Issues Raised in Response to the Proposed Local Development Plan and Proposed Submission to Scottish Ministers Appendix 2 Settlement Comments
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSUES RAISED IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROPOSED SUBMISSION TO SCOTTISH MINISTERS APPENDIX 2 SETTLEMENT COMMENTS Shaping Buchan – Summary of Schedule 4s Minor technical changes are also proposed to improve the accuracy of information now provided by Scottish Water and SEPA (see Schedule 4 7908). “Schedule 4” documents (so named because of the requirement to follow the form specified by Schedule 4 of the relevant Regulations) have not been produced for those settlements where there have been no representations. Ardallie Main objections raised in representation Number of planned units on site OP1 should be reduced to take into account already submitted proposals. Development of site OP1 should include road upgrades. Response by Planning Authority The approved houses on site OP1 would take up part of the allocation, and no change is required. Upgrading the existing road to an adoptable standard is already required by the development brief. The section of private road heading east from site OP1 is not required to link the site to the public road network so it is not appropriate to require its upgrading. Minor technical change Remove the settlement boundary annotation (which only covers the allocated, protected and reserved sites), for consistency. Auchnagatt Main objections raised in representation Amend OP2 reference to strategic landscaping or extend site OP2 further south to the minor watercourse, so that strategic landscaping can be implemented outwith the allocated area. Response by Planning Authority The reference to strategic landscaping is only a recommendation – the most appropriate position and nature of strategic landscaping would be determined at the planning application stage. There is already an appropriate and sufficient supply of housing land. The proposed additional area for site OP2 is partly within the SEPA Flood Map showing medium risk of river flooding. It is therefore inappropriate to allocate additional land for development. List of non-notifiable modifications No change required. Boddam Main objections raised in representation Add reference to Buchan Ness to Collieston SAC and Bullers of Buchan Coast SSSI to the Natural and Historic Environment section of the Settlement Statement. Response by Planning Authority Agree that reference to the SAC and SSSI should be added. List of non-notifiable modifications Add reference to Buchan Ness to Collieston SAC and Bullers of Buchan Coast SSSI to the Natural and Historic Environment section of the Settlement Statement. Cruden Bay Main objections raised in representations Add reference to Buchan Ness to Collieston SAC and Bullers of Buchan Coast SSSI to the Natural and Historic Environment section of the Settlement Statement. No development or screening planting should be permitted within the northwest part of site OP1 or on site P2. Amend the Proposed Plan to reflect the terms of planning permission APP/2011/0360 - i.e. enlarge Site OP3 to that shown as EH1 in the 2012 Local Development Plan (LDP) and increase allocation to 216 dwellinghouses as per the permission. Response by Planning Authority Agree that reference to the SAC and SSSI should be added. The nature of strategic landscaping and the layout of development on Sites OP1 and OP2 would be assessed and determined at the planning application stage to ensure there is no unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing homes. The developer has until January 2018 to commence the development approved under APP/2011/0360 (on site EH1) so that the permission does not lapse. There is already an appropriate and sufficient supply of housing land. It is unnecessary to allocate additional land for development and the site remains constrained and makes no contribution to the effective land supply. The Development Planning and Management Transport Appraisal assessment (‘the DPMTAG’) identified that development on sites M1 and EH1 of the 2012 LDP would potentially have major negative impact on the safe operation of the strategic transport network. This is due to safety issues associated with the Auchiries road and its junction with the A90(T), which are most likely to be used by traffic generated on site EH1 rather than site OP1 (formerly site M1). Site EH1 is of considerable nature conservation value. It is therefore inappropriate to modify allocation OP3. Non-notifiable modification Add reference to Buchan Ness to Collieston SAC and Bullers of Buchan Coast SSSI to the Natural and Historic Environment section of the Settlement Statement. Minor technical change Correct a drafting error in the development brief for OP2: the second sentence of the second paragraph should read “A new roundabout on the A975 providing access to the OP1 and OP2 sites on the western approach to Cruden Bay will be required.” Hatton Main objections raised in representations Site OP2 should be deleted on grounds related to drainage, flood risk, traffic impact, residential amenity, slow rates of build-out, lack of need, loss of open space, and impact on wildlife. The boundary of site OP3 should be extended to match that of the current application for approval of matters specified in conditions (reference APP/2015/1065). The expectation for at least 5 on-site affordable homes should be deleted as this does not reflect the Legal Agreement associated with the permission in principle. Site OP3 should be deleted. Objection is made on grounds of impact on nearby roads and access issues, flood risk, and sewage treatment capacity. Site OP4 should be deleted. If a building is erected on the site it should be no higher than the existing commercial building, and access should not be taken from Station Road. Additional land adjacent to site OP3 is promoted for development. The playing field to the east of site OP3 should be designated ‘P – Protected Land’. Response by Planning Authority Sites OP2, OP3 and OP4 have been carried forward from the 2012 LDP. SEPA has not raised objection to the allocations OP2 and OP3. Impact on residential amenity, access and parking arrangements would be addressed at the planning application stage. None of the sites have significant biodiversity value. Ample recreation land would be retained even after OP2 is developed. Limited wastewater capacity would be overcome by Scottish Water once development is committed. There is already an appropriate and sufficient supply of housing land. It is unnecessary to allocate additional land for development. The additional land could be developed under the infill development policy. The playing field to the east of site OP3 would be protected from inappropriate development by Policy P3 which only supports infill development if it would not erode the amenity of the surrounding area. In addition, as set out in the Schedule 4 related to Policy PR1 “Protecting Important Resources”, the Council supports non-notifiable modifications to clarify that Policy PR1 would protect areas of open space whether or not they are specifically designated as protected. Non-notifiable modifications Amend the boundary of site OP3 to reflect the boundary of the planning permission in principle site. Add reference to the extant permission in principle to the development brief for site OP3. Maud Main objections raised in representations A wider road width should be provided alongside the entire road frontage of site OP3. The Maud Hospital site and a parcel of land to the south should be allocated as an opportunity site. Response by Planning Authority Site OP3 has been carried forward from the 2012 LDP and is currently under construction on a plot-by-plot basis. The Roads Authority has not raised any concern about the allocation, and any road improvement work is a matter for the planning application stage. There is already an appropriate and sufficient supply of housing land. It is unnecessary to allocate additional land for development. In any case, the hospital could be developed under the infill development policy. Non-notifiable modifications No change required Mintlaw Main objections raised in representations There are enough Council yards in Mintlaw and there is a recycling centre in Peterhead. The triangular piece of land in the northwest corner of site P3 should be removed from the site as it belongs to ‘Cartlehaugh’ and not to Aden Country Park. Additional housing land should be allocated adjacent to site OP3. The masterplan boundaries of site OP2 should be extended to the Fetterangus Crossroads. The northern boundary of the settlement should be continued along the existing access road (to the Fetterangus Crossroads). Land to the north of Balring Road should be allocated as employment land (‘Northwoods Business Park’). Response by Planning Authority The Settlement Statement includes a requirement for development to contribute towards a household waste and recycling centre in Mintlaw but does not specify a location for this centre. This would be addressed at the development management stage. The triangular parcel of land in the northwest corner of site P3 has been identified as being protected since 1998. It is part of a wider protected area extending beyond Aden Country Park itself, the aim of which is to prevent development that would have an adverse impact on the Park and its character and setting. Development of land for essential community infrastructure such as a health centre is permitted on protected land by Policy PR2 “Protecting important development sites.” There is already an appropriate and sufficient supply of housing land. It is unnecessary to allocate additional land for development. The proposed extension to OP2 was not put forward as a development bid so was not subject to site assessment and public consultation. Increasing the land within the settlement boundary would open up a large swathe of land to piecemeal infill development. New residential development should be focused on allocated and previously developed land and there is ample such land in Mintlaw. The proposed Northwoods Business Park was not put forward as a development bid so has not been subject to site assessment or public consultation.