THIS REPORT RELATES COUNCIL TO ITEM ON THE AGENDA

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

26 AUGUST 2004 NOT EXEMPT

SECOND ALTERATION TO THE STIRLING COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN – STIRLING’S MAJOR GROWTH

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To reach a decision, based on the information in this report and the accompanying background reports, as to the alternative that should be progressed through the Council’s Finalised Second Alteration to the Local Plan.

2 SUMMARY

2.1 A consultative Draft Local Plan outlining proposals for 2500 houses and associated facilities was approved as the basis for further consultation at the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 29 January 2004. This was the culmination of a lengthy process, which is fully detailed in the attached background report. Since approval of the Draft Plan, Agencies, Developers and the Public have submitted comments on the Plan. A questionnaire survey of local residents and the Citizens Panel has also been undertaken along with Workshop Events in the communities of , Fallin, Cowie and Plean. A number of other strands of work have also been undertaken including an Air Quality Study, an Agency Workshop, appraisal of Developers transport submissions, assessment of site capacities and densities, further assessment of schools issues and work with the Developers on financial viability. This work is fully detailed in the accompanying background reports. This information together with the January 2004 Appraisal has been used to assess the proposals against Structure Plan policy. This assessment indicates both proposals could achieve conformity with the Structure Plan but have varying strengths and weaknesses.

3 RECOMMENDATION(S)

3.1 It is recommended that having due regard to all the information in the Background report, consultation reports and other supporting documents, the Environment Committee agree:-

3.1.1 that the Local Plan Alteration and accompanying Development Guideline should meet all of the criteria of the Structure Plan, identify the further work required and set out appropriate mitigation measures;

N:\DEMSUPP\NewDecisions\EnvironmentC\Reports\EV20040826MajorGrowth.doc 3.1.2 that the option of including smaller scale extensions to the Eastern Villages should not be pursued through this Local Plan Alteration;

3.1.3 the relative weight they wish to apportion to the Structure Plan criteria and consequently identify the option they would wish to be progressed through the Finalised Local Plan Alteration;

3.1.4 to note that following this decision, the Local Plan Alteration and accompanying Development guideline will be completed for the consideration of Members at the next meeting of the Environment Committee.

4 CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 The Decision Making Process:

It is important at this stage to recognise the difference between this current process of finalising the Local Plan as a statement of Council Policy and determining a planning application. Normally when faced with a planning application there will be a clear recommendation to approve or refuse the application based on the policies of the Development Plan and other material considerations.

In this current process the Council is setting future local policy and proposals as a basis for decisions on planning applications. The role of Officers is to provide information and advice so that the Council can make an informed decision. The Local Plan has by law to conform generally to the Structure Plan but beyond this it is for the Council to determine what weight it wishes to give to the various planning considerations and policies in coming to a decision on their Plan.

4.2 Conformity with the Structure Plan:

On the basis of the policy appraisal set out in the background report it is considered that both options could conform generally with the policies of the Structure Plan. Therefore either of these options could be justified in planning terms for inclusion in the Local Plan.

4.3 Relevant Planning Considerations:

The relevant policy considerations of the Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan and in particular proposal HP3 are set out in the Background report and other accompanying documents. Any decision made by the Council may be challenged and will be tested through the Local Plan Inquiry process. The Background report assesses all of the relevant Structure Plan considerations in relation to the two options and discusses the relative advantages and disadvantages of each. For instance, the Appendix highlights the potential conflict arising between the criteria of accessibility and transport and those avoiding urban sprawl and coalescence to achieve a community with a distinct identity.

4.4 Sustainability and Transport:

The issues of sustainable transport and accessibility are central to the Structure Plan strategy of “Working Towards Sustainability” and this is a policy priority reflected in National Planning Guidance. Transport issues can to a greater or lesser extent be addressed by appropriate mitigation measures and the promoters of each option have submitted detailed information in this respect. The location of the development is however important particularly in terms of providing alternatives to car-based travel and the Council’s decision will have implications for the future development of the City Transport Strategy.

Following the decision taken by the Environment Committee in January 2004 the Developers behind the proposals were invited to submit additional transport information which has now been assessed by the Council’s transport consultants. A report on this process has been produced. This report highlights the issues associated with each option. They conclude that the Sauchenford site is the preferred option in transport policy terms, and has the greatest potential for viable transport services, a view shared by the Scottish Executive, as Trunk Roads Authority. In their submission the Scottish Executive (Trunk Roads) has indicated that it is unlikely that they could support the Durieshill option.

4.5 Education and Community Facilities:

Children’s Services have indicated that an education solution could be tailored to either site. In both cases this would include a community campus (including two double stream primary schools, secondary school for circa 700 pupils and an 80-place nursery school). For Sauchenford the secondary education could provide for Plean and Cowie and for Durieshill it could provide for Plean. Whilst the Developers will be expected to make provision for the pupil product of their development a school to serve a wider catchment would have resource implications for the Council’s Capital Programme. Children’s Services indicate they would strongly support infrastructure improvements (roads in particular) so that the selected location would enable Fallin, Cowie and Plean to be zoned to the new secondary school.

The provision of the school, affordable housing, infrastructure and other facilities will involve substantial investment by the Developers. Initial financial appraisal information, which has to be treated confidentially, indicates (on the basis of the information provided) that there is financial robustness and deliverability for most of the required provision. Some of the proposed costs/contributions will however warrant more consideration as the detailed planning of the development proceeds.

The relative accessibility of Sauchenford to Plean, Cowie and Bannockburn gives some advantage in terms of social inclusion, in relation to sharing facilities. Durieshill is accessible from Plean.

4.6 Coalescence/urban sprawl/landscape:

From the outset the Committee has expressed a view that coalescence and urban sprawl are important local considerations.

The Council's Landscape Consultants concluded that, whilst the Sauchenford option was the most preferred overall in terms of impact on the quality and character of the existing local landscape, the Durieshill option is preferable in terms of avoiding coalescence and protecting the setting of Stirling. The quality of the landscape at Durieshill, whilst viewed by landscape experts as a constraint, can also offer advantages in helping to create a distinct and high quality place. At the Environment Committee on 29 January 2004 Officers were asked to look again at the extent of Green Belt proposed between the Sauchenford proposal and the edge of Bannockburn to see whether it could be made wider. This has led to further work on the capacity of the land area in both locations and the proposed density of development that would be required. This work is detailed in the background report but it does question whether either Developer has identified sufficient land in the right locations. In particular it highlights constraints with the Sauchenford proposal due to the more limited land area available and the fact that at present the Developers’ Indicative Plans do not take account of the Green Belt as shown in the Consultative Draft Plan. In the absence of the time and resources to do any more detailed work it is not certain that the existing Green Belt could be accommodated with appropriate densities. Certainly a wider green belt would prove difficult to achieve without drawing the development into the Sauchenford Holdings area or closer towards Plean and Cowie.

The Durieshill option does avoid coalescence, better protects the landscape setting of Stirling and can potentially provide more land to achieve appropriate development densities.

4.7 Consultation on the Draft Plan:

The consultation process had a number of strands:-

• Questionnaire Survey of local residents and Citizens Panel; • Community Workshops in Cowie, Fallin, Plean, Bannockburn and Stirling; • Agency Workshop; • Submission of formal comments to the Plan.

All of these are detailed in separate reports that are available in the Members' Lounge or by contacting Planning and Policy, Environment Services. The summary of formal comments includes a recommended response. The Background Report also seeks to address many of the issues that were raised through the consultation process. The questionnaire survey indicated a preference for Sauchenford although the response from local residents was very low and makes any clear conclusion difficult, but was slightly in favour of Durieshill. At the community workshops people expressed strong concerns about the process and did not generally support either of the proposals. A local grouping called the Bannockburn and Eastern Villages Alliance have voiced strong objection to both proposals. Bannockburn Community Council have indicated support for Durieshill and raised concerns about the Sauchenford proposals particularly in relation to traffic impact. Historic has stated that Durieshill has the most significant impact on the cultural heritage, particularly the scheduled ancient monument of Common Hill Steading. Scottish Natural Heritage indicate a preference for Sauchenford due to the impact on the landscape and the opportunity for enhancement .The Cala/Wimpey Ogilvie Group have objected to the exclusion of their proposal at Greendykes. The community workshop and agency workshop expressed the view that some expansion to the existing villages should be considered.

4.8 Expansion of the Eastern Villages

The Consultative Draft Local Plan proposed some smaller scale expansion of the Eastern Villages. This option has been investigated further. Whilst it could be feasible and had a degree of support from local people it would raise issues of the timing of schools provision, the delivery of tangible benefits and the corresponding reduction in the size of the Major Growth Area. A reduction in the size of the Major Growth Area could reduce its ability to deliver all the necessary infrastructure including the community education campus. On balance this option is not recommended to be pursued through this alteration to the Local Plan. The first alteration through Policy H1 (as modified) would allow for these sites to be considered if there is a demonstrable shortage in the land supply or if delivery of the Major Growth Area is significantly delayed.

4.9 Conclusion

4.9.1 On balance both the proposals can fulfil the requirements of HP3 and the related Structure Plan criteria as indicated in the summary tables in the Background report.

4.9.2 The proposals are only half a mile apart and in most instances compare quite closely. The exception to this is in relation to:-

• HP3(1)- urban sprawl/coalescence where Durieshill achieves better policy compliance;

• HP3(2), TR1 and TR2 on accessibility/sustainable transport, where West Sauchenford achieves better policy compliance;

• HP3(10) where West Sauchenford is more preferred in terms of environmental impact but less preferred than Durieshill in terms of protecting the setting of Stirling and its historic views.

4.9.3 The decision must then come down to the relative weight that should be given to these criteria. In essence the choice lies in considering whether the issues of landscape setting and coalescence outweigh those of sustainable transport and impact on local landscape character/quality. Added to this there is also a degree of uncertainty for the Sauchenford site as to the scope to deliver an appropriate green belt with sufficient land area remaining to achieve appropriate densities.

4.9.4 The criteria assessment summary tables in the Background report give an indication of the extent to which the relevant criteria are reflected elsewhere in the Structure Plan and in National Planning Policy, Circulars and advice as well as other Council policy documents. Ultimately however this is the Council’s Local Plan and the decision is the Council’s, giving appropriate weight to local concerns and priorities and the Council’s own Structure Plan criteria.

4.9.5 The Developers involved have devoted significant resources to persuading the Council of the particular merits of their option and all of these issues will be rigorously debated at any future Local Plan Inquiry and taken into account when the reporter makes his recommendations.

4.9.6 At this stage, it is for Members to decide what weight they wish to attach to each of the relevant considerations and to reach a balanced decision on their preferred option. For instance, it is open to Members to attach more weight to the policy criterion relating to coalescence than to the criterion relating to accessibility, or vice versa.

4.9.7 At any forthcoming Inquiry the role of Officers would be to represent the Council by explaining the process and the assessment of all of the various criteria to assist the Reporter. Officers would explain the Council’s view on the relative weighting of the relevant Structure Plan criteria, as part of the due process, and Members may have to explain how local priorities influenced their decision.

5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Future Local Plan Policy.

6 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 Consultation with communities, agencies etc through Consultative Draft Local Plan Second Alteration.

7 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Implementation of the Major Growth Area will have implications for future delivery of Council Services.

8 BACKGROUND PAPERS

8.1 Stirling’s Major Growth Area, Background Report, August 2004(copy attached).

8.2 Comments and Responses Report August 2004 (copy attached).

8.3 Various Consultants Reports (available to view in Members Lounge or from Environment Services):-

• Stirling Major Growth Area Survey, MRUK Research June 2004;

• Stirling Major Growth Area Consultation, Drew Mackie, May 2004;

• Transport Appraisal, SIAS, July 2004;

• LUC Landscape Appraisal, Updated July 2004;

• Report on Agency Workshop, Atkins Consulting, July 2004;

• Air Quality Study, BMT Cordah, July 2004.

8.4 Stirling’s Major Growth Area Appraisal Report January 2004.

8.5 Clackmannanshire and Stirling Structure Plan, 2002. Author(s) Name Designation Tel No/Extension

Alison Scambler Planning Officer 01786 432500

Approved by Name Designation Signature

Arthur Nicholls Director of Environment Services

Date 11 August 2004 Reference REP497EC