EV charging hub and restaurant at St James Avenue, Paisley

What was proposed

The application proposed an electric vehicle charging hub, a drive-through restaurant, access, servicing and landscaping.

“Proposal This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a mixed commercial development comprising of electric vehicle charging hub, Class 3 restaurant unit with drive- through, and associated access, servicing and landscaping at a site to the north of St James Avenue, Paisley.”

“The EV charging hub would comprise of 16 parking bays, 12 with EV charging facilities including 1 accessible EV charging bay. There would also be 4 waiting bays at the charging hub. The EV bays would be covered by a canopy which would have a shallow mono-pitched roof measuring approximately 4.2 metres at the highest point. The charging hub would be located in the southwestern part of the site adjacent to the site access.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The vacant site lies beside the A726 and St James Avenue, where homes face a mature protected tree line and green buffer.

“Site Description The application site relates to an area of vacant land bound to the north by the A726 and St James Avenue to the south. The site has an area of approximately 0.92 hectares. The site is situated to the south of St James interchange, junction 29 of the M8 motorway.”

“St James Avenue comprises of a well-established residential street where 2 storey dwellinghouses face directly onto the application site. The southern and western edge of the site has an established treeline of mature specimens which are protected by virtue of being located within a TPO (reference 93/1).”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for the same mixed commercial development was withdrawn.

“Site History The planning history for the site is as follows; if no history is listed then planning has no record of previous applications for the site.”

“Application No: 25/0236/PP Description: Erection of mixed commercial development comprising electric vehicle charging hub, Class 3 restaurant unit with drive-through, and associated access, servicing and landscaping. Decision: Withdrawn…”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers found unacceptable effects from open-space loss, tree removal, inadequate planting, harm to character and amenity, and likely noise disturbance.

“Reason(s) for Recommendation 1. That the proposal is contrary to Policy P6 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan and the associated New Development Supplementary Guidance in that the loss of open space would have a significant detrimental impact on amenity and the proposed development would not be complimentary or compatible with the surrounding area including neighbouring residential properties.”

“That the proposal is contrary to Policies 3, 4, and 6 of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and ENV2 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan in that it would result in an unacceptable loss of trees including two trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order and together with lack of compensatory planting, would have a detrimental impact on biodiversity and natural heritage.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Environmental Protection objected over likely adverse noise impact, while roads officers sought further information and other consultees raised no objections or suggested conditions.

“Councils Environmental Protection - Object on the basis that the Noise Impact Assessment states that it is likely that there would be adverse noise impact on 31 St James Avenue.”

“Chief Executive's Roads Development - Seek more information of internal layout, including pedestrian routes from EV charging to restaurant, traffic signal timings, upgrade of West March Road, provision of active travel routes and tracking. Following this response, additional plans were submitted to address these concerns, this information is still under review.”

Officer report

What residents said

Eleven objections raised concerns about noise, lighting, trees, traffic, wildlife, green space, pollution, residential character and flooding.

“The issues raised can be summarised as follows: Noise pollution. Light pollution. Removal of trees. Decrease in property value. Traffic movement/safety and parking concerns. Cooking odours and littering. Impact on wildlife.”

“Negative impact on character of residential area. Detailed landscaping plan required at this stage due to loss of trees. Anti-social behaviour including littering. Loss of green space. Emissions from idling cars. Impact on local shops. Impact on mental health and general health. Flooding. Cumulative impact with other development in the vicinity. Overlooking.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A senior planner delivered a presentation about the proposal.

The committee vote

Councillor Paterson moved refusal, and the motion was agreed unanimously.

“In terms of Standing Order 59 Councillor Paterson moved that the planning application be refused for the reasons detailed within the report. This was agreed unanimously.”

Minutes

The decision

The planning application was refused for the reasons set out in the report.

“DECIDED: That the planning application be refused for the reasons detailed within the report. 5(c)”

Minutes