ABERDEENSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION MARR – RURAL HOUSING MARKET AREA

Issue 141 Settlement - Cairnie Section 6 Proposals Maps Marr (p24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 2 Tables 7 (p29) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements p15-16 Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

709, 710 Colin Thompson Chartered Architect on behalf of David Irvine 1424, 1426 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Strathdee Properties Ltd 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Provision of the development plan to Housing allocation in Cairnie. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

H1 Cairnie

1424, 1426: These representations support the allocation as a logical opportunity for future development and confirm there are no constraints to delivery.

709, 710: Object to H1 on the basis that an alternative to the north of the school is preferable as it does not build in front of the village hall and is less prominent from the A96.

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no significant flooding concerns for the site.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

709, 710: Substitute H1 with site to north of school.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Cairnie lies to the north west of Huntly within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Cairney Primary School has a falling roll and shows the school operating at 38% capacity in 2016. It is appropriate to direct development to Cairney to support the school and meet local housing needs. The scale of the allocation proposed reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement. The allocation ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement in Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

Site H1 The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010) (Volume 7 page 37 Cairnie), which was prepared following the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

The site to the north of the school was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the merits of the site. Site H1 responds to the linear form of existing development and whilst visible from the A96 will be no more prominent than existing adjacent development.

Conclusion The modification sought is not supported. The development strategy and land allocation in

Page 1 Cairnie is already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 2 Issue 142 Settlement - Forgue Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7 (p 29) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements p30 - 31 Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

703 David Fasken 2104, 2111 Strutt & Parker LLP on behalf of BMF Group

Provision of the development plan to Housing allocation in Forgue for up to 5 which the issue relates: houses. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1

703: Respondent states development on H1 is not in keeping with the rural area and development should not be allowed so close to the church and graveyard. There are concerns in regard to the electricity supply, refuse collection and the access road. Apart from the school there are no significant services to be sustained and it is considered unsustainable to develop so far from employment centres. Allocation of housing is not justified.

2104 & 2111: Representation supports the allocation of H1 for 5 houses and clarifies that access will be taken off School Road.

Alternative Site Forgue

703: Respondent proposes an alternative location to replace H1 to the north of Scott’s Hall. Respondent considers that the site would integrate more easily with the main village, could link to a footpath to School Road, is closer to public transport than H1, could be accessed more safely and would mean the setting of the church and graveyard is protected.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

703 Delete H1 and replace at new location to north of Scott’s Hall.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Forgue lies to the east of Huntly within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Forgue Primary School has a falling roll and it is appropriate to direct development to the village to support the school, sustain local services and meet local housing needs. The allocations proposed reflect local needs, the scale of the settlement and development allocations yet to be built out. The allocation also contributes to the sufficiency of land to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010) (Volume 7 page 49 Forgue) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site H1 The small allocation on site H1 is in keeping with the rural area, and the location adjacent to the school concentrates development around services.

The church is not listed and has a sufficient curtlilage to limit impacts on its setting.

Page 3

Paragraph 94 of Scottish Planning Policy states that development plans should support more opportunities for small scale housing development in rural areas including extensions to existing clusters and groups. Therefore, the allocation of 5 houses at Forgue is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy. Whilst the immediate hamlet of Forgue is not dependent on growth and lacks services the allocation will benefit the wider rural area. Paragraph 96 of Scottish Planning Policy states that planning authorities should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to access by car, as not all location can be served by public transport. The rural location of Forgue means public transport options are limited however the need to sustain other services in the area are over-riding considerations

The reliability of refuse collection in winter is not an issue for the plan. As the site is to be accessed off the same road as the School it would be expected this would be a priority for gritting.

Deliverability of the site has been confirmed and the electricity supply is not identified as a constraint.

The Roads Authority commented that access was possible onto School Road but have noted that improvement to visibility may be required at the School Road junction and some traffic calming may be required.

Alternative Site As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

The site was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. Site H1 is deliverable, in scale with the settlement and is well related to the school.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Forgue are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 4 Issue 143 Settlement - Largue Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 7 (p 29) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 52 & 53) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

385 Mr James Fraser 386 Mr & Mrs David & Andrea Rogalski 387 Mr Charles Cameron 388 Mr William Twaddle 2355, 2418 Miss Margaret J Anderson

Provision of the development plan to Housing Allocations in Largue for upto 5 which the issue relates: houses. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Largue

385, 387: Object to H1

386, 388: Object to site H1 as it conflicts with strategic landscaping requirement of an existing planning consent and it promotes development in a form that is contrary to the settlement pattern and detrimental to amenity. In addition there is no health care, school or foul drainage capacity and it is adjacent to an odorous farm operation. H1 conflicts with Policy 12 Landscape Conservation, SG Safeguarding 3, SG LSD 2, 4 and 9.

386, 388, 2355 and 2418: Representations express concern in respect of the access.

386, 388, 2355 and 2418: Object to H1 as there is no demand for housing. Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

385, 386, 387, and 388 Delete site H1

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Largue lies to the east of Huntly within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Largue Primary School has a falling roll and the school operating at 41% capacity in 2016. It is appropriate to direct development to Largue to support the school, sustain local services and meet local housing needs. The allocations proposed reflect local needs and the scale of the settlement. The allocation also ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

Paragraph 94 of Scottish Planning Policy states that development plans should support more opportunities for small scale housing development in rural areas including extensions to existing clusters and groups. Therefore, the allocation of 5 houses at Largue is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy. Whilst the immediate hamlet of Largue is not dependent on growth and lacks services, the allocation will benefit the wider rural area.

Site H1 Site H1 is a compact site with limited impact on landscape due to its position between existing developments. There is little scope to replicate the linear form of development due to the alignment of the road.

The landscape condition of planning consent S000611PF is relevant. This area should form part of the open space requirements of the site, appropriate text has been added to the

Page 5 relevant supplementary guidance, no change to the Local Development Plan itself is required.

The Supplementary Guidance states contributions will be required towards extension of Huntly health centre and to education provision. The Supplementary Guidance also notes that the Aucharnie Housing septic tank has insufficient capacity. Scottish Water have advised that for this reason a growth project will be initiated once development meets Scottish Water’s 5 point criteria (see page 176 of the Proposed Action Programme). There is sufficient capacity at Largue Primary School as demonstrated in the school roll forecasts, which show the school operating at 41% capacity in 2016. The Roads Authority have advised that access from the site could be from the existing private road onto the B9001, but visibility will require to be improved.

Largue is situated in a countryside location and therefore farm odours are to be expected and are not a constraint to development.

The site will still require to comply with the policies of the plan and its associated supplementary guidance. Therefore, any planning application will require to comply with Policy 12 Landscape Conservation, SG Safeguarding 3 Protection and conservation of trees and woodland, SG LSD2 Layout, siting, and design of new development, and SG LSD9 Hazardous development. The site would not be considered against the infill policy as it is an allocation.

Conclusion The modification sought is not supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Largue are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 6 Issue 144 Settlement - Gartly Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 7 (p 29) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p 32 & 33) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

21 Mr James Robson 29 Mrs Diane Hampton 30 Mr Ronald Hampton 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2057, 2105 Strutt & Parker LLP on behalf of Mr B Cowie 2727 Mr James Grant

Provision of the development plan to Housing Allocations in Gartly. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1 Gartly

2057, 2105: Representations support the identification of H1 for 5 houses but object to requirement for a flood risk assessment (despite this not being annotated in the plan).

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency advise that site H1 lies adjacent to the 1 in 200 flood may boundary and the following text should be added to the allocation and highlighted in a development brief "Part of this site lies adjacent to SEPA's 1 in 200 year flood risk area. If a detailed flood risk assessment has not been carried out to determine the boundary, one may be required to accompany any future development proposal for this site."

Site EH1 Gartly

21, 29, 30: Site EH1 should be removed, as it has subsidence and flooding issues.

21: Neighbouring properties septic tanks are located within EH1.

Alternative Site Gartly

2727: Respondent proposes an alternative site at Kirkney, Gartly. Kirkney was identified in previous plans and should be reinstated due to the flooding constraints at Gartly Station. Part of the site is a gap site. Access to the adopted road is available and services are nearby.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

2057, 2105: Remove any requirement for a flood risk assessment to be undertaken for site H1.

1979: Add text to allocation H1 "Part of this site lies adjacent to SEPA's 1 in 200 year flood risk area. If a detailed flood risk assessment has not been carried out to determine the boundary, one may be required to accompany any future development proposal for this site."

21, 29, 30: Remove EH1 from the plan.

2727: Allocate site at Kirkney, Gartly.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Page 7 Overview Gartly lies to the south of Huntly within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Gartly Primary School has a falling roll and shows the school operating at 73% capacity in 2016. It is appropriate to direct development to Gartly to support the school, sustain local services and meet local housing needs. The allocations proposed reflect local needs, the scale of the settlement and development allocations yet to be built out. The allocation also ensures sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (Volume 7 page 50 Gartly) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site H1 Scottish Environment Protection Agency have objected to the Supplementary Guidance Settlement Statements Marr, as site H1 lies adjacent to the 1:200 year area of flood risk and have requested that wording is added to the SG “Part of this site lies adjacent to Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. If a detailed flood risk assessment has not been carried out to determine this boundary, one may be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site.” A comment to that affect has been added to the supplementary guidance.

Site EH1 There is an application pending for planning permission in principle for three houses on this site, APP/2008/0275. The issues raised in respect of subsidence, flooding and the location of septic tanks will be considered through the planning application. Scottish Environment Protection Agency has advised the site is within Flood Risk Category D and that the site is susceptible to flooding due to surface water run-off. Appropriate wording has been added to the supplementary guidance requiring a detailed drainage impact assessment to support any planning application.

Alternative Site As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

The site at Kirkney, Gartly was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on its merits. Site H1 meets local needs and is of a scale that reflects the settlement and further allocation is not required. This site is not well related to Gartly and is adjacent to a small group of houses in the countryside. Development at this location should be considered through Policy 3 Development in the Countryside.

Conclusion The development strategy and land allocations in Gartly are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended, but the supplementary guidance has been changed to show the requirement for a drainage impact assessment for site EH1.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 8

Page 9 Issue 145 Settlement - Rhynie Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 66 & 67) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

168 Mr & Mrs John Rhind 343 Mr Gregor Jolly

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at Rhynie. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

General

343: Objects to development in Rhynie on the grounds there are insufficient basic amenities to support development and the poor road conditions.

Site M1 Rhynie

168: The north west side of M1 is unsuitable for building as it is low lying and wet.

Rhynie Alternative Site

168: The allocation on site M1 should be moved to a site at Manse Road.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

343: Development in Rhynie not to proceed.

168: Move site M1 to site at Manse Road.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Rhynie lies to the south of Huntly within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Rhynie Primary School has a falling roll and shows the school operating at 63% capacity in 2016; and it is appropriate to direct development to Rhynie to support the school, sustain local services and meet local housing needs. The allocations proposed reflect local needs and the scale and character of the settlement and ensure that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (Volume 7 page 94 Rhynie), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Within Rhynie there are sufficient basic amenities to support development, including post office, store, garage and hotel. Rhynie is located on the A97 and the Roads Authority has not raised any specific concern in respect of road conditions.

Site M1

Page 10 Scottish Environment Protection Agency has not identified any flood risk on the site. Any drainage issues should be dealt with by SUDS or by incorporating the affected area into the site’s open space requirements.

Rhynie Alternative Site As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

The site at Manse Road, site M20 in the main issues report, was fully debated following its inclusion in the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site due access problems and the difficulties in providing a link road to the south west of the site. (See Issues and Action Volume 7 page 94 Rhynie for further details).

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Rhynie are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 11 Issue 146 Settlement - Kennethmont Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Proposed Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 46 & 47) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

67 Miss Alison Hunter 273 Norman P. Lawie Limited on behalf of John Cruickshank 522, 523 Colin Thompson Architects on behalf of Mr David Grant 1125 Mr James Grant 2264, 2279, 2280 Tap O North Community Council 2285, 2583 Mr David Grant 2302 Mr James Duguid 2489 The National Trust for Scotland 2505 Mr Colin Shanks 2507 Mr Stanley Strachan 2550, 2551 Mrs Grainne Patton 2599 Mr James Grant

Provision of the development plan to Housing and Employment Land Allocations in which the issue relates: and around Kennethmont at H1 & E1. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Kennethmont

2489: The National Trust for Scotland advise that site H1 lies within the Conservation Area Agreement area and is therefore protected from development under the terms of the agreement. The trust would require to assess any detailed application to waiver the terms of the agreement.

522, 523, 2264, 2279, 2280 2505, and 2507: Representations consider H1 to be too small in size and that an allocation of 15 houses is too low as investment in sewage works is required. Regeneration after 2016 should not come to a standstill due to a lack of allocations.

1125: The site should be extended and allocation increased to make up for the neglect the village has suffered and begin the process of regeneration.

67: Representation objects on the grounds that H1 is unsuitable due to drainage issues, will ruin views, will reduce agricultural land and will disturb local nature.

67, 2550: Representations state that too many houses are proposed on H1.

Site E1 Kennethmont

2489: The National Trust for Scotland advise that site E1 lies within the Conservation Area Agreement area and is therefore protected from development under the terms of the agreement. The trust would require to assess any detailed application to waiver the terms of the agreement.

2264: Representation supports the allocation as small businesses are vital to the survival of rural communities.

2551: Respondent states that reuse of existing buildings would be more appropriate for employment and questions the need for an employment land allocation in Kennethmont.

Site R1 Kennethmont

Page 12 2489: The National Trust for Scotland advise that site R1 lies within the Conservation Area Agreement area and is therefore protected from development under the terms of the agreement. The trust would require to assess any detailed application to waiver the terms of the agreement.

Alternative Sites Kennethmont

Site P2 273: Representation states that a portion of P2 should be allocated for housing.

2489: The National Trust consider protection of P2 is foresighted and in line with the Trust’s conservation values. Protection will benefit the village as a whole.

2599: Supports protection of P2, as development would have an adverse effect and impact on an open area within the settlement, which would affect Moss of Kirkhill SSSI’s overall special character and amenity.

2550: Supports protection of P2.

Site M42 1125: Representation states that site M42 within the Main Issues Report should be allocated to make up for the neglect the village has suffered and begin the process of regeneration.

2285, 2583: Representations state that site M42 within the Main Issues Report should be allocated as the village has suffered a lack of sustained growth and lost amenities. The village should be allowed to evolve beyond 2016.

2507: Representation states that site M42 within the Main Issues Report should be allocated as the lack of future housing allocations within Kennethmont may deter investment by housing associations, housing groups and private developers. No objections were received to the site at the Main Issues Report consultation.

Post 2016 allocations 2302: Respondent states an allocation should be made for housing beyond 2016 to allow those unable to build or purchase before 2016 to have the opportunity to do so.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 2505 Increase allocation of 15 houses for period to 2016 and add 15 houses for period 2016 to 2023. Designate further area for future housing.

2507 Designate site for further 15 houses for period 2016 to 2023.

2550 Reduce number of units on H1.

273: Amend P2 to allow housing and an area of P2 to be protected. Amend allocation on H1.

1125 Allocate whole of site M40 and M42 for housing, affordable housing, future housing, small business development, a cemetery extension and cemetery car park.

2285, 2583 Allocate M42 for future housing.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Kennethmont lies to the south of Huntly within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Kennethmont is forecast to be operating at 14% capacity in 2016 and it is appropriate to direct development to Kennethmont to support the school, sustain local services and meet local housing needs. The size of allocation made reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing

Page 13 land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (Volume 7 page 68 Kennethmont), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

The National Trust for Scotland Conservation Area Agreement will require to be taken into account by developers. Whilst this is a burden to development it is anticipated that in order to gain support to waiver the terms of the agreement design will require to be of the highest design standards and development should enhance the attributes of the Conservation Agreement. No other suitable site in the village is free of this burden.

Site H1

Size Site and Level of Allocation The size of the site reflects the maximum density of 30 houses per hectare promoted within the reasoned justification of SG Housing 1: Housing land allocations 2007-2016. This provides sufficient space for 15 houses and 40% open space. An allocation of 15 houses reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement. A higher allocation would overwhelm the settlement and would not be consistent with historic growth. The allocation has been made in phase one of the plan and there would be an opportunity for allocation of future phases at the next review of the plan.

Waste water The lack of capacity at Kennethmont WWTW is acknowledged and Scottish Water have advised that a growth project would require to be initiated when development meets their five criteria.

Drainage Concern has not been raised by Scottish Environment Protection Agency in respect of drainage or flood risk. Local drainage issues will be dealt with through a detailed application and SUDS.

Settlement Pattern The site boundaries reflect the settlement pattern of development focused around the junction. The westerly section of Kennethmont has developed on both sides of the road and this site would continue this pattern.

Agricultural Land Site H1 is grade 3.2 agricultural land and therefore Scottish Planning Policy does not presume against development on this grade of land.

Site E1 An allocation for employment will help create a well balanced and sustainable community. Specific allocation of land provides more flexibility and opportunity rather than relying on suitable existing buildings to come forward for business use.

Alternative Sites As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site P2 Site P2 was considered for housing development in the main issues report as site M3/M11. The site was fully debated in the context of the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site due to the potential impacts on the Moss of Kirkhill SSSI and the setting of Listed Buildings. The comments in support of the protection of site P2 are well made.

Site M42 Site M42 was considered in the main issues report and was noted as being capable of being

Page 14 developed. The site was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as it would extend the easterly thrust of development, and the opportunity to consolidate the south eastern edge of Kennethmont on site H1 was preferred.

Post 2016 allocations The comments regarding lack of allocation beyond 2016 are noted. However, the plan will be reviewed by 2016 and, if appropriate, further allocations could be considered during the review.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Kennethmont are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 15 Issue 147 Settlement - Clatt Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statements, (p 17 & 18)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Provision of the development plan to Housing Allocations in Clatt. which the issue relates:

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site EH1 Clatt

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency state that part of site EH1 is at medium to high risk from flooding. The issue of flood risk should be highlighted in the text as a potential constraint as should the possible need for drainage assessment.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

1979: Add text to Supplementary Guidance for site EH1 stating “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the existing watercourse.”

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

The flood risk is noted. The size of the site and relatively small allocation should allow mitigation measures to be accommodated. Specific flood risk issues would be considered by Development Management. Text has been inserted into Supplementary Guidance highlighting the flood risk, but this does not require any change to the Local Development Plan itself.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

The supplementary guidance has been changed to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site EH1.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 16 There are no unresolved representations in relation to Issue 148 - Lumsden

Page 17 Issue 149 Settlement - Montgarrie Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 60 & 61) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 70 Ms Fiona Donaldson 244 Mr William Balfour 258 Norman P. Lawie Limited on behalf of Mr & Mrs Watson 1982 Michael Gilmour Associates on behalf of Carden Studios

Provision of the development plan to Mixed Use Land Allocations at Montgarrie - which the issue relates: M1. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site M1 Montgarrie

70: Representation states that site M1 should be for residential use only with no community or commercial uses. There is already a community use close by that could be upgraded.

244: Objects on grounds that there is no demand for housing in Montgarrie as houses are not selling and there are no amenities, 20 houses will alter the ambience of the village, and there is a lack of sewage capacity. Access to the site is a concern due to the gradient and corner, and 20 houses will have an adverse impact on the local road network.

258: Allocation of only 20 houses makes the site undeliverable due to costs of road improvement and the requirement to upgrade the sewage work.

Montgarrie Alternative Site

1982: Allocate site M23 at Montgarrie Mill as the site could accommodate sustainable housing, would utilise a brownfield site, is well screened, fits with existing fabric of the settlement, will have no impact on wildlife, is outwith flood risk area, will have minimal impact on existing services and infrastructure, is free from constraints, will provide choice, and help maintain vibrant community.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

258: Amend housing allocation on M1 to 50 units.

1982: Allocate site M23 at Montgarrie Mill.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Montgarrie lies to the north of Alford within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. Tullynessle Primary School is forecast to be operating at 73% capacity in 2016, and as Montgarrie falls within the Tullynessle Primary School catchment it is appropriate to direct development there. The level of development and phasing proposed reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement, and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17).

The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Most of the issues raised in relation to this settlement were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues

Page 18 Report, and were considered in the “Issues and Actions” paper (Volume 7 page 87 Montgarrie).

Site M1 Allocation of site M1 reflects the local growth and diversification strategy and will support Tullynessle Primary School. The site requires a development brief and development will require to respect its setting. An increased allocation while possible would be out of scale with the existing settlement and lead to overdevelopment.

Access Whilst access to site M1 is difficult and likely to be costly the Roads Authority advised that a suitable access could be achieved. The ability to deliver a suitable access was discussed at Committee and the allocation was increased from ten units to twenty to aid delivery. 20 houses are also in line with the number of units proposed within the bid originally submitted by the developer for the site.

Waste Water Treatment The need to upgrade the Montgarrie septic tank is acknowledged and Scottish Water have advised that a growth project would require to be initiated when development meets their five criteria.

Type of Uses The original bid proposal submitted was for a mix of uses and this concept has been taken forward. Allocation of employment land within the site will allow for small serviced plots or for live work units. This type of small scale commercial use is appropriate to the location and scale of development proposed. Community uses were proposed within the bid. The exact nature of the community uses is relatively open and would require to reflect the needs of the community. If an existing facility is available there is no need to replace this.

Alternative Site As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider any alternative sites.

The site at Montgarrie Mill, site M23 in the main issues report, was fully debated at Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site due to its low lying nature, proximity to flood risk area, and impacts on wildlife and the historic environment of the grade A listed Montgarrie Meal Mill.

Conclusion None of the modifications proposed are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Montgarrie are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 19

Page 20 Issue 150 Settlement - Alford Section 6, Proposals Map - Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 5 to 7) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

101 Miss Yvonne Christie 379,661 Mr Mark Tennant 554 Donside Community Council 965 Mr Drennan Watson 1713, 1804 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Scotia Home Ltd 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2143 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Kirkwood Homes Lt d 2296, 2548 Mr William Chalmers

Provision of the development plan to General Comments, Mixed Use Land which the issue relates: Allocations – M1. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

General

1713, 1804, 2143 Additional land should be allocated in Alford as there is a shortfall in the effective land supply in the Rural Housing Market Area (see issue 25). The financial environment is now more risk adverse, which will create a shortfall in effective sites, and Alford could help to address this shortfall in the short and medium term (2143). As Alford is a significant settlement, it is appropriate to allocate further deliverable development to provide certainty and choice. As a key settlement and major service centre Alford should be allocated further housing as this is critical to the delivery of employment land and the promotion of sustainable development.

Site M1 Alford

2296, 2548 Object to mixed use proposal as business land has been identified to the west/east of the village and there is no demand for further provision. A mixed use development is not appropriate in such a small community with access difficulties.

661 One respondent wishes there to be no alteration to Alford settlement.

Site R1 Alford

101 Objects on the grounds the new school campus should not be built on park ground that was gifted to Alford.

661 Respondent wishes there to be no alteration to Alford settlement.

Sites R2 and R3 Alford

661 Respondent wishes there to be no alteration to Alford settlement.

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no significant flooding concerns for site R3.

Site R4 Alford

965 Respondent feels that the allocation does not address the social needs of the growing population. There is a lack of play areas and recent development to the east of the village is remote from the existing parks. R4 is surrounded by houses, is secure and has no traffic so

Page 21 would be ideal for a playground and green space/garden. There is no need for additional car parking, as the village hall is central allowing people to walk to it, there is an existing car park 2-3 minutes from the hall, and additional parking at the Heritage Centre could be connected to the Hall by a footpath.

661 Respondent wishes there to be no alteration to Alford settlement.

Alternative Sites Alford

Site to the south east of Alford 1713, 1804 (site M95 in the Main Issues Report) should be allocated for a mixed use development with a range of house types and sizes proposed. The site would consolidate the entrance to the town from the east, would enhance facilities to the east of the village and is close to the town centre.

379 One respondent welcomes the absence of development to the south and south east of Alford noting previous opposition to recent development at Wellheads farm, the need to maintain separation between Balfluig Castle and Alford and maintaining the open countryside setting on the eastern approach to Alford.

Site at Wellheads 2143 An allocation should be made to the east of Alford as it is more marketable and would reduce cross town traffic. The allocations in the proposed plan will require traffic to use inadequate roads and cross the town centre. This would offset costs for servicing employment land and address market failure.

2143 should be allocated for mixed use; this includes changing the BUS site to mixed use. Demand for employment land has historically been low in Alford. The site is accessible to the town centre and community services. The trunk water main would require upgrades but there is waste water capacity.

554: Another respondent expresses support for the BUS site being designated for mixed use.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

2143 Identify site at Wellheads for mixed use development with 48 houses for the period 2007 to 2016 and 2.4 ha of employment land and another site for 60 houses for the period 2017 to 2023 and 1 hectare of employment land (includes deletion of BUS site and its allocation for mixed use).

554 Site BUS should be allocated for mixed use development.

1713, 1804 Allocate site to the south east of Alford (site M95 in the Main Issues Report) for mixed use development.

2296, 2548 Site M1 should be allocated as residential only. Community uses should be provided in the new school campus. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Alford lies in the rural housing market area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. Alford has been identified as being able to accommodate modest development, with more significant allocations being directed towards towns in the Regeneration Priority Area and other towns within the Rural Housing Market Area. The new allocation proposed for Alford of 30 houses reflects the size of the town, its accessibility, the scale of allocations yet to be built out, school capacity and brownfield opportunities provided by the need to relocate the school campus. As 283 units are still to be built out from the last plan and due to the lack of capacity in the primary (forecast to be at 204% of design capacity in 2016) and secondary school (forecast to be at 115% of design capacity in 2016) only limited housing is proposed on the brownfield site which would be created by relocation of the Academy. The size of allocation made reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement

Page 22 and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information of the sites considered is contained in the Issues and Actions Paper (May 2010) (Volume 7 page 7 Alford), which was informed by responses to the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site M1 A mixed use site is promoted on site M1 as this reflects the site’s central location and its proximity to the proposed community campus. There is sufficient land yet to be built out to meet local housing needs and additional housing is not required. There is a need to maintain a supply of employment land in Alford and a significant advantage of a mixed use site is that it will provide serviced employment land.

Site R1 Site R1 is a reserved site and not an allocation: it simply excludes other developments. The site is reserved for a community campus school and the area includes the existing recreation ground to the north east of the site. Given the size of the R1 allocation, approximately 18.8 ha, it may be possible for the design of the new campus to avoid developing the recreation ground gifted to Alford. Reserving the whole R1 area including the recreation facilities provides flexibility for the siting and design. Proposals being brought forward are being consulted upon with the public. If recreation facilities are retained it will be important for the campus to integrate with and provide links to these facilities. It is therefore appropriate to reserve the recreation area along with the larger R1 area.

Site R4 This site is a reserved site and not an allocation: it simply excludes other uses other than development as a car park. There are at present no specific development proposals for this site. The reservation has been carried over from the previous plan and could be removed at the next plan review, if there is no interest in progressing the car park proposals.

Alternative Sites As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site to the south east of Alford Whilst development to the south-east and east of Alford may avoid an increase in cross-town commuter traffic the easterly location may mean development does not integrate as well with the community and being further from the town centre may result in increased local journeys by car. There are significant marketing advantages of east over west.

The site to the south-east of Alford, site M95 in the main issues report, was considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report. Following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as further development in Aflord during the current plan period would lead to overdevelopment impacting on local character and amenity, and additional housing is not required to meet local needs. See Alford “Issues and Actions Paper” (page 7) for further details.

Site at Wellheads The site at Wellheads, site M80 in the main issues report was considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was not to propose site M80 for housing. It is important to maintain a supply of employment land within Alford and there is sufficient housing land still to be built out. M80 is carried forward in the proposed plan as a BUS allocation safeguarding it for employment uses. See Alford “Issues and Actions Paper” (page 8) for further details.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Alford are already appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Page 23 Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 24 Issue 151 Settlement - Kirkton of Tough Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 7, page 29 reference: Volume 3i, Proposed Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 50 & 51) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

460 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of AR Mathers & Sons 2909 Mr & Mrs Michael and Valerie Ward

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1 Kirkton of Tough 460: Objects to H1 on the basis that it is disjointed, isolated, has a negative impact on the landscape, does not enhance or sustain the townscape and does not relate well to existing settlement.

2909: Respondent raises concern in respect of environmental impacts of additional septic tanks draining to the burn and the type of housing proposed. They also raise concern in respect of impacts of development on neighbouring properties, access to House of Lynturk, and woods. Improvements should be made to the Tough to Muir of Fowlis road to include pavements and speed restrictions adjacent to the school and proposed development.

Kirkton of Tough Alternative Site

460: Allocate M70 as it integrates well with the existing settlement, uses an existing access, and would improve supply of housing in rural areas.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

460: Allocate site M70.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Kirkton of Tough lies to the south of Alford within the rural housing market area and in the “local needs and diversification area identified in the Structure Plan. The objectives for the settlement are to meet the need for a welcoming approach to development in the countryside and sustain local services. The size of allocation made reflects the scale of the settlement and is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan.

Paragraph 94 of Scottish Planning Policy states that development plans should support more opportunities for small scale housing development in rural areas including extensions to existing clusters and groups. Therefore, the allocation of 5 houses at Kirkton of Tough is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy. Whilst the immediate hamlet of Kirkton of Tough is not dependent on growth and lacks services, the allocation will benefit the wider rural area.

Site H1 Kirkton of Tough has development on both the north and south of the road with the school also located on the north of the road. The site will provide a counterweight to ribbon

Page 25 development to the north and introduce a streetscape with associated opportunities to introduce traffic speed reductions and pavements. Therefore, the location of the site is not isolated. The site sits at a lower level than land to the south and is well screened such that visual impacts are minimised.

Application of Policy 8 Layout siting and design of new development will require applications to consider design issues including respect for setting, neighbouring features and waste systems. The woods are outwith the site boundary.

Alternative Sites As the above site is appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site M70 was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site as it would unreasonably extend the cul de sac development and could impact on the setting of the church. See Issues and Actions Volume 7 page 78 Kirkton of Tough.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Kirkton of Tough are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 26 Issue 152 Settlement - Logie Coldstone Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements , (p 54 & 55) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

2482 Cromar Community Council

Provision of the development plan to M1 - Mixed Use Land Allocations. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

M1 Logie Coldstone

2482: Support proposal as it is essential for Logie Coldstone to remain a sustainable community.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

There are no outstanding issues to resolve.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 27 Issue 153 Settlement - Tarland Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 70 to 72) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

6 Mr P J Anderson 1168, 1170 DPP LLP on behalf of Church of Scotland General Treasurer 1251 Dorothy Reid 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2102, 2110 Strutt and Parker LLP on behalf of The Macrobert Trust 2482 Cromar Community Council

Provision of the development plan to Housing and Mixed Use Land Allocations at which the issue relates: H1 & M1. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Tarland

2110: Representation considers a greater allocation of 35 to 40 houses is required due to lack of provision for retired people or those with need for greater care. A low allocation means there is a risk this opportunity is not taken up. An ecological survey has not identified any features that would constrain development.

2102: Respondent supports land for immediate development.

2482: Cromar Community Council is content with an allocation of 10 houses on H1, but would not wish this to increase.

1251: Respondent objects as houses are needed for local retired people.

Site M1 Tarland

6: Object on grounds development will impact on quality of life, privacy and views and that part of the site is subject to flooding.

1251: Respondent states there should be more provision for employment and more affordable rented homes.

2110, 2482: Object to mixed use designation as M1 is an inappropriate location for employment land, due to the potential conflict with residential development in terms of amenity, traffic and marketability. An alternative site for employment land should be allocated. An allocation of 1ha of employment land is excessive when compared to other settlements (2110).

2110: Representation states the site area should extend from Drummie House and follow the edge of Drummie Wood rather than an arbitrary line.

2482: Cromar Community Council agree that the site should run alongside Burnside Road and not encroach on the wood.

2110: Representation states that an allocation of 60 houses would reflect the density advocated in SG Housing 1 and development in the surrounding area. An increased allocation would support the school and other facilities and would meet the shortfall in Schedule 1.

2482: Cromar Community Council welcome the limit of housing in Tarland at around 60

Page 28 houses, but are concerned the EH1 and EH2 allocation will be developed at higher levels, yet M1 would still go ahead at 30 units. They suggest combining site EH2 and M1 for 22 houses.

2482: The employment use from M1 should be relocated elsewhere in the village, but not on the approaches to the village, particularly those to the north and south, which should be protected from development.

Site EH1 Tarland

2110: Support continuation of EH1 but object to number of units. The extant plan used was indicative stating “around 24” houses but this has now been fixed without justification resulting in a low density. The landowner is in the latter stages of perparing a submission of 38-40 dwellings comparing favourably with density proposed in SG 1 Housing and in line with neighbouring development.

2482: Cromar Community Council welcomes the limit of housing in Tarland at around 60 houses but are concerned the EH1 and EH2 allocation will be developed at higher levels.

Site EH2 Tarland (see also under site M1 above)

2110: Support continuation of EH2 but object to numbers applied, previously 5 was indicative and is now fixed without justification resulting in extremely low density. Site should be included within site M1.

2482: Cromar Community Council welcomes the limit of housing in Tarland at around 60 houses but are concerned the EH1 and EH2 allocation will be developed at higher levels.

Site R1 Tarland

1168, 1170: Support allocation of cemetery extension.

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no significant flooding or groundwater concerns for the site.

Tarland Alternative Sites Field between Parkhouse and Melgum Road 6: Representation states the field between Parkhouse and Melgum Road should be allocated for employment instead of M1, as this would have less impact on the village and is closer to the school and playing field.

Site M31, south east Tarland 1168, 1170: Representation states that bid site M31 should be allocated in its entirety as it is accessible, well located in terms of amenities, is bounded by existing development, is not visually prominent, will not have an adverse impact on surroundings, is a logical expansion, is viable, effective and deliverable. See Issues and Actions Volume 7 page 103 Tarland.

Site to north of BUS 2110: Respondent states the employment use from M1 should be relocated to a site to north of BUS, as this is located on the transport network, would minimise conflict with adjacent uses and maximise potential cross-selling of services between adjacent uses.

Other 2102: Object to non-identification of land at Tarland for development in the period to 2017 and 2017 to 2023.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Page 29

2110: Increase allocation on H1 to 35 to 40 houses.

2482: No increase to allocation of H1.

2110: Relocate employment uses from M1 to north of BUS.

2110: Increase size of M1 and re-annotate it as residential development in two phases for 60 dwellings.

2482: Combine M1 and EH2 for 22 houses.

2210: Site EH1 should be identified as “immediate new housing area” for 38 or 40 houses.

1168, 1170: Allocate bid site M31 for residential development in phase 1.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Tarland lies to the north of Aboyne within the rural housing market area and the “local growth and diversification area” identified in the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Tarland Primary School is forecast to be operating at 59% capacity in 2016. Allocations have been made to meet the objectives to meet local housing need, sustain local services and provide opportunity for local employment in the settlement. The size of allocation made reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and Structure Plan.

Site H1 An allocation for ten houses has been made as part of the Alastrean House Continuing Care Community. A higher allocation is not appropriate due to the potential impacts on the setting of Alastrean House and potential impact on the woodland. No business case has been put forward justifying a greater number of units. The ten unit allocation is made within the first phase of the plan and therefore if the initial phases are found to be successful there would be the opportunity to consider further units at the next review of the Local Development Plan. Allocations have been made within Tarland itself to meet local needs.

Site M1 and site EH2 The mixed use site allows for development of live-work units, which would be unlikely to conflict with residential uses. Allocating employment land with residential promotes sustainability by reducing commuting. There is only a relatively small business allocation (1.3 hectares) being carried over from Aberdeenshire Local Plan, and therefore to maintain a sufficient supply of employment land a new allocation has been made which reflects the scale of the new housing allocations made. The requirement for a masterplan and the application of Policy 8, Layout siting and design of new development, should ensure that concern in respect of amenity, privacy, and views can be addressed. The site follows Burnside Road and this reflects the settlement pattern. The site will include provision for affordable housing in line with Policy 6 Affordable housing.

The number of units proposed on site M1 reflects local needs and the scale of the town. The allocation of 30 houses will create a density which is reflective of the character of the settlement, and the size of the site takes into account open space and the requirement for employment land. The levels of development proposed allow integration of the new development and prevent the settlement from being overdeveloped. No higher allocation is appropriate as there are no key infrastructure thresholds that need to be crossed.

Previously under the Aberdeenshire Local Plan there was recognition that there was potential for allocated sites to be developed at a higher number of units than stated in the plan. This has been a concern raised by several communities including Cromar Community Council. To address this issue the Proposed Plan only supports increases in the number of units in exceptional cases, such as where there is an overriding public benefit. However, given the

Page 30 requirement to masterplan sites M1 and EH2 together and the low density on site EH2, it is accepted that it would be appropriate to amalgamate these sites for 35 houses and one hectare of employment land. This has been proposed as a minor modification to the plan.

Site EH1 Previously under the Aberdeenshire Local Plan there was recognition that there was potential for allocated sites to be developed at a higher number of units than stated in the plan. This has been a concern raised by several communities including Cromar Community Council. To address this issue the Proposed Plan only supports increases in the number of units in exceptional cases, such as where there is an overriding public benefit. Increases of that sort should therefore no longer occur.

An allocation of 24 units on site EH1 reflects the density of surrounding development reflects the character of the settlement and takes into account open space requirements.

Site R1 The comments are noted and no response is required.

Alternative Sites As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternatives.

Field between Parkhouse and Melgum Road The site between Parkhouse and Melgum Road and the site to the north of the BUS allocation were not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on their merits. Sufficient provision is made for employment uses on site BUS and M1.

Site M31, south east Tarland Site M31 was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s consideration was to include only the part of the M31 bid required to accommodate 40 units. The western part of M31 was selected, as development could be more successfully accommodated, visual impacts would be more limited and there would be no impacts on historic features.

Site to north of BUS The site was not proposed at any previous stage so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. Allocation of employment land within site M1 allows for live-work units and promotes sustainability by reducing commuting. There is no need to relocate the employment element within site M1. (See also under site M1 and EH2 above).

Other issues Land has been identified on sites EH1, H1, and M1 in both phases of the plan. The allocations made reflect local needs and the scale of the settlement and additional allocations are not required.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Tarland are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: It is suggested that the following change is made:

That sites EH2 and M1 be combined for development of up to 35 houses whilst retaining the mix of uses as currently proposed. This will have consequential changes for the proposals map and Schedule 1.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Page 31

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 32 Issue 154 Settlement - Torphins Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 73 to 75) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

479 John Lucas 547, 548 Ryden LLP on behalf of Alba Homes 1255 Edna Edmond 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 1983 BLUE Planning & Development on behalf of Station Garage 2188 Master Joseph Orren 2191 Mrs Alison Orren 2325, 2749 Torphins Community Council on behalf of Torphins Community Council 2330, 2392 Mr Gordon Pirie 2562 Mr Mark Ogden 2687, 2688 Mr Richard Orren

Provision of the development plan to M1 Allocation for Mixed Uses in Torphins. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site M1 Torphins

2325, 2562, 2749: Representations express concern about lack of clarity and detail alongside a lack of joined up thinking of a vision for Torphins. Concern is raised that the cumulative impacts of planning permissions already granted have not been taken into account. No evidence of housing need has been put forward (2562).

479, 2325, 2330, 2392, 2562, 2687, 2688, 2749: Object on grounds there is insufficient capacity at the primary school and sewage treatment works to support development. They are concerned that a requirement to upgrade the waste water treatment works could drive enlargement of M1 (2687, 2688).

1255: Object on grounds that the land is good agricultural land and is needed for food production and is too close to the cemetery and that new residents would not respect it.

2325, 2687, 2688,2749: These representations consider there is no rationale behind the retail use on the site, given other retail proposals in the pipeline within Torphins. Retail on M1 may put small shops at risk and would conflict with Policy 2 (2687, 2688).

2325, 2749, 2687, 2688: Object to development of M1, as it would be a major loss of visual amenity and would have an adverse impact on character and setting. The proposal conflicts with Policy 12 and 13 (2687, 2688). In addition it would add to problems of increased traffic and insufficient parking provision.

2325, 2749: Part of the site floods. There is no provision of green space, affordable or low cost housing.

2325, 2749, 2562: In addition concerns are raised that no clarity is provided as to how industry will be introduced. Building business units and houses does not guarantee employment (2562).

2325, 2749: Concern raised that no indication is given as to how and when the infrastructure required for the site will be provided.

2687, 2688: Lack of natural boundaries risks creeping expansion.

Page 33

2687, 2688: Representations question the deliverability of the site.

547, 548: M1 should be removed as it had more objection than Annesley Farm during the Main Issues Report consultation.

479: Site is not large enough to accommodate proposed uses and housing numbers should be reduced.

2188, 2191: Object to site M1.

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no significant flooding concerns for the site.

Site BUS

1979: 10% of the site lies within the 1 in 200 year flood risk area. The flood risk should be highlighted and the need for a flood risk assessment.

Site R1 Torphins

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency raises no significant flooding concerns for the site.

Site R2 Torphins

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency objects to the site, as part of the site lies within a medium to high flood risk area and a detailed Flood Risk Assessment may be required to accompany any future development proposals for the site, along with a buffer strip adjacent to the existing water course. In addition, the site may not meet the recommendations in the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s Groundwater Protection Policy for Scotland v3. Further groundwater assessments should be carried out prior to the allocations being adopted in order to establish the degree of constraint.

Alternative Sites Torphins

Site M83 547, 548: Allocate land at Annesley Farm (M83 in Main Issues Report) for up to 50 houses. Indicative masterplan shows flood risk area as public open space and includes cordon sanitaire around the waste water treatment works. There is no impediment to access. The site is well contained, is within walking distance of town centre and employment land, and development would round off the settlement. There is sufficient shortfall within the Rural Housing Market Area to allow allocation of additional sites.

Site BUS/M26 1983: The BUS site should be extended and re-allocated as a mixed use site. This would allow the garage to be retained, provide new business units within walking distance of settlement, and enhance the primary entrance to Torphins. Allocation would comply with Scottish Planning Policy and the Structure Plan, as it promotes sustainable mixed community.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

479: Reduce number of houses on M1.

2188, 2191, 2687, 2688: Delete allocation M1.

1979: Delete site R2 unless the following wording is included in the settlement statement for Torphins “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and adequate buffer strips will be required adjacent to existing watercourses.”

Page 34

1979: Add text supplementary guidance for BUS “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment may be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the existing watercourse.”

547, 548: Allocate land at Annesley Farm (M83 in Main Issues Report) for up to 50 houses.

1983: Allocate mixed use development to south east of Torphins, at and to the south of Station Garage for 39 houses for period 2007-2016 and 1.2 hectares of employment land. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Torphins lies to the north west of Banchory within the rural housing market area and the “local growth and diversification area” identified in the Structure Plan. The spatial strategy in the Local Growth and Diversification Area is to concentrate development on certain settlements, on a scale that will allow the provision of important infrastructure and is appropriate to the size of the settlement. Torphins primary school has a falling roll and is forecast to be at 85% of design capacity in 2016. It is appropriate to allocate land to sustain this important local service. The size of allocation made reflects the scale of the settlement, and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and Structure Plan.

Site M1 Site M1 is close to the village centre and the allocation promotes a more compact settlement form with a mix of uses appropriate to the village centre location. The allocation is for mixed use to include housing, employment and community uses.

Scottish Water have advised that there is currently sufficient capacity at Torphins WWTW (see Proposed Action Programme). The land is grade 3.2 on the Macaulay Institute Land Capability for Agriculture map and would therefore not be considered prime agricultural land for which there is a presumption not to develop within Scottish Planning Policy. All the sites within the Main Issues Report around Torphins would have resulted in the loss of grade 3.2 land. The retail proposal referred to is for a replacement of the existing convenience store on a new site and is a pending planning application APP/2010/2785.

The development of a masterplan will consider issues such as landscape and the historic environment. Whilst the site is designated as an Area of Landscape Significance, this designation covers all the land around Torphins and therefore would be an issue wherever growth was promoted. The compact nature of the site, the surrounding existing development and close proximity to the town centre mean that visual impacts are contained and minimal. The Roads Authority have advised that the site could be serviced from a new access onto the A980, but that footpath extension and improved connectivity for pedestrians and cyclist to sites to the south-east will be required.

Provision for green space will come forward through the masterplan and planning application. The site is small. However, it is intended that the employment element of the allocation will be live-work units and the high density of the site is appropriate for its central location. As site R2 is within the same ownership, this would contribute towards the site’s open space requirements. As the site is mixed use, this will encourage provision of serviced employment land and assist in reducing the need to travel. The masterplan will ensure that any impacts on the cemetery will be mitigated and development overlooking the cemetery would provide extra security against vandalism. The respect new residents will have for the cemetery is not a planning consideration.

The settlement boundary and existing fenceline will ensure that “creeping expansion” will not occur during the life of the plan. The Action Programme details what infrastructure is required for the site and how this is to be provided. Scottish Environment Protection Agency have not raised any significant flooding concerns. The site will require to contribute towards affordable housing in line with Policy 6 Affordable Housing.

Page 35 Whilst more comments were received during the main issues report consultation in respect of site M1 than the site Annelsey Farm the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site at Annesley Farm as it is more appropriate to focus development on site M1 to create a more compact settlement form and avoid piecemeal allocations to the south of the town.

Site BUS This is an existing site carried over from the previous plan. The relatively large size of the site and type of uses proposed should allow mitigation measures to be accommodated. Specific flood risk issues would be considered at the time of a planning application. However, text has been added to the supplementary guidance in respect of the requirement for a flood risk assessment.

Site R1 No issue needs to be addressed.

Site R2 As a reserved site there are at present no specific development proposals and the reservation of the site would not mean a cemetery could not be proposed elsewhere. If a cemetery is pursued, groundwater assessments will be undertaken. If the site proves to be unsuitable, the site protection would be removed at the next local plan review.

Alternative Sites As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site M83 The site at Annesley farm, site M83 in the main issues report, was considered following consideration of representations to the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as it is more appropriate to focus development on site M1 to create a more compact settlement form and avoid piecemeal allocations to the south. See “Issues and Actions” paper Volume 7 page 107 Torphins.

Site BUS/M26 The BUS site, site M26 in the main issues report, was considered following consideration of representations to the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as a supply of employment land requires to be maintained and there are concerns in relation to potential flood risk and proximity to the sewage treatment plant. See “Issues and Actions” paper Volume 7 page 107 Torphins.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Torphins are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

The supplementary guidance has been changed to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site BUS.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 36

Page 37 Issue 155 Settlement - Muir of Fowlis Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 64 and 65) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 31 Mr James Young 47, 201 Mr Paul Jackson 55 Ms Anna Susan Kyle Scott 118 Mr & Mrs J & S Watson 132 Mr Eric Obree 1689 Mr Ian Downie on behalf of Hill of Kier Ltd, Irvine Christie, Blairythan Partnership, Whitecairns Estates Ltd, Mr and Mrs S Ged 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Provision of the development plan to Housing Allocations in Muir of Fowlis - H1. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Muir of Fowlis

31, 47, 55, 118,132, 201: Representations question the sustainability, demand and need for further housing in the area, citing the length of time existing properties have remained unoccupied. Specific objection is raised in respect of impact on wildlife and landscape, impact on privacy, impacts on noise and pollution and road safety, risk of flooding and the impact of development on the character of the area.

31, 47, 55, 118,132, 201: Development in Muir of Fowlis is unsustainable as it has no public transport, and lacks services and amenities. The hamlet is not dependent on growth to sustain business, social or economic growth.

31: Site H1 conflicts with the rural development, natural heritage and landscape policies of the plan.

1689: As the Aberdeenshire Local Plan site in Muir of Fowlis is constrained and there is a shortage of sites in the area, the H1 allocation should be in phase 1. Due to a shortage of effective land in the Rural Housing Market Area, site H1 should be reinstated to the full size of the M96 bid and not restricted to 5 houses.

BUS 1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency object to site BUS as part of the site lies within the 1 in 200 year flood risk area. The flood risk should be highlighted.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

31, 47, 132, 201: Delete site H1 Muir of Fowlis.

1689: Increase size and allocation of H1 to full size of M96 bid within phase 1.

1979: The following wording should be added to the BUS allocation “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment may be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the watercourse.” Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Muir of Fowlis lies to the south of Alford within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. Craigievar Primary School has a falling roll and is forecast to be at 63% capacity by 2016 and as Muir of Fowlis falls within the Craigievar primary school catchment it is appropriate to direct development

Page 38 there. Only one other site within the Craigievar school catchment was considered in the Main Issues Report at Milton of Cushnie. However, this is farther from the school than Muir of Fowlis. The level of development and phasing proposed on site H1 reflects existing planning consents yet to be built out and the size of the existing settlement, and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement in Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). A larger allocation would not be in scale with the settlement, would lead to overdevelopment and alter the character of the settlement. The allocation made is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan.

Issues relating to the general sufficiency and maintenance of the housing land supply are dealt with in Issue 12 Housing land supply. Issues relating to the specific allocation of sites and their effect on the housing land allocations are dealt with in Issue 25 New housing land allocations

Paragraph 94 of Scottish Planning Policy states that development plans should support more opportunities for small scale housing development in rural areas including extensions to existing clusters and groups. Therefore, the allocation of 5 houses at Muir of Fowlis is consistent with Scottish Planning Policy. Whilst the immediate hamlet of Muir of Fowlis is not dependent on growth and lacks services the allocation will benefit the wider rural area.

Paragraph 96 of Scottish Planning Policy states that planning authorities should be realistic about the availability of alternatives to access by car, as not all locations can be served by public transport. The rural location of Muir of Fowlis means public transport options are limited. However, the need to maintain the school roll and sustain other services in the area are over-riding considerations

Site H1 Site H1 is a compact well screened site which is bordered by existing development on two sides. The location of the site means landscape impacts will be minimal. The development will require to comply with other policies in the plan including Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development, which will reduce impacts on privacy and amenity. The Roads Authority have not raised any issues with access, but have indicated extension of footpaths and speed restrictions may be required. The site is not a designated site and at the consultation on the Main Issues Report Scottish Natural Heritage expressed support for the site (see extract from response 1775 by Scottish Natural Heritage to the Main Issues Report.)

BUS This is an existing site and is partially developed. The BUS allocation protects the site for business uses. If any additional development is proposed, this should be informed by a flood risk assessment and appropriate text has been added to the supplementary guidance.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Muir of Fowlis are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended,

The supplementary guidance has been changed to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site BUS.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Page 39 Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 40 Issue 156 Settlement - Kincardine O’Neil Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 48 & 49) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

2059, 2106 Strutt and Parker LLP on behalf of Kincardine Estate. 2288 Mrs Dayle Cammaert 2469, 2471, 2472 Robert and Susan Farquharson 1172, 1173, 1184, 1185 DDP LLP on behalf of Church of Scotland General Treasurer 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Provision of the development plan to M1, E1 Allocations in Kincardine O’ Neil which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

General

2106: Land for period to 2017 and 2017 to 2023 should be allocated in Kincardine O’Neil.

2472: There should be a minimum of 30 houses allocated in Kincardine O’Neil in line with Main Issues Report.

Site M1 Kincardine O’Neil

2059, 2106: Representations support identification of M1 but object to the mix of uses proposed. Allocation should be for 26 houses, business and a respite centre in line with Kincardine O’Neil Design Brief.

2471: Respondent supports M1 as it is within settlement boundaries.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it is unsustainable in terms of access and does not have infrastructure to support business, does not have access to public transport nor provides opportunities to walk.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it does not support high quality tourism, since it erodes amenity.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it does not encourage the reuse of buildings.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as no consideration is given to the landscape, natural and built heritage, historic character and setting of historic assets.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy as, it is in close proximity to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency flood risk areas.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as the land is capable of supporting mixed agriculture.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it will erode wildlife corridors.

2288: Allocation of M1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as the water supply is constrained.

Site E1 Kincardine O’Neil

Page 41 2469: Representation objects to E1 as the site is already used for business, and new building should be avoided, as it would be ribbon development and detrimental to character of the village.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it is unsustainable in terms of access, including public transport and opportunities to walk.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it does not support high quality tourism since it erodes amenity.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it does not encourage the reuse of buildings.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as no consideration is given to the landscape, natural and built heritage, historic character and setting of historic assets.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it is in close proximity to the SEPA flood risk areas.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it will erode wildlife corridors.

2288: Allocation of E1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as the water supply is constrained.

Site EH1 Kincardine O’Neil

2059: Support identification of EH1, but object to density. Allocation proposed equates to 8 dwellings per hectare, which is a waste of Greenfield land and nowhere near overall density of 30 dwelling per hectare anticipated in SG Housing 1. Further housing should be allocated on EH1 in line with the Kincardine O’Neil Design Brief in two phases.

2059: Object to requirement for a masterplan as a Design/Development Brief has already been prepared.

2059: EH1 should include two parcels of “white” land to ensure a comprehensive development.

2469: Site EH1 is detrimental to the balance of the settlement as it represents westward spread of housing along the A93.

2469: The southern part of EH1 is close to the River Dee and would be visible and impact on the protected “valued view” identified in SG Landscape 2.

2469: The shape and extent of EH1 differs from site M108 in the Main Issues Report and therefore it is difficult to determine what the proposal is. The site description states initial development will be to the immediate area to the west of the bowling green and Canmore Place but this area is no longer within EH1.

2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it does not support high quality tourism since it erodes amenity.

2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as no consideration is given to the landscape, natural and built heritage, historic character and setting of historic assets.

2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it is unsustainable in terms of access, including public transport and opportunities to walk.

2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as the land is capable of supporting mixed agriculture.

Page 42 2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it will erode wildlife corridors.

2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as the water supply is constrained.

2288: Allocation of EH1 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy as, it is in close proximity to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency flood risk areas.

2059: Representation states that whilst EH1 lies adjacent to the 1 in 200 year flood risk the site sits significantly above this.

Site EH2 Kincardine O’Neil

2288: Allocation of EH2 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it does not support high quality tourism since it erodes amenity.

2288: Allocation of EH2 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as no consideration is given to the landscape, natural and built heritage, historic character and setting of historic assets.

2288: Allocation of EH2 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as it is unsustainable in terms of access, including public transport and opportunities to walk.

2288: Allocation of EH2 conflicts with Scottish Planning Policy, as the water supply is constrained.

2471: Site EH2 is close to a burn which is subject to flooding.

1979: Scottish Environment Protection Agency state that part of site EH2 lies within the 1 in 200 year flood risk area and the flood risk should be highlighted.

1172, 1173, 1184, 1185: Representations support allocation of EH2 for 8 residential units.

Alternative Sites Kincardine O’Neil

1173, 1184, and 1185: The southern Glebe land (M61 in Main Issues Report) should be allocated for housing, as it is accessible, well located in terms of amenities and settlement boundaries, would not have an adverse impact on surroundings, has naturally defined boundaries, is a logical expansion and is viable, effective and deliverable.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 2059: Amend M1 to reflect phase 1 within Kincardine O’Neil Design Brief, 26 houses, business and respite centre for immediate development.

2472: Only allocate a total of 30 houses in Kincardine O’Neil.

1173, 1184, 1185: Allocate South Glebe (M61) for 10 residential units.

2059: Increase allocation on site EH1 to 41 houses in two phases after 2016.

1979: Insert following text for EH1 " Part of the site lies within SEPA's indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area or is known to flood from other sources. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site."

2059: Acknowledge the contents of the design led Design/Development Brief (in particular the mix of uses) set out for Phase 1 and the areas identified as an immediate

2059: Acknowledge the housing numbers attributed to land west of Canmore Place (41 houses in Phase 2). This land should be brought forward in two phases .

Page 43 2059: Amend the allocation boundaries to reflect those identified on page 27 of the Design/Development Brief to ensure a comprehensive development and to avoid leaving undeveloped “white land” within the settlement”

2106: Identify land in the period to 2017 and in the period to 2017 to 2023.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Kincardine O’Neil lies to the east of Aboyne within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that whilst Kincardine O’Neil Primary School roll is predicted to increase it remains well below capacity and is forecast to be operating at 47% capacity by 2016. It is appropriate to direct development to Kincardine O’Neil to support the school, sustain other services and provide opportunity for local employment. The size of allocation made reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan.

Limited new allocations have been made in Kincardine O’Neil, due to existing allocations yet to be built out, and concern that a higher level of development would impact on the character of the settlement. Whilst site EH1 is carried forward from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan and the allocation has been increased, it is intended that the initial allocation for 20 houses will be developed in the most northerly section of the site with subsequent phases identified in the masterplan to the south. The whole site area has been shown to ensure a masterplan is developed for the entire area despite only the initial phase being allocated in the plan.

Consistency with Scottish Planning Policy The sites allocated in Kincardine O’Neil are consistent with Scottish Planning Policy. The allocations promote development of business and housing in a sustainable location within an existing settlement which is on the Aberdeen to Braemar bus route in line with paragraph 80 of Scottish Planning Policy. The employment allocation on site M1 allows integration between housing and employment land, and the mixed use nature of the site should ensure the type of employment uses are compatible with residential uses, with minimal impacts on amenity in line with paragraph 45 of Scottish Planning Policy. Development on all sites will require to comply with other policies, including Policy 13 Protecting, improving, and conserving the historic environment, and Policy 8 Layout, siting and design; and application of these policies should minimise impacts on amenity and tourism. Concerns regarding preserving the historic character and protecting the conservation area will also be addressed through careful siting and design, which will allow development to successfully integrate with the settlement. The sites allocated have the least visual impact, as the alternatives are on prominent positions on the approach to the village. The sites proposed are agricultural land and support limited wildlife. Development will provide opportunities to enhance and connect any wildlife corridors in line with paragraph 130 of Scottish Planning Policy. The allocation of site M1 for mixed use would not preclude development of that site for high quality tourism uses in line with paragraph 47 of Scottish Planning Policy. The allocations are made on land of grade 3.2 on the Macaulay Institute (Land Capability for Agriculture) map and would therefore not be considered prime agricultural land, for which paragraph 97 of Scottish Planning Policy has a presumption against development. Scottish Water have not advised that the water supply at Kincardine O’Neil is constrained.

Site M1 Part of site M1 was allocated for employment as site EmpB in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan. Increasing the housing allocation on this site to 26 units would leave minimal employment space and would not be consistent with the vision and aims for the plan to grow and diversify the economy and provide employment land in proportion to the scale of housing proposals. The allocation reflects one of the objectives for the settlement to provide opportunity for local employment. The Kincardine O’Neil Design Brief has not been approved by the Council and therefore it can only inform the development plan. The detailed comments about Scottish Planning Policy are dealt with above.

Page 44

Site E1 Allocation of site E1 will help to sustain and support an existing business and allow for its expansion. The existing log cabin business is appropriate for the rural location and supports the aims of the plan to grow and diversify the economy. The site is accessible from the settlement via a footpath adjacent to the football pitch and is also on the bus route. Development will not result in ribbon development as it builds on an existing uses and is separated from the town by a protected area. The detailed comments about Scottish Planning Policy are dealt with above.

Site EH1 Site EH1 is carried forward from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan with an increased allocation and the wording within the supplementary guidance advises that the initial allocation for 20 houses should be developed in the most northerly section of the site with subsequent phases identified in the masterplan to the south. Therefore, although it may initially appear the site has a low density this is not the case. The whole site area has been shown to ensure a masterplan is developed for the entire area despite only the initial phase being allocated in the plan. The boundary of the site reflects the allocation made within the Aberdeenshire Local Plan rather than the M108 bid site. The supplementary guidance states “The initial development phases will be to the west of the bowling green and Canmore Place” rather than “immediately west”. The Kincardine O’Neil Design Brief has not been approved by the Council therefore it can only inform the development plan.

The site reflects the settlement pattern by developing along the A93 and uses existing access tracks/paths and woodlands to form defensible boundaries. The site is close to the River Dee, but Scottish Environment Protection Agency have advised that there is no significant flood risk. Potential impacts on the River Dee SAC have been assessed through a Habitats Regulation assessment. The “valued view” referred to is listed on page 125 of volume 3C Proposed Supplementary Guidance Policies 2010 as “27. To east of Kincardine O’Neil where the road from Torphins joins the Deeside Road.” There will be minimal impacts on the view from development, as site EH1 will be screened by existing development and the backdrop of trees to the west of the site will allow development to be more easily absorbed into the landscape.

The detailed comments about Scottish Planning Policy are dealt with above.

Site EH2 The flood risk is noted. The relatively large size of the site and relatively small allocation should allow mitigation measures to be accommodated. Specific flood risk issues would be considered at the time of a planning application. Text has been inserted into Supplementary Guidance highlighting the flood risk, but this does not require any change to the Local Development Plan itself.

The detailed comments about Scottish Planning Policy are dealt with above.

Alternative Sites As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

The southern glebe land, site M61 in the main issues report, following consultation on the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was not included in the proposed plan due to flood risk and the impact of development on historic assets.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Kincardine O’Neil are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

Page 45 No changes are commended.

The supplementary guidance has been amended to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site EH2.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 46 Issue 157 Settlement - Aboyne Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) reference: Volume 3i Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 1 to 4) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 5, 354 Mr Roy Grant 42, 357 Miss Leona Scott 85, 358 Mr Matthew Leivers-Coletta 158 Sir Theodore Brinckman, Bt 164 Alison Ewan 353 Mrs Kathleen Grant 355 Mr Craig Mennie 356 Mr Alistair Moir 359 Mr Craig Grant 1938, 1939 Ryden LLP (on behalf of) Aboyne Castle Farms 1548 Mr Greig Penny 1549, 2750 Ian MacDonald Architectural Consultants (on behalf of) Mr & Mrs Grant 1856,1857 Ryden LLP (on behalf of) Dinnet Estates and the Marcus Humphrey Educational Trust 1931,1932 Ryden LLP (on behalf of) Cabardunn Development Company and Dunecht Estates 2180 Mrs Katy Leitch Provision of the development plan to M1 Allocations in Aboyne. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site M1 Aboyne

Phasing and density 1938: Respondent states the size of the site requires to be increased to reflect the lower density on neighbouring sites. A higher density would be out of character with the rural location, landscape setting and pattern of development. In addition the requirement for 40% of the site to be open space will result in a density out of character for the area. To maintain current densities and provide 40% open space the site requires to be increased. An indicative masterplan prepared by developer includes playing fields and allotments in addition to amenity areas. Respondent states the site should be allocated in its entirety which would avoid incremental development. Land should be reserved for future (post 2023) housing, commercial and community development to provide confidence to invest in strategic infrastructure.

1939: Respondent considers the phasing of M1 restricts development to artificially inconsistent levels.

Employment land 1938: Representation states the location of EmpB in the extant local plan has access issues and should be relocated so it can be accessed directly from Tarland Road.

1938: The level of employment land should be reviewed as there is disparity between the 1ha allocation in the Proposed Plan and the 5ha in the Supplementary Guidance.

Detailed design issues 158: Concern is expressed in respect of the impact of traffic levels on neighbouring properties.

164: Concern is expressed in respect of flooding and the loss of a further flood water absorption area. The effect of tree felling and house building on ecology is also a concern.

Page 47

Site EH1 Aboyne

2180: Trees should be planted on EH1 rather than development of 130 houses. Insufficient consideration has been given to the adverse impact on European Protected Species, the enhancement of biodiversity and the protection and conservation of trees and woodland.

164: Object to site EH1 on grounds of flooding and loss of a further flood water absorption area. The effect of tree felling and housing building on ecology is also a concern.

Alternative Sites Aboyne

Site west of Aboyne 5, 42, 85, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 1548, 1549, and 2750 Representations wish to see a small site to the west of Aboyne allocated (shown as M54 in Main Issues Report). Support is given to the proposal as it is aimed at first time buyers, will provide employment for local tradesmen, would provide a more natural settlement boundary, it is a gap site between the joiner’s workshop and allocated land, would help retain part time firefighters in area, the site is sympathetic to the character of the village, would keep young people in the area, it is an ideal site on environmental and ecological basis. Aboyne can only grow in a westerly direction due to constraints, the settlement plan in the extant local plan extends further west, and the site has good access.

Site at Golf Road 1856, 1857 Site at Golf Road (to north east of Aboyne) should be allocated as Aboyne has capacity to accommodate an additional 25 houses and would ensure a consistent supply of marketable land. The site is well defined, would have no adverse impact on surroundings, is close to bus routes and the town centre, and a development brief would ensure the Scheduled Ancient Monument is protected.

Site at Birsemore 1931, 1932 : Site at Birsemore (M88 in Main Issues Report) should be allocated as it is organic and incremental infill, would help to meet the shortfall of allocated sites in the Rural Housing Market Area, is in line with Scottish Planning Policy and Planning Advice Notes as there is landscape and service capacity and development will generate infrastructure upgrades and community benefits, the site is within walking and cycling distance of Aboyne, is in an area heavily influenced by existing housing and could absorb the excess in units not allocated by the Marr Area Committee. Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

1938, 1939 Extend site M1 to show the entirety of M85 with a post 2023 phase.

1938, 1939 Enlarge M1 to 18.7ha. Should 40% open space be required, enlarge the site to 19.66ha.

1938, 1939 If site M1 is not to be enlarged relocate M1 to the north of EH1 to allow the 5ha of employment land to be accessed off Tarland Road.

2180: Delete EH1.

5, 42, 85, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 1548, 1549, 2750 Allocate site M54 for housing.

1856 Allocate site at Golf Road for up to 25 houses subject to a development brief.

1931, 1932: Allocate up to 16 houses on M88 Birsemore, Aboyne.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Page 48 Overview Aboyne lies within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. Aboyne is one of the main service centres for the western part of Marr and the key planning objectives for Aboyne are to meet local housing needs, sustain services, provide opportunity for local employment and to protect and enhance the role and attractiveness of the town. An allocation is made on site M1 to meet local housing needs and provide opportunity for local employment. The site is on the edge of Aboyne and builds on recent development to the south and planning consent to the east. The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan. Further information on the sites/policies is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (Volume 7 page 3 Aboyne), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site M1 Phasing and density The phasing and number of units proposed on site M1 reflects local needs and the levels of development yet to be built out. The number of units proposed in the main issues report for Aboyne was reduced from 200 to 150, as the Council took a view which placed greater weight on the need to ensure that Aboyne is not overwhelmed and that recent development has time to bed in. There is no requirement for an allocation post 2023.

The density proposed on the site is approximately 19 houses per hectare when taking into account the requirement for 40% open space and would therefore be considered appropriate for the area. This also reflects the expectation expressed on page 63 “SG Housing1: Housing Land allocations 2007-2016” that residential development should be provided at approximately 30 houses to the hectare. The allocation could be developed for a lower number of units to reflect marketing, site and design needs, if the developer considered this appropriate. Allocating the whole bid site covered by the masterplan would be in excess of local needs and would not reflect the settlement strategy. The Local Development Plan is required to focus on specific proposals for the period up to year 10 from adoption.

Employment land The “Emp B” allocation from the Aberdeenshire Local Plan has been carried over into the M1 allocation to provide flexibility as to its location. Access to site M1 can be taken through the EH1 site or from the access road to the west of site M1. A total of five hectares for employment land is shown within the supplementary guidance, as four hectares are carried over from Aberdeenshire Local Plan. An additional one hectare of employment land has also been allocated to reflect the increase in housing. Schedule 2 of the Proposed Plan only shows new employment land allocations: hence only one hectare is identified in the schedule. The issue of whether Schedule 2 should show previous allocations being brought forward is considered under Issue 26.

Detailed design issues The site requires a masterplan and traffic impact will require to be taken into account. The Roads Authority note that there may be a requirement to upgrade the A93/B9094 junction depending on traffic volumes. Scottish Environment Protection Agency have noted that the site is adjacent to a watercourse and a flood risk assessment may be required. Text has been added to the supplementary guidance in respect of requirement for a flood risk assessment. Drainage of the site will require to be considered as part of the detailed application or through the masterplan. Whilst trees will be removed as a result of developing the site, woodland to the north of the site will be retained. These are all issues that can be resolved at a later stage rather than in the Local Development Plan.

Site EH1 Application APP/2008/3443 for planning permission in principle was granted on 13th October 2010 for 130 houses on site EH1. Therefore, the issues in relation to the site have already been determined and it would be inappropriate to remove the site in light of the planning consent granted.

Alternative sites

Page 49 As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site west of Aboyne The site west of Aboyne , site M54 in the main issues report, was fully debated following consultation on the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement, the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as it extended the westerly thrust of development beyond allocations within Aberdeenshire Local Plan and the settlement boundary.

Site at Golf Road The site at Golf Road came forward during the consultation on the main issues report. However, it was not included within the plan due to the lack of public consultation on the site. The M1 site was considered more appropriate to meet local needs. Development of the site at Golf Road would impact on the scheduled ancient monument within the site.

Site at Birsemore The site at Birsemore, site M88 in the main issues report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as development would significantly detract from the rural character and amenity of the area.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Aboyne are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

The supplementary guidance has been changed to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site M1.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 50 Issue 158 Settlement - Lumphanan Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statements, (p 56 and 57) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

7 Mrs Philippa Davie 1981 BLUE Planning & Development on behalf of Matthew Merchant

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations at Lumphanan. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

R1 Lumphanan

7 : Support site R1 and highlight that school is already overcrowded with a rising roll and needs extra accommodation as soon as possible.

Alternative site

1981: Kirk View, Lumphanan This site is within walking distance of the village centre; development would run off the settlement boundary and is compatible with Scottish Planning Policy and the Structure Plan, as it promotes sustainable development.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

1981: Allocate site at Kirk View, Lumphanan for 8 houses in phase 1 of the plan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Lumphanan lies to the north west of Torphins within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. The primary school at Lumphanan is currently at capacity and is forecast to be operating at 129% capacity in 2016. There are existing planning consents yet to be built out (approximately 26 units). Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 77 of Scottish Planning Policy, as it would not lead to efficient use of infrastructure, allocations for new housing have not been made in Lumphanan.

Site R1

The representation is in support of the plan, and does not require a response.

Alternative Site The site at Kirk View was considered in the main issues report as site M27, following consultation on the Main Issues Report and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site due to the reasons outlined above, the topography of the site and the visual impacts on character and landscape. See Issues and Actions paper (Volume 7, page 83 Lumphanan.)

Conclusion The modification sought should not be made, as there is insufficient capacity at Lumphanan primary school and due to the number of units with planning consents yet to be built out.

Page 51 Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 52 Issue 159 Settlement - Finzean Section 6, Proposals Map, (p 24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 29) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p 27 to 29) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

480 Trevor Harrison 518, 519 Finzean Estate Partnership 854, 855 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Mr M Horsfall 2298, 2714 Finzean Community Council

Provision of the development plan to H1 Housing Allocation. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1 Finzean

518, 519, 2298, 2714 Respondents state the H1 allocation should be reduced to 8 units, as 10 units is excessive in relation to previous development and not comparable to historic growth rates. Previous sites have been sold to local people allowing them to integrate more easily into the community.

2298, 2714, 854, 855: Respondents state that the strong community is in part attributable to restrained growth; a higher growth rate is not required to maintain the school roll; and the number of units proposed would overwhelm the settlement.

854, 855: H1 is unsuitable for 10 houses as this would have an adverse impact on the woodland and woodland character of Finzean.

854, 855: Respondents object on the grounds that the site is not in keeping with the linear settlement form and would exacerbate problems with pollution from septic tanks.

Site EH1 Finzean

480: Object to EH1 on grounds of loss of privacy and increased level of noise, traffic and light levels. There are only 10 houses in the area at present so increase of 5 would have large impact. Development of this size should be in established villages.

Alternative Sites Finzean

854, 855: Allocation of site at Feughside would be in line with Scottish Planning Policy and the Structure Plan as it provides an opportunity for small-scale housing in a rural area whilst respecting and protecting the natural and cultural heritage. Development would provide two affordable units in a pressurised area and help maintain local services. The site has no accessing and servicing issues.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

518, 519, 2298, 2714 Reduce number of units on H1 to eight.

854, 855 Remove site H1 or reduce number of units to five and allocate land at Feughside for up to five houses.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Page 53 Overview Finzean lies to the south west of Banchory within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Finzean Primary School has a low roll and is forecast to be operating at 65% capacity in 2016. It is appropriate to direct development to Finzean to support the school and other local facilities. The scale of development proposed reflects local needs and the size of the settlement, and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan.

Site H1 Scale of development The allocation proposed is for “up to” ten houses and therefore any proposal for a lower number of units would be supported. The ten units are also split equally between the two phases of the plan and therefore the five houses proposed between 2007 and 2016 is an appropriate level of growth for the size of the settlement. Development of site H1 for ten houses would equate to a growth rate of approximately 10% over the plan period.

Woodland Character and Settlement Form Development of site H1 is to have specific regard to the woodland character of Finzean, as stated within the Proposed Supplementary Guidance Settlement Statements Marr (page 27). In addition an area of woodland to the east of the site is protected to retain the woodland character on the approach to Finzean. Less than 50% of the existing woodland is allocated for development and the size of the site, 1.7 ha, allows for retention of woodland. The site has frontage onto the main road which maintains the linear form. However, objections have been received to the supplementary guidance stating the site should be set back from the road to maintain woodland character and reduce visual impacts. Aberdeenshire Council will take a view on this when considering the supplementary guidance. It is not necessary to consider this level of detail within the Local Development Plan itself.

Waste Water Treatment Scottish Environment Protection Agency have not raised objection to the allocation and any waste water treatment will require to meet current standards at the time of development.

Site EH1 Application APP/2009/2182 for planning permission in principle was granted on 3rd December 2010 for 5 houses on site EH1. Therefore, the issues in relation to the site have already been determined and it would be inappropriate to remove the site in light of the planning consent granted.

Alternative site Finzean As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

The site proposed at Feughside was not proposed at any previous stages and no opportunity for public debate or assessment of its appropriateness. It is more appropriate to direct development to site H1 and the established settlement of Finzean. Growth is proposed on nearby site EH1 and a further allocation in this rural location would lead to overdevelopment.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Finzean are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

Page 54 No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 55 Issue 160 Settlement - Strachan Section 6, Proposals Map, (p24) Reporter: Development plan Schedule 1, Table 7, (p29) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements, (p68 & 69) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

717 Castleglen Land Search Ltd 2443 Feughdee West Community Council

Provision of the development plan to H1 Housing Allocations in Strachan. which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1 Strachan

2443: Representation states development of the site should be delayed until the low-cost housing on an adjacent site is agreed.

717: Supports allocation and confirms the deliverability of the site.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

2443: Delay development of site H1.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview Strachan lies to the south of Banchory within the Rural Housing Market Area and in the “local growth and diversification area” identified within the Structure Plan. School roll forecasts show that Strachan Primary School has a falling roll and is forecast to be operating at 40% capacity at 2016. It is appropriate to direct development to Strachan to support the school, village hall and church. The size of allocation made reflects local needs and the scale of the settlement, and ensures that sufficient land is provided to meet the housing land requirement Figure 8 of the Structure Plan (page 17). The allocations made are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Local Development Plan and the Structure Plan.

Site H1 The comments regarding low-cost housing are unrelated to development of site H1, and it is unreasonable to delay development of site H1 as a result. Site H1 is a new allocation and will require to make a separate contribution towards affordable housing in line with Policy 6 Affordable Housing.

Conclusion The modification sought is not supported. The development strategy and land allocated in Strachan is appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority:

Page 56 No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 57 Issue 161 Other Sites in Marr Rural Housing Market (RHMA) Section 6, Proposals Map, Marr, (p 24) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 7, (p 29) Schedule 2, Table 7, (p 33) Development plan Schedule 3, Table 2 & Table 3 (p 36 - 41) reference: Volume 3i, Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Marr

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

344 Mr Alex Scott 468 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of Ian Mathers 1904, 1905 Ryden LLP on behalf of Carbardunn Development Company and Dunecht Estates 1933, 1934 Ryden LLP on behalf of The Dickinson Trust Ltd, Trustee for the Dunnottar Trust and Dunecht Estates 2753 Archial on behalf of A&W Duncan

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in other settlements within which the issue relates: the Marr Rural Housing Market Area.

Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Shortfall in allocations

1904,1905, 1933, 1934: Reservation of 25% of the Structure Plan housing allocations to the Local Growth and Diversification Areas in the Rural Housing Market Area under Policy 5 is flawed, and sites within rural service centres and hamlets should be allocated to accommodate this shortfall ( see issue 12 Housing land supply and issue 25 New housing land allocations). This will allow growth to be strategically planned alongside infrastructure.

Alternative sites

Oldyleiper 1904, 1905: Allocations should be made on site M91 at Oldyleiper as it is infill development and the topography, tree belts, pattern of surrounding development and the landscape have capacity to accommodate this. Benefits such as a reduction in speed limit, provision of a bus lay-by and footpath, could accrue.

Campfield of Torphins 1933, 1934: Similarly site M89 at Campfield of Torphins should be allocated as it is modest infill with landscape and service capacity. Development would generate increased developer contributions, and community benefits, would sustain services and relieve pressure on larger settlements. The site is within walking distance of Torphins.

Milton of Cushnie 468: Allocation for residential use would be in line with Scottish Planning Policy and Planning Advice Note 72, would not obtrude on the landscape, would help integrate groups of houses, and would bring economic and social benefits by supporting existing services.

Silver Ladies Caravan Park 2753: Land to North of Silver Ladies Caravan Park near Strachan: The respondent proposes tourism uses by extending the existing caravan site, which corresponds with Policy 1 and will stimulate economic development in a rural area, while it is a well screened site with existing access and infrastructure.

344: Support for the non-allocation of sites in Bridge of Alford. Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Page 58 . 1904, 1905: Allocate site M91 Oldyleiper of up to 16 houses.

1933, 1934: Allocate site M89 Campfield of Torphins for 6 houses.

468: Allocate land at Milton of Cushnie for 3 houses over 5 years.

2753: Allocate employment land on site immediately north of Silver Ladies Caravan Park near Strachan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview All these sites are within the Rural Housing Market Area and fall within the “local growth and diversification area.” The strategy within this area is for growth in communities to meet local needs. Allocations are made where there is a specific need identified, including providing opportunities to increase numbers going to primary schools where the roll is dropping.

Shortfall in allocations Issues relating to the general sufficiency and maintenance of housing land supply are dealt with in Issue 12 Housing land supply and issues relating to the specific allocation of sites and their effect on the housing land allocations are dealt with in Issue 25 New housing land allocations. The Rural Development policy will meet the shortfall in the RHMA and additional numbers do not require to be found.

Alternative Sites The allocations made within the Aberdeen Housing Market Area are appropriate and sufficient and there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Oldyleiper The site at Oldyleiper, site M91 in the main issues report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as there are no service or facilities which would suggest it should be treated as a settlement, and the site was in excess of what would be considered infill. See Issues and Actions paper Volume 7, page 92, Oldyleiper.

Campfield of Torphins The site at Campfield of Torphins , site M89 in the main issues report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as there were no features that would justify allocation and development was proposed in nearby Torphins. See Issues and Actions paper Volume 7 page 39, Campfield of Torphins.

Milton of Cushnie The site at Milton of Cushnie, site M124 in the main issues report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as there were no facilities or features to justify allocation. See Issues and Actions paper Volume 7 page 86, Milton of Cushnie.

Silver Ladies Caravan Park The site north of Silver Ladies Caravan park was considered following the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site, as it was outwith Banchory and the tourism development proposal could be pursued through other policies. An allocation is not required as development could be pursued through Policy 1 and 3. See Issues and Actions paper, Volume 7, page 12, Banchory.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in the Rural Housing Market Area are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

Page 59 Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 60