20

Application No: D;ite Registered: APPLICANT:

Agcnt: DEVELOPMENT: LOCUS:

Estirnatcd Cost: Ward No: Grid Reference:

File Rcfercnce:

Sitc History:

Article 18 rcquircd

CONSULTATIONS:

Objection

No Objection

Conditions

No Rcply

95345 30 Junc 1995 H J BANKS & COMPANY LIMITED, SUITE 7 1-73 FOUNTAIN BUSINESS CENTRE. ELLIS STREET. COATBRIDGE

ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (IN OUTLINE). LAND BETWEEN LEAEND ROAD, AIRDRIE AND BURNBANK STREET, COATBRIDGE

N/A 41 and 33 71706590

CTB816

Thc site is understood to have bcen the subject of previous mineral workings. In this regard. an associated planning application (No. 95341) was also registered on the 20 June 1393 for the reclamation of parts of this site by opencast extraction of coal and siibscquent conipaction. i n anticipation of, and preparation for, future housing dc~.cIopinent.

r

Within both thc current Structure Plan, and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan I90 I . the majority of the site (escluding the former gas works area) is zoned \\,ithin the grecnbclt. (Local Plan policy GBI and Structure Plan policies GBI and RESZ).

Under the Adoptcd Local Plan. the following policies also apply:-

ECONY6: (gas works site) - policy for rehabilitation of industrial sites. ECONIO: (as altcrnative to ECON5/G above) - allocation of site for “bad iici g hbou r” dc!tlopincnts. ENVZ: (all of gas ivorks site and parts of remainder of site). Policy for cncourngenient of use of vacant and derelict sites. NATI: Poliq to encourage Nature Conservation. LR7/2: District Council proposal to develop a nehvork of long distance footpaths.

Thc Dircctor of Ph\.sical Planning (formerly Strathclyde Regional Council); Scottish Natural Hcritage: and The Central Scotland Countryside Trust. Strathclydc Wafer Scn.ices (formerly Strathclyde Regional Council).

Thc Transportation Section (Department of Planning and Development Central Di\ision); The Director of Environmental Senices (formerly Monklands District Council): The Scottish Wildlife Trust; Strathclyde Water Services (formerly Strathclyde Regional Council) (Sewerage); S.E.P.A.; The British Coal Corporation; and The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Dcpartnient.

22 2

4

REPRESENTATIONS: NcighbourdScction 23

COMMENTS:

RECOMMENDATION:

10 individual lctters of objection were received, together with 3 standard letters of objcction containing the signatures of 194 persons. The grounds of objection are suiiimariscd in the attached supporting report.

The applicant. H J Banks and Company Limited. seeks outline planning consent for rcsidcntial dctclopment on a site estending to 56 hectares of land lying between Leaeiid Road. Airdrie, and Burnbank Street, Coatbridge. Being in outline. the application does not provide any details such as the site design and estcrnal appearance of any buildings, position of roads, f i l l landscaping etc. Thcse would be reserved for any detailed planning application stage should consent be granted in outline.

Howevcr, the applicant has submitted a supporting statement and an indicative site layout showing the intention to build housing in a way which creates a "linear" park that protides pockets or parcels of development around a \voodcd/landscape park that is intended to retain and enhance recreational opportunity and anienih provision. As an essential part of the development, the applicant proposes a new road network involving a new distributor road running bctuecii Burnbank Strcct. Coatbridge and Manor Drive, Airdrie. As part of these proposals. the applicant has siibniitted a Traffic Impact Analysis which covers implic;itions of this new road together with improvements proposed for the local road iictnork in ordcr to acconiinodate the new residential development. As part of tlic submission. the applicant has also provided a hydrologyhydrogeology report on the site in relation 10 the protection of the esisting peat bog and wetland arcas I\ hich lie in soutlicrn areas of the site.

Taking into account Dcvelopment Plan policy and all other material considerations, it has been concluded that outline planning permission should be refused as the proposals are contrav to greenbelt policy of thc Adopted Local Plan 1991 (GB1) and to the Structure Plan greenbelt policy CBI and Housing Land policy RESZ. All rele\mt dctails of the proposals. in addition to a full assessment are provided in the attached supporting report.

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 21 A u y s t 1396

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991. The Strathclyde Structure Plan. I99 I , Application form, accompanying plans and supporting statement. Traffic Impact Analysis by Messrs Dougall Baillie Associates (East Kilbride), dated December 1995. Hydrological and Hydrogeological Study by H J Banks and Company Limited, dated December 1995. Internal memo from Transportation Section. datcd 29 May 1996. Memo from Director of Environmental Sewices (formerly Monklands District Council), dated 5 July 1995. Letter from Strathclyde Water Senfices (Strathclyde Regional Council), dated 6 July 1995. Letter from Strathclyde Water Senices (Strathclyde Regional Council), dated 7 July 1995. Letter from Central Scotland Countqside Trust, dated 2 August 1995. Letter from Strathclyde Water Senices (Strathclyde Regional Council) (Sewerage), dated 1 1 July 1995. Letter from Strathclyde Regional Council Dcpartmcnt of Physical Planning. dated 5 September 1995. Letter from The British Coal Corporation. dntcd 11 December 1995.

t 23 3

Letter from British Coal (Technical Seniccs). datcd 5 Fcbruary 199G. Letter from Messrs Dougall Baillie Associatcs (East Kilbridc) datcd 14 May 1996. Letter from Scottish Natural Heritage, dated 17 August 1995. Committec Report. dated 5 March 1996 from Director of Planning and Development (Monklands District Council) in respect of Monklands District Local Plan 199 I Alterations 2A and 2B. Internal memo from Director of Administration and Legal Scnkes (Monklands District Council), dated 22 March 1996 i n respect of the Coniniittce decision on tlic progressing of Alterations 2A and 2B ofthe Monklands District Local Plan 199 1. Three standard letters from the local Grecnhill, Burnfoot and Whinhall Community (as signed by 194 persons). Letter from Iain Russell, 44 Cherqbank Walk, Airdrie. dated 6 June 1995. Letter from Councillor Sullivan, 22 Moray Aiznue, Airdrie, dated 5 July 1995. Letter from Mr Ian McIndoe. 22 Hazelbank Walk. Airdrie. dated 18 July 1995. Letter from Beth Mills. 137 Burnbank Street. Coatbridge. dated 13 June 1995. Letter from Councillor Jamcs McGuigan (Airdrie North), dated 10 July 1995. Letter from Mr Alesander Brown. 14 Hazelbank Walk, Airdrie, dated 20 July 1995. Letter from Mrs Helen Brown. 14 Hazelbank Walk. Airdrie. datcd 20 July 1995. Letter from Jnnies Denver. 1 1 Ballochney Street, Airdrie. dated 26 July 1995. Letter from Rena Watson (Secretan) Airdrie Tenants' Forum. 80 Kelvin Drive, Airdrie, dated 11 August. Letter froni Betty Black (Chairperson) Wliinhall. Burnfoot. Bcll Street Area Tenants' Association, dated 9 June 1995. Letter from Councillor Mrs Bctty Leitcfi. 14 Dal\,een Quadrant. Coatbridge, dated I4 May 1996.

Any person wishing to inspect the ab0i.e background papers should tclephone Coatbridge 812381 and ask for Mr Quinn.

24

PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95345

REPORT

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of residential development on land lying between Leaend Road, Airdrie and Burnbank Street, Coatbridge.

SITE/ENVIRONS

The site concerned extends to around 56 hectares of land which lies between the established towns of Airdrie and Coatbridge on the west and east sides respectively of their respective built up areas. The site is presently straddled by the urban development of Coatbridge and Airdrie on the south, east and west sides. On the north, the site is bounded by a clear landscape/valley ridge beyond which the land falls away as agriculture. On the east, west and south sides, the site is bounded by mainly residential development. An industrial estate (Northburn) and a railway line and the established Dunbeth Public Park also bound parts of the west and south boundaries respectively.

The site is largely characterised by mrxed unused grassland with an element of rough pasture land on the western and north western areas, and some centrally located young woodland. On the south west lies an existing peat bog and a small wetland area known as the penny pond. The site also includes at its western side, an area (2.8 hectares) of the former Gas Works at Burnbank StreetKameron Street, Coatbridge. This area is currently untidy and heavily derelict and is understood to be the subject of contamination.

As regards built form, the only buildings that occupy the site are those of the Mosside Farm Steading comprising disused shed and residential accommodation in addition to an adjacent semi-detached block. Vehicular access is available to these buildings from the Cameron Street roadway. No other means of vehicular access is currently available to the site although some potential points exist including those from the west via Cameron Street and from the east via Manor Drive and Whinhall Road.

Pedestrian access to the site is readily available from the south east and west boundaries. Such access is reflected by a network of informal footpaths that traverse the site and provide recreational opportunities.

The ground of the site is understood to have been the subject of previous shallow mineral workins. In this regard, this report requires to be read in conjunction with the report on the associated current planning application (No. 95344) for the reclaiming of approximately 13 hectares of this site by opencast extraction of coal and subsequent compaction in preparation for future housing development.

LOCAL PLAN POLICrES/PROPOSALS

Under the adopted Monklands District Local Plan 199 1 the following policies/proposals apply to the proposed development site.

RGPQO2 l/jw/c ttee 1

25

GBI: ECON5/6: ECON10:

ENV2:

NAT4 :

LR7/3 :

(Whole site excluding Gas Works) - Greenbelt

(As alternative to ECON5/6 above) - Allocation of site for "Bad Neighbour" developments. (All of Gas Work site and parts of remainder of site). Policy for encourasement of use of vacant and derelict sites. Policy to encourage Nature Conservation. In this respect, the existing raised bog area and wetland areas lying to the south of the site would fall within the ambit of this policy. District Council proposal to develop a network of long distance paths. In this respect, the footpath network which traverses approximately the centre of the site, is covered by this proposal.

(Gas Works Site) - Policy for Rehabilitation of Industrial Sites.

As Members may be aware, the former Monklands District was the subject of a recent Local Plan review which in relation to greenbelt and housing land supply issues identified and deleted housing sites that were not attracting development interest (Le. ineffective sites) and identified new housing sites. As part of the review procedure a report was submitted to the Planning and Development Committee of Monklands District Council on 13 March 1996 which included a representation from'the applicant (H J Banks and Co. Ltd.) that the relevant land of the application site be removed from greenbelt and reallocated for urban use. The Committee, in response to this representation, agreed not to allow this greenbelt release pending the full assessment of this currently live application.

CURRENT PROPOSALS

The applicant seeks outline planning Qermission to establish the principle of development of the site for housing purposes. Being in outline, the application does not provide any details such as the siting, design and external appearance of any buildings, positioning of roads, full landscaping etc. These would be resewed for any detailed planning application stage should consent be granted in outline.

However, the applicant has subriiitted a supporting statement and an indicative site layout which shows the intention to build housing in a way which creates a "linear park" that provides pockets or parcels of development around a wooded/landscaped park that is intended to retain and enhance recreational opportunity and amenity provision.

In total, these areas would provide around 25 hectares of developable land for a wide variety of housing types and sizes. It is intended that the proposed development would be able to meet the differing housing needs in the district. In this regard, it is intended that housing would range from high density low cost units to low density "executive" type residential properties. The intention, as the applicant explains, is to create a balanced community within a parkland setting. In total, the applicant proposes to provide around 600 houses phased over a seven year period.

The remainder of the site would comprise a variety of woodland (comprising over 20,000 trees) integrated within the landscaped areas with a number of connected footpaths to reflect

RGPQO2 I/jn./ctfce 2

26

and improve the existing footpath network. The raised peat bog area and the adjoining wetland area would be intended to be retained and protected from any development. It is the applicant’s intention that these areas would be formally managed. In this regard, a properly structured management plan is intended to be formulated in conjunction with the Council, Strathclyde Greenbelt Company and Scottish Natural Heritage to allow for the conservation as well as improvement of these areas.

As an essential part of the development, the applicant proposes a new road network involving a new distributor road running between Burnbank Street, Coatbridge and Manor Drive, Airdrie. As part of these proposals, the applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis and has sought to demonstrate that a satisfactory access to the phased residential development can be obtained by construction of access roads to distributor road standards at the south, east and north west limits of the site with subsequent connection of access roads to facilitate the final phase of the development. In terms of improvements to or links with the existing road network, a new roundabout of 35 metre inscribed circle diameter would be formed between the junction of the north west site access road and Burnbank Street. This roundabout would take up some of the area of the former Gas Work site. Outwith the site, on the local road network, the applicant has also agreed to provide timeously improvements to the following road/junctions:- c

- B803 Burnbank StreeKameron Avenue junction - B803 Burnbank Street/Coltswood Road mini roundabout junction - B803 Sunnyside Road/BS04 Dunbeth Road mini roundabout junction - Sunnyside Road/Gartsherrie Road existing priority junction - The Monkscourt AvenueNanor Drivemazelbank Walk junction - A89 Alexander StreetDeedes Street/A80 10 Aitchison Streethfonkscourt Avenue linked traffic signal controlled junction.

Furthermore, throughout the course of consideration of these proposals, certain amendments have been discussed and agreed with the applicant. These amendments, which are reflected in the proposals principally involved the following.

- the reductiodremoval of residential parcels to provide a more effective development

the removal of all formal playing fields on the eastern side of the site (adjacent to

the inclusion of an existing wooded slope adjacent to the residential properties at

the creation of a buffer area between the peat bogwetland areas and the proposed

that protects the raised peat bog and wetland areas and provides a better balance between development and amenity areas.

Whinhall Road) from the proposals in the interests of retaining existing recreational dpportunities.

Cherrybank Walk and Heatherbank Walk within the site for inclusion within the managed landscape areas intended for the “linear park” development.

residential parcels.

-

-

-

RGPQOZ l/j\\/cttec

27

CONSULTATIONS

The responses to the proposals from relevant consultees are summarised as follows:-

The former Director of Physical Planning (Strathclyde Regional Council). Apart from the development of housing within the derelict Gas Work site, the Regional Council objects to the proposals on greenbelt grounds given that they would conflict with structure plan policies GB 1 and RES2.

The Director of Environmental Services (Monklands District Council). No objections were expressed to the housing proposals as far as environmental health interests are concerned.

Strathclyde Water Services (Strathclyde Regional Council). No objections were expressed to the proposals. In this regard, it is advised that a water supply can be made available to the development.

Strathclyde Water Services (Sewerage) Strathclyde Regional Council. It is advised that no allowance is precently made (financially) to serve any development within the site with sewerage facilities. It is advised therefore that the developer would require to make exclusive financial provision for such facilities.

The Central Scotland Countryside Trust The Trust objects to the proposals on the following main grounds:- - the site in the niain is a maturing attractive area of urban edge countryside which

the development could damage the hydrology of the raised peat bog. the proposals would lead to coalescence of the settlements of Airdrie and Coatbridge. the proposals would cause an intrusion and disruption to important views and

should be retained as defensible greenbelt. - - -

outlooks.

Scottish Natural Heritage No objections were expressed to housing development on the re-habilitated Gas Works site. The following grounds of objection were however expressed in relation to housing development on the remainder of the site:- - the proposals would involve encroachment of development into the greenbelt.

there is potential damage to wetland areadraised peat bog during construction works.

the proposals would have an adverse impact on the existing landscape.

- the proposals would result in the loss of land for formal recreation.

-

The Scottish Wildlife Trust Following discussions with the Wildlife Trust, with regard to protection measures for the raised peat bog areas and wetland areas, no objections were expressed to the proposals, as long as a suitable buffer area is identified between the areas and the housing development.

The Clyde River Purification Board No objections were expressed to the proposals. RGPQ02 I/jn’/cttee

28 c

The Health and Safety Executive No objections were expressed to the proposals.

The Coal Authority and the British Coal Corporation On providing the normal mining report, the Coal Authority has expressed no objections. The British Coal Corporation has also expressed no objections in relation to the effect of any proposals on the 1939 Mosside Mine Disaster Area. Indeed, research by both the developer and the Coal Corporation has lead to the conclusions that neither the housing development nor the intended preceding opencast/extraction/compaction works should affect the disaster area, provided that an area of around 80 metres in diameter on the south of the site is left undeveloped and not the subject of any form of drilling operations.

The Scottish Oflice Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department No objections were expressed to the proposals.

REPRESENTATIONS c

The proposals were advertised in the normal manner under Section 23 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and under the development contrary to the development plan procedure in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser on the 7 July 1995. In addition, the normal neighbour notification procedure was followed in accordance with Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Scotland) Order 1992.

A number of objections were received from the public. In this regard, individual letters of objection were received from the following persons:-

Betty Black (Chairperson), The Whinhall, Burnfoot, Bell Street Area Tenants Association, 102D High Street, Airdrie. Mr Alexander L Brown, 14 Hazelbank Walk, Airdrie. Mrs Helen J Brown, 14 Hazelbank Walk, Airdrie. W and M Carslaw, Kippsbyre Farm, Coatbridge Road, Glenmavis, Airdrie. James Denver, 11 Ballochney Street, Burnfoot, Airdrie. Iain McIndoe, 22 Hazelbank Walk, Airdrie. Betty Mills, 137 Burnbank Street, Coatbridge. Councillor James McGuigan, (Airdrie North). Iain Rusiell, 44 Cherrybank Walk, Airdrie. Councillor Peter Sullivan, 22 Moray Avenue, Airdrie. Rena Watson (Secretary) Airdrie Tenants Forum, 80 Kelvin Drive, Airdrie.

Objections have also been expressed verbally by Local Member, Councillor Eric Burns.

In addition, 3 standard letters were received containing the signatures of a total of 194 persons from the surrounding Greenhill, Whinhall, and Burnfoot residential areas.

RGPQO 2 1 /jw/ct tee 5

29

The accumulated grounds of objection expressed by all of the representations received are summarised as follows:-

1.

2. 3 . 4. 5 .

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

the proposals would be contrary to greenbelt policy. In this regard, there are other more suitable housing sites and no shortfall in effective land supply. the proposals would result in the loss of play areas. the proposals would affect the area of the Mosside Mine Disaster 1939. the proposals would be detrimental to wildlife. the proposed woodland would provide shelter to undesirable and dangerous elements (for example vandals, loiterers etc.) the proposals would damage the present landscape. the proposals would give rise to operational traffic and road safety problems. the proposals would lead to a loss of recreational facilities. the proposals would have a devaluation effect on local properties. the development site is not derelict or in need of development.

ASSESSMENT c

Given that the proposals are in outline only, the Council is being asked to consider whether the principle of housing development is acceptable on the site.

Taking the Gas Works site first, it is considered that this site, being zoned for rehabilitation in the interests of improving the environment, is not contrary to present development plan policy. Indeed, any rehabilitation of this unsightly site which produces environmental improvements would be readily desired. . It is noted however that the large majority of the site lies within the currently zoned greenbelt area and it is in this context that the proposals primarily require to be assessed.

In accordance with normal planning practice, it is essential that these greenbelt areas are carefilly protected from development unless there are material considerations which would justify greenbelt release. Indeed, on this very point, Section 18A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 states clearly that where in making any determination under the Planning Acts regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Therefore, on deciding on the principle of housing development, the question has to be addressed as to whether there are any such material considerations in this particular case.

The first material consideration that requires to be addressed is whether the local housing land supply provision is such that greenfield releases are necessary. Indeed, whilst greenbelt areas are intended to be protected through policy, there may be justification for release of such areas if the presently allocated local housing land supply is not catering for the relevant demand. On assessing in detail the housing land position, the most recent review this year has seen a large reduction in the number of ineffective sites which have remained non productive and as a result, there is considered to be no need for greenfield release at present. RGPQO2 l/jnYcttcc

6

30

A previously identified shortfall in the Division's Effective Land Supply has been wiped out until approximately 2001. This is due to increased activity on many sites within the previous 12 months, caused particularly by subdivision of key large sites, acceleration at Dunalastair and current involvement of Lanarkshire Development Agency in securing consolidation of other strategic sites, regarded as ineffective hitherto.

Notwithstanding this present conclusion with regard to the housing land supply position, it remains to be considered whether there are any other material considerations. In this respect, such considerations would require to be apparent in the form of mitigating circumstances that would just@ a greenbelt release when current local plan policy and housing land supply figures suggest that it should not take place.

Circumstances therefore that may be construed as mitigating are both described and assessed as follows.

Possible Mitigating Circumstances

1. The development would render safe an area which, owing to previous shallow mine workings, is a threat to public safety.

There is no doubt that due to the evidence available, the site has been the subject of shallow mine workings. The assuinption in this regard is that the site has such a history and may be dangerous to the public. From a site inspection, it is found that the footpath system which traverses the site is reasonably well used and has not been controlled in any way to prevent danger. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any other apparent areas of the site which have been cordoned off or identified in any other way as unsafe. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there does not appear to be any apparent danger to the public. In any event, the development of the scale of housing would perhaps be more than what is necessary to counter any problems of danger that might be purported to exist.

2. The development would eradicate derelict land and provide landscape and environmental improvements.

It is acknowledged that a large part of the site (i.e. approximately a third) was Rreviously the subject of industrial operations and, until the late 1970s, was derelict both in function and appearance terms. However, since then, the site has been the subject of rehabilitation and as a whole now has developed into a greened over area of urban fringe supplemented in part by tree planting. Therefore, the site presently in appearance terms is not regarded as unattractive or derelict in appearance and crying out for environmental improvements although some element of dereliction clearly still lies below parts of the surface. It is acknowledged that the site could be improved in terms of environment (through, for example, a properly managed and maintained peat bog area, wetland areas etc), but there is certainly a doubt that extensive development such as that proposed would be required to achieve this end.

RGPQOZ l/jw/cttec 7

31

3. The development would provide various recreational opportunities and environmental improvements through the provision of a linear park.

It is noted that any new development is proposed to include a linear park for the benefit of the local community. This would encompass a network of footpaths through planted areas between the proposed pockets of housing development. Whilst this park would certainly be beneficial to the community, the degree of additional benefit which this could bring may be regarded as debatable given that the site is currently used as a park by many members of the community, in a way which would be compatible to the use of any linear park (i.e., for example for walking, and other informal passive recreational activities). In any event, it is also considered that the types of recreational opportunities and environmental improvements that would come with a properly established linear park could be achieved by improvements to this urban fringe site without the incorporation of the extensive development such as that proposed.

4. The development would provide improvements to the road network of benefit to both traffic and pedestrian movement and safety.

There is no doubt that the dev’elopment would provide an additional pedestrian and traffic link between Airdrie and Coatbridge and would perhaps relieve congestion on the main A89 roadway between both towns. It is also acknowledged that the road network proposals encompassed as part of the development, could be introduced as acceptable in road safety and operational terms. However, given that the development would attract its own element of traffic, the benefits to the community as a whole are probably not as extensive as they would perhaps first appear. Indeed, it is considered that there is not likely to be any overwhelming benefit that would justify allowing the development. In any event, there is the possibility that improved traffic and pedestrian safety could be more effectively realised on its own without the accompaniment of the extensive development proposed.

5 . The planning site history suggests that the land is suitable for the development proposed.

The suitability of the site for urban development has to an extent been acknowledged in that the main part of it was considered in the past for development (see local plan policiedproposals above). Indeed, it is understood that the site was only included within the greenbelt by the currently adopted Local Plan 1991 because of the perceived lack of interest from potential developers owing to minerzl instability. Therefore, it is understood that during local plan production the greenbelt designation was done in the interests of providing a residual policy application following the site being perceived as ineffective. However, evidence that a present greenbelt site which was previously ineffective is now effective in housing development terms, is not sufficient justification for simply allocating it for development. In this regard, attention requires to be paid to residential land policy and, as already observed, the adopted Local Plan 1991 has identified sites for development and currently these are performing sufficiently well by themselves to achieve required house completions.

32

6. The development would be beneficial by adding to the present housing land supply a clearly effective site which could be attractively and successhlly developed for the indigenous population.

There is no doubt that it could be argued that in locational terms, the site would be attractive as a residential environment to both the main neighbouring population pockets of Airdrie and Coatbridge. However, according to present housing land supply figures, there is no need to augment the presently allocated sites. Furthermore, any question of whether this site would be an effective release would be considered properly at the time of any local plan review.

Conclusions

As stated, the development proposals are contrary to current local plan policy. Furthermore, following the above assessment, it is clear that there are no material considerations in terms of either the housing land supply situation or other mitigating circumstances that would indicate that the policy conflict should be disrel.arded. Therefore, it remains clear that the proposed development is unacceptable by virtue of being contrary to the development plan.

As far as the wide range of objections are concerned, the issues raised therein have been addressed already to some extent in the foregoing assessment relative to greenbelt policy and the other possible mitigating circumstances. Nevertheless, more specific comment where necessary on each of the grounds of objection are provided as follows.

Obi ec t i on s

1. The merits of the proposals in the context of present development plan greenbelt policy have been comprehensively addressed already in the main body of this assessment.

2. The development site, following negotiations with the applicant, has been amended to exclude all of the existing formal playing field areas.

3 . The applicant has provided a detailed report on the disaster area advising that housing development will not impinge upon it. In this regard, the British Coal Corporation has agreed with the conclusions of the applicant but recommended that a zone of around 89 metres in diameter on the south side of the application site should be left undeveloped and should not be the subject of any form of drilling operations. This advice is given on the understanding that the remains of the three persons killed in the disaster area would lie within this zone although their exact location would be extremely difficult to define. The applicant has agreed in principle with this zoning concept, although it has been requested that the exact boundaries be perhaps reviewed with the agreement of the British Coal Corporation, following hrther investigations by the applicant.

This approach by the applicant to this most sensitive issue is regarded as reasonable and as showing a commitment and desire not to offend any member of the public. As

RGPQOZ I/jiv/cttee 9

33

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

far as the planning position is concerned, it is noted that although clearly work has been undertaken with the developer to seek appropriate reassurances, this issue although of paramount human importance, is not of direct relevance to the planning assessment of the proposals. In effect, if the proposals were considered to be acceptable in all planning respects (encompassing land use amenity, traffic and environmental considerations) any decision would require to reflect this position. Subsequently, should the development be pursued, it would be for the developer and those with an interest in protecting the remains (which could include the Council as owner of the solum of the ground) to ensure that the remains are undisturbed. Therefore, a civil process would prevail independently of any planning decision.

Through consultation with both Scottish Natural Heritage and the Wildlife Trust, it has become clear that the main wildlife interest in the site lies in the two habitat sites ie the raised peatbog area and the adjacent wetland area. The applicant has agreed that the development zone areas in respect of the housing should be located such that they would not harm either of these areas. In this respect, the applicant has agreed to omit one of the initially intended housing areas from the proposals and to provide a suitable buffer area to the north, whose exact dimensions would have to be agreed with the local planning authority. Agam, this agreement can be stipulated by an appropriate condition to any consent.

The woodland development that would be provided within the proposed linear park would be no more prone to unsociable behaviour than any other similar areas in the district. In any event, it is considered that the premise of the objection relates to a potential social problem which is not regarded as a material planning consideration.

It is assessed that the proposak could be developed in such a way as not to be seriously damaging to the landscape, by the retention of all important landscape features through carehl design, and by the provision of enhanced and new woodedAandscape areas.

The proposals, including the traffic impact analysis have been assessed in detail and have been found that they could be accommodated without any serious operational trafic or road safety problems.

The recreational facility currently provided on site by way of the footpath network should, as previously assessed, be retained, and re-established where necessary by the creation of the proposed linear park. However, as previously considered in the assessment relative to mitigating circumstances, the additional benefit in terms of recreational provision is not regarded as significant.

The potential effect on property values of any development is not a material planning consideration.

The merits of the development in terms of improving derelict land have already been addressed as part of the assessment of the mitigating circumstances.

RGPQOZ 1 Ijwlcttee

, ..)

34 ?

It is clear that some of these objections have identified problems that have been reasonably tackled by the applicant for example in relation to environmental impact, the woodland development proposed, and trafic impact. Other concerns identified, such as the value of the development in terms of improving derelict land, have in this assessment been largely sustained. The concerns with regard to the mining disaster area have also been h l l y acknowledged and addressed in the context of their relevance to planning.

However, the overriding and specific factor that would rule against the proposals in planning terms is the conflict with the policies of the development plan and the absence of material considerations that would indicate that a decision should not accord with this plan.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended, in view of all of the foregoing assessment, that outline planning permission should be rehsed for the reasons attached.

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GPQfJWf95 3 4 5 21 August 1996

c

RGPQQ2 I/jw/cttee 11

_ _ 2-

NORTH LZXN-SHITZE COUNCIL c/9 5 / 3 4 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

. * RECOMMENDATION ON PLANNING APPLICATION *

Applicant: H J BANKS & CO LTD

SUITE 71-73 FOUNTAIN BUS. CENTRE, ELLIS ST

COATBRIDGE

Agent :

Nature of Proposal: ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (IN OUTLINE)

Site: BETWEEN LEAEND RD, AIRDRIE & BURNBANK STREET, COATBRIDGE

Recommendation: REFUSE PERMISSION

REASONS : ( r

c

01. The proposals by virtue of substantially falling within the established green belt area, are contrary to the Development Plan, being specifically in conflict with the following policies of the Adopted Strathclyde Structure Plan 1991 and the Adopted Monklands District Local Plan 1991.

STRUCTURE PLAN 1991 Policy G B 1 -The spread of buiJt up areas and the encroachment of development into the countryside within a 'Greenbelt' around the conurbation and Pteetwick as shown on the key diagram shall not accord with the regional development strategy.

RES2: Housing Development Policy: Residential development on infill or redevelopment sites within urban areas, excluding zoned open space but including land held by public bodies, which they have no realistic expectations of developing within five years, will take preference over peripheral 'greenfield' sites.

ADOPTED LOCAL PLAN 1991 GB1: Policy to Restrict Development in Green Belt: Within areas designated as Green Belt no developnent will be permitted except for : -

a) New houses for full time workers in connection with forestry or agriculture where the applicant:-

(i) can show that a new house on the site proposed has the support of the Forestry Commission or Department of Agriculture and Fisheries fo r Scotland.

(ii) can show that there is no houses, building plot, or building suitable fo r conversion available nearby or within a nearby settlement.

(ili) is willing to enter into a Section 50 Agreement to restruct futxre occu;?ancy of the ho.;se to a full time forestry or agricultural . -h- uv- .<er -

35

36 'b) Non residential developments in connection with forestry or agriculture.

c) uses requiring a rural 1ocation:- (i) to avoid nuisance to neighbours (e.g. animal boarding kennels) (ii) since they need l a r g e areas of open space (e.g. rFding stable or golf courses).

d) Areas identified as having substantial development potential:- (1) Drumpellier Country Park - Leisure and Recreation Use (2) Luggie Water - Business Use (3) South Chapelhall - Hotel

-?

- *

c