Representation Summary – Housing Issues Consideration Recommendation Issue GIR3- Further options should be considered for the use of this site. Any development must not adversely impact on the residential The site is proposed for housing and is located within a predominantly residential area. The redevelopment of the No proposed modification to Girvan Housing amenity of Wilson Avenue. Any redevelopment needs to remediate the site without negative impact on surrounding residential brownfield site for residential purposes could have positive impact on the visual and residential amenity of LDP. Site @ Henrietta area due to previous use as gasworks. surrounding area. The allocation of the site for housing contributes to the Plan’s housing requirement. The impact Street (GIR3) of any development on surrounding amenity, and dealing with remediation from previous uses, which may have contaminated the site, can be dealt with at planning application stage. Support for sites MAYB1, 2 and 3 for residential development proposed allocation for a master plan led development at Maybole. None. No proposed modification to Maybole Housing Since the Proposed Local Development Plan was released for consultation, the joint developers have been securing market interest, LDP. Site @ Crosshill preparing a site master plan, meeting with Maybole Community Council and preparing a Accessibility Appraisal Report Road (MAYB1) Support for sites MAYB1, 2 and 3 for residential development proposed allocation for a master plan led development at Maybole. No further consideration given to supportive comments. No proposed modification to Maybole Housing Since the Proposed Local Development Plan was released for consultation, the joint developers have been securing market interest, LDP. Site @ Crosshill preparing a site master plan, meeting with Maybole Community Council and preparing an Accessibility Appraisal Report. Devaluation of property is not a material consideration in the production of the Plan. It is considered that the Road (MAYB2) proposed residential use of the site, in principle, will not adversely impact on the existing residential amenity •Object to MAYB2 site on residential amenity grounds and concerns further development would devalue their property. within the locality. Specific design proposals will be considered as part of a planning application, which should ensure no unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity within the locality. Support for sites MAYB1, 2 and 3 for residential development proposed allocation for a master plan led development at Maybole. None. No proposed modification to Maybole Housing Since the Proposed Local Development Plan was released for consultation, the joint developers have been securing market interest, LDP. Site @ Crosshill preparing a site master plan, meeting with Maybole Community Council and preparing an Accessibility Appraisal Report. Road (MAYB3) · Objection to the allocation of MAYB4, as it would spoil existing residents’ views over open countryside and may adversely impact on The identified density for the site is based on a consistent process for identifying site capacity. The identified No proposed modification to the setting of St. John's cottage. capacity contributes to the overall housing requirement, and impact on infrastructure is based on the capacity LDP. Maybole Housing identified. Notwithstanding, the Plan recognises, within “LDP Policy: maintaining and protecting land for housing”, Site @ The • Support for the release of MAYB4 and agree that vegetation will create defensible site boundary. Supporting information has been that a higher density on allocation sites would be acceptable depending on additional impact on infrastructure Loaning (MAYB4) submitted on transport being met and all other planning and environmental considerations being satisfactorily addressed via a planning application for the site. •The site capacity should be increased from 40 to 50 units, and the release should not be dependent on assessment of impact on trunk road. The site should not be part of a masterplan for housing release within Maybole and could be considered infill Impact of development on an individual’s view is not a material consideration. However, landscape setting of the development. settlement has been considered, and it is considered the site is acceptable for development. Any planning application for the development of this site will require to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the character and setting of St John’s cottage.

Transport Scotland indicated that transport appraisals for development at Maybole will be required in order for the agency to support the release of allocation sites within the Plan. As such, the Council cannot propose the release of the site and expect support for its release, from Transport Scotland, during the Plan examination. Relevant transport information is currently with Transport Scotland for assessment, and the Council is working to ensure Transport Scotland support for sites.

The site was proposed at Call for Sites stage, as part of a package of sites, including adjacent sites, also proposed for release in the LDP. No information has been submitted to indicate why the site should not form part of a masterplan release for Maybole. It is not considered, given scale and location of site, that its development would constitute infill development. Indeed, an integrated design solution for this, and other release sites at Maybole will ensure a development design that integrates with the settlement, visually, and physically. •Objects to ANN1 due to loss of privacy to existing residential properties, negative impact on property values, visual impact on The allocation of the site, in principle, will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for any existing No proposed modification to Annbank landscape, development could adversely change community dynamic, creating an access to the site would remove part of a woodland, dwellinghouse. A planning application for the development of the site would determine whether specific LDP. Housing Site @ which would be detrimental to wildlife; a new access road may increase traffic on a route used by walkers and cyclists; the site has development proposals for the site would meet the Council’s established residential amenity standards, thereby Brocklehill been downgraded in terms of agricultural land and erodes the greenbelt; Demolition of the "old man’s cabin" which is used regularly Action: Amend site report to ensuring maintenance of an appropriate level of privacy/residential amenity for existing houses. Avenue (ANN1) by the villagers; adverse impact on River Ayr due to the topography of the site; the site is located outwith the settlement of the site; include reference to the and, the proposals will result in an overdevelopment of Annbank. woodland within design The value of neighbouring houses is not material to the consideration of whether the site should be allocated for landscape, to ensure any •Supportive of ANN1 as it rounds off of the western edge of the settlement providing a clearer, defensible boundary. There is an housing or not. development incorporates economic regeneration justification for housing development, as well as a housing demand in Annbank, which the site will assist to suitable proposals to ensure meet. It is also considered that housing will strengthen viability of shops, services and transport services. The site meets SPP in respect The visual impact of the proposal on the landscape was considered within the site report and was considered to be the woodland is managed of sustainable development, economic growth, housing, rural development, landscape and natural environment, transport and acceptable. appropriately. Amend site flooding and drainage. The Landscape Assessment shows the proposed housing site can be justified in landscape terms. The report to reflect that the site Transportation Statement for the site highlights it can be justified in traffic terms. The site is considered to be free from constraints The community dynamic is not a material planning consideration. will impact on prime quality and effective in terms of the outlined criteria to measure the effectiveness of housing sites. agricultural land. Include Historic Scotland has commented on the impact of the development on the designed landscape and the woodland, protection of “Old Man’s and has recommended that the site report be modified to include reference to the woodland to ensure it is Cabin” facility within the site appropriately managed and incorporated into the design of any residential development. brief.

Impact on wildlife and river Ayr was considered in the site report and was not considered to be unacceptable.

The Council’s roads service has not objected to the proposed development.

The site report erroneously does not identify the site as prime quality agricultural land. Part of the site is pqa. While this would normally have resulted in the site being filtered out of consideration, there is no available land at Annbank, which could have been used to meet housing needs without involving loss of pqa. Therefore, in this instance, and given the housing dispersal strategy forms an integral part of the spatial strategy, it is considered an acceptable impact. The site has been determined to be a suitable housing release site, and is not proposed to be covered by greenbelt.

It is not proposed to demolish the community facility at the site. The site brief can be modified to include provision for the retention of the facility.

The level of development proposed at Annbank is a result of monitoring of marketability of settlements. It is not considered that the proposal results in an over-development of the site.

Object to BAL1 on following grounds: no need for housing/development at Ballantrae; there are existing vacant houses in Ballantrae; As part of the ‘call for sites’ exercise, a site was proposed by Ballantrae Community Council, indicating that there is No proposed modification to Ballantrae development will have an adverse impact on road safety and congestion in village and there is already poor public transport links; site a demand for housing within the settlement. Impacts upon the local road network will be addressed to the LDP. Housing Site @ release conflicts with rural diversification, dark skies and G&A Biosphere objectives; development would be contrary to Transport satisfaction of the Council’s Roads service and/or Transport Scotland as part of the planning application process, Main Street Scotland's objective to reduce trunk road impact on communities; the plan in the LDP is incorrect, and some areas should be removed, alleviating safety and congestion concerns. (BAL1) due to ownership; no community council support for site; agricultural land should be retained to improve carbon footprint and for food production; consultation processes have been poor; development will result in loss of privacy for existing houses; development The site is not located within the darks skies park and is located within the ‘transition area’ of the Biosphere. will fragment village; there are poor employment opportunities for future residents; existing local amenities cannot sustain further Within this area the principles of sustainable development are promoted. It is considered that development within housing; development will result in a loss of wildlife; new housing will change village dynamic. Other comments queried whether an existing settlement would be in-keeping with the fundamental principles of sustainable development. alternative site(s) may be available, and that there is a need for affordable housing. The loss of agricultural land was considered within the site report, concluding that most of the land around Ballantrae is PQAL and it would therefore be difficult to provide for a logical extension to the settlement without encroaching upon PQAL. It is considered that the consultation exercises have been more than sufficient, ensuring that interested parties have had opportunities to submit their concerns to the Council within reasonable timeframes.

The allocation of the site, in principle, will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for any existing dwellinghouse. A planning application for the development of the site would determine whether specific development proposals for the site would meet the Council’s established residential amenity standards, thereby ensuring maintenance of an appropriate level of privacy/residential amenity for existing houses. In terms of the fragmentation of the village, it is considered that the site presents the most logical option for the extension of the settlement and that there are opportunities to integrate with the existing settlement.

There is no definitive information to suggest that there would be poor employment opportunities for future residents or indeed, that future residents would require employment opportunities. In terms of existing local amenities, additional housing would provide a small boost to the local economy. If it generated capacity issues at the school, the developer would be required to provide a solution to this as part of the planning application process, in line with the Council’s Education Contributions policy and associated SG.

The loss of wildlife is not considered to be an issue of concern in relation to this site. It is not a wildlife site and SNH have not offered any objection to the site.

Changing the dynamic of the village is not a material planning consideration.

The site will be required to make an affordable housing contribution in line with LDP policy: affordable housing – though this may or may not result in affordable housing on site.

The circumstances of this site are unique in that the Community Council and landowner both submitted the site for the Council’s consideration, and that since publication of the proposed Plan, the community support for the site has been withdrawn. Supportive of the allocation of Site COY1 as it is a natural extension to the settlement of Coylton. This site can be delivered and meets Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which No proposed modification to Coylton Housing the 7 test set out in Paragraph 55 of the PAN2/2010. cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering LDP. Site @Lochfergus infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with Crescent (COY1) Objects to COY1: ruin views from property of countryside; Inadequate consultation on site/LDP; boundary should be changed to schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development exclude developed play area; there is concern the existing road capacity cannot accommodate development (potentially 1000 vehicle will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education movements a day; development would cause traffic/safety concerns in Lochfergus Crescent , A70, Hole Road, primary school and services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will local shops – transport assessments (funded by developer) should have been undertaken; vehicle access to site not identified; site is a result in an entire new school. flood risk area and current drainage is inadequate; concern about available school capacity; loss of countryside; urban brownfield land should be preferred; health and safety and amenity impact on residents during construction; previous applications have been refused, The play area at Lochfergus Park is not intended to be allocated to housing and this matter can be clarified in the allocating site would be unfair; loss of residential amenity; impact on wildlife habitats; cumulative traffic impact on settlement; there site brief. is a lack of community facilities to accommodate the development; the development may encourage children to play near Lochend Loch The Council’s road service has been consulted on the Plan and offers no objections in principle to the housing development. It is indicated that transport assessments for the development should be submitted at planning application stage, whereupon local road network implications of the development will be identified. Any mitigation required will require to be provided by housing developers. The Council is working with the relevant parties involved in the sites, and Transport Scotland to ensure the developments have no adverse cumulative impact on A77.

An individual’s right to a view is not a material planning consideration.

The LDP consultation was beyond statutory requirements and in line with the DPS participation statement.

The sites in the LDP are not identified flood risk areas. SEPA and Scottish Water have been consulted and have raised no objections.

The LDP strategy prefers brownfield land over greenfield sites; however, the plan requires to meet established housing needs and demands, which involves loss of greenfield sites. The LDP site selection process ensured the most environmentally preferable sites were selected for inclusion in the LDP.

Implications arising from construction are not material planning considerations.

The release of the proposed sites will not, in principle, have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. Planning application stage will ensure that detailed proposals for development are not unacceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity.

The wildlife implications of the release of sites have been considered in the sites reports, and no adverse impacts have been identified. Development briefs will provide any necessary mitigation.

Coylton contains a range of community amenities and is located in close proximity to the urban core of South Ayrshire, which has a wider range of amenities.

The allocation of land int he LDP will not directly result in children playing near Lochend Loch. Support COY2. The site is effective and deliverable and meets the 7 tests set out in paragraph 55 of PAN 2/2010. The site is a logical Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which No proposed modification to Coylton Housing and natural, small scale extension to the existing settlement which would effectively "round-off" the settlement in this location. Its cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering LDP. Site @ Hole Road allocation can be supported by the guidance set out in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the SPP. infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with (COY2) schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development Transport assessment required for development (to determine impact on Hole Road, A70, primary school, local shops and bus stops); will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education road safety concerns; concerned about primary school capacity; loss of countryside; urban brownfield site preferable for services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipate that the proposed development will development; adverse visual impact on development; previous planning applications for residential refused – to allocate would be result in an entire new school. unfair; loss of wildlife; increased flooding risk due to inadequate drainage; health and safety and amenity concerns relating to construction period and impact on existing residents; residential amenity loss. The Council’s road service has been consulted on the Plan and offers no objections in principle to the housing development. It is indicated that transport assessments for the development should be submitted at planning application stage, whereupon local road network implications of the development will be identified. Any mitigation required will require to be provided by housing developers. The Council is working with the relevant parties involved in the sites, and Transport Scotland to ensure the developments have no adverse cumulative impact on A77.

An individual’s right to a view is not a material planning consideration.

The LDP consultation was beyond statutory requirements and in line with the DPS participation statement.

The sites in the LDP are not identified flood risk areas. SEPA and Scottish Water have been consulted and have raised no objections.

The LDP strategy prefers brownfield land over greenfield sites; however, the plan requires to meet established housing needs and demands, which involves loss of greenfield sites. The LDP site selection process ensured the most environmentally preferable sites were selected for inclusion in the LDP.

Implications arising from construction are not material planning considerations.

The release of the proposed sites will not, in principle, have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. Planning application stage will ensure that detailed proposals for development are not unacceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity.

The wildlife implications of the release of sites have been considered in the sites reports, and no adverse impacts have been identified. Development briefs will provide any necessary mitigation.

Coylton contains a range of community amenities and is located in close proximity to the urban core of South Ayrshire, which has a wider range of amenities.

Transport assessment required for development (to determine impact on Hole Road, A70, primary school, local shops and bus stops); Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which No proposed modification to Coylton Housing road safety concerns; concerned about primary school capacity; loss of countryside; urban brownfield site preferable for cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering LDP. Site @ Highpark development; adverse visual impact on development; previous planning applications for residential refused – to allocate would be infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with Road (COY3) unfair; loss of wildlife; increased flooding risk due to inadequate drainage; health and safety and amenity concerns relating to schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development construction period and impact on existing residents; residential amenity loss. will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipate that the proposed development will result in an entire new school.

The Council’s road service has been consulted on the Plan and offers no objections in principle to the housing development. It is indicated that transport assessments for the development should be submitted at planning application stage, whereupon local road network implications of the development will be identified. Any mitigation required will require to be provided by housing developers. The Council is working with the relevant parties involved in the sites, and Transport Scotland to ensure the developments have no adverse cumulative impact on A77.

An individual’s right to a view is not a material planning consideration.

The LDP consultation was beyond statutory requirements and in line with the DPS participation statement.

The sites in the LDP are not identified flood risk areas. SEPA and Scottish Water have been consulted and have raised no objections.

The LDP strategy prefers brownfield land over greenfield sites; however, the plan requires to meet established housing needs and demands, which involves loss of greenfield sites. The LDP site selection process ensured the most environmentally preferable sites were selected for inclusion in the LDP.

Implications arising from construction are not material planning considerations.

The release of the proposed sites will not, in principle, have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. Planning application stage will ensure that detailed proposals for development are not unacceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity.

The wildlife implications of the release of sites have been considered in the sites reports, and no adverse impacts have been identified. Development briefs will provide any necessary mitigation.

Coylton contains a range of community amenities and is located in close proximity to the urban core of South Ayrshire, which has a wider range of amenities. Transport assessment required for development (to determine impact on Hole Road, A70, primary school, local shops and bus stops); Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which No proposed modification to Coylton Housing road safety concerns; concerned about primary school capacity; loss of countryside; urban brownfield site preferable for cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering LDP. Site @ Joppa development; adverse visual impact on development; previous planning applications for residential refused – to allocate would be infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with (COY4) unfair; loss of wildlife; increased flooding risk due to inadequate drainage; health and safety and amenity concerns relating to schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development construction period and impact on existing residents; residential amenity loss; the site is of high environmental value with mature will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education trees and wildlife, which would be harmed as a result of development. services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipate that the proposed development will result in an entire new school.

The Council’s road service has been consulted on the Plan and offers no objections in principle to the housing development. It is indicated that transport assessments for the development should be submitted at planning application stage, whereupon local road network implications of the development will be identified. Any mitigation required will require to be provided by housing developers. The Council is working with the relevant parties involved in the sites, and Transport Scotland to ensure the developments have no adverse cumulative impact on A77.

An individual’s right to a view is not a material planning consideration.

The LDP consultation was beyond statutory requirements and in line with the DPS participation statement.

The sites in the LDP are not identified flood risk areas. SEPA and Scottish Water have been consulted and have raised no objections.

The LDP strategy prefers brownfield land over greenfield sites; however, the plan requires to meet established housing needs and demands, which involves loss of greenfield sites. The LDP site selection process ensured the most environmentally preferable sites were selected for inclusion in the LDP.

Implications arising from construction are not material planning considerations.

The release of the proposed sites will not, in principle, have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. Planning application stage will ensure that detailed proposals for development are not unacceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity.

The wildlife implications of the release of sites have been considered in the sites reports, and no adverse impacts have been identified. Development briefs will provide any necessary mitigation.

Coylton contains a range of community amenities and is located in close proximity to the urban core of South Ayrshire, which has a wider range of amenities. Objects to COY5: -Setting of the cemetery would be compromised as people would utilise the open space to the front for recreational Impacts upon the setting of the cemetery are not a material consideration. Nonetheless, there is no evidence to No proposed modification to Coylton Housing use; Manse Road cannot cope with additional traffic as some existing houses do not have off street parking which causes congestion suggest that the proposed development would adversely impact upon the setting of cemetery. This would be more Site @ Manse issues at peak times; Manse Road junction with A70 has significant safety issues due to speed of vehicles on A70; The residential appropriately addressed through the planning application process. LDP. Road (COY5) amenity of existing residents will be adversely impacted by the development particularly those at the proposed site access road; scale of development should reflect existing settlement character; particular foul drainage issues in the locality which affect Glen View Impacts upon the local road network will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Council’s Roads service as part of residents the planning application process, alleviating safety and congestion concerns.

A planning application for the development of the site would determine whether specific development proposals for the site would meet the Council’s established residential amenity standards, thereby ensuring maintenance of an appropriate level of privacy/residential amenity for existing houses. The layout and design of the development are detailed matters which will be addressed as part of the planning application process.

In terms of foul drainage, SEPA have been consulted throughout the process and did not object to the allocation of the site as indicated within the site report. The sites in the LDP are not identified flood risk areas. SEPA and Scottish Water have been consulted and have raised no objections.

The play area at Lochfergus Park is not intended to be allocated to housing and this matter can be clarified in the site brief.

The Council’s road service has been consulted on the Plan and offers no objections in principle to the housing development. It is indicated that transport assessments for the development should be submitted at planning application stage, whereupon local road network implications of the development will be identified. Any mitigation required will require to be provided by housing developers. The Council is working with the relevant parties involved in the sites, and Transport Scotland to ensure the developments have no adverse cumulative impact on A77.

An individual’s right to a view is not a material planning consideration.

The LDP consultation was beyond statutory requirements and in line with the DPS participation statement.

The LDP strategy prefers brownfield land over greenfield sites; however, the plan requires to meet established housing needs and demands, which involves loss of greenfield sites. The LDP site selection process ensured the most environmentally preferable sites were selected for inclusion in the LDP.

Implications arising from construction are not material planning considerations.

The release of the proposed sites will not, in principle, have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity. Planning application stage will ensure that detailed proposals for development are not unacceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity.

The wildlife implications of the release of sites have been considered in the sites reports, and no adverse impacts have been identified. Development briefs will provide any necessary mitigation.

Coylton contains a range of community amenities and is located in close proximity to the urban core of South Ayrshire, which has a wider range of amenities. Supportive of the inclusion of CRO1 for residential development for the following reasons: 1.The site is considered to be suitable for None. No proposed modification to Crosshill Housing expansion of the settlement by representing an infilling and rounding-off of the settlement at this location to rationalise the urban LDP. Site @Land At, form. 2. Given that the new South Ayrshire Local Development Plan will be looking 20 years into the future there is strong justification Kirkmichael for housing development in the Crosshill area. This justification includes economic regeneration, job creation, continued demand for Road, (CRO1) new housing, strengthening the viability of shops and services, the existing operation of frequent bus services and the capacity within the settlement and its landscape setting to absorb carefully positioned additional development. 3. As evidenced, the proposals at Kirkmichael Road are considered capable of positive consideration against the terms of National Planning Policy - SPP particularly in the subject policy areas covering sustainable development, economic growth, housing, rural development, landscape and natural environment, transport and flooding and drainage. 4. The ability of the site to help meet the South Ayrshire Local Development Plan's housing requirements and objectives to maintain an adequate range, choice and distribution of effective housing sites to meet projected demand over the plan period in order to help sustain the economic health of Crosshill including sustaining and improving public services and hence the viability of the settlement. 5. At this stage initial indications are that in landscape terms the site can be developed sensitively (subject to mitigation measures) for housing and that the landscape can accept this change. 6. There are no transportation issues for this proposed housing site that cannot be accommodated. 7. The site is considered to be free from constraints and effective in terms of the outlined criteria to measure the effectiveness of housing sites. In all regards the zoning of the site at Kirkmichael Road, Crosshill as an effective residential development site within the Proposed South Ayrshire Local Development Plan is supported and the continued residential zoning of the site in terms of the emerging South Ayrshire Local Development Plan is requested The representation supports housing land allocation at Dailly (DAI1). None. No proposed modification to Dailly Housing LDP. Site @ Hadyard Terrace (DAI1) Object to DUN2 for the following reasons: - Impact on the conservation area has been considered, however, it is not considered that the allocation of the site, No proposed modification to Dundonald • the potential negative impact on conservation area; adverse impact of increased traffic levels (combined with previous in principle, will have an adverse impact on the character or setting of the conservation area in Dundonald. LDP. Housing Site @ development) causing road safety concern for pedestrians; impact on existing physical and social infrastructure within Dundonald (in Kilmarnock Road terms of drainage systems, and nursery, primary and secondary education facilities; and an increased risk of flooding within an area The Council’s road service has been consulted throughout the preparation of the Plan, and it is not considered that (DUN1) already prone to flooding. the site should be rejected on roads and transportation grounds. It is recognised that there is congestion within Main Street. It is recommended by the Council’s roads service that the requirement for a transport assessment at Supportive of allocations DUN1, DUN2 and DUN3 for the following reasons: sites offer the opportunity for expansion of Dundonald, to planning application stage, should be secured via the action programme, as the any roads concerns can be provide a better settlement edge; sufficient landscape capacity to accommodate a phased, masterplanned, housing development; satisfactorily dealt with at planning application. housing release in Dundonald aligns to 20 year LDP vision, assisting to provide an effective housing land supply; housing release will promote economic regeneration, meet a demand for new housing, strengthening the viability of shops and services (including public Drainage for the proposal should be secured at planning application stage. Scottish Water has been consulted transport); support conclusions of site assessment process; transport statement shows the proposed housing sites can be justified; throughout the Plan process and has not indicated any objection to the site. sites are otherwise free from constraints and effective. Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipate that the proposed development will result in an entire new school.

The impact on flood risk areas has been considered in the site reports for Dundonald and all flood risk areas have been avoided. Notwithstanding, the LDP contains flood risk policies to ensure flood risk areas are avoided. This also gives guidance on flood risk management. Object to DUN2 for the following reasons: - Impact on the conservation area has been considered, however, it is not considered that the allocation of the site, No proposed modification to Dundonald •the potential negative impact on conservation area; adverse impact of increased traffic levels (combined with previous development) in principle, will have an adverse impact on the character or setting of the conservation area in Dundonald. LDP. Housing Site @ causing road safety concern for pedestrians; impact on existing physical and social infrastructure within Dundonald (in terms of Kilmarnock Road drainage systems, and nursery, primary and secondary education facilities; and an increased risk of flooding within an area already The Council’s road service has been consulted throughout the preparation of the Plan, and it is not considered that (DUN2) prone to flooding. the site should be rejected on roads and transportation grounds. It is recognised that there is congestion within Main Street. It is recommended by the Council’s roads service that the requirement for a transport assessment at Supportive of allocations DUN1, DUN2 and DUN3 for the following reasons: sites offer the opportunity for expansion of Dundonald, to planning application stage, should be secured via the action programme, as the any roads concerns can be provide a better settlement edge; sufficient landscape capacity to accommodate a phased, masterplanned, housing development; satisfactorily dealt with at planning application. housing release in Dundonald aligns to 20 year LDP vision, assisting to provide an effective housing land supply; housing release will promote economic regeneration, meet a demand for new housing, strengthening the viability of shops and services (including public Drainage for the proposal should be secured at planning application stage. Scottish Water has been consulted transport); support conclusions of site assessment process; transport statement shows the proposed housing sites can be justified; throughout the Plan process and has not indicated any objection to the site. sites are otherwise free from constraints and effective. Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipate that the proposed development will result in an entire new school.

The impact on flood risk areas has been considered in the site reports for Dundonald and all flood risk areas have been avoided. Notwithstanding, the LDP contains flood risk policies to ensure flood risk areas are avoided. This also gives guidance on flood risk management. Object to DUN2 for the following reasons: - Impact on the conservation area has been considered, however, it is not considered that the allocation of the site, No proposed modification to Dundonald • the potential negative impact on conservation area; adverse impact of increased traffic levels (combined with previous in principle, will have an adverse impact on the character or setting of the conservation area in Dundonald. LDP. Housing Site @ development) causing road safety concern for pedestrians; impact on existing physical and social infrastructure within Dundonald (in Tarbolton Road terms of drainage systems, and nursery, primary and secondary education facilities; and an increased risk of flooding within an area The Council’s road service has been consulted throughout the preparation of the Plan, and it is not considered that (DUN3) already prone to flooding. the site should be rejected on roads and transportation grounds. It is recognised that there is congestion within Main Street. It is recommended by the Council’s roads service that the requirement for a transport assessment at Supportive of allocations DUN1, DUN2 and DUN3 for the following reasons: sites offer the opportunity for expansion of Dundonald, to planning application stage, should be secured vuia the action programme, as the any roads concerns can be provide a better settlement edge; sufficient landscape capacity to accommodate a phased, masterplanned, housing development; satisfactorily dealt with at planning application. housing release in Dundonald aligns to 20 year LDP vision, assisting to provide an effective housing land supply; housing release will promote economic regeneration, meet a demand for new housing, strengthening the viability of shops and services (including public Drainage for the proposal should be secured at planning application stage. Scottish Water has been consulted transport); support conclusions of site assessment process; transport statement shows the proposed housing sites can be justified; throughout the Plan process and has not indicated any objection to the site. sites are otherwise free from constraints and effective. Education contributions will be sought from any development that has an impact on education facilities, which cannot be accommodated within the existing school capacity. This is contained within LDP policy: delivering infrastructure. Therefore any development would require to provide a solution for any capacity issues with schools. The details of the education contribution that would be required to deal with the impact of development will be set out in supplementary guidance, which will be statutorily linked to the development plan. Education services have been consulted throughout the LDP process. It is not anticipate that the proposed development will result in an entire new school.

The impact on flood risk areas has been considered in the site reports for Dundonald and all flood risk areas have been avoided. Notwithstanding, the LDP contains flood risk policies to ensure flood risk areas are avoided. This also gives guidance on flood risk management. Any development should be limited to the area close to Bolestyle Road and not further up the slope, as it may over dominate the The implications of development to the extreme rear of the site is recognised in the site report, and it is an No proposed modification to Kirkmichael existing village due to the elevated position, making it overall intrusive. expectation of any planning application for the site, that the site design takes cognisance of landscape impact of LDP. Housing Site @ • Representation supports KIRKM1 and its inclusion in the emerging development plan. Considers the site to be deliverable and a the locality. It is not recommended that development is restricted, per se, from any portion of the site, as it should Bolestyle Road natural extending to the existing settlement. be for the design solution to show it has an acceptable impact on landscape. (KIRKM1) Concerned regarding the proposed access to Site KIR1 in Kirkoswald of Kirk Brae and proposes the access is directly off A77 to avoid The site report indicates that access would require to be taken directly from the A77. As such, the views of No proposed modification to Kirkoswald further congestion. Concerns relating to the capacity of water supply within this part of the village as the representative stated Transport Scotland will be used to inform the access arrangements. LDP. Housing Site @ that properties adjacent to the site have spells without water. Concerned that Church or occupants of 10 Kirk Brae were not notified Main Road of proposed development at KIR1 and therefore not given the opportunity to comment on a development which is beside their land. In terms of water capacity, Scottish Water has been consulted on the proposed development site and have not (KIRK1) •Consider that other sites safer and less intrusive and site selection process. Query access arrangements and affordable housing raised any objections. They will again be consulted as part of the planning application process, ensuring that there implications. is adequate capacity within Kirkoswald to cope with a development of this scale.

The Council undertook a comprehensive consultation exercise, ensuring that all relevant properties were notified. 10 Kirk Brae was notified in September 2012 and the Church did not meet the criteria for being notified.

The Council considered a number of sites around Kirkoswald for release and, through the site assessment process, this site was deemed to be the most environmentally acceptable. Access arrangements and affordable housing contributions will be addressed through the planning application process. Objects to MIN1 for the following reasons:- site is backland development; site undermines LDP landscape policies; adverse impact on The site will not represent backland developments all new dwellinghouses will take direct access onto a road for No proposed modification to Minishant residential amenity; adverse impact on biodiversity; school road is a single track road and could not support a large scale the site. The site access will not be backland development, but will take access onto an existing publicly adopted LDP. Housing Site @ development; village does not have social and physical infrastructure capacity to cope with large scale development; adverse impact road. School Road on road safety for local children due to the increase volume of traffic; loss of wildlife; site 35 is preferable and gives more (MIN1) opportunities for sustainable growth with employment leisure and tourism opportunities; site 35 is preferable in terms of amenity and It is not considered that the proposal would be contrary to proposed LDP landscape policies. The landscape impact landscape character. of the development has been considered at the site report stage, and it is considered the proposed development is acceptable, in principle, in terms of its landscape impact. Supportive of MIN1 as it will assist to sustain Minishant. Traffic and landscape assessment support ability to deliver housing which meets the LDP sustainable development policy. This site has the ability to be effective in the short term and help support a range of The site is not a specifically protected site in terms of natural heritage or wildlife designations, and it is therefore housing to meet local demands. not considered that the development will have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity in the locality. Notwithstanding, any planning application for the site will require to demonstrate that it has no unacceptable Site 35 can complement the existing settlement pattern and will be in accordance with LDP Policy: sustainable development. This is in adverse impact on local biodiversity, should any such issues arise during the consideration of the application. contrast to MIN 1, which would represent backland development. In terms of road safety issues, the Council’s roads service has been consulted on the proposal and offers no objections; therefore the allocation of the site is consideration to be suitable in road safety terms. Transport Scotland advises that development in Minishant should not directly access A77. This is not proposed in this instance.

Any impact of the development on social and physical infrastructure within the village will require to be mitigated by the developer through the planning application process. Impact on school will potentially require an education contribution to mitigate impact. Education service has been consulted throughout plan process. Roads and drainage infrastructure implications arising from the allocation of the site will require to be met by the applicant through the planning application process.

While site 35 was preferred by some objectors to this site, the site selection process identified that that site performed less favourably than this allocated site. Minishant Objects to MIN2 for the following reasons:- site is backland development; site undermines LDP landscape policies; adverse impact on The site would not represent backland development and the landscape implications are fully considered within the No proposed modification to Housing Site @ residential amenity; adverse impact on biodiversity; school road is a single track road and could not support a large scale site report. The site is not identified as being valued for its biodiversity and, SNH have not objected to the LDP. A77 development; village does not have social and physical infrastructure capacity to cope with large scale development; adverse impact allocation of the site. on road safety for local children due to the increase volume of traffic; loss of wildlife; site 35 is preferable and gives more opportunities for sustainable growth with employment leisure and tourism opportunities; site 35 is preferable in terms of amenity and The access arrangements for the site will be addressed as part of the planning application process, ensuring that landscape character. any safety and/or congestion concerns are alleviated.

The infrastructure implications for the development will be addressed through the planning application process. Scottish Water and SEPA have been consulted on the allocation of the site and have raised no objections. If the development would create capacity issues at the primary school, a contribution would be required from the developer in order to mitigate this.

In terms of site 35, the reasons for rejecting that site are set out within the corresponding site report. Objections to MON1 (including from community council) comment as follows:- The development of the site is likely to impact upon the setting of the two nearby A-listed structures. However, it No proposed modification to Monkton •Development will have negative impact on historic environment; development will have negative impact on local road network, is considered that through careful design and layout, impacts upon these features can be minimised. Historic LDP. Housing Site @ particularly during peak hours); the site is too large and would harm village character – site should be restricted to former HMS Scotland has been fully involved in the site selection process and the Council has taken their views into Tarbolton Road Gannet site; there are insufficient village facilities to accommodate development; road safety concerns; poor public transport consideration accordingly. They would again be consulted as part of the planning application process to ensure (MON1) availability; concern that transport appraisal has not been undertaken; that no development should take place until drainage that the design and layout of the site minimised impacts upon the two structures. infrastructure as development could exacerbate existing flooding problems. •SportScotland seeks consultation on any future masterplan. Impacts upon the local road network will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Council’s Roads service as part of •Supportive comments also sought to alter the site to increase capacity to 500 to increase efficiency of land use by increased the planning application process, alleviating safety and congestion concerns. affordable housing and community infrastructure; and to alter boundaries to protect historic environment, cater for SUDS and landscape proposals. Restricting the development of the site to the Gannet site would create pressure on the piece of land between the • Seeking an extension to the boundaries of MON1 in order to ensure that an appropriate level of protection can be afforded to the Gannet site and the existing settlement. It is considered that by developing a masterplan for the entire area, this scheduled monuments within the site. This would also help to ensure a good fit with the existing landscape context. Additional land prevents piecemeal development which could potentially adversely impact upon the landscape setting of the would allow for SUDS to be appropriately located and the additional land would not be used for residential use. village and the setting of the nearby historical features.

The development of the site would create increased pressure upon existing facilities within Monkton, however, developer contributions will be sought through the planning application process to ensure that the necessary infrastructure arrangements are in place. Scottish Water and SEPA have both been involved throughout the site selection process and objections have been raised in respect of this site.

It is not proposed to realign site boundary, although it is recognised this is proposed for accommodating SUDS. Any part of the development that expands outwith the identified boundary, where it is to accommodate servicing, such as SUDS, and to ensure protection of historic assets, may be acceptable, but should be assessed at planning application stage. Object to STR1 as the reed bed system for existing properties on Knockbreck Road does not work with an odour within the vicinity of Property values and individual rights to views are not material planning considerations. No proposed modification to Straiton Housing the reed bed, adversely affecting residential amenity. Until drainage system is sorted out no new development should occur. LDP. Site @ Concerned at potential damage to River Girvan as a result of development unless infrastructure is improved. The proposed site will Any new pedestrian linkage to the Main Street will form part of a planning application for the site, which will Knockbreck devalue property, have an adverse impact on privacy, and impact on views. The proposed new footpath will have a significant adverse ensure no loss of privacy resulting from the path. Road, (STR1) impact on privacy. Reed bed drainage systems should not result in odour pollution, and such problems with the existing system may Supportive of the Council including STR1 in the housing land supply. This site is free from constraints and offers the opportunity to be a result of the system malfunctioning. Regarding the proposed site, SEPA and Scottish Water have been round off the settlement in a sensitive way. The development will contribute to the sustainability of Straiton as a community by consulted on the development site and raise no objection. Detailed drainage arrangements would be confirmed at offering greater housing choice. planning and building warrant stage. This should not result in a loss of amenity, by way of odour pollution to nearby properties, or that there will be no pollution of the River Girvan.

This representation is supportive of the inclusion of TAR1 for residential development and provides supporting evidence that the site None. No proposed modification to Tarbolton is suitable in landscape as it rounds off the settlement and is adjacent to existing residential areas including the new development at LDP. Housing Site @ Croft Street. A transportation assessment has been undertake which highlights that the area as capacity for this development. Croft Street Furthermore that the site can be delivered within the plan period and will help support the existing services and facilities (TAR1) within Tarbolton. Objection to SYM1 (including from community council) for following reasons: -Access to A77 is unsafe; adverse impact on local road Transport Scotland has been consulted, and advised that no development should take place until the A77 road No proposed modification to Symington network, due to congestion from existing, consented and proposed housing – particularly at Main Street/Kerrix Road junction; adverse improvements between Bogend Toll and Dutch House roundabout. Accordingly, the Plan contains a proviso that no LDP. Housing Site @ impacts on conservation area and listed buildings - consider that a conservation appraisal should have been undertaken; the site will development takes place until the A77 improvements have been completed. Townend result in increased car usage due to distance from amenities; adverse impact on community and character of existing settlement; the Terrace/Main development should provide traffic easing measures; adverse impact on village utilities; the village needs affordable homes, not The Council’s roads service has been consulted on the proposed site, and has indicated that a transport Street (SYM1) suburban development; risk of flooding; the scale of development is out of proportion with the village; previous developments have assessment for the site should be submitted at the time of a planning application for the site. This requirement will not respected character of village; smaller-scale developments may be more appropriate for Symington; the allocation is inconsistent be included in the action programme. The Council’s roads service has not objected to the inclusion of the site in with LDP landscape policies; aspects of the site release are contrary to SPP; there are environmental issues with the release; site the LDP. reports recommends no development on environmental grounds. A conservation area appraisal would not determine whether further development within the settlement could Supports SYM1 and the Spatial Strategy in terms of the Core Investment Area, which includes Symington. If road improvements are occur. Notwithstanding, the site report considered impact of the development on the conservation area (informed not completed within 24 months, MacTaggart and Mickel reserve the right to undertake their own transport and road safety review of by consultation with Historic Scotland), and it was not considered that the inclusion of the site, in principle, would the implications of proposed development and the current road network configuration. not unacceptably affect the conservation area. In any case, a planning application for the site would require to demonstrate it preserves or enhances the character/appearance of the conservation area. Objects to SYM1 and suggests the inclusion of site 162 as it would provide a relief road for Main Street and new access from new A77. Landscaping scheme associated with new road could provide a new path network. The relief road would allow further development of It is noted that MacTaggart and Mickel seek to reserve the right to undertake transport safety review. This, the village without adversely impacting on the conservation area. however, cannot bypass statutory process, and the agreement of Transport Scotland would be required to change the position in the LDP, as the agency imposed this proviso on the LDP. Site 84 should be included for a small scale residential development (12 units) as it can be integrated easily into the settlement. Only a portion of the site to be developed to provide appropriate visual and acoustic screening from A77. Environmental impacts can be mitigated. Site is developable in short term and doesn’t have road constraints affecting SYM1. Site will provide pedestrian links to village. No landscape issues and site is suitable opportunity for eco-build housing.

Road Improvements - the site allocation at Symington is conditional on the road improvements to the A77 between Bogend Toll and Dutch House roundabout. If road improvements are not completed within 24 months, MacTaggart and Mickel reserve the right to undertake their own transport and road safety review of the implications of proposed development and the current road network configuration.

Representation Summary - Settlements Issue This representation objects to the lack of housing sites within Ayr and states that the LDP fails to recognise Ayr as having the potential The LDP strategy complements the existing land supply, and its strategic approach was intended to align with the Reject suggestion that Ayr to accommodate strategic housing development opportunities. The LDP has identified larger housing land release within smaller Structure Plan, in terms of housing provision. The housing land supply currently has an abundance of sites within housing land supply is flawed settlements and this does not correlate with the Ayrshire Structure Plan and fails to create the opportunity of Ayr to be a strategic Ayr, including a wide range of large scale greenfield urban expansions, other greenfield sites, and brownfield and and that more greenfield centre. Concern that the fragmented approach to housing land release will result in issues in traffic, services and infrastructure issues urban sites. The total allocation of units in the LDP will be a minority portion of the total housing land supply, should be allocated round which could impact future housing delivery. Inclusion of land in and around Ayr will promote flexibility and ensure greater potential of which is predominantly comprised of sites in the Ayr, Prestwick, and Troon urban area. Evidence prepared as part Ayr. delivery of housing. The land at Holmston could be a longer term land allocation, which could be phased later in the life of the LDP or of the LDP process identifies that the smaller settlements within South Ayrshire tend to have lower supply, and brought forward as an alternative earlier within the LDP if current allocations fail to deliver. sites within those settlements have been likely to be developed. The LDP supply therefore concentrated on providing choice and variety of housing land by allocating housing land to smaller settlements. This also aligns with an approach intended to stimulate the housing market, in the short-term, by providing smaller sites, which are less burdened by infrastructure contributions. There remains a significant supply of housing land in Ayr, given that current market conditions make it more difficult for brownfield and strategic sites to deliver. It is contended that the proposed LDP housing dispersal strategy will increase burden on infrastructure. Key agencies have been consulted throughout LDP preparation and this has highlighted that the proposed approach reduces, to a minimum, the burden on infrastructure. There is no evidence to suggest that further strategic greenfield sites around Ayr, particularly adjacent to the A77 would be deliverable in the short term, to any extent greater than the delivery of sites in smaller settlements. Maidens There is a site within Maidens which allocated for industrial use. This site encompasses a bowling green. It is advised that this should The LDP can be modified to allocate the bowling green and other open space accordingly. This is a cartographical No proposed modification to be identified as open space. Any future applications relating to this site must satisfy the criteria outlined in paragraph 156 of SPP. error in the Plan, and will be rectified. LDP. SPT would like the notional route of the Maybole Bypass to be included on all relevant plans. The Council has sought guidance from Transport Scotland on the status of a Maybole bypass throughout LDP No proposed modification to Maybole preparation and has been advised that, although the project is advancing, it is not at a stage where TS could LDP.. To reduce the housing release site numbers at Maybole. commit to implementing the bypass, therefore it is not appropriate to include in the LDP. Notwithstanding, the LDP offers support for a Maybole bypass, within its strategic policies. Amendment to the Maybole settlement map to identify the former Red Brae school site as a residential site. The site has an extant consent for residential use. Although the site at Redbrae has an extant permission, development has not yet commenced, therefore it is not proposed to accommodate the site within the settlement boundary.

The total number of houses allocated at Maybole is part of the overall housing dispersal strategy. The sites selected have been identified as environmentally suitable for development, through the site selection process. Key agencies have been consulted on the infrastructure implications of development, and are supportive of the release. Representation is seeking an increase to the proposed housing release site allocations to Monkton (by additional 250 units), It is considered that the proposed allocation at Monkton is a sufficient addition for a settlement of this size and No proposed modification to Monkton Symington (by additional 150 units) and Prestwick (by allocating 120 units) and to reduce the housing numbers at Maybole and that there is no need to provide for additional residential development within this locality. LDP. Coylton. The allocation of 375 houses at Maybole and 335 at Coylton are based on an assumption for "mobile" households and not in terms of local need. Furthermore, the land releases at Maybole and Coylton ignore the fundamentals of the broader strategic context In terms of the capacity of the smaller settlements, there are no release sites within Mossblown and the release in terms of supporting Scotland’s cities. sites at Tarbolton and Annbank are conservative relative to the size of the settlements. Affordable housing contributions will be sought in accordance with the LDP policy: affordable housing. A settlement analysis of the marketability of all settlements was undertaken, and showed that some of the settlements in the north (outwith Ayr, Prestwick and Troon) were amongst the most marketable, and have little or no remaining supply because previous sites have been effective. The LDP does not plan for vast numbers of houses in each settlement, but plans for spreading the requirement around a variety of proven viable settlements. Request realignment of Colmonell village boundary to enable development of single house for existing village residents. From Reject realignment of Colmonell settlement boundary. Sites were sought for development allocations in the Plan No proposed modification to Colmonell Proposed LDP plan if settlement the site is already include within settlement boundary. early in the LDP preparation. No sites were submitted. It is advised by Government that the proposed plan stage LDP. should not be used to test new proposals. In any case, the rural housing policy and associated supplementary guidance intends to adopt a flexible approach to meeting housing needs in small settlements with no allocated housing sites, by applying extensions to clusters policy environmental criteria to small scale proposals to extend existing settlements. Coylton To reduce the housing release site numbers at Coylton. The total number of houses allocated at Coylton is part of the overall housing dispersal strategy. The sites selected No proposed modification to have been identified as environmentally suitable for development, through the site selection process. Key agencies LDP. have been consulted on the infrastructure implications of development, and are supportive of the release. The representation is seeking land to the south of Dailly, between Merkland Farm and Dailly to be allocated for housing. It is considered that there is sufficient land allocated in Dailly, and the site allocated is a significantly better site in No proposed modification to Dailly Dailly (in planning terms) than the proposed site. The LDP allocates a generous supply of housing land to meet LDP. housing needs, and there is not considered to be any reason to allocate additional land. The site report identifies that the development of the proposed site would cause significant harm to the landscape character of the area and the setting of the settlement. It is recognise4d that the allocation of the site would not conflict with the spatial strategy of the LDP. Objects to the settlement plan for Fisherton as it excludes the Ayr Road site and designates it as countryside. This site offers the There is a supply of housing land in Fisherton and the overall dispersal and supply of housing land in South Ayrshire No proposed modification to Fisherton (92A) opportunity to expand the settlement by representing a rounding-off of the settlement at this location by filling in the area of land up within the LDP is considered to be sufficient. The site was assessed in a site report and not considered to be LDP. to the Ladywell Burn, where the burn to the north and the mature woodland to the west produce a clear and defensible boundary to favourable for development. the northern edge of Fisherton and forms a natural extension to the settlement. Therefore the settlement boundary should be changed to include this site as well as Appendix D is altered to include this site within housing land supply. Support for the introduction of a housing zone at the railway end of Arcon Avenue, Mossblown. Mossblown also has a waiting list and The site is prime quality agricultural land and is otherwise unacceptable in landscape terms. There is undeveloped No proposed modification to Mossblown this would prove a natural extension to the village housing land in Mossblown and the LDP meets its housing requirement, therefore no need to allocate further land. LDP.

Prestwick The representation seeks an additional 120 units in Prestwick. No suitable sites for housing within Prestwick have been identified to provide land for 120 residential units. Any No proposed modification to appropriate development sites within Prestwick were identified. LDP.

Supportive of the moratorium on development until A77 upgrade is completed. Concerned at the impact of development on internal Impacts upon the local road network will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Council’s Roads service as part of No proposed modification to Symington road network in Symington and pedestrian safety. Concerned at the impact of development on conservation area. Furthermore the the planning application process, alleviating safety and congestion concerns. LDP. safety of pedestrians using the Main Street if traffic levels rise. No demand for housing; new sites should be allocated where there is more demand. There is no evidence to suggest that the allocation of the site would adversely impact upon the conservation area. The detailed design and layout stage can be used to effectively address any concerns in this regard. This will form a One representation seeks an amendment to the settlement boundary to include the land to the north west boundary of the village key aspect of the assessment of a planning application for the development of the site. adjacent to Lomond View/Symington Mount. The site has good access and provides a more integrated option to expand Symington with opportunities to improve the settlement edge. This proposal provides a more integrated means of expanding the village No definitive evidence has been submitted demonstrating that there is no requirement for additional housing boundary in a more modest way, at a weaker settlement edge. The site may be more deliverable and should be explored, rather than within Symington. On the contrary, several sites were submitted around Symington for our consideration as part of a single large site for growth. The site would be a more desirable, more organic expansion of the village and with much less impact on the ‘call for sites’ exercise, indicating that there is a market within this area. The Council has sought to develop a its character, connections and services. balanced and environmentally sensitive approach to the dispersal of housing sites within South Ayrshire. The allocation of a housing site within Symington is in-keeping with the overarching spatial strategy of the plan. The representation seeks an increase in the allocation at Symington from 100 units to 150 units. Relating to the site to the northwest of the existing settlement boundary, this was not submitted through the ‘call for sites’ exercise and therefore it has not been considered.

The allocated number of units at Symington is part of the overall housing dispersal strategy and the level of development has been considered and agreed with key agencies. The consultation was not based on a higher level of development, and there is no additional identified need for housing at this location, or overall. To increase the provision may cause unplanned infrastructure concerns. And is not favoured. The LDP contains provision for housing development being built on allocated sites at a higher capacity than noted in the LDP, by stating that any such proposal should be dealt with at application stage and will require the developer to demonstrate that infrastructure impacts can be dealt with and that there will be no unacceptable environmental and planning impact. There is insufficient housing allocated in Tarbolton for the existing demand. The settlement plan fails to identify re-development The overall housing dispersal and allocation strategy for housing in South Ayrshire, as contained within the LDP is No proposed modification to Tarbolton opportunities around the new school in the centre of the settlement. It would be better if housing could be allocated to people from considered to meet identified housing needs and demands. There is an existing supply of housing land within LDP. the local area. Tarbolton and the allocation of an additional site in Tarbolton provides sufficient supply of housing land within the village. Needs and demands per settlement was considered in the preparation of the LDP, and, on the basis of See the demolition of the Town House due to its current condition. The resulting land should be identified as a housing release site. evidence on historic supply and take-up of industrial land, the allocation at Tarbolton was considered to be sufficient. There was concern that allocating additional sites would be unlikely to be developed, given historic take- up trends and current housing market conditions.

The LDP cannot impose restrictions on market housing being available only for local people. Affordable housing is allocated by the Council and registered social landlords, and the LDP cannot control this.

There is no evidence to demonstrate the acceptability of the loss of the Town House, which is a listed building. The loss of the building would need to be demonstrated by a listed building application. This cannot be achieved through the LDP.

Representation Summary – LDP Policies Issue LDP policy: Support for the spatial strategy and the core investment area. Note support. No proposed modification to spatial strategy LDP. Extremely disappointed that the strategic transport link to Ireland has been omitted from the LDP. The strategic section of the LDP and spatial strategy are clearly aligned to the NPF2, which supports international linkages. It is not considered that the LDP has omitted to reflect the importance of connections to Ireland. Under the Transport section of LDP spatial strategy SPT would like to following amendments to ensure the policy is more inclusive and reflective of SPT and the Council's aims. 1. " An improved rail service, rail stations and facilities throughout Ayrshire and Ayr to Rail service improvements reflects NPF2, it is not intended to exclude southern south Ayrshire. There are no known Glasgow. This therefore is more inclusive of the southern part of South Ayrshire. 2. "providing, safeguarding and developing public planned improvements to network south of Ayr. The policy includes for promotion of transport networks and is transport networks and facilities, accessibility and cycling and walking networks" considered adequate. Various changes recommended to Plan. The greenbelt has been amended at the Annbank area, and no longer reaches as far as Gadgirth. No proposed modification to LDP Policy - LDP. Greenbelt Greenbelt Plan - The proposed Greenbelt boundary should be reduced as the boundary is too far east in the area south of Annbank up No other changes to the greenbelt are recommended. The greenbelt, although to some extent amended in the to the River Coyle and to the immediate southwest point of Gadgirth Estate. There is no danger of coalescence of settlements, or proposed LDP, is predominantly a continuation of the greenbelt shown in the SALP. A comprehensive review of the housing clusters in this area, nor is the landscape of such high quality that it would have to be protected. greenbelt was undertaken in the preparation of the LDP and this appraised the merits of each area of the greenbelt remaining part of the greenbelt. It also assessed the overall objectives of the greenbelt against the Hannah Institute is proposing three amendments to the Greenbelt boundary around St.Quivox to bring further land into the government policy to ensure greenbelt designation was appropriate. settlement for residential development. Area 1 -Tree belt area to the west of Cala Homes site to round off settlement shape Area 2- Area around Kirhill farm house to make a more uniform boundary to the east in line with the field boundary. Area 3- Land between West Cottage and Mount Hamilton Cottages as it would not detract from landscape if this area was developed with new structural planting to east and would round off settlement boundary without adversely impacting on the conservation area which it lies within. They believe these amendments would not adversely impact on the setting of conservation area, settlement or Greenbelt. Hannah would like these sites treated as windfall sites within the context of the LDP

• Further land, south of Monktonhill Roundabout and currently in the greenbelt, should be designated for airport related business and industrial uses.

Site 52 at Loans should be released for residential development, included within the Loans settlement boundary and removed from the greenbelt.

The representation seeks to remove the greenbelt designation on land at Holmston Roundabout, between the roundabout and Dobbies Garden Centre and contests that it should be identified as a housing release site.

The representation objects to the land south of Monktonhill Roundabout being designated as greenbelt. The site should be designated as an area of land suitable for airport related business and industrial uses. • Proposed an amendment to LDP policy: the Coast to include reference to supporting sustainable coastal tourism as a key economic The coastal policy is intended both to protect the coast as a natural environmental resource, but also to promote No proposed modification to LDP Policy - The driver in South Ayrshire. tourism opportunities where appropriate. Tourism policies also refer to coast policies, to set out where LDP. Coast • Further classification is required within Appendix B -widening scope for development within the ‘Partly Developed’ category to development will be acceptable. It is not considered necessary to include further presumption in favour of include visitor accommodation. Include existing holiday parks in text on ‘Recreation & Tourism’ category. sustainable coastal tourism development or visitor/tourist accommodation. • Seeking greater protection of recreational qualities of the coast in line with Para 98 and Para 102 of SPP. • Objects to the wording "we will support proposals that protect the foreshore from development" as this is negative and could lead The coastal policy is considered to offer adequate protection of coastal recreation qualities and is in line with to the loss of investment in terms of large scale marina projects. national guidance. • Council should work with other bodies on flood prevention measures and determining the flood risk of new developments. • Objects to LDP as it fails to identify major opportunities for development. The wording in the policy does not preclude development on the foreshore – it indicates favour for proposals that do not harm the foreshore. The coastal policy and tourism policy are considered to be positive in identifying appropriate development opportunities.

The LDP has flood risk policies within it, which have been developed in conjunction with flood risk authorities. This set out those development proposals must comply with its terms. In assessing development proposals, flood risk authorities will be consulted.

• Suggest extra bullet point be added: “Contributes to the delivery of sustainable economic growth to the local or national economy" It is not considered necessary or appropriate to include a provision within the policy presuming in favour of No proposed modification to LDP Policy - • Supportive of the policy. sustainable economic development. The sustainable development policy sits within a section of the planning dealin LDP. Sustainable • Needs greater clarity in referencing policies and maps. with spatial strategy and vision of the Plan. Sustainable economic growth is a key part of the strategy; however the Development • Remove last paragraph of Sustainable Development policy as unnecessary and restrictive intention is that other spatial priorities, expressed in the strategy policies also meet sustainability tests within this • Alter policy wording to reflect that sustainable development being can be delivered on both greenfield and brownfield sites policy. accessible by public transport. • Alter wording to make policy more proactive- change “respect and protects...” to “protects and enhances”. There are no maps or other policies directly linked to this policy. Notwithstanding, other representations • Recognise importance of peat as carbon sink and peat restoration as a climate mitigation measure. commented on clarity of maps, and this will be addressed. • More proactive wording on climate change, such as “Helps mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change”. • Wording could be improved by changing to "Helps to deliver the aims of the Central Scotland Green Network" The policy does not indicate that its objectives apply to either green or brownfield land in isolation. The principles • SPT would like an additional point in the policy- "Is accessible by all sustainable transport modes and respects the sustainable of the policy apply irrespective of whether the location of any proposed development is greenfield or brownfield transport hierarchy". land. • Support for the policy but not for micro renewables. The use of respect/protect has been applied through the plain English process the plan was subjected to. Additionally, it is not considered that the policy is not proactive. It sets out sustainability tests; however, there are often detailed policies, applicable to the assessment of applications, which will set a higher expectation, where required (i.e. requirement relating to conservation areas/listed buildings).

The policy protects peat resources as it is a recognised carbon sink, which will assist mitigating climate change. Although this isn’t explicit in the policy, the SEA explains the purpose of the inclusion of this strand of the policy. It is not considered necessary to include additional explanation in the Plan.

It is expected that all development should support (or at least not conflict with CSGN objectives). The “where possible” element of this strand of the policy reflects that not all proposals will affect the CSGN, but, where they do, they should also seek to improve CGSN. Again, the specific wording is a result of a plain English editorial on the Plan.

It is not proposed to require all development to be accessible by all sustainable transport modes, respecting transport hierarchy. Specific wording is a result of plain English editorial. The policy already caters for impact on infrastructure (including transport network) and seeks that development is appropriate in its transport impact. Detailed transport policies are contained in the Plan.

The provision for micro-renewables is in line with national policy. The acceptability of micro renewables will, where appropriate, be controlled via planning applications.

• Under Viability section add "Development viability will be taken into account in the negotiations to finalise the Section 75 It is not intended to seek green infrastructure contributions from developments. The LDP spatial strategy is No proposed modification to LDP Policy - Agreement to take account of economic and financial circumstances." designed to minimise cost of developer contributions, given current economic circumstances. It is not proposed to LDP. Delivering • Request all off-site infrastructure requirements highlighted at an early stage. Note early payment of commuted sums to reduce need also seek contributions from developers for green infrastructure as this may undermine development viability. Infrastructure for planning conditions or legal agreement Where planning applications are proposed, opportunities should be taken to enhance green networks as part of • Agrees that developer contributions are required to facilitate development the design solution. • Seeks continued and improved collaboration between SAC planning and economic development teams. • Planning officers need to be aware of constraints on developers, including the increase in planning fees. The statement on development viability reflects national guidance. Depending on type of contributions sought, • Suggests that the policy is amended to include the "housing" before "developments" to provide clarity for developers. supplementary guidance will provide details of how development viability will be factored into the process of • The policy should be clear that a need for infrastructure must still be identified. seeking development contributions, whether it is at planning application stage, S75 stage or later. • Policy provides little detail on infrastructure requirements related to settlement maps or area statements or where shortfalls may arise as a result of new development. The policy states that the preference is for contributions to be made immediately prior to grant of planning • Unreasonable to seek commuted sums be paid prior to issuing planning consent, given the current climate. A more flexible, staged permission, as this can alleviate the need for legal/planning agreements. This statement does not insist that approach should be taken. contributions are made at this stage, and it is recognised that phased/staged payments may facilitate development • Strategic Contributions Section is inadequate as guidance to developers in respect of that they may be expected to contribute. in some instances. The Council will adopt a flexible approach in this respect. • Include more reference to delivering ‘green’ infrastructure through contributions, including habitat creation and enhancement within open space requirements, and stronger links to the Central Scotland Green Network. Consultation between the Council’s planning and enterprise sections occurs regularly throughout plan preparation and during the assessment of planning assessments.

The policy is designed to be supplemented by supplementary guidance on specific contributions types. These will set expectations for payments to be made, and include flexible elements such as viability and staged payment. This reflects the Council’s flexible approach to contributions, recognising development economics and pressures.

This policy highlights the need for offsite infrastructure for certain types of infrastructure. The Council is working to identify education impacts of housing development and will establish a mechanism for payment of contributions, so that developers are clear on the requirement to mitigate impact on schools. Transport Scotland has been consulted and it is not anticipated that development identified in the Plan will require physical upgrades to trunk roads; however, detailed development proposals will be required to determine roads impacts.

Full details of contributions will be provided in supplementary guidance. LDP Policy - Tourism policy requires greater clarity in terms of small to medium scale tourism, leisure and recreational proposals as these It is considered that the proposed policy is clear in that, provided the stated criteria within the policy are satisfied, No proposed modification to Tourism are appropriate in the countryside providing they are in accordance with other LDP policies but currently this is unclear. tourism proposals are acceptable. This does not differentiate between small and large scale proposals. For larger LDP. proposals, there is a preference for development to be located within town centres; however this does not preclude development outwith town centres being acceptable, per se. In terms of proposals outwith settlements, LDP policy: spatial strategy clarifies that proposals outwith settlements must be justified in terms of locational need and scale of economic benefit. • Policy lacks aspiration with no mention of new opportunities for regenerating and growing Ayrshire's economy. Requires to The requirement to prepare and update employment land supplies is enshrined in national planning policy, and it No proposed modification to LDP Policy - encourage more economic activity within the area. is not considered necessary to add this requirement to the LDP. Additionally, the review of vacant/redundant LDP. Business & • Add "Allocated business and industrial sites will be regularly reviewed to ensure the existing effective land supply meets with market industrial sites allocated in the LDP has been catered for, with provision for approval for other uses, where stated Industry demand. Where identified sites are no longer appropriate or marketable, alternative uses may be considered so long as it accords with criteria can be met. other relevant policies in the LDP." • Broaden criteria of para 12 to not accepting proposals that have “unacceptable environmental impacts including noise or air It is not considered necessary to include provision for protecting environmental impact, particularly noise and air pollution" to ensure the policy prevents development with other damaging impacts. pollution, as there are other policies in the Plan that achieves this. The policy has been subject to SEA, which has • SPT would like an amendment to criteria b of the Policy as there are limited opportunities in urban areas to accommodate sidings for examined environmental performance of policy, including looking at air and noise pollution, and it was considered freight and therefore the reference "direct access to rail network" should be reviewed in conjunction with Network Rail. that the policy is adequate, without alteration, as it operates with other LDP policies to mitigate adverse impacts.

It is not considered necessary to review or delete the provision for new industrial uses to have direct access to rail and/or road. It is recognised that in urban areas, it may be difficult to achieve a direct rail access; however, this is not a requirement, since road access may be acceptable as an alternative to rail access. LDP Policy - • Wish the word "centre" to be inserted after the word "town". It is not feasible to alter wording to include provision for non-office uses in business locations, as there are no No proposed modification to Office • Alter wording to allow for non-office or business development on identified business locations, if certain criteria are met. specific office areas. Business/industrial areas specify preferred uses, but where they fall out of use, there is LDP. Development provision in the industrial and business policy to allow this, subject to criteria. • Insert wording "to protect and improve sport and recreation assets and qualities of ports." The pre-text to the policy recognises that there is recreational value to ports, and it recognised by the Council that No proposed modification to LDP Policy - Ports • SPT would like the Port Related designation to be extended to include the lorry route from the port operational area to the strategic ports have recreational value. It is not considered necessary to specifically refer to recreational value any further, LDP. road network at Troon. however, as the LDP is not an explanatory document. Ports have a varied operational function and not all port • SPT would like a few additional words added to the sentence “We will not support development that would negatively affect the activities have been listed – although recreation is already recognised as a function of the ports. operation of the ports or access to the ports." • Remove paragraph 3 as it is unnecessary as the development management process will assess the impact on surrounding land uses. It is not considered appropriate to extend the port coverage to public roads within the LDP, as public roads will be used for other uses in addition to ports. The local transport strategy may cover matters such as accessibility.

It is not considered necessary to add that the Council will not support development that adversely affects access to ports. The policy already states that Council would not support development that negatively affects port operations – accessibility is part of the port operation.

The Newton area adjacent to Ayr port is characterise by a unique mixture of port, industry and residential uses, all located close to each other. It is important that the role of the port does not unacceptably harm the residential amenity enjoyed by local residents, and the SEA process identified that this is a positive inclusion in the policy.

Seeking allocation of land for business and industry on the north-east periphery of Prestwick International Airport Change to aerospace definition can be accommodated in LDP. Recognise the alignment to the Enterprise Zone – Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy – this is mentioned in LDP. proposed: Accept updated Glasgow Seeking a change to the definition of Aerospace, as it relates to the proposal for Monktonhill B. Proposed change:-"Manufacture of definition of aerospace, Prestwick Airport aircraft and spacecraft and related machinery, repair and maintenance of aircraft and spacecraft and related machinery; manufacture, The Climate Change Act (2008) has been considered in the LDP and other policies provide mitigation for impacts. It recommended in Scottish repair, maintenance or distribution of aircraft parts and components; design, development, certification and manufacture of aircraft, is not agreed that the LDP policy is out of sync with NPF2. It is considered that the quoted NPF2 implications for Enterprise representation. aero structures, aero-engines and aircraft components, avionics and aerospace-related software; aerospace-related logistics services; the airport show a clear national priority to expand and capitalise on the economic benefits that the international aerospace-related materials and aero structures research and development; aerospace-related design and manufacturing systems and gateway affords, by a holistic programme to upgrade the infrastructure at the airport. It is considered that the No other proposed other aerospace and airport-related development and support activities". The Enterprise Area legislation as it affects Prestwick airport policy aligns with NPF2 and no change is proposed. The SEA fully considers the implications of the policy. modification to LDP. International Aerospace Park is being updated currently by the Scottish Government. Scottish Enterprise is lobbying Scottish Government for the sectoral definition of Aerospace to be expanded from its current very narrow interpretation. Using the proposed The Council has flood risk policies within the Plan, which should be read in conjunction with other policies. This new definition of Aerospace within the Local Development Plan would mirror exactly the definition of Aerospace being proposed identifies a framework approach to flood risk, which clearly promotes avoidance of flood risk areas as the first within the updated Enterprise Area legislation. principle. This is in agreement with, and on the advice of SEPA. However, in respect of the airport, the flood risk policy should be referred to, as it indicates that in instances where the principle of avoidance would compromise Policy is supportive of additional expansion in aviation capacity at Glasgow Prestwick, but would result in an unacceptable increase in the spatial strategy, flood risk management should be employed. IN this instance, the approach of the LDP policy carbon emissions. The accompanying text to this policy states ˜we recognise its significance and future potential and want to on the airport is fundamental to the spatial strategy of the LDP. Additionally, it is a national priority, which was encourage future growth at the airport, in line with the aims of the Scottish Government and as set out in National Planning included in (and subjected to strategic environmental assessment) in NPF2. The LDP would be out of alignment Framework (NPF) 2'. This is misleading as NPF2 refers to the following ˜Improvements to rail and bus interchange arrangements; with NPF2 to not take this approach. The approach in the Plan has been discussed with SEPA and Scottish improvements to terminal facilities and changes in operational area; additional freight and aircraft maintenance facilities; additional Government, neither of which raised objection during consultation on the Proposed Plan. Both agreed that the aircraft stands and taxiways; and new parking provision' and does not refer to additional capacity. This LDP policy does not reflect the approach taken is suitable, and SEPA indicated that in such instances where a higher level policy already policy content of the Climate Change Act (2008) and as such should be amended. establishes a position, the LDP should conform to that position. This is reflected in the content of the Plan and the SEA of the Plan. The Council's duties under the Flood Risk Management Act (2009) need to be considered. Whilst flooding issues have been identified, there is no evidence of any measures undertaken to avoid areas at high risk from flooding. • Any further residential development within Newton on Ayr should not require to make use of the identified freight transport routes There are no “in principle” objections to residential development in Newton, on the grounds of roads No proposed modification to LDP Policy - for access. safety/transport impact. As such, it is appropriate for the roads arrangements for any residential development LDP. Newton-on-Ayr • Include reference to developing a good walking route between Newton on Ayr railway station and a relocated Ayr United Stadium at proposed at Newton to be dealt with at planning application stage. Heathfield. The Council cannot commit to developing a walking route between the Newton on Ayr rail station and the proposed new stadium for Ayr United as it does not own all relevant land. Notwithstanding the majority of the route can be walked on public footpaths. Additionally, the proposed Ayr United stadium has permission - subject to legal agreement, so it is not feasible to amend that application to include additional provision for pedestrian linkages. Notwithstanding the Council would support pedestrian linkage between the site and Newton rail station. Through representations, the following changes are sought the Heathfield Policy: - There is existing vacant land allocated for retail within the Heathfield area, which has been allocated as such for No proposed modification to LDP Policy - the duration of the SALP. This site is separate from the existing site and, therefore less favourable in terms of LDP. Heathfield • The Heathfield West site should be included within Heathfield Retail Park designation. integration with existing facilities and transport networks. Additionally, the SALP inquiry recognised that the • Restrictions on range of goods permitted for retailing should be more flexible as they currently hinder investment. The current existing allocated site could support a well-designed retail development, and equally stated that road-fronted sites description of goods that are allowed is not in keeping with the planning consents in place for Heathfield Retail Park. can have a detrimental visual impact. As such, there is no capacity requirement for this site, and it is inferior to the • Heathfield Retail Park should be identified as Commercial centre existing supply of retail land at Heathfield. • Remove the presumption against sub-division of any retail unit within the Retail Park, to enable the Park to respond to different retailing trends and the changing characteristics of retailers. The restrictions on goods retailed at Heathfield are in line with permissions for those units. The restriction on • Clear guidance on what leisure uses are supported in Heathfield and where these leisure uses should be located should be included goods being retailed at Heathfield is a core objective of the LDP, and seeks to ensure the vibrancy and vitality of in the Heathfield Strategy Plan. Currently the policy is vague and unclear. Ayr and other town centres. The SALP inquiry noted that there was capacity for bulky goods retailing within south • The hatched area at South Sanquhar (for residential development) should be extended to the north. The site should be promoted in Ayrshire, and noted that, in the positive economic conditions that prevailed at the time of inquiry, that the town the Redevelopment Opportunities Schedule for a mix of uses including office, retail, leisure, car showroom and residential (105 units). centre was thriving. This is not currently the case, and, while the Council agrees there is a role for retailing at The site will be developed with a single Masterplan / Development Brief. Heathfield, it is considered that the role is to complement the town centre by providing a different retail offer than • Include reference to developing a good walking route between Newton on Ayr railway station and a relocated Ayr United Stadium at the town centre. It is considered that to open the range of retail goods allowed at Heathfield would significantly Heathfield. harm the town centre, and displace the bulky goods retailers currently at Heathfield.

Heathfield is identified as a commercial centre, and is considered to be the main retail location to which new retail units will be directed after town centres and edge of centres.

It is not proposed to remove the restriction on sub-division of units. The sub-division of units will reduce the size of units and potentially make smaller units less suitable for bulky goods retailing. Sub-dividing units will also increase capacity of retail park. There is existing capacity for further bulky goods retailing at the Alexander’s Sawmills site.

Leisure and tourism uses, as defined in the use classes order, are considered potentially suitable within Heathfield, as part of a sequential approach. Such uses would require to demonstrate, at planning application stage, that no preferable town centre (or edge of centre sites were suitable); and also that their use is suitable at the proposed location within Heathfield. For example, a tourism use is less likely to be acceptable if it involves the loss of an operational industrial unit and would harm a functional industrial pocket.

The hatched area shown at South Sanquhar and description of that location is reflective of the planning permission (subject to legal agreements), which is at that site. The site remains an industrial site, however the plan takes cognisance of the potential planning permission for the site. It is not an opportunity site. Any use proposed, which does not comply with related planning permission, would require to satisfy the ongoing industrial restructuring element of the industrial policy.

The Council cannot commit to developing a walking route between the Newton on Ayr rail station and the proposed new stadium for Ayr United as it does not own all relevant land. Notwithstanding the majority of the route can be walked on public footpaths. Additionally, the proposed Ayr United stadium has permission - subject to legal agreement, so it is not feasible to amend that application to include additional provision for pedestrian linkages. Notwithstanding the Council would support pedestrian linkage between the site and Newton rail station.

• Propose a change to Development Opportunities Policy as it excludes the development of greenfield sites which can be in some The opportunities policy is intended to identify existing vacant/brownfield sites, usually within urban areas, which No proposed modification to LDP Policy - cases more sustainable in location terms. The proposed wording should replace the first sentence of the proposed LDP policy: would benefit from regeneration, and, as such, recognising that a wider range of uses may be acceptable for that LDP. Development development opportunities as follows: "We will actively encourage development on land which is in an accessible location close to site, in order to encourage regeneration. The policy is not seeking to guide new development specifically to Opportunities existing facilities and infrastructure. The Council will consider the development of sustainable sites (both brownfield and greenfield) so brownfield sites, but seeking to find appropriate reuse of vacant sites, in order to regenerate brownfield sites and long as they meet the sustainable development principles set out in this policy and accord with other relevant LDP polices." their surrounding environment. It is not considered that greenfield sites require regeneration in order to improve the environment at the site, and the policy is not proposed to be amended in this way. Where greenfield opportunities present outwith the plan preparation, these can be appropriately assessed against the policies of the LDP. Where, for operational reasons a development proposal requires a specific greenfield site, the proposal should be submitted via planning application, where it will be assessed against relevant policies. LDP Policy - • Supportive of Galloway and Southern Ayrshire Biosphere however would like additional text that recognises the economic Note support. Reject inclusion of reference to wind farm developments. The biosphere is not specifically about No proposed modification to Galloway & contribution of well sited wind farm development within the Transitional Zone wind farm development and there are other LDP policies (and supplementary guidance) which will set out position LDP. Southern on wind farm developments. Biosphere Support for LDP in the promotion of Ayr town centre as the focus for retail, leisure and other commercial activity. The Council has not produced an area wide retail capacity study. The retail provision in the LDP is based on a No proposed modification to LDP Policy - variety of sources of information to identify retailing trends in South Ayrshire. This forms part of the retail strategy LDP. General Retail Retail Capacity Assessment should be used to inform LDP retail policies - no evidence that this has been undertaken justification paper which supports the Plan.

LDP should Identify a network of centres and define role of each (including town centres). The network should comply with SPP and include town centres, commercial centres and other local centres and may be hierarchical. The individual role of each centre should support and be supported by the role of other centres to enable to the sequential approach to work. The LDP has a hierarchy of settlements, which promotes town centres in Ayr, Prestwick, Troon, Girvan and

Maybole, as a preference. Heathfield and other recognised retail areas, including small town centres are identified Objection to the wording - general retail has the potential to undermine the Council's support for town centres in that if out of centre stores are extended without having to follow the sequential approach to site selection or regard to impact to vitality and viability of as local centres. This is in compliance with national policy and fits with the application of a sequential approach to town centres, this would undermine the aim of the LDP to guide retail floorspace firstly to town centres. Out-of-centre retailing retailing. section should be amended to follow the established approach to the assessment of retail proposals.

LDP retail policies resist out of centre retail development, however, place no embargo on out of centre foodstore development. This could undermine the overall policy presumption in favour of directing new retail development, firstly, to town centres. The proposal to allow extensions to stores allows a limited amount of extension to facilitate the operation of the If proposals meet sequential test there should be no restrictions on the goods they are allowed to sell due to difficulty in finding unit. Larger extension will still require to meet the sequential test and other key elements of the policy. suitable premises in sequentially preferable locations. LDP should be amended appropriately. The LDP stance on retail is that town centre locations are preferred areas, and sequential approach reflects this. Only new retail, commercial and leisure investment, proposed at non-allocated retail sites, should be subjected to the sequential test; The retail approach, which was scrutinised during the SALP enquiry, recognises that food stores generally require not proposals for retail at existing retail sites. out of town centre locations for retailing. In recognition of the potential impact on town centres, the range of

goods retailed at out of centre supermarkets is limited by policy. Object and seek removal of restriction on the sale of non-food goods to 10% of the gross floorspace (including in food stores).

No evidence as to how this 10% figure has been established. Where it can be demonstrated that the increased levels of non-food goods would not harm the relevant centre, the figure should be based on the net floor area, or be ancillary and based on retail impact assessment. To remove the application of the sequential test except to proposals to a non-recognised retailing site will undermine the sequential approach. While local/commercial centres may be a suitable location for retailing, it is All large food stores in out of town centre locations will be subject to a goods based retail impact assessment, as the 10% restriction still preferable to direct, firstly, to town centre – otherwise local centres will be afforded same preference to town on goods unfairly restricts range and extent of goods retailed. centres.

Remove "sufficient capacity" requirement in criterion c. Agree with the criterion c on the grounds of introducing additional quality and choice and support for retail development that addresses retail leakage the requirement with regard to sufficient capacity should be removed. This is not a policy requirement under SPP. The key test is the impact on identified town centres which has been covered The policy provision restricting range of goods retailed is intended to protect the town centre and ensure out of within criterion (a). centre retailing is of an appropriate type of retailing. Proposals for a greater than 10% floorspace area dedicated

to non-food/bulky goods retailing will be subject to assessment at application stage. This is a long-standing policy Amendment to policy, as follows: “where the proposal would introduce choice or quality of provision that will reduce leakage of expenditure, such that it will create sufficient capacity for the proposal in the catchment area”. provision, which has been successful at protecting town centres while allowing complementary out-of-centre retailing. Amendment to point (d), sequential approach section to add “public transport with frequent services".

Proposed change to general retail policy only required if South East Ayr remains outwith the settlement boundary of Ayr, in which case, retail developments outwith a settlement should be accepted, providing they are a requirement as part of a future major urban It is not proposed to remove the sufficient capacity element. It can only be know whether the development can be expansion proposal. If not, they should only be acceptable if the goods to be sold are crafts or other products made or produced on accommodated and will serve a purpose – i.e. reducing leakage if the capacity for the development is quantified site. and demonstrated.

In the sequential approach there should be an additional tier above other commercial centres’ in the hierarchy, indicating “local or It is not considered necessary to modify the sequential test, criteria D to mention public transport availability. Neighbourhood Centres 2” as they act as minor town centres to the areas they serve. Criteria D includes that proposals outside town centres that are accessible by a choice of transport.

For clarification, the following four headings should be used: retail outside of the town centre, agreed out of centre retail, extending South East Ayr to remain outwith settlement boundary. Site brief for that site is set out, and this explains context out of centre retail, retail outwith settlements. for retail development being acceptable. It is not considered appropriate to amend the site brief to allow retail

development at major urban expansions, as this site is being progressed by a masterplan established in SALP. Local and neighbourhood centres should be specifically included within the policy in order to assist in their protection.

The sequential approach in the LDP aligns with national policy and it is not proposed to amend this to include Sites already designated within the LDP should not be considered in the context of the sequential test. The text should include “we additional provision for neighbourhood and local centres, as this would undermine the sequential approach and will guide new retail, commercial and leisure investment (not allocated in the LDP), sequentially...” result in the Plan not aligning with national policy. This would elevate the preference of such centres.

Heathfield Retail Park should be identified as a commercial centre within the plan and LDP. Heathfield is a commercial centre.

The policy is considered to be structured appropriately. • Would like the importance of Ayr Town Centre recognised in the LDP as the major employment centre and how it plays an integral Ayr town centre is the major town centre in South Ayrshire. It is equal highest priority in the sequential approach. No proposed modification to LDP Policy - part in the economy of the wider area. The retail strategy paper shows the recognition of Ayr Town centre. The spatial strategy policy indicates that Ayr LDP. Town Centre • There needs to be a tie in with the Council's economic strategy within the Plan to assist deliver of regeneration of Ayr. Renaissance project will be support, as will development proposals that assist delivering Renaissance objectives. • Seeks to include a policy within LDP for Ayr Town Centre/Ayr Renaissance - this was included in the MIR. • Support for LDP in the promotion of Ayr town centre as the focus for retail, leisure and other commercial activity. Critical that the There is no need to cross-reference transport policies with town centre policies, as they are both equally applicable LDP has a robust policy framework to ensure the vitality and viability of Ayr town centre. to town centre development proposals. The transport policies, including town centre traffic management states its • SPT would like at a cross reference included in this policy relating to the safeguarding of transport facilities in town centres and objective to introduce a range of transport, including walking, where possible. walking routes to rail stations when they are outwith the designated town centre. • Page 52 - Town Centre traffic management policies should be cross referenced with the Town centre policies. • LXB proposes additional section to Residential policy within settlements, release sites and windfall sites to enable an effective 5 year There should not be an automatic policy trigger to release more land to meet any shortfall in effective land supply. No proposed modification to LDP Policy - housing land supply, as follows “Planning permission will be granted for a development proposal including greenfield sites as long as it It would be difficult in any case to ensure that any additional sites would be any more effective than existing sites. LDP. Residential can be demonstrated that: 1. If the site is greenfield, there is no equivalent alternative and available brownfield land in the immediate The LDP allocates effective sites in the most environmentally appropriate locations to meet housing needs and a Policy within locality and the site is located at the edge of the existing settlement; 2. the current supply of effective land does not provide a review of the LDP is the most appropriate mechanism to allocate new sites if there is an identified shortfall in Settlements, minimum supply of 5 years effective land supply at all times; 3. the approval of the proposal will not materially affect the ongoing Release Sites & implementation and delivery of the development strategy in the approved development plan; 4. the proposal is in accord with the supply. If the next review of the LDP is not due for some time, the Council could produce supplementary guidance Windfall Sites master planning, design and environmental policies set out in the approved development plan; 5. the proposal includes the agreed to address any urgent deficit in effective supply. level of affordable housing (if applicable) required by policy; 6. the proposal is an effective site and evidence of compliance with all technical and other requirements has been provided by the applicant; 7. the proposal is in a location which has spare infrastructure The suggested modification would undermine the role of the LDP in planning strategically for housing development capacity or is self financing in terms of the provision of any upgrade of infrastructure and services by the applicant; 8. the applicant in the most effective and sustainable locations. can demonstrate that the proposal is viable in terms of any funding commitments for agreed developer contributions in accord with the provisions of Circular 1/2010 - Planning Agreements. Any planning application must provide adequate information and analysis to It is considered that the proposed text change to “reflecting” would reduce the ability of the policy to seek high demonstrate compliance with the above requirements to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Planning permission will not be granted for proposals which would undermine the approved development strategy and do not accord with the principles of quality and appropriate development that does not detract from the character of the surrounding area. sustainable development. • Seeking minor changes to criterion b: replace "not detracting from" with "reflecting". The wording is too negative. Criterion f. explicitly requires the provision of public and private open space that maintains or enhances existing • Criterion f is unclear and in any event is largely superfluous as this issue is covered in detail in LDP Policy Open Space. Suggest and proposed development and the amenity of the area. The proposed change is rejected as it would dilute this rewriting to read "the provision of appropriate private and public open space". requirement and is considered likely to undermine the objectives of the policy. • This representation supports LDP Policy - Residential Policy within Settlements, Release Sites and Windfall Sites at Russell House, King Street, Ayr. The purpose of this policy is not to allocate specific sites. The LDP has allocated sufficient sites to meet the

identified housing requirement- no need for an additional site.

Revision of the Rural Housing policy that incorporates The principle of enabling development is enshrined in national policy on the historic environment and relates to No proposed modification to LDP Policy - •the principle of enabling development enabling development to cross-fund restoration of historic buildings. The rural housing policy also contains LDP. Rural Housing • the possible formation of new clusters/small groups of house in the countryside areas outwith the green belt, and guidance on the principles of rural-based business residencies; however, it is not considered to be consistent with • new individually designed houses and plots where they enable new/existing business diversification opportunities. This would align national policy to create provision for enabling housing development for proposals not relating to restoration of the Rural Housing policy with NPF2 and SPP and meet Scottish Government's objectives for rural areas. historic buildings.

LDP Policy: Rural Housing requires to be modified to comply with SPP paragraph 94 and should reflect the wording within the SPP in The clusters policy in the LDP does provide for additions to clusters outwith greenbelt. terms of supporting new residential development in the countryside in new clusters and groups, plots for individually designed houses, new built and conversions associated with rural business or new businesses. Conversions should not be limited to existing The LDP policy allows for business-related rural houses. footprint unless for compelling design reasons. The LDP does conform to SPP para 94. Amend paragraph 6 of the LDP Rural Housing Policy. After character of the cluster, add "Within the Greenbelt such limited housing development could only be acceptable of they were demonstrably associated with a major new use with significant economic benefit, It is not proposed to amend the greenbelt criteria to provide for clusters. This would be inconsistent with national which is appropriate to a greenbelt location (see Greenbelt policy), and necessary for its vitality". policy on greenbelt and serve to undermine the objectives of the greenbelt. IN any case, it is not envisaged that small scale housing development, permissible under the proposed amendment would not result in the scale of economic benefit suggested. • Concerns about affordable housing policy in terms of integrating social housing into private developments (on site provision), as it There is a requirement upon the Council to ensure the LDP secures affordable housing contributions from housing No proposed modification to LDP Policy - devalues private homes due to some tenants anti-social behaviour. development. To remove this policy would conflict with national guidance. LDP. Affordable Housing • Supportive of Affordable Housing Policy however suggests an addition to take account of lowering the % of affordable Housing if the Viability will be considered in the context of seeking contributions for affordable housing; however, it is intended viability of the overall project is in jeopardy and to bring the policy in accordance with PAN 2/2010 insert after Part b) the following to provide this guidance within supplementary guidance that will be statutorily linked to the LDP. This will provide text "c. Where the applicant can demonstrate and clearly justify that there are exceptional costs, unknown when the initial offer of full details of how viability will be considered, and the production of this supplementary guidance will undergo purchase was made, which render the development of the site unviable as originally proposed, a reduced provision of affordable consultation. homes will be considered." It is not intended to remove the explanation that, in certain circumstances, alternative type of provision can be • Criterion b the phrase "or in order to reduce the burden on public finances" is unclear and should be deleted. Add a final sentence sought. This is intended to set a provision for seeking alternatives to on-site provision, where, in some instances to reflect Paragraph 22 of PAN 2/2010: "Alternative forms of provision will result in the same costs to the developer as the preferred there may be no need and the scale of development may be so small that the subsidy required to facilitate onsite option of transferring land at affordable housing value". The second sentence does not fully accord with PAN2/2010. Viability is a affordable housing may be inefficient for public sector; and that alternative provision may be more cost effective reason for varying or waiving the affordable housing requirement. This sentence could be amended: Delete "the type of" and replace way of providing affordable housing. In any case, this will be fully explained in the supplementary guidance. The with "affordable housing"; delete all after "proposal" and replace with "the percentage and/or types of affordable housing will be circumstances under which different types of affordable will be set out in supplementary guidance, including the amended to ensure that the overall development remains viable". cost impact of the provision of the contribution.

The requirement for on-site social rented housing is increasingly difficult to deliver in the current economic climate with reduced Social rented housing is generally the preferred tenure of affordable housing sought through housing allocations. funding for Registered Social Landlords to provide this form of affordable housing. There should not be a sequential approach which This will be clarified in the supplementary guidance; however, for the policy to be effective, there requires to be prioritises social rented housing over other methods of delivery. Viability remains a key component in delivery. flexibility for instances where social rented is not desirable. • Play provision and recreational facilities for new residential developments should be collected in monetary form by Council and this The physical provision of open space and play equipment will be required from development, in some instances. No proposed modification to LDP Policy - should be agreed prior to consents being issued to ensure a better quality of recreational facility for new and existing residents The LDP includes a policy which sets out the Council’s expectation for developer contributions for this, where LDP. Open Space whether within new developments or within close proximity. appropriate. Supplementary guidance will set out the specific mechanisms for calculating and collecting money for • Suggest following amendment in line with SPP: "The Council will protect all open spaces which are valued and functional, or could the provision of open space/play equipment, or physical provision of space/equipment. It is not proposed to be brought into functional use to meet an identified need in the South Ayrshire open space strategy, from development. As well as include such details in the LDP. being of local importance, the open spaces identified on the proposals map make a valuable contribution to the wider environment." • A further policy is required that specifically relates to playing field to ensure the Council's position reflects SPP in what loss is The wording in the LDP policy is derived from the policy in existing Plan, and has been amended to ensure acceptable and includes a range of compensatory measures. SportScotland would like to assist the Council in the preparation of the compliance with SPP, and has been subject to a plain English editorial. It is considered the policy aligns with SPP, Playing field strategy. which, in any case, is still applicable to development affecting open space. • Outdoor recreation areas should be treated separately from open space policy and be given greater protection and any loss would require compensatory provision like playing fields. Playing fields are protected under the open space policy, which is considered to align with SPP. It is not considered • The final two sentences are very unclear and do not accord with SPP in terms of applying the results from an Open Space that an additional policy is required to achieve protection of playing fields. Similarly outdoor recreational areas are Audit/Strategy to the development plan. It is suggested that they be deleted entirely and replaced with: "The Council has carried out considered to be a type of open space, which will serve a different purpose to other types of open space. an Open Space Audit/Strategy which identifies areas of open space deficiency. The Council also has standards for the provision of new Nonetheless, it is considered that this policy offers protection of open space assets, which is considered to include spaces where required by the Strategy. Where proposals for new residential development would either exacerbate an existing outdoor recreation areas. deficiency in provision, or cause a deficiency, then developers will be expected to contribute towards, or provide, appropriate private and public open space. The Council's supplementary guidance sets out how this space provision can be assessed." It is considered that the production of open space audit, strategy and development of LDP policy are all in alignment with Scottish Government.

Support for policy. Note support. No proposed modification to LDP Policy - LDP. Landscape Amendment to wording of this policy as follows: - "We will maintain and improve the quality of South Ayrshire's landscape and its It is not proposed to develop statutory supplementary guidance on landscape quality; however there are other Quality distinctive local characteristics. Proposals for development must avoid significant adverse impacts upon features that contribute to sources of landscape information, which can inform consideration of development proposals, including SNH local distinctiveness, including "..., Landscape Character Study, 1998. The Council is also working with SNH to prepare a Landscape Capacity Study for wind turbine developments, which is intended to be used to inform decision making on planning applications. Lack of LDP or supplementary guidance on landscape quality, open space and urban design address visual amenity and urban design of settlement gateways and edges of settlements as well as transitions between linked settlements. It is considered that the policy intent to conserve local features is appropriate. There is no requirement to avoid local feature, where proposals can ensure the conservation. This improves environmental performance, as conservation may be more positive in terms of proactive management than avoidance. Seeking reassurance that any current or future landscape capacity study used to inform planning decisions is subject to public The landscape study being prepared is intended to provide information on landscape character. It is not a decision- No proposed modification to LDP Policy - consultation prior to use. Determinations require to be judged upon all evidence and assessment submitted on a case by case basis making tool. LDP. Landscape including the assessments within the EIAs. Protection It is understood that landscape and impact on landscape are different from visual impact; however it is the case The LDP policy Protecting the Landscape also seems to mix up landscape and visual effects and this requires clarification. that development, particularly visually prominent structures, can have an adverse impact on the landscape, in positive and adverse ways. This policy seeks to ensure that visual impacts of development are not unacceptable in Unclear as to criteria used to identify scenic areas and what qualities they aim to protect other than fundamental scenic qualities. terms of impact on the landscape.

SportScotland supports the advice of the SPP paragraph 139 of the SPP in relation to landscape designation that planning authorities The scenic areas were informed by SNH Landscape Character Study, 1998, which remains a relevant consideration, are encouraged to limit non-statutory landscape designations to local landscape areas (LLAs) as their intended purpose is to safeguard and, as such, it is proposed to retain scenic area designation. The policy is intended to protect recognised quality and promote important settings for outdoor recreation and tourism locally (paragraph 140 of the SPP). South Ayrshire does not landscape (scenic) areas, not offer protection to recreational assets. While there may be an overlap in quality of appear to have taken this approach but approach should now be followed and LLAs should be indicated on a proposals map and landscape and recreational opportunities, other development plan policies respond to protection of outdoor accompanied by appropriate policy protection, which recognises and protects both their scenic but also their recreational interest. If recreation assets. the scenic areas designation remains, it is important that recreational assets are given protection in the wording of the policy, as well as scenic qualities then this should be stated in the development plan. The landscape character study 1998 is a background technical document, which was used to identify scenic areas. It is not considered necessary, for the application of this policy, to amend the policy and pre-text to make It is important that the LDP Policy- Protecting the landscape refers to the Ayrshire Landscape Character assessment 1998 as proposals reference to the character study, as it does not play an active role in the implementation of the policy. will be considered in the context of this document and any further supporting landscape studies undertaken by SNH in partnership with South Ayrshire Council. This assists developers and refers them to the document. The scenic area is in line with the LCS, 1998 and this defines scenic area. There is no updated or replacement evidence base to suggest modification of scenic area boundaries. There is an acknowledgment of the scenic qualities of the southern part of South Ayrshire and a suggested that the scenic area is extended to encompass a rural area located to the southwest of Barrhill which follows the rail line.

Clarification is required as to what the criteria is for designating a landscape as “scenic”. Representation questions whether commercial forestry really represents an essential part of the region's landscape as it is constantly The transportation implications of development are considered in the transport policies, and it is not considered No proposed modification to LDP Policy - subject to change due to the nature of the enterprise. A change is required within this policy to reflect the changing nature of appropriate to amend this policy to impose transportation requirements on forestry operations. LDP. Woodland and commercial forestry. Forestry It is considered that forestry affects landscape character of south Ayrshire. The document does not sufficiently mention the damage that timber transportation has on the road network and the cost of maintenance to the Council. Amendment to woodland and forestry policy amended as follows: - (c) whenever appropriate, provide It is not considered necessary to amend the policy to reflect the changing nature of commercial forestry. A forestry recreational opportunities for the public: and (d) endeavour to use as the primary option rail or coastal shipping to convey felled and woodland strategy will be adopted as supplementary planning guidance (not SG) to provide further detail for timber for processing. development proposals.

The Woodland and Forestry policy should be amended to provide support for the transfer of timber via rail. • Remove the text "where practical" from Policy and add the requirement to replace any tree felled with three new compensatory Reject proposal to amend policy to require replacement tree planting. Tree felling and replanting often doesn’t No proposed modification to LDP Policy - trees of appropriate species. This policy should be applicable to all parties including the Council. need any consent/permission from the planning authority. As such, it can be difficult to always control LDP. Preserving Trees • SNH recommend an addition to this policy to include the following text to keep it in line with SPP. "Any felling of woodland should felling/replacement planting. Any replacement planting should also be considered in the context of the extent of comply with criteria set out in it SG Control of Woodland Removal Policy". Council powers to enforce this position.

The SG control of woodland removal policy is not implemented via the planning system. It is not considered appropriate to amend the policy in this respect. • The Policy needs to mention that "The Central Scotland Green Network is a national development promoted by NPF2." and SNH Policy can be amended to include reference to national development. Definition in glossary can be amended to be Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy - would prefer that the definition is uniform with the SPP. uniform with CSGN – this was initially a result of plain English editorial. proposed: Change definition Central Scotland • The SG should show green networks diagrammatically at settlement level, as well as outwith the settlement boundaries. It is of CSGN in glossary and refer Green Network important that master planning is shown as playing a key role in protecting and enhancing green networks in and around settlement. Consideration will be given to providing mapped green networks in development of any supplementary guidance. national development status. • Policy requires to be amended to protect not only the important natural features and wildlife habitats within the green network but also its recreational qualities and purpose. Policy and pretext makes reference to recreational role of CSGN – no need to further amend policy. No other proposed • Supportive of CSGN policy and support the inclusion that wind farms areas contribute to the CSGN. modification to LDP. • SPT suggest amending point c of the CSGN policy to read as follows" improve public access and walking and cycling routes" to better Public access is considered, in the context of the plan, to include walking and cycling routes. It is not considered reflect the purpose of the CSGN. necessary to amend plan. •Supportive of the LDP however would like the following modifications: 1. Within the Flooding Policy should mention that it complies Note SEPA’s comment and agree accept amendment to policy in respect of land raising. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy - with Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and future Local Flood Risk Management Plans 2. Development will not be proposed: Change to reflect Flood & acceptable where it causes flooding issues elsewhere within the catchment, 3. Scottish Water would like to the negative references The policy is compliant with FRM (Scotland) Act 2009. It is not considered necessary to include reference to this. land raising comments by Development taken out that implies they are a constraint to development as they are not a barrier to development providing the development fulfil SEPA. the criteria 5. Scottish Water committed to enable development and encourage early discussion and will work with partner to The policy has been developed to accord with SEPA policy, and in the majority of cases, land with flood risk has not facilitate capacity. If insufficient capacity in SW network providing sufficient funding mechanisms are in place for facilitating upgrades been promoted for development. Where this is not the case, SEPA has been involved in discussion as to how to No other proposed SW should not be a barrier to development. In some instances SW will initiate growth project to increase network capacity to enable approach the matter. Strategically important sites, brownfield sites or national developments for example, may, in modification to LDP. development. a limited number of cases involve potential development on flood risk areas. This is why the flood risk framework has been developed and addresses such instances. SEPA has not indicated that joint working with other Councils The LDP refers to the SACDP 2009 but this has been updated to SACDP 2012 therefore LDP should reflect most up to date should be undertaken to manage flood risk outwith the Council’s control. information. Impact of development proposals in terms of flood risk has been agreed with SEPA, so no change proposed to •Change to LDP Policy: flooding and drainage. Support for the statement that ˜Development should avoid areas which are likely to be policy in this respect. affected by flooding or if the development would increase the likelihood of flooding elsewhere'. Some of the proposed site allocations appear to be located within flood risk areas and are therefore inconsistent with this policy, the proposed LPD policy on sustainable development and also Scottish Planning Policy (SPP). Support the need for SUDS and suggest that further reference is made to ˜the The policy and LDP in general does not suggest that Scottish Water is a barrier to development. Any reference to need for well-designed and constructed SUDS to maximise biodiversity benefits and also the need, as stated in SPP, to ensure that constraints - even in SEA – is related to process and methodology of the SEA and LDP, not in the context of Scottish areas of impermeable surfaces must be kept to a minimum in all new developments'. In relation to local flood plans the wording of Water being a barrier to development. this policy is changed to ˜The objectives and measures set out in the Flood Risk Management Strategies and Local Flood Risk Management Plans will be fully considered and adhered to when deciding on development proposals'. Local Flood Plans and SUDs are referenced in the LDP appropriately and, as agreed with SEPA.

•SEPA agree with policy however would like the wording of sentence two changed to more accurately reflect the requirements of SPP as follows "We will not approve land raising (work that permanently raises a site above the functional flood plain of a watercourse, or elsewhere if flooding is an issue), unless the developer can demonstrate that this would have a neutral or better effect on the probability of flooding elsewhere; be linked to the provision of compensatory storage; and not create islands of development'

• In some instances managing flood risk may be outwith the Council’s control and it is therefore proposed that the Council forms a joint approach with other Councils within watercourse catchments in considering development proposals as it will impact the water catchment up and down stream. Furthermore the Council should invest in drainage in terms of clearance of existing watercourses/ditches and provide attenuation in farm land upstream, if possible, to reduce the flooding of residential areas. Objects to the definition of Prime Agricultural land that has changed and excludes Class 3.2. South Ayrshire as one of the largest dairy The Council’s protection of prime quality land is based on the McAuley land institute classification of agricultural No proposed modification to LDP Policy – production regions the farmer relies on grass to feed livestock. The loss of Class 3.2 land would have a detrimental impact on the food land which indicates that classes 1 – 3.1 are prime quality. This is a nationally recognised position, which is LDP. Agriculture Land industry in South Ayrshire and increase our carbon footprint. This definition requires to be changed to include Class 3.2 land for reflected in the Council’s position on prime quality agricultural land. To depart from this position, would result in protection. the LDP being out of sync with national policy, and could result in objections from key agencies, to the Plan.

The understanding of the term sustainable development is not clear as the representative thought that this meant meeting the needs of the present whilst not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore if Council agrees that this should be the case then Class 3.2 should be included as Prime Agricultural land to ensure that Sustainable development of South Ayrshire. • Supportive of the first sentence of the Minerals and Aggregates accompanying text. Note support. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy – • Object to 2nd sentence, "However, their inappropriate extraction and processing can also have an environmental cost." Suggest proposed: Change to reflect Minerals * more positive wording to reflect the essential role of minerals in supporting economic growth. South Ayrshire falls within a market area for minerals, which includes East Ayrshire. During consultation with the natura 2000 site in line with Aggregates • Require to update the terminology to conform to terminology used within Scottish Planning Policy. Replace the word "opencast" Ayrshire Joint Planning Unit, it is understood that the supply of minerals within the market area is such that SNH representation. with "surface mineral working". additional extraction of minerals in South Ayrshire is not require, and this has resulted in the retention of • Wording should be changed to include direct reference to shallow reserves. "The Council will presume against development that restrictive policies controlling mineral and aggregate extraction. It is intended to discuss the matter further with No other proposed permanently sterilises and encourage prior removal of surface mineral deposits, unless there are significant economic benefits, which the Ayrshire Joint Planning Unit and other Ayrshire Councils to ensure that the policy approach remains supported modification to LDP. outweigh the protection of the known shallow mineral deposit(s)." by the current supply of minerals and aggregates. • The whole coal section of the Mineral and Aggregates LDP policy requires to be revised to ensure it is not contrary to SPP as it currently is. Specifically include identification of “broad areas of search” Policy to be amended in line with Natura 2000 comments. • Objects to the size restriction (bullet d)and duration of site (bullet f) as this is not in line with SPP which does not restrict size of sites • SPP states developments under 10 years disturbance to communities are likely to be environmentally acceptable not 2 years which Transport policies in the LDP set out a transport strategy, and it is not considered necessary to amend policy to is highly restrictive to mineral operators. include preference for transportation of coal. • Object to the criteria for permitting extensions of surface coal extraction only “if there is a shortfall in the market” as there are no statistics held on exact permitted coal reserves of the area by any local authority and there are no land banking information on coal mineral reserves. • The current surface coal mining policy is inadequate, not in keeping with Paragraphs 222, 239 to 247 of Scottish Planning Policy. • Requests an amendment to Policy as follows, "We will not support development that permanently sterilises known mineral deposits, unless there are significant economic benefits which outweigh protecting the deposits. Proposals for the extraction of minerals (including coal) should not have a detrimental impact on sensitive receptors including both neighbouring land uses and the surrounding landscape, and proposals for extracting minerals and aggregates must not harm a Natura 2000 site." • Additional wording is required to provide clarity on new commercial peat extraction. Given the habitat and carbon storage value of peatlands it is expected that new extraction to be regarded as contrary to the plan. • Reference to market areas bears no relationship to SPP and is not a relevant consideration with respect to aggregates in Scotland. Neither is the reference to the Greenbelt since this category of land does not preclude mineral extraction. • Request an addition to section e of the policy at the beginning. "Preference is given to the use of conveyors and rail transport to convey coal to the market and" that traffic • The policy should be amended to reflect the wording contained within the HRA – “Development proposals with an adverse effect on Natura 2000 sites will not be permitted.” • The minerals and aggregates policy should be amended to ensure that preference is given to the transport of coal via rail.

Delete LDP Policy - low and zero carbon buildings on the following grounds: - This policy is outdated, being based on historic Building Scottish Government advised the Council, at earlier stages in the LDP preparation, that it would expect a policy on No proposed modification to LDP Policy - Standards and on the provisions of SPP6 and PAN 68, both now repealed. SPP no longer refers to a requirement to use low and zero- low and zero carbon buildings to be included in the LDP. The policy was duly included. This, in any case, brings the LDP. Low/Zero Carbon carbon generating technology; it is suggested as one option but is not required. In reality, developers are already achieving very low Plan into alignment with Scottish Government position, as expressed in Scottish Planning Policy. To not include this Buildings carbon emissions and high energy-efficiency in new buildings, and where they are building to the 2010 Building Regulations then there policy would result in objection to the Plan from Scottish Government. The requirements of the policy reflect is no requirement to go further in terms of efficiency. The 2010 standards can be achieved by fabric design, air tightness and modern national expectations. construction methods, with little need for micro-technologies other than mechanical ventilation and heat pumps in some cases. There is no need to submit statements beyond what is already required in Building Warrant submissions. This Policy is therefore superfluous and should be deleted in its entirety.

• The current building regulations already exceed the 15% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from the 2007 building regulations. The representation states that the building control/standards legislation is the most appropriate means to secure energy efficiencies and reduced requirements. LDP Policy: SNH recommend that the LDP policy is modified to state “Development proposals will not be permitted where they would adversely Accept recommended Natura 2000 amendment. No proposed modification to renewable affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site” to be consistent with the HRA. LDP. energy The policy does not contain the word “unacceptable”. This is within the policy pre-text. The policy clarifies the The policy fails to convey the supportive stance outlined in SPP towards renewable energy. The representation requests that the Council’s position on proposals for renewable energy, and this is considered to be in line with national policy. wording of the policy is altered to state “if the developer can show that they will not have a significant adverse effect”. This avoids the Scottish government did not raise this issue in consultation. subjective use of the word ‘unacceptable’. • Supportive of Wind Energy policy and welcomed the reference to the forthcoming landscape capacity study in assessing the effects It is intended to produce supplementary guidance to express the council’s position on wind farms, including the Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy - Wind of future proposals on the landscape. provision of search areas. Government advice has clarified that, while government expectation is that such proposed: Accept alteration Energy guidance is appropriate to be contained in LDPs, given the late issue of this position at an advanced stage of the to include “equivalent of • Policy requires to ensure any developments must be sensitive to neighbouring land uses and protect the natural and built LDP, this requirement would not be imposed on the Council. The consideration of the representee suggesting 100%”, as per Scottish environment, ensuring that there are no detrimental impacts on the wider landscape. existing guidance is out of line with SPP is not relevant. The policy referred to forms part of the existing Planning Policy and Scottish development plan and will remain operational until superseded by the LDP. At that point up-to-date guidance will Government proposed LPD • Policy should contain an additional criterion to ensure development will not have a significant detrimental impact on amenity of be issued in support of the LDP. response. nearby residents. The policy, as proposed adequately offers protection of nearby residents and landscape. No other proposed • Wind developers should be required to undertake a detailed assessment of the impact of proposed wind farm development on modification to LDP. surrounding land uses, particularly on visitor destinations and holiday accommodation (including camping, caravan and chalet parks), Wind farm developers will be required to demonstrate proposals accord with policy. This will involve submitted and on visitor perceptions. relevant assessment work to demonstrate compliance at application stage.

• Additional paragraph should be included in LDP Policy: wind energy “f. they will not cause a change in the local hydrology that could LDP policy: Sustainable development contains a proviso to protect peat resources. Wind farm/turbine cause significant release of carbon stored in the soil (e.g. on peatlands)”. This would be counterproductive in terms of carbon development proposals would also have to comply with this policy. emissions. The policy will work with other LDP policies, including natural heritage policy, which protects all natural heritage The policy should be amended to read as follows: we will support proposals if: a. It can be demonstrated the landscape is capable of resources, including natura 200 sites. The Natura caveat is a result of the habitats regulation appraisal process, accommodating the development; b. It can be demonstrated they respect the main features and character of the landscape and keep which sought to provide mitigation against specific impacts on natura 2000 sites. This is a legislative requirement. their effect on the landscape and the wider area to a minimum (through a careful choice of site and high-quality design and materials); This policy refers to wind energy, and it is not considered appropriate to place additional statements on it to refer c. They do not have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby residents; d. The cumulative impact is not significantly to bird protection maps. Natural heritage policies, together with planning application consultation should address adverse; and e. They do not significantly affect aviation, defence interest and broadcasting installations. issues relating to birds, where relevant.

• The current LDP policy fails to be in line with SPP as it is reliant of SG for Wind Energy which has not been produced. The previous It is considered that the principles of the policy are clear, in what the Council expects wind energy developers to SPG is out of date and not reflective of the Scottish Government position. provide safeguards against. Further details will be provided in supplementary guidance. • The policy fails to clearly indicate the potential for wind farms of all scales or set out search areas for wind farms. • Wind Energy SG must be completed and published to remove uncertainty for operators and communities and ensure investment While the policy doesn’t actively promote recreation, it is recognised that wind farm developments can create within the area. recreation opportunities. This representation can be given further consideration in development of supplementary • Changes should be made to make it less subjective and allow developers to demonstrate the scale of potential impacts. guidance, and SportScotland can be consulted in development; however it is not considered necessary or • Policy should consider impacts of proposals on recreational interests. SportScotland would like to be consulted in the development appropriate to contain specific provision for recreation in the wind energy proposal. Other LDP policies can support of the SG for Wind Energy. appropriate proposals as a spin off from development. • Representation objects to the LDP but welcomes the encouragement of renewable developments as a key point throughout the LDP. • The policy does not include for the protection of the environment outside of designated Natura sites. Further detail is required to The LDP is not proposing specific development or search areas. SG should provide more detail including search ensure the appropriate siting of wind energy developments. areas. The comment regarding cumulative impact at Dumfries and Galloway border can be considered during • Reference should be made to the bird sensitivity map developed by RSPB. development of that guidance. • As the existing Addendum to the AJSP Technical Report TR 03/2006 is not up to date and not fit for purpose. The above Addendum conflicts the Scottish Government advice in respect of wind farm noise levels. Amendment to align with SPP on equivalent accepted. • Objects that there is no mention that smaller wind turbines could be developed along coastal towns’ esplanades attached to lamp post which could assist in generating electricity. • Concerned at the number of wind farm proposals and turbines between Pinmore and Dumfries and Galloway boundary as they have a significant impact on the scenic quality of the landscape. • seeks an addition to criteria c as follows: - c. "they do not have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby residents, walkers or visitors."Fdark skies • Point (e) needs reworded to state “after mitigation, they do not affect aviation, defence interests and broadcasting installations.”

The Action Programme requires to be updated recognising that the wind energy SG must be published at the same time as the LDP or soon after to ensure that the effectiveness of the wind energy policy is not compromised.

Page 45, under the wind energy paragraph down the left hand-side the statement reads: “The Scottish Government has set a target for 100% of Scotland’s electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2020”. This should read to say the target is to generate the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The Country Estate policy does not limit enabling development and concern that unless enabling development is limited then it could Enabling development is enshrined in Government and Historic Scotland policy. The Council cannot reasonably No proposed modification to LDP Policy - adversely impact on the character and setting of the listed buildings and structures of Estates, liked at Sundrum as the developer conflict with this guidance without expecting objection to any such position from government and historic LDP. Estates keeps going back for more. Scotland. In any case, the Council supports the principle of enabling development in instances where it can result in the re-use or restoration of historic buildings, which would otherwise have been unachievable. Amendment to policy - International designations" Development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, Wording to be amended to reflect habitats regulation appraisal as recommended by SNH. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy - which is likely to have a significant effect on a designated or proposed Natura 2000 site (SPA, SAC) will be subject to an appropriate proposed: Reflect HRA/AA as Natural Heritage assessment of the implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. Development proposals will only be supported It is not proposed to amend the policy to require development to not have an adverse impact on natura sites. per SNH representations. where the assessment concludes that: it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site; or, are there are no alternative solutions, Requirement for plans, policies, strategies, proposals to undergo HRA/AA is set by legislation – not by policy Remove reference to national and there exist imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. Where such a site imposition. The policy should not be amended to reiterate legislative provisions as it is a policy document. The LDP nature reserves. hosts a priority habitat and/ or priority species as defined by the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), the imperative reasons of overriding has been subject ot HRA/AA and has been through consultation with SNH. Any relevant development proposal public interest must relate to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment. which triggers need for HRA/AA will be duly assessed as such –as well as the development proposal against this No other proposed Other allowable exceptions are subject to the views of the European Commission (via Scottish Ministers). policy. modification to LDP.

Furthermore remove any reference to National nature reserves as South Ayrshire does not have any and this is confusing for readers. Reference to national nature reserves can be removed, in recognition that SA doesn’t contain any – although its inclusion does not cause harm. They further recommend that the assessment criteria for assessing development that affects a SSSI should reflect the language used in SPP Para 137- . a. It will not adversely affect the integrity of the site or the qualities for which it has been designated; or, b. any The protection of SSSI’s complies with government guidance. The specific wording is as a result of plain English adverse effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of national importance. Local designations process for Plan.

The current policy relating to Local designations is not strong enough and requires rewording to protect local heritage sites. For The policy should not be amended to allow provision for proposals that result in necessary loss of heritage example "Development, either individually or with other proposals, which would affect the following local heritage sites shall only be features. It is not appropriate to provide a development plan provision whereby there is a presumption that supported where the developer can show that the integrity of the site will not be put at risk." There requires to be a section on development will be favoured over the retention of heritage assets. If loss is judged to be necessary to facilitate Protected Species within this policy for example "Planning Permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to development, this should be case-by-case assessment at planning applications stage, and showing compliance with have an adverse effect on protected species unless it can be justified in accordance with the relevant protected species legislation." the policy – i.e. having regard to the stated features.

Modification to final paragraph of Natural Heritage Policy to give greater flexibility to development. "In all instances, proposals are to It is considered that the policy allows protection of protected species and local nature reserves, and the additional have regard to safeguarding features of nature conservation value including woodlands, hedgerows, lochs, ponds, watercourses, detail is not required in the Plan. Government and key agency guidance can also be used in decision making to wetlands and wildlife corridors. Proposals which result in the necessary loss of these features will include proposals for replacement ensure detailed policy guidance can be followed under the principle of the protection of the stated natural within the development where possible, such as through a replanting scheme to be agreed by the Council." heritage resources.

The wording of the policy should be amended to better reflect the wording of the Habitats Regulations. The wording used in Figure 3.1 of the HRA contains appropriate wording and is the policy that has been assessed by the HRA. Would like to see amendment to the Waste Management Policy as follows: ˜... All waste- management sites must: ... d. Protect the It is not considered necessary to amend the policy as suggested. Provision D seeks to protect natural and built No proposed modification to LDP Policy - natural and built environment, ensuring that there are no detrimental impacts on sensitive neighbouring land uses; ... g. Not have a environment. Provision H protects against pollutions; and any other amenity impacts on neighbouring land uses, LDP. Waste negative effect on the immediate or wider landscape and how the area looks...' The concern is that sites could potentially have an will be identified and prevented under LDP Policy: sustainable development. Management adverse impact on tourism. Provision G already protects the landscape and is inclusive of immediate and wider impacts. There is no need to explicitly state this. This representation objects to Dark Skies policy as it fails to comply with SPP. Para 139 of SPP allows LPAs to enact local designations The inclusion of the dark skies policy is intended to offer support for the park, and is not intended, primarily as a No proposed modification to LDP Policy -Dark but the Dark Skies Park as defined in the LDP does not comply on two grounds: - It is neither a landscape nor a natural heritage development management tool to control development. Additional guidance on the dark skies park will be LDP. Skies designation as allowed by SPP - although we accept the validity and value of a Dark Sky reserve in principle SPP requires a local produced, which will set out guidance for development within the dark skies park. This will clarify boundary issues designation to be "clearly identified". The Map does not do so, and indeed the boundary of the Dark Skies Reserve has been arbitrarily relating to the Park. changed during the consultation period for the LDP. Dark skies policy does not comply with SPP as the Dark Skies Park has not been adequately identified as required. This was screened out in HRA which SNH agreed with and therefore the LDP and HRA need to reflect each other therefore the Natura Natura caveat to be removed per SNH recommendation. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy - Land caveat currently within the plan requires to be removed. proposed: Change to remove Use & Transport The policy focuses on transport implications of development and land use. There are no elements of the policy that natura 2000 caveat and Requirement to improve transport links and therefore recommends the following additions to LDP 1.Page 50: - have no land use implications, and therefore, while perhaps relevant in LTS context, the comments are also revise criterion D to include relevant in LDP. “maintain”, as specified in • add a new (a). and renumber – (a) Improving the transport and communication access to South Ayrshire is the most important single representations. factor in promoting regeneration of the area and should proceed ahead of other infrastructure developments. It is not considered necessary to add a new criterion (a), as suggested. The proposal is reflected in the policy and • add a new final bullet point (m). The restoration and development of flights from Glasgow Prestwick Airport, particularly to London, pre-text to policy. No other proposed is a key objective. modification to LDP. The development plan has not role in the commercial operations of an airline operating from the airport, and Supportive of policy - criterion (e) states where possible as in rural and coastal locations within South Ayrshire public transport cannot influence the provision of flight routes to additional destinations. Reject suggested criterion (m). services are not regular and proposals for visitor/ tourist attractions in these locations are assessed differently to those in urban areas to take account of more limited public transport links. . It is accepted that the word maintain can be added to (but not to replace “enhance”) criterion D.

Amendments to various criterions It is not proposed to remove the word “services” from criterion K. In respect of criteria D and K, it is clear that the policy intends that where development has an adverse impact on the local road network (including services), that • Criterion (d), the word "enhance" should be replaced by "maintain" the proposed development should mitigate its impact in order to be acceptable. This is enshrined in government policy and it is not appropriate to take the LDP out of alignment with national policy in this respect. For clarity, it is • Criterion (k), delete the words "and services" not expected that unrelated development would pay for impacts on transport infrastructure not caused by that development – the assessment of impact will be made on a case-by-case basis. Point J already recognises the value • Criterion (d) is unclear, in respect of who is being obliged to "enhance the efficiency" of networks. Circular 1/2010 states that a of freight services. Green travel plans are encouraged in general within the policy, planning applications will be developer is required only to mitigate the impact of development, not to pay for additional enhancements to infrastructure. assessed on their merits and will be required to submit green travel plans as appropriate.

• In criterion k, developers will not pay to provide or enhance transport services provided by commercial companies; there is no justification to ask a developer to provide a subsidy to another commercial business.

Remove any policies or parts of policies which duplicate the Council's Local Transport Strategy and retain only those parts with land- use implications. Unclear as to why some of these policies are appearing in a development plan as they are clearly transportation policies which should be in the Local Transport Strategy and need not be repeated in a land-use planning document.#

Point (a) should make reference to the RTS objectives; point (j) should note the importance of existing freight facilities; and the reference to green transport plans should be strengthened from “encourage” to “require”.

The Scottish Government recommends that the policies set out in the Transport section of the Proposed LDP should be redrafted to The LDP promotes the rail facilities - however the Council cannot deliver improvements to rail facilities. The LDP No proposed modification to LDP Policy - Rail provide clarity on the issues raised in this representation as it is important to ensure that policies can be delivered and some of these must reflect the priorities of rail network operators to ensure the content of the plan is deliverable. The Council LDP. Investment policies are outwith the control of South Ayrshire Council. The document fails to comply with SPP paragraph 171 as no details of rail has not been advised by any rail network operator that can deliver strategic rail improvements that Cassillis and investment; Strategic road development, public transport and freight transport are given within the document or associated Dailly station can be reopened; therefore its inclusion in the plan would be inappropriate. Action: Review action documentation. The policies suggest that the Council will work in partnership with organisations to deliver improvement however no programme to ensure transport organisations are named within the LDP or Action Programme nor is there a definition of the nature of these partnerships. The action programme will be reviewed to ensure aspects of the policy are included and accounted for. accuracy of responsible parties/timescales/actions. The aspirations in relation to rail investment are disappointing and there are many opportunities to encourage users which are not Park and ride is supported elsewhere in the Plan, and it is not considered necessary to add park and ride car parks being promoted by the Council through the Plan. The Council should be promoting the reopening of stations and supporting improved within B. facilities to help encourage rail travel on the Ayr to Kilmarnock line and Ayr to Stranraer line which would lead to improved services and reductions in road maintenance budgets for Councils.

Supportive of safeguarding Tryfield Place for future use. Supportive of housing allocations within close proximity to Ayr to Stranraer line to generate more users of railway. However would like to see the Casillis station reopened to service Minishant as it is only 700m away and has a large housing allocation. Further re-opening of Dailly station would also assist taking traffic of the roads and help support the rail line. It would also assist if the former goods yard at Barhill near the station was allocated for 15 space car park as this would provide a facility for commuters and tourists in this area.

Point (b) should be more specific by including a reference to “park and ride car parks” after the word “facilities”.

The LDP and HRA need to reflect each other therefore the Natura caveat currently within the plan but not within the HRA needs to be Natura caveat to be removed as per SNH recommendation. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy – removed. proposed: Remove natura Developing The action programme can be amended to reflect delivery of all actions. In terms of strategic road improvements 2000 caveat mentioned in Roads The Scottish Government recommends that the policies set out in the Transport section of the Proposed LDP should be redrafted to to A77 must be read in the context that it is not anticipated that the development identified in the LDP will impact representation. provide clarity on the issues raised in this representation as it is important to ensure that policies can be delivered and some of these on the A77 in such a way as to require the upgrade of the A77 to enable development to occur. However, the policies are outwith the control of South Ayrshire Council. The document fails to comply with SPP paragraph 171 as there are no policy provision exists in order that, where development is proposed, via planning application, to the Council for its No other proposed details of rail investment, Strategic road development, public transport and freight transport. The policies suggest that the Council consideration, and, where that development has an impact on the A77, consultation with Transport Scotland will modification to LDP. will work in partnership with organisations to deliver improvement however no transport organisations are named within the LDP or be undertaken to identify the impact, and what mitigation is appropriate. If that development is acceptable in Action Programme nor is there a definition of the nature of these partnerships. Of particular concern is the strategic road network other terms, the Council will work with the developer and Transport Scotland and other transport agencies, where policy as it states" A77 will be improved as required to support development in compliance with the LDP" however no information is Transport Scotland supports a proposed development and its proposals to upgrade A77, to deliver that scheme. given on the location, scale or nature of improvement or timescales which as mentioned is contrary to SPP Paragraph 171. The policy Such development scenarios are not predicted at this stage of plan preparation so cannot be included in the action further states the Council will improve other parts of the network and protect land for improvements where appropriate however the programme. It should also be noted that the provision serves to assist the delivery of Transport Scotland’s stated LDP and Action Programme fail to give further information to proposed safeguarding of land or further improvements. Until this objectives in Strategic Transport Project Review, which indicates its favour for A77 upgrades. The provision also additional information is contained these policies do not comply with Scottish Government requirements. assists the delivery of improvements planned by that authority between Bogend and Dutch House and the Maybole by-pass which are at different stages. The action plan should contain LDP proposals and that outwith the SPT willing to assist the Council in identifying constraints and finding solutions for major trunk road network to facilitate residential Council’s control. These have been subject of consultation with Transport Scotland, and their inclusion in the Plan development if Transport Scotland agrees. was discussed with the agency.

• Page 51 Developing Roads: - add a new (c). and renumber (c). Improve the A70 within the bounds of South Ayrshire and press for The Plan should not be an aspirational document. The Planning service has not control over road improvements to improvements to link to the M74. A70 or provision of an M74 link, and no party with such authority has suggested inclusion of these elements in the policy or plan. Therefore it is not appropriate to include this in plan. The plan should encourage rail travel over bus travel as more environmentally friendly however Scottish Government would require to The plan offers adequate promotion of public transport facilities including bus and rail. It is not considered No proposed modification to LDP Policy - supplement rail travel further to bring prices into line with bus fares. Furthermore Ayr bus station requires significant upgrading to appropriate to prioritise on form of public transport over another: the purpose of the policy is to ensure an LDP. Public Transport attract people to utilise this form of transport. Amend policy to add paragraphs, (d)' persuade Edinburgh to extend concessionary efficient, sustainable and integrated transport network, utilising a range of transport modes. In any case, the travel fares to train travel to make better use of rail links to Glasgow; and paragraph (e) work with Stagecoach to improve the Council does not have control over provision of bus and rail services to dictate this matter – including the upgrade appearance of Ayr bus station. of stations/faculties.

Clarification as points (a) and (b) currently contradict each other. Policy should mention that support should be given to existing The LDP cannot influence public transport operators to adjust fares to encourage use of transport routes. Community rail partnerships. It is not considered that points a anb b contradict each other, indeed, they complement the overall objectives of Add to point (c) "and is convenient to public transport routes with frequent services". the policy.

It is not considered necessary to amend point c. The economic and environmental consideration within this policy will ensure that park and ride facilities are conveniently located for public transport. LDP Policy - The Scottish Government recommends that the policies set out in the Transport section of the Proposed LDP should be redrafted to LDP is not a lobbying document, and policies and proposals must be realistic. No proposed modification to Freight Transport provide clarity on the issues raised in this representation as it is important to ensure that policies can be delivered and some of these LDP. policies are outwith the control of South Ayrshire Council. The document fails to comply with SPP paragraph 171 as not details of rail Action programme can be reviewed to ensure that action within this policy can be accounted for and delivered. investment; Strategic road development, public transport and freight transport are given within the document or associated Action: Review action documentation. The policies suggest that the Council will work in partnership with organisations to deliver improvement however no The promotion of the Maybole bypass is in line with consultation advice from Transport Scotland. This does not programme to ensure transport organisations are named within the LDP or Action Programme nor is there a definition of the nature of these partnerships. preclude support for appropriate use of rail for transport of freight. accuracy of responsible

Support the policy but Network Rail's lack of maintenance has limited development of freight transport on Ayr to Stranraer line due to The LDP has not influence in how Network Rail manages its assets. The LDP should not be an aspirational parties/timescales/actions. the speed restrictions applied which means it is not as competitive as road haulage. Pressurise Network Rail to maintain assets to document but, its contents should be deliverable. ensure no barriers to rail freight.

It is unfortunate that the Council is promoting the Maybole bypass when it should be promoting the use of the rail line to move freight in that area.

Support for the Freight Transport policy, however, there are speed restrictions on the Ayr to Stranraer line as a result of Network Rail failing to maintain their asset at a reasonable level. The Council should be more assertive in obligating Network Rail to maintain such assets. • Town Centre traffic management policies should be cross referenced with the Town centre policies. Natura 2000 caveat to be removed from policy. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy: - • Major change in Town Centre traffic management plan to ensure active and public transport improvements and stimulate economic proposed: Amend policy to Town Centre activity in town centre by prioritising pedestrians, removing roundabouts, double yellow lines on cycle lanes and removing pedestrian Comments relating to removal of roundabouts and yellow lines and increasing pedestrian areas is not a function of remove natura caveat, in line Traffic area the LDP, but operational roads service matters. with SNH recommendation. Management • The LDP and HRA need to reflect each other therefore the reference to Natura 2000 caveat requires to be removed. • SPT would like a cross reference included in this policy relating to the safeguarding of transport facilities in town centres and walking There is no need to cross-reference town centre policies with town centre transport policies. They are both part of No other proposed routes to rail stations when they are outwith the designated town centre. the LDP, which operates as a singular policy document, not a series of individual policies. modification to LDP.

It is considered that the policy already provides safeguards to encourage walking routes and linkages to public transport within criterion a) which expresses a presumption in favour of making town centres more accessible to public transport. • The Environment and Core Paths plan indicates a core path between Failford and Tarbolton that does not exist plan requires Policy to be amended to include protection of Glen App and Galloway Moors SPA. Non-notifiable modification LDP Policy - modification or to state proposed core path The policy and pre-text refers to the benefits of the policy, which include recreation activities. The LDP recognises proposed: Amend in Outdoor Public • Policy does not contain any mitigation and requires it in case there are any potential impacts on Natura 2000 sites. SNH suggest that the recreational value of outdoor access and core paths. accordance with SNH Access & Core the wording within the HRA is used in the plan which states "Development proposals will not be permitted where they would comments. Paths adversely affect the integrity of the Glen App and Galloway Moors SPA." Comments regarding the accuracy of Core Paths Plan will be passed to the Council’s access officer to consider; • Recreation is a crucial element of access rights which are ignored by this policy and these recreational uses need promotion and however this requires no modification to the LDP. No other proposed protection by the policy. modification to LDP. • SportScotland feels this policy would fit more comfortably in the Environment And Climate Change section rather than Transport It is noted that SportScotland consider the policy would more adequately fit in the environment section of the LDP. section. The Council has no objection to this suggestion, however, is not proposing to amend the LDP, as there is also merit • Amend/delete the sentence “core paths are paths or routes that the public can use under the Act” as it is misleading as all routes in locating this policy in the transport section. within access rights can be utilised under the Act. • Reword 3rd sentence of policy as follows to ensure it is more inclusive not just for active travel - "Development and redevelopment It is not proposed to alter 3rd paragraph of policy. The policy relates to outdoor access and paths, not necessarily sites should make provision for recreational routes if and where appropriate which could be for a range of activities including walking provision of additional facilities. Other policies in the Plan will deal with such development proposals. and cycling provision but also other facilities.” It is not proposed to amend the description of core paths as this is not suggesting that core paths are the only access routes covered under the Act.

Representation Summary – Other Issues Issue • Supportive of Planning Service rejection of Site 108 at Cunning Park for development. The site is significantly environmentally constrained. It is allocated open space, and contributes significantly to the No proposed modification to Cunning Park, • The site has considerable wildlife interest locally and any development would have adverse environmental and landscape character of the settlement at this location. It is not favoured for development for the reasons stated in the site LDP. Ayr implications. assessment report. There is sufficient land allocated for housing in the LDP, and there is no need, in housing supply • No residential should be allowed to take place on this site for residential amenity and setting reasons. terms to allocate further housing at this site. • Cunning Park-Phase 2- site should not be developed as it is a flood risk area. • The character of this part of Ayr would be adversely affected by development as opens space would be lost and views across the Firth of Clyde to Arran. • Additional traffic that would be generated from more houses would create an increase in traffic along a busy road. • Concern over coalescence of Doonfoot and Seafield. • The site acts as a wildlife corridor linking with Belleisle and Rozelle and beyond to the shoreline.

Representation submitted in support of development at site, indicating objection to Plan. • Inadequate residential allocation in Tarbolton and RO22 should be reallocated for Housing as it has been allocated for industrial use The site is allocated for industrial purposes, and the Council has been in receipt of enquiries for the industrial use No proposed modification to Redevelopment for considerable time without any interest. of the site. It is considered that there is a sufficient supply of housing land in Tarbolton, and throughout South LDP. Opportunity • The site has been allocated for industrial uses since 1987 with no significant interest coming forward. Ayrshire, within the LDP and land supply. Notwithstanding, the industrial site is not part of a strategic industrial Sites at • Development for housing would improve this gateway site, remove an eyesore and bring a brownfield site back into economic use. area, or any wider industrial area. Its loss to another use would therefore not impact on any other industrial site. It Tarbolton (RO22) • This site should be extended into Langlands Farm land to the west to give additional residential capacity. is noted that it has been vacant for some time. • The marketability of the site for industrial premises is compromised due to the existing dwellinghouse, the environmental constraints and the location remote from Tarbolton village. • The geographically isolated location means that the site struggles to attract an occupier. The clustering of business types in more accessible locations further erodes the opportunity for industrial development in smaller settlements like Tarbolton. Tarbolton • Does not wish Tarbolton to be included as a proposed conservation area until a full community consultation has taken place as A report by the Council’s supervisory planner (environment and conservation) to the Leadership Panel set out the No proposed modification to Conservation concerned at future development implication in relation to restrictions applied by conservation area designation. Council’s priorities for the historic environment. This included pursuing the designation of a conservation area for LDP. Area • Community do not wish conservation area designation as perceive it to be restrictive. Tarbolton, recognising the historic merit of some parts of the village. However, this report identified that pursuing the designation of the conservation area was not a priority, and that character appraisals of existing conservation areas should be completed before designating a conservation area. As such, the LDP sought to reflect historic environment priorities, and, therefore included the proposal to designate a conservation area. Its omission from the LDP, however, would not change the Council intention to designate a conservation area at Tarbolton – as this is set outwith the LDP process. Given this is the Council’s position on historic environment, it was considered appropriate to align the development plan to this. • Objects that Mosshill industrial Estate has not been included as a redevelopment opportunity which includes significant residential No information has been submitted with the proposal to reallocate the site as residential. There are currently No proposed modification to Mosshill development. occupied units at the estate, and without sufficient justification, there is no reason to expect that the industrial LDP. Industrial Estate, • Should be designated for residential (perhaps as a village) as this is a brownfield site has good road connections, no take-up of estate has no viable future as an industrial area. It is recommended, on this basis, that the proposed rezoning for Ayr industrial units and high vacancy rates since 2006. residential is inappropriate. Additionally, the allocation of this site for residential would conflict with the spatial • This development would be complementary to South East Ayr due to its close proximity, as it would provide additional community and housing dispersal strategy in the LDP, which seeks to add choice and variety to the housing land supply by facilities and employment opportunities without competing. meeting the LDP’s housing land requirement by allocating site in settlements satellite to Ayr, Prestwick and Troon. The current land supply is predominantly located within the urban core, so allocating at the proposed location would fail to add choice and variety to the land supply. The housing dispersal strategy is also predicated on there being less infrastructure implications for sites satellite to the urban core – particularly schools and roads. The site is close to the A77, which is known to have capacity issues, and these could potentially undermine the developability of the site for residential, if that were desirable. • Seeks the inclusion of Site18 at Bogend Toll for residential development as it meets the requirements for the Proposed LDP and is The proposed site 18 at Bogend Toll is not within the preferred search area for housing allocations at Symington. No proposed modification to Bogend, within the preferred area of Symington Preferred search areas. Additionally, the locality is a prominent rural location. Development in this are to create a LDP. Symington • The site can be accommodated within the landscape due to the topography and existing landscaping without a negative impact on new settlement and consolidate existing buildings would be significantly harmful to the landscape character of the the wider countryside. area and represent sporadic rural development. • Bogend is part of Symington, although they are geographically separated by A77, the new link will improve and consolidate the relationship, in terms of sharing services. • Object to the Proposed LDP as it should include a new settlement around the existing Bogend hamlet. • The Environment Map requires to be made clear as it is difficult to interpret. SNH suggest removing the woodland layer but include Maps will be clarified, where possible. Non-notifiable modification Clarity of Maps long distance path routes across South Ayrshire. proposed: Improve visual • Seeks to have maps which are easier to read as colours on maps obscure the map details. Colours keys are on separate page and display of information difficult to read with maps. Also some colours are too similar and difficult to differentiate. contained in maps. • Seeking a change to the Environment and Access Map. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) are not clearly identifiable on this map as the layer is hidden beneath that for Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Cross hatching for SPAs should be visible on top of the SSSI No other proposed shading. modification to LDP. Revise figures down The Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA), on which the LDP housing requirement is based, calculates No proposed modification to Housing land need and demand for the area using a range of evidence, including household growth. Reducing housing supply LDP. supply • Housing supply should be revised downwards to be in line with National Records Scotland (NRS) projections for the growth in solely against projections for household growth would not align with statutory guidance or best practice. households. The adoption of these figures would require no further housing allocation for the LDP period. Housing sites have been allocated to meet housing requirement for the whole of South Ayrshire, but in allocating Direct growth according to local conditions individual sites the deliverability of the site, and the ability of the settlement to accommodate the development, • Release of housing sites should be conditional on population / household growth figures and on the necessary infrastructural were key factors. Key agencies have been consulted to establish whether they had any concerns about the impact changes being met. Each area should then be prioritised according to the above criteria. This criteria led approach would ensure no of the proposed development on infrastructure, and to factor in any required mitigation from the development. development would cause major infrastructure issues which impact on the existing community and cause negative impact on economic growth. Sites were selected on the basis of ensuring the sustainability of the development, including good access to employment, local services good transport links, and a positive score against a wide range of environmental • A high level review of the plan's proposed areas for housing is required, taking into consideration future employment requirements, criteria. At the higher level, the LDP Spatial Strategy encourages sustainable economic growth in the core educational, social, medical and environmental needs for each of the areas currently identified. investment towns and the core investment area, subject to compliance with the sustainable development policy. • To ensure sustainability there is a need to provide not just housing but job opportunities to reduce travel of residents. The choice of housing sites for release was based upon their being free from constraints to development and being Existing land supply and effectiveness of proposed sites. most likely to be deliverable in terms of site size, location and characteristics. This includes there being no significant new infrastructure requirements for the sites, no significant physical site constraints, the site being in a • The sites proposed in Appendix D have not be checked against the effective housing land criteria or consulted with Homes of settlement that can accommodate and deliver the development, and the site being in the ownership or control of Scotland to ensure they are effective. a party which can be expected to develop it or release it for development. Further work has also been done to • Homes for Scotland have not had the opportunity to analyse the housing land supply figures nor have house builders, developers assess the effectiveness and likely timescale for developing each housing site allocated in the LDP. There is, and land owners of allocated sites agreed that they can deliver a certain number of units per year over the plan period. The Council however, no requirement to seek the views of Homes for Scotland on whether the selected sites are effective. needs to work with these parties to work out the estimated units that will be completed over the plan period and check that this figure meets the demand and if not allocate further sites in the LDP. In terms of the existing housing land supply figures, they are based on the draft 2011 housing land audit. This was produced shortly after (and is based on the programming outcomes of) the June 2011 meeting with HfS and house The housing need/demand figure of 6108 comes directly from the HoNDA. The LDP adds a generosity allowance of 20%, to meet SPP's builders on the 2010 land audit. As such it is considered that 2011 audit was able to reflect a recently agreed requirements for a generous land supply and the maintenance of an effective 5-year land supply at all times. The assumed established position on developer intentions and the land supply at that point. It also enabled the most up-to-date information land supply is understood to come from a draft 2011 housing land audit. The other two Ayrshire Councils had not produced a draft on housing sites to be used in the housing calculations. Further details in the Housing Technical Paper. 2011 audit when this Plan was published, and the advice from the Ayrshire Joint Strategic Plan Unit is that the 2011 audit is unlikely to proceed. The South Ayrshire draft has not been issued to Homes for Scotland for formal consultation. Therefore the figures in the Plan As the LDP is required to plan for housing needs over the 10-year Plan period, it is necessary to factor in the part of are untested. the land supply that is due to become effective over this period.

They are also derived by the Council projecting programming forward beyond the normal 7-year programme period. Again, the Whilst there is no requirement for the LDP to indicate an annual programme of housing completions on allocated assumptions used are untested. However, the established supply in the 2011 draft is broadly comparable to the approved 2010 audit. sites, the Housing Technical Paper sets out the likely effectiveness and period for delivery for each site, to meet the The assumed programming beyond 2017/18 looks ambitious. housing target.

• LXB has concerns that there are insufficient sites to deliver 614 units required to need the housing needs across south Ayrshire. We consider that these changes are not necessary to comply with Scottish Government policy and guidelines.

• The LDP should highlight where units will be delivered per year within the area to meet demand requirement effectively. Paragraph 1 presently encourages development on brownfield land rather than greenfield, and this presumption should remain as it is a key principal of the LDP. • Amendment to Appendix D to include South East Ayr as AYR4 as The Corton and Alton Phases of the South East Ayr development, as identified in the Council's settlement map on page 7 of the Proposed Plan should be effective within the LDP period with the Corton There should not be an automatic policy trigger to release more land to meet any shortfall in effective land supply. Phase delivering up to 760 new homes as the first Phase of development, and the Alton Phase delivering 414 new homes as the It would be difficult in any case to ensure that any additional sites would be any more effective than existing sites. second Phase of development. The LDP allocates effective sites to meet housing needs and a review of the LDP is the most appropriate mechanism to allocate new sites if there is an identified shortfall in supply. If the next review of the LDP is not due Text changes for some time, the Council could produce supplementary guidance to address any urgent deficit in effective supply.

• Line 1 after "maintain" insert "at all times". This is required by SPP. Line 1 after “demand” end sentence and makes remainder of This text reads correctly – no change to make. text a separate sentence. These are two separate and distinct policy points. Line 1 after "demand" insert a new second sentence: "Where monitoring reveals a shortfall in the five year effective supply, additional sites may be brought forward from the established Reject proposed changes. Although the site capacities are indicative, the text reflects the fact that stated capacities supply if they can be delivered in the next five years, or additional consents may be granted for new proposals." have been developed in consultation with key agencies to establish that they would have no unacceptable impact on the environment or infrastructure. The policy does allow for higher numbers to be developed on sites - the final Other changes to the Policy are proposed as follows: Paragraph 2 line 3 Appendix A should read Appendix D (correct error). sentence requires that where developers are proposing more units than indicated for the site, they must show that there will be no negative environmental effects and that they will provide any further infrastructure required. This Paragraph 2 line 4 "expected" and paragraph 4 line 1 "planned" should both be changed to"indicative". is a key requirement to ensure quality, sustainable development and that the environmental and infrastructure impacts of a development are planned for. As such the text should not be changed. The final sentence is largely superfluous as these issues are covered by other policies. It could be reduced to: "All development proposals will require to mitigate any additional infrastructure impacts." The allowance from additional rural houses reflects the more flexible rural housing policies contained in the LDP which are expected to a produce higher level of rural housing development than produced under the local plan. In Rural housing allowance any case, the assumed 15 units a year is a very modest estimate of rural housing development.

The allowance of 180 from the rural housing policy is an assumption, and could be treated as a form of windfall. Past audits suggest that there is a supply of smaller sites in rural areas, albeit there is no evidence produced to show that these translate into completions of the scale assumed. In the first instance it is considered that the 30% of land supply the representation suggests may not come forward is an arbitrary and purely speculative figure. The research that the representation apparently refers to is actually a Generosity allowance reference to a finding that housing land audits over-estimate supply on average by 27%. This is not the same as suggesting that 30% of the supply may never come forward for development. The assessed shortfall of land to be met by allocating new sites is 1872. The representation states that Scottish Government Research showed that around 30% of established land supplies never come forward for development and if this was the case in South Ayrshire Nonetheless, the generosity allowance of 20% is calculated on the total housing supply target, not just the existing and 30% of the assumed 5277 established sites failed to come forward, that would equate to 1583 units, some 360 more that the housing land supply and there a number of reasons to believe that it safeguards adequately against the risk of the generosity allowance. housing supply not delivering: - The sites that have been allocated in the LDP are mostly greenfield sites with minimal constraints and • Major concerns regarding the methodology used to calculate housing land supply over the plan period as it uses a generosity costs to developing the sites. Therefore there is every reason to believe they can deliver in the Plan allowance which is not used in Scotland and therefore LDP should not use this method and only use figures in HNDA. period. • Seeking to increase the generosity allowance from 1221 to 1580. - Of the additional 360 units the representations wish to add onto the LDP housing target of 1872, 42 can be deducted as the indicated capacity of allocated sites is 1914 units. The LDP identifies a number of new allocations to meet the shortfall of 1872. The sites have a total capacity of 1982 but are - The capacities of the sites were deliberately calculated on very conservative densities to ensure that the conditional on the removal of significant constraints. The Appendix also states that the capacities are "expected" capacities as such it output from the sites was not overstated. In many cases, however it can be expected that the actual is inappropriate for the LDP to be prescriptive over site capacities until masterplans, site layouts and other site appraisals have been output from sites will be greater than the planned numbers. If this occurs then a significant part of the carried out. Any capacity figure should be clearly stated to be indicative. remaining 318 units sought by the representation will be provided. - A further consideration is the potential contribution from rural housing towards the housing supply There may be two ways of safeguarding against any future shortfalls. One is to increase the generosity allowance to 1580. The other is target, which at 15 units per year is currently a very conservative estimate. Were a higher figure to be to include in the Policy a mechanism allowing additional sites to come forward for planning consent in the event that a land supply used, a further part of the additional generosity would be provided. shortage becomes evident. A combination of the two approaches may also be possible. There may be a good argument for the allocation of more land, in order that the Council is able to control where that additional land might be in the event of a supply The overall risk of sites not being developed is addressed by the generosity allowance, however to allocate deficiency in terms of impact on the Green Belt policy provisions allowing proposals to come forward in the green belt as a result of a additional sites purely on the basis of some sites potentially being landbanked would not be a robust position for proven deficiency. the LDP to adopt. Indeed there would be no way of ensuring that any further sites released would not also be landbanked. • Require to allocated more housing sites within LDP as some may be land banked leading to a shortage in demand.

An additional policy is requested detailing housing land releases for the 20 year period. This should be within the core investment area.

To accord with SPP the housing land supply to 2023 should be worked out in line with PAN 2/2010.

Representation seeks an increase in the housing release numbers at Monkton (additional 250 units), Symington (additional 150 units) and Prestwick (additional 120 units) and a reduction in the housing release numbers at Maybole and Coylton. It is contested that the allocation of 375 units at Maybole and 335 at Coylton are based on an assumption for “mobile” households and not in terms of local need. Furthermore, the land release at Maybole and Coylton ignore the fundamentals of the broader strategic context and the limited potential role and function of these settlements within the broader context of “supporting Scotland’s Cities and Growth”.

Effective housing sites should provide a balanced and diverse housing land supply in terms of size and location and should be developed within the plan period. Northpark should be included within the Belleisle Estate boundary and included in any masterplan for the estate. There are no specific proposals for the Belleisle estate at this site, therefore, there is not considered to be any No proposed modification to Belleisle, Ayr reason to modify the plan to include. Although, it is accepted that there will be no harm arising from the inclusion LDP. of this site in any masterplan. The site assessment for Sites 48A and 48B require to be revised as there is no adverse impact on the landscape if these sites were to Even if the potentially adverse impacts upon the landscape would be mitigated, there were a number of other No proposed modification to Adamton, be developed for housing as they are shielded from A77 by mature trees. These sites should be considered under LDP Policy: Rural reasons for rejecting this site; namely distance from public transport nodes and distance from local amenities. The LDP. Monkton Housing as they are adjacent to Adamton Grove which constitutes a small settlement. The development would round off the representation states that the sites should be considered under LDP Policy Rural Housing. The rejection of this site settlement and utilised under used land. Noise issues could be resolved by mitigation measures which would ensure the noise level from the LDP does not prevent the assessment of the site against this policy taking place as part of a planning requirement would be achieved within dwellings. application. It is considered that this would be the most appropriate means to assess this particular proposal.

Sites 48A and 48B can comply with all other LDP policies. Woodend Oval Disagrees with the rejection of Site 13 for residential development as it is adjacent to existing housing at Woodend Oval and directly The allocation of this site for residential would conflict with the spatial and housing dispersal strategy in the LDP, No proposed modification to Site, Ayr across from the hospital. The site could assist with providing a roundabout at the hospital and an access to the site. The site would which seeks to add choice and variety to the housing land supply by meeting the LDP’s housing land requirement LDP. have minimal landscape impact due to the existing woodland belts which screen the site from Abbothill Farm road and Woodend by allocating site in settlements satellite to Ayr, Prestwick and Troon. The current land supply is predominantly Oval. located within the urban core, so allocating at the proposed location would fail to add choice and variety to the land supply. The housing dispersal strategy is also predicated on there being less infrastructure implications for sites satellite to the urban core – particularly schools and roads. The site is close to the A77, which is known to have capacity issues, and these could potentially undermine the developability of the site for residential, if that were desirable. •Additional LDP policy: scale and location of housing land to 2033 (20 year period) including a Map highlighting housing allocations per The site does not need to be included in Appendix D, which makes up the housing provision within the Plan. SE Ayr No proposed modification to South East Ayr settlement. This policy is required to ensure that the LDP accords with SPP to indicate the location and scale of development of is accounted for within the existing supply. LDP. housing land supply up to 20 year period. "New housing required up to year 20 (2033 ) shall continue to be located within the core investment area, as set out in the spatial policy to 2-23. Projecting current estimates of The brief reflects the SALP provision for the site, which is the basis for its allocation. It is not proposed to amend future housing need and demand confirms that in addition to the Housing Supply Target of 7,368 homes to 2023, land for further the brief to accommodate the situation on the planning application for the site. The planning application has not 6,140 homes could be required to 2033. The strategic guidance on future locations for this growth is based on the continuation of the yet been approved, although in an advanced stage of consideration, so it does not take precedence over the SALP local development plan's spatial strategy. Given the scale which needs to be met, the spatial strategy from year 20 of the LDP requires basis for the allocation. Any subsequent or unrelated application would require, at the outset, to confirm to the to identify additional locations for growth. New development to 2033 at south east Ayr beyond A77 where development is already brief. To change th brief at this stage would potentially undermine the Council’s position in terms of delivering a allocated into any area that is not currently within the allocated area but would consolidate development investment through the strategic, comprehensive and masterplanned urban expansion. It is not considered necessary to update the development of the land between the A713 and A70 for approximately 2000-3000 housing units to be prioritised. - Continual support development plan policy on business and industry as the masterplan sets out the expectations for the for new housing in the core investment towns - Other new housing sites within sustainable locations within the core investment areas. development of the site. - Promote sustainable growth of Glasgow Prestwick Airport, the Enterprise Zone, other airport related industry and infrastructure. Support proposals for residential development outwith existing towns and village boundaries where these represent sustainable It is not proposed to alter the settlement boundary to include South East Ayr as it does not have planning development and where they assist the Council in maintaining a five year supply of effective housing land for house building to meet permission and the planning contributions from the site have not been secured, so to allocate it within the identified housing needs and demand”. settlement boundary could undermine the ability to secure necessary planning contributions in future.

•Amendment to Appendix D to include South East Ayr as AYR4 as The Corton and Alton Phases of the South East Ayr development, as Government guidance for Plans is that between 10-20years after adoption, a broad indication of scale and location identified in the Council's settlement map on page 7 of the Proposed Plan should be effective within the LDP period with the Corton of growth should be given. It is therefore not appropriate to allocate specific numbers and sites within this period. Phase delivering up to 760 new homes as the first Phase of development, and the Alton Phase delivering 414 new homes as the South East Ayr is already a strategic urban expansion, and has been identified as a future growth area, in the second Phase of development. context of the currently allocated site. No requirement to amend plan to add additional land or units at or at any land adjacent to South East Ayr. •Substantial changes to the Site Brief for SE Ayr based on the Comprehensive masterplan. Changes to the wording of the affordable housing element and remove of the reference to rail line extension. The LDP is not supporting additional strategic urban expansions.

•The representation states that there is no major land release within with the exception of South East Ayr. The land at Holmston should be included as the principle of development has already been established to the east of A77 as a result of the South East Ayr Master Plan. The land at Holmston should be included as an alternative as committed housing sites may not progress as expected.

Representations seeking the extension of the Ayr settlement boundary to include South East Ayr.

An additional policy is requested relating to the business, industrial and retail elements of the South East Ayr development. The representation contains details of a draft policy indicating the extent and types of uses that would be acceptable within this area. Housing Site Add additional land for housing to the west of Langlands farm. The overall housing dispersal and allocation strategy for housing in South Ayrshire, as contained within the LDP is No proposed modification to West Langlands, considered to meet identified housing needs and demands. There is an existing supply of housing land within LDP. Tarbolton Tarbolton and the allocation of an additional site in Tarbolton provides sufficient supply of housing land within the village. Needs and demands per settlement was considered in the preparation of the LDP, and, on the basis of evidence on historic supply and take-up of industrial land, the allocation at Tarbolton was considered to be sufficient. There was concern that allocating additional sites would be unlikely to be developed, given historic take- up trends and current housing market conditions. Additionally, this site was less preferable, in environmental/planning terms than the selected site(s) in Tarbolton. Object that site reference 1 was not allocated for residential development and wish the Council to reconsider a smaller site excluding The site was not only rejected on the basis that part of it was within a flood risk area and part of it is PQAL. The site No proposed modification to Call for Sites Ref lower part of site which has the red constraints. was also rejected on the basis that it would be inconsistent with the existing settlement pattern and would appear LDP. 1 – Privick Mill, as incongruous development at the edge of the settlement. The Council therefore believes that this is not a Annbank suitable site for residential development at present and should be omitted from the plan. Timescales indicated in proposed LDP document are confusing and require to be clear to enable all parties to understand timescales Noted. Will give further consideration to publications indicating timetable. Notwithstanding, statutory stages of No proposed modification to LDP Timescales for development. the Plan are set by statute and cannot be altered by Council. LDP.

Action: Give further attention to accuracy of information and effectiveness of communication on future DPS’s.

Object to the exclusion of Annfield Road site and wish an amendment in the Redevelopment Opportunities brochure to include this The shape and size of the site does not easily lend itself to being an appropriate site for residential development No proposed modification to Annfield Road, site. The site is brownfield and is currently lying vacant and derelict. It has historical approval for a haulage yard and associated and it is therefore not considered appropriate to specifically allocate the site for residential development. LDP. Prestwick workshop with offices. A change of use was granted in 1991 for the business use of the site; and a more recent (2008) planning Nonetheless, the site is covered by the general residential zoning within the plan. The planning application process permission for the residential redevelopment of the site. The principle of redeveloping the site for either continued therefore provides appropriate means through which full consideration can be given to the acceptability of this site industrial/business uses or residential use is already supported in the currently Adopted Local Plan, and the site enjoys the benefit of for residential purposes. existing planning permissions. The site is a small scale, infill site within an existing settlement. Its redevelopment for housing purposes would complement the adjacent, established residential properties and its allocation can be supported by the guidance set out in paragraphs 82 and 83 of the SPP. This site should be included as a redevelopment opportunity within the LDP. Objects to exclusion of a site to the north of Grey Gables in Southwoods Troon. This site is currently occupied by one small outbuilding The scale of development proposed is not appropriate for release in the LDP. A planning application would be No proposed modification to Grey Gables Site and also previously accommodated a tennis court, large greenhouse and summerhouse. The site has a separate access from Grey better suited to testing the merits of the proposal. Notwithstanding, the site is located within greenbelt and there LDP. , Troon Gables directly off Southwood Road, and runs along land to the side of Grey Gables to the relatively large enclosed area of land to the is a presumption against development at greenbelt location. rear. This established independent access was the subject of a formal planning application (Ref: 08/00768/FUL) which was granted on 29th October 2008. The site has the potential to be redeveloped for a relatively low density residential development which would be in keeping with the conservation area. It should be included within the Redevelopment Opportunities Schedule of the LDP. The Proposed LDP should not mention the Council worked closely with Plain English Campaign as the document is not easily The Council did work with Plain English Campaign, and had authorisation to state that it had worked with it to No proposed modification to Clarity of LDP understandable for a member of the public and is therefore misleading result in a clearer, less technical document. This is therefore factually accurate, irrespective of whether any user LDP. language found the LDP difficult to understand.

No mention of Green Network SG this needs to be amended and update. SNH are keen to work with the Council in developing this SG. Noted – action programme will be updated. Non-notifiable modification Action proposed: Action Programme The Scottish Government recommends that the policies set out in the Transport section of the Proposed LDP should be redrafted to Programme to be updated in provide clarity on the issues raised in this representation as it is important to ensure that policies can be delivered and some of these accordance with policies are outwith the control of South Ayrshire Council. The document fails to comply with SPP paragraph 171 as no details of rail representation. investment; Strategic road development, public transport and freight transport are given within the document or associated documentation. The policies suggest that the Council will work in partnership with organisations to deliver improvement however no No other proposed transport organisations are named within the LDP or Action Programme nor is there a definition of the nature of these partnerships. modification to LDP. Of particular concern is the strategic road network policy as it states" A77 will be improved as required to support development in compliance with the LDP" however no information is given on the location, scale or nature of improvement or timescales which as mentioned is contrary to SPP Paragraph 171. The policy further states the Council will improve other parts of the network and protect land for improvements where appropriate however the LDP and Action Programme fail to give further information to proposed safeguarding of land or further improvements. Until this additional information is contained these policies do not comply with Scottish Government requirements.

The Action Programme requires to be updated recognising that the wind energy SG must be published at the same time as the LDP or soon after to ensure that the effectiveness of the wind energy policy is not compromised. Frustrated at online LDP representation system as tried to make detailed comment but lost information when shut out of system. Noted. No proposed modification to LDP Online LDP. Representation System Delete LDP Policy - low and zero carbon buildings on the following grounds: - This policy is clearly outdated, being based on historic The inclusion of this policy is a requirement of government. At MIR, govt advised that the Plan should include a No proposed modification to LDP Policy - Building Standards and on the provisions of SPP6 and PAN 68, both now repealed. SPP no longer refers to a requirement to use low policy on low and zero carbon buildings, so that it reflects SPP. The policy has been designed to align with LDP. Low/Zero Carbon and zero-carbon generating technology; it is suggested as one option but is not required. In reality, developers are already achieving government guidance. Consultation with Scottish government has not raised any issues with the policy. buildings very low carbon emissions and high energy-efficiency in new buildings, and where they are building to the 2010 Building Regulations then there is no requirement to go further in terms of efficiency. The 2010 standards can be achieved by fabric design, air tightness and modern construction methods, with little need for micro-technologies other than mechanical ventilation and heat pumps in some cases. There is no need to submit statements beyond what is already required in Building Warrant submissions. This Policy is therefore superfluous and should be deleted in its entirety.

This representation states that this policy does not reflect current or future requirements of Section 3F of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, in terms of the recommendation of the Sullivan Report 2007 and the policy should be amended to reflect this. Furthermore, the representation states that it is disappointing that there are exemptions within the policy, namely alterations and extension to dwellinghouses and the conversion or change to an existing building. The representation provides details of how the policy should be amended and this is included as an attachment. This representation objects that the site to the south of Coylton adjacent to Sundrum Holiday Park has not been allocated as a tourist The development of this site for the proposed uses would be more appropriately addressed through the planning No proposed modification to Coylton site - accommodation opportunity site as it accords with SPP in terms of tourism and rural development. This site offers the opportunity to application process. This would allow for a more detailed and comprehensive assessment of the proposal in line LDP. adjacent to create a high quality tourist accommodation site which has no negative impacts on the surrounding areas as it is well screened, with the relevant policies of the LDP and other material considerations. No business case for the proposal was Sundrum serviced and close to existing facilities. This would help create jobs and strengthen the economy of the area. This site should be submitted to Council prior to allow a full assessment of the economic (or environmental) impacts. included as a tourism opportunity site in the emerging LDP as it is in accordance with SPP and the other Proposed LDP policies.

Scottish Government are concerned that the Plan is not is accordance with Paragraph 167 as South Ayrshire Council are responsible The Council is working with the parties that have an interest in proposed housing allocations and Transport No proposed modification to Transport for carrying out the focussed transport appraisal of sites allocated in the LDP to inform the spatial strategy to show the site included Scotland to ensure Transport Scotland supports the proposed housing release sites at Monkton, Maybole and LDP. Appraisals are viable and effective within the Plan period and what if any transport infrastructure upgrades or facilities are required to support Coylton prior to the examination of the Plan. During January 2012, the Council’s planning service met with development. Even after discussions in January 2012 with Transport Scotland highlighting the need for some appraisal work to representatives from Transport Scotland, who indicated that the proposed location and noted capacity of understand the potential impacts of the proposed housing sites at Ayr (Action reference 70), Coylton (ref 73-77) and Monkton (ref 94) proposed housing release sites (which reflects the proposed LDP) was such that physical improvements to the A77 on, respectively, Whitletts roundabout, Holmston roundabout and Dutch House roundabout, all on the A77 trunk road. In addition, were not predicted as being required, however that for the settlements identified, transport appraisals should be Transport Scotland recommended that the impact of the sites in Maybole (ref 88 - 91) on the existing trunk road junctions within the submitted prior to examination to confirm this. The planning service is in the process of seeking Transport Scotland town be assessed this work has not been carried out. The concern is that some of the allocated sites may not be effective. The agreement to the Plan, with the expectation that no physical upgrades to the A77 will be required from the determination of a site's viability in transport terms is a significant factor in determining its inclusion within a development plan. All proposed housing sites. necessary appraisal work should be carried out at the initial site selection process, to establish which sites are effective and can contribute to the spatial strategy. This should not be left until the spatial strategy has been finalised and the plan is to be submitted In relation to the proposed housing site at Ayr (former Mainholm Academy), Transport Scotland indicated in for examination. Indeed is not clear as to how the spatial strategy can be determined without such appraisal being undertaken. This January 2012 that as the site is a brownfield regeneration site, a transport appraisal would not be required, and appraisal work is required to confirm the delivery of the allocated sites to ensure an effective Housing land supply. that it would not be likely to trigger physical upgrades to the A77. This has not been reflected in the Transport Scotland response to the LDP. It is proposed to refer this issue to Scottish Ministers to determine through the Objection to the requirement for the housing land release to be dependent on the outcome of assessment of the impact of the examination. release on the trunk road network. (additional supporting information in the form of a Transport Statement submitted). Objection to the current designation of Barclaugh as countryside and seeks amendment to include site within the settlement for The overall housing dispersal and allocation strategy for housing in South Ayrshire, as contained within the LDP is No proposed modification to Barclaugh Site, residential development under LDP Policy: maintaining and protecting land for housing and seeks the residential zoning of the site to considered to meet identified housing needs and demands. The allocation of the proposed LDP sites provides LDP. Coylton include the provision of work / live units for the following reasons:- sufficient supply of housing land within Coylton. Needs and demands per settlement was considered in the preparation of the LDP, and, on the basis of evidence on historic supply and take-up of industrial land, the • The proposed site would be made up of 100% affordable housing as defined in PAN 2/2010. There is a need for affordable housing allocation at Coylton was considered to be sufficient. There was concern that allocating additional sites would be within this housing market area. unlikely to be developed, given historic take-up trends and current housing market conditions. Additionally, this site was less preferable, in environmental/planning terms than the selected site(s) in Coylton. • New housing would mirror the existing housing on the opposite side of the road and in all regards residential development of the site in question would represent an infill development and round off the settlement.

• Additional housing on this edge of Coylton although near the ridgeline can be designed to be below the existing housing development on Woodhead Road and so not increase the skyline effect any higher.

• Given that the LDP will be looking 20 years into the future there is strong justification for continued housing development in the Coylton area. This justification includes economic regeneration, continued demand for new housing, strengthening the viability of shops and services, the existing operation of frequent bus services and the capacity within the settlement.

• The proposals at Barclaugh Drive, as evidenced by the supporting documentation (Landscape assessment and Transport statement) are considered capable of positive consideration against the terms of National Planning Policy - SPP particularly in the subject policy areas covering sustainable development, economic growth, housing, rural development, landscape and natural environment, transport and flooding and drainage.

• The site will help meet housing requirements and objectives to maintain an adequate range, choice and distribution of effective housing sites to meet projected demand over the plan period in order to help sustain the economic health of Coylton including sustaining and improving public services and hence the viability of the settlement.

• The site is considered to be free from constraints and effective in terms of the outlined criteria to measure the effectiveness of housing sites.

• The landscape setting has the ability to absorb carefully positioned additional development which meets the terms of National Planning Policy - SPP particularly in the subject policy areas covering sustainable development, economic growth, economic development, housing, rural development, landscape and natural environment, transport and flooding and drainage. The supporting Landscape Assessment and Transportation Statement states that this site can be further developed in landscaped and traffic terms. The representation is seeking a change to site identified as Redevelopment Opportunity (RO20) in favour of Class 1 retail food store on The depiction of the site as a retail site was a cartographical error in a draft of the Plan, issued in February 2012. No proposed modification to Redevelopment part of the site. The representation objects to unexplained change in position between proposed LDP of February 2012 and the The current development plan identifies the site as a development opportunity, identifying the same range of uses LDP. Opportunity Site proposed LDP of August 2012 in relation to the above site as being potentially suitable for the site as the proposed LDP and associated development opportunities brochure. @ Ladyland Retail is included as a potentially acceptable use for the site; therefore the allocation as an opportunity site does Road, Maybole not preclude the position outlined in the representation. Indeed, the opportunity designation is appropriate given (RO20) the long term status of the site as brownfield. An opportunities designation potentially allows a wider range of uses to ensure the regeneration of the site. Greenan Ayr - site is included in the SPG 'Housing Release Sites’, no specific site reference as a committed housing site. The The site is a committed housing site, having secure planning status in the existing local plan. Its inclusion in the LDP No proposed modification to Greenan, Ayr representation is seeking amendment to the ‘Brief' and ˜Site Criteria'. Brief' section - no reference to the planning history of the site housing sites brief is intended to maintain a continuation of the policy framework that allowed the site to reach its LDP. also seeking an acknowledgement that the first phase of development has been approved. Site is in the ownership and control of current stage – under development. The site is accounted for in the existing land supply, which is deducted from MacTaggart & Mickel (Homes) Ltd. Removal of reference to cross funding between the golf course as this formed no part of the the total housing requirement as part of the process of identifying the Plan’s need. This is set out in the LDP. agreed legal agreement. Removal of second paragraph of the "Brief". Amendment to ˜Site Criteria' section to reflect the planning facts Therefore the Plan recognises the committed nature of the site. It is not intended to amend the brief, as the of the site to advise that a detailed Masterplan for the site formed an integral part of the PPP. intention of the brief is to maintain the same policy framework for the site as the South Ayrshire Local Plan. It is considered that to review the status of the guidance for the masterplanned development may undermine the agreements associated with, and design factors in the permitted development. This maintains the planning policy framework for this site, so should not undermine the ongoing development. In any case, the approved masterplan and permission and associated agreements will set out exactly what the developer has to provide. Land at Shallochpark Roundabout should be included in the LDP and allocated for tourism. The description of the topography of the The site is extremely prominent in landscape and settlement setting terms and its development would have a No proposed modification to Shallochpark site is flawed and the site being visible from the road does not make it unacceptable for tourism allocation. Supporting Documentation significantly adverse impact on the landscape character of the area. No details of the scale or operation or viability LDP. site, Girvan suggests that development could be constrained to the east of the site and redevelopment for tourism and would result in an overall of the business have been proposed. environmental improvement to the site The SPP explains that development is permissible on prime agricultural land provided that it forms an essential component of the settlement strategy There are no other suitable locations in and around Girvan for tourism related development The site forms a wider farm holding and therefore the overall loss of agricultural land would be not be significant. The adopted Ayrshire and Arran Tourism Strategy 2012-17 states that Ayrshire and Arran will be a "premier destination of choice". This strategy would be material to the consideration of any future planning applications for tourism related development. If additional tourism sites not allocated within LDP then Tourism Strategy cannot be met. SPP - advises that tourism is an important part of the Scottish economy. Girvan has suffered declining numbers of visitors to the town and new tourism will bring inward investment and create employment opportunities. The land to the south of Ayr at Burton Farm be released from the green belt and reallocated as a Housing Release Site. Burton Farm, The LDP strategy complements the existing land supply, and its strategic approach was intended to align with the No proposed modification to Burton Farm, Ayr AYR3 - 550 units Burton Farm is a logical extension and can provide a more sustainable boundary to the town and the existing Structure Plan, in terms of housing provision. The housing land supply currently has an abundance of sites within LDP. topography of site can provide future development with appropriate landscaping. The LDP advises that there is a housing shortfall and Ayr, including a wide range of large scale greenfield urban expansions, other greenfield sites, and brownfield and as it stands does not conform to the SPP and is not clear to identify a 5 year supply of housing land. urban sites. The total allocation of units in the LDP will be a minority portion of the total housing land supply, which is predominantly comprised of sites in the Ayr, Prestwick, and Troon urban area. Evidence prepared as part of the LDP process identifies that the smaller settlements within South Ayrshire tend to have lower supply, and sites within those settlements have been likely to be developed. The LDP supply therefore concentrated on providing choice and variety of housing land by allocating housing land to smaller settlements. This also aligns with an approach intended to stimulate the housing market, in the short-term, by providing smaller sites, which are less burdened by infrastructure contributions. There remains a significant supply of housing land in Ayr, given that current market conditions make it more difficult for brownfield and strategic sites to deliver. It is contended that the proposed LDP housing dispersal strategy will increase burden on infrastructure. Key agencies have been consulted throughout LDP preparation and this has highlighted that the proposed approach reduces, to a minimum, the burden on infrastructure. There is no evidence to suggest that further strategic greenfield sites around Ayr, particularly adjacent to the A77 would be deliverable in the short term, to any extent greater than the delivery of sites in smaller settlements.

Greenbelt alterations are considered within LDP Policy: greenbelt response. This representation supports "General Retail" Vicarton Street Girvan. None. No proposed modification to Asda, Girvan LDP. The representation is seeking the reallocation of Glenburn Annexe and Glenburn House, Sherwood Road / Glenburn Road, Prestwick No information was submitted with the proposal to suggest that there is no prospect of further industrial use of No proposed modification to for a Housing Allocation site in the Proposed Plan. The site is vacant and surplus to requirements for National Air Traffic Services the site, therefore no basis to reallocate the site for residential purposes. Additionally, the site is adjacent to an LDP. Former NATS (NATS). The site is segregated from the main industrial / business area in Glenburn and adjacent to existing residential uses. A operational industrial land; which may give rise to amenity concerns with the proposed residential use. The plan site, Prestwick forthcoming planning application for Planning Permission in Principle for residential or care home use on the site to be submitted. The allocates a supply of land to meet established needs and demands and will complement the existing land supply to site has been extensively marketed for industrial or business use in the past 3 years with no interest in the site or existing properties. provide a five year effective supply, without allocation of this site. In response to the LDP Site Assessment Proforma red constraints: Noise - No issue with residential uses given the existing noise generated from the airport nearby. Noise Impact Assessment report in support of the use of the site for residential and / or care home It is noted that a planning application has been submitted for residential development of the site. A planning to be submitted. Flood Risk - part of the site is within SEPA's flood map. The planning application to be submitted will be supported by application will make an assessment of whether there is a justification for the loss of the industrial land is a Flood Risk Assessment showing how the site can be designed to accommodate development. The Environmental Recommendation acceptable and whether the amenity implications of residential development of the site can be acceptable. If in the proforma explains that due to the site being located within a predominately industrial / opportunities area it is not considered permission is granted, either the examination process can rectify the zoning of the land; or the matter could be suitable for residential use.  The final site recommendation explains that the site is environmentally constrained in such a way that addressed within a future LDP cycle mitigation is unlikely to offset the significant environmental harm that may be caused by the release of this site for housing development. The forthcoming planning application will present details on the environmental concerns raised in the proforma, including noise and flooding. This representation is advises that the SEA is flawed as detailed below: - The Environmental Baseline: the Environmental Report SEA updated as appropriate. No proposed modification to SEA Issues contains incorrect information about Ailsa Craig SPA, which is an RSPB Nature Reserve. Corrections to these were provided at the MIR LDP. stage but they remain in LDP. There are not significant threats to the bird populations on the island itself, although there are significant issues with maintenance of food resources for seabirds. Seasonal restrictions on visitors will not be introduced as this would not comply with the requirements of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Peat: protection of peat soils and restoration of peatlands as a form of climate change mitigation has not been recognised within the SEA objectives. Glasgow Prestwick: the appraisal of the airport policy is insufficient as no alternatives options have been identified. The alternative option of not expanding the airport has not been considered or fully explained. This is not compliant with part 14(2) of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 which states that ‘the report shall identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing- (a) the plan or programme; and (b) reasonable alternatives to the plan or programme'. Scottish Government guidance states that the although the option with least environmental impact does not have to be the one that prevails, ‘Where social and economic aims prevail, this must be clearly stated, and the reasons for this explained' The policy option assessed would be inconsistent with the proposed policies on sustainable development and carbon reduction (which aims to contribute to the government's carbon reduction targets), yet the assessment only indicates ‘minor adverse effects for climate change'. As a reserved matter, any airport expansion should be considered in light of the UKs carbon budgets, as legislated for in the Climate Change Act (2008). The assessment also seems to be inconsistent with other LDP polices, for example, the assessment of business and industrial opportunities policy states that proposals that result in unacceptable levels of CO2 emissions will not be supported by the Council. Flooding: the Council's duties under the Flood Risk Management Act (2009) need to be considered further. Whilst flooding issues have been identified, there is no evidence of any measures undertaken to avoid areas at high risk from flooding. Representative extremely disappointed that the strategic transport link to Ireland has been omitted from the LDP. The Ayr to The Council and LDP promotes the use of rail to transport freight; however the LDP also has to recognise other No proposed modification to Stranraer/Ayr to Stranraer rail line is important linkage that needs to be utilised. It is unfortunately that the Council is promoting the Maybole bypass strategically significant transport projects within the area, particularly where proposed by a government agency. LDP. Ireland link when it should be promoting the use of the rail line to move freight. Wish to see additional wording in the policy as follows- - An Transport Scotland is promoting the Maybole bypass, and the Council has taken guidance from that agency on how improved rail service between Ayr and Glasgow, Ayr and Kilmarnock and Ayr to Stranraer. - Improvements to strategic and local road best to reflect the status of the project. This does not preclude the effective operation of transport policies, which and rail network. promotes a multi-modal, sustainable transport network, including the transportation of freight. Additionally, the Council’s spatial strategy prioritises transport, and reflects national priorities, including to promote international links, including between Stranraer and the central belt. This representation is seeking that the Craigie Estate Inset Map be altered to refer to Dam Park as a potential relocation site for Ayr This proposal was not subject to consideration earlier in the Plan process, or, consequently any associated No proposed modification to Craigie Estate United. The existing pitch at Dam Park can be developed to allow Ayr United to play their home matches, whilst allowing the sharing consultation. Government advice on development plans is that, while modifications can be made to the Plan, post- LDP. map, Ayr of facilities with Ayr College, West of Scotland University and the wider community. proposed plan consultation, this should not be undertaken as a matter of course, and should not be used to test new ideas. In any case, there is no supporting information with the suggestion to verify whether the proposal is realistic, or would be effective within the Plan period. This representation is seeking a reallocation of land at Somerset Park and adjoining land for mixed use development including offices, This proposal was not subject to consideration earlier in the Plan process, or, consequently any associated No proposed modification to Somerset Park, restaurants, public house, car showroom, leisure and other ancillary uses as the proposal to redevelop Somerset Park for housing is consultation. Government advice on development plans is that, while modifications can be made to the Plan, post- LDP. Ayr unlikely given current market conditions. This proposal to redevelop Somerset Park relates to a proposal to relocate Ayr United to a proposed plan consultation, this should not be undertaken as a matter of course, and should not be used to test new home in Dam Park, Ayr and share the facilities with Ayr College, West of Scotland University and the wider community. new ideas. In any case, there is no supporting information with the suggestion to verify whether the proposal is realistic, or would be effective within the Plan period. Retail would not be favoured at this location. This representation objects to the omission of Site 55D from the Housing Land Allocation within the LDP. The MIR identified Tarbolton The overall housing dispersal and allocation strategy for housing in South Ayrshire, as contained within the LDP is No proposed modification to Site 55D, as a "preferred area for housing growth". The document submitted in respect of this representation provides a justification for this considered to meet identified housing needs and demands. There is an existing supply of housing land within LDP. Tarbolton site to be included as a Housing Allocation Site within the LDP and a response to the Council's Assessment Proforma in relation to each Tarbolton and the allocation of an additional site in Tarbolton provides sufficient supply of housing land within the of the assessed categories. The only "red" constraint was archaeological and the representation advises that the site is not village. Needs and demands per settlement was considered in the preparation of the LDP, and, on the basis of environmentally constrained and that any adverse environmental impacts can be avoided with careful design. evidence on historic supply and take-up of industrial land,the allocation at Tarbolton was considered to be sufficient. There was concern that allocating additional sites would be unlikely to be developed, given historic take- up trends and current housing market conditions. Additionally, this site was less preferable, in environmental/planning terms than the selected site(s) in Tarbolton. Site @ The representation refers to land to east of Coalpots Road and south of Torcy Way and states that the land should remain allocated None. No proposed modification to Coalpots/Torcy, housing land. The LDP Proforma should be updated to state that the site has no environmental constraints which cannot be mitigated. LDP. Girvan The representation agrees with the designation as "predominantly residential area for the southern part of the Bharat Forge site. The The site shown in the proposed plan as being retained for industrial use was occupied by operational No proposed modification to West Sanquhar representation objects to the northern part of the site as "general industry" and is seeking a change to the Ayr Settlement Map that industrial/commercial premises during the preparation of the plan. It is understood the site is now vacant. The LDP. industrial/reside the former Bharat Forge site to be designated as "Predominantly Residential Area" to reflect the masterplanned residential adjacent, former industrial site, has been shown as residential in the proposed plan to reflect existing planning ntial site development objectives for the site. The northern part of the site is located next to an established residential area and if the site was permissions for the site. The portion of the site shown as industrial ion the proposed plan was intended to reflect to be re-designated as "predominantly residential" then this would provide an opportunity for remediation of the land. this would the current (at that time) use of the site, and that the site was an operational industrial site. It is recognised that reduce the potential for conflict with industrial and residential uses the proposed development would not lead to the fragmentation the site is vacant, and it is considered that re-use of the site would be supported. No information has been of a larger industrial area or sever links between industrial users would not adversely affect the existing industrial uses within the area presented to the Council to confirm that there is no future use for the site as industrial, to support a modification the business has been relocated and the buildings on site have been removed pre-application consultation indicated support for the to identify the site for residential; however it is recognised that the adjacent, former industrial site was not re-used principle of residential development on the site for residential, and, given the site’s location (and access arrangements) , and that the site is predominantly surrounded by residential areas and extant residential permissions, that there are factors that may make the re- use of the site for industrial difficult. This representation recommends an addition to the Proposed LDP or an addition to Supplementary Guidance, to ensure clarity with As part of the process of allocating appropriate sites for development and in the development of all policies within No proposed modification to Waste and water regards to water and waste water service provision. the plan, SEPA and Scottish Water have been consistently consulted, ensuring that any issues relating to water and LDP. service provision waste water service provision are adequately addressed. In any case, the sustainable development policy (which is a strategic policy) ensures that all development is supported by the necessary infrastructure requirements. This representation objects to the omission of Site No. 32 from the Housing Land Allocation within the LDP on the following grounds:- It is accepted that part of the site is not prime quality agricultural land, however, the majority of it is. In addition, No proposed modification to Site 32, Annbank the site assessment is flawed the site is effective the site is supported by the bank deliverable within single ownership with the site would fill an important undeveloped area which provides the visual separation between Annbank and LDP. available/suitable access The attached document provides a detailed response to the above. Mossblown. The identify of both of these settlements would be adversely affected by the development of this area of land. Although the site may not entirely connect the two settlements it will place a great deal of pressure on the connection of the two settlements in the future. In addition there would be adverse impacts upon the landscape of the surrounding area.

In terms of site ownership, this was not one of the considerations when designating housing sites. The representation seeks to include the site at A77 -Â B734 for commercial/industrial uses. Call for sites submission made in respect of It acknowledged that the site assessment indicates the proposal has been assessed as a proposed housing No proposed modification to Site 119, Girvan 3.7 ha site to the north of Girvan and land promoted for industrial/commercial uses (Classes 4, 5 and 6). The representation considers development on the site, and that the proposal is for industrial/commercial use. LDP. that the site assessment is flawed as site assessed for housing and not commercial/industrial. The site has access to excellent road network and transport modes and therefore suitable for industrial/commercial uses. All existing allocated sites for business and Notwithstanding the error in describing the proposal in the site report, the environmental consideration on the industry near Girvan are detached from the settlement with limited pedestrian, cycle and public transport links. SPP supports diverse suitability of the site for development remains (except the conclusion that the site is distanced from local needs and location requirements and advises that a range of choice of marketable sites is available. The representation advises amenities, which is not as significant due to the non-residential, commercial nature of the proposal), and it is that there are no new employment locations proposed within LDP and there is a lack of large brownfield sites in the surrounding area considered that the site is unacceptable for development, for the reasons set out in the site report. to accommodate long term development. The draft employment land audit concludes there is sufficient land and choice of locations throughout South Ayrshire but identifies weaknesses in respect of growth sectors. The representation also advises that the Additionally, there is no supporting information with the proposal to justify that the development would be assessment is flawed in terms of being a flood risk effective within the plan period, and that the proposed development would be required at this location, to justify its inclusion in the plan, irrespective of the environmental considerations. Promoting site 35 as provides significant opportunities for the delivery of open space in accordance with policy. Allocation of the site does not conflict with the spatial strategy, however was seen to be less favourable in planning No proposed modification to Site 35, and environmental terms than the sites identified for allocation in Minishant. The proposed LDP proposed a LDP. Minishant This site is promoted in preference to sites MIN1 and MIN2 as it has enough capacity to include employment opportunities through generous supply of housing land, intended to sustain a housing growth strategy within a difficult housing market. It the development of leisure and tourism facilities as well as housing. It is preferable in terms of amenity and landscape character than is not considered that further allocation of housing is required at Minishant. Additionally, Transport Scotland has, the other sites and would assist in achieving the aims of the spatial strategy. during earlier consultation stages of the Plan indicated sites accessing directly onto the A77 would generally not be favoured. Site 35 can complement the existing settlement pattern and will be in accordance with LDP Policy: sustainable development. This is in contrast to MIN 1, which would represent backland development. There was no identified need for significant leisure, tourism and other commercial land at Minishant, and the proposal does not contain evidence of the viability of the site for such uses. This representation lists a number of issues with the Site Assessment Pro Forma in respect of Site no. 17. Red Constraints - Landscape The release of the second runway for mixed use, strategic urban expansion of Prestwick, strongly conflict with core No proposed modification to constraints can be addressed through Master Plan process. Road Network Capacity - submitted Transport Assessment submitted with objectives of the LDP spatial strategy. It is not considered that the proposed loss of the second runway has been LDP. 2nd Runway, "A Plan for Prestwick" indicated that the site is ideally situated to utilise the established transport network and that the range of justified, to the satisfaction of the Council, in terms of the potential impact on the current or future operation of Glasgow proposals included could provide improved access for pedestrians and cyclists and also the provision of a bus service. This the airport. While it is argued that the second runway offers negligible additional capacity to the airport, and that Prestwick Airport demonstrates that none of the above issues highlighted should prove to be a serious impediment to development on this site and as the airport could withstand significant expansion in passenger numbers while only using the first runway, it is clear – Development such Site No. 17 should be included in LDP as a mixed use opportunity. Also raises that no housing sites have been identified in that the second runway still performs an operational/functional use. There has been no case to quantify the Proposal Prestwick and it is considered that that will result in an unsustainable position for the medium to long term period of the LDP. The re- impact of the loss of the second runway as a long-term, land asset, and how it may contribute to the viability of the evaluation of the Spatial Strategy, with regard to housing allocations made to other settlements, is required. airport, in any context, including the consideration of renewable technology. The second runway is an irreplaceable land asset for the local community, but, also nationally, as recognised in the NPF2. It is not considered that a satisfactory case has been made for its loss.

Additionally, the proposed redevelopment of the runway proposes 3000+ residential units. This is significantly contrary to the LDP’s spatial strategy and housing land dispersal strategy, which, during the current difficult housing market seeks to stimulate housing growth by guiding development to settlements that are satellite to the urban core of Ayrshire and South Ayrshire and by adding choice and variety to the housing land supply, which currently, is heavily weighted on sites within Ayr and Troon. Evidence of current strategic housing sites locally and nationally shows that such strategic urban expansion are burdened with significant infrastructure costs, which can make the short term delivery of development very difficult. In any case, the allocation of sites within the LDP has been sufficient to accommodate a housing growth strategy, without the allocation of this site. Allocation of this site, therefore, would significantly undermine the existing housing land supply by including a heavily burdened site, which may be difficult to deliver in the short term. It would fail to add choice and variety to the housing land supply. If allocated instead of LDP housing allocation, this could lead to a non-effective housing land supply, while allocation in addition to LDP sites could undermine the deliverability of those sites, by increasing infrastructure requirements. In general LDP needs to place more importance on historic built environment and particularly in relation to Ayr. The Council should be The LDP includes policies to protect the heritage resources within South Ayrshire – including Ayr. The LDP also No proposed modification to Historic promoting the historical environment as a USP in conjunction with the history of Ayr to attract more visitors bring retail includes reference to the Council Ayr Renaissance project, seeking to offer support for that project. It is intended LDP. Environment expenditure. Ayr needs a clear vision like West Kilbride which the proposed LDP fails to deliver. to provide additional supplementary guidance on acceptable uses within Ayr town centre, which, inevitably will focus on the built form of the area, seeking to enhance/improve the role of the town centre, in conjunction with The entire rail line, from Ayr to the Dumfries and Galloway border should be designated as a conservation area. the LDP.

LDP Policy: Historic Environment should be amended as follows: we will not accept development which would have unacceptable Designation of a conservation area is not achieved through the LDP. adverse effects on the site or setting of a scheduled ancient monument.”, “We will not accept development which would have unacceptable adverse effects on gardens and designed landscapes including the Inventory of Gardens and Designed Landscapes in Scotland.” It is also pointed out that Historic Scotland no longer refer to ‘Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes’. The word ‘Historic’ has been dropped from their terminology. This representation objects to the existing Morrison’s Store at Castlehill Road, Ayr not being included the Ayr Town Centre boundary Although the site is adjacent to the town centre, it is separated, physically from the town centre by the rail line, No proposed modification to Morrison’s and reserve the right to submit further information as appropriate. Original representation to MIR seeking alteration to Ayr Town and that the main vehicle access for the store is within a predominantly residential area. There is no additional LDP. Castlehill road, Centre boundary and note that town centre boundary has been altered with Option 40A and 40B of MIR. This representation proliferation of retail shops, commercial activities or other community facilities near the food shop. The food store, Ayr maintains the representation to promote an alteration to the town centre boundary to include Morrison’s as the store provides a key itself, although adjacent to the town centre, is isolated from other town centre activities in its physical separation, retail facility and future investment for the store is dependent on the comfort of robust policies that ensure protection for future and also its function as a food supermarket, which is predominantly accessed by car. It is considered that the retail investment. LDP retail policies appear to resist out of centre retail development, however, no embargo on out of centre foodstore designation of the site is appropriate Extension of the town centre at this location is not considered appropriate development and seek to guide the location of new retail, commercial and leisure investment in line with the sequential test. This given the use of the site is as typical of an out-of-centre retail shop as it is a town entre facility, and to offer town could potentially undermine the overall policy presumption in favour of directing new retail development, firstly to town centres. centre status to the site would encourage other commercial and town centre uses at that location, which could be Given the location of the site within close proximity to the town centre, it is considered that the site should be included within the harmful to the town centre. town centre to ensure that it benefits from the same level of policy protection as the adjacent town centre in order to continue to provide retail opportunity. The site is separated from the town centre by way of the existing railway line and if the Council consider that this is a physical barrier to the site being included within the town centre, then the same logic has not been applied within the LDP to the existing town centre allocation north of the River Ayr. Site 40(A) has been included and this is separated by the river. Site 40(B), Ayr Academy, has been included within the town centre boundary and it is considered that the site is included in order to secure funding. A school is not a typical town centre use compared to the Morrison’s store which is a use directed to town centres. This representation does not oppose the alteration to the town centre boundary to include the school, however, it is unclear as to why the Morrison’s site remains outwith the town centre boundary. The LDP provides the opportunity to consolidate retail policy and town centre boundaries Objects to 72 Templehill being designated for Industry/Business and would prefer it to be named as a Redevelopment Opportunity The site is at the edge of an existing industrial area. The premises appear to be occupied. There has been no No proposed modification to Templehill Site, site with one of the uses to be considered residential. In the site assessment this site has no constraints and can conform to the LDP information submitted to suggest that the site has not future use for industry, therefore it is not considered LDP. Troon polices, yet it was not included as a residential site despite being close to Troon Town Centre as it is reserved for industry. This is a appropriate to facilitate, via the LDP, the loss of the industrial site. It is recognised that the site is at the edge of a good site for flatted development for elderly due to the proximity to services where as the allocated NET site is not good for older small industrial area, and its loss to residential would not compromise the functionality of the existing area. people due to the distance from town centre service and facilities. Objects to the exclusion of 10A Union Street site in Troon from the Redevelopment Opportunity Schedule This site is brownfield town The site has extant planning permission for residential. The LDP seeks to bring the LDP in line with the extant No proposed modification to 10A Union centre site with planning permission for residential use therefore should be included within Schedule to encourage development. permission. Planning permission should be sought for a change from the residential use permitted. LDP. Street, Troon Craigie Village The Site at Craigie should be identified in LDP housing Appendix D as this would give more weight than rural housing policy to ensure The site is considered to be of a scale that does not suit allocation in the LDP, but is better suited to a planning No proposed modification to clients can develop the site at Craigie. application, whereupon its merits can be tested against the rural housing policies. Rural housing policies have been LDP. amended to include provision for small settlements to be expanded at their edge, subject to environmental criteria. Sainsbury’s Amendment to the Settlement Map for Prestwick. The Sainsbury's store on Ayr Road together with adjacent shops and services should The Sainsbury’s site in Prestwick is identified as a retail location, not a local/commercial centre. Although the No proposed modification to Prestwick be identified as a ‘Local Centre' instead of the proposed ‘general retail' allocation. Sainsbury's supermarket together with adjacent locality has a number of other commercial and retail facilities, this is not a planned location or traditional town LDP. shops (including the small parade of retail units) provide a significant contribution to retail provision on the south side of Prestwick centre. As such, it lacks the connectivity, transport and access arrangements that serve town centres and other and continue to co-exist successfully alongside Prestwick Town Centre and other existing retail centres. The store has done much to local centres better. It is not proposed to identify this location as a local centre, as this would prioritise this location serve the needs of Prestwick residents and has retained expenditure within the town. for retailing, without adequately planning for transport, amenity and wider retail-planning implications. Land at SPP requires LDP to allocate a range of sites beyond plan adoption period; however, current allocation for housing within the LDP will In terms of the capacity of the smaller settlements, there are no release sites within Mossblown and the release No proposed modification to Kilmarnock fall short and therefore not comply with SPP. The release of the land at Kilmarnock Road, Monkton will address the shortfall and add sites at Tarbolton and Annbank are conservative relative to the size of the settlements. Affordable housing LDP. Road, Monkton choice and variety to land supply in an area of high demand. contributions will be sought in accordance with the LDP policy: affordable housing. A settlement analysis of the marketability of all settlements was undertaken, and showed that some of the settlements in the north (outwith It is considered that the assessment for the land at Kilmarnock Road, Monkton is flawed and should be removed from greenbelt and Ayr, Prestwick and Troon) were amongst the most marketable, and have little or no remaining supply because allocated as housing as it is with the Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy and development is supported by the Council Land previous sites have been effective. The LDP does not plan for vast numbers of houses in each settlement, but plans Assessment Framework in preference to other sites at Monkton for spreading the requirement around a variety of proven viable settlements.

The site will result in improvements to the urban edge to the settlement and help define greenbelt boundaries and can provide The site was subjected to assessment as part of the greenbelt process and as part of the site selection process. new/upgraded community facilities. Although the site report for the land (which related to the site selection process) was not available during the Council’s consultation period, the representee was forwarded all relevant information relating to the site and was The representation supports Council Strategy of focusing new housing growth in northern part of South Ayrshire on the basis of good offered a further opportunity to comment. The representee position has therefore not bee prejudiced by an initial access to employment and amenities via the existing transport network and lesser impact on natural and rural environment. However, flaw in the availability of information. It is considered that the representee consideration that the site assessments some outlying settlements lack capacity to provide new houses; Maybole and Minishant are too far from Glasgow/central belt to are flawed is not accurate. The sites reports for the site relating to site selection process and both set out the deliver housing other than to a local market; and SALP strategic release sites have had a lack of completions, and will make housing conclusions on the site, based on a neutral perspective and within the context of a consistent methodology for stock less affordable. both processes.

It is noted that the representee considers that the site will improve the urban edge at Monkton and may provide upgraded faculties. The site report sets out the consideration of the impact of the development of the site on landscape, and considers the site less favourable than other sites at Monkton.

The LDP allocates land to ensure that the Council will have and maintain an effective land supply. The allocation of sites covers a 10 year period, as Government guidance indicates. However, the Plan should also give a broad indication of scale and location of growth for years 10-20 following plan adoption. The Council’s housing dispersal strategy set out in the proposed LDP complements a wider housing growth strategy, which was outlined in the Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan, and is evidenced by the HNDA. Strategic sites in the LDP, and growth in/around the urban core of South Ayrshire is identified as the board indication of growth from year 10-20, and the existing housing land supply indicates that there are already houses to be delivered on existing sites, within that period. Government guidance on the provision of a broad indication is that specific sites, and/or numbers I not required to be identified. Monkton Manse Request change to Monkton settlement boundary to include area of land currently within Glasgow Prestwick Airport's “Monkton” There was no information submitted with the proposal to show evidence that this area was not viable for industrial No proposed modification to and stables area to form housing site, including former Manse and associated stables. This would enable the renovation of the listed building. The purposes, therefore no reason to lose the industrial land. However, if a non-industrial proposal for the site were LDP. site has a business/ industrial designation but has been marketed by an agent with no interest. Development for residential use would proposed, even at application stage, it would be appropriate to explore further the possibility of there being a case not fragment the remaining industrial area. The site is within a predominately residential area and to change its designation for its loss to non-industrial. This would require to meet criteria set out in the relevant development plan, which would have a positive impact on the settlement and enhance this part of Monkton. will seek to demonstrate that there is no future industrial future for the site, that it has an acceptable impact on the operation of the adjacent industrial area, and that it does not harm surrounding land uses. There is an expectation that a former industrial site should be within a settlement to be suitable for a residential permission. IN this instance, however, the location of the site is adjacent to the settlement (and other residential development). Therefore, also, it would not fragment an existing operational industrial area. The acceptability of a Plan departure to allow residential on-site, may depend on marketing information to demonstrate the lack of feasibility for future industrial uses. This case has not yet been made, though, so there is no recommended change to the LDP. GPA – site 170 Seeking the allocation of site 170 for business and industrial uses relating to Glasgow Prestwick Airport. The representation states that Site 170 was initially submitted as a housing site and considered unacceptable for this purpose in the same way as No proposed modification to the site was assessed as a housing site which they are extremely concerned about as this is a misrepresentation of its intended use other large scale proposed sites on the periphery of Ayr, Prestwick, Troon were. The commercial aspects of the LDP. and this is reflected within the site report. proposal were not submitted demonstrated as being required. The airport operator did not indicate that the land at this location was required for associated commercial activity and the business and industrial land supply has not identified an overwhelming need for such land at this location. Additionally, Transport Scotland, during early consultation on the development plan, indicated that it would not be supportive of land releases adjacent to the A77. Regardless of whether the site proposes a new direct access onto the A77, it is reasonable to assume that Transport Scotland would not favour the scale and location of such development. RO18 – Object to the exclusion of Housing as a potential use of this site for the following reasons. 1. Site was previously allocated for retail, Noted. The most up-to-date Development Opportunities Brochure indicates that residential development would No proposed modification to Development business, Leisure and Residential and still is included within the Ayrshire Joint Planning units Housing land audits. 2. To enable housing be an acceptable use for this site. LDP. Opportunities would give greater flexibility in housing land supply in Girvan. 3. The site complies with the other residential policies within the Brochure Proposed LDP. 4. This is a brownfield site within a town and has good links to town centre and local transport system therefore would be suitable for residential development. Propose that residential land use is added to the potential uses for RO18 within the redevelopment opportunity schedule. Loans – site 52 This site should be included as a housing release site and included within the Loans settlement boundary. It’s within the Core Although Loans is small settlement satellite to the urban core, its proximity to Troon, and, in particular North East No proposed modification to Investment Area and is serviced by the necessary infrastructure. It’s of an appropriate scale and connects with the existing settlement. Troon housing allocation, it is not considered there is a particular housing requirement at this locality. LDP.

Ayr – site 14 There are no major release sites with the exception of south east Ayr. The principle of development to the east of the A77 has been The housing dispersal strategy seeks to direct housing growth away from Ayr, as the current land supply is heavily No proposed modification to established through south east Ayr. Committed sites may not progress as expected and this site should therefore be included as a weighted on sites with Ayr – many of which have presented delivery difficulties in the current housing market. The LDP. release site. proposed site is of a scale and location that suggest that significant transport and infrastructure implications would affect the delivery of the site. Transport Scotland, indeed, at earlier stages in the Plan, suggested that no support Objection to the lack of housing release sites within Ayr. The release of larger sites within smaller settlements does not correlate with would be offered for sites within the Ayr corridor. AJSP. The release sites will generate problems in terms of infrastructure capacity. The site at Holmston should be included as a release site. Coylton – 79E This representation objects to the non-designation of call for sites no. 79E. It is considered that the site is deliverable and free from The overall housing dispersal and allocation strategy for housing in South Ayrshire, as contained within the LDP is No proposed modification to constraints that would impede development or have a negative impact on the existing settlement and surrounding landscape and considered to meet identified housing needs and demands. The allocation of the proposed LDP sites provides LDP. infrastructure. The site report prepared by the Council is inaccurate. The representation questions other allocations within the Plan in sufficient supply of housing land within Coylton. Needs and demands per settlement was considered in the terms of their deliverability. preparation of the LDP, and, on the basis of evidence on historic supply and take-up of industrial land, the allocation at Coylton was considered to be sufficient. There was concern that allocating additional sites would be unlikely to be developed, given historic take-up trends and current housing market conditions. Additionally, this site was less preferable, in environmental/planning terms than the selected site(s) in Coylton. Site 39 - The representation is seeking the inclusion of site 39 as a housing release site. The overall housing dispersal and allocation strategy for housing in South Ayrshire, as contained within the LDP is No proposed modification to Symington considered to meet identified housing needs and demands. The allocation of the proposed LDP sites provides LDP. sufficient supply of housing land within Symington. Needs and demands per settlement was considered in the preparation of the LDP, and, on the basis of evidence on historic supply and take-up of industrial land, the allocation at Symington was considered to be sufficient. There was concern that allocating additional sites would be unlikely to be developed, given historic take-up trends and current housing market conditions. Additionally, this site was less preferable, in environmental/planning terms than the selected site(s) in Symington. Site 97C - This site should be allocated as a tourist accommodation site. The site is well screened, serviced and close to existing amenities. The proposal should be submitted via planning application, and tested against development plan policies, with the No proposed modification to Coylton benefit of all relevant information required to determine whether the proposal is viable and suitable in all other LDP. planning and environmental terms. No such information submitted with the proposal during development plan preparation.

Air, noise and The wording of this policy is too vague and needs to be more precise. The wording is a result of Plain English Campaign editorial work on LDP. Where relevant environmental health will No proposed modification to light pollution be consulted on development proposals to ensure a consistent and technical basis for determining applications LDP. against this policy.