North Lanarkshire

Council

Planning Applications for consideration of Planning Sub-Committee

Committee Date: 19-04-2018

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

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE

19th April 2018

Page

No

Application No

Applicant Development/Site Recommendation

17/01502/FUL

CALA

Management

Ltd

Residential Development

Comprising 57 Houses

Including Roads, Access,

Parking, Landscaping and

other Associated Development

Site At King's Drive

Westerwood

Cumbernauld

Refuse

Request for

Hearing

18/00180/AMD

North

Lanarkshire

Bio Power

Limited

Alterations to approved Plans

for Energy from Waste (EfW)

processing Building (planning

permission ref. 09/00675/FUL)

incorporating a reduction in the

footprint of the building,

changes to the design of the

building, an increase in the

height of the ventilation stack

to 80m, an increase in the

gross energy output to 27Mw,

an increase in the throughput

of waste fuel to 204,000 dry

tonnes per annum (an

increase of 24,000 tonnes) and

associated access

improvements to the junction

with the A8.

Land At Former Shanks &

McEwan

251 Glasgow And Edinburgh

Road

Coatbridge

ML5 4UG

Grant (P)

18/00222/AMD

Bellway

Homes

(Scotland) Ltd

Amendments to Approved

Layout ( Reference

16/02400/FUL) - 117 Houses

with Associated Works

Site Off Main Street

Chryston

Grant (P)

(P) 18/00180/AMD: If minded to grant, planning permission not to be issued until the Scottish Government has

confirmed its view on the need for EIA. 18/00222/AMD: If minded to grant, planning permission not to be issued until legal agreement concluded to ensure off-site play area, affordable housing contributions and education contributions.

Application No: 17/01502/FUL

Proposed Development: Residential Development Comprising 56 Houses Including Roads, Access, Parking, Landscaping and other Associated Development

Site Address: Site At King's Drive Westerwood Cumbernauld North Lanarkshire

Date Registered: 6th September 2017

Applicant: CALA Management Ltd Cairnlee House Callendar Business Park Callendar Road Falkirk FK1 1XE

Agent: Barton Willmore 68-70 George Street Edinburgh EH2 2LR

Application Level: Major Application

Contrary to Development Plan: Yes

Ward: 02 Cumbernauld North Danish Ashraf, Calum Currie, Tom Fisher, Alan Masterton,

Representations: 335 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reasons:

Reasoned Justification The proposed development is considered to constitute an inappropriate and unjustified loss of a community facility as there is no planning policy justification or other material consideration that would outweigh the provision of the Development Plan which seeks to protect and enhance green networks.

Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396.

Planning Application: 17/01502/FUL Name (of applicant): CALA Management Ltd Site Address: Site At King's Drive, Westerwood, Cumbernauld, North Lanarkshire Development: Residential Development Comprising 56 Houses Including Roads, Access, Parking, Landscaping and other Associated Development

Reasons for refusal:- 1 The proposal does not accord with policy 12 (Green Network and Green Infrastructure) of the

Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and HCF 1 B1 (Community Facilities) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 as it would result in the unjustified loss of an area of informal recreational space that is part of a wider green network and is of value to the local community.

2 The proposed development is contrary to the policy 8 (Housing Land Requirements) and Diagram 10 (Assessment of development Proposals) of the Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 and policies DSP1 (Amount of Development) and DSP2 (Location of Development) as there is an effective supply of housing land in the area and there is no locational justification or other benefit that would justify a departure from the Development Plan.

Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Memos from Transportation received 18th and 23rd October 2017 Memo from Protective Services received 29th September 2017 Letter from Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) received 6th December 2017 Memo from Education received 1st November 2017 Memo from NLC Affordable Housing Consultations received 11th September 2017 Email from Scottish Power received 21st September 2017 Memo from NLC Greenspace received 20th October 2017 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01236 632500 Report Date: 10th April 2018

APPLICATION NO. 17/01502/FUL REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is an area of some 5ha of landscaped green space and woodland with levels sloping gently

downwards from north to south. The site is surrounded by established residential properties on its eastern, southern and western boundary. Kings Drive is to the north with the golf course beyond. The site is open at either end with an informal pathway providing a linkage from Kings Drive at the north to the green space and housing to the south.

2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning permission is sought for a residential development of 56 dwellinghouses taking access

from King’s Drive. The housing mix contains 42 detached units, 10 terraced and 4 flats with internal road layout, drainage, landscaping and public open space. The dwellings incorporate a mixture of integral and detached garages as well as in-curtilage parking. Fourteen affordable units are provided within the layout. Changes were made during the course of the application to introduce a separate pedestrian linkage through the site along the eastern edge resulting in the proposal being reduced by 15 houses.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 A Design and Access Statement, Drainage Strategy, Flood Risk Assessment, Landscape and Visual

Assessment, Habitat Survey, Planning Statement, Pre-application Report, Street Engineering Review, Projected Economic Benefit and Transport Statement were submitted in support of the application.

3.2 Alongside the amendments made to the layout, in response to concerns raised by various parties,

the agent submitted a revised Transport Statement, Street Engineering Review and additional justification for the vehicular access. In addition to this they submitted a response to objections and other consultation response and a statement on why they consider the proposal to meet a housing shortfall in the area.

4. Site History 4.1 The site was historically part of the Westerwood Hotel and Golf Resort, however, following a

reconfiguration, is no longer part of the operational golf course. 4.2 A Proposal of Application Notice for this development was submitted (reference: 17/00632/PAN)

along with an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening request where it was confirmed that EIA was not required (reference: 17/00847/EIASCR).

5. Development Plan 5.1 This application raises issues of a strategic and local nature and therefore must be considered in

terms of both the Strategic Development Plan (Clydeplan SDP 2017) and Local Plan (North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012). The site falls within the ‘Greenfield Housing’ category of schedule 14 in the SDP and the Local Plan identifies it as HCF 1 B1 (Community Facilities).

6. Consultations 6.1 NLC Transportation initially recommended refusal of the application due to inadequate visibility onto

King’s Drive, however, later in the process withdrew this objection following the submission of further information and justification. They also made detailed comments on the transportation statement and proposed layout.

6.2 NLC Greenspace objected to the development on the basis that it removes a green corridor that is

described as having value for recreation and environmental reasons. They recommend that the green corridor, areas of woodland and pedestrian provision be retained, protected and extended. They accept the findings of a survey confirming that there would be no adverse impact on protected species and note that amendments have been made to the layout to retain some trees and increase pedestrian provision in response to their comments but maintain a concern over the loss of green space.

6.3 NLC Protective Services raised no objections in terms of previous land uses or any nearby noise sources that may affect the development and recommended restrictions on any construction operations.

6.4 NLC Housing Solutions have confirmed that there is a requirement for 25% affordable housing

provided on site and that they would be prepared to discuss the delivery of these directly with the applicant.

6.5 SEPA raised no objections. 7. Representations 7.1 Following the neighbour notification and press advertisement a total of 335 letters of representation

were received. Of these, one letter was received from a local member (Cllr. D. Ashraf) and another from the local MP and MSP for the area. The points made can be summarised as follows:

a. Objectors consider the public consultation by developer and Council to be insufficient and

question the accuracy of the ownership certificate. b. The site is described as a valuable recreational and environmental amenity space and green

linkage, and objectors believe that it should be retained as such and any loss would set a dangerous precedent for the loss of other areas in the vicinity. Objectors claim that assurances had been given that the site would be retained as public open space and that the proposed development, and subsequent loss of the community resource, is considered by them to be contrary to previous agreements and also to local and national policy and guidance.

c. The local area is considered by objectors to already have insufficient infrastructure and services (i.e. Roads, Doctors, Park and Ride Facility, Dentists, Schools, Public Transport, drainage and sewerage). It is anticipated that this development, and others approved recently, cumulatively result in an overprovision of housing and put further pressure on the area to the detriment of local people.

d. The density of the development and layout is criticized as not integrating well with the wider area and having an adverse impact on its character. Concerns are expressed that the road layout and access as proposed, combined with congestion associated with the development will have an adverse impact on the road and public safety. Recommendations are made for a reduced development that would retain and improve green walkways and pedestrian and vehicular provision in the area.

e. The construction process and subsequent development would increase disturbance, inconvenience, pollution, restricting views and increasing risks to the safety of local residents, pedestrians and motorists.

f. The proposal will result in a loss of privacy for residents, overshadow nearby housing and will lead to increased noise, light and air pollution.

g. The drainage proposed is described as not being fit for purpose and it is considered by objectors that the detention basin would be a safety hazard.

h. Concerns exist that the development will have an adverse impact on property prices in the area and that any financial benefit that the Council derive from development in the area is not spent locally.

i. Revisions made do not address concerns raised previously and land owners will oppose any pedestrian linkages to the east and west.

8. Planning Assessment 8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning

decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.2 Development Plan: The application is of strategic significance due to the scale of the proposal and

principle policy designation of the site in the adopted Local Plan and should therefore be assessed under both the Local Plan and Strategic Development Plan.

Clydeplan Strategic Development Plan 2017 (SDP) 8.3 The relevant policies of the SDP are:

Policy 8 (Housing Land Requirements)

Policy 12 (Green Network and Green Infrastructure)

Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals)

Policy 8 (Housing Land Requirements)

8.4 This Policy aims to provide a generous supply of land for housing and assists in its effective delivery

in order to support the Vision and Spatial Development Strategy. Local Authorities are required to

meet housing supply targets and allocate a range of effective sites to meet land requirements. The

policy also contains the strategic objective to provide a minimum of 5 years effective land supply and

undertake annual monitoring to ensure completions and land supply are meeting targets. The policy

also contains criteria for the assessment of proposals for housing on greenfield, or brownfield, sites

should a shortfall occur in the five-year supply of effective housing. In terms of housing land supply,

as reported to the February meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee, the Council believes itself to

have an effective and generous 5-year land supply. In light of this, there is not considered to be any

strategic shortfall in the supply and delivery of housing that would require to be remedied and

necessitate further assessment against the additional criteria.

Policy 12 (Green Network and Green Infrastructure) 8.5 To support the Vision and Spatial Development Strategy and the delivery of the Glasgow and the

Clyde Valley Green Network, Local Authorities are required to identify, protect, promote and enhance the Green Network and ensure that proposals prioritise green infrastructure based upon an analysis of the context. The proposal is identified as a community facility in the Local Plan which recognises that it is part of a wider green network in the vicinity and is of strategic value for amenity and recreational purposes. It is considered that the proposal would harm the green network and the proposal does not therefore comply with Policy 12.

Diagram 10 (Assessment of Development Proposals) 8.6 Taking the above assessment into account it is considered that the proposal fails to accord with the

strategic aims of Clydeplan SDP 2017. Accordingly, the development is considered to be a departure from the SDP. Further opportunity if offered by way of criteria to see if the proposal can be viewed as an acceptable departure and this is outlined and assessed below:

Makes a significant contribution to sustainable development particularly through enabling shift to sustainable travel modes and the contribution to carbon reduction;

Response: Whilst the site is reasonably well located, it could not be said that the development would make significant contributions to sustainable development on this front.

Provide significant net economic benefit including the need to accommodate inward investment that would otherwise be lost to the city region or Scotland;

Response: The applicant has provided some figures about the gross economic impact and construction jobs resulting from the development. However, taking account that there is not considered to be a shortage of land identified for housing, the kind of economic investment specified will be realised elsewhere on a site suitable for housing development.

Respond to economic issues, challenges and opportunities, including the protection of jobs or the creation of a significant number of net additional permanent jobs to the city region;

Response: It is not considered that this proposal will respond in any significant way to any strategic economic issues, challenges or opportunities. Any employment created would be in construction and would be realised anyway on a suitable housing site.

Specific locational need; Response: As detailed above there is considered to be an adequate supply of land designated for housing. As such there is no specific locational need for the proposal in this site.

Protect, enhance and promote natural and cultural heritage, including green infrastructure, landscape and the wider environment;

Response: As noted above, the proposal is considered to have a negative impact on this front.

Improve health and well-being by offering opportunities for social interaction and physical activity, including sport and recreation;

Response: The proposal has been amended to retain a separate pedestrian linkage through the site, however, it is considered that the development, and subsequent loss of green space, will have an adverse impact on the attractiveness of the site as an informal recreational community facility.

Support the provision of digital connectivity in new developments and rural areas.

Response: There is nothing to suggest that the proposal will support digital connectivity.

8.7 In concluding the above, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the SDP and is not

considered to be an acceptable departure from the plan. North Lanarkshire Local Plan 8.8 The site is zoned under Policy HCF1 B1 (Community Facilities) in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan

(NLLP). Policies DSP1-4 are also of relevance including DSP1 (Amount of Development), DSP2 (Location of Development), DSP3 (Impact of Development) and DSP4 (Quality of Development). The site is also in the Cumbernauld sub-market area and Policy HCF3 A (Assessing Affordable Housing Development) is also of relevance.

8.9 Policy HCF 1 B1 states that the Council will safeguard areas identified as community facilities as a

means of maintaining community well being. The site is part of a wider network of open green space and is considered to serve a valuable recreational function for the local community. With the trees and undergrowth maturing over time, the lack of maintenance has not resulted in any noticeable loss of amenity for neighbouring properties. The site is considered to contribute to the character of the wider area in terms of its part within a network of formal and informal recreational space for outdoor activity. Therefore, whilst it is no longer used in a formal capacity by the golf course, it remains open as a resource to be used by local residents. The subsequent loss of the majority of the site as a community facility would detract from the wider network of open space and the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy HCF 1 B1.

8.10 In terms of Policy DSP 1 the site is not part of the planned land supply for housing, and, as the

proposal results in an addition, it requires to be justified in terms of supply and demand. The applicant has provided supporting information on what they see as a shortfall to housing land in the area, however, as detailed above, and reported to the February meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee, the Council is considered to have an effective 5-year supply of housing. Accordingly the proposal is not considered to comply with DSP 1.

8.11 Policy DSP 2 considers the location of development and ensures that developments comply with the

Plan’s locational criteria. As an environmental asset the site should be safeguarded under this policy but also as community facility the policy requires it to be enhanced. In the circumstances the development is not considered to safeguard or enhance the area. As such the proposal fails to accord with the locational criteria DSP 2.

8.12 Policy DSP 3 considers local community facilities and infrastructure and the extent to which

developments will place additional demands on the area, and, any subsequent requirements for contributions. In this instance Education has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity in local schools to accommodate the additional supply that a development of this scale would typically generate.

8.13 Policy DSP 4 contains criteria for assessing the quality of development by taking into consideration

issues such as design, layout, transportation and the extent to which proposals can integrate successfully in the local area. The design and layout has been amended and it is now accepted that it could be accommodated within the site minimising any adverse impact on the road network, and without any loss of privacy or adverse overshadowing to the nearest residents. The development has incorporated the guidance of ‘Designing Streets’ with a street layout prioritising pedestrian movement and minimising vehicular speeds through design. As such the proposal is not considered to be contrary to DSP4.

8.14 Policy HCF3 requires on-site provision of affordable housing at a rate of 25% for housing

developments of this scale in this area. The development provides the required affordable housing provision within the site and therefore accords with HCF3.

8.15 In concluding the above, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the development plan and

therefore planning permission must be refused unless there are material considerations which suggest otherwise.

Consultations

8.16 The concerns of Greenspace are shared and are not considered to have been sufficiently addressed by the applicant despite the revised layout and additional information submitted.

Representations

8.17 In response to the points made I would comment as follows:

a. With respect to the public consultation undertaken for the PAN process and application, the

minimum requirements have been met and in places exceeded in this instance in accordance

with the relevant planning legislation. It appears that some objectors have had problems

accessing the online planning portal to view and comment on the planning application but given

the number of comments received and the fact that comments have been entertained beyond

the statutory minimum period, it is felt that local people have had adequate opportunity to

comment on the proposals.

b. In relation to the loss of open space, as detailed above, it is agreed that this would have an

adverse impact and it is recommended that the application be refused on this basis.

c. In relation to infrastructure, as detailed above, it is considered that there is suitable capacity in

the local education system to absorb the additional demand without a financial contribution. In

terms of other infrastructure a development of the scale proposed would not have a significant

impact on the wider area and it is not agreed with the objectors’ view that there is an

overprovision of housing, or that the development is of a scale that would have a significant

impact.

d. In terms of the density, this has been reduced since the application was first submitted. Any

concerns over this and certain aspects of the layout and design which have been criticised are

not shared taking account of the context of the surrounding area and the guidance of ‘designing

streets’.

e. Any disturbance, safety or inconvenience during the construction process would be temporary

and not a material planning consideration and would be addressed by other legislation. Similarly

loss of view is not a material consideration. The supporting information has demonstrated that

the completed development would not have a significant or adverse impact on the local road

network.

f. With respect to the impact on privacy and overshadowing, the impact in this regard is

considered to be acceptable. In terms of the other matters listed the residential use would be

compatible with surrounding land uses and is not considered to have a significant impact on

noise, disturbance or air quality.

g. In terms of drainage, this would be self certified by a suitably qualified professional, and, as

detailed above, no objections were received from the relevant consultees. If the committee were

minded to approve the application this issue could be suitably controlled via planning condition.

h. The impact of the development on house prices, or how any financial benefit from the

development would be spent, is not a material planning consideration.

i. In terms of the amendments made to the layout, these are considered to have resulted in improvements to the proposed scheme.

North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.18 In terms of the proposed Local Development Plan this should be given limited weight, however, the

committee should note that the application site is protected in the emerging plan identifying the site to be part of a wider urban green network. Conclusions

9.1 In conclusion, the development is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and is

contrary to policies HCF 1 B1 and DSP 1 and 2 of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 and Clydeplan SDP 2017. The site is a valuable area of open space and there is no planning justification, or other material consideration that would justify a departure from policy. As such it is recommended that permission be refused.

9.2 It should be noted that objectors have requested a hearing prior to the application being determined.

Taking into account that the recommendation is to refuse the application, and, given the terms of the hearing protocol agreed by the committee, it is recommended that a hearing should not be awarded.

Application No: 18/00180/AMD

Proposed Development: Alterations to approved Plans for Energy from Waste (EfW) processing Building (planning permission ref. 09/00675/FUL) incorporating a reduction in the footprint of the building, changes to the design of the building, an increase in the height of the ventilation stack to 80m, an increase in the gross energy output to 27Mw, an increase in the throughput of waste fuel to 204,000 dry tonnes per annum (an increase of 24,000 tonnes) and associated access improvements to the junction with the A8.

Site Address: Land at Former Shanks & McEwan 251 Glasgow and Edinburgh Road Coatbridge North Lanarkshire ML5 4UG

Date Registered: 7th February 2018

Applicant: North Lanarkshire Bio Power Limited Blythe House Blythe Park Cresswell Stoke-On-Trent England ST11 9RD

Agent: Angus Design Associates The Building Design Centre 125 Muir Street Hamilton Scotland ML3 6BJ

Application Level: Major Application

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: 11 Coatbridge South Tracy Carragher, Tom Castles, Gordon Encinias, Fergus MacGregor,

Representations: 252 letter(s) of representation received and a petition with 1,326 signatories.

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The proposed amendments to the scale, appearance, technical design and operational function of the approved Energy from Waste (EfW) Plant are considered acceptable as there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. Note Should the committee be minded to grant planning permission then the decision notice should not be issued until the Scottish Government has confirmed its views on the need for Environmental Impact Assessment.

Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396.

Planning Application: 18/00180/AMD Name (of applicant): North Lanarkshire Bio Power Limited Site Address: Land At Former Shanks & McEwan, 251 Glasgow And Edinburgh Road, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire ML5 4UG Development: Alterations to approved Plans for Energy from Waste (EfW) processing Building (planning permission ref. 09/00675/FUL) and associated access improvements to the junction with the A8. (see front page for full description)

Proposed Conditions:- Conditions

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority, following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, only residual waste (i.e. waste remaining after all practicable and reasonable efforts have been made to extract recyclable material, and compostable material if appropriate) shall be treated in the energy from waste part of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In order to ensure that only residual waste is treated in the energy from waste

plant in accordance with Scottish Government waste policy and the Scottish Environment

Protection Agency’s guidelines.

2. No waste materials shall be accepted onto the site until the facility is operational. This facility shall be completed in accordance with the approved amended plans. No waste shall be accepted at the facility unless it has been pre-treated and sorted as appropriate.

Reason: To ensure the operation of the development accords with the principles of

sustainable waste management and accords also with Scottish Government waste policy.

3. Prior to the acceptance of waste materials at the site, the development hereby permitted shall be designed and constructed to enable the export of electricity and/or heat in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To ensure that the plant is capable of exporting electricity and/or heat in

accordance with Scottish Government policy and the Scottish Environment Protection

Agency’s Thermal treatment guidelines on maximising energy recovery from such facilities.

4. No development shall commence on site until a schedule of materials and finishes and associated samples for all components of the development, including ground surfaces and boundary enclosure has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule and associated samples. Reason: To ensure the quality of the appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity.

5, No development shall commence on site until a site traffic management plan, which shall include timescales for completion of all proposed measures, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. The approved plan shall be implemented in full. Implementation of the plan shall ensure that all traffic noise on site is minimised. Reason: To minimise noise impacts from the operation of the waste management facility in the interests of amenity.

6. No development shall commence on site until a site waste management plan has been submitted to,

and approved in writing by, the planning authority following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The approved plan shall be implemented in full during the construction of the development. Reason: To ensure best practice is adopted in dealing with waste during the construction phase of the development in accordance with Scottish Government policy.

7. No development shall commence on site until a full site specific construction method statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The construction method statement shall incorporate detailed pollution avoidance and mitigation measures for all construction elements potentially capable of giving rise to pollution including matters relating to the construction of the building, impacts on hydrogeology and disposal of contaminated land. Specifically the statement shall include the following:

how contaminated land will be dealt with; treated and disposed of as necessary;

details of how disturbance to groundwater will be minimised, including any dewatering proposals;

details of the storage of construction fuels, materials, raw materials and by production;

temporary SUDs measures; and

dust mitigation methods.

for the avoidance of doubt, the statement shall include the sections of proposed new access road which are shown outwith the red line boundary

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the water environment from any damage arising from the construction and operation of the development hereby approved.

8. No development shall commence on site until the full details of a surface water drainage scheme, which is compliant with the principles of SUDs, and includes the timescale for its implementation, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. The drainage scheme must comply with the most recent relevant advice issued by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The post-development surface water discharges shall ensure that the rate and quantity of run-off to any watercourse are no greater than the pre-development run-off for any storm return period unless it can be demonstrated that a higher discharge is necessary to protect or improve any aquatic habitat at or near the site. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timescale. Reason: To ensure that the SUDs drainage scheme complies with best practice.

9. The surface water drainage scheme approved in terms of condition 8 shall be implemented

contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the scheme, a certificate (signed by a chartered civil engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the planning authority confirming that it has been constructed in accordance with the relevant CIRIA Manual and the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that the surface water drainage scheme complies with best practice.

10. No development shall commence on site until a travel plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority following consultation with Transport Scotland - Trunk Road Network Management Directorate. The approved travel plan shall be implemented in full, and shall generally be in accordance with the travel plan framework prepared for the consented development by Arup (dated June 2009) as submitted with the original planning application. Specifically it shall identify: measures to be implemented; the timescales for implementation; the system of management, monitoring, review and reporting; and the duration of the plan. Reason: To ensure the operation of the development accords with the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy and Planning Advice Note 75 Planning for Transport.)

12. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of lighting within the site has been

submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority following consultation with the roads authority. The design of the lights shall incorporate downward reflectors. Reason: In the interests of road safety at the locus, to minimise light pollution in the vicinity, and to accord with the biodiversity enhancement measures required under the terms of condition 13.

13. No development shall commence on site until a scheme which incorporates the Best Practice Measures for Wildlife and the Biodiversity Enhancement Measures detailed in Annex G (Ecology) of the Environmental Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. The scheme shall include a timescale for completion of each of its elements. These shall include the following:

after a further survey for otters and a full assessment of the potential impacts of the

proposed works on otters, detailed mitigation measures to avoid, reduce and mitigate any predicted negative impacts;

a programme to install bat boxes on the edge of the adjacent North Calder Water SINC woodland;

landscaping using exclusively native plant species;

creation and maintenance of species rich grassland areas, and

downward reflectors to be installed on any artificial lighting to minimise impacts on bats and other wildlife.

For the avoidance of doubt, all additional surveys shall include the sections of proposed new access road which are shown outwith the red line boundary

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation within the site and surrounding area.

14. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping within the site boundary incorporating biodiversity enhancement measures and native tree planting has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The scheme shall include:

details of any earth moulding and hard landscaping, boundary treatment, wild grass seeding and turfing;

a scheme of native tree and shrub planting which shall include a majority of heavy standard tree sizes;

the scheme of native tree and shrub planting shall incorporate details of the location, number, variety and size of trees and shrubs to be planted;

an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows, together with details of those to be retained, and measures for their protection in the course of development;

a detailed timetable for all landscaping works which shall provide for these works to be carried out before any waste materials are accepted on site; and

a management and maintenance scheme for these works.

for the avoidance of doubt, the scheme shall include the sections of proposed development which are shown outwith the red line boundary

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation, biodiversity, and visual amenity and to meet the commitment of the council to the provision of high quality landscaping in developments within North Lanarkshire.

15. All works included in the scheme of landscaping and native tree planting, approved under the terms of condition 14 above, shall be completed in full, in accordance with the approved timetable, and any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within 2 years of the full occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation, biodiversity, and visual amenity, and to meet the commitment of the council to the provision of high quality landscaping in developments in North Lanarkshire.)

16. No development shall commence on site until a comprehensive site investigation report has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the planning authority. For the avoidance of doubt, this report shall include those areas of development shown outwith the red line as shown on approved plans. The investigation shall be carried out in accordance with current best practice advice, including that found in BS 10175: The Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites and CLR 11. The report shall include a site specific risk assessment of all relevant pollution linkages, a conceptual site model, and details of any remediation works required along with timescales for their completion. All remediation works shall be completed to the complete satisfaction of the planning authority within the approved timescales. A certificate (signed by a chartered environmental engineer) shall be submitted to the planning authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried out in accordance with the terms of the works approved in the site investigation report. Reason: To establish whether or not site decontamination is required and, if it is, to ensure that the site is free of contamination, in the interests of the amenity and wellbeing of future employees and visitors to the waste management facility.

17. No waste shall be received on site until the approved access road and parking works have been completed and are operational. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes those sections of road outwith the red line as shown on approved plans. All the parking and manoeuvring areas thereby approved shall be levelled, properly drained, surfaced in an approved material, clearly marked out and hereafter, maintained as parking and manoeuvring areas. Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking within the site and in the interests of pedestrian and vehicular safety.

18. The maximum quantity of waste that can be imported into the waste facility in any one year shall not exceed 204,000 tonnes unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. For the avoidance of doubt, this overall limit includes an allowance for the importation of pre-processed refined bio-fuel. Reason: To ensure the operation of the development accords with Scottish Government waste policy in respect of the identified waste streams.

19. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority, no import to or export of waste or other material from the site shall take place outwith the hours of 07.00 to 19.00 weekdays and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. For the avoidance of doubt, no import to or export of waste or other materials from the site shall take place on Sundays. Reason: To enable the planning authority to retain effective control of noise, and in the interests of residential amenity in the vicinity.

20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority, import to and export of materials from the site during the construction phase of the development shall be limited to 07.00 to 19.00 weekdays and 07.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. For the avoidance of doubt, no import to or export of materials from the site shall take place on Sundays. Reason: To enable the planning authority to retain effective control of noise, and in the interests of residential amenity in the vicinity.

21. During the operational phase of the development no waste material, unless enclosed in secure

containers, shall be stored outside the waste processing buildings hereby approved by the planning authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the site and surrounding area.

22. No development shall commence on site until the developer has taken all reasonable steps to establish a community liaison committee of 5 persons. To that end, the developer shall invite the local community to nominate up to 2 representatives to sit on the committee together with a representative from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and a representative from the planning authority. The representative of the developer may be accompanied by such other persons as may be of assistance to the committee in carrying out its work. Meetings of the committee shall be held on site every quarter or at longer intervals as the committee members may determine appropriate.

Reason: In the interests of best practice in community engagement; and to ensure that the local community is kept informed about the development and that any concerns of the local community regarding potential environmental and amenity impacts are taken into account in the construction and operation of the development.

23. Within 3 months of the signing of a contract for the construction of the proposed development and prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall produce a co-ordinated non-technical summary environmental report for the site which will include the matters covered by conditions 7-9 and 13-17, which will be made available to the planning authority and the community liaison committee, to be established in compliance with condition 22. The report will then be updated on each anniversary after its first issue to report on the progress of the measures contained therein. Reason: To enable the local community to be fully informed and for the planning authority to consider these aspects in the interests of the amenity of the site and surrounding area.)

Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Scottish Water received 8th February 2018 Scottish Power received 9th February 2018 Transport Scotland received 15th February 2018 National Air Traffic Services received 12th February 2018 Scottish Natural Heritage received 21st February 2018 Scottish Environment Protection Agency received 1st of March 2018 Monklands Glen Community Council received 26th February 2018 NLC Traffic & Transportation received 7th March 2018 NLC Protective Services (including Pollution Control) received 6th March 2018 NLC Greenspace Services received 14th February 2018. Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Craig McIntyre at 01236 632500 Report Date: 10th April 2018

APPLICATION NO. 18/00180/AMD REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The Energy from Waste (EfW) Plant development site extends to some 3.6 ha in area. The site is

clear of buildings and other structures other than hardstandings left over from historic uses at the site (see section 4 of the report below). The site is enclosed to the front by temporary screens alongside the A8. There is an existing vehicle site access from the A8 which again is a leftover from historic uses at the site.

1.2 The site is bounded to the south by the A8, to the east by the main Motherwell-Coatbridge railway

line and woodland corridor and to the west and north by an area of scrubland (a former land fill site which has been restored) with the North Calder Water further to the north-west. The area to the west i.e. in and around the North Calder water is identified by the Council as a SINC (Site of Interest for Nature Conservation). East Shawhead Industrial Estate is located about 500m to the northwest of the site. The residential area of South Carnbroe is situated some 200m north-east of the site beyond the railway line and woodland corridor. Immediately to the east of the rail line is a site where planning permission in principle was granted in 2017 for 400 houses (ref 15/01792/PPP). This is currently the basis of an application to increase the capacity of that site to 500 houses (ref. 18/00279/AMD). Immediately to the south of the A8 and M8 is the site of the proposed Mossend Railfreight Park which was granted permission by the Scottish Ministers at appeal in 2017 (ref. 13/02079/PPP).

2. Proposed Development 2.1 Planning permission is being sought for an amendment to the design, capacity and waste processing

function of the already approved Energy from Waste Management Plant at the former Shanks & McEwan Site, 251 Glasgow and Edinburgh Road, Coatbridge ML5 4UG.

2.2 As noted in section 4 below, planning permission was granted in 2011 by the Scottish Ministers (at appeal) for an Energy from Waste development. The developer seeks to make changes to the waste processing plant to ensure it remains commercially viable and is capable of meeting the technical requirements of the waste management regulations implemented by SEPA via their PPC (Pollution Prevention & Control) licensing requirements. As such a number of alterations to the currently consented EfW plant design and function are proposed

2.3 The main changes to the Energy from Waste (EfW) facility (as approved) which are proposed within

this planning application are as follows:

The “front end” Material Recovery Facility (MRF) would not be required as the amended EfW Facility would now process pre-treated residual waste only.

A “back end” MRF would be provided to capture and segregate post-processing recyclate materials.

the maximum annual tonnage of waste fuel would increase by 24,000 tonnes pa. (from 180,000 tonnes pa to 204,000 tonnes pa.)

Despite the increase in capacity, the expected number of lorry movements in and out of the plant will remain the same as per the existing planning permission. This is due to the removal of the front end MRF (see above) and the use of larger lorries.

The amended EfW Plant would be capable of supplying waste heat and electricity to third party user off-takers.

The consented EfW Plant Design incorporated two stacks at 27m in height to either side of the waste processing building. Only one flue stack would now be required and this would be relocated to the south end of the main processing building. The single chimney stack would be 80m in height.

The internal waste processing operation would be reversed and the waste reception area would be relocated to the south end of the main building.

The building massing would be reconfigured to accommodate the changes. The amended waste processing building roof would be constructed in four separate stepped sections with incremental increase in height from its front elevation (c. 17m height) through to the rear elevation (c. 38m in height)

For commercial viability, power generation would change from combined cycle to steam which requires the inclusion of the turbine-chiller plant to the north east corner of the site.

An increase in the power output of the plant from 22.6MW (gross) to 27MW (gross)

A reduction in the amount of waste materials (ash and metals) to be disposed of to landfill from 31% to 5-8%

A waste heat distribution pipe will be taken to the southern edge of the site for third parties to connect to their distribution network

Access to the secure site will be via unmanned electronic gates monitored by CCTV within the building.

The main waste processing building is completely enclosed to reduce both noise and odour issues.

Externally, a single turbine-chiller unit, a stand-alone administration building, a utilities block, two weigh-bridges and a car parking area would be provided as part of the amended site layout.

The internal circulation roadway to be used by waste delivery vehicles would be retained.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 In support of the application the following support information has been provided.

Application Form and Amended Plans

Air Quality Report

Noise/Acoustic Report

Odour Management Report

Feedstock Storage and Treatment report

Heat and Power Plan

Health Impact Assessment

Photo Montages

Planning Statement 4. Site History 4.1 The site has previously supported a mixed variety of industrial and waste management land uses

including landfill, waste transfer station and a waste tyre depot, all of which have now been removed from the development site. Most recent planning submissions at the site are summarised as follows:

07/00643/FUL Change of Use of General Industrial Area to Waste Transfer Station for Storage and Processing of Car Waste (Retrospective) (Granted August 2007)

07/02078/OUT Class 5 (General Industry) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) Development (In Outline) and Associated Works (includes land to west and north of this application site). (Refused May 2008)

09/00428/OUT Class 5 (General Industry) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) Development in Outline (Appeal Dismissed July 2010) (includes land to west and north of this application site).

09/00675/FUL Commercial, Industrial and Municipal Waste Material Recovery and Renewable Energy Facility comprising Main Processing Building and Office Block (Appeal Allowed 17 th May 2011). (4298 representations received) This decision was the basis of unsuccessful legal challenges by Council. The Environmental Statement for this development fulfils the EIA requirements for the development. Works were started on site in 2014 and the planning permission remains in place without a time limit.

15/01820/AMD Alteration to Approved Energy from Waste (EfW) Processing Building, incorporating Provision of External Turbine Chiller Unit, Repositioning of Flue Stack, Deletion of Front End Material Recovery Facility (MRF) and Repositioning of Internal Waste Reception Hall to South Elevation of EfW Building.(S42 Variation to Condition 2 of Planning Permission 09/00675/FUL). Granted 20th April 2016 (1 representation received.) Permission expires April 2019

17/00571/PAN Proposal of Application Notice: Proposed Class 4, 5, & 6 with Associated Access Works, Landscaping & SUDs Pond (includes land to west and north of this application site).

17/00615/EIASCR – Confirmation from the Council that EIA would be required for the

development of an EfW scheme with a capacity of 256,000 tonnes per annum.

17/01578/AMD Alterations to approved Plans for Energy from Waste (EfW) processing Building incorporating a reduction in the footprint of the building, changes to the design of the building, an increase in the height of the ventilation stack to 80m, an increase in the gross energy output

to 27Mw, an increase in the throughput of waste fuel to 204,000 dry tonnes per annum (an increase of 24,000 tonnes) and associated access improvements to the junction with the A8 (Section 42 variation of conditions, 2, 3, 4 and 19 of Planning permission 15/01820/AMD). Formally withdrawn on the 28th of February 2018 for procedural reasons.

18/00169/EIASCR EIA screening opinion decided 9th February 2018 which determined that EIA was not required for a development of an EfW with capacity of 204,000 tonnes pa, taking into account the fact that EIA was in place for the existing approved scheme and taking account of the scale and nature of proposed changes to that approved scheme. The Scottish Ministers received a request for a Screening Direction In terms of Regulation 7(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2017 from a member of the public on the 20th of February 2018, and to date have not made a determination on the request.

18/00168/EIASCO- Request for EIA scoping opinion was submitted. No opinion was offered given that the Council concluded that there was no need for an EIA.

18/00189/PASE - Confirmation from the Council that the proposed development does not constitute a ‘major’ development in terms of the Planning Hierarchy and therefore statutory Pre-Application Consultation with the local community was not required.

4.2 The pre-start requirements of the planning conditions attached to extant planning permission 09/00675/FUL were discharged in February 2014 and a material commencement to the approved EfW Waste Management Plant development was confirmed in May 2014 in accordance with the terms of section 27 of the Planning Act (as amended). Accordingly, the planning permission for the EfW plant (granted by Scottish Ministers at appeal in 2011) is still in place and will remain so without time limit.

4.3 The previous developer, Shore Energy set up a Community Liaison Group with members of the local

community to keep local residents informed of the progress with the EfW development. Meetings were hosted and attended by SEPA at their offices in Eurocentral Business Park. This was a requirement of the planning permission. Meetings were held in January and April 2014 and in September 2015. Minutes of these meetings are available under the 09/00675/FUL application file and can be viewed via the NLC e planning web site. It should be noted that Shore Energy, have put their plans to implement their planning permission on hold pending the outcome of this application by North Lanarkshire Bio Power Ltd.

5. Development Plan 5.1 The EfW development site is currently zoned under policy EDI 1 A1 (Existing Waste Management

Facilities) of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. Policy EDI3 C (Waste Development) would also be relevant. Given the status of the North Calder Water as a SINC then policy NBE1 (4) (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment) is relevant.

5.2 Given the scale and nature of the proposed changes, this application is not considered to raise

matters of a strategic nature and therefore the Clydeplan SDP 2017 is not considered relevant. 6. Consultations 6.1 There were no objections to the planning application from NLC Protective Services, NLC Roads

Operations or Transport Scotland. NATS (with an interest in aviation safety) had no objection to the proposed 80m high chimney stack.

6.2 NLC Greenspace requested that an updated Protected Species and Phase 1 Survey are required. This can be incorporated in a pre-start planning condition. Their previous comments and requirements made in respect of the now approved planning permission still apply including controls over site clearance, best practice measures for wildlife, biodiversity enhancement, woodland protection and the protection of watercourses.

6.3 SEPA initially set out a holding objection based on the grounds that there was lack of detailed

information with regard to air quality, noise and odour issues. The applicant subsequently provided additional technical information covering the amended waste plant processing operations and SEPA confirmed they had no objection to the development subject to their PPC licensing requirements.

6.4 SNH’s assessment of the impacts on designated sites as a result of air pollution dispersal confirmed that there are no internationally or nationally designated sites within the application boundary, however, applications for EfW facilities of over 20MW should consider potential designated sites up to 15km from the development. The applicant provided information which demonstrated to SNH’s satisfaction that the impact would be limited and within acceptable limits. SNH did not offer any comment on the landscape and visual impacts of the development as it falls below the threshold of their ‘Service Statement for Planning and Development’.

7 Representations 7.1 251 letter(s) of representation have been received these being one neutral comment plus a petition

with 1,326 signatories submitted by MRAPP (a local action group) objecting to the principle of EfW in the Monklands area. This petition was a Facebook campaign seeking objections to the principle of an EfW at the former Shanks and McEwan site not the detail of the current application. Letters or online submissions were received from six MSP’s (F MacGregor, A Neil, R Lyle, M Mitchell, C Haughey, and G Simpson) three Community Council’s (Monklands Glen, Bellshill and Halfway, this being based in Cambuslang) and two pressure groups ‘Monklands Residents Against Pyrolysis Plant’ (MRAPP) and ‘Dovesdale Action Group’ (South Lanarkshire based).

7.2 The following is a summary of the key objections to the proposal:-

Non Compliance with International and European Legislation

Non Compliance with Scottish Government Policy on Zero Waste

Non Compliance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)

Non Compliance with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006

Contrary to Local and National Waste Policy Issues

Health, Public Safety and Proximity Issues

Air Quality and Noise Pollution Issues

Water Quality Issues

Ecology and Wildlife Issues

Traffic Impact Issues

Impact on the Local Economy and Property Valuations

Ground Stability and Contamination

Strategic Environmental Assessment Issues

Heat Energy Distribution Plan Issues

Lack of Landscape or Visual Impact Assessment

Restoration Guarantee Bond Issue

Planning Assessment and Procedural Issues 8. Planning Assessment

8.1 As noted above planning permission was granted by Scottish Ministers in May 2011 for an EfW plant on this site subject to conditions. A material commencement of the approved development was confirmed in May 2014. This permission is therefore in place and will remain so without a time limit. The developer seeks permission to amend the EfW Plant to ensure it is commercially viable, uses the best available waste processing technology and is capable of meeting the waste management regulations and the requirements of SEPA’s PPC licensing requirements. The changes to the EfW plant are set out at paragraph 2.3 above. Development Plan

8.2 The proposed changes to the consented EfW Plant are not considered to be of strategic significance therefore the proposal may be considered under the terms of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan.

8.3 The site is identified in the local plan under Policy EDI 1 A1 (Existing Waste Management Facilities); This policy seeks to support the continuing industrial and business character of existing industrial and business areas, where appropriate, existing waste management facilities by considering a range of criteria as follows:

extent to which there is a surplus in the land supply for industry and business Response: There is significant surplus of industrial land in the Council area. This development will reduce that surplus.

potential undermining of the attractiveness as a location for industry and business.

Response - It is felt that the proposal (by virtue of its appearance or its operation) would not undermine the attractiveness for business and industry. Indeed, the availability of heat and power around the site may enhance it.

specific locational requirement for the proposal – Response - there is no specific locational requirement for a facility in this particular location.

whether the proposal would result in significant economic benefit to the Plan area. Response - There will be some economic benefit but it is debatable if this would be significant across the entire plan area.

existence of suitable alternative sites Response –alternative sites are available.

impact on travel patterns and accessibility by public transport Response – Transportation impacts have been found to be acceptable.

whether the development would re-use vacant or under-utilised industrial land Response – the development will re-use vacant and under-utilised industrial land

8.4 Given the above, on balance it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy EDI 1 A1

8.5 Policy EDI3 (Waste Developments); Criteria within this policy and the Planning Service response is listed below:

Applications for waste management facilities will be supported where they:

are located within: i. an existing or previous waste management facility – Response - the site is identified in the local plan as a waste management site and there is a planning permission for a new EfW development on the site. ii. industrial, business or storage and distribution land (EDI 1A land) or a site allocated in the

development plan Response - The site is located on a site zoned for industrial purposes iii. contaminated or degraded land. Response - The site is contaminated and brownfield

deliver additional capacity as required in Zero Waste Plan Annex B Response - The development would deliver additional capacity as required in the Zero Waste Plan.

comply with EU Waste Framework Directive, the National Waste Plan (Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan), Regional Guidance and issues of need and impact Response - The proposed amended EfW plant would comply with EU waste directives, National Waste Plan and sufficient supporting information has been provided to ensure there would be no unacceptable impacts as a result of the proposed changes.

show consideration of sustainable transportation of waste Response – The site is located in a central location and lorry traffic would use the trunk road network in and around the site.

are located close to users of heat and power, in the case of Energy from Waste/Advanced Thermal Treatment facilities Response - The site of the EfW plant is also close to potential end users of heat and power and SEPA have confirmed the amended plant design is capable of meeting their Thermal Treatment Guidelines.

8.6 In relation to policy NBE1 (4) (Protecting the Natural and Built Environment), taking into account the

planning history of the site, the comments from NLC Greenspace and SNH, and given the proposed use of conditions to address issues of biodiversity protection and enhancement; it is considered that the proposal accords with this policy.

8.7 The development also needs to be considered against Policies DSP 1, DSP 2, DSP 3 and DSP 4 of

the NLLP. Given the extant planning permission for the Energy from Waste plant and the fact that

the site is zoned as an existing waste management facility adjacent to an industrial development area, development Policies DSP 1 Amount of Development and DSP 2 Location of Development are not relevant. There are no additional demands on community facilities or infrastructure form the development and as such it complies with Policy DSP 3 which seeks to manage the impact of development on community facilities and infrastructure.

8.8 An assessment of the proposed changes to the design and function of the consented EfW Plant as listed under paragraph 2.2 is required to assess the development against policy DSP 4 which promotes high standards of site planning and sustainable design through an examination of the quality of the development against a range of criteria.

The ancillary office facilities are included in a stand alone administration building to the north east of the main building: This would result in an acceptable reduction in the development footprint of the EfW Plant and would not impact on the waste processing functions. The overall building footprint has been reduced by 50% from the original consented design.

Externally, a single turbine-chiller unit, an administration block, two weigh-bridges and a car parking area would be provided as part of the amended site layout: These changes reflect an update in waste processing technology, improved staff facilities and the weigh bridges are necessary to ensure waste received and dispatched at the site are effectively monitored. The increased car parking spaces for visitors and staff is acceptable. There was no objection from SEPA or NLC Roads Operations in this regard.

The internal circulation roadway to be used by waste delivery vehicles would be retained: Waste delivery vehicles would access the waste reception hall on the south side of the building but would use the internal circulation route to access/egress the weighbridges. This ensures that all delivery vehicles can be accommodated within the site and there will be no stacking on the access road from the A8. Transport Scotland and NLC Roads Operations had no objection to this change.

The “front end” Material Recovery Facility (MRF) would be removed: The MRF is no longer required as the operator intends to process pre-treated residual waste only. The current proposal intends to use refuse derived fuel (RDF) which has been processed off site into bricks and is then shredded on site as and when required. The RDF reduces the amount of waste to be stored on the site and being pre processed it also reduces odours and potential for flies etc. SEPA had no objection to this change provided only residual waste is used to fuel the EfW Plant. Condition 2 would ensure the updated EfW Plant would process residual waste only.

A “back end” MRF would be provided to capture and segregate latent post-processing re-cyclate materials: This would be required to meet current waste management regulations and a requirement of SEPA’s PPC licensing requirements. The current application reduces the percentage of materials moving offsite to land fill from 31% to 5-8% which is more efficient and results in a reduction in vehicle movements from the site. As noted above SEPA had no objection to the proposals.

The amended EfW Plant would be capable of supplying waste heat to third party user off-takers: This provision would also be a requirement of SEPA’s PPC licensing and meet SEPAs Thermal Treatment of Waste Guidelines 2014. SEPA had no objection.

Only one flue stack would now be required and this would be relocated to the south end of the main processing building. The stack would be 80m in height. Whilst the impact of the 80m chimney stack would be noticeable over the surrounding area, this impact is not considered to be so significant or adverse to merit the refusal of the application.

The internal waste processing operation would be reversed and the waste reception area would be relocated to the south end of the main building: The proposed deletion of the “front end” MRF has enabled the operator to reconfigure the internal waste handling processes. As such there would be no delivery of waste to the north elevation which in turn removes HGV turning manoeuvres at this part of the site thereby reducing potential noise nuisance to the residential areas to the north-west and east of the site. NLC Roads Operations, NLC Protective Services and SEPA had no objection in this regard.

The building massing would be reconfigured to accommodate the changes: The proposed changes to the EfW Plant design reduces the waste process building’s footprint by 50% and

is considered acceptable. The curved profiled design has been replaced by a parapet roof which would be stepped in height to house the waste processing plant and are acceptable in terms of visual impact.

The waste processing building would include an open section of roof to the centre of the main building. This open section of roof at the centre of the waste processing building is required under health and safety requirement to ensure the building is appropriately vented from the high temperatures of the thermal treatment process. The open section of roof would not be visible from ground level. It is considered this alteration would be acceptable.

For commercial viability, power generation would change from combined cycle to steam only which requires the inclusion of the turbine-chiller plant to the north east corner of the site. There was no objection from SEPA in this regard and the additional turbine-chiller plant is considered acceptable as it would have no unacceptable impacts in terms of noise emissions. There were no objections from SEPA and NLC Protective Services on the matter of noise.

8.9 Other individual impacts are assessed below:

8.10 Air Quality: An air quality report was provided in support of the application. NLC Protective Services and SEPA were satisfied with the findings of this report and had no objections. SEPA would regulate emissions from the plant as part of the necessary permit.

8.11 Noise Impacts: Similarly, a noise impact report was submitted in support of the application. NLC Protective Services were content with the findings of the report and had no objections in this regard. SEPA confirmed that calculations of noise emanating from the proposed facility have been provided in based on the technical data submitted by CoGen and the constructor BWSC. Appropriate attenuation of noise has been considered along with recognition that major sources of noise onsite, such as the Air Cooled Condensers, need to be targeted. Changes in road layout have been considered and these modifications have also been incorporated and assessed within the assessment provided, which SEPA consider to be adequate for this stage of the process.

8.12 Odour Impacts, an odour impact report was also submitted in support of the application NLC

Protective Services were content with the findings of the report and had no objections in this regard. SEPA are satisfied that justification has been provided that treating odorous air during abnormal operations/shutdowns, with an activated carbon filter emitting through a 40m high stack on top of the boiler house is an acceptable strategy. An odour screening model has been used to show that there should be no significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors and SEPA recognise the model outputs as satisfactory. The applicant has stated that there will be a minimum of 3 air changes an hour which is in line with SEPA’s Odour Guidance, and SEPA also acknowledge there are also additional robust measures to control fugitive emissions. It is noted that the information submitted by the applicant was based on a 40m high chimney stack and found to be acceptable. An 80m stack is proposed (to provide adequate dispersal of emissions) and therefore odour impact anticipated would be less than set out in the applicant’s supporting information.

8.13 Visual Impacts: Photo-montages of the proposed EfW Plant were provided in support of the

application. The 80m stack height and positioning to the south elevation of the processing building is clearly visible from a wide area, however, it is considered acceptable as it is located furthest way from both existing and proposed residential properties. The height and visual prominence of the stack is in context in this development corridor as industrial buildings of significant height (in excess of 40m) are located less than a mile away at Eurocentral thereby establishing a precedent for this type of structure along the A8 corridor in this area.

8.14 Transport: The applicant has advised that all imported waste brought to the site would be suitable for

processing through thermal treatment. This correlates with the removal of the front end MRF which previously would have generated additional HGV trips involved in exporting recovered waste for reuse in the production of new materials at off-site locations. The applicant intends to improve the existing vehicular access onto the A8 and provide and improved internal circulation road. As noted in para 1.2 above, the Mossend Railfreight development sits to the south of the application site, and this has permission (in principle) for a new roundabout access to be formed on the A8 adjoining the EfW site. If implemented then it is likely that the 2 developments would share the new roundabout. The internal road layout of the plant allows for the stacking of delivery vehicles so that they will not impact on the access road from the A8. Transport Scotland had no objection in this regard. While the annual tonnage of fuel being delivered to the site has been increased the number of vehicle trips to and from the plant will remain the same as the fuel will be delivered in larger articulated lorries. The specialist fuel will be from a limited number of suppliers from across Scotland and will arrive at the

plant via the trunk road network as opposed to the local road network, both NLC Roads and Transport Scotland had no objection in this regard.

8.15 Taking account of the above, it is concluded that the proposal accords with Policy DSP 4 (Impact) of

the adopted Local Plan. Moreover, it is also concluded that the proposal accords with the development plan and planning permission must therefore be granted permission unless there are other material considerations which suggest otherwise. These are addressed below:

Representations

8.16 The points of objection and the issues raised by the public are noted below in bold italics with the

Planning Services response in normal text below:-

(a) Non Compliance with International and European Legislation The proposal contravenes the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the European Human Rights Convention (the Right to Life), and the Stockholm Convention, and violates the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 which states that the UK must prevent emissions from harming human health. Incineration is also a violation of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990 which states that the UK must prevent emissions from harming human health. The Planning Service disagrees with the above statement, indeed if the above statement was to be accepted then the Scottish Government in granting consent to the EfW plant in 2011 would also have been party to the claimed violations outlined above. As noted below, it is concluded that emissions from the development will be within acceptable limits.

(b) Non Compliance with Scottish Government Policy on Zero Waste The proposed development must comply with the responsibility of the Scottish Government to reduce the impact of climate change. This proposal will by its very nature produce emissions which will impact detrimentally on such targets. The proposal will counter attempts to improve recycling rates. The proposed development and the emissions which it will produce are deemed to be acceptable by the SEPA i.e. the agency tasked with ensuring compliance with the Government’s environmental protection legislation. SEPA have considered the merits of the development proposal and concluded that it is consentable under the PPC licence requirements. Both the Zero Waste Plan and SPP acknowledge the use of EfW plants as part of a comprehensive approach to waste management and do not in themselves counteract wider aims to increase recycling rates.

(c) Non Compliance with Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) Scottish Planning Policy highlights the need to tackle climate change and in particular reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that contribute to it. An incinerator will not support these objectives and will be contrary to the efforts made by Scottish Government and North Lanarkshire Council in their commitment to meeting these targets. The proposed development will contribute to the long term reduction of greenhouse gases by reducing the amount of residual waste sent to landfill. Emissions from the plant have been found to be acceptable by SEPA, the regulating body.

The National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) clearly states the planning system has an important role to play in improving the environment by strengthening green infrastructure, safeguarding and enhancing urban and rural biodiversity, and contributing to the improvement of water, air and soil quality. In allowing such developments at this location North Lanarkshire Council would be failing in their international, national and local responsibilities to the wider community and those who live within the area. The Planning Service considers that the development is in accordance with the Development Plan and is acceptable in terms of environmental impact. The proposal fails to meet Rural Development Scottish Planning Policy in protecting the environment where such developments would be located contrary to the policy nationally. The site is a brownfield site, with a long history of industrial and waste management activities on the site. Impact on the wider area from emissions has been assessed and found to be acceptable.

(d) Non Compliance with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006 The proposal does not meet the requirements of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006 in respect of the need for pre-application community consultation for a defined Major planning application. The scale of the amendments is such that the application was not considered a major application in and of itself (i.e. the change between what is already approved and now proposed is not of a major scale), and as such the need for pre application notification and consultation was not required. However, the Planning Service has placed the application and all supporting documentation on the planning portal and advertised the planning application in the local press to allow those in the wider area an opportunity to consider and comment on the planning application. The applicant voluntarily held a public consultation and information event within the local area on the 27th of February 2018 to allow local residents and interested parties the opportunity to ask questions about the proposed development and its impacts.

(e) Development Plan and National Waste Policy Issues There is no local need for a plant of this type or size-the community should employ the

preferred options of reduce, re-use and recycle before resorting to Pyrolysis (incineration).

This proposal does not address or promote waste minimisation.

It should be noted that the adopted Local Plan identifies this site as being suitable for waste management purposes and that planning permission already exists for a plant which will accommodate 180,000 tonnes per annum. The Zero Waste Plan and Scottish Planning Policy accept facilities such as this as part of wide range of facilities required in order to meet the aims of those plans.

The proposed commercial (for-profit) operation is not clean or green. Burning (or heating) of

waste causes pollution and is not a solution to meeting landfill targets.

The proposed waste management facility offers a sustainable method of dealing with waste and

would assist in reducing the volumes of waste currently sent to landfill as agreed by SEPA. As noted

in supporting information the impacts on air quality would not be significant and within regulations

controlled under SEPAs permit regulations.

Municipal and Commercial waste will be transported to the plant on a round the clock basis

to the detriment of the amenity of Carnbroe

No waste disposal contracts have yet been agreed but municipal waste could be sourced from other local authority areas. Supporting information and relevant consultees have confirmed that impacts on air quality, odours and noise would not be significant. Whilst the facility would process waste over a 24 hour, 7 days per week period, actual deliveries and removal of recyclable and residual waste destined for landfill would occur during 0700-1900 hours Monday to Friday, and 0700-1300 hrs Saturdays.

The proposals are contrary to the Structure Plan and Local Plan

The proposal changes to the approved scheme are not considered to be of strategic importance and

are considered to be in accordance with the adopted local plan (see above).

This proposed plant is not a recycling plant; it is an incinerator by another name.

The development would operate both as a waste processing facility and at the same time provide power by way of heat and electricity.

(f) Health, Public Safety and Proximity Issues The proposal is non compliant with the Council’s Legal Duty to Protect Human Health as the health effects of waste incinerators have been well documented. The applicant has produced a Health Impact Assessment report which concludes that there will be no detrimental impact on the health indicators of the local populace as a result of the development.

SEPA have also confirmed that the levels of emissions from the development are within acceptable standards and will be subject of regular monitoring under the terms of the PPC licence.

Incinerators produce ash which amount to 30-50% by volume of the original waste (if compacted), and require transportation to landfill sites. Abatement equipment in modern incinerators merely transfers the toxic load, notably that of dioxins and heavy metals, from airborne emissions to the fly ash. This fly ash is light, readily wind borne and mostly of low particle size. It represents a considerable and poorly understood health hazard. The efficiency of the proposed plant is such that the amount of fly ash/metals left over after the pyrolysis process has been reduced from 31% (as per the existing planning permission) to 5-8% of the original RDF. The fly ash/metals will also be stored within the building prior to being transported off site to landfill therefore reducing the potential for airborne emissions. This will be controlled by SEPA. In the UK, some incinerators burn radioactive material producing radioactive particulates. The applicant has no intention of using radioactive material in the pyrolysis process. Even if approved, this would be a matter for SEPA to regulate. Monitoring of incinerators has been unsatisfactory in the lack of rigor, the infrequency of monitoring, the small number of compounds measured, the levels deemed acceptable, and the absence of biological monitoring.

It is SEPA’s responsibility to both monitor and regulate the activities within the site and ensure that the operator complies with the terms of the PPC licence.

There are now alternative methods of dealing with waste which would avoid the main health hazards of incineration, would produce more energy and would be far cheaper in real terms, if the health costs were taken into account.

Planning permission already exists at this site which establishes the principle of an energy from waste facility. This type of waste treatment is allowed for by SEPA and the Scottish Government.

(g) Air Quality and Noise Pollution Issues Air quality is already confirmed as poor in this area.

An Air Quality Assessment report concluded that the levels of emissions from the plant would be within acceptable limits. Compared to the planning permission which is already in place, increases in traffic levels will be negligible. There is an Air Quality Management Area approx. 1km away in Whifflet and SEPA and NLC protective Services were aware of this when preparing their responses.

There will be unacceptable health risks from air-borne particles emitting from the chimney

stack on not only local neighbourhoods but also to the outlying areas and in particular to

young children in schools and nurseries which are located close to the site.

The Air Quality Assessment report provides a full assessment on emissions from the proposed facility and considered such an impact on sensitive receptors such as residential areas and schools. The report concluded that whilst there would be air-borne particulates emitted from the stack these would be within acceptable standards, subject to filtering processes and controlled by SEPA regulatory controls and monitoring as required as part of the PPC permit. SEPA had no objection to the proposals as they considered the proposed facility would be capable of meeting their PPC permit requirements.

Due to the variety and origins of waste that would be dealt with at the site, the applicant

cannot give accurate or safe predictions of these emissions. Airborne dioxins could have

serious cumulative implications for families in Monklands, where there are very high asthma

rates.

The Air Quality Assessment report considered a full range of emission particulates in accordance with environmental assessment guidelines for such proposals. As noted at comment above the ES concluded that air quality would not be unacceptably compromised as a result of the proposed development. As noted previously, SEPA and NLC Protective Services had no objection in terms of air quality issues and did not raise objections over the study methodology.

The increased level of traffic will also raise vehicle emissions in an area, which has poor air

quality, which has already been identified as an area for improvement.

Compared to the planning permission which is already in place, increases in traffic levels will be negligible.

The local community would support eco-friendly solutions for waste but the applicant’s

proposals are commercially driven and their proposals are not green or clean. Support for

this plant gives the wrong message to our children.

The proposals embrace a technology which offers a best practicable environmental option (BPEO) and a best available technology (BAT) approach for dealing with the identified waste streams and is in line with Government policy on waste management.

The site is only 400m from the nearest houses in Carnbroe and the proposals will lead to

increases in smell, noise and a reduction in air quality.

The planning application considered odour, noise and air quality impacts on all sensitive receptors including residential areas and local schools and concluded these would impacts not be significant and adequately controlled. All processes would take place within the building which would to standards required by SEPAs PPC permit regulations.

The plant will generate noxious odours to the detriment of local residential communities. SEPA would be the controlling body in terms of odour issues and have found the proposal to be acceptable.

Noise from 24 hour day site operation will be a nuisance for homes nearest to the site.

Waste delivery vehicles would only operate during normal working hours as noted and not over a 24 hour period as suggested. Noise assessments have been submitted by the applicant and SEPA and NLC Protective Services have found the proposal to be acceptable.

(h) Water Quality Issues The development proposes working with hazardous materials. The damage caused by resulting water contamination would be catastrophic to the local water courses. The development will be subject to regular and ongoing monitoring by SEPA as part of the PPC licence requirements. In addition the development is required to provide a SUDS scheme which is required before any water surface water is discharged to the North Calder Water. (i) Ecology and Wildlife Issues The development site is rich in wildlife. There are many protected species which depend on the site for nesting, foraging and as wildlife corridors.

Planning permission is in place for development at this site. This could be built without further reference to the Council as Planning Authority. Planning conditions attached to any new permission would allow for further ecological studies to ensure that the site is free from protected species or that any protected species found on the site are properly dealt with.

(j) Traffic Impact Issues

Waste deliveries will increase traffic volumes in the area.

Traffic generation will remain at levels similar to those already permitted by the existing planning permission. Transport Scotland and NLC Roads have no objections to the proposals. It is highly likely that waste delivery vehicles in the vicinity of the site would make use of the principle trunk road network i.e. M8 and A8.

(k) Impact on the Local Economy and Property Valuations

The only people to benefit are the applicant and the present landowner. There are no benefits

to the community who will have to suffer and endure the dangers, stress and destruction caused by this development. Such employers provide no jobs for local employment as these jobs are few and specialist in their area and are few in number. The applicant expects to employ 37 jobs in the operation of the facility. The applicant has made a commitment to employ local staff where possible but the planning process cannot make guarantees in this regard.

The proposal will have a detrimental impact economically on the local economy and property prices. Issues over perceived loss of property values are not material to the consideration of this planning application. Construction and operation of the facility will yield some local economic benefit although this is not quantified.

(l) Ground Stability and Contamination The proposed development will be erected on unstable ground. There is little information available on the type and location of landfill waste on the site from previous operations. A site investigation report and a remediation strategy will be required prior to the start of any construction works on site as part of the conditions attached to the planning application. This would establish the nature of ground conditions at the site and will include mitigation measures as required. The building will have to meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. (m) Strategic Environmental Assessment Issues In terms of North Lanarkshire Council’s Development Plan, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) should be carried out to ensure such a development is assessed for its impact on the environment. North Lanarkshire Council undertook a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 in accordance with the Environmental (Scotland) Act 2005. The NLLP has zoned the site as an industrial and business area and as an existing waste management facility. The Council’s zoning of the site as a site suitable for an EfW is therefore fully compliant with the Environmental (Scotland) Act 2005.

(n) Heat Energy Distribution Plan Issues The applicant’s claim that the facility is well placed to supply energy in the form of heat to local residential and industrial areas, which will significantly boost the efficiency of the plant. However, their ability to achieve this aim will not be realised.

The proposals included information on a Heat and Power Plan that was considered acceptable to SEPA as they require such facilities to demonstrate they would be energy efficient under the requirements of the PPC permit regulations. The applicant has demonstrated that they will provide a heat pipe connection/outlet at the southern boundary of the development site which will allow a third parties to connect their distribution network to, they themselves do not see the supply of heat as a core business but will comply with the requirements of SEPA’s guidance.

(o) Lack of Landscape or Visual Impact assessment

There is a lack of Landscape or Visual impact assessment in respect of this proposal. The height of the stack (80m) will be visually intrusive and consequently detrimental to visual amenity of the existing communities of Coatbridge and Carnbroe.

Photo-montages of the proposed EfW Plant were provided in support of the application. The 80m stack height and positioning to the south elevation of the processing building is clearly visible from a wide area, however, it is considered acceptable as it is located furthest way from both existing and proposed residential properties. The height and visual prominence of the stack is not out of context in this development corridor as industrial buildings of significant height (in excess of 40m) are located less than a mile away at Eurocentral thereby establishing a precedent for this type of structure along the A8 corridor in this area.

(p) Restoration Guarantee Bond Issue A planning condition requiring a financial bond to ensure the restoration of the site in the

event the company operating the site goes into administration or bankruptcy should be applied to this development. It is not normal practice to seek a restoration bond for an industrial development. The type of development being promoted is an industrial process on an industrial site and does not present any increased risk of the site not being capable of being cleared and restored at a future date.

(q) Planning Assessment Procedural Issues Development is not contained within the original application site boundary. The drawings indicate that the proposed access road link from the A8 to the site is partially outwith the red line application boundary for the consented application.

The current development proposals do indeed propose that a section of the access road from the A8 is outwith the original red line boundary of the consented planning application, however, the applicant is indicating that as part of the purchase agreement with the landowner they are required to provide an improved internal road layout and new roundabout which will serve both the EfW plant and the wider industrial and business development site. Those areas of road outwith the red line are part of a wider area outlined in blue, which in planning terms confirms that the land in question is within the control of the applicant. As the applicant has reached agreement with the landowner and as the proposed internal road layout is an improvement on the consented scheme the issue of a small part of the access road being outwith the red line boundary is not considered a material change to the consented planning application. In order to address any residual concern in this respect, a planning condition can be used to ensure that the sections of road in question are capable of being implemented.

No Pre Application Consultation was undertaken. The application is a major development and as such the applicant should have followed normal pre application notification and consultation requirements for major development.

The application seeks an amendment to a consented application , the original application falls within the major category of development however the nature of the changes do not in and of themselves represent a major development as they fall below the thresholds set out in the Planning Hierarchy. Therefore the applicant did not have to undertake any pre application notification or public consultation, however they did hold a voluntary public consultation event to inform local residents of their proposals and give them a platform to make known their views on the development. Lack of an updated Environmental Statement. The nature and scale of the proposed development is such that it should have been required to provide an environmental Statement in compliance with EIA regulations. The Council issues an EIA screening opinion decided 9th February 2018 (18/00169/EIASCR) determined that EIA was not required. In coming to this conclusion, it was noted that an EIA was carried out for the development which already has planning permission. The changes proposed to the scheme (as summarised in section 2 of this report) were not in themselves deemed to be of a scale and complexity which would merit further EIA. The Scottish Ministers received a request for a Screening Direction In terms of Regulation 7(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 2017 from a member of the public on the 20th of February 2018. The Scottish Ministers may conclude that EIA may be required, in which case the applicant would be obliged to prepare an EIA report. This would have to be prepared and assessed before this planning permission could be determined. At the time of writing this report the Scottish Ministers have not made a determination on this request.

The supporting information was not available at the date of validation.

It is accepted that some supporting information was not part of the planning application when first validated. However, this was quickly rectified and the vast majority of objections received were submitted after this issue was rectified.

8.17 The Scottish Ministers decision of May 2011 to grant planning consent to planning application

09/00675/FUL is a significant material consideration as it establishes the principal of an EfW on the site of the former Shanks and McEwan Site. The Scottish Ministers justification for granting consent to the EfW plant were as follows;-

The proposal does not contravene the terms of the Development Plan

There is an urgent need for the facility and that this remains the case when account is taken of the proximity principle

The location and site are suitable for the proposed development

The impacts on traffic, landscape and visual amenity, habitats and ecology, air quality, odour and human health, land quality and flood risk are all within acceptable limits subject to appropriate mitigation measures.

There is strong support for the proposal in terms of national planning and waste policy guidance and advice

There are no other material considerations either by themselves or taken in conjunction with others which attract sufficient weight to justify a refusal of planning permission.

8.18 All of the above justifications are still valid today, furthermore, the fact that the planning permission

for the EfW is extant (and will not expire) is a significant material consideration. The developer could continue to build out the development that already has planning permission at any time without further permissions from the Council as Planning Authority.

Emerging Plan – North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan 8.19 The proposed North Lanarkshire Local Development Plan has already been the basis of

consultation. The proposed plan identifies the site as an existing business development site. The proposed development would accord with this zoning but given the stage that the plan is at, limited weight should be given to it as a material consideration.

8.20 In assessing this planning application, we need to be clear as to what issues can be addressed in

the assessment of the current planning application which seeks to amend and update key components of the consented application (09/00675/PPP). Planning permission exists with no time limit for the completion of the development as works formally started onsite in 2014, so the permission cannot be refused on a matter of principle as the Scottish Ministers decision of 2011 establishes that an EfW is an acceptable form of development at this location. Given that the principle of an EfW has been established the planning assessment must focus on the detail of the current planning application to assess how it differs from the consented application in terms of both positive and negative impacts. A comparative assessment of the proposed development compared to the development with planning permission highlights the following positive and negative issues:-

Positive Negative

- Promotion of a modern BAT pyrolysis plant technology resulting in increased power outputs and lower emissions e.g. fly ash/metals going to landfill reduced from 31% to 5-8%.

- Removal of the front end Materials Recovery Facility which reduces the need to store and treat untreated municipal and commercial waste, reducing odour and the prospect for infestations of vermin/insects

- Fuel sources limited to off site pre treated refuse derived fuel bricks

- Reduction in the building footprint of 50% - Improved internal road layout which

reduces potential for vehicles stacking on the access road from the A8.

- Increased power output to the National Grid

- Increased heat output suitable for connection to local district heating networks.

- Increase in the height of the ventilation stack from 27m to 80m

- Increase in the amount of fuel being delivered to the facility. (the fuel is now pre-processed refuse

derived fuel bricks)

- The significant amount of public objection to the principle of an EfW at this location

8.21 The development is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and must therefore

be granted permission unless there are other material considerations which suggest otherwise. In looking at the other material considerations, the ‘positive’ aspects of the proposal (noted above) would further weigh in favour of granting permission. Clearly the negative aspects would weigh

towards a refusal. It should be noted however that but taking account of the development plan situation, the fact that planning permission already exists for an EfW plant on this site and given the responses to the issues raised by objectors above (as noted in preceding pages of this report) it is considered that on balance the proposed development is acceptable in terms of both policy and in terms of environmental impact. The current application seeks to amend the consented planning application by promoting a best available technology (BAT) plant which is more efficient and less polluting that the plant granted permission at appeal in 2011. The applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of SEPA that the proposed development is capable of meeting their stringent tests to mitigate the environmental impacts of the plant indeed SEPA have commented that on completion of their assessment of all of the further information provided by the applicant they are now of the opinion that the applicant has submitted sufficient information to allow them to confirm that the proposed EfW is potentially consentable, as per the requirements of the Pollution Prevention and Control regulatory regime.

9 Conclusions 9.1 The proposed changes to the EfW Plant are considered acceptable and in accordance with the

policies and guidance set out in the development plan. There were no unresolved objections from the consultees and whilst the terms of objections are noted, these raise no significant concerns in terms of potential conflict with the development plan or environmental impacts. The amended design of the consented EfW Plant would be capable of meeting the waste regulations and SEPA’s PPC licensing requirements. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the revised conditions set out above.

9.2 The Committee is asked to note that Scottish Ministers have received a request for a screening

direction in terms of regulation 7(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 on application 18/00180/AMD. It is therefore recommended that if the committee are minded to grant consent for this application then the decision letter is withheld until such times as the Scottish Ministers decision on the screening direction is known. If the Scottish Ministers make a direction which requires the applicant to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report then the current application will be put on hold pending submission of the EIA report. That report would then be the basis of statutory consultation and the planning application and EIA would be referred back to committee for consideration.

Application No: 18/00222/AMD

Proposed Development: Amendments to Approved Layout (Reference 16/02400/FUL) - 117 Houses with Associated Works

Site Address: Site Off Main Street Chryston

Date Registered: 14th February 2018

Applicant: Bellway Homes (Scotland) Ltd Bothwell House Caird Street Hamilton Scotland ML3 0QA

Agent: N/A

Application Level: Major Application

Contrary to Development Plan: No

Ward: 05 Stepps, Chryston And Muirhead John McLaren, Lynne Anderson, Stephen Goldsack,

Representations: 15 letters of representation received.

Recommendation: Approve Subject to Conditions Reasoned Justification: The development proposed is in accordance with the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012 as the site is zoned for housing and the development could be accommodated without detriment to the character and amenity of the surrounding area. Legal Agreement: Planning permission should not be issued until the developer has completed a Section 75 Agreement with the Planning Authority to secure the appropriate level of affordable housing, the provision of the appropriate education contribution and a financial contribution to off-site play provision in the local area.

Reproduced by permission of the Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2009. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100023396.

Planning Application: 18/00222/AMD Name (of applicant): Bellway Homes (Scotland) Ltd Site Address: Site Off, Main Street, Chryston Development: Amendments to Approved Layout ( Reference 16/02400/FUL) - 117 Houses with Associated Works

Proposed Conditions:- 1. That except as may be otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, the development shall be

implemented in accordance with the plans stamped:

Reason: To clarify the drawings on which this approval of permission is founded. 2. That except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority and BEFORE the

development hereby permitted starts, full details of the facing materials to be used on all external walls and roofs shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details approved under the terms of this condition.

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

3. That the remediation strategy, as detailed in the various correspondence with Johnson, Poole &

Bloomer correspondence (most recently dated December 2017) shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the remediation shall be completed in accordance with an implementation timetable. This timetable shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority before any works start on site. No individual dwelling shall be occupied until a certificate (signed by a chartered Environmental Engineer) has been submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that any remediation works have been carried in accordance with the agreed Remediation Strategy.

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

4. That as 12 months has elapsed between the timing of the initial ecological surveys dated October

2016, prior to the development commencing, further surveys shall be undertaken on the site to determine the presence of any statutorily protected species, particularly for bats, and badgers, the said survey shall thereafter be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development commences on the site. As a result of the study, should any remediation measures be required for the relocation or protection of any protected species, these shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage before works commence on the site.

Reason: To ensure compliance with The Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992.

5. That PRIOR to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to

the Planning Authority that all the requirements of Scottish Water can be fully met to demonstrate that the development will not have an impact on their assets, and that suitable infrastructure can be put in place to support the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory drainage arrangements.

6. That the SUDS compliant surface water drainage scheme approved as part of this application shall be

implemented contemporaneously with the development in so far as is reasonably practical. Within three months of the construction of the SUDS and before any of the houses hereby approved are occupied, a certificate (signed by a Chartered Civil Engineer experienced in drainage works) shall be submitted to the Planning Authority confirming that the SUDS has been constructed in accordance with the relevant SEPA SUDS guidance.

Reason: To ensure that the drainage scheme complies with best SUDS practice to protect adjacent watercourses and groundwater.

7. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted is approved a scheme of landscaping and planting

shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. This shall thereafter be implemented contemporaneously with the development of the site and shall be completed in full before the occupation of the final dwellinghouse. Any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged, or become diseased, within two years of the occupation of the last dwellinghouse, shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity.

8. That before the development hereby permitted starts, a management and maintenance scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and it shall include proposals for the continuing care, maintenance and protection of:- (a) the proposed grassed, planted and landscaped areas; (b) the proposed SUDS area; (c) any communal fences, walls and footways which are not to be adopted by the Council as Roads

Authority;

Reason: To enable the Planning Authority to consider these details and to ensure the proper future maintenance of the site.

9. That the management and maintenance scheme approved under the terms of condition (8) shall be

implemented in accordance with the approved timetable and shall be fully in operation before the last of the houses hereby permitted is occupied.

Reason: To ensure the maintenance of the landscaping scheme in the interest of amenity.

10. That no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the road and footpath adjacent to it have

been constructed to basecourse standard and the road and footway shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority during the construction phase.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings. 11. That before the last of the dwellings hereby permitted is occupied, all roads, footpaths, footways and

manoeuvring areas shall be completed to sealed final wearing course. Reason: To ensure satisfactory vehicular and pedestrian access facilities to the dwellings. 12. That before each of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted is occupied, all of the associated parking

and turning areas shown on the approved plans, shall be levelled, properly drained and surfaced in a material which the Planning Authority has approved in writing before the start of surfacing work and clearly marked out. These areas shall thereafter be retained as such to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate parking facilities within the site. 13. That before the development hereby permitted starts a timetable shall be submitted for the written

approval of the Planning Authority detailing when all connections to adjacent sites will be in place. For the avoidance of doubt the linkages will be completed contemporaneously with the development and shall be completed prior to the occupation of the last dwellinghouse and retained as such to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular access is in place.

14. That prior to commencement of development, a Construction Method Statement shall be submitted to

and approved by the Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt, the Construction Method Statement shall cover:

Details of the proposed phasing of all works and

Details of all on-site construction including means of access to the site

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Construction Method Statement. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area to ensure that necessary contingencies are in place, to minimise impacts arising from construction activities.

15. That BEFORE the development hereby permitted starts a scheme for the provision of 18 affordable

housing units on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, no more than 60 units of market housing shall be occupied until the affordable housing has been provided in accordance with the terms of the approved scheme.

Reason: to ensure the provision of affordable housing on the site.

16. That BEFORE the occupation of the 20th dwellinghouse hereby approved or by an alternative timeframe to be agreed in advance in writing by the Planning Authority the measures to mitigate against the increase in development traffic at the Cumbernauld Road/Station Road junction as specified by Sean Boyd of Dougall Bailie Associates in his email of the 6th April 2017 should be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the impact of the development on the public road network is mitigated sufficiently.

Background Papers: Consultation Responses: Letter from Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) received 23rd February 2018 Email from Protective Services received 20th February 2018 Contact Information: Any person wishing to inspect these documents should contact Mr Graham Smith at 01236 632500 Report Date: 10th April 2018

APPLICATION NO. 18/00222/AMD REPORT 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is north of Main Street and is 5.31 hectares of open field with levels falling gently

downwards from the front at Main Street to the rear. The surroundings contain a mixture of established housing to the south and west of the site with open fields to the north and east. The site is part of a wider residential land zoning with a recent development to the west and another proposal for housing to the west that is currently under consideration.

2. Proposed Development and Background 2.1 Planning permission was granted in February 2018 for a development of 196 houses (ref

16/02400/FUL). Planning permission is now sought to amend that permission, reducing the site area and the number of houses to 117. This reduction is due to an underground gas issue which has rendered land at the north to be unviable for development. A mixture of housing is proposed incorporating detached, semi detached and terraced, with a mixture of house types all featuring a two storey design and an affordable element centrally within the site comprising of 18 units. Access would be taken to the site from Main Street (north of No.7) with a main spine road running in a loop through the site and secondary and tertiary streets and access points also providing a link with sites to the west and east. SUDS is proposed for the treatment of surface water to be attenuated to a pond and detention basin in the north western corner of the site and an area of public open space provided centrally within the site. The layout of the proposed development remains largely as before, other than the top third of the site has been removed.

3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 3.1 No additional supporting information was submitted over and above that submitted with the previous

planning application 16/02400/FUL. 4. Site History 4.1 As noted above, planning permission ref. 16/02400/FUL was granted permission in February 2018

for a development of 196 dwellings at this site. 4.2 Prior to that a Proposal of Application Notice was submitted for this development (reference:

16/01812/PAN) along with a request for an EIA screening Opinion (16/01855/EIASCR) which confirmed that an EIA was not required.

4.3 The site is part of a wider residential land allocation that was zoned under the North Lanarkshire

Local Plan 2012 with the adjacent site to the west (Persimmon) recently constructed and another application currently under consideration to the east (Cala).

5. Development Plan 5.1 The site is zoned as HCF 2 BB (Further Locations for Housing Development) in the North

Lanarkshire Local Plan 2012. 6. Consultations 6.1 The only consultees to respond were:

SEPA who do not object and maintain comments made to the original application.

NLC Protective Services who raised no objections.

NLC Play Services have agreed that developer contributions of £58,500 would be an acceptable alterative to on-site play provision.

7. Representations 7.1 Following the neighbour notification and press advertisement 15 letters of representation were

received. The points made can be summarised as follows:

Local services and infrastructure are insufficient to accommodate development

The change in levels will exacerbate local flooding issues

Loss of amenity

Concerns over road safety and access

Impact on property prices and construction disturbance

Loss of habitat and environmental concerns

Insufficient public consultation

8. Planning Assessment 8.1 In accordance with Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, planning

decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal raises no issues of a strategic nature in terms of the Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Strategic Development Plan (SDP) as such, it can therefore be assessed in terms of the local plan policies.

Local Plan:

8.2 Firstly, in terms of the primary HCF2 BB zoning of the site, residential development is actively

supported where local school impacts can be resolved. In this case it has already been established that a much larger development can be accommodated within the site subject to developer contributions to the Council.

8.3 With regard to Policy DSP1 (Amount of Development) and DSP 2 (Location) the local plan has

already established that housing on this site is acceptable and therefore the development complies with these policies.

8.4 Policy DSP3 considers the impact of the proposed development in terms of its requirements for

additional community facilities or infrastructure which is necessary to meet future demands on existing provisions. In this instance impacts on local schools can be addressed by a financial contribution, as can a contribution be accepted to upgrade an established nearby Council play facility. The developer will modify the contributions as required under the previous section 75 legal agreement to reflect the reduced density. Affordable housing requirements can be addressed within the site via planning condition The developer has also agreed to make a financial contribution to the Council for use in affordable housing provision. Taking the above matters into account, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policy DSP3.

8.5 Policy DSP4 (Quality of Development) seeks to achieve a high quality of development by taking

account of the surrounding context and ensuring proposals minimise any adverse environmental impact or loss of residential amenity. Proposals must achieve a high quality of design, creating a sense of place by incorporating open space, landscaping with a layout that provides a safe and convenient environment.

8.6 The main change from the previous approval is the reduction in the site area and subsequent loss of

79 units. The layout and house types proposed is similar to that approved previously at this part of

the site. The street hierarchy has been amended with the primary loop now providing a link through

the sites on either side to the east and west increasing permeability. It is considered that the

proposal, as amended, would not result in an adverse loss of privacy or overshadowing for the

nearest dwellings. In terms of the wider area, the reduced density will have less impact than that

approved previously in terms of traffic generation and air quality and the subsequent impact on the

local road network. The access has not been changed from that already approved. The proposal is

considered to have incorporated ‘Designing Streets’ creating a strong sense of place but also

according with previous guidance provided by Transportation. In terms of drainage and flood risk, as

detailed above, SEPA has no objections to the revised layout subject to conditions, which are

recommended to ensure that the drainage has the appropriate self-certification. In light of all of the

above, it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy DSP 4.

Representations: 8.8 In response to the points of objection:

Local services and infrastructure are insufficient to accommodate development This volume of houses proposed in this amendment is reduced by 79 units to that approved previously, and, subject to securing the relevant contributions, the impact is considered to be acceptable.

The change in levels will exacerbate flooding As detailed above SEPA has not objected and conditions are recommended to secure the relevant scheme for drainage that is self certified.

Loss of amenity As detailed above, this proposal is not considered to change the layout approved previously at this part of the site in any significant way that would result in a subsequent loss of amenity for surrounding properties.

Concerns over road safety and access With respect to access, no changes are proposed to that approved previously. The reduction in housing number will mean a smaller impact on the local road network.

Impact on property prices and construction disturbance The impact of the development on property prices and any disturbance arising from the construction process are not material planning considerations.

Loss of habitat and environmental concerns The principle of this development has already been established and its ecological features reviewed. The loss of the open space is not considered to have a significant impact in this regard.

Insufficient public consultation The standard neighbour notification has been carried out for a development of this nature and scale. As such, it is considered that sufficient opportunities have been given to the local community to make representation.

9. Conclusions 9.1 In conclusion, following detailed assessment of the application, and notwithstanding the objections

received, it is considered that the amendment could be acceptably accommodated in the surrounding area, and, it therefore complies with the relevant policies of the North Lanarkshire Local Plan. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions and the appropriate Section 75 Legal Agreement.