20 AGENDA ITEM No.. -...........

North L ana rks hire

Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning and Transportation Committee

Committee Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 201 3

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

1

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

25th September 201 3

Page No

4

16

39

45

52

59

Application Applicant No

13/00449/FUL Aggregate Industries Ltd & AG Renewables

13/00501/FUL Eneco Wind UK Ltd

13/01238/AMD Mr & Mrs Desmond Gracey

13/01 236/FUL Mr Maurice Corridan

13/0127O/FUL Mr Eric Wardlaw

13/01 376/FUL Mr Asif Majid

DevelopmenVSite

Construction of a Single 500kW Wind Turbine (Maximum Height 67m) with Associated Works Site At Auchengeich Road Moodiesburn Glasgow

Construction of Wind Farm Comprising of 5 No. Wind Turbines (maximum 125 metres to blade tip) and associated infrastructure including Permanent Meteorological Mast, Crane Hardstandings, Control Building, Underground Cables, upgrading and construction of Site Entrance and Access Tracks, and Temporary Construction Compound. Benhar Windfarm Land South Of West Benhar Road Eastfield Harthill

Application for Discharge of Planning Obligations Previous Application (05/00113/OUT) Land South Of Cleddans Farm, Gain & Shankburn Road Cum bernauld

Setup of Temporary Project Offices & Compound for M8 Upgrade Gas Works (Retrospective) Site At Mossend Engineering Works Unthank Road Mossend Bellshill

Erection of 2 Dwelling Houses Sites At Bowhill Road Chapelhall

Change of Use from Class 1 to Class 3 Restaurant 53A Alexander Street Airdrie

Recommendation

Refuse (P) Request for

Site Visit and Hearing

Refuse (P) Request for

Site Visit and Hearing

Refuse

Grant

Refuse

Grant

2

67 13/01405/FUL Miss Vicki Williamson Change of Use of Industrial Unit to Grant Dance Studio Unit 9 Garrell Business Centre 8 Garrell Road Kilsyth Glasgow

73 13/01426/FUL Glasgow 2014 Limited Erection of Temporary Overlay Grant Installations and Associated Works to be Implemented for the 201 4 Commonwealth Games Strathclyde Water Sports Centre Strathclyde Country Park 366 Hamilton Road Motherwell

(P) 13/00449/FUL: Should the council be minded to grant planning permission, the decision notice should not be issued pending the referral of the application to the Scottish Government due to the objection from Glasgow Airport

13/00501/FUL: Should the council be minded to grant planning permission, the decision notice should not be issued pending: (a) referral of the application to the Scottish Government due to the objection from Edinburgh Airport and NATS (en route) (b) section 75 agreement and restoration bond to ensure eventual removal of the turbines and site restoration

3

Application No:

13/00449/FUL

Proposed Development:

Construction of a Single 500kW Wind Turbine (Maximum Height 67m) with Associated Works

Site Address:

Site At Auchengeich Road Moodiesburn Glasgow North Lanarkshire

Date Registered:

23rd March 201 3

Applicant: Agent: Aggregate Industries Ltd & AGRenewables 1071 South Street Glasgow Edinburgh G14 OAP EH7 4NW

lronside Farrar 11 1 Mcdonald Road

Application Level: Local Application

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: Representations: 5 Strathkelvin Councillors William Hogg, Frances McGlinchey, John McLaren and Brian Wallace

19 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification: The proposed development is considered contrary to policy EDI 3A 2 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals) including supplementary planning guidance (SPG 12) ‘Assessing Wind Turbine Developments’ and policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in relation to the significant immediate landscape and visual impact this development would cause.

Notification If minded to grant, the application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarding Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosive Storage Areas)(Scotland) Direction 2003 as BAA have lodged an objection to the application. The Civil Aviation Authority and BAA shall also be notified at this time.

4

\ \ 1 2 Outwith plan area. I \ 1 I

PLANNING APPLICATION 13/00449/fUL

Construction of a Single 500kW Wind Turbine (Maximum Height 67m) with Associated Works

Site At Auchengeich Road, Moodiesburn, Glasgow, G60 OJL

Repcoduced by permission oftheOrdnanceSuweym behalf of HMSO @Crown cppyllght and ctatabase @t 2009 Alnghtsrwed otdnancesurvey LIWX ~ ~ r n b e ~ %m?33s

1 * Representation

5

Produced by 1 Planning and Development Environhental Servi North Lanarkshire c Fleming House 2 Tryst Road Cumbernauld

Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. The proposed development is contrary to policies EDI 3A 2 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals) including the supplementary planning guidance SPG12 Assessing Wind Turbine Developments and DSP4 (Quality of Development) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the development is considered to have a significant adverse visual impact on the landscape character of the site and immediate setting of the urban settlement. The turbine would be incongruous to the area and would have an adverse visual impact on the neighbouring settlement being a significant visual intrusion and dominating feature from immediate viewpoints such as Hill of Chryston, Gartferry Road, Kelvin Drive, Bridgend Crescent and the M80.

. Backaround PaPers:

Consultation Responses:

Email from BAA Aerodrome Safeguarding received on 18 April 201 3 and 2 September 201 3 Letter from Ministry Of Defence Estates received on 2 May 201 3 Email from OFCOM received on 12 April 201 3 Email from Edinburgh Airport received on 11 April 2013 Letter from NATS received on 12 April 201 3 Email from Cumbernauld Airport Ltd on 7 May 201 3 Letter from The Coal Authority from Coal Authority received on 4 April 2013 Memo from Greenspace Development (Landscape) received on 12 April 201 3 Memo from Greenspace Development (Ecology) received on 30 April 201 3 Letter from Scottish Power Energy Networks received on 10 April 2013 Memo from 12 April 201 3 Memo from Traffic & Transportation received on 10 April 201 3 Letter from Scottish Gas Network received on 5 April 2013 East Dumbartonshire Council Email from Atkins Global on behalf of Scottish Water received on 15 ADril2013 Emails from JRC on behalf of the UK Energy Industry received on 28 April 201 3 and 13 May 201 3 Email from BT received on 7 May 2013 Memo from Protective Services received on 12 April 2013 and 21 May 201 3 Email from Everything Everywhere received on 23 May 201 3

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 632499

Report Date:

10 September 201 3

6

APPLICATION NO. 13/00449/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.

3.1

3.2

Site Descrilption

The proposed wind turbine would be located within the grounds of the Aggregate Industries processing plant site to the east of Auchengeich Road. The processing plant contains several prominent industrial buildings along with areas of woodland, yards, settlement ponds and spoil heaps. The wind turbine site itself is located to the north west part of this processing plant site. The processing plant is bound by Auchengeich Road to the east, residential properties to the south, Bothlin Burn (Moodiesburn Glen/ Bothlin Burn SINC) to the south and vegetation to the north. The new M80 is also to the north of the site beyond the fields and vegetation. The processing plant is accessed from Auchengeich Road. The turbine would be approximately 470m from Bridgend Crescent which could be considered the residential edge of Moodiesburn and approximately 940m north of Chryston.

Proposed Development

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a single wind turbine that would be 40m in height to the hub and 67m in height to blade tip. The total generating capacity of the wind turbine would be up to a maximum of 500kW and will be connected into the grid through the existing sub station on site. The aim of the wind turbine is to provide an on site energy source for Aggregate Industries but any surplus energy would be fed into the local grid. An agreement is also in place to ensure that any surplus energy would be used at other Aggregate Industries site across the UK.

The development would also include other ancillary works including foundations, crane hardstanding, container housing for the sub station and associated cabling.

The turbine would have an operational lifespan of 25 years and after this time the developer would be required to remove the wind turbine and all associated development unless further planning permission is acquired.

The applicant has submitted a planning supporting statement which includes sections on the main development considerations including:

e

e

e

0

0

0

0

e

Policy Assessment Landscape and Visual Assessment Ecology, Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Noise Assessment Shadow Flicker Coal Mining Risk Assessment Aviation Impact Television and Telecommunications Impact Cultural Heritage Access, Construction and Decommissioning Hydrology and Hydrogeology Comparison with Previously Refused Application

In addition an assessment of this proposal relative to the refused application at Bedlay Colliery has been carried out and submitted with the application. The aim of this is to illustrate how the applications differ in acceptability and concluded that this proposal is appropriate for this location.

7

4.

4.1

5.

5.1

5.2

5.3

6.

6.1

6.2

6.3

Site History

Planning permission was previously refused on 23 January 2013 for a wind turbine (59m to hub and 87m to tip) in this location (12/00845/FUL). This application is a resubmission of the previous application albeit with a wind turbine at a lower height and the wind turbine in a slightly different position within the Aggregates Industries site. The reasons for refusal were that the wind turbine was contrary to the development plan as the turbine had a significant adverse visual impact on the Regional Scenic Area of the Kilsyth Hills and the Campsies. It was considered that this landscape type could not absorb a wind turbine of this scale and this would have lead to a significant adverse visual impact on the landscape particularly from views from the M80 and Kelvin Drive and cumulatively with other consented and constructed turbines in the area. The development was also contrary to the development plan as it was likely to cause a detrimental impact to aviation safety due to the likely impact on BAA’s radar systems.

Development Plan

The turbine site partly falls within an area designated as EDI ( i A l Industrial and Business Areas (Existing Industrial and Business Areas)) and an area designated as NBE3 A (Assessing Development in the Green Belt).

Policy DSP 4 (Impact of Development and Quality of Development) and EDI 3 A2 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals) including the Supplementary Planning Guidance 12 (SPGi 2) document ‘Assessing planning applications for wind turbine developments’ are also of relevance.

As the proposed wind turbine would have an output capacity of less than 20 MW, the development would not be considered of strategic significance and does not require to be assessed against the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP). The application therefore would only require to be assessed under the terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

The following consultees offer no objection to the application:

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

NATS Edinburgh Airport Scotland Gas Networks Scottish Power Atkins Global on behalf of Scottish Water JRC on behalf of the Energy Industry Protective Services BT OFCOM Everything Everywhere

NLC Traffic and Transportation have no objection subject to the submission of a suitable Traffic Management Plan and maintenance regime. They also request the submission of a transport route.

The Coal Authority note the content of the submitted Coal Mining Risk Assessment and note that the coal mining legacy of the area poses a risk to the development. They recommend that a condition is applied to ensure that a more intrusive site investigation is carried out prior to works starting on site to identify any remedial works that may be required.

8

6.4

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

7.

7.1

NLC Greenspace Development (Landscape) has commented that the wind turbine will exert an influence over the wider landscape however as the turbine has been reduced in height, this impact is reduced as the turbine becomes less obtrusive. They consider that the turbine will be less of a dominating feature because the scale is more in proportion to the landscape setting and is less of a feature, becoming more of a minor element. Even at close range (within 2-3km) where visibility is not restricted the effect on landscape character may only be slight but it will still exert an influence. At close proximity the turbine will dominate the landscape/view because it is a tall structure and the impact is likely to be moderate/ adverse but of neutral significance.The visual impact of the wind turbine would increase with proximity with the greatest impact being within 1 km of the turbine site.

NLC Greenspace Development (Ecology) accepts the findings of the ecological report and indicates there would be no adverse impact from this development provided that the mitigation measures detailed in the report are carried out. They also state that the proposed tree and scrub clearing should cover an area of 50m2 measured from the blade tips. Further otter and badger surveys must also be carried out prior to works starting on site and replacement planting for the woodland/ scrub removal would also be required.

BAA have objected to the application on the basis that the wind turbine would be visible on their radar and would create unwanted clutter on air traffic control screens to the detriment of air safety. It should be noted however that mitigation is available in the form of blanking or through the reduction in wind turbine height. BAAs objection can be removed through the developer agreeing to either of these mitigations.

SNH, Historic Scotland, Rathmell and East Dunbartonshire Council were consulted on the previous application for a higher wind turbine and had no objection.

Using the BBC reception tool it was found that no homes would be affected in terms of television signal from this proposal.

Following the standard neighbour notification procedure and an advertisement in the local press 16 letters of objection (including an objection from Chryston Community Council) and 3 letters of support were received. 5 further letters of representation were received however these were either tests of the system or duplications. The main points of objection can be summarised as follows:

Overshadowing Landscape and visual impact Visual Impact on views to Campsies Reduction in height of wind turbine does not mitigate impacts of previous refusal impact on recreation and walking route Noise and vibration and impact on health Shadow flicker Impact on property values Aviation Health and safety hazard particularly for workers impact on delivery of housing allocations and new housing estates including lack of assessment by the developer of these allocations Lack of submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment Parts of Scotland are becoming less windy Poorly located Impact on Right of Way Impact on wildlife and ecology Future use of neighbouring site would be compromised

9

7.2 The points of support can be summarised as follows:

(a) (b) (c)

Green energy for industrial purposes should be supported Helps reduce energy burden on overstretched network Will help to keep employment in community

7.3 It should be noted that the applicant has requested a site visit and hearing prior to determination of the application.

8. Plannina Assessment

8.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan.

AdoDted North Lanarkshire Local Plan

8.2 Policv EDI A I (Industrial and Business Areasl: This policy supports the continuing industrial and business character of existing industrial and business areas where appropriate. This provides criteria for assessing ancillary development which includes:

0

0

Extent to which there is a surplus in the land supply for industry and business Potential undermining of the attractiveness as a location for industry and

Specific locational requirement for the proposal Whether the proposal would result in significant economic benefits to the Plan area Existence of suitable alternative sites Impact on travel patterns and accessibility by public transport Whether the development would re-use under- utilised industrial land.

business 0

0

0

0

0

8.3 in terms of assessing the suitability of this development in relation to this policy it is considered that the majority of the criteria would not be relevant. The proposed wind turbine is considered to have a specific location requirement as it is required to assist in the provision of energy for the business operating from the site. For this reason no other sites would be suitable as they would be remote from the business that requires the energy. As the turbine would provide an on site power source it would not undermine the attractiveness of this location for business or industry. The proposal therefore would be complementary to this use and would not undermine the land use policy.

8.4 NBE 3A (Assessina DeveloDment in the Green Belt): This policy seeks to protect the character of the Green Belt through restricting development to acceptable types. Generation of power from renewable sources is considered an acceptable type of development providing the development accords with impact criteria. It is considered that the development generally accords with the impact criteria and therefore would generally accord with the terms of this policy. Further assessment on the suitability of the proposal for this location will be undertaken later in the report.

8.5 Policv EDI 3A2 (Assessina Economic DeveloDment and Infrastructure ProDosals): This policy states that the Council supports, in principle, all forms of renewable energy generation subject to these meeting the criteria contained in the approved supplementary planning guidance relating to issues of scale, cumulative impact, community benefit and restoration. The topics for consideration as presented within the relevant guidance (SPG12) are considered in the following paragraphs but in general it is considered that this development would not comply with this policy as the

10

development would have a significant adverse impact on visual amenity and the immediate landscape of the area. All matters presented in this policy and associated SPG will be addressed individually later in the report.

8.6 DSP 1 - 3 (Amount, Location and Impact of Development): Given the scale of the proposal these policies would not be applicable for this application.

8.7 DSP 4 (Qualitv of Development): This policy considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes and provides a range of assessment criteria. The following paragraphs will address the main considerations of this development in relation to this policy.

Landscape and Cumulative Impact: Within the wind farm areas of search plan in SPG12, this turbine is located in an area excluded from the broad area of search due to it being within an urban area. This document advises that distances from an urban area should be determined through the individual planning application by considering the merits of the proposal. It is acknowledged however that the site is located on the edge of Moodiesburn and adjacent to zone 3 which indicates that the wider landscape can accommodate single wind turbines of 40 -100m or 1, 2- 5 wind turbines less than 40m. This zone already has several approved and constructed wind turbines to the east of this zone. Given the existing and approved wind turbines this proposal would require a more robust cumulative visual impact assessment to be carried out.

8.8

8.9 In terms of the visual and landscape impact it is noted that Greenspace Development (Landscape) have not expressed significant concerns regarding this proposal in terms of wider landscape impact. The reduction in wind turbine height reduces the dominance of this wind turbine on the landscape and would not adversely affect the setting of the Campsies and Regional Scenic Area designation of the Kilsyth Hills. This can be seen in viewpoint 3 (Parish Church Chryston) whereby the previously refused wind turbine broke the ridge line of the Kilsyth Hills from the majority of north facing viewpoints. This wind turbine would be completely contained within the backdrop of the Kilsyth Hills lessening the effect from the majority of viewpoints. The reduction in turbine height has lessened the impact of the wind turbine from a wider perspective. This would be assisted by intervening vegetation, landscape and buildings which will provide few significant views of the wind turbine from greater distances. It is therefore considered that this wind turbine would not cause a significant impact on the wider landscape or Regional Scenic Area.

It is considered by Greenspace Development (Landscape) however that the impact of the development will increase with proximity. Even with the reduction in height this turbine would still be a large structure in the immediate landscape. Given the edge of settlement location of the site there are concerns that the wind turbine would dominate the immediate views from and of Moodiesburn and Chryston in particular as well as the nearby Rights of Way, Garfferry Road and M80. Ideally a structure of this size would be positioned further from a settlement however wind turbines of this scale are not uncommon in urban areas in Scotland particularly where there is a locational need for them as associated with business or industry. The difference in this case however is that the turbine is on an edge of settlement location neither fully in the urban context or in the countryside and in a site which is only partly industrialised. SNH guidance on the siting of small scale wind turbines between 15 and 50 metres is useful for the consideration of this application as although this turbine is greater than 50m in height it provides guidance on the relationship of wind turbines with settlements. It states that a wind turbine should not become the dominating feature of a settlement and adequately relate to the neighbouring buildings. Having identified a locational need the main consideration is whether there is a significant unacceptable visual impact on the immediate settlement and receptors.

8.10

8.1 1 The main significant unobstructed views of the wind turbine would be from Cleddans Farm and the upper floors of residential properties to the immediate south given their

11

proximity to the site. The reduction in height of the turbine does reduce the stark nature of the structure to some extent however the wind turbine would still be a significant dominating structure from views into and out of the settlement. As the supporting landscape assessment suggests the immediate visual impact would range from slight to moderate/ severe and would depend on distance and obstruction. These same impacts would be apparent from the main routes nearby including the M80, Gartferry Road and the Right of Way. It is acknowledged that most of the views towards the wind turbine would be obstructed in some way either by topography, landscape or vegetation. The main concern however is the dominance of the wind turbine in the immediate landscape and context of the settlement and the visual intrusion this would create for the settlement and residents. As the industrial area and therefore proposed site is set on the edge of the settlement, the effect of the turbine would therefore be starker for residents as a significant number of views out of the settlement would also be affected causing the turbine to appear more visually intrusive. The other concern is the dominance of the wind turbine on the setting of the settlement itself particularly from views from Gaitferry Road and the M80 on the approach to the Moodiesburn. Although there are existing high industrial buildings (approximately 20-30m high) within the industrial site the wind turbine] although reduced, would still dominate the highest structures and have an overbearing influence on other buildings within the settlement. The turbine would dominate the views of Moodiesburn and Chryston particularly from the North and West and on the approaches to the settlement contrary to SNH design guidance. The turbine would not be adequately absorbed into the urban context as a turbine in an industrial estate within the settlement might. The wind turbine is therefore considered inappropriate for this semi-urban setting and would create a significant visual impact on the immediate landscape for residents and would dominate the views of the settlement particularly from main transport routes. For this reason the development would be considered contrary to the terms of policies EDI 3A2 (including SPG12) and DSP4 within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as it would cause a significant visual and landscape impact.

8.12 In considering cumulative impact it is noted that there are other wind turbines approved in the wider landscape. This includes the wind turbines at Barrs Factory (67m), Gaindykehead Farm (47m) and Braidenhill (80m+) and another to west within East Dunbartonshire (32m). The wind turbines at Gaindykehead and Braidenhill Farms are a considerable distance to the south and their cumulative impact would be negligible. Some views southwards may have all three wind turbines in context but distance and intervening landscape would make any significant visual impact minor. The more significant cumulative impact may be from the wind turbines at Barrs factory and Badenheath Farm in East Dunbartonshire. There is the possibility that residential properties within Moodiesburn particularly to the east may have separate views of all three wind turbines. Due to their scale however it is considered that this cumulative impact would be minimal as again intervening landscape, topography and vegetation would largely obscure wind turbines of these heights at greater distances. Other cumulative effects may occur while travelling along the M80 with respects to the proposed turbine and the other two approved to the north. A sequential cumulative impact would be likely in this regard. Given the relative distance of this wind turbine and the other two however it is not considered that this sequential cumulative impact would be significant for road users. This conglomeration would be relatively small but sufficiently dispersed so as to not cause a significant cumulative impact. It is therefore considered that he reduction in turbine height has reduced the likelihood of significant cumulative impacts.

8.13 Natural Heritage:The wind turbine would be positioned within a highly vegetated area of the site. The applicant has submitted an ecological survey with the application and Greenspace Development (Ecology) are content with the findings. Further work would be required prior to the construction of the wind turbine including pre-start surveys and tree clearing however it is considered that there would be no significant harm to natural heritage caused by this proposal.

12

8.14 Noise: The applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment with the application. This assessment considers existing properties and concludes that there would not be a significant noise impact from this development on nearby sensitive receptors. Although this report does not consider the nearby local plan housing allocations the noise contours plan adequately shows that there would be no significant noise impact on any of these designations. As stated previously Protective Services have no objections to the proposal.

Shadow Flicker: Guidance provided by the Scottish Government indicates that where any property is located within 10 rotor diameters (540m) of any proposed wind turbine a shadow flicker assessment would be required. The applicant has submitted a Shadow Flicker Assessment which indicates that 13 residential properties would be within this distance of the turbine. The report concludes that the model predicts that 9 properties could be affected. The effect would vary between 54 minutes to 36 hours over a year at the worst case scenario. The actual amounts will be significantly less however taking into account climatic factors and obscuring objects. The report provides mitigation measures that could be put in place and this could be subject of a condition.

8.1 5

8.1 6 Distance from Road, Ice Fall and Malfunction: SPG12 stipulates that turbine sites should try to achieve a stand off distance of at least the height of the turbine plus 50% from roads. The wind turbine would be a sufficient distance away from the neighbouring roads and motorway and therefore no public safety issues have been identified.

8.17 Aviation, Radar and Telecommunication Interference: The majority of aviation authorities have no objection to the proposal subject to further details being submitted to the MOD should planning permission be approved. BAA have objected to the proposal however mitigation is available which could be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. The Scottish Government ‘Guidance on Dealing with Aviation Objections and Associated Negative Conditions in Wind Turbine Consents’ indicates that where mitigation is possible for aviation matters and this can be achieved in a reasonable timeframe then the application can be determined with appropriate planning conditions. As BAA have confirmed that mitigation is possible then it is considered that there is sufficient comfort that the aviation matter can be adequately resolved with a planning condition should planning permission be approved. Consultation with OFCOM identified several links the area. Following further consultation with the various operators no significant issues were identified. It is therefore considered that there would be no significant impact on aviation or telecommunications interest in this area.

8.18 Transport Route, Access Considerations and Infrastructure: The applicant has provided a basic transport route for the application. This has been considered by the Transportation Section however they have requested the submission of further information. This additional information can be requested through condition. The transport route appears appropriate for a wind turbine of this scale subject to further detailed information.

8.19 Cultural heritage: The applicant has submitted an assessment of impact on cultural heritage in support of the application. The report concludes that there would be no significant impact on any of the sites of cultural heritage identified in this report. It is noted however that the report does not assess the Auchengiech Miners Memorial on Garferry Road. This turbine does have the potential to impact on the setting of this cultural site through the visual impact identified in section 8.10 above.

8.20 Locational need and economic benefit: This wind turbine has a specific locational need as it is directly associated with the industry on the site. The wind turbine would provide on site power for the facility while any surplus would then be sold to the grid. There is also economic benefit associated with this as the wind turbine would reduce the operating costs of this local employer and provide economic benefit through the

13

8.21

8.22

8.23

sale of power to the grid. Although these are positives of the proposal it is considered that this does not outweigh the visual impact of the development. Although it is acknowledged that local industry and business should be encouraged to use green energy, the infrastructure associated with this should only be accepted in appropriate locations.

Scottish Plannina Poiicv: Scottish Planning Policy promotes wind turbine development in appropriate locations and sets out the mechanisms for Planning Authorities to support this. This document is supported by more detailed considerations provided on the Scottish Government website database. The matters specified in the SPP document and website have been considered throughout the report and although the development is acceptable in most respects it is not acceptable in terms of visual impact and therefore would not meet the terms of this document.

Consultation responses: As noted in section 6 the majority of consultees have no objection the proposal. The immediate visual impact concerns identified by Greenspace Development (Landscape) have been considered and supported in this report. Should planning permission be approved then some conditions would need to be imposed on the development as requested by some of the consultees. As discussed in section 8.17 a condition would also be required relative to aviation matters identified by BAA. The application however would need to be notified to the Scottish Ministers and CAA should planning permission be approved given the aviation objection.

Representations: With regards to the letters of objection received for this application I would make the following comments:

Given the width of the turbine tower and blades it is unlikely that there would be any significant overshadowing effect on properties. It is agreed there would be an unacceptable visual impact on residents and the setting of the urban environment. As stated in section 8.9 it is considered that the reduction in height of the wind turbine has removed any significant impact on the wider landscape including the Campsies and Kilsyth Hills. The reduction in height does mitigate some of the impacts identified in the previous application however the wind turbine is still considered incongruous to this location in terms of visual amenity. The turbine has a sufficient set back distance to the path and is therefore considered acceptable in this regard. It is accepted however that the wind turbine may have a significant visual impact on the walking route and Right of

As noted in paragraph 8.14 the applicant has adequately demonstrated that there would be no significant adverse impact on residential properties in terms of noise and vibration. NLC Protective Services have accepted the methodology and findings of this report. Shadow flicker is considered in paragraph 8.15 and it is recognised that this may affect some nearby residential properties. It is considered however that this can be adequately mitigated should planning permission be approved. Impact on property values is not a material planning consideration None of the aviation authorities have objected to the proposal The turbine would be set back from neighbouring properties by more than 1.5 times its height which is the topple distance advocated by SPG12. Any health and safety risk to on site workers would be a consideration for the company and its operations rather than a planning consideration. It is acknowledged that the impact on the local plan housing allocations designated within Moodiesburn and Chryston should be assessed through this application. Although the applicant did not specifically consider these aspects it is considered that there was sufficient information within the submission to assess the impact on these sites. It is considered that the turbine may

Way

14

8.24

9.

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

adversely affect the visual amenity of these sites as they form part of the settlements which are likely to be most significantly affected by this development. An EIA Screening Opinion was carried for the original application and found that no EIA was required. As this involves the reduction in scale of the wind turbine the same conclusion has been drawn. This is not a material planning consideration. In terms of visual impact it is agreed that the wind turbine is poorly located. Given the scale of the wind turbine and its proximity to the Right of Way it is considered that the development may have an adverse visual impact on the Right of Way. As stated in paragraph 8.1 3 narural heritage would not be affected. The neighbouring land to the east does not have a development allocation within the local plan and therefore currently has no status in terms of development viability.

In terms of the points of support I would make the following comments:

(a) The Scottish Government and the Council do support the use of green energy by industry and businesses. The infrastructure to support this however must be located in appropriate locations that would not have a significant impact on communities. The Council would support the increase in off grid energy sources however those must be in an appropriate location. The economic benefits of the proposal particularly from a local employer is noted however this positive of the development does not outweigh the significant visual impact.

(b)

(c)

Conclusions

Taking the foregoing into account it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to policies EDI 3A2 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals (including the supplementary planning guidance 12 ‘Assessing Wind Turbine Developments)) and DSP4 (Quality of Development) within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the development is considered to have a significant adverse visual impact on the landscape character of the site and immediate setting of the urban settlement. Although the turbine has been reduced in height it is still considered that there would be a significant visual impact on the residential setting of the area and would be considered to have a significant visual intrusion from immediate viewpoints such as Hill of Chryston, Gartferry Road, Kelvin Drive and the M80. As the turbine is on the urban fringe of the settlement in an area that is not fully urban or within the countryside the wind turbine would be considered incongruous to the area and would have an adverse visual impact on the neighbouring settlement.

It is acknowledged that there is a locational need for the wind turbine at this site and that the wind turbine would provide an on site energy source for the industry and would provide economic benefit for the company. It is also noted that the proposed development meets and complies with the other issues covered by policies EDI 3A2 (and associated SPG) and DSP4 however this does not outweigh the significant adverse visual impact of the development. For this reason it is recommended that the application is refused.

Finally, should the Committee be minded to approve the application then the application would need to be notified to the Scottish Ministers given the aviation objection. CAA and BAA would be notified at the same time.

There has also been a request by the applicant for a site visit and hearing to be held prior to the determination of this application.

15

Application No:

13/00501 /FUL

Proposed Development:

Construction of Wind Farm Comprising of 5 No. Wind Turbines (maximum 125 metres to blade tip) and associated infrastructure including Permanent Meteorological Mast, Crane Hardstandings, Control Building, Underground Cables, upgrading and construction of Site Entrance and Access Tracks, and Temporary Construction Compound.

Site Address: Benhar Windfarm Land South Of West Benhar Road Eastfield Harthill ML7 5TG

Date Registered: 29th March 201 3

Applicant: Eneco Wind UK Ltd Units 3 & 4 Athena Court Athena Drive Tachbrook Park Warwick CV34 6RT

Application Level: Local Application

Agent: AMEC E&l UK Ltd 6-7 Newton Terrace Glasgow G3 7PJ

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: Representations: 12 Fortissat Councillors Charles Cefferty, Thomas Cochrane and James Robertson

256 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification: The proposed development is considered contrary to the relevant policies within the North Lanarkshire local Plan and Scottish Planning Policy as the development would have a significant visual impact on the setting of Eastfield and Harthill given the height of the turbines, scale of wind farm and its proximity from the settlements. This wind farm would have a significant cumulative impact on the visual amenity of these settlements when considered with existing wind turbines to the north, north west and west of these settlements. The settlements would be surrounded by wind turbines creating a significant visual impact for those travelling to, from and around these settlements to the detriment of visual amenity.

Notification and Legal Agreement If minded to grant, the application will require to be referred to the Scottish Ministers in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2003 as Edinburgh Airport and NATS have lodged formal objections. Edinburgh Airport, NATS and the CAA shall also be notified at this time. Thereafter, the developer will be required to submit a restoration bond and conclude a legal agreement to ensure the future removal of the turbines and the restoration of the site.

16

18

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

The proposed development is contrary to policies DSP4, NBE 38, EDI 3A2 of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 12 ‘Assessing Wind Turbine Developments’ and Scottish Planning Policy as, due to its scale and proximity, it would have a detrimental visual impact on the setting of the settlements of Eastfield and Harthill. Given its scale and proximity to the settlement the development would dominate the views of the settlements from a significant number of viewpoints and approaching roads particularly from the areas to the north, west and south west. Given the scale and proximity of the development it would create a significant visual cumulative impact with the existing wind turbines to the west and immediately north of the M8 potentially leading to a feeling of enclosure of these settlements by wind turbines. As these turbines would dominate views from Harthill and Eastfield to the south given their proximity and scale and given the existing wind turbines in the immediate area it is considered that this development would lead to a significant visual impact for residents travelling to, from and around these settlements as significant views of wind turbines would be visible in most directions.

19

Backaround Papers:

Consultation Responses:

OFCOM received on 12 April 201 3 Edinburgh Airport received on 29 May 201 3 BAA received on 2 September 2013 Harthill and Eastfield Community Council received on 12 April 201 3 Shotts Community Council received on 4 June 201 3 The Coal Authority received on 15 April 201 3 and 22 April 201 3 Scotland Gas Networks received on 12 April 201 3 ESSAR Oil UK received on 12 July 201 3 West Lothian Council received on 26 April 201 3 Health and Safety Executive received on 11 April 201 3 and 18 April 201 3 Historic Scotland on 8 May 201 3 Greenspace Development (Ecology) received on 22 May 201 3’22 July 201 3 and 26 July 201 3 Greenspace Development (Landscape) received on 15 May 201 3 Ministry Of Defence Estates received on 30 April 2013 and 1 July 2013 NATS received on 8 April 201 3 Protective Services received on 20 May 201 3 and 30 August 201 3 Scottish Power Energy Networks received on 15 April 201 3 Scottish Rights Of Way and Access Society (SCOTWAY) received on 22 April 2013 Traffic & Transportation received on 22 April 201 3 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds received on 26 June 201 3 Scottish Environment Protection Agency received on 2 May 201 3 and 15 May 201 3 Scottish Natural Heritage received on 27 May 201 3, 16 July 201 3 Transport Scotland received on 1 May 201 3 Email from BT received on 26 July 201 3 Scottish Government’s Directorate for The Built Environment received 8 April 201 3

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01236 632499

Report Date:

16 September 2013

20

APPLICATION NO. 13/00501/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2. I

2.2

2.3

Site Descrbtion

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a wind farm (incorporating 5 No. 125m to tip wind turbines) and ancillary works within an area of land to the south of West Benhar Road, Eastfield. The development site measures around 95.4 Ha in area and is located immediately to the south of Eastfield. The site itself comprises of pastoral farmland and areas of plantation forestry. Part of the site was formerly occupied by the Benhar Colliery and there is evidence on site of historic coal workings. The locations for the actual wind turbines would be predominantly on the pastoral farmland. The site is neighboured by commercial forestry to the east, a now disused explosives factory to the west and West Benhar Road, individual residential properties and Eastfield to the north. Directly south is a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC) with part of this being further forestry plantation. A number of drainage channels cross the development site. There are two existing accesses to the site, one being from Covenanter Road in Eastfield and one from West Benhar Road. Covenanter Road leads to Peden Stone, a site of local heritage. Core Path 215 travels within the site following the route of a Right of Way while Core Path 216 is to the north of the site and runs along West Benhar Road, The site is close to the boundary with West Lothian.

Proposed DeveloDment

Planning permission is sought for the construction of 5 wind turbines, permanent meteorological mast (80m in height), crane hardstandings, control building, underground cables and upgrading and construction of a site entrance and access tracks. Planning permission is also sought for a temporary construction compound. The model turbine proposed would have a hub height of 80 metres, a rotor diameter of 90 metres and a maximum height to blade tip of 125m. It is proposed that the development will be connected to the grid via a connection from the onsite control building to a substation either in Shotts or Whitburn. It is the applicant's intention for these cables to be laid underground subject to other permissions. The total generating capacity of the turbines will be up to a maximum of 15 Megawatts (MW). A small area (0.9Ha) of trees will need to be removed to accommodate turbine 5.

The turbines would be designed with an operational life of 25 years and at the end of this period, the developer would decommission the wind farm at which time the above ground infrastructure would be removed and the site reinstated.

Turbine 2 would be the closest to Eastfield and would sit approximately 750m south of the nearest residential property within the settlement. Turbine 1 (the most north east turbine) however would sit approximately 720m south of the nearest residential property in Harthill and 1.03km from the nearest individual property to the east (Greenrigg within West Lothian). The closest turbine to West Benhar Road would be turbine 5 and this would be approximately 770m from the nearest individual property there. Turbine 4 is the most south west turbine and would be closest to Torbothie at a distance of 2.77km and Shotts at 3km. There are individual properties between these settlements and the site and the closest of these would be approximately 1.8km distant. Fauldhouse in West Lothian is situated approximately 3.3km south east of the proposed location of turbine 3. In term of surrounding wind turbines there are two operational wind turbines (47,lm blade tip) around 2.9km north at Blairmains Farm and another at Knowhead farm (34.2m blade tip) around 2.3km north, Both are north of the M8 motorway. Planning permission was recently refused for a proposed wind turbine (77m to tip) at Blairrnuckhole Farm close to Knowhead Farm. There is a single wind turbine operational at Wester Hassockrigg (78m to blade tip) approximately 3km to the west. Planning permission has also been given for 5 No. wind turbines at Netherton and Torrance Farms (125m to blade tip) which would be around 2.4 -2.7km

21

2.4

3.

3.1

3.2

4.

4.1

4.2

5.

5.1

to the north of this site and again to the north of the M8. These are under construction. The operational Black Law wind farm is approximately 6.9km south with the consented (but not yet built) phase 1 extension 5.6km south and the proposed phase 2 extension approximately 5.7m south. The latter will be the basis of a Public Local Inquiry following he Council’s decision to object to this proposal.

As part of the application the applicant has proposed to provide f5000 per MW per annum to a Community Benefit fund. This equates to €75,000 per year and f1,875,000 over the lifetime of the development. In addition the closest 500 properties to the development would receive a €100 rebate on their energy bills each year. This equates to an additional €50,000 of contributions each year giving an overall total of €125,000 monetary contribution annually and f3,125,000 over the lifetime of the development. These contributions however are not material considerations of the planning application. The developer has also proposed to upgrade Core Path 215, plant replacement trees at a 2:l ratio and enhance the habitat of the area to offset some of the impacts of the development and enhance the general area.

Aaalicant’s Suaaortina Information

An Environmental Statement (ES) was submitted outlining the environmental effects of the proposed development. The submitted ES includes assessments on the following topics: planning policy; project description, EIA methodology, landscape and visual assessment; ecology; ornithology: geology, hydrology and hydrogeology; traffic and transportation and socio-economics. The applicant has also submitted a Proposal of Application Consultation report, design and access statement and planning statement.

The applicants provided Supplementary Environmental Information to support the information within the ES with regards to noise and bats.

Site History

Prior to this application planning permission was approved for a temporary meteorological mast (12/01040/FUL)(6Om in height) in the site on 15 November 2012. This has been erected and is in place. At the same time the applicant submitted an EIA Scoping request (1 2/01 042/EIASCO) and Proposal of Application Notice (12/01041/FUL) for a 7 wind turbine development. The site has since been revised to 5 wind turbines.

It should be noted that there are currently three other wind farm applications under consideration in the immediate landscape. All four applications are at different stages of assessment. Shotts Wind Farm (1 3/00072/FUL) would directly border the western boundary of this development site and would comprise of 9 wind turbines at heights of 131 m. To the south of Benhar Wind Farm and bordering the southern boundary of Shotts Wind Farm is the proposed West Benhar Wind Farm (13/01377/FUL) which would comprise of 8 wind turbines at heights of 132m. The final wind farm (Starryshaw Wind Farm (13/00669/FUL)) would adjoin the southern boundary of West Benhar Wind Farm and would comprise of 4 wind turbines at heights of 125m.

Develoament Plan

This site is designated as NBE3B (Assessing Development in the Rural Investment Area) within the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Policies DSP 4 Quality of Development) and EDI 3A2 (Assessing Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals) including the Supplementary Planning Guidance 12 (SPGI 2) document ‘Assessing planning applications for wind turbine developments’ are also of relevance.

22

5.2

6.

6.1

6.2

The Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) is the relevant Strategic Development Plan.

Consultations

The following consultees have no objection or comments to make on the proposed development:

BAA (Glasgow Airport), Scottish Government, Historic Scotland, Scottish Water Telemetry, JRC, BT, the Coal Authority and ESSAR Oil UK

A summary of the comments from the remaining consultees are as follows:-

1)

i i)

iii)

iv)

v)

vi)

vii)

viii)

Edinburgh Airport objected to the proposal on the basis that the wind farm will be visible to their radars and will appear as clutter on their radar screen to the detriment of air traffic control and air safety. Potential mitigation however has been identified and this is being discussed with the developer. Scotland Gas Networks indicate that there is a gas main in close proximity of the site. No mechanical excavations should take part in this part of the site, West Lothian Council are concerned that the development may have significant substantial cumulative effects for West Lothian and request that the overbearing and adverse visual impacts on West Lothian are considered in the determination process. The Health and Safety Executive indicate that the proposed development is located within the safeguarding zone for the Explosive Factory to the south west of Eastfield. Although the probability of an accident is low the consequences could be serious. They advise that should planning permission be approved for this scheme then the license for the Explosive Factory would need to be reviewed which may jeopardise its commercial viability. Greenspace Development (Ecology and Access) raised concern regarding the survey work undertaken with reference to bats. They required clarity on some of the surveys but also indicated that the turbines should be 50m away from foraging features. They also raised concern that the access track for Turbine 5 would be positioned on deep peat. Their concerns have since been alleviated. All other matters in terms of ecology required best practice for species or further surveys prior to works starting on site. They also made recommendations for inclusions within the proposed Habitat Management Plan. The access officers are pleased with the proposed improvements to local Core Path and Right of Way network. Greenspace Development (Landscape) do not object in principle to the proposal as the landscape does have capacity to absorb the development. They do have some reservations concerning the specific significant visual effects the development will have upon residents in neighbouring residential properties and if the development were to be granted permission they would recommend the removal of Turbine Number 1. They note that the cumulative impact of the proposal also requires careful consideration in the context of the landscape capacity and the potential degradation of the landscape character. They also state that given the proximity of this development with the proposed Shotts wind farm these two combined wind farms would be seen as one single mass which would reduce the cumulative impact of the proposal. The Ministry of Defence firstly objected to the proposal as they were concerned that low flying aircraft might be impact by the wind turbines given their height. This objection has since been removed subject to standard conditions relating to aviation lighting and specific turbine location information. NATS objected to the application as the proposal is likely to impact on their radar systems to the detriment of air safety. Mitigation is understood to be available and is under discussion.

23

ix) Protective Services requested the submission of additional information relative to noise and in particular to background noise readings. Following the submission of additional information in this regard Protective Services have expressed that they have no objections to the proposal. Scotways are pleased to note that improvement works are proposed to the existing Rights of Way in the site. They have submitted a holding objection however as they consider that wind turbines should be at least one and half times their height from existing Rights of Way. They note that three wind turbines would be positioned within this distance of the Rights of Way. Traffic and Transportation have no objections to the proposal but are concerned about the cumulative impact of the delivery of the wind turbines should all proposed wind farms be approved and would like this to be controlled. A Traffic Management Plan and Agreement under section 96 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 would also be required. Details of the junction visibility and site access were also required. This has since been submitted and Traffic and Transportation have made no further comments, RSPB have no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of a Habitat Management Plan which they indicate should be secured through a legal agreement with financial bond. SEPA objected to the planning application in the first instance due to the lack of information with regards to the storage of peat on site. Following submission of additional information SEPA have removed their objections subject to conditions relating the submission of a Peat Management Plan and Environmental Management Plan. SNH have not formally objected to the proposal but did raise concerns with regards to the potential impact on bats and the landscape. This is also subject to compliance with additional mitigation in terms of otters, and the submitted mitigation in terms of other protected species and the submission of a Habitat Management Plan. In terms of landscape impact they consider that all applications currently in the system for wind farms in this area should be decided concurrently. They also advise that this development will have significant landscape and visual impacts upon the settlements of Eastfield, Harthill, Greenrigg, Brownhill Farm and Blackridge. Strategically they also consider that this development will bridge the gap between Black Law Wind Farm and the wind energy cluster around Torrance Farm and Netherton Farm causing significant cumulative visual effects and creating a wind farm landscape. Following the submission of additional information on bats and landscape impact, SNH have indicated that they are content that there would be no impact on the local bat population however they are still concerned regarding the impact on the landscape. Transport Scotland have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the approval of a transport route including details of signage, street furniture amendments and temporary closures.

x)

xi)

xii)

xiii)

xiv)

xv)

7. Representations

7.1 Following the standard neighbour notification process, EIA process and newspaper advertisement 257 letters of representation have been received. Of these 69 are letters of objection and 188 are letters of support. 6 of the objection letters provide further comments following the re-advertisement of the application due to the submission of Supplementary Environmental Information. The letters of objection include:-

A letter from Siobhan McMahon MSP outlining concerns regarding the landscape and environmental impact, failure to adhere to the recommended 2km stand-off distance in SPP for large scale wind developments and the cumulative impact of all the proposed and existing wind farms in that area.

Margaret Mitchell MSP has submitted an objection concerning the cumulative impact of turbine developments existing and proposed in the area, the failure of

24

the development to adhere to the recommended 2km stand-off distance in SPP for large scale turbine developments, excessive height of wind turbines, impact on radar, loss of MOD training/ practise area, noise, shadow flicker, effect on Polkemmet Country Park and Shotts golf course, impact on wildlife, release of C02, contamination of the river Almond, loss of recreational area, impact of construction traffic and the air pollution construction traffic.

0 An objection from Councillor Charles Cefferty regarding cumulative impact on the local environment and communities given the existing, consented and proposed turbines, noise, failure to adhere to recommended 2km stand off distance, ice throw for path and road users, shadow flicker on road users, loss of woodland, threat to environment, wildlife and ecology and impact on aviation radar.

In addition Harthill and Eastfield Community Council have submitted two letters of objection and Shotts Community Council, the Allanton Residents Association and the Harthill and Eastfield Tenants and Residents Association have also submitted objections. Their points of objection are included below.

The other reasons for objection are outlined below. It should be noted that a request for a site visit and hearing has been made by some of the objectors and Harthill and Eastfield Community Council:-

LandscaDe and Visual ImDact 1. Landscape impact 2. Cumulative visual impact 3. Excessive height of wind turbines 4. Cumulative impact on communities 5. The turbines are unsightly and overbearing 6. Proximity to residential properties 7. Landscape impact not properly assessed 8. Environmental Statement does not consider all wind turbines 9. Development is out of scale with location

Ecoloav, ornitholoav and imDact on environment 10. Environmental impact 11. Impact on wildlife 12. Contamination of River Almond 13. Air pollution from construction traffic 14. Threat to environment 15. Impact on ecology 16. Environmental impact not fully assessed 17. Raising of water table 18. Land instability due to past mining 19. Impact on ornithology particularly geese

SPP recommended stand off distance 20. Failure to adhere to the recommended 2km stand off distance

Radar and aviation imDact 21. Impact on radar 22. Loss of MOD training practise area

Noise, Shadow Flicker and General Residential Amenity 23. Noise 24. Shadow flicker 25. Impact on properties utilities 26. Construction noise mitigation not offered 27. Low frequency noise and vibration 28. ETSU-R-97 is not reliable 29. Health issues

25

30. Cancer effects of electromagnetic fields 31. Impact on residential amenity 32. Shadow flicker from the moon 33. Impact of noise on dog boarding kennels

Cultural and historical imDact 34. Effect on Polkemmet Country Park and Shotts golf course 35. Loss of recreational area and amenity 36. Destruction of land 37. Impact on Covenanters Stone 38. Restoration constraints

Peat and Carbon Balance 39. Disruption of peat and release of CO2 40. Creation of CO2 from manufacture of wind turbines 41. Loss of woodland

TransDortation issues, access and safetv 42. Impact of construction traffic 43. Ice throw for path and road users 44. Shadow flicker on road users 45. Ice fall 46. Risks from malfunction

Communitv Benefit 47. No benefit to community

DeveloPment Plan and Plannina Policy 48. Conflicts with the development plan 49. Contrary to SPP 50. Devastation of Green Belt 51. Development does not comprise of small scale development that supports rural diversification

ProPertv Values 52. Reduction in property values 53. Wind turbine companies do not pay tax

Notification 55. Lack of communication/ neighbour notification

Grid CaDacity 56. Lack of grid capacity

Aarhus Convention 57. A moratorium on all wind turbine applications should be put in place until such times as compliance with Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention is established following the recent draft ruling by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Ref: ACC/CMOl2/68.

Patticulate DisDersion 58. Dispersion of particles from the recently approved clinical waste facility.

7.2 188 Letters of support have been submitted. One individual has sent in two different responses. The letters of support include:-

0 A letter from Councillor Thomas Cochrane commenting that the wind farm would be good for the environment, would have no significant impact on the landscape and would have economic and environmental benefits.

26

8.

8.1

8.2

The other points of support include the following:- Environmental Benefits 1. Environmental benefit 2, Helps fight climate change 3. Helps meet Scotland's targets for renewables 4. Is an alternative to fossil fuel 5. Site benefits from good wind speeds 6. Provides clean power 7. Economic benefits

Visual and landscape impact considerations 8. Would have no significant visual impact 9. Respect for local area 10. Would have no significant landscape impact 1 1. Design and layout acceptable 12. Does not impact on living in the area

Noise and Ecoloav Impacts 13. Noise is within appropriate limits 14. Ecology has been properly considered

Review of Decision 15. Any decision can be reviewed after 25 years

Communitv Consultation 16. Good community consultation

Plannina Assessment

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. The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan and therefore need only be considered in accordance with the local plan.

Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan

tdBE 3B Assessina Development in the Rural Investment Area: This site is located within the Rural Investment Area and the above policy aims to protect the character of and promote development within these areas by restricting development to specific types. The generation of electricity by renewable sources is considered acceptable to this policy, The acceptability of the development however is subject of the impact criteria listed below:

Comment The development could be considered to have a positive economic benefit through the generation of energy and the income this supports through employment and local infrastructure improvements.

Have a positive economic benefit

Comment Based on the information submitted with the application including the Environmental Statement it is considered that any potential impacts on the environment can be sufficiently mitigated and minimised.

Minimise any adverse environmental impacts

Do not pose undue infrastructure implications Comment Given the scale of the development, it would not implications given the options available for grid

pose any undue infrastructure connection suggested by the

37

developer.

0

Comment A wind farm of this scale requires a significant area of land to be accommodated on and separated from urban areas and therefore it is considered that this development has a locational need within the rural investment area. This however does not determine the appropriateness of the location with the rural investment area,

Have a specific locational need

0

Comment In terms of scale and form it is considered that the wind farm would not be suitable for the proposed location. Although located within the countryside, the development would be located in relatively close proximity to the settlements of Eastfield and Harthill. Due to the scale of the turbines the development would have a significant impact on the setting of these settlements and would create a significant visual impact. Although the wind farm is within the countryside it is within a kilometre of the two aforementioned settlements. The overbearing and dominant effect of the turbines would cause significant visual harm to the residents of these settlements which will be discussed in section 8.5 below. Greenspace Development (landscape) have expressed concerns with regards to the location of the wind farm and its location relative to the settlements.

Be of suitable scale and form for the location

0 Applications include a landscape assessment Comment A suitable landscape assessment has been submitted but this assessment does not alleviate the concern regarding scale and form identified above.

0

Comment The proposals are assessed against Scottish Planning Policy in section 8.18.

Adherence to Scottish Planning Policy, Strategic Plan and other Local Plan policies

Comment No European sites would be affected

Will not adversely affect the integrity of European sites

Given the above, as the scale and form is considered to be inappropriate for the developments location within the Rural Investment Area it is considered that this development would be contrary to policy NBE3B of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that it is not of suitable scale and form for the location within the Rural Investment Area.

8.3 ED12 C2 (Opencast Coal Extraction Search Area): The site is also partly located in an area designated as an opencast coal extraction search area which aims to satisfy market demands for minerals by directing proposals for the extraction of construction materials and opencast coal to these areas. As this development would have a temporary lifespan of 25 years it is considered that this development would not permanently sterilise any local coal supplies to the detriment of this policy. The retention of any wind turbines and the need for coal can be reconsidered at the end of 25 years. Therefore the development is not contrary to this policy.

Policv EDI 3A2 (Assessina Economic Development and Infrastructure Proposals): This policy states that the Council supports, in principle, all forms of renewable energy generation subject to these meeting the criteria contained in the approved Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPGI 2) relating to issues of scale, cumulative impact, community benefit and restoration. The topics for consideration as presented within this policy and SPG12 are considered in the following paragraphs but in general it is considered that this development would not comply with this policy as the development is considered to have a significant visual and cumulative impact given

8.4

28

its scale as outlined in section 8.5. The development is therefore considered generally contrary to this policy as the proposal cannot adequately address all criteria within the SPG or the policy itself.

8.5 Landscape, visual and cumulative impact: Within the wind farm areas of search map presented in SPGI 2 this turbine is located within zone 1 which indicates that this area has the greatest capacity within North Lanarkshire for wind turbines of all scales. However, this zoning does not reflect the fact that the area already has a significant number of constructed and approved wind turbines many of which are relatively close to the site. There are also three other wind farms, (previously described) proposed within the immediate area. These wind turbines are detailed in section 2.3 above. These developments create a significant accumulation of wind turbines to the north, north west and west of Eastfield and Harthill. Greenspace Development have assessed that the landscape has the capacity to adequately absorb this development without significant harm to the wider landscape. Although the development would accord in principle with the Areas of Search map, having assessed the submitted information and Environmental Assessment it is considered that this development would have a significant adverse visual impact both individually and cumulatively. Greenspace Development have noted that although they have no objection in principle to the proposal they express reservations regarding the specific significant visual effects the development will have upon residents in neighbouring residential properties. SNH also stated that there would be significant visual impacts on the settlements of Eastfield, Harthill, Greenrigg and Blackridge due to the proximity of the development to these settlements. It is considered that the wind farm, given its proximity and scale to the settlements of Eastfield and Harthill, would significantly impact on the setting of these settlements from a number of viewpoints. In particular the wind farm would have a dominating effect over these settlements particularly from raised views to the west and north. It is considered that these settlements would become associated with this wind farm in terms of character. Viewpoints 9.27b and 9.30b within the ES show how the development might be viewed relative to Eastfield. It is recognised that these viewpoints are representative of worst case scenarios and may not be viewable from a large number of people. It is considered however that there may be a number of viewpoints used by individuals as they travel to or pass these settlements in the wider to immediate area that would view the of these settlements which is dominated by the wind farm. Harthill and Eastfield would be dominated by this wind farm from those viewpoints to the detriment of the character and setting of those settlements. The proximity and scale in this instance would make it difficult to detach the turbine visually from the settlements from several viewpoints. The submitted ES suggests that the development would have a significant adverse visual impact on these settlements and that this would not be sufficient to warrant refusal. Having viewed the submitted information it is considered that the significant detrimental impact caused by this development would be of a sufficient scale to warrant refusal.

8.6 The wind farm would also dominate views out of the settlement to the south given its proximity and scale. It is recognised that a relatively small number of residential properties within Eastfield and Harthill would have direct views to the wind farm however the wind farm is likely to affect all residents to some degree. The proximity of the wind farm would present varying views to residents and visitors of the settlement as they travel through or to their residential properties. The planning system aims to protect amenity in the public interest and therefore the protection of private views of a small number of properties may not be considered to be of public benefit given the benefits of renewable energy. The difference in this case is that residents of these properties and a wider number of residents would be greatly affected by these turbines as they travel around the settlement and to and from their properties due to the number and height of turbines and the wind farms proximity. As these turbines are of significant scale and in close proximity they would dominate these views southward to the detriment of visual amenity. This significant impact can be seen in viewpoints 9.23b and 9.24bwithin the ES which provides a small snapshot of the potential vies to the south. The impact of this development would be substantially

29

increased due to the existing and proposed wind turbines in the immediate landscape to the north, north west and west. Should a wind farm of this scale and proximity to the settlements be approved then it is likely that wind turbines would be visible from most views out of these settlements to the detriment of visual amenity. It should be noted that it is the proximity of this wind farm to these settlements that would have the greatest impact in terms of the feeling of enclosure and dominance. The majority of these wind turbines (tower, hub and blades) in close proximity to the built up area would be seen from a number of southward viewpoints with little obvious separation or buffer. This feeling of encirclement by wind turbines would only exacerbate the visual impact expressed in section 8.5 above. The saturation of the immediate visual landscape by wind turbines would be to the detriment of the visual amenity of residents of Harthill and Eastfield as wind turbines would always be present as they travelled to, from and around the villages with every route into the settlements affected in some way. Again the proximity factor in this instance would be the defining factor as this would create a more significant visual impact, worsening the cumulative visual effect from existing and approved wind turbines. This accumulation of wind turbines would also affect the character of these settlements. These identified impacts cannot be mitigated against and therefore this development would therefore be considered contrary to policy EDI 3A2 given the significant visual impact identified above.

8.7 Natural Heritage: The wind farm would be sited in area of countryside which has a history of human interference. The landscape is under a degree of regeneration although there are still forestry plantations within the site. The submitted information and Environmental Statement has provided sufficient evidence to show that the development would not adversely impact on the natural heritage of the area should the mitigation measures be followed. This would include ecology, ornithology and the natural habitats within and around the site. Any minor impacts would also be offset by the proposed habitat improvements. Greenspace Development and SNH are also content with the information submitted and have no objections to the proposal in this regard.

8.8 feat: It is noted from the submission and consultation responses that there are some areas of peat that have the potential to be affected by this development. It is noted however that the development has been designed to avoid peat where possible and that all areas of deep peat within the site have been adequately avoided. It is also noted that the developer proposes to use floating roads for access where peat issues are identified which would lessen any potential impact. Even if these were not used the impact on peat would be minimal. SNH and Greenspace Development have also expressed no significant concern on this issue following the submission of additional information.

8.9 Noise: The Environmental Statement has concluded that the development would not have an adverse noise impact both individually and cumulatively with the other existing and approved wind turbines. Protective Services have no objection to the proposal but have expressed that there may be a noise issue created for some neighbouring residential properties should this and the other proposed wind farms to the south and west be approved. As these are yet to be determined it is considered that there would be no significant noise issue created by this development.

8.10 Shadow Flicker: Guidance provided by the Scottish Government indicates that where any property is located within 10 rotor diameters (1250m) of any proposed wind turbine a shadow flicker assessment is required. The submitted shadow flicker assessment indicates that 104 receptor groups have been identified as being susceptible to shadow flicker from this development. To mitigate this, the developer would install a control system which would automatically shut down the wind turbines when shadow flicker would occur. This mitigation would adequately address the shadow flicker issue and therefore should be added as a condition should the application be approved.

30

8.1 1 Distance from Road, Ice Fall, Ice Throw and Malfunction: The wind turbines would be positioned more than their height plus 50% from any road as required within SPG12. The wind turbines however would be positioned relatively close to designated Rights of Way and Core Paths. There is a risk to users from the malfunction of a wind turbine given that these footpaths would be within the topple distance of some of the turbines or may be within range of thrown blades. The turbines however would be sufficient distance from the paths as to avoid significant issues should ice form on the hub and fall. The turbines would have sensors fitted to them which would recognise imbalances on the hub and blades caused by icing. The turbines would then be switched off to avoid ice throw. SCOTWAYS have stipulated that the wind turbines should be the height of the turbine plus 50% (187.5m) from the designated Rights of Way. This stand off distance is not designated within any legislation but is similar to the stand off distance prescribed in the SPG for roads. In accordance with the SPG this stand off distance would be used for well used public roads where the risk to motorists was substantial should malfunction occur. Although this is a well used footpath network, in relative terms when compared to motorways or A-roads which the SPG guidance is aimed at, it is considered that the numbers of pedestrian at potential risk from turbine malfunction would be minimal. It should also be considered that at times of most likely malfunction (high winds, severe weather conditions) the number of likely path users will be low. Also although the turbines would be within a turbine and a half distance from the path network they would still be set back from the path so as to reduce any risk further. It is therefore considered that the application would meet the requirements of the SPG in this regard.

8.1 2 Aviation, Radar and Telecommunication Interference: Although NATS and Edinburgh Airport have objected to the proposal however both have indicated that mitigation is available within reasonable timescales. The applicant has advised that they would agree to the use of this mitigation. The Scottish Government ‘Guidance on Dealing with Aviation Objections and Associated Negative Conditions in Wind Turbine Consents’ indicates that where mitigation is possible for aviation matters and this can be achieved in a reasonable timeframe then the application can be determined with appropriate planning conditions. Any potential impact on aviation radar can therefore be mitigated within a reasonable timescale. None of the telemetry consultees have any objection to the proposal. In terms of TV/ Radio reception and radio waves it is noted that following the digital switchover the impact of wind turbines on these signals is anticipated to be negligible. To ensure this is the case it is considered prudent to include a condition should planning permission be approved ensuring that an assessment of TV reception before and after the wind farm is constructed.

8.13 Transport Route, Access Considerations and Infrastructure: Following consultation with Traffic and Transportation it is noted that in principle they have no objection to the proposed transport route and access arrangements. They did require additional information which has now been provided. No further comments have been made by Traffic and Transportation. The proposed transport route and access are therefore considered acceptable. The concern raised by Traffic and Transportation with regards to the cumulative impact should all proposed wind farms be approved would need addressed should planning permission be approved. It is noted by the applicant that there are several options for grid connection and it is considered that the proposed ancillary development on site to accommodate the wind turbine would be acceptable.

8.14 Cultural Heritage: There are no designated buildings or scheduled monuments of historical significant near to the site. There is however a local monument of cultural significance (Peden Stone) which would be approximately 160m from the nearest turbine to the south. It is noted in the Environmental Statement that noise from the wind farm would be heard from the stone particularly given the low background noise and some views of the wind farm would be possible (albeit reduced by local topography and vegetation). As the monument has no designated status it is considered that the potential impact would not carry sufficient weight to warrant refusal of the application. The local significance of the monument is noted however and it is considered that any impacts should be mitigated where possible or when the

31

monument is in use. An annual memorial is held here every year and the developer has agreed to switching the turbines off during this event should they receive correspondence from the organisers of an impact. Should the application be approved then a condition may be necessary in this regard. Some mitigation would also be provided through the developer enhancing the existing Right of Way to the memorial.

8.15 Community Benefit and Restoration: Community benefit is outlined in section 2.3 above. Given the scale of the development it is advised that should planning permission be approved then restoration should be secured through a planning obligation and restoration bond.

8.16 DSP 1 - 3 Amount, Location and lmoact of Develooment: It is considered that these policies would not be applicable for this application.

8.17 DSP 4 Qualitv of DeveloPment: This policy considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes and provides a range of assessment criteria. It is considered that this criteria has already been addressed through the consideration of the application through Policy EDI 3A2 and SPG12 above which provide more specific assessment criteria for wind generation applications. As it is considered that the development would have a significant adverse visual impact the development would also be considered to be contrary to policy DSP4.

Other Material Considerations

8.18 Scottish Plannina Policv (SPP): This document outlines that planning authorities should support development of wind farms in locations where the technology can operate efficiently while addressing environmental and cumulative impacts. Development plans should provide a clear indication of the potential for development of wind farms of all scales and should set out the criteria that will be considered in determining those applications. The criteria will vary depending on the scale of development and its relationship to the characteristics of the surrounding area, but are likely to include:

Landscape and visual impact, Effects on the natural heritage and historic environment, Contribution of the development to renewable energy generation targets, Effect on the local and national economy and tourism and recreation interests, Benefits and disbenefits for communities, Aviation and telecommunications, Noise and shadow flicker, and Cumulative impact.

It is considered that the relevant criteria outlined within this document have already been considered throughout this report. As it is considered that the development would have a significant visual impact on the setting and visual amenity of the settlements of Harthill and Eastfield including a significant cumulative impact this development would fail to meet the requirements of SPP and therefore would be considered contrary to its aims.

8.1 9 Consultation Responses: As noted the majority of consultees have no objection to the proposal, however some of these responses are subject to the attachment of conditions. Should the application be approved then conditions would be required to ensure that mitigation is agreed and in place prior to development starting on site and these are outlines in the responses from the Coal Authority, SEPA, MOD and Transport Scotland. The comments from Scotland Gas Networks are noted and would be added as an informative if planning permission was approved. The impact on the settlements within West Lothian has been considered in this process as requested by West Lothian Council. The impact on the settlements within West Lothian is not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application given the

32

separation distance of the site from those settlements and the intervening topography and vegetation. In terms of the comments from the Health and Safety Executive, it is noted that they would review the license for the existing explosives factory should planning permission be approved and that this may affect the commercial viability of the venture. The applicant has submitted information showing that the explosives factory is not currently in use and that the site has not been built to the full extent of the original planning permission. This report also states that the HSE’s concern lies with the potential risk to workers on site, particularly in the construction compound, should an incident occur rather than the proximity of the wind turbines. The applicant has noted that they can control on site works to ensure that risk is minimised to their workforce. The explosives factory appears to be disused. Also paintballing and archery events were advertised at the site suggesting that this is being temporarily used for leisure recreational pursuits. It is therefore considered that the comments from HSE would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. In terms of ecology, Greenspace Development, SNH and the RSPB have suggested that a Habitat Management Plan and Peat Management Plan be submitted should planning permission be approved. In terms of SNH’s comments with regards to the cumulative impact in relation to the interaction between the cluster of turbines north of the M8, the application site and Black Law (and subsequent extensions) it is considered that this interaction would not be significant. It should be noted that Greenspace Development have not identified this cumulative impact as a concern. It is recognised that the cumulative impact between the turbine cluster north of the M8 and the application site would be significant however it is considered that the separation distance between the site and Black Law would be too large to cause any significant interaction. The comments by SCOTWAYS have been addressed in section 8.10.

8.20 Representations: In terms of the points of objection I would comment as follows:.

LandscaDe and Visual Impact 1, Landscape impact 2. Cumulative visual impact 3. Excessive height of wind turbines 4. Cumulative impact on communities 5. The turbines are unsightly and overbearing 6. Proximity to residential properties 7. Landscape impact not properly assessed 8. Environmental Statement does not consider all wind turbines 9. Development is out of scale with location

Response: The visual and landscape impact is addressed within sections 8.5 and 8.6 of this report. Briefly it is considered that the sufficient information has been provided within the ES on landscape and visual impact to allow the Planning Authority to fully consider this matter. Despite this, it is considered that the development would have a significant visual impact on the settlements of Harthill and Eastfield. The turbines would have a dominating effect on the setting of these settlements bringing large and overbearing structures to the edge of the settlements to the detriment of visual amenity.

Ecoloav, ornitholoav and impact on environment 10. Environmental impact 11, Impact on wildlife 12. Contamination of River Almond 13. Air pollution from construction traffic 14. Threat to environment 15. Impact on ecology 16. Environmental impact not fully assessed 17. Raising of water table 18. Land instability due to past mining 19. Impact on ornithology particularly geese

33

Response: The environmental statement has adequately addressed the potential impact on wildlife, ecology and ornithology as noted in section 8.7 above. The general impact on the environment including from pollution has also been adequately addressed and none of the consultees in this regard have any objection to the proposal. A Construction Management Plan would be required through condition should planning permission be approved which should protect the River Almond from pollutants. The raising of the water table was not identified as an issue by SEPA. The Coal Authority has asked for further investigations in terms of land stability. This would be addressed through condition should the application be approved.

SPP recommended stand off distance 20. Failure to adhere to the recommended 2km stand off distance

Response: The separation distance specified in the SPP refers to developments of 20MW and above and therefore does not apply to this development.

Radar and aviation impact 21, Impact on radar 22. Loss of MOD training practise area

Response: It is noted that the potential impact on aviation radar can be mitigated as discussed in section 8.11. The MOD have also expressed no objection to the proposal.

Noise, shadow flicker and aeneral residential amenitv 23. Noise 24. Shadow flicker 25. Impact on properties utilities 26. Construction noise mitigation not offered 27. Low frequency noise and vibration 28. ETSU-R-97 is not reliable 29. Health issues 30. Cancer effects of electromagnetic fields 31. Impact on residential amenity 32. Shadow flicker from the moon 33. Impact of noise on dog boarding kennels

Response: Noise and shadow flicker are considered in sections 8.9 and 8.10. The construction noise and utility impact issues would be controlled through condition should planning permission be approved. The Report, ‘The Assessment and Raring of Noise from Wind Farms’ (Final Report, Sept 1996, DTI, (ETSU-R-97) describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise, which should be followed by applicants and consultees, and used by planning authorities to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions, This document has been supplemented by the recently published by the Institute of Acoustics ‘A Good Practice Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise (May 2013). This document still recommends the use of ETSU-R-97 for the consideration of wind turbine noise by Local Authorities and its use is promoted by the Scottish Government. Compliance with this document is considered to avoid as much as possible any significant residential harm from noise of all types and the health issues associated with this. Protective Services have indicated that the development would accord with this guidance. Given the above considerations in terms of shadow flicker, noise and other related matters it is considered that the development would not impact on residential amenity other than the visual amenity issues identified in sections 8.5 and 8.6. Shadow flicker from the moon is not considered a phenomenon that would cause significant residential harm. There is no evidence to suggest that wind turbines contribute to an increased risk of cancer.

34

Cultural and Historical Impact 34. Effect on Polkemmet Country Park and Shotts golf course 35. Loss of recreational area and amenity 36. Destruction of land 37. Impact on Covenanters Stone 38. Restoration constraints

Response: It is acknowledged that the development may be visible from Polkemmet Country Park and Shotts golf course from some views however it is considered that the impact on these community facilities would be insubstantial. As shown in the submitted visual assessment the distance between the wind farm and the Country Park reduces any significant impact while the use of the golf course would not be reduced, restricted or impacted by this development. The wind farm would be positioned in an area which is heavily used for recreation. The wind turbines however would not restrict the use of this area for recreation beyond where the wind turbines are placed. The applicant has also proposed to improve the recreational area through a habitat management plan and the improvement of the path network. The erection of wind turbines and their associated infrastructure will have some impact on the land that they are placed. This however can be offset with an appropriate habitat management plan and then full restoration of the site through a legal agreement and bond in this instance. The impact on the Covenanters Stone is discussed in section 8.13 above.

Peat and Carbon Balance 39, Disruption of peat and release of CO2 40. Creation of CO2 from manufacture of wind turbines 41, Loss of woodland

Response: The applicant has carried out a voluntary carbon balance calculator which shows that the worst case scenario for the site would be that the development would take 1.8 years to repay the carbon used in the wind farms construction. This includes peat removal and tree removal and the construction process of individual turbines. This would mean that the development would make a positive contribution to the reduction of global CO2 production for at least 23 years of its operational life. It should also be noted that this is a worst case scenario involving the construction of roads on areas of peat rather than using floating roads and other mitigation measures. SNH and Greenspace Development are content that the development will not have a significant impact in terms of peat. It is noted that some woodland would be lost, however this would be compensated adequately through the replanting ratio suggested by the applicant. This should be controlled through the Habitat Management Plan should planning permission be approved.

TransDortation issues, access and safetv 42. Impact of construction traffic 43. Ice throw for path and road users 44. Shadow flicker on road users 45. Ice fall 46. Risks from malfunction

Response: These matters have been largely addressed in sections 8.11 and 8.13. Traffic and Transportation have noted the potential impact of construction traffic and are generally content with the transport route and access arrangements. Control over the construction traffic should all the wind farms be approved would be required through a planning condition and a Traffic Management Plan. Shadow flicker on road users has not been identified as a significant matter by either Traffic and Transportation or Transport Scotland. Given the distance that the turbines would be from the road it is not considered that this would be a significant issue.

Communitv Benefit

35

47. No benefit to community

Response: Renewable energy is considered to be a benefit to the community as it provides green energy and reduces the country’s dependence on non-renewable energy. Wind turbines are also considered to be cleaner in terms of pollutants that are released compared with other energy production facilities. The provision of energy in this manner is seen as a positive material consideration and can outweigh some of the more negative aspects of this type of development. In this instance the positive aspects of renewable energy do not outweigh the visual impact outlined earlier in the report. Community benefit in a monetary sense unless used to mitigate against impacts of the development is not considered a material planning consideration.

DeveloDment Plan and Plannina Policy 48. Conflicts with the development plan 49. Contrary to SPP 50. Devastation of Green Belt 51. Development does not comprise of small scale development that supports rural

diversification

Response: As noted throughout this report it is considered that this development would be contrary to policies ED13A2, NBE3B (including SPG12) and DSP4 of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan and SPP. The development however is not situated in the green belt and would generally be considered appropriate rural diversification apart from is incompatible scale with its location.

ProDertv Values 52. Reduction in property values 53. Wind turbine companies do not pay tax

Response: These would not be material planning considerations.

Notification 54. Lack of communication/ neighbour notification

Response: The standard neighbour notification procedure was followed for this application and the properties notified are within the file. The developer also carried out pre-application events within the community which were not required for this application.

Grid Capacity 55. Lack of grid capacity

Response: The applicant has provided several options of grid connection. Any current grid capacity issues should not restrict development as this can be resolved in the future. Should the site otherwise be appropriate.

Human Riahts 56. Breach of Human Rights

Response: The impact on individual Human Rights has been addressed through considering this application against local plan policy and other material considerations.

Aarhus Convention 57. A moratorium on all wind turbine applications should be put in place until such

times as compliance with Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention is established following the recent draft ruling by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee Ref: ACC/C/2012/68.

36

Response: This draft ruling relates to that the UKs National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) not being subjected to public participation. This draft ruling however does not invalidate this document. The ruling does however require that future iterations of the NREAP are subject to public participation. The NREAP and this ruling would have an insignificant influence on the determination of an application at the Development Management level and a moratorium is not considered necessary.

Particulate Dispersion 58. Dispersion of particles from the recently approved clinical waste facility.

Response: The wake created by wind turbines can contribute to greater dispersion of particulates emitted from various sources. The turbine however must be the same or of greater height than the source emitting the particulates. If this is the case then a sufficient distance must be provided between the turbines and the source to ensure that the particulates are not dispersed over a greater distance. SEPA have indicated that if the distance between the source and the turbine is greater than 10 times the wind turbines rotor diameter (900m) then no significant issue is anticipated. The wind turbines in this proposed wind farm would be of sufficient distance from the stack of the approved clinical waste treatment facility with the nearest turbine being at least 1.9km away.

In terms of the points of support I would comment as follows:- 8.21

Environmental benefits 1. Environmental benefit 2. Helps fight climate change 3. Helps meet Scotland's targets for renewables 4. Is an alternative to fossil fuel 5. Site benefits from good wind speeds 6. Provides clean power 7. Economic benefits

Response: It is accepted that wind farms provide environmental and economic benefit through the provision of green energy. It is considered in this instance however that this does not outweigh the visual impact that the development would have on Harthill and Eastfield.

Visual and landscaue imuact considerations 8. Would have no significant visual impact 9. Respect for local area 15. Would have no significant landscape impact 16. Design and layout acceptable 17. Does not impact on living in the area

Response: As noted in sections 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5 above the development is considered to have a significant visual impact on the setting of Harthill and Eastfield and would have a negative impact on visual amenity. The scale, design and layout are considered overbearing, dominating and unacceptable given the proximity to these settlements. It is considered that this development would therefore cause a disamenity to those living in these settlements.

Noise and Ecoloav Impacts 18. Noise is within appropriate limits 19. Ecology has been properly considered

Response: It is agreed that these matters have both been adequately addressed by the Environmental Statement.

Review of Decision

37

15. Any decision can be reviewed after 25 years

Response: Any planning permission approved for this development would be for a temporary period of 25 years. Following the end of this period further planning permission would be required to retain the wind farm.

Cornrnunitv Consultation 16. Good community consultation

Response: The applicant was not required to carry out community consultation for this application and while additional community consultation is supported it would not be a material consideration of the planning application.

9. Conclusion

9.1 Taking the foregoing into consideration it is considered that the proposed development is considered contrary to policies NBE36, EDI 3A2 (including SPG 12) and DSP 4 of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan and Scottish Planning Policy. The development would have a significant visual impact on the setting of the settlements of Eastfield and Harthill given the height of the turbines, scale of wind farm and its proximity from the settlements. Given the proximity of these turbines relative to the existing wind turbines to the north, north west and west of these settlements an almost encirclement of these settlements would be created causing a significant visual impact for those travelling to, from and around these settlements to the detriment of visual amenity, Although there have been a significant number of letters of support these do not outweigh the application being contrary to the development plan. It is therefore recommend that the application is refused for the reason outlined above.

9.2 Finally should the Committee be minded to approve, the application must be referred to Scottish Ministers and notified to CAA, NATS and Edinburgh Airport given the outstanding aviation objections and the applicant will require to enter into a planning obligation and bond to secure site restoration.

9.3 It should be noted that a site visit and hearing request has been made,

38

Application No:

1 3/0 1 238/AM D

Proposed Development:

Application for Discharge of Planning Obligations Previous Application (05/00113/OUT)

Site Address:

Land South Of Cleddans Farm, Gain & Shankburn Road Cum bernauld

Date Registered:

15th August 201 3

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Desmond Gracey Edengrove 101 Gain & Shankburn Road Cumbernauld G67 4GZ

Application Level: Local Application

Agent: David Scott Ledingham Chalmers LLP Johnstone House 52-54 Rose Street Aberdeen AB10 1HA

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Ward: Representations: 006 Coatbridge North And Glenboig Fulton James MacGregor, Julie McAnulty, Michael McPake, William Shields,

No letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

It is considered that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification for the removal of the legal agreement that restricts occupation of dwellinghouse to be limited to a person in full time employment at related Cleddans Farm. The legal agreement seeks to protect the rural amenity of the area, ensuring that only dwellinghouses that are essential for agricultural purposes are erected and without such controls, this dwellinghouse would be contrary to policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

39

40

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons:-

1. That insufficient information has been submitted to justify the removal legal agreement that restricts occupation of dwellinghouse to a person in full time employment at Cleddans Farm. The legal agreement seeks to protect the rural amenity of the area, ensuring that only dwellinghouses that are essential for agricultural purposes are erected and without such controls, this dwellinghouse would be contrary to policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan resulting an adverse affect on the rural character of the area.

2. That should planning permission be granted for this development a precedent may be set which would make it difficult for the Planning Authority to refuse other similar applications for the removal of similar legal agreements restricting the occupancy of a dwellinghouse for agricultural purposes without appropriate justification,

Backaround Paoers:

Consultation Responses: No consultations were required to be undertaken.

Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Kevin Divin at 01236 632508

Re ort Date: 16 September 201 3 tR

41

APPLICATION NO. 13/01238/AMD

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

The application site measures approximately 52.5 hectares and is made up of open farmland lying to the south and east of Cleddans Farm some one mile to the east of the village of Annathill. The site is in two sections being centrally dissected in a north south direction by the Summerhill and Garngibboch Road and is bounded to the south by the Gain & Shankburn Road. The site consists of a large detached dwellinghause, two agricultural buildings and agricultural fields.

Proposed DeveloDment

An application for discharge of planning obligations has been submitted to dissolve the legal agreement of the previous application (05/00113/OUT). The active clause of the legal agreement is Clause 4 states that “The occupation of the dwellinghouse shall be limited to a person in full time employment at Cleddans Farm, aforesaid” (the occupancy restriction). In addition, clause 4 further states that “the Proprietor shall be prohibited or otherwise disposing of the dwellinghouse separate from the remainder of the Development Site” (the restriction of sale). No physical alterations are proposed.

Amlicant’s Sumortincl Information

A supporting report was submitted which seeks to provide justification for the removal of the legal agreement. The applicant seeks to diversify the farm and is experiencing difficulties in securing finance against the property as a result of the legal agreement where they have been informed by the bank that this reduces the value by approximately 40%. The applicant considers that the legal agreement is exceptionally inflexible in terms of the occupier working on other farmland outwith the Cleddans Farm and does not provide for any other person to be permitted to occupy the dwelling.

The applicant refers to the Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) view that a standard full time worker requires 1,900 full time hours per annum. According to the SAC, a farm this nature would amount to approximately 1612 hours per annum. The applicant considers that the labour requirement at Cleddans Farm is insufficient to justify a full time employee.

The applicant refers to the recent Chief Planners letter (4’h November 2011) which concludes that “The Scottish Government believes that occupancy restrictjons are rarely appropriate and so should generally be avoided”, they also refer to Circular 3/2012 which states that ”Where the authority is satisfied that an adequate case has been made, it should not be necessary to use a planning obligation as a formal mechanism to restrict occupancy or use”. The applicant also considers that legal agreements result in difficulty of receiving loan finance of houses, the selling on of houses, and problems in the event of changes in circumstances. In addition, the applicant considers that a residential dwelling in this locality may be acceptable without the need for an agricultural justification, or the restrictions contained in the Planning Agreement and in compliance with policy NBE 3 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

This document concludes that the requirement for the occupancy restriction and the restriction on the sale contained within the planning agreement is neither reasonable, nor appropriate, it fails to meet the tests laid out in Circular 3/2012 and as these are the only significant obligations contained in the planning agreement, it should be discharged.

42

4.

4.1

5.

5.1

5.2

6.

6.1

7.

7.1

8.

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

Site History

The following previous applications are relevant to the current proposal:

b 05/001 l3/0UT Erection of Dwellinghouse and Agriculture Shed in Connection with Agricultural Unit (In Outline) - Approved I" September 2006

Shed in Connection with Agricultural Unit (Part Retrospect) - Approved 15'h February 2007

Blade Diameter) - Approved 24th May 201 0

0 06/00062/REM Erection of Dwellinghouse, Double Garage and Agriculture

b

e 08/00132/PRA Erection of Cattle Shed - Approved 1 4th March 2008 09/01362/FUL Construction of Single Wind Turbine (15m to Hub with 9.64m

Development Plan

The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

The application site is zoned as NBE 3A (Green Belt) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

Consultations

No consultations were required to be undertaken,

Rewesentat ions

Due to the nature of the application, no neighbour notification was required to be undertaken.

Plannina Assessment

Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

DeveloDment Plan - North Lanarkshire Local Plan: The site falls within an area covered by Policy NBE 3A (Green Belt) which provides protection for the rural character and promotes limited forms of development. The policy states that within a Green Belt no residential development will be permitted except for new houses for full time works in connection with forestry or agriculture. Notwithstanding the arguments presented by the applicant to support removing the legal agreement, the existing dwellinghouse without such a legal agreement to restrict the occupancy is contrary to policy NBE 3A.

The North Lanarkshire Local Plan also requires proposed developments to be assessed against policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development), DSP 3 (Impact of Development) and DSP 4 (Quality of Development). Given the scale, nature and location of this application, policies DSP 1, DSP 2, DSP 3 and DSP 4 are not relevant in this instance.

Other Material Considerations - Supplementary Planning Guidance: A material consideration is the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 7 Assessing Development in the Green Belt, of which Section G 'Dwellings for Agricultural Workers' is relevant. The SPG states that the Council acknowledges that there are particular circumstances when a new house in a countryside location is sometimes required to accommodate a full time worker who is employed in a necessarily rural based business, and where the nature and demands of the work concerned make it essential for one person engaged in the enterprise to live at, or very close to the site of their work. This guidance reiterates and expands on the position of Policy NBE 3A.

43

It is, therefore, considered that the proposal is contrary with the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

8.5 Assessment of Applicant’s Supporting Information: In normal circumstances legal agreements are attached to planning consents issued by the Council for residential development in the Green Belt when directly linked with forestry or agriculture. Applications for their removal are then considered against Local Plan policy and the particulars of the case. The basic question is whether or not there is a good planning reason to maintain the restriction. The applicant has been informed that the Council’s approach to these matters is that a planning application is first required to assess the planning merits of the proposal of removing the related occupancy planning condition and depending on the outcome of this application, this would be followed up with a modification of a planning agreement application. Therefore, the Council’s position is that the legal agreement cannot be discharged unless the restricted occupancy planning condition is successfully removed first. The applicant’s supporting statement, considers that the requirement for the occupancy restriction and the restriction on the sale contained within the planning agreement is neither reasonable or nor appropriate. It is, however, considered that the terms of the legal agreement were acceptable to the applicant when they signed up to the legal agreement on 28th July 2006 and this is not considered to be a significant amount of time for circumstances to alter dramatically. The applicant also considers that the legal agreement fails to meet the tests laid out in Circular 3/2012 and as these are the only significant obligations contained in the planning agreement and should be discharged. Notwithstanding this and as discussed in detail above, an existing dwellinghouse in this rural location without such a legal agreement is contrary to policy NBE 3A of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. In addition, contrary to the applicant’s view, it is considered that the removal of the legal agreement does not aid the financial value of property as the true value would still bz restricted by planning condition 4 of planning permission 06/00062/REM dated 15 February 2007 which restricts the occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted shall be limited to a person employed full time locally in agriculture.

9. Conclusions

9.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the applicant has not provided sufficient justification to remove the legal agreement that restricts occupation of the dwellinghouse to be limited to a person in full time employment at Cleddans Farm. The removal of the legal agreement would adversely affect the rural amenity of the area by opening the way for a potential further house deemed necessary for the running of the farm and by setting a precedent for the unnecessary removal of occupancy clause. The applicant has submitted an application for the discharge of planning obligations and due to this type of application, it is required to be dealt with as submitted either to approval or refuse the proposal in its current form with no flexibility to negotiate. Taking account of these matters, it is recommended that this application for the discharge of planning obligations should be refused is this instance.

44

Application No:

13/01 236/FUL

Proposed Development:

Setup of Temporary Project Offices & Compound for M8 Upgrade Gas Works and Erection of 2.4 Metre High Palisade Fence (Retrospective)

Site Address:

Site At Mossend Engineering Works Unthank Road Mossend Bellshill ML4 1RR

Date Registered:

17th July 201 3

Applicant: J Murphy & Sons Ltd Hiview House Highgate Road London NW5 ITN

Application Level: Local Application

Agent: N/A

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: Representations: 01 5 Mossend And Holytown Councillors David Baird, James Coyle & Frank M c N a I I y

3 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification: The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the criteria set out in the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the proposed temporary office compound will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area. .

45

Mr Maurice Corridan Setup of Temporary Project Offices & Compound for M8 Upgrade Gas Works and Erection of 2.4 Metre High Paliside Fence (Retrospective) Site At Mossend Engineering Works U hank Road, Mossend, Bellshill %Representation

46

Produced by Planning and Regeneration

North LanarkHWe CW ices

@hire collndl Curnbemauld

G67 1JW

Proposed Conditions:-

1.

2.

3.

That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire on 31" October 2014 and on or before the expiration of this permission, the temporary office compound shall be removed and any works for reinstatement of the site shall be carried out, For the avoidance of doubt, the palisade fence shall remain erected on site.

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to retain effective control since the office compound is of a temporary nature.

That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers: LPL0097/DWGISEIYD003 Rev AB and LPL0097/DWG/SE/YD004 Rev AC.

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

That the hours of operation within the site shall be: 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday inclusive, 8am to 4pm Saturdays and 9am to 4pm Sundays, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residential properties.

Backaround Paoers:

Consultation Responses:

Memo from Transportation received loth Se tember 2013 Memos from Protective Services received 9 and 10th September 2013. ph

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Miss Heather Gebbie at 01 236 632494

Report Date:

12'h September 2013

47

APPLICATION NO. 13/01 236lFUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

4.

4. I

5.

5.1

6.

6.1

6.2

7.

7.1

Site Description

The application site measures 1.09 hectares and comprises of vacant industrial land within the industrial estate at Unthank Road, Mossend which formed part of the Mossend Engineering Works which have been partly demolished. A 2.4 metre high steel palisade fence has been erected around the periphery of the site. The site is bounded by two storey residential dwellings to the west, commercial properties to the east and south and vacant industrial land to the north. The site is accessed via two existing access points on Unthank Road.

Proposed DeveloPment

The applicant seeks retrospective planning permission for the temporary siting of an office compound and associated works. The office compound serves the on-going gas works being undertaken on the A8 and A725 in relation to the forthcoming M8 and Raith Interchange upgrade works. The compound comprises of an office base, car parking area for staff working off site and storage area. The applicant has sited 12 portacabins for office and associated uses, material storage areas, fuel islands and a car parking area. With regard to vehicular access, there are two points on Unthank Road, with one point allowing access at the south east of the site and the egress point to the west. The applicant has advised that hours of operation would be from 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 7am to 4pm on Saturday and a limited operation on a Sunday at 8am to 4pm. The applicant has confirmed that all operations would cease on site by the end of October 2014. The applicant also seeks planning permission for the palisade fence which has been erected (by the owner of the site) along the boundary of the site. While the fence has been erected without the benefit of planning permission, the applicant seeks permission to regulate the planning position.

Amlicant’s Sumortina Information

The applicant has submitted supporting information with regard to the nature of the operations which would be carried out on site.

Site History

There is no relevant site history.

Development Plan

The site is zoned under Policy EDI 1Al (Existing Industrial and Business Areas) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012.

NLC Transportation has no objections to the proposed development.

NLC Protective Services have commented on hours of operation in respect of noise, requirement for a bund around the fuel storage tanks, dust mitigation measures and construction waste.

Representations

Three letters of representation have been received following the neighbour notification procedure and press advertisement. The grounds of representation can be summarised as follows:

48

8.

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.8

Location of the double height portacabins would adversely affect privacy levels enjoyed at the neighbouring residential properties. The office compound was set up without the benefit of planning permission. There is a high level of noise emitted the site from the operation of heavy machinery from 6.30am to 6.30pm daily which adversely affects neighbouring housing. The vibration of the drilling machinery when the site operations were first set up may have affected adjacent housing and the objector requests that the foundations of the housing are inspected for damage. The new palisade fence is higher than the objector’s fence and they wish their own fence to be erected to the same height. There is a high level of dust being generated from the car park area which is adversely affecting the adjacent housing, The objector raised concerns with regard to the storage of fuel within the site and should any spillages occur, they may damage the neighbouring properties.

Plannina Assessment

In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is considered that the proposal raises no issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) 2012. As such, it can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies.

Development Plan:

The site is zoned under Policy EDI 1A (Existing Industrial and Business Areas) which supports the continuing industrial and business character of existing industrial and business areas. In view of the nature of the activities contained within the proposed off ice compound, it is considered that the proposals comply with this local plan policy.

The proposed development also requires to be assessed against Development Strategy Policies DSPI -4 which include DSPI (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development).

With regard to Policies DSPI to 3, it is considered that these policies are not relevant given the nature of the proposed temporary office compound.

Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) requires development proposals to only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design are achieved. In terms of the proposed site layout, it is considered that the design is acceptable and the location of the portacabins and material storage areas are appropriately sited to minimise the impact of the amenity on any surrounding properties. The design and height of the palisade fence is considered acceptable in terms of its material finish and it will secure the site. It should be noted that the fence would remain in situ and would not be removed upon expiry of the permission. With regard to the hours of operation, it is considered acceptable given the nature of the activities and a planning condition is recommended to suitably address this matter. As such, the proposal is considered compliant with Policy DSP4.

Consultations:

With regard to the comments received from the consultees, the matters can be satisfactorily addressed through appropriate planning conditions.

49

Remesentations:

In terms of the points of representation, the following comments are offered in response:

8.9

Objection Comments

Location of the double height portacabins would adversely affect privacy levels enjoyed at the neighbouring residential properties.

Response: While some of the portacabins were double height when they arrived at the site, all portacabins are now at ground level and as detailed in paragraph 8.7 above, the location of the portacabins is considered acceptable in that they will not adversely affect the privacy enjoyed at adjacent housing.

The office compound was set up without the benefit of planning permission.

Response: While the applicant seeks retrospective planning permission as works have already commenced on site, this is not a reason to warrant the refusal of planning permission.

There is a high level of noise emitted the site from the operation of heavy machinery from 6.30am to 6.30pm daily which adversely affects neighbouring housing.

Response: As detailed in paragraph 6.2 above, NLC Protective Services have raised no concerns with regard to the impact of noise generated from the activities within the site subject to a planning condition to control the hours of operation on site.

The vibration of the drilling machinery from the site set-up may have affected adjacent housing and the objector requests that the foundations of the housing are inspected for damage.

Response: The site set-up has been completed and no further drilling is occurring on site. With regard to the impact on the foundations of neighbouring housing arising from any works within the application site, the structural impact of any works on adjacent properties is a legal matter and as such is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

0 The new palisade fence is higher than the objector’s fence and they wish their own fence to be erected to the same height.

Response: The palisade fence aligning the boundaries of the application site is considered acceptable as detailed in paragraph 8.7 above. With regard to request for works to the objector‘s fence, this is a legal matter and not a relevant material planning consideration to warrant refusal of permission.

0 There is a high level of dust being generated from the car park area which is adversely affecting the adjacent housing.

Response: With regard to any dust emissions, NLC Protective Services raised no concerns in this regard as detailed in paragraph 6.2 above. An advisory note to the applicant in respect of dust would be attached to any permission.

0 The objector raised concerns with regard to the storage of fuel within the site and should any spillages occur, they may damage the neighbouring properties,

Response: The location of the fuel storage areas within the site is considered acceptable and any perceived risk of fuel spillage affecting neighbouring land is not a

50

material planning consideration to warrant refusal of permission. As Protective Services have requested that the fuel tanks should be bunded to address any fuel spillage affecting adjacent land, an advisory note to the applicant is recommended to address this matter.

9. Conclusions

9.1 In conclusion, the proposed development is considered acceptable and complies with the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Notwithstanding the objections received, it is considered that the temporary office compound and associated works are acceptable and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area, in particular the adjacent residential properties. It is therefore recommended that temporary planning permission is granted for a period until 31 '' October 201 4.

51

Application No:

13/01 27O/FUL

Proposed Development:

Erection of 2 Dwelling Houses Site Address:

Sites At Bowhill Road Chapelhall ML6 8XP

Date Registered:

15th July 201 3

Applicant: Mr Eric Wardlaw G. S. Brown Construction Ltd Head Office The Nurseries St. Madoes Glencarse PH2 7NF Application Level: Local Application

Agent: NIA

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Ward: Representations: 01 1 Airdrie South Agnes Coyle, Michael Coyle, Thomas Curley, David Fagan,

14 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Refuse

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of the criteria set out in the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the proposed siting of the dwellings would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would result in the loss of planned open space. b u f f icient information has been submitted with the planning application to enable health and safety implications of the proposed development to be fully assessed.

52

I 3101 270IF UL Mr Eric Wardlaw Sites At BowhiH Road Chapelhall Erection of 2 Dwellhg Houses * Representations A

Produced by Planning and Regeneralon Regeneration and North Lanarkshire Fkming House 2 TrystRoad Cumber niluld Gc)7 IJW

53

Recommendation: Refuse for the Following Reasons

1. That the proposed development is contrary to policies HCF1 A and DSP4 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the proposed dwellings would be out of keeping with the character of the area; would not result in an acceptable living environment due to close proximity of the proposal to the pylon and would result in the loss of open space which would set an undesirable precedent.

2. The siting of the dwellings within close proximity to the pylon and the overhead lines would be considered contrary to DSP 4 as the proposal fails to demonstrate the development would not compromise personal safety and would avoid harm to the neighbouring amenity. lnsuff icient information has been submitted with the planning application to enable health and safety implications of the proposed development to be fully assessed. The location of the dwellings may not comply with the safety clearance distances potentially affecting the safe operation of the overhead line by the statutory undertaker which could adversely affect the health and safety of the site occupants and the surrounding residents.

Backaround PaDers:

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation; memo dated 5Ih Augu?: 201 3 SP Power Systems Way Leaves; letter dated 9 August 2013 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control); memo dated 1 2'h August 201 3

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Ms Suzanne Cusick at 01236 632645

Report Date:

1 6'h September 201 3

54

APPLICATION NO: 13/0127O/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

4.

4.1

4.2

5.

5.1

6.

6.1

Site OescriDtion

The site is two areas of green public open space either side of Bowhill Road within an established housing estate of Chapelhall, Airdrie. The site is part of a larger area of open space between two residential developments east and west of the site. This area has been purposely undeveloped to accommodate the pylon and overhead lines that occupy the area; the overhead lines are on a north to south axis parallel to the site.

Proposed DeveloPment

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 2 detached dwellinghouses two storeys in height. Each dwelling would have a 103 square metre footprint within a 395 square metre site with the associated parking and access taken via Bowhill Road. The dwellings would be erected immediately east of the pylon and the overhead lines. The proposed site south of Bowhill Road would be 1.2 metres from the pylon whilst the proposed site to the north would be 5 metres from the overhead lines. The dwellings would be erected approximately 13 metres west of the existing dwellings which are arranged in a linear formation east to west fronting Bowhill Road. Each dwelling would feature finishing materials that would be consistent with the range of the finishing materials on the existing dwellings; cream render, buff stone work, white timber windows and grey Marley Modern interlocking tiles on a cross pitched roof.

Awlicant’s Sumortina Information

The applicant has provided no supporting information with respect to this application.

Site Historv

The site forms part of the adjacent housing estate as such, several associated applications have been previously received.

Planning permission granted for erection of 74 dwellinghouses (06/01479/FUL: 22.12.2006); Non Compliance with Conditions 10 and 1 1 Provision of Suds required by permission C/06/01479/FUL (07101 353/AMD: application withdrawn); Planning permission for substitution of house types of plots 38 and 39 Amendment to C/06/01479/FUL ( 07/01 659/AMD:l0/12/07); Erection of temporary sales cabin and associated parking area (1 3/00205/FUL: application withdrawn)

DeveloDment Plan

The site is designated as HCF I A (Residential Amenity) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan

Consultations

Scottish Power raised a formal objection to the proposal as the siting of the dwellings would interfere with the existing overhead transmission line route, Scottish Power were granted a necessary wayleave by the Secretary of State (03/09/1998)which allows them to keep installed, the existing overhead line adjacent the site and associated access to this land in perpetuity. As a result, it is essential to Scottish Power operations that statutory safety clearances are maintained and access to the pylon and overhead lines can be gained at all times for the purpose of maintaining and repairing duties, Scottish Power also raised an issue concerning safety clearances to the overhead lines advising that the proposed dwellings may not comply with the clearance distances as required by the Energy Networks Association

55

(ENA). Due to lack of information submitted with the planning application Scottish Power are unable to undertake the essential safety clearance check.

6.2 Traffic and Transportation raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions relating to car parking provision, dropped access and driveway materials.

6.3 Protected Services confirmed a Phase 1 Desk Study is required to determine if a comprehensive site investigation in accordance with the British Standard Code of Practice BS 101 75: 2001 “The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites” is also required. Protective Services recommended that before development begins any remediation work required must be completed and verification provided by the developer to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. Due to the close proximity of the surrounding developments, guidance on noise was also provided.

7. Representations

7.1 Fourteen representations were received following the neighbour notification and press advertisement process. The points can be summarised as follows:

a. Loss of an important area of local space to the detriment of local amenity and wildlife; the house builder advised that no housing would be built in this area and residents paid a premium for their houses on this basis

b. The dwellings would result in a loss of privacy, sunlight for the adjacent properties whilst the proposed design and layout of the dwellings would be out of keeping with the character of the amenity of the area.

c. The dwellings would exacerbate the existing drainage problems for the houses situated below the site.

d. Concern was raised over the potential noise during the construction of the dwellings.

e. The timing of the notices is disingenuous as it is a holiday period with no community council meeting scheduled resulting in limited time to respond.

f. The physical constraints plan within the Report of the Charette for South Wishaw shows a 50 metre exclusion zone running the length of the electricity overhead wires including pylon sites.

8. Plannina Assessment

8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal raises no strategic issues and as such requires to be assessed against Local Plan Policies. In this instance the North Lanarkshire Local Plan is relevant. The site is zoned as HCFlA (Residential Amenity), policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) is also relevant to this proposal.

8.2 Policy HCF 1A resists proposals that would have an adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties and DSP4 (Quality of Development) contains the criteria for assessing the quality of development.

8,3 Policy DSP 4 states that proposals will demonstrate that existing rights of way will be safeguarded and that it would successfully integrate into the local area avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity and that the siting and overall layout would integrate successfully into the local area. As mentioned above in paragraph 1.1, this area of open space within the housing estate was purposely undeveloped by the house builder (Taylor Wimpey) so that no dwellings would be within the 15 metre ‘Zone of

56

Influence’ of the pylon and overhead lines. The consultation comments received from Scottish Power, see paragraph 6.1, confirm the proposed site is within an area required for access to undertake essential maintenance and repair duties to the pylon and overhead lines and that the proposed dwellings may present a significant safety risk. Despite ongoing discussions with the agent they have indicated that they are not willing to undertake the necessary safety clearance checks to determine the health and safety impact of the development. On this basis, it is not possible to properly assess the impacts of the development and as such it is not possible to conclude that the proposed development could take place without having safety impacts to not only the future residents of the dwellings themselves but also to the residents of the housing estate, It would fail to accord with the advice contained within policy DSP 4 and it is therefore contrary to local plan policy.

8.4 The policy advice also contained within policy DSP4 makes clear that proposals will only be permitted where high standards of site planning and sustainable design area achieved through a respect for siting, overall layout, open space, scale and proportion. Whilst it is acknowledged the proposal would comply with the standard open space, car parking and access requirements, the dwellings would be erected as stand alone developments either side of the road, approximately 13 meters apart from the existing dwellings fronting Bowhill Road creating a gap within a continually built up frontage to an existing road. It is considered the dwellings would not respond positively to this established linear context. Allowing new and prominent buildings in an open space setting would be harmful to the site and the character of the housing estate. It is also considered that the close proximity of the pylon to the site would significantly dominate the dwellings with the direct views towards the pylon visually unacceptable and overbearing. The proposed siting of the dwellings would therefore have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the living environment.

8.5 Proposals are required to take account of the character of the existing site including its amenity value and landscaping features and developments must integrate successfully into the local area avoiding harm to the neighbouring amenity. The land beneath the pylons and overhead lines has been used positively. The existing development has been left open ended by the house builder and this area of open space is now considered to be an established integral part of the character of the area providing a buffer between the two housing estates and the pylon and overhead electric line. The resultant space used to create a landscaped open amenity space for the housing estate is well laid out adding to the character and the amenity of the wider area. Whilst dwellinghouses could potentially be accommodated within the site, it would result in the loss of the valuable piece of planned open space which is considered to make a positive contribution to the public realm. It is considered that the landscaped areas at this location should be retained for amenity purposes and if the application were approved it was set an undesirable precedence for other such areas of open space. In addition, given that the landscaped area fronting Bowhill Road is valuable in relation to the streetscene; residential house plots at this prominent location would be to the detriment of the character of the area. As mentioned above in paragraph 8.3., the site could accommodate development that meets with open space requirements and standards for Transportation; however the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of public open space to the detriment of the amenity of the area. The proposed erection of the two dwellinghouses at this location would therefore be considered contrary to local plan policies HCFi A and DSP4 for the aforementioned reasons

8.6 In respect of the points made in the letters of representation I would comment as follows. In relation to matters agreed on the future use of the land during the house transaction period, these are legal matters and are not material planning considerations. The land in question is not covered by greenbelt local plan policy and is not a designated Site of Importance therefore policy NBEiA is not relevant to this application; a biodiversity statement or wildlife species is therefore not required in this instance. The site is covered by HCFIA (Residential Amenity) and the proposed erection of two dwellings on this location would in principle, comply with local plan

57

policy. However it is considered that the planned open space should remain communal and as mentioned above in paragraph 8.5, the site is regarded as a valuable asset to the local amenity. In relation to the impact on the amenity of the neighbouring houses, it is considered the houses could be accommodated within the site without any significant loss of privacy or sunlight however it is agreed in paragraph 8.4., that the proposed siting of the dwellings would be out of keeping with the character and layout of the existing development. The existing drainage issues are not material planning considerations and should the application be approved drainage issues for the proposed site would be further assessed by Scottish Water. Noise during construction of any development is to be expected however should the application be approved, standard noise requirements as set out by Protective Services would be adhered to. The standard neighbour notification and press advertisement process has been carried out in accordance with planning legislation. As confirmed above in paragraph 6.1 ., Scottish Power provided consultation comments confirming their objection to the proposal on the basis that the safety aspects of the development have not been properly checked and assessed and the proposed development has the potential to interfere with the essential right of way necessary to undertake the operational duties. The Planning Authority acknowledges this recommendation and therefore recommends the application be refused,

9. Conclusions

9.1 The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of the criteria set out in the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan in that the proposed siting of the dwellings would restrict the existing wayleave granted by the Secretary of State to allow the necessary operational duties to the adjacent pylon resulting in a significant risk to the health and safety of the surrounding residential development. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, insufficient information has been submitted to properly assess the health and safety consequences of the proposed development. In addition, the siting of the dwellings houses would be out of keeping with the general layout, form and character of the existing development in this locality and would be harmful to the visual amenity of this area whilst the loss of open space would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals. The incremental impact of which, would be an unacceptable reduction in the established character of the area. It is recommended the proposal be refused.

58

Application No:

13/01376/FUL

Proposed Development:

Change of Use from Class 1 to Class 3 Restaurant Site Address:

53A Alexander Street Airdrie North Lanarkshire ML6 060

Date Registered:

5th August 201 3

Applicant: Mr Asif Majid 95 Forrest Street Airdrie ML6 7AE Application Level: Local

Agent: NIA

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: Representations: 008 Airdrie Central James Logue, David Stocks, Peter Sullivan,

12 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development complies with Policies HCF 1 A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities - Residential Areas), N6E 1 B3a (Protecting the Built Environment - Local Sites - Conservation Areas) and DSP 4 within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the proposal can be accommodated without detriment to the site itself or the surrounding conservation area.

59

60

Proposed Conditions:.

1.

2.

3.

4.

That, except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be implemented in accordance with drawing numbers L(20)OOl and L(O1)002

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

That prior to the commencement of operations on site detailed drawings of an external extraction system which will be required for the cooking of food, 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: To ensure that the premises are adequately ventilated and that fumes and odours associated with the cooking of food are adequately extracted in the interests of residential amenity.

That the extraction system as approved under condition 2 above shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority prior to the implementation of the use hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the premises are provided with an adequate ventilatiordextraction system, as required, in the interests of residential amenity.

The design, installation and operation of any air conditioning/ventilation or other plant for the proposed development and any other noise associated with the completed development shall be such as will not give rise to a noise level, assessed with the windows open, within any dwelling or noise sensitive buildings in excess of the equivalent to Noise Rating Curve (N.R.C.) 35 between 07.00 hours and 20.00 hours and N.R.C. 25 at all other times.

Reason: To ensure that the noise associated with the ventilation system will be within acceptable limits in the interests of residential amenity.

Backaround Paeers:

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation received 3rd September 2013 Environmental Health (including Pollution Control) received 1 2'h August 201 3

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 236 632496

Report Date:

1 6th September 201 3

61

APPLICATION NO. 13/01376/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

4.

4.1

4.2

5.

5.1

Site Descriotion

The unit forms part of a larger detached stone built building that fronts onto Alexander Street, Airdrie on its southern footpath. The building is single storey in design, stepped down at roof level and is currently vacant. The building previously operated (for many years) as a large single furniture sales outlet available to visiting members of the public. The building was then internally refurbished to accommodate 4 separate retail units (through planning permission C/09/01212/FUL) and the application unit forms one of these units created.

The application unit (unit 3) is located to the eastern side of the 4 units and measures 21 3m* internally. The unit currently accommodates a single frontage doorway with window display on both sides and signage display area over. The unit has other commercial units on both sides (a cafe and a Spar grocery shop) while the surrounding area in general is predominantly residential in nature with large Victorian style villas located opposite the site on the north footpath of Alexander Street. The Tudor Hotel is located around 35 metres to the east. The site is also located within the Victoria & Town Centre Conservation Area.

Proposed Development

This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from retail (Class 1) to restaurant (class 3) including external alterations, specifically the addition of a flue to the rear of the premises.

Site History

Applications of relevance to the proposed development are as follows:-

09/01212/FUL Sub-Division of Retail Premises to Create 4 Retail Units on Ground Floor. Approved 23rd December 2009

0 10/0091 O/FUL Change of Use of Retail Unit to Hot Food Takeaway. Refused 18” February 201 1 and Appeal dismissed 24th June 201 1.

0 11/00915/FUL Change of Use to Class 3 to Form Coffee and I?! Cream Shop/Cafe Within Existing Commercial Class 1 Property. Approved 18 October 201 1 I

Develooment Plan

The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

The application site is zoned as HCF I A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities - Residential Areas) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. In addition policies NBE 1B3a (Protecting the Built Environment - Local Sites - Conservation Areas) is also relevant.

Consultations

A summary of comments from the consultees is as follows:

i. Traffic & Transportation have recommended refusal of the application given that there is a requirement for 20 off street parking spaces and there are none shown with the proposals. Transportation consider that the development will encourage on-street parking to the detriment of road safety.

ii. Protective Services have no objection subject to planning conditions relating to

62

6.

6.1

7.

7.1

7.2

7.3

ventilation andior air conditioning plant, noise levels and flue specification.

Rewesentat ions

Following the standard neighbour notification process and newspaper advertisement, 12 letters of representation have been received and the points of objection include concerns regarding:-

* Contrary to local plan policy Proliferation of such uses Previous refusal for hot food takeaway use. Traffic and parking issues Noise, odours, opening hours, litter and loitering (amenity) Inappropriate use for a residential and conservation area setting an undesirable precedent. Inaccurate plans Negative health impacts Numerous empty units available within the town centre. Development could be an attempt to circumvent the previous refusal for a hot food takeaway. Location plan fails to show the Ordinance Survey Copyright License and could be a breach copyright.

Planning Assessment

Under Section 25 of the Town and country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan and therefore it can be assessed in terms of local plan policy.

North Lanarkshire Local Plan

Policy HCFl A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities) - Residential Areas in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan sets out that there is a presumption against developments detrimental to residential amenity in primarily residential areas. Developments of an ancillary nature may be acceptable subject to impact on residential amenity and provision for servicing and parking. The proposed development is for the change of use from class 1 retail to class 3 restaurant within an existing row of already established commercial units located within the residential area. In terms of residential amenity, the adjacent units are already established as commercial premises and the inclusion of a restaurant as part of this row is not considered to be out of keeping with the wider area. Furthermore, whilst it is accepted that there is a predominance of residential properties in the area, it is considered that a restaurant can operate in this area without significant detriment to the amenity of the surrounding residents. In terms of access and parking, it is noted that NLC Transportation recommend refusal of the application due to insufficient parking provision, however the existing unit is located in an area with no parking restrictions and there is a high availability of on street parking at this location. The impact on residential amenity and servicing and parking are discussed in more detail below. The proposal is therefore considered not to have a detrimental impact on the overall residential amenity of the area and does comply with this land use policy. Policies NBE 1 B3a and DSP 1-4 are also relevant and are addressed in turn below.

Policy NBE 1B3a (Protecting the Built Environment - Local Sites - Conservation Areas) states that developments shall be consistent with any relevant Conservation Area Appraisal or management plan which in this instance is the draft SPG 30 (Airdrie: Victoria and Town Centre Conservation Area). The policy and guidance state that the design, materials, scale, and siting of any development shall be appropriate

63

7.4

7.5

7.6

to the character of the conservation area and its setting. It is considered that the proposal meets the terms of this policy as well as SPG 30 given that the proposed change of use will have a minimal impact on the area, and the development seeks minimal external alterations to the existing building. The unit is currently vacant and it is considered bringing the vacant unit back into use as a restaurant would serve to improve the appearance of the conservation area. The use of the site as a restaurant can be accommodated without any significant additional impact to that of a retail use. In terms of the external appearance any associated signage or advertising would be controlled by an advertisement application and the alterations to include the flue are not visually prominent. It is therefore considered that a restaurant use within this area would not be out of keeping with the existing adjacent properties and, as such, considered to be in accordance with Policy NBE 1 BE3a and the draft SPG 30.

It is considered that, given the scale and nature of this proposed development policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 Location of Development and DSP 3 (Impact of Development) are not an issues in this instance.

Policy DSP4 Quality of Development considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes and provides a range of assessment criteria including nature and scale, design, impact on residential amenity of adjacent neighbouring properties and provisions for access and parking. Furthermore the policy considers additional criteria including mitigation of impacts (noise, air quality, pollution etc) and protecting water bodies and SUDS/drainage issues. In terms of nature and scale, the proposed development comprises the re-use of a vacant unit within an established row of commercial units. In terms of design, the application proposes minimal alterations to the existing unit with an external flue located to the rear. Whilst it is accepted that the unit lies within a Conservation Area, it is envisaged that the biggest visual impact with regard to the premises would be the associated signage and advertisement required and this would be controlled by an advertisement application. In terms of residential amenity, the adjacent units are already established as commercial premises and the inclusion of a restaurant as part of this row is not considered to be out of keeping with the wider area. Furthermore, whilst it is accepted that there is a predominance of residential properties in the area, it is considered that a restaurant can operate in this area without significant detriment to the amenity of the surrounding residents. In terms of access and parking, it is noted that NLC Transportation recommend refusal of the application due to insufficient parking provision, however the existing unit is located in an area with no parking restrictions and there is a high availability of on street parking at this location. Furthermore, given the number of likely patrons of the premises (applicant has indicated 20 covers) at any one time it is considered that the development can be accommodated at this location without significant detriment to the existing road network. In terms of other impacts such as noise, air quality and pollution etc it is noted that Protective Services have indicated no objections to the proposed development and it is therefore considered that it can be accommodated without detriment to the amenity of the wider area.

Other Material Considerations

It should be noted that a previous application was refused for an adjacent unit (10/0091O/FUL) fo::he change of use of retail unit (class 1) to Hot Food Takeawai (Sui Generis) on 8 February 201 1 and a subsequent appeal dismissed on the 24 June 201 1. It should be noted that the decision to refuse the previous application was on the basis that a hot food takeaway at this location was contrary to the policies contained in the Monklands District Local Plan specifically Econ 8 (in terms of adverse environmental impact) COM11 (in terms of impact on local residents) and ENV 16 (in terms of impact on the Conservation Area). It was considered that a hot food takeaway use (predominantly during evening hours with concerns from objectors over noise, loitering and vehicle movement around the site) and its prominent location would result in an adverse impact on the character of the conservation area. Furthermore, policy COM 11 outlined that the Council would accept the development

64

of 'bad neighbour' uses (which includes hot food shops) in core and secondary (retail) core areas (town centre or secondary retail areas) where there is no anticipated adverse effect on the amenity of local residents. The reporter previously noted that the introduction of a hot food use at this location would be contrary to policy and would set an undesirable precedent for further similar proposals. Furthermore, the reporter indicated that the external features of a hot food takeaway (notably the lighting and advertising material intended to attract the notice of passing people) are likely to be more visually intrusive than retail units, detracting from the character of the conservation area and residential amenity. The reporter noted that additional traffic generated by the hot food takeaway would make little difference to the traffic situation on the busy main road and any potential problems of cooking smells and litter could be addressed through the usual control mechanisms.

7.7 In terms of the previous application refusal and subsequent appeal dismissal noted above, it should be clarified that the current application is for a restaurant (class 3) and not a hot food takeaway (Sui Generis) as was previously refused and dismissed. Furthermore the Monklands District Local Plan has been replaced by the North Lanarkshire Local Plan and the new policy does not preclude class 3 use in areas such as the application site and the application is clearly supported by the Councils decision to approve a cafe (class 3) approved 1EIth October 201 1 in the adjacent unit. The proposed change of use to restaurant is not seen as having the same impact on the character of the conservation area as the external features associated with a restaurant, including the lighting and advertising material are not any more visually intrusive than the existing adjacent units. In terms of previous concerns regarding noise, loitering and vehicle movements around the site, it is not considered that the proposed use of the site as a restaurant would generate the same nature of patronage to that of a hot food takeaway and would be less likely to encourage passing trade patrons which is more prevalent with the nature of a hot food takeaway and thus disturbance would be more limited in scope. In terms of the previous appeal decision, the reporter noted that a hot food takeaway would make little difference to the traffic situation on the busy main road and any potential problems of cooking smells and litter could be addressed through the usual control mechanisms.

Turning to the letters of objection it should be noted:- 7.8

0 The proposed development is contrary to local plan policy.

Response: The proposed development is considered to accord with Local plan policy as discussed in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.6 above.

The proliferation of hot food takeaways and restaurant uses within the area.

Response: It is not considered that the proposed change of use to a restaurant will result in a proliferation of hot food takeaways and restaurants in the area.

0 The previous proposal for a fast food takeaway which was refused by the Council and dismissed at appeal.

Response: The proposed development is for a change of use to restaurant and not a hot food takeaway as was previously refused. The proposals are therefore considered acceptable for the reasons outlined in paragraphs 7.7 to 7.8 above.

0 Detrimental impact on traffic and parking.

Response: Whilst it is accepted that NLC Transportation recommend refusal of the application due to insufficient parking provision it is considered that the existing unit is located in an area with no parking restrictions and there is a high availability of on street parking at this location. Furthermore, given the number of likely patrons of the premises (applicant has indicated 20 covers) at any one time, it is considered that the development can be accommodated at this location without detriment to the existing

65

road network. Furthermore, it should be noted that the property could operate as a shop without planning permission being required. A shop could have similar opening hours to a restaurant and therefore generate similar traffic levels.

0 Impact on residential amenity given noise, odours, opening hours, litter and loitering

Response: It is considered that the proposed development can be accommodated at this location without a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. In terms of noise and odours Protective Services have offered no objections and with regard to litter and issues of loitering these are not material planning considerations. Furthermore the applicant has indicated that the premises will operate between 4pm and 1 Ipm which is considered normal for a restaurant and will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.

Inappropriate use for a residential and conservation area and will set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments.

Response: The proposed use of the vacant unit for a restaurant is not considered an inappropriate use for a residential and conservation area as discussed in paragraphs 7.2 to 7.6 above.

0 The plans submitted are inaccurate.

Response: The applicant has provided an amended plan to clarify the proposals.

The potential negative health impacts.

Response: The potential for negative health impacts are not material planning considerations.

The availability of numerous empty units within the town centre more suited to such a use.

Response: The availability of other units is not a material planning consideration as the application is to assess the proposed use for this particular vacant unit.

0 The proposed development could be an attempt to circumvent the previous refusal for a hot food takeaway.

Response: The application is for a change of use from class 1 retail to class 3 restaurant and no consent is sought for the principle use of the premises to be a hot food takeaway. Should the applicant seek to operate the premises principally as a hot food takeaway then a further planning application would be required to be submitted and assessed.

0 The location plan fails to show the Ordinance Survey Copyright License and could be a breach copyright.

Response: This is a legal matter and not a material planning consideration.

8. Conclusions

8.1 Having regard to the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and in accordance with policies HCF 1 A (Protecting Residential Amenity and Community Facilities - Residential Areas), NBE 1 B3a (Protecting the Built Environment - Local Sites - Conservation Areas) and DSP4 within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan as the development can be accommodated that this location without detriment to the wider residential and conservation area. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons stated.

66

Application No:

13/01 405/FUL

Proposed Development:

Change of Use of Industrial Unit to Dance Studio Site Address:

Unit 9 Garrell Business Centre 8 Garrell Road Kilsyth Glasgow G65 9JX

Date Registered:

30th July 201 3

Applicant: Miss Vicki Williamson DejaVu Dance And Drama Glenside Kilsyth G65 9SG

Application Level: Local Application

Agent: NIA

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: Representations: 001 Kilsyth Jean Jones, Heather McVey, Alan Stevenson,

No letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed Dance Studio is considered acceptable in terms of the criteria set out in the relevant policies contained within the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. The proposed development is unlikely to significantly adversely affect the surrounding industrial and business area.

67

Proposed Conditions:-

1. That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded,

Backaround Papers:

Consultation Responses:

Traffic & Transportation received 17" September 201 3

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Edward McLennaghan at 01 236 632496

Report Date:

1 81h September 201 3

69

APPLICATION NO. 13/01 405/FUL

REPORT

1.

I .I

1.2

2.

2.1

3.

3.1

4.

4.1

4.2

5.

5.1

6.

6.1

7.

7.1

7.2

Site Descrbtion

The application site is located within the Burnside Industrial Estate, located to the south west of Kilsyth Town Centre. This industrial estate comprises a mix of single storey, small scale workshop and light industry type uses (Class 4 and 5 ) as well as larger yards and industrial operations. The unit lies within a group of single storey industrial units with dedicated parking to front, side and rear of the building.

The application site is currently a vacant industrial unit with the surrounding land uses being industrial units, open space and a sports centre. Vehicular access to the site, as with the industrial estate as a whole, is taken from Garrell Road which connects onto the 8802 to the east of the site.

Proposed Development

This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the vacant industrial unit to a dance studio with no external alterations proposed as part of the development of the unit.

Applicant’s Supportha Information

The applicant has provided information indicating that the industrial unit has been vacant for a period exceeding 6 months.

Development Plan

The proposal raises no strategic issues and can therefore be assessed in terms of Local Plan policies.

The application site is zoned as EDI A I (Existing Industrial and Business Areas) within the adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

A summary of comments from the consultees is as follows:

i. Traffic and Transportation have recommended that planning permission be refused as the required parking provision cannot be provided. Traffic & Transportation indicate that the proposed use generates a requirement for 8 Spaces and current parking levels associated with all of the units in this development averages out at 3.5 spaces per unit.

Reoresentat ions

Following the standard neighbour notification procedures no letters of representation have been received.

Plannina Assessment

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

DeveloDment Plan - North Lanarkshire Local Plan: The site is located within an established industrial area in Kilsyth on land zoned as EDI A I (Existing Industrial and Business Areas). The primary issues to be considered here are the appropriateness

70

and compliance with the relevant development plan and the effect the proposal will have on the surrounding area.

7.3 Policy EDI A I supports the continuing industrial character of existing industrial and business areas and sets out the criteria for change of use from industrial and business which includes: whether there is a surplus of industrial and business land; the attractiveness as a location for industry and business; location requirement for proposal; economic benefit to the area; suitable alternative sites; transportation issues; and re-use of vacant or under utilised industrial land. In physical terms, the unit forms part of a much bigger industriaVbusiness area. When assessed against the relevant policy, it is considered that the proposed use of the vacant unit as a dance studio can be accommodated at this location without detriment to the wider industriaVbusiness area. In addition there would appear to be a number of vacant units in this area and, as such, it is considered that the re-use of a vacant unit is deemed to be acceptable in this instance due to the nature of the proposed and established uses in the area. In this respect, the application is considered to comply with the spirit and intentions of the policy EDI A I .

7.4 It is considered that given the nature and scale of the proposals. Policies DSP 1 (Amount of Development), DSP 2 (Location of Development) and DSP 3 (Impact of Development) are not an issue in this instance.

7.5 In terms of policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) it is considered that the re-use of the vacant industrial unit can be integrated successfully into the surrounding area without detriment to the amenity of the existing industrial and business area. Furthermore sufficient infrastructure such as parking, access and turning areas are in place to ensure that the proposed use can be carried out and will be compatible with the wider industrial uses in the area.

7.6 Other Material Considerations - Supplementary Planning Guidance: A material consideration is the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 15 Industrial & Business Development, of which Section C is relevant. With reference to change of use proposals in Industrial and Business areas, the SPG states that the Council will not support proposals which would be detrimental to the cumulative economic importance of small scale industrial and business sites or proposals which would have a negative impact on communities and the wider environment. When the dance studio proposal is assessed against this, it is considered that the proposal will not result in a detrimental impact on the cumulative economic importance of small scale industrial and business uses in Garrell Road, Kilsyth or have a negative impact on the adjacent business uses. The existing industrial unit and surrounding industrialhusiness area has a number of vacant units of similar size which would indicate that there is a surplus of units to that of demand in the area. It is not therefore considered that the use of the vacant unit as a dance studio would be to the detriment of the existing industrial and business area and would not result in a shortfall of premises for industrial or business use within this locale. Therefore the proposal is regarded as being in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

7.7 Effect on Local Amenity: Due to the nature and location of the proposed dance studio, the proposal is considered to be acceptable as its impact will not detrimentally affect the character of this wider industrial area as discussed in paragraph 7.6 above.

Consultafions: With respect to the comments made by Traffic & Transportation it is not considered that the perceived shortfall in parking spaces would be sufficient justification to refuse planning permission in this case. There does not appear to be a current parking issue within the development and it is likely that the proposed use will in the main take place at times when the rest of the units are closed (evenings and weekends).

7.8

71

8. Conclusions

8.1 In conclusion, taking into account of all the circumstances relevant to this application, the proposed dance studio is considered acceptable in this instance and will not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of this industrial and business area which complies with the spirit and intentions of policy EDI A I (Existing Industrial and Business Areas) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Taking account of the provisions of the development plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that permission be granted.

72

Application No:

13/01426/FUL

Proposed Development:

Erection of Temporary Overlay Installations and Associated Works to be Implemented for the 201 4 Commonwealth Games

Site Address:

Strathclyde Water Sports Centre Strathclyde Country Park 366 Hamilton Road Motherwell North Lanarkshire MLl 3R6

Date Registered:

1 August 2013

Applicant: Glasgow 201 4 Limited Commonwealth House 32 Albion Street Glasgow G1 ILH

Application Level: Major Application

Ward: 16 Motherwell West Councillors Paul Kelly, Michael Ross and Annette Valentine

Agent: Michele Steel Deloitte LLP Lomond House 9 George Square Glasgow G2 IQQ

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Representations: No letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions

Reasoned Justification:

The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of the criteria set out in the relevant policies of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan particularly given the temporary nature of the overlay works and the site’s function as part of the Commonwealth Games 2014. The works are considered acceptable in scale, position, layout and visual amenity and would not significantly affect the amenity or ecology of the area.

73

I N PLANNING APPLICATION 13/01428/FUL

Erection of Temporary Oveday Installations end Associated Works to be Implemented for the 2014 CommonweaMh Games IA Strathclyde Water Sports Centre, Strathclyde Country Park 388 Hamilton Road, Mothetwell

74

Proposed Conditions:-

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

That the development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details submitted as part of the application and no change to those details shall be made without prior written approval of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded.

That the permission hereby granted is for a temporary period only and shall expire 2 months after the last event of the Commonwealth Games 2014 has been held at Strathclyde Park. All overlay installations and works approved under this planning permission shall be removed and the land reinstated to it former state, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, before the expiration date.

Reason: To define this permission.

That before the development hereby permitted starts, mitigation for otter, badger and deer shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To reduce any impact on ecology within the site.

All trees within and adjacent to the site shall be protected in accordance with BS 5837 'Guide for Trees in Relation to Construction' and this shall include protection of roots, trunks and branches.

Reason: To protect the trees within this area in the interests of ecology and general amenity.

That before the development hereby permitted starts an access strategy relating to Core Paths 275 and 276 for during the construction works, during the event and during the restoration works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the core paths are open for public use as long as possible.

Backaround PaDers:

Consultation Responses:

Memo received on 5 September 2013 from Traffic & Transportation Memo received on 10 September 201 3 from Greenspace Development (Ecology) Letter received on 5 September 2013 from Historic Scotland

Contact Information:

Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr William Shand at 01 236 632499

Report Date:

12 September 2013

75

APPLICATION NO. 13/01426/FUL

REPORT

1.

1.1

2.

2.1

2.2

2.3

3.

3.1

Site Descriotion

Strathclyde Country Park is sited on the south western edge of Motherwell to the north of Hamilton and the M74 and is locally and nationally important for informal and formal leisure and recreational uses with regular rowing and triathlon events being held there. The Country Park contains a man made loch which accommodates a water sports centre in its eastern section and also contains an Amusement Park, Caravan Park, playing fields and hotels in its western part. The River Clyde flows to the south of the park while the South Calder Water flows into the park to the north into the Loch. Part of the park is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and the portion of the River Clyde that flows to the south of the Park is part of the Hamilton Low Parks Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). There are also Scheduled Monuments located to the north of Loch. The Country Park is interspersed with roads and footpaths many of which are core paths. Core paths 275 and 276 are within the application site,

Proposed Development

The development would include various overlay installations and works required to hold the triathlon event for the Commonwealth Games. This application is part of a series of applications and developments within Glasgow, Edinburgh and North Lanarkshire to provide venues and facilities for the Commonwealth Games 201 4. The majority of the installations and works in this location would be situated around the water sports pavilion to the south of the loch. These would include spectator seating areas (including a temporary grandstand), broadcast areas, security compounds and catering and workforce areas, Another smaller grouping of installations would be to the east of the water sports centre. This area would be enclosed by a 2.4m - 3m high security fence which would run from the eastern edge of the loch along the southern edge of the access road, around the main event area and then north to the waters edge. The majority of the events buildings would comprise of tents and temporary cabins. Floodlighting would also be placed within this secure area.

Temporary barriers and fencing, along with operational tents or cabins will be positioned elsewhere within the park along the cycling and running route of the course. A temporary swim start pontoon would also be positioned within the loch. This is separate from the previously approved dam pontoon. All installations and works are for a temporary period, require no significant construction processes and will be removed within a relatively short time period following completion of the event and the Country Park’s use for the Commonwealth Games. Although these works are temporary they may last longer than 28 days hence the need for the planning application.

It should be noted that an area of overlay installations would be incorporated to the west of the water sports centre site. This area is out with the original PAN notice site area however the applicant has indicated that these overlay installations would be in place for less than 28 days and therefore would not require planning permission. The detail provided is for information purposes only.

Amlicant’s Sumortina Information

The applicant has submitted a design and access statement, pre-application community consultation report, planning statement and transport statement with the application.

76

4.

4.1

5.

5.1

5.2

5.3

6.

6.1

6.2

6.3

7.

7.1

8.

8.1

A Proposal of Application Notice for this proposal was received on 28 January 2013 and this was followed by an EIA screening request on 18 February 2013. Planning permission (1 3/00418/FUL) has also recently been approved for a temporary dam within Strathclyde Loch to assist in the treatment of the area of water to be used for the triathlon (approved 17 May 2013). Since this approval the design of the dam has been changed through a non-material variation changing the dam construction to a floating pontoon with weighted barriers.

Development Plan

The application site is located within an area designated as NBE3A (Assessing Development in the Green Belt) in the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan, This policy seeks to protect the character and promote development in the Green Belt.

As the site is within a designated SlNC and a Country Park then policy NBEI A4 (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment (Local Site - SlNC and Country Parks)) would also be of relevance. As there are Scheduled Monuments within the site, policy NBEI 2a (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment) would also be of relevance.

Polices DSP 1-4 may also be relevant and will be addressed in detail in the Planning Assessment Section below.

Consultations

Historic Scotland have raised no objections to the application and state that no Scheduled Monument Consent would be required.

Traffic and Transportation have raised no objection to the application.

Greenspace Development (Ecology) have made several comments on the application. These include concerns relating to the security fencing disrupting a route used by otters between the river Clyde and the Loch. They suggest that the security fence should be fully complete for as short a time as possible and that functioning gaps should be retained to allow otters to continue on their route. The barrier fencing along the route of the running and cycling sections of the course should also be in place for as short a time as possible to avoid impacts on the dispersal and movement of badgers and deer. They also provide recommendations for good working practises in terms of storage of materials, prevention of water pollution and the use of lighting. Recommendations on requirements should trees be removed or branch have also been provided as well as good working practises for tree protection in the instance of working close to trees. In terms of access, the access officer notes that Core Paths 275 and 276 will be temporarily closed by this development. They ask that the applicants take on board their comments and ensure that they have a legal basis for excluding public access rights.

Following the standard neighbour notification procedure and an advert in the local press no letters of objection have been received to this application.

Plannina Assessment

Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended requires that the application be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The application raises no strategic issues in terms of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan.

77

Adooted North Lanarkshire Local Plan

8.2 NBE 3A (Assessina DeveloDment in the Green Belt): This policy states that facilities for outdoor recreation that are compatible with a natural setting are acceptable in the Green Belt. The proposed overlay installations and works are required to facilitate an athletics event as part of the Commonwealth Games 2014. Triathlon events are already held regularly within the Country Park and are considered compatible with the green belt setting. As the installations are temporary and would not require any significant construction works it is considered that the impact on the green belt would be minimal and reversible. The development would therefore accord with this policy subject to it meeting the impact criteria of the policy.

In terms of the impact criteria it is considered that the development should have a positive economic benefit for the area as well as the country. The development would involve the provision of a number of temporary cabins, tents and overlay structures within the area of the water sports centre as well as some smaller tents along the route of the triathlon. These overlay installations would not be out of place around the water sports centre and smaller scale events with temporary infrastructure are regularly held in this area. The development is therefore of a suitable scale and form for this location and has a specific locational need given the type of location required for this event. The environmental impacts of the development would be minimal given the nature of the installations and their temporary nature. It is considered that the other impact criteria are not of relevance to this proposal. The development would therefore accord with this policy.

8.3

8.4 NBEl A4 (Protectina the Natural and Built Environment (SINC and Countrv Parksh This policy aims to protect areas designated as a SlNC or Country Park from inappropriate development. Given the nature and scale of the overlay installations it is considered that this development would have no significant impact on the SlNC or Country Park. It is accepted that for the duration of the triathlon event access to the water sports area and route of the triathlon cycling and running areas will be restricted however this would be for a temporary period. Any minor impact on the area in terms visual amenity would also be temporary and would be removed after a short period.

8.5 Although the swimming and part of the route for the cycling and running would be within the SINC, the associated overlay installations within these areas would be minimal. To assist in the swimming element a floating pontoon would be placed on the loch. This would be minor in scale and would have no permanent fixings. This could be removed as soon as the event is finished. The associated works with the running and cycling elements within the SINC would be at most aid stations and crowd control barriers. Given the minimal scale of these and their temporary nature it is considered that these elements would not constitute development and would have no impact on the SINC. The development is therefore considered to accord with policy NBE1 A4 of the Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

8.6 NBEl 2A (Protectina the Natural and Built Environmentk There are two scheduled monuments within Strathclyde Park and part of the site runs through the larger of these (Bothwellhaugh Roman Fort). The area of site that runs through the Scheduled Monument forms part of the cycling route and is an existing constructed road. At most the only works to take place here would be the erection of temporary barriers for crowd control and safety. Given the temporary and insubstantial nature of these, it is considered that they would have no significant impact on the Scheduled Monument or setting. Historic Scotland also have no objection to the proposal and therefore the development is considered to accord with policy NBE1 2A.

8.7 DSP 1-3 (Amount, Location and ImDact of developmentk Given the scale and nature of the development, policies DSP 1 - 3 would not be of relevance to this application.

78

8.8

8.8

8.9

8.10

DSP 4 Qualitv of DeveloDment: This policy considers development specific impacts in terms of existing site attributes, and provides a range of assessment criteria which are addressed in turn below:

In terms of part 1, this application is part of a larger project which has involved surveys, appraisals and investigations with regards to the suitability of the site. Given the temporary nature and type of the development proposed, it is considered that the site appraisals outlined in this policy would not be necessary in this instance. As stated above, in terms of part 2 the setting and character of the natural environment would not be adversely affected.

In terms of part 3 of this policy it is considered that for section (a) the design, scale and layout of the overlay installations are appropriate for this location and proposed event given that they would mostly be around the existing water sports centre. In terms of part (b) the overlay installations have been presented in a manner that creates a safe environment for the event in terms of the security fencing and layout. A main theme of the Commonwealth Games is to promote sustainability and health and well being. This theme has been a driver in what is included in the overlay installations and general overview of the event. Given the nature of the development it is unlikely that there would be any significant air quality, noise or pollution impacts. Some lighting is proposed which may cause some localised light pollution however given the distance from residential properties and screening by trees and vegetation, this is not considered to be a significant issue. In terms of part (e) the development should have no significant impact on the existing water bodies and no culverting or alteration to the water bodies is required. Although the event itself may have some temporary localised impact on residential amenity it is considered that the proposed development would have no significant impact on residential amenity. Any minor impact would also be temporary for the lifetime of hosting the event. Given the nature of the development it is not considered necessary for the developer to enhance open spaces or green networks however it is noted that some access to parts of Strathclyde Country Park will be restricted during the event. As this is temporary and required for a significant national event, this is not considered significant. The development would therefore comply with DSP4 Quality of Development.

Other Material Considerations

Consultation Responses: Historic Scotland and Traffic and Transportation have expressed no objections to the proposal. In terms of the comments from Greenspace Development (Ecology) it is noted that they have concerns with regards to the disruption of the dispersion and traversing of otters, deer and badgers by the security fencing and barriers. It is considered however that this can be adequately mitigated given the short time that these will be in place and the level of impact expected. It is recommended that a condition is added requiring adequate mitigation being agreed prior to works starting on site. Although this impact involves protected species it is considered that a condition would be appropriate in this instance as these species would not be killed or harmed by the works. In terms of works to the trees it has been confirmed by the applicant that no tree works are proposed. Instead the good working practise guidance provided by Greenspace Development should be added as a condition. The point made with regards to the closure of core paths is noted. As these works are for a temporary period it is considered that any access issues created by the closure of the core paths in these locations would be minor and reversible. It would be preferred that the core paths are kept open as long as possible while works are ongoing and therefore a condition should be applied to any planning permission that requires the submission of an access strategy in this regard. In terms of legalities this matter would be for the Commonwealth Games organisers to discuss and resolve.

79

8.1 1 Reuresentations: No letters of representation were received following the standard neighbour notification procedure and an advert in the local press.

9. Conclusions

9.1 Taking the foregoing into consideration it is considered that the proposed development would accord with the relevant policies within Adopted North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Given the temporary nature and scale of the development and its requirement as part of the Commonwealth Games 2014 it is considered that the development would be appropriate for its location within the Country Park and would have no significant detrimental impact. Although the event itself may cause issues in terms of noise and disruption for a short period, the associated overlay installations would have little to no impact on amenity. Following the standard neighbour notification procedure no letters of objection were received and therefore it is recommended that the application is approved subject to the attached conditions.

80