Volume 3 : Villages

VOLUME 3 : VILLAGES

VOLUME 3 CONTENTS

Part 4, Town and Village Directory - villages and other settlements page

Arbirlot: Settlement Boundary 1 Auchmithie: AM1, Housing - Kirkbank 6 Auchterhouse: Omission 7 Baldovan, Pitempton and Balmuir: Omission 9 Balgray, Tealing: Omission 11 Balkeerie and Eassie: Development Boundary 13 Balkeerie and Eassie: Boundary - Eassie Hall 15 Berryhill, by Fowlis: Omission 17 Birkhill/Muirhead and land north of Liff Hospital: Omission 20 Bridgefoot: Omission 22 Bridgend of Lintrathen: Development Boundary 25 Burnside of Duntrune: Omission - Ballumbie House 30 Colliston Village 32 Craigton of Monikie: Omission 35 Eassie Muir: Development Boundary – Omission 36 Edzell: Omission - East Mains Farm 38 Edzell: Omission – Former Mart 41 Emmock: Omission 43 Finavon: Omission 45 Friockheim: Allocation Fk2, East of Kinnell Gardens & Omission of land at South Gardyne Street 47 Grahamstown, Arbirlot by Arbroath: Omission 57 Inveraldie and Tealing – Omission 59 Inveraldie and Tealing: Omissions – Tealing House & Walled Garden 61 Kellas: Omission 64 Kirkbuddo: Omission of a settlement boundary 66 Kirkton of Auchterhouse: Omission 68 Kirkton of Menmuir: Settlement Boundary 70 Kirkton of Monikie: Omission 72 Letham: L2 – Housing, Jubilee Park 74 Letham: L3 – Housing, East Hemming Street 77 Letham Grange Development Strategy 78 Liff: Omission of land at Woodside Road 82 Logie, by Montrose: Development boundary 84 Lundie: Development boundary 85 Memus: Settlement boundary 86 Monikie: Omission 89 Muirdrum: Omission 91 Newbigging by Carnoustie: Omission 93 Newbigging by Tealing: Omission 96 Newbigging by Tealing: Omission - land at Leyshade Farm 100 Newbigging by Tealing: Omission - land at Newbigging Farm 102 Newtyle: Omission 104 North Craigo: Settlement boundary 106 North Dronley: Omission 108 Padanaram: Settlement boundary 110 Panmure Estate: Omission 113

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 Angus Council Statement of Response

Piperdam: Paragraph 4 and Pd1 - Residential Development 115 South Kingennie: Omission of land at Broomfield Nurseries 117 South Kingennie: Omission – single plot 119 South Kingennie: Omission - land to the west 120 Strathmartine Hospital: St1, Opportunity Site Strathmartine Hospital Estate 122 Wellbank: Omissions – South, North and South-East 125 Westhall Terrace: Omission 129 Westmuir: Settlement boundary 131 Woodville: Wv1 - Development Approach 133

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 Angus Council Statement of Response

Arbirlot: Settlement Boundary

Objector Reference

James Fairweather 825/1/1 Mr & Mrs G J Willey 832/1/1 Evelyn T Graham 898/1/1 Mr & Mrs D W Docherty 901/1/1 & 902/1/1 Matthew Pease 911/1/1

Supporters

P & J Van Wees 153/1/1 Dr Graeme Sutherland 817/1/1 Justin & Angela Austin 818/1/1

Procedure Reporter Formal inquiry (Mr & Mrs Willey and Richard Dent Mr Fairweather), informal hearing (Evelyn Graham) and written submissions ______

BACKGROUND

Arbirlot is a small village set on generally level ground in the steep sided valley of the Elliot Water. The valley is known as a “den”. It is included in the town and village directory with a settlement map depicting the boundary but no village statement.

The boundary follows the Elliot Water to the west, relates closely to property boundaries to the south-east, and, to the north and north-east, includes an open area which rises up sharply from the general level of the village to higher land beyond. This area contains one house, Treetops. Much of the village, other than the open land to the north and north-east is a designated conservation area which also extends over a large, sloping, generally wooded area to the west and south and across agricultural land to the south- east.

Policy S1, Development Boundaries, provides guidance in respect of proposed development within boundaries, proposed development in the countryside and development contiguous with a development boundary.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Insofar as claimed lack of notification is concerned, I have no reason to believe that the council did not undertake an adequate level of publicity or provide the opportunity to lodge objections against the terms of the finalised local plan review. Section 12(5) of the 1997 Act and Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans)(Scotland) Regulations 1983 set out the requirements in respect of publicity and I note that the council has prepared a formal Statement of Publicity and Consultation which will form part of the submission to the Scottish Ministers. Individual notification is not required.

The council has argued that the village extension is justified in terms of landscape setting but accepts the amended boundary was proposed in response to a representation seeking a single house on the land. On the other hand, objectors have expressed concern that there has been no landscape assessment of the proposal and that the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 1 Angus Council Statement of Response

prospect of building a house has over-ridden the proper consideration of whether the extension is justified in planning terms. In this respect I believe that is important to define settlement boundaries only where they are justified in their own right other than where a planned expansion is required for a particular land use need. For instance, where an allocation is required to fulfil strategic housing or employment land supply, settlement expansion may be necessary. SPP3 provides appropriate guidance.

There is no specific need for an extension. Nevertheless, the local plan review offers a legitimate opportunity to reappraise settlement boundaries and determine whether any amendments are appropriate. Indeed, despite the practice of the council, the preparation of a local plan also offers an ideal opportunity to reassess conservation area boundaries. The Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas recognises that responses to local plans offer a convenient public consultation process although, of course, conservation area boundaries are formally designated through a separate statutory procedure. Similarly, NPPG18, Planning and the Historic Environment, indicates that local plans should outline proposals for designating conservation areas and for reviewing their boundaries.

I note that the Arbirlot boundary depicted in the existing Angus Local Plan extends across the Elliot Water and includes the wooded slope to the west of the river and several houses at the top of the slope. The boundary in consultative draft local plan review excluded the land to the west of the river, the revised boundary line closely following the edge of the built form of the village. I am of the opinion that this rationale was reasonable and justified, providing clear guidance whereby any future development potential, albeit limited, would be directed to land within the boundary. On the other hand, development proposed immediately beyond the boundary would be subject to assessment under Policy S1(c) which seeks to impose rigorous control over development in such locations. In terms of the smaller settlements in Angus, of which Arbirlot is an example, this approach meets the development strategy of the plan, including directing the majority of development to the larger settlements.

In terms of the approach adopted in the consultative draft document and the over- arching development strategy, the extension of the boundary to the north-east in the finalised local plan review must, in my opinion, be fully justified in respect of the landscape setting of Arbirlot. There is general agreement that the land contained within the proposed extension is integral to the setting of the village. I share this view. However, the council and objectors differ in their interpretation of the role of the sloping field encompassed by the proposed extended boundary. The council believes that the land is effectively part of the village because of the sense of enclosure created by the woodlands and the top of the slope. In any event, the slope is not widely visible from locations within the village. It is only at the crest of the slope that the open countryside starts. Conversely, objectors argue that the village is confined to the level land close to the Elliot Water. Only one house, Treetops, which is not part of the traditional village, extends some way up the slope. Further development in the extension area would destroy the value of the land as an important backdrop within the landscape setting of Arbirlot.

In my opinion the field comprising the proposed extension area has little physical relationship to the remainder of the village which is, for the most part, restricted to level land close to the Elliot Water. The break of slope on the south-eastern boundary of the extension area is clear and marked by a substantial boundary wall to the rear of Denside House. Recent planting emphasises the boundary. Treetops is above the general level of the village but this is not typical and does not constitute a development pattern that should be repeated. The access to the extension area is essentially of an agricultural nature and cannot be construed as a typical village road. Even if improved, the access would appear contrived and, in my opinion, would not lead to the incorporation of the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 2 Angus Council Statement of Response

extension area into the main fabric of Arbirlot. Development of the area would appear as an awkward adjunct. Accordingly, I conclude that it would be inappropriate to draw the settlement boundary around the objection site.

Notwithstanding the foregoing conclusion, and accepting that the open countryside commences at the top of the slope, I nevertheless believe that, in land use terms, the objection site has an affinity with the countryside to the north-east. The current undeveloped nature of the land is a significant element in the landscape setting of the village. Whilst not widely visible, I believe that development on the site is likely to have a more significant visual impact than suggested by the council and the supporters. This would be unfortunate as the disposition of the site is of value in providing a backcloth to this part of the village. It is important in terms of both the character of the adjacent conservation area and, particularly, a part of the setting of the listed Denside House.

Even if I am wrong in believing that the village boundary should not include the objection site, I note that the local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide a definition between the built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space which are important to the setting of settlements and on which development will not be permitted. The presence of a boundary does not indicate that all areas of ground within that boundary have development potential. On this basis, should the local plan review continue to show the boundary as indicated in the finalised document, I conclude that the area should be clearly specified as land on which development should not be permitted.

The objectors have expressed concern about the prospect of the development of the objection site and the construction of one or, perhaps, more houses. The council has emphasised that only one house is envisaged and Mr and Mrs van Wees have stated that only a single house is required and that they would be prepared to conclude a legal agreement to this effect. I have considered this matter primarily on the basis of assessing the most appropriate line of the Arbirlot settlement boundary but I have nevertheless noted the sketch plans that have been submitted in respect of a potential house on the objection site. It is for the council in its development control role to determine any formal planning application which may be submitted. However, in my opinion, the construction of a house on the site similar to that in the sketches would be likely to be a dominant structure breaking the skyline, particularly when viewed from close to Denside House, and involving significant earthworks to the detriment of both the setting of Denside House and the character of the conservation area. As indicated in the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, there is no statutory definition of “setting” but authorities are firmly encouraged not to interpret the term narrowly.

Without more details I am unable to assess whether or not an access of a suitable standard could be provided and I have no evidence to draw any conclusions in respect of the claims concerning flooding and drainage. I note the general support for development of brownfield sites and accept that the potential for restoration at the Walkerbank site should not be linked directly to the future of the objection site. Whilst objectors have referred to precedent, I do not envisage that the extension of the boundary as proposed would prejudice the council in its exercise of its development control function. In terms of the conservation area, I have noted the request that, come what may, the boundary should be extended to include the objection site. The boundary of the designated conservation area extends significantly beyond the settlement boundary to the west and, especially, to the south. The conservation area was designated in 1975 but I have not been provided with any analysis undertaken at the time or a more recent conservation area appraisal. Nevertheless, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that the extent of the conservation area was intended to encompass the wider setting of the village itself and include land that was considered important to the setting. In this respect, insofar as the objection site has been recognised as integral to the setting of the village I believe that the inclusion of the land within the conservation area is justified.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 3 Angus Council Statement of Response

I accept that the council has not regarded the local plan review process as an opportunity to amend conservation area boundaries although, as I have pointed out, this is does not reflect the advice contained in the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and NPPG18. I therefore consider that, in this instance, that it would not be inappropriate to indicate in the local plan review that it is intended to extend the existing Arbirlot Conservation Area boundary to include the objection site. It would be understandable if the council wishes to prepare a conservation area appraisal and undertake specific local consultation prior to formal designation of the extended area.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend the local plan review is modified as follows:

the Arbirlot boundary map should exclude the objection site from the area contained within the village – in other words, the boundary shown in the consultative draft local plan review should be restored;

in the event that that the foregoing recommendation is not accepted, the Arbirlot boundary map should include a note to the effect that the objection site is considered important to the setting of the village and development will not be permitted on any part of the land;

the Arbirlot boundary map should indicate that the objection site is intended for inclusion within the Arbirlot Conservation Area by means of annotation of the map itself or by means of a symbol included in the Village Inset Map Key.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

The Reporter has considered the general relationship between the existing village layout, the objection site and the proposed village development boundary and concluded that the visual impact of a new house at this location would be greater than that anticipated by supporters of the site and the Council. In accepting the Reporter’s view on this matter, I agree that it would be better to exclude the site altogether from the Development Boundary, rather than leaving the site within the boundary and annotating the Village Map to show that development of the site would not be permitted. I note the Reporter’s support for the Development Boundary shown in the Consultative Draft stage of the Local Plan Review and agree that the Finalised Local Plan should be modified to reflect this position.

I also note the Reporter’s comments in respect of the village Conservation Area boundary and agree with his general conclusions and recommendations on this matter. The exclusion of the objection site from the village Development Boundary would not prevent its possible future designation in the conservation area where this was shown to be justified by a subsequent conservation area appraisal and review.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review as follows:-

Modify the Local Plan Review to delete the site from the development boundary and therefore revert to the development boundary for the village as originally shown in the Consultative Draft Local Plan Review.

Amend the village boundary map as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 4 Angus Council Statement of Response

QTHHHH QTHIHH QTHPHH QTHQHH

th st2v URHVHH

HHVI HHVI URHVHH

@u th mA pf eir URHUHH

t h 2 @ HHUH u m

A URHUHH

henside rouse

u @ 2

h t

reetops rll hoveot fruh

willhill willhill URHTHH

uirkEve pf

y h hdy w it e ie g v m e t frook g t d o ri g f URHTHH

uelly9s qlenmore e e r le g gottge q tt k qreen gf o hen QSFVm g ose vf n

gottge o e t g s t t o t fw P o 2Q R lkernk U g F HPm qlendoik

P QH fw QSFQm RVFQHm S QTFPm qrve edhills rd erirlot rish2ghurh URHSHH

RTFPm Q HHSH terfll erirlot URHSHH

RPFIm

ewge2orks

wnse URHRHH

RSFVm URHRHH fw2RTFHSm

ulptured tone

qlee HHQS rouse

URHQHH URHQHH

fsed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 erirlot the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright x nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2veHWHPQvD2PHHP IXPSHH

QTHHHH QTHIHH QTHPHH QTHQHH

Auchmithie: AM1, Housing - Kirkbank

Supporter

Crudie Farms 627/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The only submission in respect of allocation AM1 for new housing development at Auchmithie in the finalised local plan review was a note of support for the council’s proposal. As there were no objections lodged in that regard the council has made no comment in respect of the letter of support and there is no requirement for me to consider the matter further.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 6 Angus Council Statement of Response

Auchterhouse: Omission

Objector Reference

Mrs Easson (per Ritchie Dagen and Allan) 649/1/1

Procedure Reporter Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the South Angus (Monifieth, Sidlaw and Carnoustie) area which has a specified requirement within the wider Dundee and South Angus HMA. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those specified for South Angus, should be reflected in the local plan review.

I conclude that, in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocations of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provide scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes into account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 7 Angus Council Statement of Response

allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

In this context I now turn to consider whether the development boundary extension and housing land allocation at Auchterhouse proposed by the objector in this particular case should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I agree with the council that the scale and back-land location of the housing land allocation being promoted by the objector are inappropriate given the existing size and form of this small settlement with its setting of mature woodlands and low density gardens. I also note the potential constraints on access to the site concerned, being close to a road bend and involving potential loss of trees which provide amenity, as well as in relation to the statutory consultation zone associated with a gas pipeline nearby. Furthermore, I note that there are potential constraints on the local school capacity in the context of existing housing commitments in the wider catchment area.

Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant the proposed extension of the development boundary of Auchterhouse or the allocation of the 2.4ha site proposed for housing by the objector within the finalised local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 8 Angus Council Statement of Response

Baldovan, Pitempton and Balmuir: Omission

Objector Reference

Linlathen Developments & Taylor Woodrow Group 922/1/3 (per Keppie Planning)

Procedure Reporter Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether a housing land allocation at Baldovan/Pitempton/Balmuir, either for the site as a whole to be developed in phases or perhaps for only part of the 127.5ha site at this stage, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I note that the case put forward by the objectors includes reference to strategic and local factors, with the former being based largely on the perceived shortcomings of the Dundee Western Gateway (DWG) allocation - together with the fact

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 9 Angus Council Statement of Response

that the Baldovan/Pitempton/Balmuir site is effective and could address the perceived shortfall arising from non-delivery of housing land allocations at the DWG, in order to meet structure plan and local plan targets for the Dundee and South Angus HMA. In the context of the strategic issues that I have already dealt with above, I am persuaded by the argument put forward by the council that it is at best premature, and therefore inappropriate at this time, to consider possible alternatives to the DWG. In any event, if there was a failure to deliver in full or in part on that site I endorse the council’s view that any resulting shortfall in the Dundee part of the HMA would need to be rectified in Dundee City’s administrative area, not in the South Angus part of the HMA.

I also endorse the concerns expressed by the council that the scale of the objection site is such that if it was implemented in full, even if it was phased, this would be a major housing allocation exceeding the sum of all other allocations put forward in FALPR for South Angus as a whole. Furthermore, even if in due course it became clear that the structure plan’s housing land requirements were not being addressed in full in the South Angus HMA, there are other concerns raised by the large scale and greenfield nature of the objection site. For example, the Baldovan/Pitempton/Balmuir site in question is located on the edge of the urban area of Dundee where, in my view, it currently forms a visually prominent and important part of the landscape setting for the city. I conclude that the council is right, therefore, to suggest that these strategic issues would be more appropriately addressed in the context of a structure plan review rather than as a local plan housing land allocation, even if consideration was restricted to one part of the site concerned. Based on all of these factors, I also conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances at present to warrant the Baldovan/Pitempton/Balmuir site being allocated for housing, in whole or part, in the finalised local plan review, even if it was phased in the manner proposed.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 10 Angus Council Statement of Response

Balgray, Tealing: Omission

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs R Smith 890/1/1 (per The Charlton Smith Partnership)

Procedure Reporter

Written Submission Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that Development Boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 11 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context I now turn to consider whether the Development Boundary extension and housing land allocation at Balgray proposed by the objectors should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I endorse the council’s assessment that the limited scale of the housing promoted by the objectors would best be dealt with not through a modification to the Development Boundary, but by means of a planning application to be considered in the context of the Countryside Housing policies of the finalised local plan review – which the council is proposing to modify in the context of new planning policy and guidance in SPP3, SPP15 and PAN72. [This is discussed in more detail under the Countryside Housing section of this report]. The local case made for extending the Development Boundary has not been compelling given the particular character of the Balgray area generally, which consists of several small building groups. For all these reasons, I conclude that it would be inappropriate to extend the Development Boundary of Balgray. In reaching this conclusion I concur with the council that the objectors’ proposal would lead to a coalescence of building groups, which I consider would be detrimental to the rural character of the area.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 12 Angus Council Statement of Response

Balkeerie and Eassie: Development Boundary

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs K Durston (per McCrae & McCrae) 60/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

Written submission objections lodged on the same topic:

(a) Newtyle & Eassie Community Council 53/1/1 (b) Mr Michael Ryan 85/1/1 (c) Gordon S Robertson 542/1/1 (d) Mr & Mrs Paul Phillipson–Masters 856/1/1 (e) Mr & Mrs G Robertson 869/1/1 (f) Mrs Joyce Murray 886/1/1 ______

BACKGROUND

The development boundary for Balkeerie and Eassie shown in the finalised local plan review (FALPR) comprises three separate parcels. The objection seeks to link two of these parcels by means of a linear extension to the development boundary alongside the road serving the settlement and to extend the village westwards marginally by including a vacant site adjoining the FALPR settlement boundary. The original objection sought 4 amendments to the development plan boundary – the two outlined above together with the proposed incorporation of 2 other small sites (Sites 1 and 2) as part of the western- most parcel of the settlement. Those last two proposals have been incorporated in the finalised plan, as suggested modifications put forward by the council prior to the hearing.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Based on the reasons put forward by the council, I support its proposed modifications to include Sites 1 and 2 within an amended development boundary for Balkeerie and Eassie, as sought by the objection 60/1/1. I am not, however, persuaded by the arguments put forward by the same objector in support of inclusion of Sites 3 and 4 which have been rejected by the council, rightly in my view. I endorse the council’s concerns that inclusion of Site 3 would incorporate a 50m wide swathe of land situated between existing farm cottages and the farm buildings at North Nevay Farm. I consider that this would be detrimental to the amenity of the existing residents and to the village as a whole and a satisfactory case for it has not been made on behalf of the objector. In particular the argument that it would consolidate a building group is not sufficient in my view to justify the proposed amendment. Similarly, the references to SPP8 and RSU Category 2 do not merit the proposed linear development envisaged by the objector in this case. I share the council’s concerns in this regard and in respect of Site 4 put forward by the objector.

Whilst I note that the linear scale of the proposed area for Site 4 has been reduced from 200m to 150m, in my view this remains an unwarranted and unjustified proposal for major ribbon development to link two of the existing groupings that make up Balkeerie and Eassie. Whilst I have no doubt that new houses on that strip of land referred to as Site 4 would have the potential to boost the local school roll, I do not consider that this is sufficient reason to agree to such a wholly unacceptable form of major ribbon

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 13 Angus Council Statement of Response

development which is against good planning principles. I reject the arguments put forward in support of this proposal, in particular I do not regard the proposed linking of two of the established groupings of the village in this way as providing a means of cohesion or improving community spirit within the settlement. I note the concerns expressed by all the other objectors who do not welcome any extensions to the village boundary.

I am in agreement with the council that the outright rejection of any change to the development boundary, as sought by the other objectors, is unwarranted for the reasons put forward by the council. I note that the proposed marginal modifications to the settlement boundary, as now amended by the council’s Proposed Modifications to incorporate sites 1 and 2, along with the existing opportunity for limited development at the eastern end of the village, would provide some scope for small-scale new development at Balkeerie and Eassie. I do not regard this as detrimental to the overall amenity of the village or as a threat to the open form of the village which is one of its defining characteristics. I also do not regard the proposed modifications to the development boundary as automatically resulting in new development. Any planning application would need to be dealt with on its merits taking account of the planning policy context and the particular local circumstances - including its physical context within the settlement and considerations relating to the amenity of existing residents. I also reject the contention that the proposed amendments to the settlement boundary would in some way inhibit renovation or sales of existing properties within Balkeerie and Eassie, and consider that such suggestions are not well substantiated.

Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that there is merit in incorporating Sites 1 and 2 within the development boundary – as now put forward by the council in the Proposed Modifications. However, I conclude that the case to also include Sites 3 and 4 within the development boundary of Balkeerie and Eassie has not been effectively made, for the reasons stated.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the development plan boundary of Balkeerie and Eassie is amended in the manner put forward by the council in its Proposed Modification to the finalised local plan review, to incorporate Sites 1 and 2 but to exclude Sites 3 and 4 (all as defined in Objection 60/1/1).

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted, however Sites 1 and 2 referred to above were not included within the development boundary for Balkeerie and Eassie as a result of a modification, they have been included within the development boundary since the publication of the Consultative Draft of the Angus Local Plan Review. No modification is required as a result of the Reporter’s Recommendation.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 14 Angus Council Statement of Response

Balkeerie and Eassie: Boundary - Eassie Hall

Objector Reference

Eassie and Nevay Community Association 865/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

Page 174 of the finalised local plan review shows the Balkeerie and Eassie development boundaries. These comprise 3 separate and distinct building groupings, of which the one to the north-east includes the village hall at its western margin. [NB Other objections concerning the Balkeerie and Eassie development boundaries have been considered as a group in another section of this report]

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I am satisfied that the objectors have made a reasonable case, noting that their objection has resulted in a Proposed Modification by the council to satisfy their concerns. I conclude that there is merit for the Development Boundary of Balkeerie and Eassie to be amended marginally to include the ground of the redeveloped Eassie Hall, as proposed.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case as proposed by the objectors and set out in the Proposed Modification put forward by the Council.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and confirm the pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 to modify the development boundary for Balkeerie and Eassie village. (Shown on the attached plan)

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 15 Angus Council Statement of Response

URSPHH URSIHH URSHHH URRWHH URRVHH URRUHH URRTHH

k r QQQUHH QQQUHH 95 IXQSHH VPFPm QQQTHH QQQTHH SWHH STSV

k fw2UTFTTm r issie2rimry2hool

se ou 2r ol ho USFIm QQQSHH QQQSHH yld2hool2rouse

ll r issie sngliston2iew sngliston2iew QQQRHH QQQRHH QVWR issie

in r h uirkgte

eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS

f U ghurh vf

UIFTm QQQQHH QQQQHH UIFQm QQQPHH QQQPHH

IR inks HHHT

TVFTm gf

I QQQIHH QQQIHH flkeerie2prm

U U xorth2xevy2gottges

QQQHHH QQQHHH

w f sssues TUFRm rn fu ie2 er flkeerie282issie lke own2gottge f WQVP humledykes T

xorth2xevy2gottges S

glisoti R pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview

TWFRm

QQPWHH QQPWHH

Q P he2gottge TIFTm VSHH

k r SWFUm QQPVHH lkeerie QQPVHH f

USTP I

URSPHH URSIHH URSHHH URRWHH URRVHH URRUHH URRTHH

Berryhill, by Fowlis: Omission

Objector Reference

Berryhill Binn Farms (Ian Moncrieff) 697/1/1 (per John Duff Planning)

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

At Berryhill there is an existing development of 19 houses, comprising a mix of new build and conversion/replacement of redundant farm buildings, which was approved in 2000 as part of a rationalisation and diversification of farming activity at Berryhill Farm. Although the housing element of that project has been completed the establishment of an organic farming business that was envisaged at the time has not progressed. The local plan objection now seeks to provide (on 3.4ha) a further 38 houses, comprising 24 private dwellings, 8 affordable houses and 6 shared ownership houses. These would be in association with a wider rural diversification project incorporating a new car park for ramblers, an increased public footpath network as well as a children’s play area and a wildflower meadow. There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Firstly, I note that there is no dispute that all of the farm diversification proposals of the Berryhill objection, with the exception of the additional housing components, are consistent with national policy and guidance on rural diversification and conform to structure plan and local plan policy principles. There is also no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the South Angus (Monifieth, Sidlaw and Carnoustie) area which has a specified requirement within the wider Dundee and South Angus HMA. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those specified for South Angus, should be reflected in the local plan review.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 17 Angus Council Statement of Response

housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan review to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

In this context, I now turn to consider whether making a further housing land allocation of 38 units at Berryhill Farm, in addition to the 19 units already built there under a farm diversification scheme agreed with the council in 2000, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I note that the case put forward by the objector includes reference to strategic and local factors, with the former being based largely on the perceived shortcomings of the Dundee Western Gateway allocation and the fact that the Berryhill site can be regarded as ‘effective’ and could make up some of the shortfall resulting from non-delivery of the DWG allocation by 2011. In the context of the strategic issues I have already dealt with above, I am persuaded by the argument put forward by the council that it is not necessary, and hence inappropriate, at this time to consider possible alternatives to the DWG. In any event, if there was a failure to deliver in full or in part on that site, I endorse the council’s view that any resulting shortfall in the Dundee part of the HMA would need to be rectified in Dundee City’s administrative area, not in the South Angus part of the HMA.

The fact that the Berryhill site is effective, in terms of it being free of development and infrastructure constraints does not mean that this greenfield site should automatically be considered as a priority housing site. I acknowledge that, in terms of the scale of the DWG allocation, the Berryhill proposal for 38 additional houses would be relatively small. Nevertheless, I endorse the council’s concerns that it would treble the size of the existing housing provision at this isolated rural location and would represent a substantial housing allocation in a part of rural Angus where there are no local community facilities and services. In this context, I am also concerned that this would not be a sustainable housing initiative as it would be heavily dependent on car usage for almost all journeys by the residents. The fact that the existing residents at Berryhill apparently accept the lack of local facilities and services, and hence their dependence on car travel, does not mean that the council can or should ignore the principles of sustainability - set out in current national planning policy guidance, as well as in structure plan and local plan policies on these matters - when formulating its housing policies for the finalised local plan review.

I now turn to consider the other arguments put forward on behalf of the objectors, firstly, the reference to the proposal to deliver 8 affordable housing units and 6 shared ownership units as part of the overall total of 38 new houses now proposed. Whilst in principle this would make a welcome contribution to the overall provision of affordable housing in the South Angus area, I do not consider that this in itself is sufficient reason to justify approval of the Berryhill package of housing as a whole when there is no requirement for the mainstream private housing element proposed.

In terms of the potential local benefits of the proposal that are highlighted by the objector, I note that the principal justification for the housing component is to cross-fund the other farm diversification elements of the overall package of proposals - and thereby help to increase the tourism and leisure attractions of the area and to secure local employment at Berryhill Farm. Whilst the principle of such diversification is in line with national policy guidance for rural areas, I note that the council has already given a positive response to the objector’s earlier farm diversification proposals and agreed in 2000 to 19 housing units at Berryhill Farm. This was specifically for the purpose of providing a financial engine to drive farm diversification proposals at that time, in order to secure the jobs at Berryhill Farm. Whilst all of the 19 housing units agreed in that package have been built, I understand that, for whatever reason, one of the diversification components of that earlier scheme – into organic farming - has not progressed. I note that there is a dispute as to whether or not the earlier agreement was a first phase of diversification, as the objector contends, or a ‘once and for all’ agreement, as the council regarded it. I note

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 18 Angus Council Statement of Response

the objector’s statement that the current proposal is the final phase of housing proposed for Berryhill. Nevertheless, as far as I have been made aware, no indication was given previously by the objector that the housing proposals agreed in 2000 would be the initial phase of a housing development at Berryhill that would in due course treble in size in order to provide further cross-subsidy to other farm diversification components.

In summary, there is no dispute that, in theory, additional housing units could provide finance to facilitate new initiatives at Berryhill and that such diversification would be broadly in line with national, as well as regional and local, planning policy objectives for rural areas. There is, however, no planning policy drawn to my attention which provides for successive phases of housing to be permitted in isolated rural areas, within 6 years as in this case in Berryhill - or indeed whenever there is a perceived need for further cross-subsidy of diversification measures stimulated by economic difficulties at a farm. In this context, I share the concerns of the council that if the housing at Berryhill was allowed to treble in size to 57 units in total, not only would this be inappropriate in the local and rural South Angus contexts and in terms of sustainability. It would also set an unfortunate precedent, in my view, by potentially stimulating similar initiatives elsewhere in Angus leading to sporadic housing developments in the countryside. Accordingly, whilst I understand the current economic difficulties at Berryhill Farm which have led to the latest proposals for further farm diversification, I conclude that the case made by the objector for allowing 38 new houses at this location, as part of a wider package of initiatives, does not outweigh the local and wider concerns set out above. I reach this conclusion based not only on consideration of the structure plan requirements but, most importantly, also in the context of 19 housing units having recently been developed at this location, which were approved on an exceptional basis by the council specifically to address the problems at this particular farm.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 19 Angus Council Statement of Response

Birkhill/Muirhead and land north of Liff Hospital: Omission

Objector Reference

A & J Stephen Ltd and Bett Homes Ltd 944/1/1 (n of Liff Hospital) (per Montgomery Forgan Associates) 944/1/2 (s of Birkhill/Muirhead)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

[The same objectors have lodged an objection 892/1/1 relating to an omission elsewhere in the vicinity of Liff which is dealt with separately in this report] ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 20 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context, I now turn to consider whether making housing land allocations in the form of ‘strategic reserve’ sites for the two areas identified by the objectors should be endorsed on an exceptional basis. I note that the areas put forward by the objectors for housing development are both greenfield in nature being open countryside with some woodland nearby and outwith the defined development boundary of any settlement. The local case made for allocating these sites as strategic reserves has been based on the scope for developing masterplans to provide a landscape setting enhancing their existing local contexts. I am not persuaded that this argument, even if valid, carries sufficient weight to overcome the lack of strategic justification within South Angus for the principle of designating further new housing allocations of the type and scale envisaged, even as strategic reserve sites. In coming to this conclusion I have taken into consideration the national planning policy and associated guidance referred to by the objectors. Furthermore, if the proposed sites were allocated for housing, even as strategic reserve sites, in my view this would set an unfortunate precedent which could result in additional pressure for further major housing land allocations, possibly described as strategic reserve sites, elsewhere in South Angus. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant allocation of either of the two parcels of land put forward by the objectors, to the south of Birkhill/Muirhead and north of Liff Hospital, for housing development, even as strategic reserve sites within the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 21 Angus Council Statement of Response

Bridgefoot: Omissions

Objector Reference

Mr Marshall (per Ritchie Dagen and Allan) 899/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

Capt W Rennie Stewart 564/1/1 (D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 22 Angus Council Statement of Response

some extent seductive in view of the large unidentified need for affordable housing in South Angus, we share the council’s opinion that the provision of affordable housing is a subservient requirement to the broader structure plan strategy.”

In this context I now turn to consider whether either or both of the two proposals - for development boundary extensions and housing land allocations at Bridgefoot - put forward by the objectors should be accepted on an exceptional basis. In general terms, whilst the existing settlement boundary shown in the finalised local plan review is somewhat oddly shaped in wrapping round the existing developments of the village, I endorse the council’s assessment that this boundary is logical and cohesive.

Objection 899/1/1

I understand the problems facing the Bridgefoot Nursery in terms of the competition from larger discount stores and appreciate that Mr Marshall is nearing retirement and not wishing to continue in business at this location in the longer term. These, however, are not valid planning reasons sufficient to justify a major extension to the development boundary, even on an exceptional basis. I share the council’s concern that the proposal put forward by Mr Marshall for a boundary extension to accommodate approximately housing units would be inappropriate for the following reasons:

• It would create a most unusual linear extension to the village; • This would result in ribbon development along Rosemill Road; • There would be resulting pressure for further housing development to the north and particularly to the south of Mr Marshall’s site which would be more difficult for the planning authority to resist in future; • It would result in unnecessary loss of good agricultural land which the owner acknowledges has potential to return to productive agricultural use if it is no longer required for the Nursery.

Objection 564/1/1

This site is slightly larger than the one to the west of the village but in general terms it is marginally better situated than the Bridgefoot Nursery land. This is because approximately 20% of it would form infill development if housing was promoted at the southern end of the site, between the school and site SA(a). The remaining 80% however would be a slightly awkward rectangular appendage, albeit not linear, at the northern end of the village. The arguments presented on behalf of the objector have not been persuasive in this regard.

In each case, the objection sites, if developed for housing, would increase the overall stock of the village substantially – by around 20 houses for the nursery site or perhaps 25 houses for the northern site. Either of these developments would also be likely to place significant additional pressures on the local primary school which is already operating near capacity. Furthermore, such developments would not be sustainable since there is likely to be a high dependency on car usage as there are no shops or other local facilities in the village and the public transport services are limited. Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 23 Angus Council Statement of Response

development boundary of Bridgefoot to accommodate either of the proposed housing developments put forward by the objectors.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 24 Angus Council Statement of Response

Bridgend of Lintrathen: Development Boundary

Objector Reference

Mr Roger Dunham 866/1/1 & 866/1/2 Mrs Fiona Dunham 867/1/1 & 867/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

Written submission objections related to Bridgend of Lintrathen

(a) Mr A S Kinniburgh 812/1/1 & Mrs W Kinniburgh 813/1/1 (b) Mr & Mrs G Riley 815/1/1 (c) Anne Duff 845/1/1 (d) Mrs Clare A L Osborne 671/1/1 (e) Mr Michael Anstice 698/1/1 & Mrs Carolyn Anstice 699/1/1 (f) Elspeth G Simpson 747/1/1 (g) Geoff & Louise Cooper 809/1/1 (h) Mrs Margaret C Kirkpatrick 882/1/1 (i) Anne Finn 884/1/1 & Gareth Finn 885/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of the finalised draft local plan review, which put forward an extension to the southern development boundary for Bridgend of Lintrathen (as shown on P184 of FALPR), there were objections lodged by a large number of local residents. This led to an invitation for the council to meet with the local residents of Bridgend of Lintrathen to discuss the proposal. There was a general feeling expressed by villagers that the new area of land shown as enclosed within the amended southern boundary would be inappropriate for development, for the reasons outlined below. Whilst many residents were opposed to any new development or expansion of the village, two alternative locations for very limited housing development were put forward by some objectors – (a) the land immediately to the west of Lochside Lodge, which is a restaurant with rooms, on the western boundary of the village; and (b) the site immediately to the east of Braefoot cottage, adjoining the north-east corner of the village boundary. Another area of undeveloped land, immediately to the south of site (b) on the opposite side of the road, is a large landscaped area known as The Glebe, owned by the Church of Scotland. It was explained at the hearing that this mature landscaped area with trees was generally excluded from consideration for development as the land concerned is an important part of the landscape setting of the village in general and for Linlathen Church and Melgam House in particular.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 25 Angus Council Statement of Response

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

The fact that Bridgend of Lintrathen has a falling school roll is not sufficient reason to facilitate or plan an expansion the village, in my opinion. Based on the very limited information available to me, I am not in a position to comment on the need for affordable housing provision at Bridgend of Linlathen. There appears to be no disagreement between the council and local residents of Bridgend of Lintrathen that the extension to the southern boundary of the village proposed in the published version of FALPR is inappropriate. I am of the same view, for the reasons outlined on behalf of local objectors, in particular because of the prominence of that potential development site when viewed whilst heading down the hill along the minor road leading from the school to the village. Given the low volumes of local traffic, however, I do not share the concerns raised about road safety along the road leading to the school. Nevertheless, new development on that land would be impossible to screen adequately and new houses at that location would be obtrusive and out of keeping with the scale and character of the village as a whole, which should be conserved in my view.

Notwithstanding the above, I am in agreement with Mr and Mrs Dunham’s views expressed at the hearing regarding the following:

• firstly, that some limited housing development even in a small village like Bridgend of Lintrathen need not necessarily be detrimental to the character of the place as a whole, if well planned, of a suitable scale and of high quality design and materials; and • secondly, that proposals for limited additions or infill developments to the village, if carefully located and sensitively designed, should not be rejected out of hand by the council purely on the basis of vocalised resistance from existing residents to development of any type affecting their village. Such opposition to development, in order to be valid, needs to be based on sound planning reasons and not just on the basis of what individuals would prefer to see happen – or in this case not see happen - in their village.

I note that given the existing form of the village there is only very limited, if any scope for infill developments at Bridgend of Lintrathen, within the development boundary shown in the Proposed Modifications development boundary P101. I am persuaded, therefore, that most if not all significant new developments would probably need to take place on sites not currently shown within that defined boundary. I note that the council seeks to adopt a supportive approach in its countryside planning policies to be applied for sites outwith development boundaries. This is in line with the new national policy set out in SPP15: Planning for Rural Development issued in February 2005. In this context, and for the reasons outlined below in each case, I do not see any justification for expanding the settlement boundary of Bridgend of Lintrathen to include:

• site (b) the small, narrow strip of land immediately to the east of Braefoot Cottage – particularly with its very limited development potential and when it has access and drainage constraints and presents other challenges in terms of the rocky outcrops and the landscape features along its boundaries; • the main part of the Glebe area – I recognise and fully endorse the important role of the Glebe in providing a landscape setting for Melgam House and Linlathen church. Nevertheless, I would not rule out the potential scope, at least in principle, for one or perhaps more sensitively designed houses being accommodated along the road frontage adjoining Primrose Cottage, whilst retaining the large majority of the Glebe in its present form and function; • The small cleared site above Braefoot Cottage on the wooded hillside. Nevertheless, despite it being visible, particularly when viewed from across the loch, there may be scope for a sensitively designed house to be located on the site that has been used as a site office with portacabins.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 26 Angus Council Statement of Response

In all of the above cases I am confident that the council could respond as appropriate to specific development proposals – with reference to the policies of the local plan review, including the revised countryside housing policies as set out the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications [as subsequently modified further by the council following the hearing on countryside housing objections which have been considered in detail elsewhere in this report]. In my view, these various policies can be used to guide and inform the council’s development control function in response to any development proposals for these sites on a case-by-case basis. I would envisage that the particular challenges presented by each of these sites would require a highly original design solution, demonstrating a sensitive response which fully addresses the particular constraints of the site concerned and respects its setting, in order to justify planning permission being granted. Otherwise the planning authority would refuse permission and the sites concerned would remain undeveloped.

Whilst the same arguments could be said to also apply to site (a) to the west of Lochside Lodge, in this particular instance I conclude that there is a case for the council to consider an extension to the development boundary of the village, for the following reasons:

• the site concerned is significantly larger (than site (b) for example); • it offers more scope for a planned development – I would endorse the council’s view that it may offer potential for perhaps 2-3 houses; • it apparently has no drainage or access constraints, based on the limited information available; • if the development of housing here is restricted to the rear (south) of the site, within and against the backdrop of the existing mature trees, it could be readily developed without a significant loss of visual amenity for: o the owners and users of the restaurant and rooms at Lochside Lodge; or o those approaching Bridgend of Lintrathen from the west, which is one of the main entrances to the village; • an extension to the village boundary to accommodate this site would encourage potential developers to explore this as a first priority, being the preferred location to which the council seeks to direct any limited expansion for the village. In principle, this would then fulfil the role that the council was seeking to achieve with its previous proposal to expand the southern boundary of the village marginally; • with such an extension, albeit very restricted, being put forward as a positive statement of limited development potential for the village in the adopted local plan review, the other sites discussed above would remain to be considered only on a case-by-case or exceptional basis.

I would stress that any development of this particular site - whether it was within a designated extension to the village’s development boundary, as I would prefer, or as a site adjoining the existing boundary - would require to be very carefully planned. In particular, any housing here would need to be sited and designed in such a way that it respects the landscape setting of the site itself and to protect the visual amenity of both the neighbouring property and the village as a whole. This might best be achieved by the council providing a development brief for the site, to guide intending developers.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

Based on my conclusions set out above, I recommend that the local plan review is modified to:

o Amend the development boundary on the southern edge of Bridgend of Lintrathen back to the extent of the curtilages of residential property at the bottom of the field (as shown on the Proposed Modifications of September 2005 (pp100 and 101);

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 27 Angus Council Statement of Response

o Amend the development boundary at the western edge of Bridgend of Lintrathen to include the land referred to above as site (a), immediately to the west of Lochside Lodge; and o Provide guidance as to how some of that land newly incorporated within the amended western boundary might be sensitively developed for a strictly limited number of new houses, based on the considerations I have set out above in my conclusions.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

The Reporter has considered the general relationship between the existing village layout, the objection site and the proposed village development boundary. He has concluded that the proposed pre-inquiry modification to extend the boundary on the southern side of the village should not be confirmed and that the village boundary at this location should be reinstated to that previously shown. I accept his recommendation on this matter.

The Reporter considers that an area immediately to the west of Lochside Lodge has potential for a strictly limited number of new houses and has recommended that the village development boundary should be adjusted to incorporate this area but has stopped short of allocating a site for housing. In recommending the inclusion of this area into the village boundary the Reporter has stressed that development proposals will require careful consideration to ensure that the siting and design of any new house(s) respect the landscape setting of the site itself and protect the visual amenity of neighbouring property and the village as a whole. In line with the Reporter’s Recommendation it is proposed that the Council will prepare development guidance for the site.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation in respect of Bridgend of Lintrathen and modify the Local Plan Review as follows:

• Incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 to amend the village development boundary on the southern edge of the village back to the extent of the curtilages of residential property at the bottom of the field.

• Amend the village development boundary to incorporate an area immediately to the west of Lochside Lodge as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 28 Angus Council Statement of Response

QPVIHH QPVPHH QPVQHH QPVRHH QPVSHH QPVTHH QPVUHH

UHVP eir lo p in g 2m s o n r y USRVHH USRVHH RWUS

voh2of2vintrthen RTUQ @eservoirA THUQ voh2gottge SRUI

w lo f odmns2rouse r e v y heep2sh

QVTW

PHVFPm USRUHH

PHVFQm fw2PITFSQm

USRUHH PHWFSm A m u 2@ th luie RTTQ

eir y r n o s 2m fridgend2of2vintrthen g rimrose in h p r gottge uirkhill i lo n TPTH

PHQFIm USRTHH welgm2rouse PVST pll vf vintrthen2ghurh q USRTHH gf grigie2vinn r gornmill wemoril fw fridgend r e PHPFPHm t SHST 2 m dge prm2gottge e2vo g hsid l vo e w

re furn

fotmns2rouse he2teding gottge PHTFHm PWSI UWSP PHVFQm USRSHH

PRRU USRU

USRSHH SURT

tetty TWRR

fw2PIRFQWm HHQW RURH

eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 elephone2ixhnge fridgend2of2vintrthen the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF USRRHH nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS IXPSHH USRRHH

QPVIHH QPVPHH QPVQHH QPVRHH QPVSHH QPVTHH QPVUHH

Burnside of Duntrune: Omission - Ballumbie House

Objector Reference

Earl of Dundee 836/1/1 (per CKD Galbraith)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

There is widespread development pressure in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. Ballumbie House and its estate has a defined development boundary in the finalised local plan review and that document records that there were a total of 184 approved housing units at Ballumbie House, either with planning permission or under construction, at June 2004. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 30 Angus Council Statement of Response

that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

I now turn to consider whether there is a locally based case for endorsing new residential development to the west of the Ballumbie House development boundary on an exceptional basis, in order to facilitate golf course development there on a 30ha site. I note that the finalised local plan review in Policy Ba1 limits residential development for Ballumbie House to the existing approved 238 units in dispersed groups, as shown on the local plan Proposals Map on P176, together with the conversion of Ballumbie House to provide 14 residential units. I also note that Policy Ba2 recognises the recreational potential of golf-related development at this location and sets specific criteria in this regard, to ensure that it would be compatible with existing uses and to safeguard the local environment.

In this context, I share the concerns expressed by the council that the Ballumbie House estate policies are set within open countryside. Accordingly, in my view it would not be appropriate to have further pockets of housing and related development on agricultural land outwith the defined development boundary of Ballumbie House, solely to facilitate golf course developments. I am also concerned about the open-ended nature of the objector’s proposals, particularly since there has been no indication given of the final number of houses to be developed for this purpose. This gives rise to other issues relating to the potential impact of incremental and unplanned growth of housing and related developments here - both in the local context, in terms of the landscape setting, and in respect of its contribution to the strategic housing land supply of the South Angus HMA. In summary, I conclude that the arguments put forward in support of the objection are not persuasive when set against the legitimate concerns expressed by the council in the local and strategic contexts.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 31 Angus Council Statement of Response

Colliston Village

Objector Reference

The Geddes Group 659/1/1 (per B Roger & Young)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

Page 189 of the finalised local plan review (FALPR) shows the Colliston development boundary. It shows no housing allocations or proposals for Colliston. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I have no information from the council regarding its views on new housing on the objection site or concerning any modification to the development boundary of Colliston shown in the finalised version of the local plan review to accommodate a small number of new houses on the objector’s site, as proposed. The support of local facilities and services is not sufficient to warrant an exceptional allocation of the site concerned for housing when it adjoins but lies outwith the development boundary of the settlement. I am also concerned that if this objection was upheld based on such limited evidence to support it, there is a risk that it would set an unfortunate precedent that would be likely to lead to other similar requests for inappropriate development that would be more difficult to reject. Based on these considerations, I conclude that there is no justification to uphold the objection in this case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review should be not be modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Contrary to the understanding of the Reporter, a response to the original objection had been considered by the Infrastructure Services Committee at their meeting of 8th September 2005. The Committee agreed to modify the Colliston village boundary to include a small site on the north west boundary of the village for housing in response to the objection by the Geddes Group (ref 659/1/1). The Committee considered this to be a rounding off of the western village boundary and would allow for 3 or 4 houses, subject to detailed considerations at the planning application stage. (Report no 1081/05 refers).

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 32 Angus Council Statement of Response

The modification was published on 23 September 2005 and there were no objections to the modification. On this basis the objector had conditionally withdrawn their objection.

There appears therefore to have been an administrative mix up between the Reporter and the Council on this particular objection. Given the above, I consider that the Council should note the Reporter’s position on this matter but confirm the first round pre-inquiry modification and amend the village boundary for Colliston.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

DO NOT ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation.

Agree to modify the Local Plan Review and incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005.

Amend the village boundary map as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 33 Angus Council Statement of Response

QTHQHH QTHRHH QTHSHH QTHTHH QTHUHH QTHVHH

r ll URSQHH lying2pield

golliston URSQHH rimry2hool illnyrds

golliston2rish he ghurh feehes URSPHH

fw2THFWPm URSPHH

TWFUm

inks

he golliston gottge URSIHH

oodside

URSIHH prm town oodside2prm gottge

ood in herw hr

TWFRm vrheg t got ori2 ret qownnk nig vu

e 2 W ge I tt Q 2go Q lly P ro num

r URSHHH u v ts got y qownnk2gottge

PWHH y TWFQm m VT e IF 2 2U W w Q URSHHH f ele Q os helter enle qre qownnk

le evil os n h inegrove nl hu tge got w enoe rvie ql pi

golliston URRWHH e ttg 2go wn o lm e URRWHH

golliston snn TWFVm

non go ve

l q nis ho e o ttg w o g n n i 2 ks v r e t2w hr

srig gf ot URRVHH

rk henview

el2ix URRVHH

fw2TVFSWm urn henside2f

URRUHH

qownnk gottge TUFIm URRUHH URRTHH golliston eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF hy nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright erlo URRTHH snv nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF urn rl2f engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS wi pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview IXPSHH

QTHQHH QTHRHH QTHSHH QTHTHH QTHUHH QTHVHH

Craigton of Monikie: Omission

Objector Reference

John Anderson (per McCrae & McCrae) 925/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I endorse the assessment made by the council that the current development boundary of Craigton of Monikie is self-contained and cohesive. In addition, I conclude that the existing properties outwith this boundary are dispersed, such that they do not merit inclusion within a revised development boundary, as proposed by the objector. For these reasons, together with the fact that the gap which the objector seeks to fill is 85m wide, I conclude that the proposed ‘infill’ would in fact constitute ribbon development, which I consider would be undesirable and inappropriate in the local context. The arguments presented on behalf of the objector have not been persuasive in this regard. The fact that there are some examples of linear developments in the vicinity and that the proposed new houses would be accessible and have the potential to boost the local school roll marginally are not sufficient reasons to justify the proposal, in my view. Furthermore, I conclude that if the objection was to succeed in this case it would create ribbon development in open countryside and this would set an undesirable precedent for other similar situations elsewhere in Angus.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 35 Angus Council Statement of Response

Eassie Muir: Development Boundary - Omission

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs Christie 662/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The development boundary for Eassie Muir shown in the finalised local plan review comprises two separate parcels. The objection seeks to extend the larger of these parcels south-eastwards in order to provide a site for housing development. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Firstly, I endorse the council’s concern that the proposal in this case would result in ribbon development, which is unwarranted. Secondly, it is evident that the proposed housing site that would be created if the development boundary of Eassie Muir was extended south-eastwards would be contiguous with the main A94 road. In this context, I consider that the proposed development would result in potential problems of noise and access junction issues, which are of particular concern as the A94 is a major road. Furthermore, based on the evidence presented, I am persuaded by the council’s argument that there is an unacceptable level of flood risk in the immediate vicinity of the site concerned. I note that the only other arguments put forward on behalf of the objector in support of the proposed development boundary extension are based on the fact that:

• there is a considerable demand for housing in the area concerned; • other housing allocations have been for other settlements outwith existing settlement boundaries and alongside public roads.

I do not consider that these observations are sufficient to outweigh the arguments against such a development, as outlined above, particularly when there are other housing opportunities in the vicinity, including approval for 24 new houses in nearby Glamis.

Accordingly, I conclude that there are no exceptional reasons to justify the proposed extension to the development boundary of Eassie Muir in the manner proposed by the objector in this case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 36 Angus Council Statement of Response

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 37 Angus Council Statement of Response

Edzell: Omission - East Mains Farm

Objector Reference

D L B (Scotland) Limited 827/1/1

In support of the finalised local plan review Dalhousie Estates

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

The objection site extends northwards from the village of Edzell across generally open, agricultural land between the River North Esk and the B966.

A small part of the objection site is within the settlement boundary and the remainder lies within the countryside beyond the village.

The village statement indicates:

Given the physical boundaries to the village, careful consideration of the scale, future direction, design and layout of new development will be required to ensure that it respects the form and setting of the village and integrates with the surrounding rural landscape. In the light of recent permissions for residential development … the strategy for Edzell is to allow for a period of consolidation and to limit additional residential development within the plan period to the redevelopment of brownfield and infill sites within the village boundary.

Edzell lies within the Brechin/Montrose housing market area.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Having considered objections to Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, it was concluded that the local plan review makes adequate provision in terms of the structure plan requirements. The strategic document has been approved and is not the subject of critical examination under the auspices of the local plan inquiry. In particular, it was concluded that there is a surplus provision in the Brechin/Montrose housing market area of 64 houses in the period to 2011. This comprises:

Completions 224 to June 2004 Existing sites 291 Allocated 384 Total 899 SP target 835 Surplus 64

The surplus was thought to be not unreasonable and, along with any future windfall sites, provides a suitable element of flexibility. Accordingly it was concluded there is no justification for additional allocations in the period to 2011.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 38 Angus Council Statement of Response

Although the objector has suggested that the new allocation of 126 houses is short of the structure plan requirement, this figure must be taken in the context of the wider situation set out in the annual audit. The audit shows sites agreed as effective and that have planning permission as well as the sites previously identified in the first Angus Local Plan and new allocations.

The council has explained that the 2005 audit has shown the availability of more housing land and indicated that the supply extends into the second structure plan period beyond 2011. The audit is undertaken in consultation with those having a direct interest in housing land, including the house building industry, and there has been no indication of any fundamental disagreement to the 2005 statistics.

Despite the suggestion by the objector that additional land is required in respect of affordable housing, the council has drawn attention to the recent guidance contained in PAN74 and I agree that a separate allocation is not required.

Overall, as set out in the conclusions to the consideration of objections to the terms of Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, there is no requirement, in strategic terms, for additional allocations in the Brechin/Montrose housing market area.

The structure plan seeks the majority of additional allowances to be identified in Montrose and Brechin and, despite the objector’s concern about marketability, I believe the local plan review correctly fulfils this requirement. The need to meet demand in smaller settlements is also stated and the objector maintains that Edzell should be allocated additional housing land in order to fulfil a demand for high quality houses in the village. On the other hand the local plan review seeks a period for consolidation and the council points out that this approach is supported by the community council. There is not a moratorium on development but any new housing should be limited to brownfield or infill sites. Dalhousie Estates also supports this approach, at least until the next local plan review.

The objector indicates that 54 houses were completed in the 3 years to 2005 and I am of the opinion that this scale of recent development in the village, no matter the level of local facilities and services, requires some time to be absorbed. I therefore conclude that the council is correct in seeking to restrain development for a period and limit further growth to infill and brownfield sites within the settlement boundary.

Part of the objection site falls within the village boundary and, should this be regarded as brownfield land or an infill site, residential development may be considered appropriate in this location. In this respect, Dalhousie Estates refers to a planning application and states that objections to the proposal have been lodged. This particular proposal, of which no details have been provided, is not a matter for consideration under the local plan review inquiry but for the council to determine, at least in the first instance.

SPP15, Planning for Rural Development, advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements and states that this potential should be expressed in development plans. I do not consider the scale of housing proposed, as shown on the indicative drawing, to be small scale or a cluster or group and therefore do not believe that the proposal can draw support from the terms of SPP15. In any event, the scope for new housing developments of this nature should be expressed in development plans. There is nothing in the local plan review to suggest that such development would be suitable at Edzell. Indeed, such development would fly in the face of the limited development envisaged by the council to be the most appropriate for the village over the course of the local plan period.

Turning to the golf course proposal, I note that the facility would be completed in advance of the construction of houses. This would suggest that the course is not dependent on the provision of houses. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider the golf

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 39 Angus Council Statement of Response

course potential in its own right. There is disagreement over the need for an additional course. The council has indicated that sportscotland is of the view that no additional courses are required in Angus other than, perhaps, on the fringes of Dundee. The council is also concerned about viability. On the other hand the objector maintains that a new course would provide a parkland alternative to the existing heathland course. I am not in a position to draw a conclusion in this respect but Policy SC32, New Golf Course Development, sets out the criteria against which any proposal will be assessed. On this basis I conclude it is not necessary to allocate land for a golf course in the local plan review. The lack of a specific allocation would not preclude the approval of a new course subject to assessment against Policy SC32.

Overall, I conclude that an additional housing allocation on land beyond the settlement boundary is not justified on either a strategic or local scale and that there is no requirement to allocate land for a golf course.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 40 Angus Council Statement of Response

Edzell: Omission – Former Mart

Objector Reference

Hart Estates Limited 883/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

The site of the former mart lies to the north-west of Edzell, immediately to the north of Lethnot Road. The site is overgrown with a predominance of rosebay willowherb and no apparent trace of its former use. There are new houses on the opposite side of the road, open land to the west and north, and trees to the east beyond which there is a recreation area. A new primary school and health centre have recently been constructed in the north-east quadrant of the junction between Lethnot Road and High Street.

The local plan review excludes the former mart site from the settlement, the boundary being Lethnot Road to the south of the site and the western edge of the trees to the east.

The village statement indicates:

The former mart site … has not come forward for employment use despite being allocated for a number of years but has been the subject to pressure for residential development. Lethnot Road provides a marked division between the built-up area of Edzell and its landscape setting, which is one of the most striking and attractive features of the village. Whilst it is considered that residential development north of Lethnot Road would not be appropriate, the local plan provides opportunities for the redevelopment of the former mart for employment uses of an appropriate scale and nature through Policy SC16, Rural Employment …

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

SPP3, Land for Housing, defines brownfield land as “land which has previously been used.” Following the previous local plan inquiry, the report of which was issued prior to the publication of SPP3, the Reporter concluded that it was doubtful if the land could truly be described as brownfield. However, the site of the former mart falls within the scope of the brownfield land definition. Nevertheless, in terms of appearance, I accept that, in summer at least, the site is generally “green”.

The local plan review provides the opportunity to re-assess the line of the settlement boundary and therefore it would be possible to bring the site within the urban area with a

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 41 Angus Council Statement of Response

presumption in favour of development. However, I accept the council’s argument that, at this point, Lethnot Road provides an appropriate settlement boundary.

Although preference should be given to the development of brownfield land, this should not be regarded as carte blanche in terms of potential for development. In this instance I believe that the location of the site beyond the settlement boundary and the condition of the land does not justify a development allocation.

SPP15, Planning for Rural Development, recognises that small sites that cease to be required for their original purpose may be appropriate for residential use if a net environmental benefit results. This applies principally to the conversion of disused buildings but I believe should also be a consideration in respect of the objection site. However, in terms of environmental impact, I conclude the residential development of the objection site would be incongruous and would not relate well to the village as both Lethnot Road and the woodland to the east of the site form clear and appropriate boundaries.

In reaching the foregoing conclusion, I have noted the recent health centre and primary school but consider that these form an extension of the existing built-up area to the east of High Street rather than development to the north of Lethnot Road which terminates at High Street.

I also note that the local plan review refers to a period of consolidation in Edzell with any additional development limited to brownfield or infill sites within the settlement boundary. Although I have not been made aware of the potential for other brownfield or infill development, the objective is worthy of support.

Overall, I conclude that the settlement boundary should not be amended to include the site of the former mart as an opportunity site for residential or business purposes. In this latter respect, the council has pointed out that Policy SC16, Rural Development, provides some scope for appropriate development. I make no comment in this respect but note any proposal would also be required to be assessed in terms of Policy S1, Development Boundaries, sub-section (c), which relates to development proposals on sites contiguous with the development boundary.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 42 Angus Council Statement of Response

Emmock: Omission

Objector Reference

Torith Ltd, R Melvin & Trojan Ltd (per Ritchie, Dagen and Allan) 270/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The objectors are three existing businesses on adjoining sites at Emmock. Torith Ltd is a building and civil engineering contractor which stores equipment and materials here. The site is reportedly surplus to their requirements. R Melvin recycles machinery which is saleable and the remainder stays on site as scrap metal. That objector is coming to retirement age and would be happy to close the operation at this location, apparently. Trojan Ltd is a stone-crushing business. The last of these is not particularly seeking to relocate but if the other two went away they would also do so, according to the objector’s agent.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 43 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context I now turn to consider whether a housing land allocation at Emmock, as proposed by the objectors, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. The existing uses on the adjoining sites in question have been described by the council as ‘bad- neighbour’ activities, based on the nature of their operations resulting in noise nuisance and adverse visual impacts associated with storage of materials including scrap metals. Nevertheless, I note that these sites are reasonably well screened and isolated from housing and other uses which might be affected detrimentally by continuation of these operations. Furthermore, no complaints about the existing operators on the sites have been drawn to my attention and the council pointed out that it is generally difficult to find appropriate sites for such uses. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a re-allocation of the land at Emmock within the local plan review solely on the basis of potential benefits arising from the prospect of relocating the present uses from this location.

I endorse the council’s assessment of the issues associated with promoting housing on this particular site, in particular concerning:

• the fact that the feasibility of a total relocation of all existing operators has not been investigated and a partial relocation of some of the uses concerned would not be sufficient in my view - as if any one of them remained the on-going visual impact and noise nuisance would make the rest of the site still unacceptable in environmental terms for new uses such as housing; • the possible need for remediation if the site is contaminated - which is likely given its history; • the lack of shops, services and facilities in the surrounding area; • the inevitable reliance on car usage by those who would live in any new houses developed at this isolated location – making it contrary to current national policy guidance and contrary to the structure plan and local plan policies which seek to promote sustainable development.

In summary, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that there are social, economic or environmental reasons of overriding public interest requiring such a scale of housing development as is being proposed on what would be an exceptionally large brownfield site in an isolated countryside location.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 44 Angus Council Statement of Response

Finavon: Omission

Objector Reference

Craigallan Homes Ltd 615/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

Finavon lies to the east of the A90 between Forfar and Brechin.

The village is shown as a settlement in the local plan review. There are no development allocations and there is no settlement statement. The boundary is drawn tightly around existing development.

The objection site is garden ground attached to Finavon Farmhouse, extending to about 0.8 hectares, a little distance to the south of Finavon and close to an at-grade junction with the A90. There are two existing houses close to Finavon Farmhouse.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In considering objections to the overall level of housing land supply under Policy SC1 it was concluded that the local plan review does not require additional allocations to meet the terms of the structure plan. I therefore conclude that there is no strategic justification for an additional housing land allocation at Finavon.

Insofar as the local plan review is concerned, the majority of development is to be guided to locations within the Angus towns and villages to make use of existing and planned transport and other infrastructure in order to help build sustainable communities. In the light of this priority and in view of the allocation of housing within the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area, I conclude that there is no general local plan review justification for additional housing land at Finavon.

Turning to the consideration of the objection in a local context, there is a significant intervening distance between the objection site and the Finavon settlement. The group of houses at Finavon Farmhouse has little relationship with the village to the north in visual or physical terms and I conclude that it would be inappropriate to extend the settlement boundary.

Although it has been suggested that the existing buildings and 8 or 9 new houses would create a cohesive group, the objection did not include a specific request for a separate settlement boundary. However, in considering this possibility, I believe that a separate settlement boundary at this location would also be inappropriate as the houses are, as described by the council, simply a small group of buildings in the countryside and do not constitute a village or even a smaller settlement with its own identity. The prospect of two further houses, should the outline planning permission and any subsequent detailed permission be implemented, does not alter my opinion and would not warrant inclusion within a settlement boundary. As indicated by the council, this limited development is justified under countryside policies.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 45 Angus Council Statement of Response

It has been argued that a development of 8 or 9 houses could be successfully integrated within the landscape. Even if this were to be the case, I consider that a development of this size would be quite inappropriate. Not only would there be no policy support in a wider context, but the houses would have no relationship to an existing settlement. The concept of creating a cohesive group lacks any elaboration and I am unable to discern any benefit from this thread of the objector’s argument.

The proximity of the development to a bus stop, post box and junction with the A90 does not persuade me to set aside my conclusions, especially as the council has pointed out that the trunk roads authority would not support a development of the size envisaged. Similarly, the prospect of support for the primary school roll is not an overriding benefit.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 46 Angus Council Statement of Response

Friockheim: Allocation Fk2, East of Kinnell Gardens & Omission of land at South Gardyne Street

Objectors References

Guild Homes (per Paull & Williamson) 875/3/1; 875/4/1& 875/1/1 Kinnell Homes/ Mark Batchelor (per D G Coutts) 558/1/1 A M Webster 746/1/1 & 746/1/2 Mr V Campbell 839/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Formal Richard Bowden

Written submission objections on the same topics:

K C Duthie 837/1/1 A F Duthie 838/1/1 S Webster 263/1/1 & 263/1/2 J E Killan 152/1/1 & 152/1/2 Mrs Norma D Murray 170/1/1 & 170/1/2 Sandra Donald 727/1/1 David Laverty 729/1/1 Denis Arnot 781/1/1 Fiona Arnot 782/1/1 Richard Finlay 841/1/1 P A Wilkinson 952/1/1 & 952/1/2 Martin Vousden 236/1/2 Sam McNiven 783/1/1

OBJECTORS to Fk2 : Housing – East of Kinnell Gardens (b)

(b)(i) Objections Maintained

251/5/1 A B Roger & Young 789/1/1 Graham Hannah 790/1/1 Rhonda Hannah 791/1/1 M Gibb 792/1/1 C Gibb 795/1/1 Faye Buggins 810/1/1 Janice Milne

(b)(ii) Objections Conditionally Withdrawn

796/1/1 A Cheyne

SUPPORTERS OF Fk2 : Housing – East of Kinnell Gardens (a)

(a) Position Maintained

262/1/1 Jeni Reid 702/2/1 Kirsty Caird 715/1/1 Diane Campbell 726/1/1 Thomas Carcary 759/1/1 J Russell 761/1/1 Graeme Shand 762/1/1 Philip Kelly 763/1/1 C R Gunn

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 47 Angus Council Statement of Response

765/1/1 Gerry Austin 766/1/1 Gail Cook 767/1/1 Gregor Cook 768/1/1 A Wilkie 769/1/1 Mark B Storrier 770/1/1 D McDiarmid 771/1/1 S Sardar 773/1/1 Sylvia Breen 774/1/1 Angela J Baird 775/1/1 C T Peers 776/1/1 Samantha J Rae 777/1/1 Glen Whitton 840/1/1 Gail Cargill 943/1/1 Ms Barbara Hendry

(a)(ii) Comments Conditionally Withdrawn

714/1/2 Margaret Boath 719/1/1 George Moir 764/1/1 M Hicks 780/1/1 Alexander Gauld 914/1/1 Archie Ramsay

OBJECTORS TO LAND SOUTH OF GARDYNE STREET (b)

(b) Objections Maintained

218/1/1 Anne Stuart 702/1/1 Kirsty Caird 705/1/1 C Edgely 714/1/1 Margaret Boath 742/1/1 Moira Speirs 891/1/1 Christine Ashcroft-Price 943/1/2 Ms Barbara Hendry

(b)(ii) Objections Conditionally Withdrawn

716/1/1 Alan Esslemont 811/1/1 Mr & Mrs Thomson

SUPPORTERS OF DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF GARDYNE STREET

(c)(i) Objections Maintained

787/1/1 R. G. Morris 788/1/1 Helen Morris 789/1/2 Graham Hannah 790/1/2 Rhonda Hannah 791/1/2 M Gibb 792/1/2 C Gibb 795/1/2 Faye Buggins

(c)(ii) Objections Conditionally Withdrawn

796/1/2 A Cheyne

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 48 Angus Council Statement of Response

Objections to Proposed First Round Modification (a)

957/1/1 Jennifer Spence 962/1/2 John Angus 964/1/2 Alexander Stephen 969/1/1 Kevin Ramsay 972/1/1 Sandy Cruickshank 984/1/2 Mr & Mrs Ramsay 989/1/1 Carol Balfour 1016/1/1 Mr Couttie 1017/1/1 Mrs Couttie 1018/1/1 Mr A R Eggie 1019/1/1 Mrs Eggie

Objections to Proposed First Round Modification (b)

789/2/2 Graham Hannah 1016/1/2 Mr Couttie 790/2/2 Rhonda Hannah 1017/1/2 Mrs Couttie 793/2/2 George Still 1020/1/1 Mr David Balfour 794/2/2 Jessie Still 1021/1/1 Ms Davina Balfour 795/2/1 Faye Buggins 1022/1/1 Mr B Cruickshank 955/1/1 Stewart Stephen 1023/1/1 Mrs Linda Cruickshank 956/1/1 Ronald Heenan 1024/1/1 Mr David Alexander 957/1/2 Jennifer Spence 1025/1/1 Ms Ethel Alexander 959/1/1 Ms Joyce Cook 1026/1/1 Mr W McHardy 960/1/1 Keith Kinnear 1027/1/1 Mrs E McHardy 961/1/1 George Robb 1033/1/1 Mr James MacKintosh 962/1/1 John Angus 1034/1/1 Ms Pamela MacKintosh 964/1/1 Alexander Stephen 1035/1/1 Ms Valerie Dawson 965/1/1 Kirsty McCready 1036/1/1 Mr R P Dawson 966/1/1 Mr A Hendry 1037/1/1 Mr Alexander Donaldson 967/1/1 William Rowe 1038/1/1 Ms Christine Donaldson 968/1/1 Mr D Alexander 1039/1/1 Mr Roger Bird 969/1/2 Kevin Ramsay 1040/1/2 Ms Norma Bird 970/1/1 Ms Jean Morison 1041/1/1 Mr John S Carsewell 971/1/1 R Smith 1042/1/1 Mr Alan Mowatt 972/1/2 Sandy Cruickshank 1043/1/1 Ms Amanda Keillor 973/1/1 Loraine Cook 1046/1/1 Mr James Johnstone 977/1/1 Mr M Gibb 1047/1/1 Ms Yvonne Johnstone 978/1/1 Mrs C Gibb 1048/1/1 Mr Maurice Torfs 979/1/1 Kathy Robb 1049/1/1 Ms Elizabeth Torfs 980/1/1 Mrs Lee Hendry 1050/1/1 Ms Ruth Wilson 981/1/1 Mrs Alexander 1051/1/1 Mr Norman Lawson 982/1/1 Mrs Smith 1052/1/1 Miss L Davidson 983/1/1 Mrs B Cook 1053/1/1 Graham Greig 984/1/1 Mr & Mrs Ramsay 1054/1/1 George Carnegie 985/1/1 Mrs M Wilson 1055/1/1 Nanette Torfs 987/1/2 Mr & Mrs Reid 1056/1/1 Roy Buggins 988/1/1 Scott Darling 1057/1/1 David Condie 989/1/2 Carol Balfour 1058/1/1 Angela Stephen 992/1/1 Jim Johnstone 1060/1/1 Grant Stephen 993/1/1 Mr J Wilkie 1061/1/1 Star Inn 995/1/1 R.G. Rutherford 1063/1/1 Colin Morison 996/1/1 Mr Atholl Murray 1064/1/1 Bruce Ollerenshaw 997/1/1 Ms Marjory Corsar 1065/1/1 Lesley Geekie 998/1/1 Mrs B M Cook 1066/1/1 David Robertson 1001/1/1 Mr Barry Campbell 1067/1/1 Lothian, Borders And Angus Co-op 1002/1/1 Ms Kerry Sidgwick 1068/1/1 Don Blake

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 49 Angus Council Statement of Response

1003/1/1 Mr D Leadingham 1069/1/1 John Carswell 1004/1/2 Mrs A Ritchie 1070/1/1 Elizabeth Carswell 1005/1/1 Mr David Pearson 1071/1/1 Rodger Anderson 1006/1/1 Mr Andrew Couttie 1073/1/1 Rod Fleming 1007/1/2 Mr Ian Reid 1074/1/1 Mrs M Fleming 1008/1/1 Ms Norma Brown 1075/1/1 Alan James Keillor 1009/1/1 Mr Edward Brown 1077/1/1 Thomas Valentine 1012/1/1 Mr Michael Morison 1078/1/1 Jennifer Wilson 1013/1/1 Ms Marion Morison 1079/1/1 Susan Carnegie 1014/1/2 Mr Neil Cook 1080/1/1 Patricia Anne Campbell 1015/1/2 Mrs Linda Cook

Reporter: Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

Most of the objections relate to either allocation Fk2 in the finalised local plan review (FALPR) or to proposals by Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd to seek a new allocation of housing land South of Gardyne St, Friockheim in the local plan review to replace the council’s allocation Fk2 East of Kinnell Gardens, Friockheim for 40 housing units. The objections, in some cases, whilst objecting to one of these two sites are supporters of the other site. In September 2005 the council set out a number of Proposed Modifications to the FALPR Friockheim Village Statement. In particular, it proposed the following amendments to update the finalised plan review, in the light of objections lodged, a consultation exercise undertaken and progress made on particular sites:

• Modification to Fk1 Housing – Millgate 3 Approximately 1.4ha of the former mill site reserved for 16 houses (planning permissions now granted) • Whilst retaining the land allocation to the east of Friockheim, to amend the wording of Fk2 and re-title it East of Kinnell Place to reflect new development adjacent to the site. Fk2 becomes approximately 2ha of land to the east of Friockheim Primary School allocated for 32 houses and a replacement health centre (with details set out for a development brief and a section 75 agreement concerning traffic details for that site); all to be co-ordinated with the following: • A new Policy Fk3: Housing – North of Kinnell Gardens (and modification of the development boundary accordingly) allocating 8 affordable houses, subject to a Section 75 agreement to address traffic issues

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I note that the council considers that both the Kinnell and the Gardyne sites are suitable for residential and related developments of the type and scale now being put forward for consideration by various objectors for Friockheim. It is important, therefore, for me to explore in strategic and more local planning terms, the relative merits and drawbacks of the council’s allocation of the Kinnell sites, supported by Kinnell Homes and others, in comparison with the arguments made for and against the proposals put forward by Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd (GHT) for the Gardyne site.

Suitability of the Kinnell and Gardyne sites for development in principle:

I note that the suitability of the Gardyne site for residential and related development is not contested by the council and there are no infrastructure constraints affecting its development potential. Indeed it was the site nominated by the council in the Consultative Draft Local Plan as being not only appropriate for additional housing but its

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 50 Angus Council Statement of Response

preferred choice for the location of major new housing at Friockheim. This followed a landscape capacity study which provided an appraisal of key planning considerations, including landscape and visual quality, for a number of short-listed site options, including the Kinnell and Gardyne sites. I note that the study findings came down in favour of the Gardyne site on the basis of it being more self-contained and with a landscape framework capable of accommodating the proposed housing and providing an attractive residential amenity - developing the landscape setting of the village without impinging on the surrounding area. The main drawback of the Kinnell site was that it was considered highly visible from the surrounding area and would extend an already elongated west- east pattern of village development for Friockheim.

Strategic issues concerning village expansion eastwards or southwards:

It is evident that there are some limited examples of built developments to the south of Gardyne Street, comprising a few houses and most notably the small Co-op foodstore. Nevertheless, to date the village of Friockheim has been developed essentially in a triangular form utilising the wedge of land between Gardyne Street and Lunan Water. Notwithstanding some local ‘aberrations’ - in the form of the Co-op as well as a small number of long established houses at its western end and along Gordon Place - this has resulted in Gardyne Street remaining the effective southern boundary of the village up until now. I consider that this has given the village a compactness and a degree of cohesion with an attractive, largely unspoiled and open outlook southwards across the fields and trees to the south of Gardyne Street. It is clear that, even in the period since the introduction of the Co-op store, Gardyne Street has been used as a defensible edge to the village. This has resulted in all recent new housing and other developments being directed to infill and brownfield sites to the north of Gardyne Street where available, as well as to other sites at the east end of the village, progressively expanding the eastern boundary of the village as there are no more central sites available for new development. This pattern of planned new developments has also resulted in the new school being sited at the eastern end of the village, again to the north of Gardyne Street, opposite the village recreation ground and playing fields which are to the south of the road.

In this context, I note that FALPR allocation Fk2 would continue this pattern by further extending the village eastwards, with the proposed new housing being wrapped around the northern and eastern boundaries of the school. I also note that, if its eastern boundary was limited to that shown as Fk2 in the finalised plan review, as modified in September 2005, houses would not be built further eastwards than the eastern boundary of the existing playing fields. I consider that with suitable landscape boundary treatment this could provide and reinforce an effective eastern boundary for the village. Nevertheless, presumably in the context of the lack of development sites elsewhere in main built up area of the village to the north of Gardyne Street, the council has noted that there would still be scope to provide for some further housing development immediately to the north of the Fk2 site at some point in the future, if required. My general concern is that whilst Gardyne Street and Lunan Water have provided useful edges to contain new development within the wedge between them, this is leading to planned growth being achieved only through successive new developments, including the new school, now having to be grafted on to its eastern perimeter. This makes all such new developments – including the Fk2 proposals - more and more remote from the rest of the village’s facilities and services which have grown up organically in and around the traditional core of the village, towards its western end, which lacks a central focus.

I note that the GHT proposals would involve a major new greenfield development to the south of Gardyne Street in the vicinity of the Co-op store. In my view if this site was allocated in the adopted local plan and developed as proposed by GHT, this would immediately end the role of Gardyne Street as the broadly effective, if not precise, southern boundary of the village and would have a number of other potential consequences. Firstly, the proposed new development here would be visible, beyond the low dry-stane dyke running alongside Gardyne Street. I acknowledge that this would

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 51 Angus Council Statement of Response

detract from the open outlook and amenity enjoyed by the village looking southwards across open fields to Friock Wood, although the effects would be mitigated by the proposed landscape planting measures proposed. Secondly, even with the proposed landscaped planting along its boundaries, it would be more difficult in future to resist pressure for later phases of housing and other development to the east and possibly to the west of the GHT site, as the precedent would have been set for developments of a significant scale on the south side of Gardyne Street. Nevertheless, I consider that these are matters that the council can seek to control through a development brief and in responding to detailed planning proposals through its development control function. A key strategic advantage and attraction of the Gardyne site proposal is the potential it offers to provide a new central focus for the village - including a site for a new centrally located health centre - as well as associated enhancements of the parking facilities for residents and shoppers and traffic calming measures, all of which are considered in more detail later. In my view, on balance the strategic advantages of the Gardyne site exceed the attraction of the Kinnell site’s proximity to the school and sports facilities and also outweigh the disadvantages of allowing major development to the south of Gardyne Street. Most importantly the Gardyne site offers scope for providing other facilities and services more centrally located for the village, thereby consolidating the village in a more sustainable manner than could be achieved if the Kinnell site was promoted instead. These issues are explored in more detail below.

The scope for offering and supporting a range of village facilities and services:

I note that there is some disagreement between parties as to the location of the most important facilities and services in Friockheim, with supporters of the Kinnell proposals suggesting that the adjoining school and community centre is the hub of the village whilst supporters of the Gardyne site arguing that the school is on the periphery and that the GHT proposal would be more central to the village and could boost local facilities and services which would be more accessible to most villagers. For the strategic reasons outlined above, I consider that the balance of these arguments is in favour of the Gardyne site but it is important to explore the local issues of relevance in more detail.

There is no disagreement that the Kinnell site Fk2 would be closest to the school and hence is better placed than the Gardyne site in terms of access for school journeys, particularly since there would be a need to cross Gardyne Street at some point for anyone from the proposed GHT development to reach the school. I am satisfied, however, that the school is within acceptable walking distance of the Gardyne site and that traffic safety concerns relating to pupils heading to and from the school could be satisfactorily addressed by means of a pedestrian crossing in the event that the Gardyne site was developed.

There is no dispute that the Kinnell site is relatively remote, geographically from the geographical core of the village compared with the Gardyne site. I note that the GHT proposals include provision for a new village square and for enhancing the off-street parking provision for the Co-op site nearby - as well as introducing road safety improvements, including improved traffic calming on Gardyne Street, incorporating a min-roundabout and re-structuring on-street parking there. In addition, GHT have offered part of the Gardyne site to accommodate a relocated health centre. I note that the Friockheim health centre doctors have indicated support for this and a reluctance to move eastwards to the Kinnell site, as it is on the periphery of the village - despite KH also now offering a site for it there. It is evident, therefore, the Gardyne site proposals offer more potential to provide a wider range of new or enhanced village facilities and in a more central location than could be achieved if the Kinnell site was promoted. I note the concern expressed by some objectors that the proposed improvements to public parking associated with the Gardyne site development may encourage increased car usage locally. The GHT proposals for traffic-calming measures, as well as environmental enhancements - for example landscape planting and improvements to the dry stane dyke - do not in themselves provide sufficient justification to merit allocation of the Gardyne

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 52 Angus Council Statement of Response

site for development of 40 houses. Nevertheless, I consider that they would be beneficial to the village as a whole. In my view these local considerations contribute to making the Gardyne sits proposals, on balance, preferable to the benefits of the Kinnell site, which is peripheral and relatively remote in terms of the shops and other facilities and attractions of the village, despite being within reasonable walking distance of all parts of the village.

Local Public Opinion – polls and votes:

Evidence has been submitted to support the council’s contention that the majority of those who made representations at the local plan consultation meeting it held in Friockheim were not in favour of the Gardyne site then being put forward by the council. I also note, however, that the numbers attending the public meeting were small. Accordingly, there is a question as to how representative this was of local opinion as a whole when the council responded by deciding to allocate the Fk2 site instead of the one to the south of Gardyne Street in the FALPR, solely based on its perception at that time of local people’s views on the matter. I am also aware that the majority of Friockheim people canvassed on a door-to-door basis on behalf of GHT, following the launch of the Gardyne proposals, expressed a preference for the Gardyne site over the Kinnell site. I note that this was also the view of the local health centre and the operators of the Co-op store which is the largest retail outlet in the village. I also note that the numbers of those consulted in that canvassing process was significantly greater than had attended the public consultation meetings held by the council as part of the local plan process. Nevertheless, I am aware of concerns raised by some in the locality that the framing of the questions posed by the GHT public consultation may have affected the outcome to a degree. In any event, I am in agreement with the GHT witness who stated that:

• public opinion, of itself should not determine the most appropriate location for new development; • the issues raised by the public in response to the development plan process may be relevant to the housing land allocation; and • in this case public opinion is divided, even though there is clear support from key service providers (like the health centre and the Co-op) in favour of the Gardyne site.

I note that the range of responses from local objectors to the finalised local plan underlines the wide differences of opinion on the key local and strategic issues of concern. Not surprisingly, this has resulted in a divergence in the overall conclusions drawn by different groups of objectors, based on the issues raised.

Reporter’s Summary of Conclusions

I am aware that whatever site is ultimately chosen by the council, it will divide local public opinion on the matter. I am satisfied that both the Gardyne and Kinnell proposals could each be reasonably bounded with landscape treatment. Based on the reasons outlined above, I consider that the Gardyne site would offer a more central location and would afford the best opportunity to consolidate some of the core village facilities and services. This is off-set, however, by the fact that the Gardyne site is relatively remote from the local school and would introduce significant new housing development to the south of Gardyne Street which would be visible from existing houses along that street. I conclude, however, that – subject to suitable mitigation measures being put in place to provide a landscaped edge to contain the new development and minimise its visual impact - the overall benefits would outweigh the disadvantages of developing the Gardyne site in preference to the Kinnell site.

I also conclude that whilst development of the Kinnell site Fk2 adjacent to the school (and with associated planting) could provide a defensible eastern edge to the settlement - as well as maintaining the historic triangular profile of the village, broadly to the north of

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 53 Angus Council Statement of Response

Gardyne Street - these advantages are outweighed by its peripherality. Furthermore, I conclude that the Kinnell proposals do not offer the level of community benefits associated with the Gardyne proposals, as outlined earlier. I note that the council, having undertaken its own detailed comparative analysis of the shortlisted sites at the consultative draft stage of the local plan review concluded that the Gardyne site was preferable to the Kinnell site – and only reversed its position to favour the Kinnell site in the FALPR when it thought that the balance of local opinion was in favour of that switch. I conclude that the basis of its earlier assessment was sound and that the circumstances in the period since have not changed significantly. Most importantly, notwithstanding some questions concerning the scope of the GHT survey, it is evident that the balance of local public opinion is in favour of the Gardyne proposals. Whilst this is not in itself sufficient to justify allocating the Gardyne site in preference to Fk2, it is of relevance in the context of the council acknowledging that it was only on the basis of its apparently mistaken perception of the majority of local public opinion favouring the Kinnell site that Fk2 was allocated in the finalised plan review document. Indeed Fk2 at Kinnell was chosen as a replacement for the Gardyne site which the council had previously supported on the basis of its own landscape assessment and other criteria. In summary, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the Gardyne site should be allocated in the finalised local plan review in preference to the Kinnell site, which should be deleted.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case in response to the objections in support of the Guild Homes (Tayside) proposals – in particular, the proposal Fk2 should be replaced by the Gardyne site. The text of the local plan review should also be amended accordingly, to ensure that the package of proposals and village/community improvement initiatives put forward in association with the new houses, (as described in the GHT submissions and on their accompanying illustrative layouts and associated roads drawings), are all secured for the benefit of Friockheim as a whole. This might usefully involve the preparation of a development brief for the Gardyne site and its environs.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

The conclusions of the Reporter in respect of the Gardyne Street site supports the initial analysis and proposal put forward by the Council at the Consultative Draft stage of the local plan process.

The Reporter has considered in some depth the planning merits and issues relating to public opinion of both the Gardyne Street and Kinnell Gardens proposals and has concluded that the Gardyne Street site offers a central location and the best opportunity to consolidate some of the core village facilities and services.

The Reporter has therefore endorsed development on the south side of Gardyne Street and emphasised that the village/community improvement initiatives put forward by Guild Homes (Tayside) should be secured for the benefit of Friockheim as a whole, including 20% affordable housing, site for a replacement health centre with dedicated parking, off-street parking and servicing for the Co-op store, open space and landscaping on all the site boundaries, and the improvement of Gardyne Street itself.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review as follows:-

Delete the proposed housing allocation east of Kinnell Gardens and replace with the site south of Gardyne Street.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 54 Angus Council Statement of Response

Amend Table 2 to delete reference to Kinnell Gardens and replace with South of Gardyne Street - 40.

Delete Fk2 : Housing - Kinnell Gardens and replace with new Fk2 : Housing – South of Gardyne Street as follows:

Fk2 : Housing - South of Gardyne Street

7.4ha of land south of Gardyne Street is allocated for a development of 40 houses (including eight affordable), a site for a health centre, open space, and servicing and car parking for the Co-op store.

Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site which will include details of the following requirements:-

• provision of a site for a health centre, dedicated car parking and land, to be retained as open space until required, for a future extension to the health centre; • provision of rear servicing access and dedicated customer parking for the Co-op store; • two point access from the B965, improvements to Gardyne Street including roundabout, realignment of parking bays, traffic islands and traffic calming to the specifications of the Director of Infrastructure Services; • provision of foul and surface water drainage; • open space provision including amenity open space, play space and tree belt along Gardyne Street ; • landscape, footpaths and buffer zones around the site; and • cycle and pedestrian linkages

• Add the allocation to Table Appendix 2 : Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area.

• Amend the village boundary map as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 55 Angus Council Statement of Response

QSWQHH QSWRHH QSWSHH QSWTHH QSWUHH QSWVHH QSWWHH QTHHHH QTHIHH QTHPHH QTHQHH USHRHH

w rk USHRHH

h r ni

HHPV sssues

t h

RVFPm v un hrin SVPP n

USHQHH te r hrin

n i

fw2R TFPP m USHQHH

ine e2v pf ewge ip prm ewge2orks

I I H T P I

RTFWm y q w rsi 2g il igix 2 d gstle le t n P @site2ofA W 2 t o m 2 s S i W h

II @ q USHPHH y dl 2 v r u e n

o s R IH i

I p n 2 l e 2 s9 v 2 r r k i k x o r i m TIHT e x V e A 2 T priokheim i

P R Q T I V RIHH ii V USHPHH 2 ilee h ix Q tu s u II Q ge u I W tt P

2 go

e S

th P P S Q ei U

x erl

Q n IR e sn IS W 2 PH x e 2 I

W sssues R P

R I pkI V

I T Q g

e I v T k 2 r RT IU v

v W i R P x RR x R s

P R

I H Q

Q R u sxx V q iv

W q Q e r h i vf ix d

l Q I T

P s

Q V w QU i

2 2 I

g IW H ii o I

i U 2 g QQ i f yx t e RTFWm e e i ii r h s r x go s 2g 2 i x USHIHH e e i i sy v

d d e x iv

i tt m r xx I I s T n S

l R u

e g i n g I v S

e R e o w I i

w t t Q t h l 2 v o

ie g u i r W

g e U v n

i w v PV e o e 2

priokheim m t t l y t S o g r n r g T Q e o e x t z k r t e s luie g y r l e x P v e V RTFHm e r 2

t n I 2 n w d i g g g i I l o r l i T r t r e u t e i n fw f g n e h RRFQUm PT gl n i v o n g o w I

S V n Q

h IS I t P t i e e USHIHH g e

U ilfin H r ii e e 2 g ottge

t I u S

T x I T

V fe

n2 sv v I pk@A n vilynk

vu rou se

ri P o H TR t

wilton i e I

H tg P P t V g o

R I P

RSFUm of2quthrie RTFQm I orks PT I W

TI UWUW

TP I V I

I U s W g S

S y

T f I S P w

I V 2 vi 2gi

S R T s ge I R T e T PH hm F 2 t QQ pk@A y 2 IT m PIVH x e

S S 2u I e

l v g h

i S P v

H H i i IT

S Q e v

g P PW w I h q Q ru e W g m o i t m I t o S IH pi r2 go tt ge g n W

e d r imry

S i2 ii P ge v U i esoure2gentre U ho ol R I e W

S q

R R ine PQ

H vi i r ouse w h x P e s h q h s gi RSFUm w istg te2g res USHHHH R I vv h x

s P i g i

r H v w S tirling

e I i t P i g go ttg e h 2g Q U q s

y2 e x e Q sx

n I V u in QS PQ U P i U to P T I I R

W Q Q R Q

P I

W i

m I sh2 i

FU RH xxe

PS S V us

R PH

pf Q

H I istgte2rouse T

I I P PV i

pk@A V

ie S I I IW l r

IW R thu S

P q T er ge lth S e I f tt e e V

t o r r Q

t o

h PR k i g n l

2 e R y e 2 @ g

itmuies2will2prm u n r t m d s

T S I engu

luie PP R s2gottges A

g I

IS RW RW g will2gottge W R

r u W

I TP T SV USHHHH W TI SP SQ SW

h U PQ SU gf IP ST P RQFWm n U SR lui e RV rll fw2RSFIUm eir RR I RPFUm S RV pex

Q QT R RQ ivv2yeh rk I P V

I QU QW f 2WTS pf QS I f 2WTS

x pi er f P QR

h e2v des r I QQ RRFVm e stend I QP gl o r ot PV QI vf gottges le r el QH

e stend ie PW

s 9s I PR e PP PQ

in gottges IW PI

P S r Q

h W RQ FHm q rll U v I il2u2t I i u T i2i r U V IR q hx n e IQ II g W IH n e r S T U RR FVm gh ur h S Q q I P pf r n vf k fo wl ing 2qr een g e innynk RSFIm g r ri h ng RU FPm m gf rk v fw2RUFUT qy

IP S ter y x2 eh hy f2WTS2esy g r y2 RSFUm f2WTS inn x rk 2

f v e q g n o he2yld k i w 2 f r e middy e e nn is o n l k g h s 2 u l e i e e t gourt s f h i x e 2 i y e o o r l n u l d g

d d s g ssl 2 le URWWHH e e l e n eretion2qround

s he e 2 er hes nk o ge metery o d eretion2qround iew eh pirv y Sm y x2 RFU s w2R mp e f

e 2WQP RSFUm TSSU QHST URWWHH he2yld oll2rouse dd li ng wnse pkP linteE ool RT FQm w hth

gemetery RT FQm TS f2W he po t

pe rlyn 2f nk g ri gmo nie r ouse

h i sm td 2 l y o ll2i ew

i URWVHH s te nev e m n t l e d 2

i l w RTFQm ttion RPFRm y r ouse URWVHH

RIQR orks eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 k r priokheim priok2ood the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright l i t 2 URWUHH u nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF IXTHHH h is engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS mpinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview n tle d RQFHm 2 ilw y URWUHH QSWQHH QSWRHH QSWSHH QSWTHH QSWUHH QSWVHH QSWWHH QTHHHH QTHIHH QTHPHH QTHQHH

Grahamstown, Arbirlot by Arbroath: Omission

Objector Reference

J G Fairlie & Partners 829/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The site concerned is within the Arbroath HMA. The objectors are seeking to have the objection site allocated for housing and for it, together with the existing houses at Grahamstown to be included within a defined development boundary. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I note that the objectors have not sought to challenge the council’s contention that there is no requirement to allocate any further land in the Arbroath Housing Market Area to meet Dundee and Angus Structure Plan allowances for that HMA. I endorse the council’s analysis and conclusions in that regard. Accordingly, I now turn to consider whether the proposal should be accepted on an exceptional basis, taking account of local considerations. The main arguments put forward by the objectors in support of their proposal is that the proposed housing allocation would form a natural rounding off of the existing group of houses at Grahamstown - and would reflect the traditional pattern of development in the area, as well as supporting local services. I am not persuaded that these arguments, individually or in combination, are sufficient to justify an exceptional housing land allocation of the type being sought. In particular, I note that the site concerned, whilst situated opposite a row of existing rural residential properties, is located in open countryside. Furthermore, I consider that it would set an unfortunate precedent if such an allocation was made principally to support local services, such as a school in the area. I note that there are numerous examples of isolated groups of traditional houses in countryside locations within Angus, often for historic reasons. The council has reached the view that it is not necessary or appropriate for these building groups, such as the one at Grahamstown, to be extended to form larger settlements with a defined development boundary of the type put forward by the objectors. I endorse the council in this analysis and conclude that the justification put forward by the objectors is not persuasive in this case

Based on all of the above considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant the housing land allocation or the development boundary being sought in this particular case.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 57 Angus Council Statement of Response

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 58 Angus Council Statement of Response

Inveraldie and Tealing - Omission

Objector Reference

James Keillor Estates Ltd 553/2/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context I now turn to consider whether a new housing land allocation immediately to the north of Inveraldie and west of the A90(T) road, as proposed by the objectors, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I note that the area put forward by the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 59 Angus Council Statement of Response

objectors for housing development, includes a site where there is a planning permission for roadside services associated with the trunk road. Apart from stating that this site has planning permission and noting that it formed part of an earlier local plan draft, the case made for its inclusion as a new housing land allocation appears to be based largely on meeting a strategic need not being addressed satisfactorily at Dundee Western Gateway, in the objector’s view. These strategic housing land issues have already been dealt with above. I consider that the possibility of providing a new link to enable movements to school that would no longer require access to the A90(T) road, whilst welcome in principle, is not sufficient reason to make a land allocation of 17ha for new housing and associated uses in open countryside as would be the case here. Furthermore, this would not resolve the wider road safety concerns of the Scottish Ministers and the council regarding the nearby trunk road access which I consider are important. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there is insufficient justification to warrant allocation of the land at Inveraldie for housing development within the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 60 Angus Council Statement of Response

Inveraldie and Tealing: Omissions – Tealing House & Walled Garden

Objector Reference

G B Thomson 666/1/1 & 666/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. The objections concern the case for allocating land for residential development firstly, to the east of Tealing House and, secondly, in the walled garden to the east of Tealing House. These sites have not been included in the finalised local plan review.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context I now turn to consider whether an amendment to accommodate the Walled Garden of Tealing Housing and for a new housing land allocation immediately to the east of that, as proposed by the objector, should be accepted on an exceptional

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 61 Angus Council Statement of Response

basis. I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by the council that rationalisation of the Tealing Development boundary to incorporate the listed Walled Garden of Tealing House is merited as it would round off the settlement and assist the future security of the listed structure, which is to be welcomed. The strategic housing land issues concerning the case for further greenfield housing further to the east of Tealing House, nearer to the A90(T) road junction, have already been dealt with above. I agree with the council that there are strategic road safety, as well as planning policy, concerns about such a proposal and the fact that there was a different approach taken by the former council fifteen years ago is not sufficient to overcome these current concerns in my view. In particular I note the road safety concerns of the Scottish Ministers regarding the nearby trunk road access - reiterated by the council in evidence and in the finalised plan review - which I consider are important. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there is insufficient justification to warrant allocation of the land referred to in Objection 666/1/1 to the east of Tealing House for housing development within the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is modified solely to amend the Development Boundary of Tealing in order to incorporate the Walled Garden of Tealing House within that boundary, as agreed by the council in its Proposed Modifications.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:

Amend the development boundary for Tealing to include the Walled Garden site, as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 62 Angus Council Statement of Response

QRIHHH QRIPHH QRIRHH QRITHH QRIVHH QRPHHH

v fw2IRVFWPm

pf S

UQVRHH

R P

ilo UQVRHH

will2of wiltonnk

eling 115 I

eir

P W wilton2rugh

I IRWFVm fw2IRVFVRm in r sssues h P

ilmwood I

gf Q

Q osonelle Q n r u iewfield

f unnyview

Q orks g n i l e willurn

oodside Q

qlde2gottge he2illows

PWPP UQVPHH widdleends2rouse yrhid

IRWFHm

qlyfd S

rome Q irthEhouse PUIW prm UQVPHH IRSFHm hrin

he2purrows

flmuir2ood

eling flmuir2ood

hoo9ot

Q T rk2iew worven PH rvelling eoples2ite

glio estry

SIIH Q eghlh U

gorner2gottge ine2rees

k fw2IRSFIHm

IQHV

r IRTFHm svy2vodge IQ IRRFQm IP hinrroh

rvelling Q V

h el2ix T eoples2ite he

vodge S

UQVHHH U

irthEhouse flngr eling2rouse e

HHHS @site2ofA 2

W H P

f HHHS IRSFRm HHHS e l il m 2 W u H u2t i r 2

o o q eling2rouse d

UQVHHH rvelling eoples2ite

flmuir2ood iv

r nd

oodside IRPFWm rk he2teding

hngrEl flmuir

IIVS velnds rk

flmuir2gottge eling2qrge e

H fw2IRRFQHm inks UQUVHH

sssues

QW indrig IRIFPm outhview he2feehes

UQUVHH TPUT

HHTU 2

e UQUTHH

hunvrkie UQUTHH

middy g

n r u f 2 g n i l e

inks

HHRP sssues UQURHH

ernwood

QVQU PPQU he2heiling UQURHH

HHQQ HHQQ pilling2ttion

ouses oultry2r

eirfield @disusedA UQUPHH

mithy y UQUPHH

snverldie I hev siv gy

gounil2hepot T

e i d l r n e n s v n s II

lying2pield t

2 l I

sxiev

hsi2iegi

P gf W P

2 t lyground o

2 h I T e

s i h I

v e

2 y 2 h v e

v P e si y g i v 2

e v

h v 2 V t o e UQUHHH 2 I V r

vegi vv H W re

P 2

e RT

RR R

I H i g e

V v

I H I R 2

v W

v 2 e r e

UQUHHH Q P

I I H eling

rll T

H Q

sxi

evhsi gigix IV

I P hielhill2gottges UQTVHH

hrin

in r IPSFTm snverldie282eling eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2h the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF UQTVHH nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS IXTSHH

ptory

QRIHHH QRIPHH QRIRHH QRITHH QRIVHH QRPHHH

Kellas: Omission

Objector Reference

Mr Ken Scott (per Ritchie Dagen and Allan) 897/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it forms part of the wider Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area which also contains parts of Fife and Perth and Kinross. Despite pressures for the release of additional housing land here, South Angus should not be regarded as an automatic choice to make up any perceived shortfall within the wider HMA. This would be contrary to the structure plan strategy, having regard to the regeneration of Dundee, and would not be in accord with the guidance set out in PAN 38 regarding housing land allocations. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the potential for providing more affordable housing, including retirement housing, should additional land be released. As stated earlier in this report “whilst to some extent seductive in view of the large unidentified need for affordable housing in South Angus, we share the council’s opinion that the provision of affordable housing is a subservient requirement to the broader structure plan strategy.”

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 64 Angus Council Statement of Response

housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

In this context I now turn to consider whether the development boundary extension and housing land allocation at Kellas proposed by the objector should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I endorse the council’s assessment that the scale and location of the housing land allocation being promoted by the objector is inappropriate. My conclusion in this regard takes into consideration the existing size and form of the settlement and the opportunities for development of 6 houses at the Kellas Smithy and the potential for 3-4 units at the Glebe, both of which are within the existing development boundary. Furthermore, I am concerned that the proposal put forward by the objector for 10 housing units would constitute backland development, which I consider would be undesirable and inappropriate. The arguments presented on behalf of the objector have not been persuasive in this regard. Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant the proposed extension of the development boundary of Kellas to accommodate the proposed housing put forward by the objector.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 65 Angus Council Statement of Response

Kirkbuddo: Omission of a settlement boundary

Objector Reference

W Nicoll 924/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

Kirkbuddo lies in the countryside astride the B9127 to the south-east of Forfar. The road curves from a north-south direction to an east-west alignment. There is a rectangular wooded area in the angle of the curve within which Kirkbuddo House is centrally located with agricultural buildings and a house related to Mains of Kirkbuddo to the north-east. There is a further house a little way to the north and two houses to the west of the road, opposite Mains of Kirkbuddo. Generally open, rolling countryside surrounds the wooded area.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Having considered objections to Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, it was concluded that the local plan review makes adequate provision in terms of the structure plan requirements. The strategic document has been approved and is not the subject of critical examination under the auspices of the local plan inquiry. Accordingly, in noting that Kirkbuddo lies within the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area, I conclude that there is no strategic need to increase the supply of housing land.

In support of the requirement for a formal boundary, it has been claimed that Kirkbuddo functions as a settlement but this argument has not been substantiated. My impression of Kirkbuddo is that of a country house within substantial grounds along with an associated farm and steadings, albeit that the farm is no longer operational. Notwithstanding comparisons with other formally designated settlements, I do not consider that Kirkbuddo could reasonably be regarded for inclusion in the local plan review as a settlement. In any event, the map illustrating the suggested boundary has no eastern limit and it is therefore not possible to assess the extent of the settlement area that is required.

The council has expressed concern about the impact on mature trees and, although the objector believes that detailed proposals could be subject to adequate control. Notwithstanding the development control process, I believe that even limited development would be likely to have a significant impact on the trees which are in important component of the local landscape.

I have noted the recent planning history and also the reference to policy in respect of the conversion of disused and redundant steadings. It may be that this policy would provide some scope for development but that is not a matter for consideration here.

All-in-all, I conclude that a settlement boundary at Kirkbuddo is not justified.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 66 Angus Council Statement of Response

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 67 Angus Council Statement of Response

Kirkton of Auchterhouse: Omission

Objector Reference

Mr M J Murray (per Ritchie Dagen and Allan) 8/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I am satisfied that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocations of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provide scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes into account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

In this context I now turn to consider whether the housing land allocation at Parkside Quarry proposed by the objector should be accepted on an exceptional basis. The case put forward to justify a housing land allocation adjacent to the quarry in the finalised local plan has not been persuasive. The site concerned is a significant distance from the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 68 Angus Council Statement of Response

development boundary of Kirkton of Auchterhouse and is not well defined, forming part of an open hillside. I conclude that even if drainage constraints could be overcome the proposed development would appear as isolated, highly visible development in the countryside. In my view, this would be undesirable and unjustifiable in terms of the local plan and structure plan policies and current national planning guidance. Furthermore, there are no local shops or other services, apart from a rural bus service, to support new residents at this location. In addition, in the context of existing housing commitments in the wider catchment area, there are potential constraints on the capacities of both the local school and in respect of drainage infrastructure. Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment and conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a housing land allocation at Parkside Quarry to promote the proposed development to the east of Kirkton of Auchterhouse being sought by the objector.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 69 Angus Council Statement of Response

Kirkton of Menmuir: Settlement Boundary

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs A Spence 828/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

Kirkton of Menmuir lies on a minor road to the north-west of Brechin.

The village is shown as a settlement in the local plan review. There are no development allocations and there is no settlement statement. The boundary is drawn tightly around existing development. Balfour Farm comprises a large complex of buildings, including the farm house and a second residential property, to the immediate west of the settlement boundary with agricultural fields beyond. The objection site extends to some 6.8 hectares. There is an intervening burn and trees, the farm buildings being at a slightly higher elevation than the settlement.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In considering objections to the overall level of housing land supply under Policy SC1 it was concluded that the local plan review does not require additional allocations to meet the terms of the structure plan. I therefore share the opinion of the council in this respect and conclude that there is no strategic justification for an additional housing land allocation at Kirkton of Menmuir.

Insofar as the local plan review is concerned, the majority of development is to be guided to locations within the Angus towns and villages to make use of existing and planned transport and other infrastructure in order to help build sustainable communities. In the light of this priority, particularly in respect of the relatively remote location of the village, and in terms of the local plan allocation of housing within the Brechin/Montrose housing market area, I conclude that there is no general justification for additional housing land at Kirkton of Menmuir.

Turning to the consideration of the objection site in a local context, I note that very few details have been provided. I can appreciate that at least some of the farm buildings could be converted for residential use if, as anticipated, they become surplus to requirements. However, there has been no elaboration of the significant environmental benefits that are claimed and it has not been explained how the inclusion of the greenfield section of the objection site would allow a comprehensive development opportunity. Overall, I believe the size of the required extension could lead to a scale of development which would overwhelm the settlement as defined in the local plan review. In this respect, therefore, I share the council’s opinion that there would be a detrimental impact on the character of Kirkton of Menmuir. I also accept the council’s contention that there is a physical and visual separation between the village and the objection site. This would be exacerbated, particularly in respect of the field in the western part of the site. Should development take place here it would have little relationship with the existing village.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 70 Angus Council Statement of Response

The amount and location of housing in rural areas is determined by a number of factors. I note these factors include proximity to services and fit in the landscape. The lack of services at Kirkton of Menmuir and the relatively remote location of the village do not support an argument for additional residential development. I have previously concluded that the farm buildings may be suitable for residential conversion and, in turn, I conclude that any development in this section of the objection site could be designed in a manner that would fit in the landscape. However, I do not believe that the western part of the site, if developed for housing, would represent a small scale rural housing development in terms of SPP15 and would not fit in the landscape. All-in-all, I conclude that, in this case, rural housing development is not supported by SPP15.

Similarly, PAN72 does not offer support in terms of fit in the landscape. In any event, the PAN states that, insofar as location is concerned, the provision of new development should be sustainable. I believe this to be an overriding requirement and one which, for the reasons I have given, is not met by the objection site.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 71 Angus Council Statement of Response

Kirkton of Monikie: Omission

Objector Reference

Messrs D & I Fairlie (per McCrae & McCrae) 917/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it forms part of the wider Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area which also contains parts of Fife and Perth and Kinross. Despite pressures for the release of additional housing land here, South Angus should not be regarded as an automatic choice to make up any perceived shortfall within the wider HMA. This would be contrary to the structure plan strategy, having regard to the regeneration of Dundee, and would not be in accord with the guidance set out in PAN 38 regarding housing land allocations I conclude that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provide scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes in to account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

I now turn to consider whether there are any local reasons to allow the proposed amendments to the finalised local plan review on an exceptional basis. Firstly, I do not consider that the prospect of improving a road alignment and creation of a small village green at Kirkton of Monikie provides sufficient justification to merit the creation of a development boundary for this small group of buildings and expansion of the housing there from 8 dwellings today to 13-14 units - and possibly more in the future.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 72 Angus Council Statement of Response

Furthermore, the other evidence that has been presented on behalf of the objector that Kirkton of Monikie should have a development boundary and a housing land allocation - has not been persuasive. I endorse the council’s view that the proposals to replace the steading with housing development around a new village green and set back from a realignment of the main B961 road is a matter that would be more appropriately dealt with through a planning application. This would be considered in the context of local plan policies, which the council proposes to modify to take account of the most up to date national planning policy and guidance. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant the provision of either a development boundary or a new housing allocation at Kirkton of Monikie within the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 73 Angus Council Statement of Response

Letham: L2 – Housing, Jubilee Park

Objector Reference

Mrs R Rizza 205/1/1 Ruth Elder 544/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Formal inquiry Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

There is concern about decisions relating to extensions to the Joseph Mitchell (Letham) Ltd (Mitchells of Letham) operations at Woodside Road on the south-west perimeter of Letham having adverse environmental effects - in particular relating to the housing land allocation L2: Jubilee Park, Letham which adjoins existing housing at Bractullo Gardens. The factory commenced operations at this location in 1952 and has expanded onto adjoining land in successive phases of development of its business in chicken production and related food processing. The factory land is covered by Policy L4: Safeguard of Development Land in the FALPR which protects existing employment areas of the village for employment uses in support of the economic base of the Letham.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Firstly, I note and can understand the concerns expressed by the objectors about the environmental issues relating to the operation of the Mitchell factory at Letham, in particular smells and traffic generation, in close proximity to existing and proposed new housing areas. I also note their anxiety that future expansion plans for the factory, that have been granted planning permission, will exacerbate these problems. I am persuaded, however, by the arguments put forward by the council that the issue of factory emissions and odours is being addressed by SEPA in its processing of a licence application for a proposed Thermal Energy Reclamation Unit which is required before the extension to the factory can be progressed. I note that these emissions will then be regulated by SEPA under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (PPC) which sets standards designed to avoid unacceptable environmental impact. In this context I am satisfied that there is no reason to amend or delete housing land allocation L2, which I note also has potential to improve access for the residents of Woodside Road.

The council has accepted the point raised by the objectors that there appears to be no effective boundary defined for the expansion of the Mitchell factory which is already in close proximity to existing and planned housing areas. Whilst I note that the original factory of 1952 pre-dated most of the houses in the area, I also note that it has experienced successive phases of expansion at Letham and is now the subject of planning permissions for 3 further extensions onto adjoining sites. I agree with the objectors’ concern that whilst there is a Policy L4 safeguarding employment land, this does not cover all of the existing or committed operational areas of the Mitchell factory complex and there appears to be no delineation of the area designated for existing and future employment land or industrial use in Letham. I conclude that the council should amend the FALPR to provide appropriate delineation to L4 to remedy this shortcoming and so give more certainty to residents about any plans for further industrial expansion at Letham.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 74 Angus Council Statement of Response

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the Proposals Map of the local plan review should be modified in respect of Policy L4 to delineate areas designated for existing and future industrial or employment use in Letham.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

It is agreed that clarification of the proposals map to show the area already used by the factory and other areas covered by recently approved extensions should be delineated on the Proposals Map.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Letham Village Proposals Map to delineate the areas associated with the factory operation as employment land, as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 75 Angus Council Statement of Response

QTUSHH QTUTHH QTUUHH QTUVHH QTUWHH QTVHHH QTVIHH QTVPHH QTVQHH x URRTHH hi

il2u2t Q e 2q y vv

URRTHH g

f I T

T IV

P URRSHH T URRSHH

in I H

I R

I P V

URRRHH

I H URRRHH i

U u vR 2 orks t vR U URRQHH URRQHH eh nks 2y ion shi tt h 2 yy ng ki 2 ultry URRPHH o

URRPHH Q orks

URRIHH I URRIHH

ond

URRHHH eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 vethm the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF

nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright URRHHH

I nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF R fw

pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS IXIPSH I

QTUSHH QTUTHH QTUUHH QTUVHH QTUWHH QTVHHH QTVIHH QTVPHHV QTVQHH

Letham: L3 – Housing, East Hemming Street

Objector Reference

Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 875/2/1 (per Montagu Evans)

AB Roger & Young (Supporter) 251/4/1 Mr Brian Ogilvie (Supporter) 527/1/1 Graham Ogilivie (Supporter) 569/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

With the formal, unconditional withdrawal of the objection from Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd in respect of Policy L3 at Letham, there is no requirement to consider the other representations listed above which are all in support of Policy L3 as put forward in the finalised local plan review.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 77 Angus Council Statement of Response

Letham Grange Development Strategy

Objector Reference

Letham Grange Developments 830/1/1 (per Muir Smith and Evans)

Mrs Gertrude Smith (Supporte 1083/1/1 Letham Grange Houseowners Association 1084/1/1 (per Trevor James Powell) (Supporters)

Procedure Reporter Informal hearing Richard Bowden

The following written submission objection was also lodged in respect of Letham Grange:

Select Homes (per Montagu Evans) 871/3/2 ______

BACKGROUND

The Letham Grange Estate lies to the north of Arbroath and has an established development boundary in the finalised local plan review. Planning permission was granted in the 1970’s and 1980’s for a hotel within the Category B listed Letham Grange House, together with golf course development and other leisure facilities, including an ice rink, as well as some new housing to be located in the landscaped grounds. Originally the residential component was to be limited to 110 units but subsequently permission was granted for this to expand to 140 houses in total, of which only 3 remain to be built. The finalised local plan review encourages the enhancement and expansion of the tourism and leisure potential of Letham Grange, so long as it is not detrimental to the estate’s unique environment and respects its heritage buildings. It also states, however, that housing development at Letham Grange would be limited to the 140 units previously agreed, which is already almost completed.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Written Submissions Objection (871/3/2)

Dealing firstly with the written submissions objection, which concerns a specific site within the Letham Grange development boundary, I note the history of the site concerned and the development context, as summarised by the council. I also note that the objection site in this case does not form part of the 140 houses allocated at Letham Grange and so would have to be considered on an exceptional basis. Given the mature landscaped setting provided by the trees of the Letham Grange Estate, I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by the council that there is no justification to allocate this particular site for housing development. In my view, the case put forward on behalf of the objector is not persuasive and does not outweigh the concerns to maintain the landscape and amenity of the overall Letham Grange Estate. I conclude that the objection should be rejected and the site concerned should not be allocated for housing.

The Hearing objection

More generally, I accept that the Letham Grange Estate represents a complex problem arising from the fact that the housing development there in the last 25 years has not

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 78 Angus Council Statement of Response

achieved the desired effect of providing sufficient cross-funding to secure the long term future of the estate. In particular, I note that its heritage buildings, including Letham Grange House, which was converted into a hotel, is now vacant and the curling rink operating nearby has also closed, despite the apparent popularity of both of these facilities when they were under different ownership and management. In addition, there are other heritage outbuildings in the grounds which remain vacant and I understand that the estate’s only remaining visitor attractions, its 2 golf courses, are not operating viably. Furthermore, it is evident that for the security and future prosperity of the estate as a whole, its historic buildings, its landscaped grounds and its associated roads infrastructure – which in combination contribute to the amenity of the existing resident population – all need continual maintenance and investment. I understand that some parties lay part or all of the blame for the current predicament facing Letham Grange on issues associated with changes in ownership and management in recent years. This is not a matter that I am in a position to comment on, but I do consider that:

• Whatever the history and causes of the problems outlined above they are evident today; • The problems summarised above will not be resolved without a coherent and viable Masterplan for the estate as a whole, based on sound market research and a cost-effective strategy setting out a structured programme of development and management for securing the operational viability and long term future for Letham Grange – such a Masterplan and strategy has not been evident to date; • the limited documentation put forward on behalf of the objectors in support of their case for additional housing to be allocated in the local plan review (to cross- subsidise the conservation and conversion/re-use of heritage buildings of the estate) appears to be: poorly conceived; lacking in any detail on any aspect except with regard to conversion of buildings; without any coherent leisure development strategy, let alone an overall estate development strategy; and devoid of any robust market research or economic rigour upon which such strategies need to be based in order to be viable and effective. In my view these are minimum requirements in order to provide an economic case to justify the allocation of further new houses in the estate as a means of cross-subsidising other components that the council and the residents wish to see developed and safeguarded for the long term benefit of Letham Grange.

Notwithstanding these strong reservations and concerns I have about the lack of substance of the case made to date on behalf of the objectors, I am in agreement with the council that, in principle, it is desirable to support a strategy that would provide for the long-term viability of tourism and recreation facilities at Letham Grange. Such a strategy would also need to retain as many features of the estate as possible and with minimum change to the residential environment enjoyed by the people living there. For the reasons outlined above, however, I am also in agreement with the council that the proposals now being put forward by the objectors are not sufficiently detailed or robust enough to allow their inclusion in this local plan review.

I am satisfied that Policy LG2: Tourism and Recreation Development already indicates support for the enhancement or expansion of the tourism and recreational potential of Letham Grange and so does not require amendment. Whilst taking into account the views and concerns of the local residents, I also endorse the council’s approach that the acceptability of additional housing development at Letham Grange should depend upon a proven requirement for cross-subsidy of the tourism and recreational facilities, the quality of the tourism proposals - as well as the compatibility of the overall package of measures with the amenity and environmental quality of the area. Furthermore, for the reasons outlined earlier, I suggest that the package of proposals would require to be supported by a viable long-term business plan before the council agrees to the release of any further sites for housing development. I am concerned that, in broad terms and without rigorous economic justification, the objectors are seeking to increase the existing amount of residential units at Letham Grange by approximately 50%, taking account of

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 79 Angus Council Statement of Response

the scope for conversion of outbuildings and their notion that around 50 new–build houses may be required to cross-subsidise other elements. I regard that order of magnitude of new housing development as being excessive in the Letham Grange and wider Angus contexts. Furthermore, in my view it has not been justified in the case outlined by the objectors and is not commensurate with the aims of retaining the inherent qualities of the estate and its environment for the amenity of residents and leisure visitors.

Based on all of these considerations, whilst I am generally supportive of the council’s suggested amendments to the wording of Policy LG1, and the reasons behind it, I would recommend that the words “strictly limited” be inserted immediately prior to the “…further new housing …” in line one of the amendment, to read as below.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons given earlier, I recommend that the written submissions objection (871/3/2) should be rejected, but in response to Objection 830/1/1, I recommend that the finalised local plan be amended as follows:

Amend policy LG1 : Housing - Letham Grange to read:-

"LG1 : Housing - Letham Grange Proposals for strictly limited further housing development outwith the existing residential areas will only be acceptable where a clear case has been demonstrated that:

* it is required to cross-subsidise the development of tourism facilities within the complex; * it is compatible with the protection of the amenity of existing residential areas; * it supports the restoration of Listed Buildings and their setting; and * any reduction of the existing golf course provision is demonstrated to be necessary and that the remaining provision is viable."

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

The Reporter supports the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 (or other relevant date) and suggests a further minor amendment as set out above.This amendment is accepted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the third round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in December 2005 together with the further amendment as follows:

Delete existing paragraph 2 and replace with the following:-

"2. In recent years the commercial viability of the golf courses and hotel has become an issue. There are emerging proposals aimed at addressing the future viability and further developing the tourism provision on the site. The proposals are at an early stage and are not sufficiently detailed to be included as proposals in this local plan. The indications are that a package of measures may be brought forward which include timeshare, housing and the restoration of listed buildings on the site including the Letham Grange Hotel building. These indicative proposals would result in the reduction of the second golf course from 18 to 9 holes.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 80 Angus Council Statement of Response

3. It is considered appropriate to support proposals which would provide for the long-term viability of the tourism and recreation facilities. At the same time it is necessary to protect the amenity of the existing residential areas. The acceptability of additional housing development will depend upon the requirement for cross subsidy of the tourism and recreational facilities, the quality of the tourism proposals and the compatibility of the overall package of measures with the amenity and environmental quality of the area. Proposals will require to be supported by a viable long-term business plan."

Amend policy LG1 : Housing - Letham Grange to incorporate the words ‘strictly limited’ in line one, to read:-

"LG1 : Housing - Letham Grange Proposals for strictly limited further housing development outwith the existing residential areas will only be acceptable where a clear case has been demonstrated that: * it is required to cross-subsidise the development of tourism facilities within the complex; * it is compatible with the protection of the amenity of existing residential areas; * it supports the restoration of Listed Buildings and their setting; and * any reduction of the existing golf course provision is demonstrated to be necessary and that the remaining provision is viable."

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 81 Angus Council Statement of Response

Liff: Omission of land at Woodside Road

Objector Reference

A & J Stephen Ltd 892/1/1 (per Montgomery Forgan Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden

[The same objector has lodged objections 944/1/1 and 944/1/2 relating to omissions elsewhere in the vicinity of Liff (north of Liff Hospital) which are dealt with separately in this report] ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 82 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context, I now turn to consider whether making a housing land allocation in the form of a ‘strategic reserve’ site at Liff, as proposed by the objector, should be endorsed on an exceptional basis. I note that the area put forward by the objector for housing development is greenfield and set in open countryside with some mature woodlands but divorced from the settlement of Liff, except along its western boundary. The local case made for allocating this site as a strategic reserve has been based on the scope for developing parcels of housing and associated community facilities in a woodland setting around a new village green, with new community facilities at its centre. I not persuaded that this argument, even if valid, carries sufficient weight to overcome the lack of strategic justification for its allocation for housing in principle. In any event, I am concerned that the proposed village green and related community facilities would be isolated and remote from the established village of Liff and therefore not best placed to serve the existing community. Furthermore, if the proposed site was allocated for housing, even as a strategic reserve, this would be likely to result in additional pressure for further major housing development on the open land immediately to the south between the objection site and the remainder of Liff village, which would be undesirable in my view. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant allocation of the land put forward by the objector at Liff for housing development within the local plan review, even as a strategic reserve site.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 83 Angus Council Statement of Response

Logie, by Montrose: Development boundary

Objector Reference

Mr P Salmon 116/1/1 (per J W Soutar)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The issue of concern is the definition of the development boundary for Logie as shown in the finalised local plan review when compared with historical maps of the locality. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I note the arguments put forward by the objector with reference to historic maps of the area and the existence of local ruins. I am not persuaded, however, that these arguments in themselves would justify the provision of a development boundary for Logie, as proposed. After making a site inspection I endorse the arguments and concerns put forward by the council in response to the specific points in this objection. I am satisfied that the council has adopted a systematic and rigorous approach in dealing with the issue as to whether or not there should be a development boundary for Logie. I am persuaded by the evidence it has presented, including reference to historic maps and concerning the development history and particular characteristics of the area today. I conclude, therefore, that there is no justification for amending the finalised local plan review to address the concerns raised on behalf of the objector in this particular case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 84 Angus Council Statement of Response

Lundie: Development boundary

Objector Reference

Drivers Jonas 834/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______BACKGROUND

The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan. The development boundary for Lundie is shown on P245 of the finalised local plan review, together with the boundary of the Lundie conservation area. The objection seeks to extend the development boundary westwards as far as the western boundary of the conservation area and suggests that it could also extend southwards, again to be consistent with the conservation area boundary.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

The objector in this case seeks to change the Lundie village boundary to conform to the conservation area boundary, on the basis that this would be logical and would allow limited but controlled development and ease pressure on the surrounding countryside. There is no dispute that the village hall, Smithy Cottage and Sawmill Cottage along with The Manse are all part of Lundie village. Nevertheless, I endorse the concerns of the council that the inclusion of these properties within an extended development boundary, westwards and southwards, for the village would place development pressure on the intervening open areas of ground. I am persuaded by the council’s argument that these green spaces within the conservation area are important and need to be safeguarded to maintain the character, setting and appearance of the village. Based on the arguments put forward by the council, I am also satisfied that there is no justification on housing supply grounds to merit extending the development boundary of Lundie to allow limited growth, merely as a means of easing any pressure on the surrounding countryside. I note that there are policies in the finalised local plan that are specifically aimed at addressing proposals for countryside developments.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 85 Angus Council Statement of Response

Memus: Settlement boundary

Objector Reference

Kirriemuir Landward East Community Council 226/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

Memus lies to the north of Kirriemuir.

The village is shown as a settlement in the local plan review. There are no development allocations and there is no settlement statement.

The objection site is adjacent to the Drovers Inn at the southern entrance to the village. There is a substantial car park adjacent to the road next to which there is a children’s play area and, in turn, a small paddock beyond which there is open countryside.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Events have overtaken the local plan review preparation process to the extent that planning permission has been granted on part of the objection site for development related to the Drovers Inn. The type of development proposed is acceptable to the community council and I agree that it is appropriate for the settlement boundary to incorporate the site for which planning permission has been granted.

Whilst there is no reason to believe that the required section 75 agreement will not be concluded to allow the approved development to take place, the implementation of any planning permission cannot be guaranteed. Indeed a further application for planning permission for a different type of development could be lodged. As I agree with the community council that housing on the objection site would be incongruous, I consider it would be prudent to highlight the area and with an annotation to the effect that the land is reserved for development related to the adjacent inn. This approach would reflect the principle of paragraph 1.28 of the local plan review which states that the presence of a boundary does not indicate that all areas of ground within that boundary have development potential. If this is thought to be inappropriate, a village statement should be included to explain the proposed land use on the objection site.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend the settlement boundary should be retained as shown in the local plan review and the area for which planning permission has been granted highlighted with the annotation “Land reserved for development related to the Drovers Inn”.

Alternatively a village statement should be included explaining that the objection site is allocated for development related to the adjacent inn premises.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

It is accepted that the village boundary map would benefit from the area associated with the Drover’s Inn being annotated to affirm that only development related to the Drover’s

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 86 Angus Council Statement of Response

Inn will be permitted on this area. This is preferred to the suggestion that a settlement statement be introduced as this would be the only matter which required to be referred to in the statement.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to annotate the village boundary map for Memus to show the area with planning permission to the south west of the Drovers Inn as “Land reserved for development related to the Drovers Inn”. (Shown on the attached plan)

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 87 Angus Council Statement of Response

QTHHHH QTHIHH QTHPHH QTHQHH URHVHH URHVHH

URHUHH URHUHH

URHTHH URHTHH URHSHH

URHSHH URHRHH

vnd2reserved2for development2relted2to he2hrovers2snn URHRHH

URHQHH URHQHH

fsed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 wemus the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright x nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2veHWHPQvD2PHHP IXPSHH QTHHHH QTHIHH QTHPHH QTHQHH

Monikie: Omission

Objector Reference

Mrs M A Fyvie 206/1/1 (per I G MacDonald &Co)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether making a new housing land allocation on the ground to the rear (west) of the Fiddlers Public House premises in Monikie, as proposed by the objector, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I note that the area put forward - whilst reasonably well defined by existing housing to the north and south and by the vacant Fiddlers Public House premises and houses along Panmure

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 89 Angus Council Statement of Response

Road to the east - is essentially open agricultural land with no effective boundary to the west. I do not consider that the fact that there may be some spare capacity in the local sewage and drainage systems is sufficient justification for the site in question to be allocated for new housing. The implementation of the existing permissions for a total of 59 additional dwellings in Monikie will result in a substantial increase in the local housing stock and population of Monikie, which is a village of around 400 persons with a limited range of local services. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant allocation of the land to the west of the Fiddlers public house premises in Monikie for housing development within the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 90 Angus Council Statement of Response

Muirdrum: Omission

Objector Reference

W & P Braid And Sons 888/1/1 (per Gary Sinclair Architecture)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether an extension of the development boundary of Muirdrum eastwards to incorporate the objection site should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I note that the area put forward by the objectors is a wedge of undulating open land situated between the old and new alignments of the A92 road and bounded to the south by Panlathy Burn. As such I consider that it is well defined and I

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 91 Angus Council Statement of Response

also accept that it is a difficult piece of ground to operate as an agricultural unit. This, however, is not sufficient justification to allow the site to be incorporated into the development boundary of Muirdrum, particularly when the land concerned is physically remote from the existing village of Muirdrum. Its isolation from the village is emphasised by the intervening Panlathy Burn being in a deep valley. Furthermore, the arguments presented by the objectors - regarding the scope for the site in question to enhance Muirdrum village by providing retail and residential developments and to create a gateway feature with open space for the benefit of the village residents - are not persuasive. Indeed, the suggestion that this site could act as an eastern gateway to Muirdrum is not feasible, as there is no opportunity to leave the newly dualled A92 road from the direction of the objection site in order to enter the village via the redundant section of the old A92 road.

In this context, I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the proposed linear development of the village into open countryside would be undesirable. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant extension of the development boundary of Muirdrum to incorporate the objection site in this case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 92 Angus Council Statement of Response

Newbigging by Carnoustie : Omission

Objector Reference

Newbigging South-East Tighmore & R Watson 351/1/1 (per GVA Grimley)

Newbigging South-West Linlathen Developments Ltd 918/1/1 (per D Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Formal inquiry Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The two objections, which were the subject of a conjoined formal inquiry, concern proposed housing land allocations for two separate sites at Newbigging – one to the west and one to the south-east of the existing settlement. There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. Another issue of specific concern at Newbigging is the capacity of the local drainage system to serve new developments in the area. This settlement, with a resident population of approximately 500, has a primary school, shop/post office and a petrol station/garage which serve the village and the surrounding area.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Strategic Issues

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 93 Angus Council Statement of Response

development well beyond 2011. This takes into account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

In this context, I now turn to consider below whether either or both of the objections should be accepted on an exceptional basis.

The Tighmore Site (to the south-east of Newbigging)

I note that the case put forward by these objectors includes reference to the site concerned being previously considered as a possible option, but rejected in favour of the site (Nb/H1) at the northern end of the village in the adopted local plan in 2000. In my view, the fact that site Nb/H1 is now almost completed is not sufficient reason to now proceed with the Tighmore site, particularly when there is currently no strategic housing land shortfall to address in the HMA, for the reasons outlined above. I am also not persuaded by the other arguments put forward by the objectors, relating to potential benefits of the Tighmore scheme in sustaining local facilities and services and improving the range of housing types in this rural area. Instead I endorse council’s view, supported by the community council and the representation made by a local resident, that the village is not in need of additional housing, particularly given the current addition of 20 new houses which represents a 20% boost to the stock, and will result in more than modest growth of this rural community. Furthermore the arguments based on the suggestion that the local services are under threat are not persuasive. Whilst the prospect of providing some affordable housing would be beneficial locally and in contributing to meeting the council’s overall targets in this regard, I do not consider that this in itself merits an allocation of 30 houses on the Tighmore site, when other criteria are not satisfied. Similarly the prospect of the Tighmore proposal incorporating a village green and an improved children’s play and pitch facilities, whilst potentially beneficial locally, are not in my view sufficient to outweigh the fact that there is no strategic or local justification for the proposed new housing.

I note that there has been mention by the other objectors and the community council of potential traffic problems and possible road safety conflicts arising from the Tighmore site, being on the opposite side of the main road from the primary school. I do not, however, regard these issues as critical, particularly when the proposal from Tighmore includes the provision of new pedestrian crossing. In terms of its location, I am more concerned that in visual terms both the Tighmore site and the Linlathen Developments site would be highly visible, particularly when approaching Newbigging from the south. The fact that the site Nb/H1 is highly visible approaching from the north is not sufficient reason to say that future expansions of the village to the south-east or south-west should be accommodated without consideration of the landscape setting and the impact on the village, incrementally and cumulatively. These and related landscape appraisal details are matters that I would explore in more detail only if I had been persuaded that there was a case made satisfactorily in principle for an additional housing allocation in Newbigging.

I note the issues raised and associated correspondence presented concerning the proposal for a private drainage system to serve the Tighmore site unless spare capacity can be provided by the public water treatment works. This is in the context of the Linlathen Developments objectors having provided funds for an expansion of the water treatment (SWT) works serving Newbigging and contending that they have been given assurances by Scottish Water that the increased capacity would be in their control for a period of 5 years, thereby making it unavailable for use by the Tighmore promoters or others if they wished. I do not consider it appropriate or necessary for me to explore these local drainage issues in detail when, based on the strategic and other considerations outlined above, I am not persuaded that the principle of a new housing allocation on the Tighmore site is merited in the finalised local plan review at this time.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 94 Angus Council Statement of Response

The Linlathen Developments Site (to the west of Newbigging)

Most of the strategic arguments regarding housing land supply put forward by these objectors have been addressed by me earlier. I note that the case put forward by the objectors includes reference to the fact that their proposal for 46 new dwellings would include 22 affordable/shared ownership units. As I stated in respect of the Tighmore objection, whilst the prospect of providing some affordable housing would be beneficial locally and in meeting the council’s overall targets in this regard, I do not consider that this, or the fact that the site is registered with Communities Scotland, is sufficient to merit a housing allocation of the scale proposed on the Linlathen Developments site when other criteria are not satisfied. Similarly, the objectors’ contention that the site concerned is ‘effective’ in terms of the criteria outlined in SPP3 and PAN38, including with regard to drainage provision, does not outweigh my other concerns, outlined above.

In terms of its location, as stated earlier, I am concerned that in visual terms the Linlathen Developments site would be highly visible when approaching Newbigging from the south. I would reiterate that the fact that the site Nb/H1 is highly visible approaching from the north is not sufficient reason to say that future expansions of the village to the south-east or south-west should be accommodated without consideration of the landscape setting and the impact on the village, incrementally and cumulatively. I regard the Linlathen Development site as being particularly difficult to screen adequately or to provide a suitable landscape setting for, because of its exposed situation. As stated earlier, these and related landscape appraisal details are matters that I would explore in more detail only if I had been persuaded that a case had been made satisfactorily in principle for an additional housing allocation in Newbigging.

Reporters’ Summary of Conclusions

In the context of the strategic and local issues I have dealt with above, on balance I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by the council and the local representations, rather than by the objectors. Accordingly, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant either the Tighmore or Linlathen Development sites being allocated for housing or for the development boundary of Newbigging to be amended to encompass either of these sites at this time.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 95 Angus Council Statement of Response

Newbigging by Tealing: Omission

Objector Reference

Ian Reid 937/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The issue of concern is the development boundary of Newbigging by Tealing.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I note that in its consideration of the application for planning permission for 3 houses on the objection site in 2004 the council did not dispute the objector’s contention that there had been buildings previously occupying at least part of the site concerned, evidenced by the existence of two large concrete floors along with associated outhouses. Indeed the council committee report, in its planning considerations section, acknowledged that the site may be able to meet the definition of brownfield land. At that time the majority of representations concerning the application were in support of the application, including reference to it providing an opportunity to tidy-up an unsightly area. There is no evidence of the site in question being returned to productive agricultural use in the period since the last local plan inquiry leading to the adoption of the Angus Local Plan in 2000. I am uncertain as to the precise extent of the site concerned when a ‘similar’ area at this location was considered as an objection at the local plan inquiry in 2000. I note that the Reporter at that time concluded that whilst the objection site then had the appearance of having been annexed from the larger remaining part of the arable field to the east and although the foundations of wartime structures were visible along the western edge of the site, they were not extensive enough to classify the whole site as brownfield. Based on the submissions lodged with me I have no reason to differ from the view of the Reporter to that inquiry, particularly concerning the evidence of wartime structures along the western edge of the site – although that unused and derelict area is now so overgrown and inaccessible that it is difficult for me to establish the precise extent of those structures. I consider that there is little if any prospect, in the period of the local plan at least, for the particular area strewn with derelict wartime structures becoming productive for agricultural purposes. I also agree that the corner of the objection site closest to Colinian and End Rigg has become overgrown and unsightly to the point that it detracts from the appearance of the village.

Whilst noting the drainage concerns and the lack of local facilities and services articulated by the council, I also note that this does not appear to have been an overriding consideration in other cases determined by the council at Newbigging by Tealing recently. In particular, it has not deterred the council from granting a number of recent planning permissions for individual houses and for a farmer’s market/coffee shop on sites in and adjoining the development boundary of the village.

Based on all of these considerations I am satisfied that the local situation and the development context has changed materially in the period since 2000. Furthermore, I am persuaded by the objector’s arguments concerning the relevance of new national planning policy set out in SPP15 which urges planning authorities to adopt a more

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 96 Angus Council Statement of Response

flexible approach in rural areas where particular criteria are met satisfactorily. I would not seek to pre-judge any possible planning application for development of the objection site, where a number of planning and technical issues, such as access and drainage, would be required to be examined in some detail. Nevertheless, for the reasons outlined above, I conclude that there is sufficient justification for a marginal revision to the development boundary for Newbigging by Tealing, projecting the northern boundary of the plot shown as Colinian (in an easterly direction) as well as the eastern boundary of the property known as End Rigg (in a northerly direction). This would create an essentially rectangular plot of similar dimensions to that shown for Colinian on the Proposals Map and covering the most visible wartime structures. Given the drainage and access constraints of the site thereby incorporated within the development boundary, it may well only have capacity for a single dwelling house – as at Colinian. In any event, I am satisfied that this marginal extension to the development boundary would not set an unfortunate precedent for further applications for extensions of this particular boundary as the history of the site in question is exceptional in my view.

Accordingly, I conclude that a marginal extension of the development boundary, as detailed above, should be accepted on an exceptional basis.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case to extend the development boundary of Newbigging by Tealing to incorporate a broadly rectangular area (as described in detail in my conclusions above) immediately to the east of the property known as Colinian and immediately to the north of the property shown as End Rigg on the Proposals Map (P256 of FALPR). I recommend that the northern edge of the revised boundary should be a continuation eastwards of the development boundary above Colinian (and NOT as shown on the drawing accompanying the objection which has been annotated to show 3 dwellings on an overall plot that projects further northwards) with the eastern boundary following the same alignment as the eastern boundary of the plot known as End Rigg.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

The Reporter has considered the relationship between the objection site and the adjoining agricultural land and concluded that there is little prospect in the period of the local plan of the objection site becoming productive for agricultural purposes. The Reporter also concludes that the site has become overgrown and unsightly, which has detracted from the appearance of the village and therefore feels the local situation and the development context has changed materially in the period since 2000.

In recommending an adjustment to the development boundary the Reporter has reduced the size of the site originally put forward by the objector and feels that the site may only have capacity for a single dwelling house.

In the Reporter’s view this marginal extension of the development boundary should be viewed as an exceptional case and in his opinion should not set a precedent for further applications for extensions to the development boundary at Newbigging by Tealing.

I agree with the Reporter that the modification to the boundary should be viewed as an exceptional case. I also agree with the reduction of the size of the site and that this may only have capacity for a single dwelling house and that any future planning application for the site must examine and satisfy a number of planning and technical issues such as access and drainage.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review as follows:

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 97 Angus Council Statement of Response

Amend the development boundary for Newbigging by Tealing to include the site immediately to the east of the property known as Colinian and immediately to the north of the property shown as End Rigg, as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 98 Angus Council Statement of Response

QRPIHH QRPPHH QRPQHH QRPRHH QRPSHH QRPTHH UQUVHH UQUVHH UQUUHH

UQUUHH silo

rethrest

golinin ilos

unny2qrove vorri rethnk est2rk

ind2igg hunell UQUTHH

xewlnds

UQUTHH hunvrkie tsmine2gottge xewigging

yld2mithy middy2groft

g l i z o t t e g t e h willroft

wurveen UQUSHH

griglee

UQUSHH

hunvegn UQURHH

nwood

UQURHH fsed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2fsed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 he2heiling xewigging2@y2elingA fsed2upon2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightFthe2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightFthe2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright x nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsFnd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsFnd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2veHWHPQvD2PHHQengus2gounil2IHHPQRHRD2PHHSengus2gounil2veHWHPQvD2PHHQ IXPSHH QRPIHH QRPPHH QRPQHH QRPRHH QRPSHH QRPTHH

Newbigging by Tealing: Omission - land at Leyshade Farm

Objector Reference

P & S Developments 930/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 100 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context I now turn to consider whether the site at Leyshade Farm should be allocated in the finalised local plan on an exceptional basis. I note that the 3.1ha site is split into two parcels on either side of a lane which serves Leyshade Farm adjoining the site. The site comprises agricultural fields which are isolated from Newbigging by Tealing and accessed via a lane leading eastwards from a nearby small, at-grade junction on the A90 Trunk Road. I am concerned that these access arrangements are not of an appropriate standard to serve the scale of development envisaged, with 62 houses being suggested for the site.

I am also concerned, not only by the scale of the proposed development, which is substantial in the context of South Angus, but also by the fact that this is a location which is in open countryside, altbeit adjoining farm buildings, and not well served by local facilities and services. I note that the site concerned is not served by public drainage systems. Housing development of the scale proposed would not be sustainable at this location in my view as it would be likely to attact predominantly car-based commuters who would be reliant on car usage for almost all journeys. Accordingly such development would not be in accordance with the principles of the local plan or the structure plan and would be contrary to national planning policy guidance. Furthermore the proposal at this particular location, with its heavy dependance on car usage, would result in additional pressure on the junction of the main trunk road that passes near to the site, which in my view would be undesirable and unnecessary given the strategic housing land allocations already made elsewhere, as outlined above.

Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify allocation of this particular site in the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 101 Angus Council Statement of Response

Newbigging by Tealing: Omission - land at Newbigging Farm

Objector Reference

P & S Developments 930/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it forms part of the wider Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) which also contains parts of Fife and Perth and Kinross. Despite pressures for the release of additional housing land here, South Angus should not be regarded as an automatic choice to make up any perceived shortfall within the wider HMA. This would be contrary to the structure plan strategy, having regard to the regeneration of Dundee, and would not be in accord with the guidance set out in PAN 38 regarding housing land allocations. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the potential for providing more affordable housing, including retirement housing, should additional land be released. As stated earlier in this report “whilst to some extent seductive in view of the large unidentified need for affordable housing in South Angus, we share the council’s opinion that the provision of affordable housing is a subservient requirement to the broader structure plan strategy.”

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 102 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context I now turn to consider whether the site at Newbigging Farm should be allocated in the finalised local plan on an exceptional basis. I note that the south-eastern corner of the objection site adjoins the development boundary of Newbigging by Tealing. I am concerned, however, that the broadly rectangular 4.8ha site adjoining Newbigging Farm is a very large piece of open agricultual land alongside the A90 Trunk Road, although there is a mature hedge which provides some screening along the western boundary running parallel with the main road. Neverthelss, I consider that its countryside location makes it obtrusive in the open landscape, including when viewed from sections of the trunk road by those driving past the site.

I am also concerned, not only by the scale of the proposed development, which is very substantial in the context of South Angus, but also by the fact that this is a countryside location which is isolated and not well served by local facilities and services. I also note that the site concerned is not served by public drainage systems. In my view, development of the type and scale proposed would not be sustainable at this location as it would be likely to attact predominantly car-based commuters who would be reliant on car usage for almost all journeys. Accordingly the development proposed would not be in accordance with the principles of the local plan or the structure plan and contrary to the national planning policy guidance. Furthermore, the proposal at this particular location, with its heavy dependance on car usage, would result in additional pressure on the junction of the main trunk road next to the site, which in my view would be undesirable and unnecessary given the strategic housing land allocations already made elsewhere, as outlined above.

Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify allocation of this particular site in the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 103 Angus Council Statement of Response

Newtyle: Omission

Objector Reference

Maria Francke 834/1/2 (per Drivers Jonas)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

A site at Newtyle previously allocated for housing in the local plan is no longer included in the finalised local plan review which has an altered development boundary. This is the issue of concern for the objector.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether reinstatement of the site N/H2 and an extension of the development boundary at Newtyle eastwards to incorporate the objection site, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. Whilst I note that the site in question was previously identified by the council as a housing opportunity site, I also note that it has given two main reasons to exclude the objection site. In particular, it points to the lack of strategic housing need for an additional housing land allocation, which I endorse for the reasons outlined above, and the local drainage constraints, to justify its deletion of the site formerly known as N/H2 and amendment of the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 104 Angus Council Statement of Response

development boundary accordingly. Whilst the objector has made reference to the possibility of addressing the drainage issue, I note that no specific drainage proposals have been put forward for my consideration to support the objector’s case or to address the specific problems of drainage highlighted by the council. Furthermore, the objector has not sought to challenge the strategic arguments put forward by the council regarding housing land allocations in the HMA which, as discussed above, indicate that there is no justification to allocate a further 40 housing units in Newtyle, even if the local drainage issues could be satisfactorily addressed.

In this context, I conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant reinstatement of the site N/H2 or to justify a corresponding extension of the development boundary of Newtyle eastwards to incorporate the objection site.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 105 Angus Council Statement of Response

North Craigo: Settlement boundary

Objector Reference

Craigo Farms Ltd 935/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

North Craigo lies on a cross roads on the A937 to the north of Montrose and about 1½ miles south of the village of Marykirk.

The village is shown as a settlement in the local plan review. There are no development allocations and there is no settlement statement. The boundary is drawn tightly around existing development.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In considering objections to the overall level of housing land supply under Policy SC1 it was concluded that the local plan review does not require additional allocations to meet the terms of the structure plan. I therefore share the opinion of the council in this respect and conclude that there is no strategic justification for an additional housing land allocation at North Craigo.

Insofar as the local plan review is concerned, the majority of development is to be guided to locations within the Angus towns and villages to make use of existing and planned transport and other infrastructure in order to help build sustainable communities. In the light of this priority and in view of the review allocation of housing within the Brechin/Montrose housing market area, I conclude that there is no general local plan review justification for additional housing land at North Craigo.

Turning to the consideration of the objection in a local context, I note that very few details have been provided. It has simply been suggested that a mixed use development could be provided commensurate with the size of the village. As the council points out, the recent development virtually doubles the size of North Craigo. To be in scale, any further development would involve a very limited number of houses. Although no doubt welcome, any affordable housing content would therefore be negligible. It may even be that the threshold for affordable housing provision would not be reached. I also believe the scale of development would be unlikely to sustain a shop or a medical centre. The objector suggests that the proximity of Marykirk would be of assistance but, lacking any substantiation, I do not find this to be a credible consideration.

No specific site has been suggested as the objector could make land available on all sides of the village. It has been suggested that any new housing could be absorbed. However, without a clearer indication of what is proposed, I can appreciate the council’s concern about impact on the open landscape. North Craigo is a typical cross roads settlement with houses extending to a greater or lesser degree along the main road and the two minor roads. In my opinion, even limited new development is likely to have a significant impact on the generally rural landscape. Landscaping could eventually assist but not to the extent that would overcome my fears.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 106 Angus Council Statement of Response

On the basis of the foregoing conclusions, I further conclude that there little specific merit in the objection and that the wider policy considerations should be applied. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the guidance contained in SPP15. The SPP advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements. The overall message is that there is considerable scope for allowing more housing developments of this nature and that this should be expressed in development plans. The amount and location of housing in rural areas is determined by a number of factors. I note these factors include proximity to services and fit in the landscape. I have previously considered these matters in terms of North Craigo and have concerns about both the lack of local services and impact on the landscape. SPP15 draws attention to the possibility of the residential conversion of disused sawmills, brickworks etc and the council has pointed out that the former Craigo Mill is a brownfield site close to the village. All-in-all, I conclude that, in this case, rural housing development as requested is not supported by SPP15.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 107 Angus Council Statement of Response

North Dronley: Omission

Objector Reference

Strathallan (Ardargie Mill) Ltd 951/1/1 (per MBM Planning and Development)

Procedure Reporter Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The issue of concern is the development boundary of North Dronley, in particular the area of ground situated outwith but between the two discrete parcels of land that are contained within the village development boundary designations in the finalised local plan review. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I endorse the basis of the objection and the arguments put forward by the council for amending the development boundary of North Dronley as shown in the Proposed Modification text and accompanying plan of September 2005. I also agree with the council that, given the drainage constraints of the area which still remain to be resolved, the site remains non-effective for the time being at least and should not therefore be allocated for housing development within the local plan review.

Based on all of these considerations I conclude that the extension of the development boundary to incorporate the objection site, as agreed by the council and the objector, should be accepted.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case to extend the development boundary of North Dronley to incorporate the objection site, as set out in the Proposed Modifications put forward by the council in September 2005.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:

Amend the development boundary for North Dronley to include the objection site, as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 108 Angus Council Statement of Response

QQQSHH QQQTHH QQQUHH QQQVHH QQQWHH

119 UQUHHH

RUHH IQRFIm TUHH UQUHHH

f 2 W S R inks

T IH

istfield2gottges UQTWHH IQQFVm VSVW olie2ttion UQTWHH

UPVT UQTVHH

hopinsy UQTVHH

he2yld2middy

xorth2hronley UQTUHH

qry hykes erkig fw2IPWFUQm UQTUHH

xyr2h yxvi IPWFHm 2yeh IPWFHm

qlenrig UQTTHH

hrwner howns UQTTHH

yne2ere

i s

UQTSHH

l e

i l UHRV w UQTSHH

URRS

hron ley2 efuse2ip furn xorth2hronley eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF IPUFIm nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eview engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS IXPSHH UQTRHH

UQTRHH QQQSHH QQQTHH QQQUHH QQQVHH QQQWHH

Padanaram: Settlement boundary

Objector Reference

Albamuir Limited 261/2/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

Padanaram lies on the A926 to the west of Forfar and immediately beyond the grade separated junction with the A90.

The village is shown as a settlement in the local plan review. There are no development allocations and there is no settlement statement. The boundary is drawn tightly around existing development.

The objection site extends to 2.4 hectares and is located beyond the open hammerhead of St Ninian’s Road, a residential cul-de-sac. There is built development on three sides of the objection site.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I believe the objector’s arguments in respect of the infill nature of the site and the potential for low cost affordable housing are convincing and I agree with the council’s assessment of the objection. On this basis, it is appropriate to adjust the settlement boundary. However, despite the conditional withdrawal of the objection, I note that the proposed new line of the settlement boundary would not include the entire objection site. In particular, although a short extension of St Ninian’s Road would be possible, it seems unlikely that a suitable access to the objection site could be provided. Certainly, it would not be possible to achieve the schematic layout submitted by the objector. Accordingly, I believe a more practical boundary line should be indicated from the south-west corner of the garden of the end house in St Ninian’s Road (number 51) in a north-west direction for some 120 metres (as scaled) to meet the south-east corner of existing development to the west.

The objector has signalled a clear intention to provide low cost affordable housing for sale. However, circumstances can change and I believe it would be appropriate to annotate the settlement plan to indicate that the site is reserved for affordable housing. Alternatively, a settlement statement should be prepared for Padanaram allocating the land for that purpose.

Consequential modifications should be made to the relevant housing land supply statistics.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend the local plan is modified, as proposed by the council, subject to further modifications whereby the settlement boundary follows the line described in my conclusions, and the site is shown to be reserved for affordable housing. Alternatively, in this latter respect, a settlement statement should be prepared for Padanaram including reference to the affordable housing allocation.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 110 Angus Council Statement of Response

Consequential modifications should be made to the relevant housing land statistics.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

The Council and the objector have reached an agreed position in relation to this objection. The reason the adjustment to the settlement boundary did not include the whole objection site was because it encroached into the adjacent field across a strong definitive boundary which was considered inappropriate. A planning application by Servite Housing Association was submitted on the 6 September 2006 (Application ref. 06/01289/FUL) and the application site reflects the area agreed by the Council to be included in the development boundary for Padanaram

The Reporter’s Recommendation to annotate the village boundary map for Padanaram to indicate that the site is reserved for affordable housing development is accepted. This is in preference to the alternative suggestion that a settlement statement be introduced for Padanaram as this would be the only matter which required to be referred to in the statement.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

DO NOT ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to further amend the development boundary for Padanaram.

Agree to modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification to amend the development boundary to the south west of Padanaram.

In addition, agree to modify the Local Plan Review to annotate the village boundary map for Padanaram, to indicate that the site is reserved for affordable housing development, as shown on the attached plan.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 111 Angus Council Statement of Response

QRPSHH QRPTHH QRPUHH QRPVHH QRPWHH QRQHHH QRQIHH USIUHH USIUHH

i HHTR

USITHH

S Q I fw2TRFTUm TSFIm USITHH TRFQm e2WPT e2WPT

hunvegn eh P

pyh2y qrthfield ih T

gf P I

TTFUm vf P

P H IR

P V P

fw2TUFSUm P illge2rll

R R

TP IP

I R PR

T I QR x dnrm 2xsxse

yeh

R I

RR I

USISHH

H T

I RT P Q

T il2u2t

USISHH S iiih2py

ST SP I

eppyhefvi SV I

ry sxq

P S R

S TH UH x2yeh UP 2xsxse

R I

R S

R U

W R

I S in dnrm umphouse hr

lying2pield USIRHH USIRHH

QVQR TTQR SSQQ

r w2FUS

in hr USIQHH

rin h eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 dnrm the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright USIQHH nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF y pinlised2engus2vol2ln2eviewilw engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS IXPSHH 2 tled mn his HHPQ QRPSHH QRPTHH QRPUHH QRPVHH QRPWHH QRQHHH QRQIHH

Panmure Estate: Omission

Objector Reference

Lintlathen Developments 918/4/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is a locally based case for the finalised local plan review to endorse or promote new residential, leisure and recreational developments within the Panmure Estate. I note that the only local case made on behalf of the objectors, is that the available sites, including the former sawmill and stable block, are all within mature structured landscape and the proposals would supplement existing

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 113 Angus Council Statement of Response

provision of leisure facilities in Carnoustie. I share the concerns expressed by the council that these estate policies are set within open countryside and woodland and it would not be appropriate to have pockets of housing and related development in such a location when the local plan strategy is to direct additional housing to the main settlements which can provide a range of community services and facilities.

I am also concerned about the open-ended nature of the objectors’ proposals, particularly since there has been no indication given of the final number of houses to be developed, through conversion of existing redundant buildings and on greenfield sites, within an overall development strategy for the Panmure Estate. In my view, this gives rise to other issues relating to the potential impact of incremental and unplanned growth of housing and related developments here both locally, in terms of the landscape setting, and in respect of its contribution to the strategic housing land supply of the South Angus HMA.

In summary, I conclude that the arguments put forward in support of the objection are not persuasive when set against the reasonable concerns expressed by the council in the local and strategic contexts.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 114 Angus Council Statement of Response

Piperdam: Paragraph 4 and Pd1 - Residential Development

Objector Reference

Piperdam Golf and Country Club 546/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I conclude that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provide scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes in to account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38. In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is a locally based case for amending the wording of the finalised local plan review - in particular the statement paragraph 4 and Pd1 (both on P263 of the FALPR) - in order to enable the possibility of further growth in the residential development at Piperdam, beyond the third phase already approved. I note that the only local justification for this, made on behalf of the objector, is that it is necessary to support additional investment in leisure and tourist facilities at

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 115 Angus Council Statement of Response

Piperdam. I also note that the revenue from existing recreation and tourism facilities is barely enough to maintain the current level of provision. In this context I share the concerns expressed by the council, firstly in respect of the open-ended nature of such a proposal, particularly since there has been no indication given of the final number of houses to be developed within an overall development strategy for the Piperdam area. I am also concerned about the impacts of incremental and unplanned growth of housing here - both locally, in terms of the impact on the landscape setting of Piperdam, and in respect of its contribution to the strategic housing land supply of the South Angus HMA. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that the fact that additional housing could help to subsidise improvements to the range of recreation and tourist facilities that would otherwise not be affordable, is not sufficient reason in itself to justify the detailed amendments to the local plan review proposed on behalf of the objectors. In summary, the arguments put forward in support of the objection are not persuasive when set against the reasonable concerns expressed by the council in the local and strategic contexts.

In this context, I conclude that the proposed amendments are not justified in this particular case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 116 Angus Council Statement of Response

South Kingennie: Omission of land at Broomfield Nurseries

Objector Reference

Messrs Turriff 557/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The development boundary for South Kingennie excludes land to the west of the village, in particular part of a plant nursery which is situated immediately to the west of a dismantled former railway line. The objection concerns the scope for providing 6-8 low density housing units here. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is a locally based case for allocating part of the Nursery site to the west of South Kingennie, beyond the dismantled railway line, to provide a development opportunity for 6-8 houses and associated horse grazing

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 117 Angus Council Statement of Response

and stabling attached to each unit. I note that the only local justification for this, made on behalf of the objectors, is that there are recent examples of housing development in the vicinity, including a steading development and some ‘farmlets’. I note that, in the objectors’ view, these are broadly similar to the proposal in this case, except that the associated uses now envisaged would be horse-related. I am aware of the nearby steading development at South Kingennie which, I note, is within the development boundary of the village (P269 of the Proposals Map of the FALPR). No details were provided by the objectors about the location, format or other relevant information concerning the ‘farmlets’ referred to in support of the objection, or regarding the current status of the Nursery land concerned.

The council has made no reference to or comment on the local issues raised on behalf of the objectors in this case. Nevertheless, from my site inspection I am aware that the objection site, whilst not readily visible from the nearest adjoining road - as a result of being at a higher level and screened by trees and bushes – is clearly visible from the minor public road passing to the south of the site. In addition, it is situated a considerable distance from the western edge of the development boundary of the village of South Kingennie. In my view, the Nursery is therefore in open countryside and no evidence has been presented to suggest that it is incapable of beneficial agricultural or related countryside uses, for example as a Nursery. Accordingly, I consider that the fact that it may be capable of conversion to provide 6-8 residential dwellings with associated paddocks and stabling for horses, is not sufficient reason to allocate the site for houses in this open countryside location. I am concerned that this would create an unfortunate precedent, particularly given the pressures for developments of housing developments of various types on rural land in open countryside around villages across South Angus.

In summary, based on the strategic housing considerations outlined above, as well as the limited local evidence available to me, I am not persuaded that a satisfactory case has been made to merit the proposed allocation of the Nursery land for housing and associated uses. I have reached this conclusion in the context of the new national planning policy and guidance set out in SPP15 and PAN72. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed amendment to the finalised local plan is not justified in this particular case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 118 Angus Council Statement of Response

South Kingennie: Omission – single plot

Objector Reference

George Jarron 596/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The development boundary for South Kingennie excludes the site of a single house plot to the west of the settlement which the objector would like to see included. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

The fact that the site concerned is for a single house plot does not raise any strategic housing land issues, which relate to allocations of 5 house units or more. The objector in this case, whilst seeking to change the development boundary of South Kingennie, provides little evidence to support his view that the effective settlement boundary is to the west of the objection site. I presume that he regards the former railway line, now dismantled, as the logical boundary. I am not persuaded that the existence of a former rail line is sufficient justification to extend the development boundary in this case, particularly when the intervening land, between this and the nearest dwelling, is part of an agricultural field. In my view this makes the objection site part of the surrounding countryside. In this context I endorse the concerns expressed by the council about setting an unfortunate precedent if the site in question was allowed to be included in the development boundary. I note that there are policies in the finalised local plan which are specifically aimed at addressing proposals for countryside development. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there is no justification for amending the finalised local plan review in the manner sought by the objector in this case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 119 Angus Council Statement of Response

South Kingennie: Omission - land to the west

Objector Reference

Hugh Niven 938/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The development boundary for South Kingennie excludes land to the west of the settlement which incorporates a site that has been used for refuse tipping. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is a locally based case for amending the development boundary of South Kingennie westwards to incorporate the objection

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 120 Angus Council Statement of Response

site for housing development, on an exceptional basis. I note that the only local justification for this, made on behalf of the objector, is that the land concerned, being a former tip, is not capable of any beneficial agricultural use and that it is situated immediately to the east of a recent steading-related housing development. The council has made no reference to or comment on the local issues raised on behalf of the objector in this case. Nevertheless, from the local plan review Proposals Map (P269) it is evident that at least part of the site has been used for refuse tipping and my site inspection demonstrated to me that there has been significant land fill on the west part of the site which has raised ground levels locally. There is insufficient evidence for me to conclude whether or not the site, in whole or part, is capable of beneficial agricultural use or indeed whether it would be appropriate for housing or other uses, as I do not know the nature or extent of the tipping activities in this case. The fact that the site concerned abuts a recent residential development within the development boundary of South Kingennie is also not sufficient reason to extend the boundary westwards to incorporate the objection site. Given that the arguments in support of this are not persuasive, I am concerned that the proposed development boundary extension at South Kingennie, if accepted, would create an unfortunate precedent, given the pressures for extensions of settlement boundaries of villages across South Angus.

In summary, based on the limited evidence available to me, I am not persuaded that a satisfactory case has been made to merit the proposed amendment to the settlement boundary, even in the context of the new national planning policy and guidance set out in SPP15 and PAN72. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed amendment is not justified in this particular case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 121 Angus Council Statement of Response

Strathmartine Hospital: St1, Opportunity Site Strathmartine Hospital Estate

Objector Reference

Heathfield Ltd 814/1/1 (per John Duff Planning & Gary Bryce - Heathfield)

Procedure Reporter

Hearing Richard Bowden

Written submissions objections received on the same topic:

Strathmartine Community Council 182/1/1 Strathmartine Nature Action Group 241/1/1 ______

BACKGROUND

The former Strathmartine Hospital and its associated premises and grounds form an estate on the northern edge of Dundee. Whilst a small part, on the western side, is still used for healthcare services the majority of the 17.5ha estate has been declared surplus to operational requirements. The Strathmartine Hospital estate is identified in the finalised local plan review (Policy St1) as an Opportunity Site for re-use and redevelopment, inviting proposals for a range of uses within a comprehensive development strategy which retains the listed main hospital building. Policy St1 also states that housing development here will be limited to a maximum of 40 residential units, comprising “the conversion of the existing listed building and any limited new housing development.” There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 122 Angus Council Statement of Response

In this context, I now turn to consider whether making a further housing land allocation at Strathmartine Hospital, in addition to the 40 units set out in Policy St1 of the finalised local plan review, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. I note that the case put forward by the objectors includes reference to strategic and local factors, with the former being based largely on the perceived shortcomings of the Dundee Western Gateway allocation - and the fact that Strathmartine Estate is brownfield and hence should be given priority status, in accordance with the principles of the structure plan and local plan. In the context of the strategic issues I have already dealt with above, I am persuaded by the argument put forward by the council that it is premature and hence inappropriate at this time to consider possible alternatives to the DWG. In any event, if there was a failure to deliver in full or in part on that site, I endorse the council’s view that any resulting shortfall in the Dundee part of the HMA would need to be rectified in Dundee City’s administrative area, not in the South Angus part of the HMA. The fact that the Strathmartine Hospital site is brownfield in nature does not mean that it should automatically be considered as a priority housing site, particularly when it is of a scale that it could accommodate such a large amount of housing that would represent a major allocation in the context of South Angus as a whole - even if the housing development was phased, as proposed by the objectors. Nevertheless, if in due course it became clear that the structure plan’s housing land requirements were not being addressed in full in the South Angus HMA area, I would see merit in the council exploring the scope for the Strathmartine Hospital site to make a larger contribution than the 40 units currently set out in the FALPR.

I now turn to consider the other strategic argument put forward on behalf of the objectors, in particular with reference to the scope to deliver some 20 affordable housing units if there was an overall allocation of at least 140 units on the site as a whole. Whilst in principle this would make a welcome contribution to the overall provision of affordable housing in the area, I do not consider that this in itself is sufficient reason to justify a larger overall allocation on the hospital site than the 40 units currently set out in the FALPR. Similarly, I find that the locally based arguments put forward on behalf of the objectors - including reference to the scope for contributing to the costs of a primary school extension and boosting local bus usage, as well as utilising existing water and drainage services - do not individually or cumulatively justify the large-scale allocation of housing being sought for the site concerned.

Furthermore, in my view, the fact that the site could be environmentally enhanced, with the listed building conserved and the estate in general upgraded, if there was a large- scale housing development allocated on the hospital land is not sufficient reason to make such an allocation. I reach this conclusion even in the context of the disturbing increasing issues of vandalism and related problems evident at Strathmartine whilst its future remains uncertain. I am of the view that, in any event, there is an urgent need for a development/planning brief for this brownfield site to be drawn up, ideally by the council working in close consultation with the objectors, as the owners, so that full advantage and cognisance can be taken of its scale, strategic location and its scope for a wide range of commercial and community uses, in addition to a housing component. I conclude that the overall package of land uses and developments on the estate, in the short and longer terms, needs to be conceived, planned, marketed and implemented in a co-ordinated manner, such that it is sustainable for the longer term and in line with national planning policy and guidance. I note that whilst this type of approach is already

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 123 Angus Council Statement of Response

set out in Policy St1 it has not yet resulted in a comprehensive strategy or Masterplan being agreed to date. I consider that, in perpetuating the uncertainty over the future of the estate as a whole, this has probably exacerbated the problems associated with the disuse and dereliction of the property concerned. Nevertheless, based on all of these considerations, I conclude that are no exceptional circumstances to warrant a further allocation of housing at Strathmartine Hospital at present, beyond the 40 units set out in the finalised plan review.

Finally, I note the points of clarification provided by the council in response to the written submissions objections. I consider that these are helpful in making clear the council’s intentions with regard to Policy St1. I also endorse the minor amendment to the phrasing of Policy St1, to include reference to hedgerows, all as put forward by the council as Proposed Modifications to the finalised local plan review for the Strathmartine Estate. Accordingly, I conclude that, apart from the small amendments set out in the Proposed Modification of September 2005, there should be no further modifications to the finalised local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case except as put forward by the council in its Proposed Modifications of September 2005 (page 122).

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:

Amend bullet point 4, Policy St1 by adding "and hedgerows" after "existing tree cover".

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 124 Angus Council Statement of Response

Wellbank: Omissions – South, North and South-East

Objector Reference

Norman Jamieson 274/1/1 (per Ritchie Dagen and Allan)

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden

Written submission objections related to other housing proposals at Wellbank

Mr and Mrs J Lascelles 889/1/1 (per RPS Planning, Transport and Environment) Linlathen Developments Ltd 918/1/2

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. There are three separate objections lodged to the local plan in respect of housing sites on the fringe of Wellbank (immediately to the south, south-east and north of the village boundary, respectively), as well as a current planning application relating to a site to the east of the village, for which there is no local plan objection.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 125 Angus Council Statement of Response

I conclude that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceeds the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provide scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes in to account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.

In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is a locally based case for allocating one or more of the three local plan objection sites for housing and for extending the development boundary of Wellbank to incorporate the site(s) concerned, on an exceptional basis. I consider each of the sites in turn in the context of the general comments about Wellbank raised at the hearing. In particular I am aware that Wellbank has experienced relatively high and rapid levels of population growth through expansion of its housing areas in recent years, without substantial improvements to the level of local services and facilities for the resident community. I am also aware of the limited spare capacity at the local school and the local drainage constraints that would need to be addressed by any significant new housing developments at Wellbank. Furthermore, I note the petition lodged by local villagers reveals strong opposition from existing residents to any form of village expansion, with their primary concerns relating to the loss of greenfield land and the limited infrastructure serving the village.

South Wellbank (274/1/1)

I note that one of the main justifications made for the proposed expansion southwards of the village is that the former railway line would make a more defensible southern boundary for Wellbank. I am not persuaded by this argument and agree with the council that the burn which forms the existing southern development boundary is a strong, natural and defensible edge for the village. From my site inspection I consider that the proposal put forward on behalf of Norman Jamieson would be isolated from the existing village, being across the burn from the rest of the settlement and would be on open agricultural ground in the countryside, despite being alongside both the B978 road and the small road leading to a local waste transfer station.

Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the case has been made adequately for the proposed low density private housing development at this location, even allowing for the fact that it would also provide a 40% contribution of affordable housing. The fact that such a development would support local services and facilities and there may be sufficient places available at the local school and good public transport links serving the village are not sufficient reasons to justify development of this site for 60-70 houses, in my view. This also applies to the offer made on behalf of the objectors to make a reasonable contribution towards upgrading of the local sewage treatment plant. Accordingly, I agree with the council that even if a need for additional housing at Wellbank was demonstrated satisfactorily, this particular site would not be a high priority amongst the various options to expand the village. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed amendments to the finalised local plan review are not justified in this particular case.

North Wellbank (889/1/1)

I note that the only local justification for promoting this site, made on behalf of Mr and Mrs Lascelles, is that the proposed development would provide: the opportunity to widen the range of housing choice available in the area, including providing affordable and sheltered units; a contribution to education provision (if required); as well as offering scope for providing a new square with associated craft and business opportunities to enhance the centre of Wellbank.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 126 Angus Council Statement of Response

The council has made no specific reference to or comment on the local issues raised on behalf of the objectors in this case. It is evident from the local plan development plan boundary and from my site inspection that, being situated beyond the extreme northern periphery of the village, this objection site is not best placed to provide a new community focus for Wellbank. Furthermore, I note that this generally flat site is agricultural land which appears to be productive, being part of an open arable field with no defensible boundaries along its northern and western margins. In my view, whilst it adjoins the northern development boundary of the village, it forms part of the open countryside and no evidence has been presented to suggest that it is incapable of continuing to provide beneficial agricultural use.

The fact that it may be readily developed with a range of house types - including some affordable and retirement units - with scope for other associated community uses to be incorporated within a phased development, is not sufficient reason to allocate the site to the north of Wellbank for houses in this countryside location. I am also concerned that if this site was allocated and developed it would create an unfortunate precedent given the pressures for developments of similar types on rural land in open countryside in the vicinity of villages across South Angus. In summary, based on the strategic housing considerations outlined above as well as the limited local evidence available to me, I am not persuaded that a satisfactory case has been made to merit the proposed allocation of this site for housing and associated community uses or for the proposed extension to the northern development boundary of Wellbank. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed amendments to the finalised local plan review are not justified in this particular case.

South-East Wellbank (918/1/2)

The 10.3ha site put forward by Linlathen Developments extends south-eastwards from the existing built-up area. The drawing showing its boundaries indicates a division of the land concerned into two parcels, one of 4.45ha (11 acres) to the west adjoining another parcel of 5.87 ha (14.5 acres) to the east. An illustrative layout submitted by the objector shows a layout for 51 houses on 2.35ha, being the northern part of western parcel of land nearest to the village. This would utilise the higher ground before the steep slope southwards down to the burn. I assume that this reflects the proposal in the planning application lodged by Linlathen Developments Ltd with the council for 51 mixed housing units which has been referred to by the council.

Whilst the whole of the 10.3ha objection site is outwith the development boundary of Wellbank it has the benefit of being all located to the north of the burn, which I consider is a strong defensible boundary. Nevertheless the boundary to the north is less well defined by fence posts and a stone dyke. The illustrative plan submitted by the objector showing a 51 house development layout (on 2.35ha) including 22 units of affordable housing demonstrates how such a development. I am concerned, however, that even this development would be substantial in the context of Wellbank. Furthermore, it would utilise far less than half of the overall land, totaling 10.3ha, being sought for allocation for mixed housing by this objector. I consider that the 10.3ha of open countryside proposed for mixed housing development is excessive in the local context and if developed as proposed it would result in a totally unbalanced and unjustifiable extension south- eastwards of Wellbank in my view. Furthermore, such a large village extension south- eastwards, if allocated and developed with housing, even in phases, would be too obtrusive, particularly when viewed from the south-west approaching Wellbank. I am also concerned that this would also make it more difficult for the council to resist pressures for further housing development on the land immediately to the north of the Linlathen site. I note that there is a planning application for housing development already lodged on that land. In my view, the fact that Linlathen Developments has invested in investigations to establish the basis on which drainage constraints can be resolved - and has expressed a willingness to finance the necessary works in this regard

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 127 Angus Council Statement of Response

– demonstrates a degree of local commitment, but is not sufficient to outweigh the above concerns.

Based on the above considerations, I am not persuaded that there are exceptional local circumstances to merit allocation of the 10.3ha of land for housing in the finalised plan, as proposed by the objector in this case. Nevertheless, setting aside for a moment the strategic housing land allocation issues outlined earlier, in the event that the council decided in due course that there was a need for some limited additional housing development at Wellbank, I would suggest that a strictly limited form of extension of the existing housing of Wellbank eastwards onto some of the western parcel of land shown on the illustrative layout accompanying the objection by Linlathen Developments, would be less obtrusive than the other local plan objection proposals put forward to the north and south of Wellbank. Nevertheless, in my view the strategic housing land allocation issues cannot be set aside at this time and, on balance, there are insufficient local reasons to outweigh these strategic considerations. Accordingly, I conclude that this 10.3ha site should not be allocated for housing in the finalised local plan review.

Whilst I am aware of the local opposition voiced in the petition lodged, I note that there are no opportunities for growth at Wellbank without using some greenfield land and any developer would have to address the constraints on local infrastructure, concerning drainage issues for example. Nevertheless, based on all of the above considerations and for the reasons I have set out, in summary I conclude that none of the three objection sites should be allocated for housing in the local plan review.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in response to any of the objections considered.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 128 Angus Council Statement of Response

Westhall Terrace: Omission

Objector Reference

Mr Hamish Cook 900/1/1 (per Ritchie Dagen and Allan)

Procedure Reporter

Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the South Angus (Monifieth, Sidlaw and Carnoustie) area which has a specified requirement within the wider Dundee and South Angus HMA. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those for South Angus, should be reflected in the local plan.

I conclude that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocations of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provide scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes into account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38. In this context I now turn to consider whether a new housing land allocation for approximately 15 general needs houses at Westhall Terrace, as proposed by the objector, should be accepted on an exceptional basis. The case put forward to justify this housing land allocation is based largely on a perceived need to balance development on either side of the spine road through the settlement and to provide a larger critical mass to support local services. The site in question is agricultural land which is prominent in the landscape. I conclude that there are no overriding reasons why symmetry in the

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 129 Angus Council Statement of Response

form of balancing developments either side of the minor road should form the basis of a planning justification for a new housing land allocation here, particularly when there are numerous examples of asymmetric settlements which are not disadvantaged. In addition, in my view the fact that the proposed new houses would potentially assist in supporting local services is not sufficient reason to justify the proposed growth of the settlement by one third. I note that there are no local shops and few other facilities or services - only the primary school, a village hall and a rural bus service - to support new residents at this location. There is also no guarantee that, merely by adding to the local housing stock in the manner proposed, there would be a new shop or other improvements in local services. Indeed based on experience elsewhere in rural Angus, it may continue to be a commuter dormitory settlement, albeit an even larger one and still almost wholly dependent on car based journeys for work and most other purposes. This would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development promoted by national planning policy and supported by the structure plan and the finalised local plan.

Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment and conclude that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant an additional housing land allocation of 15 general needs housing units on the west side of Westhall Terrace.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 130 Angus Council Statement of Response

Westmuir: Settlement boundary

Objector Reference

Mr & Mrs Reid 860/1/1 William L Howcroft 876/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Dent ______

BACKGROUND

Westmuir lies on the A926 to the west of Kirriemuir.

The village is shown as a settlement in the local plan review. There are no development allocations and there is no settlement statement. The boundary is drawn tightly around existing development.

The objection site fronts a narrow road, Broad Wood Road, to the immediate north of the village. This road leads to a minor road to the west and to the A926 via a sharp corner and a narrow residential road – Westbank - through the village. Four houses front Broad Wood Road to the west of the objection site with a further house, “Windrush” to the east. On the opposite side of the road there is a vehicle breaker’s yard to the west and the most northern part of the village to the east. The 30 mph extends to the west of the site. The site itself is in three sections, the western part is cropped, the central section under grass and there is a substantial temporary structure on the land to the east.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

The location of the settlement boundary at this location is, to some extent, a matter of perception. The objectors believe the objection land to be a gap site, the incorporation of which within the settlement would represent a natural rounding-off. On the other hand, despite the granting of planning permission for a single house in the eastern part of the site, the council is of the opinion that the land has a rural character.

I accept that the land has some characteristics of a gap site lying between the four houses to the west and Windrush to the east. The construction of a further house in terms of the planning permission that has been granted will narrow the undeveloped frontage and create a more clearly defined gap. The car breaking business is not an activity that has a rural character but overall I share the council’s opinion that Broad Wood Road forms a suitable settlement boundary as the land to the north has a more clearly defined rural character. The four houses to the west of the objection site do not have a dominant visual impact and therefore do not destroy the rural character. Windrush to the east and, if built, the new house have the potential to detract from the character but I believe the remaining open frontage will ensure that, on balance, the rural appearance is retained. This character would be lost through the completion of a row of houses which, in my opinion, would be unacceptable. I therefore conclude the settlement boundary should not be extended to the north of Broad Wood Road.

I have also taken into account the concerns about the standard of the local road network and, notwithstanding the recent planning permission for one house, I accept that development leading to further traffic generation should not be encouraged. Similarly, I note the council’s comments in respect of drainage. I am aware that there have been

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 131 Angus Council Statement of Response

improvements to the waste water treatment works but even if drainage capacity were to be available, this would not lead me to set aside my conclusion on the appropriate line of the settlement boundary.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.

HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT

Support for the Council’s position is noted.

ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION

No change.

Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 3 132 Angus Council Statement of Response

Woodville: Wv1 - Development Approach

Objector Reference

D G Coutts Associates 923/1/1

Procedure Reporter

Written submissions Richard Bowden ______

BACKGROUND

The issue concerns whether the development boundary for Woodville is being used to exclude development rather than contain development. The margin of page 21 of the finalised local plan review states that development boundaries generally provide “a definition between built-up areas and the countryside but may include peripheral areas of open space that are important to the setting of settlements”. Paragraph 2.12 of the same document states that the plan provides scope for unallocated and currently unidentified sites which may be suitable for residential development to come forward within development boundaries, where development is in accordance with the principles of the local plan.

The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 3 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.

REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS

I can understand the concerns expressed by the objector about the apparent inconsistency he perceives between the policy approach adopted by the council at Woodville compared with in other localities with defined development boundaries. I note, however, that the council has provided a reasoned justification to explain why it considers that a different approach is required in the specific local circumstances relating to Woodville. I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by the council, based on the particular local context which I regard as exceptional and therefore justifying this particular development approach which does not apply elsewhere in Angus. Accordingly, I conclude that the policy approach for Woodville, as outlined in the finalised local plan review, is reasonable, notwithstanding the stated concerns about a perceived lack of consistency of approach outlined by the objector.

Accordingly, I conclude that there is no justification to amend the finalised local plan review in this particular case.

REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.