APRS Resources

Objection to Europark

This is an addendum to our original Objection to the proposed development at the edge of Calderbank known as Europark

Head of Planning and Regeneration, North Lanarkshire Council, Fleming House, 2 Tryst Road, Cumbernauld, GLASGOW, G67 1JW

29 April 2024

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Addendum to Objection to 18/00890/PPP | Proposed Residential-led Mixed Use Development Masterplan including Residential (Mixed Types/Tenures), Employment Facilities, Local Neighbourhood Centre, Education Facilities, Retail, Food and Drink Uses, Public House, Leisure Uses, Healthcare, Community Facilities, Energy Centre, Parkland, Open Space and Landscaping, with Associated Access Roads, Parking and Infrastructure. (Amended Masterplan and Revised EIA Information) | Land To North Of A8 & South Of Sykeside Road & Calderbank Road Sykeside Road Airdrie

APRS has previously submitted objections to earlier versions of the above planning application, most recently in November 2021. Given that the application has been amended and re-advertised we would like to add the following points to our objections:

Development Plan and Green Belt

Planning legislation requires that the determination of a planning application is to be

made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. This site is not allocated for development in the North Lanarkshire Local Plan 2022 and furthermore the entire site is designated as Green Belt in the LDP. The relatively new NPF4 now forms part of the Development Plan and it makes clear in various policies that the sort of development proposed is not appropriate for Green Belt, and that suitable alternative brownfield sites should be developed in preference to greenfield sites. Policy 8 of NPF4, in addition to being clear about the sorts of development that could in theory be supported in a Green Belt location, gives five requirements that would need to be met for that support to be forthcoming. Our view is that the proposal fails to meet these. We note that the Environmental Statement submitted with the proposal states that “As such, no other locations were considered for the Proposed Development”.

We very much disagree with the statement in the submitted updated planning statement at paragraph 6.24 that the site does not meet the objectives of Green Belt as it is an “urban location”. Green Belt  is by definition an urban edge location and the outcomes of Green Belt policy as stated in NPF4 refer to directing development to the right locations, protecting and enhancing the landscape and natural setting of settlement and supporting Nature Networks.

Scotland has a “plan-led” planning system and this proposal for major development on an unallocated, designated Green Belt site should be rejected.

Residential led Development

Policy 16 of NPF4 gives no grounds to support approval of this scale of new housing development on an unallocated site. 

Biodiversity

Policy 3 of NPF4 says that proposals for major developments will only be supported where it can be demonstrated they can conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and we do not see how the proposed development can achieve this.  We note that the Environmental Statement suggests that there will be slight improvement to the foraging habitat of bats but this will not compensate for the loss of so much established wildlife and habitats – both in terms of loss of biodiversity and of carbon stored, in the soils and established woodland, grassland and wetland habitats.

Climate

NPF4 puts significant weight on the climate and nature crises and it is impossible to see how the proposed development can be reconciled with the aims of that overarching policy (NPF4 Policy 1) especially given that a very similar proposal for the site was put forward as candidate national development during the consultation stages of NPF4 and rejected on the grounds of its potential climate impacts.

Yours sincerely,

Kat Jones, Director APRS

Back
to top