15
There were submitted reports by the Director of Communities, Housing & Planning
Services relative to the following applications for planning permission that required to
be determined by the Board.
(A) 19/0184/PP – WARD 12: ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 246 DWELLINGHOUSES AND FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE, OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING AT ERSKINE BRIDGE HOTEL, ERSKINE HARBOUR, ERSKINE PA8 6AN BY PERSIMMON HOMES LIMITED.
Councillor Nicolson, seconded by Councillor Rodden, moved that the application be refused for the following reasons:
(i) The proposal is contrary to Policy ENV2. The development will have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of three sites identified as SINC’s (Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation) and the biodiversity it provides to nature conservation and in meeting our climate change challenge.
(ii) The presence of Red Squirrels as a protected species was identified in the applicants supporting documentation (Pages 6 and 19 of the ecological survey). The habitat is protected under Sec 5&6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(iii) The proposal introduces an overly intensified urban use into an area which includes an SPA designation and breaking the wildlife corridor which connects several nationally protected sites of conservation. Contrary to Scottish Planning Policy “Where appropriate, planning authorities should seek opportunities to create new woodland and plant native trees in association with development. If a development would result in the severing or impairment of connectivity between important woodland habitats, workable mitigation measures should be identified and implemented, preferably linked to a wider green network.”
(iv) The proposal is contrary and presumptive to the policies of our adopted Town Centre strategy for Erskine which were adopted following a local Charette in 2016 which identified retention of the local SINC’s and any development was to follow a masterplan exercise for the area which is yet to be carried out.
(v) The proposal is contrary to Renfrewshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance on New Development 2019 as it significantly effects existing species, habitats and eco systems.
(vi) The proposal is contrary to Scottish Planning Policy where the proposals fail to consider the Woodland Removal Policy. Compensatory Planting should at least equal the net area of woodland that would be removed. The Compensatory Planting area must exceed the area of woodland removed to compensate for the loss of environmental value.
(vii) The proposal fails to meet the statutory guidance regarding the Natural Heritage Hierarchy of least damage and minimum damage.
(viii) Scottish Planning Policy where “Planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment.”
(ix) Scottish Planning Policy clearly states that ‘Removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. The additional public benefits do not outweigh the loss of biodiversity and existing amenity to the public; and
(x) The location of at least 35 homes close to significant existing noise uses will have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents and the operation of an existing business use.
This was agreed.
DECIDED: That the application be refused for the following reasons:
(i) The proposal is contrary to Policy ENV2. The development would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of three sites identified as SINC’s (Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation) and the biodiversity provided to nature conservation and in meeting our climate change challenge.
(ii) The presence of Red Squirrels as a protected species was identified in the applicants supporting documentation (Pages 6 and 19 of the ecological survey). The habitat is protected under Sec 5 and 6 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(iii) The proposal introduced an overly intensified urban use into an area which includes an SPA designation and breaking the wildlife corridor which connected several nationally protected sites of conservation and was contrary to Scottish Planning Policy “Where appropriate, planning authorities should seek opportunities to create new woodland and plant native trees in association with development. If a development would result in the severing or impairment of connectivity between important woodland habitats, workable mitigation measures should be identified and implemented, preferably linked to a wider green network.”
(iv) The proposal was contrary and presumptive to the policies of the Council’s adopted Town Centre strategy for Erskine, which had been adopted following a local Charette in 2016 and which had identified retention of the local SINC’s and that any development was to follow a masterplan exercise for the area which is yet to be carried out.
(v) The proposal was contrary to Renfrewshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance on New Development 2019 as it significantly affected existing species, habitats and eco-systems.
(vi) The proposal was contrary to Scottish Planning Policy where the proposals fail to consider the Woodland Removal Policy. Compensatory Planting should at least equal the net area of woodland that would be removed. The Compensatory Planting area must exceed the area of woodland removed to compensate for the loss of environmental value.
(vii) The proposal failed to meet the statutory guidance regarding the Natural Heritage Hierarchy of least damage and minimum damage.
(viii) Scottish Planning Policy where “Planning permission should be refused where the nature or scale of proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment.”
(ix) Scottish Planning Policy clearly states that ‘Removal should only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. The additional public benefits do not outweigh the loss of biodiversity and existing amenity to the public; and
(x) The location of at least 35 homes close to significant existing noise uses would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents and the operation of an existing business use.
SEDERUNT
Councillor McCulloch left the meeting prior to consideration of the following items of business.
(B) 19/0843/PP – WARD 4: ERECTION OF HOTEL WITH CAR PARKING, ACCESS, LANDSCAPING AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND TO EAST OF NO 1 MARCHBURN DRIVE, GLASGOW AIRPORT, PAISLEY BY CAIRN HOTELS GROUP.
Councillor McGurk, seconded by Councillor McNaughtan, moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
Councillor K MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Andy Doig, moved as an amendment that the application be refused as the proposed size and height of the hotel, in comparison to neighbouring properties, was out of keeping with the character of the area and was therefore contrary to the Local Development Plan.
On the roll being called, the following members voted for the amendment: Councillors Andy Doig, K MacLaren and M MacLaren.
The following members voted for the motion: Councillors Binks, Brown, Burns, Don, J MacLaren, McGurk, McNaughtan, Montgomery, Nicolson, Rodden and Strang.
3 members having voted for the amendment and 11 members having voted for the motion, the motion was accordingly declared carried.
DECIDED: That the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
(C) 20/0217/PP – WARD 4: ERECTION OF STUDENT ACCOMODATION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING WITH FAÇADE RETENTION AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND ERECTION OF BIN STORE AT TA CENTRE, 76 HIGH STREET, PAISLEY PA1 2BA BY JR CONSTRUCTION SCOTLAND LIMITED.
Councillor McGurk, seconded by Councillor McNaughtan, moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
Councillor K MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Andy Doig, moved as an amendment that the application be refused in view of the potential impact it could have on the conservation area in which it was situated, the scale and design of the accommodation block, the loss of light in neighbouring gardens, the detrimental impact to the amenity of the area and the resultant loss of visual appeal and would therefore be contrary to the Local Development Plan.
On the roll being called, the following members voted for the amendment: Councillors Andy Doig, K MacLaren and M MacLaren.
The following members voted for the motion: Councillors Binks, Brown, Burns, Don, J MacLaren, McGurk, McNaughtan, Montgomery, Nicolson, Rodden and Strang.
3 members having voted for the amendment and 11 members having voted for the motion, the motion was accordingly declared carried.
DECIDED: That the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
(D) 20/0218/LB – WARD 4: ERECTION OF STUDENT ACCOMODATION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING WITH FAÇADE RETENTION AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS (INCLUDING RETROSPECTIVE EMERGENCY STABILISATION WORKS) AND ERECTION OF BIN STORE AT TA CENTRE, 76 HIGH STREET, PAISLEY PA1 2BA BY JR CONSTRUCTION SCOTLAND LIMITED.
It was proposed that the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report. This was agreed.
DECIDED: That the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST
Councillor James MacLaren having previously declared an interest in the following item remained in the meeting.
(E) 20/0102/PP – WARD 11: FORMATION OF COMMERCIAL FISHERY WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING, MODULAR BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING AT LAND AT HADDOCKSTON ESTATE, WEST GLEN ROAD, HOUSTON, JOHNSTONE BY MR CAMPBELL.
Councillor McNaughtan, seconded by Councillor Brown, moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
Councillor Don, seconded by Councillor Montgomery, moved as an amendment that the application be refused as the nature of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, residents and surrounding road network and would therefore be contrary to the Local Development Plan.
On the roll being called, the following members voted for the amendment: Councillors Binks, Burns, Doig, Don, K MacLaren, J MacLaren, McGurk, Montgomery, Nicolson, Rodden and Strang.
The following members voted for the motion: Councillors Brown, M MacLaren and McNaughtan.
11 members having voted for the amendment and 3 members having voted for the motion, the amendment was accordingly declared carried.
DECIDED: That the application be refused as the nature of the proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area, residents and surrounding road network and would therefore be contrary to the Local Development Plan.
(F) 20/0308/PP – WARD 5: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF SEVENTYTHREE FLATS, THE FORMATION OF NEW ROADS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT SITE BOUNDED BY SMITHHILLS STREET, LAWN STREET, ABBEY VIEW AND WEIR STREET, PAISLEY BY LINK GROUP LTD.
Councillor McGurk, seconded by Councillor McNaughtan, moved that the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.
Councillor K MacLaren, seconded by Councillor Burns, moved as an amendment that the application be continued for a site visit.
On the roll being called, the following members voted for the amendment: Councillors Burns, Andy Doig, Don, K MacLaren and M MacLaren.
The following members voted for the motion: Councillors Binks, Brown, J MacLaren, McGurk, McNaughtan, Montgomery, Nicolson, Rodden and Strang.
5 members having voted for the amendment and 9 members having voted for the motion, the motion was accordingly declared carried.
DECIDED: That the application be granted subject to the conditions and the reasons detailed within the report.