conditions. The diversion of the watercourse requires authorisation from SEPA and is not an
issue that can be dealt with through planning legislation. The Geotechnical Team Leader has no
objections subject to conditions.
4.6
With regard to the terms of objection, the concerns raised were considered in previous reports
to committee. The principle of such a development has already been established. The present
application relates to the detailed development proposals which are wholly in line with the terms
of the outline consent. The objector raised no concern over the detailed design or layout of the
development. The concerns raised regarding construction hours are not a material planning
consideration.
4.7
In conclusion, the use to which this application refers has been established in principle. The
detailed design and layout complies with Local Plan policies and is in line with the outline
consent. A transportation assessment was approved at outline stage while the Travel Plan is
acceptable. The remaining concerns of consultees can be suitably met through the imposition of
conditions. Notwithstanding the continued opposition to the development from an adjacent
resident, I recommend that reserved matters planning consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application No:
S/07/01084/REM
Date Registered:
20th June 2007
Applicant:
Prologis Developments Ltd
1 Monkspath Hall Road
Solihull
West Midlands
B90 4FY
Agent
Turley Associates
Glasgow
G2 5UB
Development:
6 Unit Warehouse/Distribution Development (Class 6) with
Associated Landscaping, Access, Parking and Servicing Areas
(Reserved Matters for Application S/06/01922/OUT)
Location:
Land South West Of Jct 6 M8
Edinburgh Road
Newhouse
Ward:
McKeown
Grid Reference:
278929661580
File Reference:
S/PL/B/6/67/AM/MM
Site History:
S/99/0101I/OUT - Erection of Mixed Use Commercial Development
Including Storage and Distribution Depots, Hotel and Leisure
Development and a Fast Food Outlet with Associated Road Works
and Landscaping, granted 4 October 2001.
S/01/00138/REM - Alterations to Roundabout at A73/A775 Junction
and Construction of Two Roundabouts on A775 Granted 4 October
2001.
S/03/00297/FUL Construction of Access Road and Roundabout
granted 9Ih May 2003
06/01922/OUT 24 hour Operational Class 6 Storage/Distribution
Development of 102,000 square metres in floor area (In Outline)
granted 19" April 2007.
S/06/01934/FUL Enabling Works Comprising Site Remediation,
Regrading of Land, Site Drainage, Provision of Car Park,
Landscaping and Associated Works granted lgthApril 2007.
S/07/01081/REM 4 Unit Warehouse/Distribution Development
(Class 6) with Associated Landscaping, Access, Parking and
Servicing Areas (Reserved Matters for Application S/06/01922/OUT)
pending decision.
/
%/
ry I
\ \
I
I Jlc 3 Representations in total
I
PLANNING APPLICATION No S I 0 7 / 01084 / REM
6 UNIT WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT
( CLASS 6 ) WlTH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING.
ACCESS.PARKING AND SERVICING AREAS
( RESERVED MATTERS FOR APPLICATION
S/06/01922/OUT).
LAND SOUTH WEST OF JUNCTION 6. M8 / EDINBURGH
ROAD, NEWHOUSE.
Representation
SiteArea = 21.13 ha.
Development Plan:
Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Structure Plan 2000
2005) zoned as INDl ‘Industrial and Business Development
Opportunities’ and IND8 ‘Established Industrial and Business Areas’
No
Consultations:
Scottish Environment Protection Agency No objection
Scottish Water
No objection
Representations:
One letter of representation received.
Not Required
Recommendation:
1.
That the development hereby permitted shall be started no later than 19 April 2012.
Reason: To accord with the outline permission.
2.
That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme as detailed in the report by RPS Burks
Green dated June 2007 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far
as is reasonably practical and shall be completed before the last unit is brought into use. 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
3.
The developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works, detailed in the report by
Firat Archaeological Services dated 20 June 2007, is fully implemented and that all recording and
recovery of archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction
of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service.
Reason: To ensure that adequate archaeological investigations are carried out and recorded, in
the interests of the history of the site.
4.
That all works included in the scheme of landscaping and planting, shall be completed in
accordance with the approved plans, contemporaneously with the development of the units with
due regard to planting seasons, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed,
damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the last unit within the
size and species.
5.
include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of the proposed footpaths,
parking areas, external lighting, grassed, planted and landscaped areas shown on the approved
plans.
6.
That BEFORE occupation of the first unit within the development hereby permitted, the
management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition 5 above shall be
in operation.
Reason: To ensure proper maintenance of the area
7.
8.
That notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland)
Order 1997, the permitted change of use from Class 6 to Class 4 is hereby removed.
Reason: To ensure that the storageldistribution warehouse(s) may not become offices, as by
reasons of increased car trips being generated, this would be detrimental to the environment with
adverse implications for the road network.
9.
That the building shown as Plot 2 on the approved plans shall not be used or occupied until the
roundabout annotated as Roundabout C on the approved ‘Proposed Master Plan’ drawing is
constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To comply with the terms of the Section 75 and to ensure satisfactory access
arrangements to the eastern part of the site.
10.
That no materials shall be stored on the site external to the buildings such that they are visible
from the A8, M8, A73 or A775.
11.
That before any of the buildings on Plots I , 3 or 4 are occupied, plans shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the planning authority, showing details of additional bus stops to be
provided on the A775 at a suitable location at the south western end of the development, subject
to the approval of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Planning Authority, the eastbound stop should include the provision of a layby and the westbound
stop should include an area of hardstanding and provision of a section of footway along the
southern kerbline of the A775, Edinburgh Road, all to the specification of the Roads Authority and
to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. In addition, bus shelters shall be provided at the
existing and proposed bus stops on A775 Edinburgh Road with appropriate facilities provided for
timetable information. The above facilities shall be provided before occupation of any of the
buildings on the site.
Reason: To improve accessibility to and attractiveness of public transport in accordance with the
recommendations of the Travel Plan.
12.
That the measures stated in Chapter 4 of the Travel Plan produced by JMP Consulting dated
June 2007 shall be implemented contemporaneously with the development as far as practical.
Reason: To improve accessibility to public transport users.
13.
That should 6 months or more elapse between the completion of the remedial works consented
under application ref. 06/01934/REM and the construction of the warehouses on any plots on the
site (vis plots 1, 2 and 314) a further ecological survey shall be undertaken on the site to
determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, particularly for bats (between the
periods of April to August), and badgers, the said survey and details of any mitigation measures
proposed shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before
any development commences on the site or relevant plots. Any mitigation measures shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority before construction starts on the site or
relevant plots.
Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Amendment
(Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
Background Papers:
Travel Plan dated 11 June 2007
Drainage Design Philosophy dated June 2007
Flood Risk Assessment dated February 2007
Memo from Transportation Team Leader received 17th September 2007
Memos from Geotechnical Team Leader received 15th August 2007 and 25'h September 2007
Memo from Landscape Services Manager received 6th July 2007
Letter from Scottish Water received 13th July 2007
Letters from Scottish Power received 25'h June 2007 and 14IhSeptember 2007
Letters from Mr & Mrs G Muir, 4 Pollockshill, Newhouse, MLI 5SY received 1lth
July 2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Alistair Maclean at 01698 302093
Date: 28 September 2007
APPLICATION NO. S/07/01084/REM
REPORT
1.
1.I
This reserved matters application is for Class 6 Storage/Distribution Use at land south west of
Junction 6 of the A8/M8, off Edinburgh Road, Newhouse. The approved site remediation works
are underway at present.
1.2
The site measures 23 hectares and is bound to the north by the A8/M8; to the east by the A73
beyond which is open fields; to the south by a petrol filling station, Newhouse Hotel and
residential properties; and to the west by undeveloped fields beyond which lies Newhouse
Industrial Estate.
1.3
This application involves the construction of six units of varying sizes accessed from two
roundabouts off Edinburgh Road. The western 3 units, plots 1, 3 and 4, will be accessed from
the existing roundabout on the A775, Edinburgh Road. Plot 2, 5 and 6 will be accessed from a
new roundabout on Edinburgh Road, to the west of the Newhouse Hotel. This roundabout was
granted consent in 2001 (ref. S/O1/00138/REM) and is currently under construction. The six
units will give a total floorspace of 83,465sq.m. All buildings will be finished with colour coated
profile sheeting. The roof style has been designed to keep the buildings relatively low in relation
to the size of the units. The development will be known as ‘Link Park’.
1.4
This application is for the same site and same type of development as application ref.
S/06/01081/REM but differs only in the amount of units and the internal layout of the eastern
side of the development.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
The application raises no strategic issues as Newhouse is identified on Schedule 5b of the
Approved Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan 2000 as a ‘Strategic Industrial and
Business Location’. As such the application can be considered on the basis of Local Plan
policies.
2.2
The adopted Northern Area Local Plan mainly zones the site as E l ’Green Belt‘, E2 ‘Urban
Fringe’, and E3 ‘Improvement of Derelict and Underused Land Within the Green Belt‘.
However, the south western corner is zoned as 12 ‘Established Industrial Areas‘, 14 ’Industrial
Land Supply‘ and 15 ’Wholesale Distribution Depots’.
2.3
The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) provides more
contemporary policy guidance and mainly zones the site as INDl ‘Industrial and Business
Development Opportunities’. It is also partly zoned as IND8 ‘Established Industrial and Business
Areas’.
3.
3.1
Scottish Power objected as it has apparatus in the area and there was no indication whether the
development would affect that apparatus. The developers have now cleared up the issue and
Scottish Power has withdrawn the objection.
3.2
Scottish Water has indicated there is sufficient capacity within the Water Network to serve the
development. While there are wastewater infrastructure problems Scottish Water are in
consultation with the developer for mitigation, including a SUDS scheme, which would allow
connection to their network. SEPA is satisfied that the flood risk assessment is acceptable.
Their only concern is the diversion of the watercourse which requires authorisation from SEPA.
The Geotechnical Section raised a number of detailed points with regard to the Drainage
Design Philosophy and Flood Risk Assessment. The developers have responded to the points
raised and Geotechnical has confirmed that the proposals are acceptable subject to conditions.
3.3
Transport Scotland has confirmed that it is content with the proposals. The Transportation
Team Leader recommended that additional bus stops be provided at a suitable location towards
the western end of the development including the provision of a layby on the eastbound
carriageway and hardstanding and footway on the southbound carriageway, subject to approval
by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport. The roads internal to the site are not designed to
adoptable standards thus will not be adopted.
3.4
At the Outline application stage (ref. S/06/01922/0UT), Scottish Natural Heritage and the
Landscape Services Manager confirmed that they were satisfied with the proposed perimeter
planting regime for the site and welcomed the study undertaken advocating its professional and
comprehensive nature. An ecological survey was undertaken to establish the existence of
protected species within the site, under the enabling works application (ref. S/06/01934/FUL).
Further details have been provided within this application and the Landscape Services Manager
is generally satisfied with the proposals but suggested that sitting out areas be provided and that
footpaths be set back from the access roads in some areas.
3.5
Following neighbour notification procedures, 3 letters of representation were received from an
adjoining resident. The concerns raised can be summarised as follows:1
2
3
having lived at Newhouse for over 60 years, the proposed development would affect
their way of life, the value of their house and environment; the type of development
proposed would create commercial traffic which will cause extra noise from braking and
accelerating necessitated by accessing the roundabout, and with the provision of 3
roundabouts in such close proximity would cause traffic to build up causing more noise
and pollution from exhaust fumes; the type of development proposed would result in
traffic leaving day and night and would not allow them to open doors or windows as
fumes and noise would invade their home; their daily lives would be disrupted during
the construction stage with no reprieve from traffic noise and fumes; the type of
buildings proposed would be very close to their home and would be extremely invasive.
Whilst they are aware that they’re not entitled to a view, they do not wish to have these
large buildings in their faces day and night;
the provision of the new roundabout on the A775 appears to start directly from the
entrance and egress from their property, which in itself could cause a traffic hazard due
to the close proximity of the roundabout to their driveway; and
the developer is breaching time conditions by working outwith their stated hours.
4.
4.1
While the adopted Northern Area Local Plan mainly zones the site within Green Belt and
associated policies, t his is a reserved matters application and the principle of warehouse
distribution use has been established by the previous planning approvals.
4.2
The Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) mainly zones the
site as INDI ‘Industrial and Business Development Opportunities’. A small part of the site is
zoned as IND8 ‘Established Industrial and Business Areas’. The development accords with both
of these policies.
4.3
Policy IND9 ‘Assessing Applications for Industrial and Business Development’ lists the criteria to
be taken into account in assessing such applications and includes: the suitability of the proposal
to the character of the area within which it is set; access to public transport infrastructure and
the effect on travel patterns; detailed design elements such as building height, materials and
positioning; provisions made for landscaping screening, fencing and security; and provisions
made for servicing, access, vehicle circulation, manoeuvring and parking. Outline consent has
been granted on the site for a 24 hour Operational Class 6 StoragelDistribution Development.
The site fronts a main road with a bus stop located at the south eastern corner of the site. The
layout of the buildings within the site is acceptable. All buildings will be finished with colour
coated profile sheeting. The roof style has been designed to keep the buildings relatively low in
relation to the size of the units. The landscaping includes perimeter planting to screen the
development and internal landscaping to link and complement the perimeter scheme thereby
attaining a high amenity setting for the resulting buildings which is important on this site given its
visual prominence from several vantage points, particularly the A8/M8 corridor. Transportation
matters are dealt with in para. 4.4 below. Overall, the proposal complies with policy IND9.
4.4
Policy TR13 ‘Assessing the Transport Implications of Development‘ requires account to be
taken of criteria including: the impact of development on road traffic circulation, road safety and
provision made for access, parking and vehicle manoeuvring. A Transportation Statement was
submitted with the outline application which demonstrated that the road network could cope with
the alteration in traffic flows resulting from the development. The Transportation Section has no
objections subject to conditions and Transport Scotland has no objections. A Travel Plan
proposes the encouragement of Walking and Cycling and the use of Public Transport. Provision
of information about public transport availability including signage to existing bus stops. Within
the site the roads will not be constructed to adoptable standards thus will not be adopted by the
Council. Employee parking has been segregated from vehicle manoeuvring areas and overall
the parking and manoeuvrability within each development site is adequate. Access to each
development site is also adequate. The proposal accords with Policy TR13.
4.5
Scottish Water and SEPA have advised they are generally satisfied with the proposal and
matters such as the implementation and adoption of the SUDS scheme can be dealt with by
conditions. The diversion of the watercourse requires authorisation from SEPA and is not an
issue that can be dealt with through planning legislation. The Geotechnical Team Leader has no
objections subject to conditions.
4.6
With regard to the terms of objection, the concerns raised were considered in previous reports
to committee. The principle of such a development has already been established. The present
application relates to the detailed development proposals which are wholly in line with the terms
of the outline consent. The objector raised no concern over the detailed design or layout of the
development. The concerns raised regarding construction hours are not a material planning
consideration.
4.7
In conclusion, the use to which this application refers has been established in principle. The
detailed design and layout complies with Local Plan policies and is in line with the outline
consent. A transportation assessment was approved at outline stage while the Travel Plan is
acceptable. The remaining concerns of consultees can be suitably met through the imposition of
conditions. Notwithstanding the continued opposition to the development from an adjacent
resident, I recommend that reserved matters planning consent be granted subject to conditions.
Application No:
SlO7101444lFUL
Date Registered:
20th August 2007
Applicant:
Mrs M McNee
64 West Main Street
Harthill
ML7 5QD
Agent
Hardie Associates LTD
78 Hopetoun Street
Bathgate
EH48 4PD
Development:
Increase to the Height of Rear Roof and Creation of a Flat
Location:
64 West Main Street
Harthill
Ward:
12 Fortissat: Councillors Cefferty, McMillan and Robertson
Grid Reference:
290435664417
File Reference:
SIPLIBII 7177lSMlMM
Site History:
None
Development Plan:
The site is zoned as RTL 6
(Secondary, Village and
Neighbourhood Commercial Areas) in the Southern Area Local Plan
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005)
No
Consultations:
None
Representations:
Not Required
Recommendation:
Refuse for the Following Reason:-
1.
That the proposed development is contrary to Policy HSG 11 and TR 13 of the Southern Area
Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the creation of the flat is
considered to represent a significant impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding
area in relation to the neighbouring properties and detrimental to road safety and the amenity of
the existing and wider area as no dedicated off street parking has been proposed.
2.
That the proposed development is contrary to Policy HSG 11 of the Southern Area Local Plan
Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005) in that the creation of the flat would not provide
any useable garden ground and that the creation of this flat would also be to the detriment of
other residential properties.
Background Papers:
Application form and plans received 20thAugust 2007
Memo from the Transportation Team Leader received 25th September 2007
Letter from Mr Duncan Ledingham & Karen Bonnes, 66/68 West Main Street, Harthill, ML7 5QD,
received 28th August and 4'h September 2007.
Letter from Mr Khan, 5 Seath Avenue, Langbank, received 26 September 2007
Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Stewart MacCallum at 01698
302085
Date: 27th September 2007
REPORT
1.
1.I
This application seeks planning permission for an increase to the height of the rear roof and the
creation of a flat at 64 West Main Street, Harthill. The site is a single storey shop unit located
on the main street of an established secondary shopping area. The application site is bounded
by dwellinghouses to the west and south and north. Located to the east is another commercial
property.
1.2
The proposed upper flat comprises of 2 bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom. Rooflights would be
located on the east, west and southern elevations of the building. The proposed roof would be
increased from 4 metres in height to 6.4 metres and would be the same as the existing ridge
height of the front of the existing building.
2.
Development Plan
2.1
2.2
The site is covered by Policy RTL 6 (Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood Commercial
Areas) of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005).
3.
3.1
The Transportation Team Leader has indicated that the proposal does not provide any off
street car parking and therefore recommends refusal of this proposal.
3.2
Two letters of representation were received from the owners of neighbouring properties. Their
The existing rear building of 64 West Main Street has been used for storage purposes by
the shop despite lying vacant for a period of time.
II.
The proposal may result in damage to the driveway and also flooding of 66/68 West Main
Street
iii. The proposal would result in access problems to the rear of 66/68 West Main Street during
construction and affect the operation of a business run from the site with regards to
customers visiting the site.
iv. The building works would create unacceptable noise and cause a loss of amenity and
impact upon the privacy of 66/68 West Main Street.
V. No off-street parking is provided for the site.
vi. The proposal would compromise the security of 66/68 West Main Street.
vii. The proposal would cause drainage issues with regard to excess water on the increased
roof.
I.
4.
4.1
Planning applications require to be assessed against the Development Plan and other material
2004 and 2005) is relevant. The site is zoned as Policy RTL 6 (Secondary, Village and
Neighbourhood Areas).
4.2
Policy RTL 6 has regard to areas identified as Secondary, Village and Neighbourhood
Commercial Areas and the Council will seek to encourage the expansion of Class 1 Retail
floorspace, support other types of commercial activity such as Class 2 Offices, Class 3 Food
and Drink and Class 11 Assembly and Leisure where such proposals do not affect the
character and amenity of the relevant commercial area, support the retention and provision of
other uses which complement the role and function of Secondary, Village and Commercial
Areas and improve the environment of such areas.
4.3
Policy HSG 11 has regard to considering planning applications for infill residential
developments on suitable gap sites within the urban area and the Council will take account of
the overall impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the surrounding area,
dimensions of the site relative to the proposed development and associated private garden
ground, consideration is also given to scale, materials, roof heighvpitch and the provision of
vehicular access and parking arrangements.
4.4
Policy TR 13 has regard to assessing the transport implications of development and in
determining applications for new development the Council will consider amongst other things
the following criteria, the level of traffic generated and its impact on the environment, the level
of traffic generated and its impact on the environment and adjoining land uses, the impact of
development on road traffic circulation and road safety, provisions made for access, parking
and vehicle manoeuvring.
4.5
With regards to the proposed increase to the height of the rear of the building and the creation
of a flat, this is considered to be an unacceptable form of development. The area is
characterised by a mix of residential and commercial premises however the creation of a flatted
property at this location would cause a significant impact. The site has a shared access with
66/68 West Main Street so it would not provide suitable parking within the site and this would
be to the detriment of the area as it would be likely to cause vehicles to park on West Main
Street. The proposal site has no useable garden ground for the flat which would be
unacceptable as some allocation of ground should be provided.
4.6
The proposed raising of the roof height of the rear of the building would in design terms be
acceptable as it would match the scale and design of the existing building as the materials
would tie in with what is already there. However it is the creation of the flat which would cause
concerns with regard to the impact it would create as indicated in paragraph 4.5 above.
4.7
On the grounds of the objection raised, I would comment as follows:
I.
11.
...
111.
iv.
V.
vi.
With regards to the use of the rear building as a store room this would not require
planning consent as it is the existing commercial property of 64 West Main Street and
the site is an established shop.
Any damage to neighbouring land or property would be a civil matter to be resolved
between both parties.
Rights of access to the site is a private legal matter to be resolved between both
parties.
While it is noted that with regard to earlier works to the site there was a disruption to
neighbours with mess and debris, noise, dust, restriction of access to the rear of the
66/68 West Main Street and damage to the driveway, this is not material to the
planning assessment of the proposal. Use of neighbouring land for construction
purposes is a private matter.
As indicated on paragraph 3.1 the Transportation Team Leaders comments would
concur with the objectors that the proposal would provide no off street parking and this
would be to the detriment of the area.
With regard to the concerns on security of neighbouring properties this cannot be
vii.
4.8
controlled by planning legislation.
The issue of drainage from the increased roof height would be a matter that would be
controlled at the Building Warrant as appropriate guttering and drainage would be
required to be indicated.
In conclusion, it is considered that this proposal is contrary to Policies RTL 6, HSG 11 and TR
13 of the Southern Area Local Plan Finalised Draft (Modified 2001, 2004 and 2005). The
proposed raising of the rear roof height and creation of a flat is considered to represent an
unacceptable form of development by virtue of its lack of off street parking and garden ground.
It is considered that the proposal would adversely affect the character and amenity of
neighbouring dwellinghouses and the wider area and would set a dangerous precedent. This
application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Norfh Lanarkshire Council

Transcription

Similar documents

Ah-Nab-Awen Park - City of Grand Rapids

Schottenstein Center

Parking Lot Striping - Parking Control Unit

Amendments to L. E. Kastner`s Edition of Drummond`s Poems

Pencader Corporate Center

college official`s report curry college

Event Parking

August 2015 ECRC-Parent Link Centre Stepping Stones Society

Municipal Parking

Council Committee Information Pages