LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION – SOUTH OF DRUMLITHIE TO STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA

Issue 46 Spatial Strategy – South of Drumlithie to Laurencekirk Strategic Growth Area Section 4, The Spatial Strategy (p6 & 7) Reporter: Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p23) Development plan Schedule 1, Table 6 (p28) reference: Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32) Schedule 3, Table 2 (p35 - 41) Schedule 4, (p43) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

1416, 1417, 1419 Bancon Developments 1613 Archial Planning on behalf of Mr and Mrs MacKenzie 1685, 1693 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Scotia Homes Limited 1689 Mr Ian Downie 1773, 1777 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Scotia Homes Ltd

Provision of the development plan to Distribution of development between which the issue relates: settlements in the Drumlithie to Laurencekirk Strategic Growth Area.

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

Support for the Strategy Respondents 1416, 1417, 1419, 1685, 1693 support the proposed strategy which focuses the majority of growth in Laurencekirk. 1416, 1417, 1419 further comment that it is a logical approach utilising excellent rail and road linkages and benefiting the existing community through the delivery of a new secondary school. 1685, 1693 suggest that this is the only viable option.

Deliverability of the Strategy 1685, 1693, 1773, 1777: The allocation of all developments in this Strategic Growth Area to one site in the settlement is an unsound strategy. This approach could risk delivery and rate of development could impact adversely on the delivery of effective sites and fail to provide sufficient choice and options.

1613 and 1689 express concern that the strategy concentrates the housing allocations in this Strategic Growth Area to Laurencekirk and does therefore not provide a range of sites. 1613 suggests that this approach could impact on the delivery of housing land in the short term as there are not other alternatives if issues arise.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

1613: Decrease the M1 housing allocation in Laurencekirk and transfer to .

1689: Main Issues Report bid sites K50, K51 and K93 should also be allocated for the first plan period.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview The proposed strategy is entirely consistent with the housing and business land locations identified in the Structure Plan (Paragraph 3.9 p10, Figure 3 p14, Schedule 1 p27) and with paragraph 71 of Scottish Planning Policy, which advises that early consideration of the scale and location of the housing land requirement in development plans well ahead of land being required for development should assist in aligning the investment decisions of developers, infrastructure providers and others. Key to decisions regarding the distribution of development in this area have been the role of Laurencekirk as a local service centre with a focus for both education, provided by a proposed new replacement academy, and transportation, provided by the re-opened railway station. The spatial strategy for the South of

Page 1 Drumlithie to Laurencekirk Strategic Growth Area is an appropriate response to the structure plan strategy for the area.

Support for the Strategy The support for the approach adopted is welcomed.

Deliverability of the Strategy Land allocations have been considered for other small villages in the strategic growth area, but the opportunity for this is very limited. Only Fordoun is an appropriate location for allocations to meet the strategic needs of the region (as oppose to local needs). Allocation in this village requires to be limited in scale to preserve its character (it is currently a community of 130 households) and to avoid breaching the capacity of the existing primary school (Redmyre, which has capacity for only 4 pupils in 2016 in the absence of any new allocations).

Within the area only one substantial site has been identified in order to provide sufficient certainty for infrastructure investment. Allocation of numerous sites would not achieve the critical mass of development that both justifies and can afford the significant infrastructure that is required. A range of sites has been provided across the whole of the rural housing market area; and in the Mearns area substantial alternative development opportunities are provided in settlements where there is a need for local growth and diversification, as well as within countryside sites under the policies to facilitate development in the countryside.

Conclusion This is an appropriate strategy that will provide sufficient land to meet the aspirations of the structure plan.

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 2 Issue 47 Settlement - Fordoun Section 6, The Proposals Map (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Development plan Document 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement reference: Statements (p14 & 15)

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

181, 183, 2252, 2653 Ryden LLP on behalf of Alexander Adamson Ltd 1559, 1562, 1567 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Pension Fund (SAP) 1613 Archial Planning on behalf of Mr and Mrs MacKenzie

Provision of the development plan to Housing Land Allocations in Fordoun at H1 & which the issue relates: General Comments. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

General Comments 181, 183, 1559, 1562, 1567, 2252, 2653: Development is required in Fordoun to support the primary school.

Site H1 181, 183, 2252, 2653: Although H1 is supported, it is requested that the initial Main Issues Report bid site K117 is allocated in full for 51 houses. The precedent has been set for development along the Burn of Leppie, by development east of the railway, and the burn forms a natural and defined boundary. The northern section (H1) is surrounded by development on three sides and can be considered infill development as part of the proposed extension to the settlement boundary. Therefore development should be focused towards sites around existing settlements and K117 provides an ideal opportunity to promote growth. Development will support local services including Laurencekirk Rail Station. K117 has a small section along the south at risk of flooding, but this is not a constraint to development.

1559, 1562, 1567: H1 will increase the east/west imbalance and will result in more children using the underpass. The site may not offer the best long term solution, as it is adjacent to the railway, there is potential flood risk to the west, and it is unclear how a second point of access could be achieved.

Alternative Sites Site K81 (Redmyre) 181, 183, 2252, 2653: Site K81 as identified in the Main Issues Report is located outwith the settlement boundary, on the opposite side of the railway from the built up area. The site would set a precedent for development east of the railway. K81 also has potential flooding issues.

1559, 1562, 1567: The site at Redmyre identified as K81 in the Main Issues Report should be allocated for a mixed use development of 40 units (in addition to H1). Allocating an additional 40 units in Fordoun would allow infrastructure contributions to be shared between developments. The site has no constraints and would need minimum upgrading work, it would make land available for the primary school and provide a park. The pipeline is not an absolute constraint to development and the site has been reduced to take the pipeline into account. Development of K81 would improve connectivity between existing housing and the primary school, and would bring the primary school back into the village. A mixed use development in K81 will provide employment land in Fordoun which will help to meet the structure plan requirement for 60 hectares of employment land to be made available in a range of places.

Site K54 1613: Site to the north of H1 should be allocated (site K54 as identified in the Main Issues Report). Scottish Planning Policy requires a range of sites to be provided, and so site M1 at

Page 3 Laurencekirk should be reduced and some of the allocation transferred to this site. The site has no infrastructure constraints, and enjoys a range of transport options, services and facilities. The primary school has capacity for 22 pupils. There is a pipeline corridor within the site which would restrict the scale of development, but there is scope for 40 houses on the site.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 181, 183, 2252, 2653: Support the allocation at H1 but request the larger site be included for a mixed development including 51 houses.

181, 183, 2252, 2653: Site K81 should not be favoured for development.

1559, 1562, 1567: Site K117 (H1) may not offer the best area for future expansion.

1559, 1562, 1567: The site at Redmyre (K81) should be included in the plan for the development of 40 houses, with 25 houses in phase 1 and 15 houses in phase 2.

1613: Site K54 should be allocated for housing development.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Fordoun is located within the South of Drumlithie to Laurencekirk strategic growth area. Fordoun has a primary school, a village hall, a public house and employment uses within the settlement. The primary school is located to the east of the A90 and is connected to the settlement via a pedestrian underpass. The school is currently operating at 74% capacity, but is forecast to rise to 94% by 2016.

The majority of the allocation within this corridor is allocated to Laurencekirk, where there are significant infrastructure issues to overcome (see Issue 46 ‘Spatial Strategy South of Drumlithie to Laurencekirk’).

The allocation made in Fordoun is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the site is contained in the paper apart ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 59), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

General Comment Significant development could not be accommodated by the primary school as it is operating relatively close to capacity. The primary school does not have capacity for growth in excess of the allocated 15 houses.

Site H1 There is not the capacity within the primary school for the scale of additional development proposed on site H1. The housing requirement for this strategic growth area has been met: allocation M1 in Laurencekirk is both appropriate and sufficient to meet this requirement (see issue 48). Therefore, there is no need to allocate additional housing on this site. The site is not currently within the settlement boundary, it only has development on two sides, and it would not be permitted as infill development. Land adjacent to the Burn of Leppie is at flood risk. The boundary in line with existing development is defensible. Regarding access, the developer has advised that a second point of access can be considered, and that the Roads Authority have confirmed Redhall Avenue can be extended to serve the site. The railway can be accommodated for by the design of the site, and landscaping can be used to ensure there is no adverse impact on the development.

Fordoun settlement is located to the west of the A90, and it is acknowledged that there is a group of 6 houses to the east of the bypass, but these are not within the settlement boundary. Site H1 site has pedestrian access to the school. Therefore, an allocation to west of the A90

Page 4 is appropriate and does not exacerbate the east/west split.

Alternative Sites As the allocation discussed above, and the other allocations within the strategic growth area are appropriate and sufficient, there is no requirement to consider alternative sites.

Site K81 (Redmyre) The site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. Allocating site H1 results in consolidation of the settlement. There is no significant infrastructure identified in Fordoun, and therefore no need for an additional 40 houses to contribute to infrastructure provision. Development to the east of the A90 would result in the creation of a new, distinct, neighbourhood. Fordoun is one of the few small settlements to have employment land, and no further need for employment land has been identified. The employment requirement in the strategic growth area has been met and no additional employment land is required. Any small scale employment uses can come forward through the rural development policy.

Site K54 The site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. Site K54 was identified as constrained in the Main Issues Report due to a pipeline consultation corridor within the site. Adopting the precautionary principle, and to avoid costly realignment, where there are alternatives, pipeline corridors have been treated as absolute constraints. Although there may be scope for 40 houses on the site, there remains no need to allocate further housing in the settlement.

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

Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: There are no changes commended to the Plan.

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 5 Issue 48 Settlement - Laurencekirk Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p23) Reporter: Schedule 1, Table 6, (p28) Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32 - 33) Development plan Schedule 3, Table 2, (p35 - 40) reference: Volume 3H Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements (p22-26)

Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 156, 157 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Mt Mitchell 176 Angus Council 277 Ryden LLP on behalf of Pallet Logistics Ltd 287, 288, 1214, 1216 Ryden LLP on behalf of Bruce Developments 978 Mearns Community Council 1057, 2134 Savills on behalf of Investment Company Ltd 1247, 2141 Scottish Government 1419 Bancon Developments 1559, 1562, 1567 Halliday Fraser Munro on behalf of Pension Fund (SAP) 1613 Archial Planning on behalf of Mr and Mrs MacKenzie 1647, 1650 Ryden LLP on behalf of Kirkwood Homes Ltd 1654 Archial Planning on behalf of Carnegie Base Services 1685, 1693, 1773, 1777 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Scotia Homes Limited 1689 Mr Ian Downie 2235 Mearns Academy

Provision of the development plan to Land Allocations in and around Laurencekirk which the issue relates: – M1.

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

Site M1 General Comments 1559, 1562, 1567: A portion of the Laurencekirk housing allocation should be shared with Fordoun.

1613: Suggest that 25 units should be reallocated from this site to Fordoun.

1647, 1650: Support allocation M1 to accommodate 885 houses. The site is more than capable of accommodating the significant mixed use development. The site is directly accessible from the A90, is adjacent to a number of key amenities including Mearns Academy and the rail station. The site has no constraints to development.

1685, 1693, 1773, 1777: Object to the allocation of all of the significant new development proposed at M1. Allocating all development to the north of the settlement will create an unbalanced settlement, will not provide flexibility and choice, and will reduce development in the settlement. The period for houses to be delivered should be extended.

Employment Land 156, 157, 277, 1559, 1562, 1567: The scale of employment land proposed in M1 is excessive and may not be delivered in full. The structure plan requires business land to be provided in a range of locations and has a target to 'make sure there is at least 60 hectares of land available to businesses at all times in a range of places within the SGA'. Part of the employment allocation should be redistributed to Fordoun.

1647: Object to the scale of the employment land proposed in M1: the requirement is excessive. There is an established supply of 8.4 hectares in the extant local plan. Take up over the last 10 year period has been 0.08 hectares per annum. Assuming this take up, the 11 hectares would take in excess of 130 years to build out. Comparisons with similar sites

Page 6 would indicate that 5 - 10 hectares is sufficient to serve 1000 houses.

Transportation 176, 978: Request consideration is given to the upgrade of the road junctions onto the A90 on the grounds of road safety.

978: To facilitate the development of site M1, a section of distributor road is required to the west of Laurencekirk in order to relieve traffic in the High Street and Blackiemuir Avenue.

1247, 2141: Site M1 should not proceed without the Council bringing forward a strategy of junction improvements including grade separation of the A90 trunk road junctions to the north and south of the town.

1647: The southern A90 junction already requires upgrade on road safety grounds. Impact on the southern junction from development on M1 is limited and therefore this development should not require contribution towards it.

1685, 1693, 1773, 1777: M1 fails to address the need for a major upgrade to the south A90 junction.

1419: Site M1 is a logical development proposal utilising excellent rail and road linkages, and benefiting the existing community though the delivery of a new school.

Deliverability 1559, 1562, 1567: Such a substantial allocation in Laurencekirk as at M1 may have impacts on its deliverability as there are onerous developer contributions.

1654: The respondent questions the deliverability of the allocation, transportation infrastructure will require to be provided.

1693, 1773: Delivery of one site risks the delivery of any houses at all by only one unforeseen circumstance, and the rate of development on one site will adversely impact on the delivery of effective sites.

Site R1 978, 2235: Site R1 is appropriate.

2235: Request a review of site R1 to ensure the capacity is appropriate. The proposed capacity of 650 pupils is not sufficient for all the housing proposed and it should be confirmed that the site can accommodate a school of larger capacity (850 pupils). Also, it should be confirmed that site R1 can accommodate expected community facilities.

2235: The plan does not indicate what is planned for the existing Academy site.

1647, 1650: Object to the protection of a site for the Academy. Land for a replacement secondary school can be provided through the expansion of M1. A site should not be identified prior to a masterplan, as it prejudices a masterplan layout and inter-relationship of the uses that will emerge from the masterplan. This approach is contrary to Policy 8. Also, Aberdeenshire Council have yet to finalise their favoured location for a school.

Alternative Sites Site K106 287, 288, 1214, 1216: Object to the failure to identify land at K106 for a residential development of 60 units. The Laurencekirk Capacity Study states that the site 'is bound on three sides by the settlement boundary and would make a valuable contribution to the settlement in terms of its location'. The site forms a logical area for expansion of Laurencekirk, it is considered to be infill development. The site would not cause significant visual impact but would complement allocations to the north, would ensure a range of dwellings are provided and can be delivered in phase 1. Site K106 is within approximately

Page 7 500metres of the centre of Laurencekirk, it is 200m from a bus stop and 400m from the rail station.

Site K93 1057, 2134: Site K93 forms a natural extension to the existing site EH1. The site is an effective development site and is technically possible for development. The site should be allocated for a mixed use development

Land to the south of Laurencekirk 1685, 1773, 1777: Part of K50 is allocated in the current local plan as employment land. It is not good planning to include a site in a Local Plan (which is only 4 years old), allow the developer to incur considerable cost in looking to bring forward the site in an appropriate and integrated way and to then delete the allocation. Development led planning is meant to provide a sound solid base for landowners and developers to make informed investment decisions. It is wholly inappropriate to delete part of K50 from the Proposed Plan.

1685, 1777: Request sites K50, K51 and K93 are allocated for a mixed use development. Development on site K50, to the south of Laurencekirk, would provide a positive opportunity to assemble the land required for the grade separated junction. The land required for the junction is able to be procured by Scotia, and Scotia would make land available and recognise developer contributions would go towards the cost of the grade separated junction. A Traffic Assessment carried out for a planning application on site K50 shows that development would not have an adverse impact on the A90 junction. Development on site K50, K51 and K93 would provide a gateway entrance to the south of Laurencekirk and would make Denlethen Woods more accessible to the expanded community of Laurencekirk. Site K50, K51 and K93 would provide an integrated and appropriate expansion of Laurencekirk, the site would be sustainable and in terms of land assembly and developer contributions would bring forward a grade separated junction to the south of the A90.

1689: Sites K50, K51 and K93 should be allocated in addition to M1 to ensure that the plan conforms with the Structure Plan. Sites K50, K51 and K93 are technically deliverable and are closer to the existing centre of the settlement.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Site M1 156, 157, 277: The scale of employment land in M1 is excessive and should be reduced.

1647: Suggest in M1 that 7.5 hectares of employment land are allocated, with strategic reserve of 15 hectares.

1647, 1650: The employment land should be reduced to 7.5 hectares, with a further 7.5 hectares strategic reserve.

1559, 1562, 1567: Reduce the number of houses on site M1.

1613: Reduce the allocation in M1 by 25 houses.

176, 978: Request consideration is given to the upgrade of the A90 road junctions.

978: A distributor Road is required to serve M1.

1685, 1773, 1777: Object to the large allocation at M1. The period for which the allocation should be developed should be extended.

Site R1 2235: Request conformation that site R1 can accommodate a school of appropriate capacity along with community facilities.

1647, 1650: Site R1 should be deleted and incorporated into the wider M1 site with the Academy’s location to be identified in the masterplanning process.

Page 8

Alternative Sites 287, 288, 1214, 1216: Site K106 should be allocated as H1 for the development of 60 houses.

1057, 2134: Site K93 should be allocated for a mixed used development.

1685, 1689, 1777: Site K50, K50 and K93 should be allocated for a mixed use development.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Overview Laurencekirk is located within the South of Drumlithie to Laurencekirk strategic growth area. The planning objectives for the settlement are to meet demand for new housing in the strategic growth area, sustain existing services, provide opportunity for employment and in the long term, relieve town centre congestion through provision of a distributor road. Laurencekirk is the main service centre in the Mearns. Laurencekirk town centre suffers from traffic congestion, and heavy goods vehicles use the roads through the town. The Academy is currently operating over capacity, and is in the capital plan for replacement. A new primary school will be required to serve the proposed development.

There are substantial infrastructure improvements required in Laurencekirk for any significant development to occur at all, including a distributor road involving a new link over the railway, upgrade of A90 junctions, contribution to a replacement Academy, and water infrastructure. Further information about the strategy within this strategic growth area can be found in issue 46.

The allocation made in Laurencekirk is appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Further information on the site is contained in the paper apart ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 81) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Site M1 General Comments Support for the site is noted. Development is sited to the north of the settlement to capitalise on the location adjacent to the railway station and the Academy. In order to overcome infrastructure requirements, a critical mass of development is required. Development to the north will not unbalance the settlement, though it is likely to result in the village ‘centre’ gravitating northwards. There is a choice of sites available within the settlement and there are two existing ‘EH’ sites. It has been demonstrated that site M1 is deliverable, but there is an opportunity to review the plan in 5 years if the site is not being developed at a suitable rate.

The scale of growth directed to Laurencekirk is appropriate and necessary for the scale of infrastructure required (see issue 46). In any case there is no capacity in Fordoun Primary School for a further 25 houses (see issue 47).

Employment Land The level of employment land required within the corridor from to Laurencekirk is 105 hectares. This has been distributed between the four strategic growth areas within the Huntly to Laurencekirk corridor, and reflects the level of housing growth promoted in each corridor (see schedule 2 and issue 26).

The employment allocations within each strategic growth area reflect the level of housing proposed in each settlement. Fordoun has a development of 15 houses proposed and so there is very little need for large scale employment land in that settlement. Laurencekirk is the main service centre, the main public transport hub and has the largest population base for the workforce: it is therefore more desirable and more sustainable to locate employment land in Laurencekirk that at Fordoun.

Page 9 There is not an effective employment land supply in Laurencekirk. Site EmpB as allocated in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan is constrained and it is proposed that this site be removed. There is very limited serviced employment land available within the settlement, the Employment Land Audit highlights that only 0.5 hectares of land are immediately available (see Employment Land Audit 2010 page 34). The scale of development being promoted in Laurencekirk is likely to result in a greater uptake of employment land in the settlement and allows cross-subsidisation of servicing costs. The plan will be reviewed in 5 years and if the take up of employment land is very low, reallocation could be considered. It is important to provide the opportunity for employment land as a part of a mixed use sustainable development.

Transportation Site M1 utilises rail links, and meets paragraph 176 of Scottish Planning Policy as it ‘promotes growth where it will make best use of current rail services’.

Consideration of junction improvements at Laurencekirk is ongoing and it is recognised that at least one grade separation will be provided by the development of site M1. Transport has completed a transport appraisal of development options at Laurencekirk (March 2010), which suggests that the development will require to provide junction upgrades to both the north and the south A90 junctions.

There is a road safety issue at the southern A90 junction, which has been an ongoing problem for a number of years. It is recognised that a grade separated junction is required to the south of the settlement to overcome this. However, site M1 cannot be expected to resolve an existing transport problem. Circular 1/2010 (paragraph 19) states that planning agreements should not be used to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision. In any case, the land values in Laurencekirk are not sufficient to afford both trunk road improvements, and may make development in Laurencekirk undeliverable. This would in turn lead to the reconsideration of the Government approved planning strategy for the whole of the south Mearns, and would result in a failure to make best use of multi-million pound investments by the Scottish Government in the rail station, and the proposed replacement of Mearns Academy.

As the road is a trunk road and consequently under the direct control of Transport Scotland, it is inappropriate for Aberdeenshire Council to “bring forward a strategy for junction improvements”. Upgrading of trunk roads in response to demands is a matter for the Scottish Government, and in this it should have regard to paragraph 19 of Circular 1/2010 as noted above.

It is suggested by one respondent that allocation of site M1 fails to recognise the need to upgrade the southern junction. It is further contended that development should be directed to the most appropriate location, and not simply allocated to the south in order to facilitate junction improvements. In any case, development to the north takes strain away from the southern junction and would likely provide a material improvement to road safety at this point.

A distributor road will be required to serve site M1. Development of site M1 will not facilitate the distributor road around the west of the settlement, but will provide the first section between the A90 and Fordoun Road.

Deliverability Laurencekirk requires substantial infrastructure provision for development to occur. Upfront funding of infrastructure by Aberdeenshire Council is being evaluated to assist development in Laurencekirk. The deliverability issues highlighted remain the same for any site within the settlement. Allocating one large site provides the advantage of critical mass. The alternative of developing a number of smaller sites has the disadvantage in that multiple developers and landowners would need to reach agreement on contributions towards the relevant infrastructure. In terms of choice, the site is large enough to provide a choice of locations for prospective buyers.

Site R1

Page 10 Comments in support of R1 are noted. Site R1 is large enough to accommodate a school with a capacity for 840 pupils. Discussions within the Education Authority are ongoing as to whether a 740 or 840 capacity school is actually required. Site R1 has now been recommended as the preferred site for the Academy by the Area Committee. The site is being partially funded by the Scottish Futures Trust, and in order to gain funding, timescales have to be met which include work being started by June 2012. Therefore it is not possible for the Academy site to be considered through the masterplanning process of M1.

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

Site K106 It is accepted that in terms of accessibility the site is well placed. However, the site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. A large allocation has been made in the settlement to allow masterplanned growth and a move away from incremental development. Recognising there is a requirement for 40% of the site to be open space, the site would need to be developed at an exceptionally high density to meet the developer’s aspiration.

Site K93 It is recognised that land to the west of the settlement is capable of being developed. The development would facilitate the next stages of the distributor road. However, the site was fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. The Council’s view is that development at this time should be concentrated to the north of the town. Additional development in Laurencekirk is not supported by the structure plan.

Land to the south of Laurencekirk Site EmpB as allocated in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan has been removed as it is constrained. The site has proven not to be viable as employment land due to the high costs in resolving a waste water constraint affecting the site. There was a risk taken by the developer in promoting housing on an employment site which is contrary to policy under both the old and new plans. Although the level of public engagement undertaken by the developer is welcomed. There was no live planning application on the site when the decision was taken to remove the site, so the deliverability of the site was not certain. Mixed use development on the site (K50 and K51) was considered in the main issues report. Following a full debate at the proposed plan stage, and widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site.

It is noted that development to the south of the settlement would enable land to be made available for the southern junction, but the scale of development promoted by the structure plan does not allow this development in addition to M1. The Structure Plan does not allocate sufficient housing to meet both developers’ aspirations. Site M1 is a more appropriate and sustainable location for development, and sites K50 and 51 could be considered in the next plan (for development post 2023).

Regarding transportation, attention is brought to the ‘Laurencekirk A90 Appraisal, March 2010’, which highlights that no matter where development is directed in the settlement, there will be an impact at both the north and the south junctions (paragraph 5.11)

There is no deliverability statement to show that sites K50 and K51 are more deliverable than site M1. There is no defined ‘centre’ to Laurencekirk. The High Street is a very long street and it is accepted that there are facilities closer to the south of the settlement. However, the largest concentration of services is to the north of the town and it is therefore disputed that sites K50 and K51 are closer to the ‘centre’ of the settlement.

Conclusion

Page 11 None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in Laurencekirk are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. It is recognised that there are significant issues within the settlement, but land to the north of the settlement remains the most appropriate location for settlement expansion of this scale.

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 12 Issue 49 Other Sites – Laurencekirk Strategic Growth Area Section 4, The Spatial Strategy (p6 & 7) Reporter: Section 6, The Proposals Map, (p23) Development plan Schedule 1, Table 6 (p28) reference: Schedule 2, Table 6, (p32) Schedule 3, Table 2 (p35 - 41)

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

156, 157 Knight Frank LLP on behalf of Mt Mitchell 277 Ryden LLP on behalf of Pallet Logistics Ltd 278 Ryden LLP on behalf of Hunthaven Properties Limited

Provision of the development plan to Distribution of development settlements in which the issue relates: the Laurencekirk Strategic Growth Area.

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

Fordoun Airfield 156, 157, 277, 278: These respondents object to the failure to identify the extent of business and industrial uses at Fordoun Aerodrome, and object to the failure to allocate further land for the future expansion of Fordoun Aerodrome. The site has excellent linkages onto the A90. Much of the land has consents for employment uses already, but development has been occurring in an ad-hoc manner. Allocating the site in the Local Development Plan would provide an opportunity to remedy the unplanned nature of the site. Development cannot be addressed through development in the countryside policies as this provides no certainty (277, 278). Allocating the site would also provide certainty for businesses who have made significant investment in the area (277, 278).

156, 157: There is significant demand for employment land at Fordoun Airfield. Fordoun is within the Strategic Growth Area, and there is a requirement to identify 60 hectares of land in a range of locations within the Strategic Growth Area. The presence of pipelines does not constrain any of the land, most of the land already has planning permission in any case.

277, 278: The site at Fordoun Airfield meets a particular need: the site is particularly suited to open storage. Development has minimal landscape and visual impacts. Scottish Planning Policy advises there is a need to meet the diverse needs and locational requirements of different sectors.

278: Land at K112 and other developed land in the vicinity should be identified as employment land. The site has had consents for storage since 1996, and there are a number of planning consents on the site.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 156, 157, 277, 278: Land at Fordoun Aerodrome should be allocated as employment land.

278: Site K112 and land in the vicinity should be allocated for employment land. Much of the land at Fordoun airfield has existing consents. Small scale employment development is supported in the rural housing market area under the Development in the Countryside Policy.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Page 13

Overview The allocations made within the south of Drumlithie to Laurencekirk strategic growth area are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan (see issue 46).

Alternative Sites Further information on the sites is contained in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 6 May 2010’ (page 59), which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Fordoun Airfield Sites at Fordoun Airfield (K112 and K153) were identified mostly as constrained in the Main Issues Report due to pipeline consultation zones and flood risk. Adopting the precautionary principle and to avoid costly realignment, where there are alternatives, pipelines have been treated as absolute constraints. However, it is acknowledged that some development can go ahead on pipeline corridors, if it meets the planning advice for developments near hazardous installations (PADHI) guidelines.

The sites were fully debated at the Main Issues Report and Proposed Plan stages. It is recognised that the sites are capable of development, and there is some public support for the allocation of employment land in this location. However, the Council’s conclusion was to exclude them.

The structure plan target of 105 hectares of employment land has been allocated within the corridor from Huntly to Laurencekirk. There is no requirement to allocate any further employment land. The employment allocation within each strategic growth area reflects the level of housing proposed in the settlement. Therefore, all employment land in this corridor has been directed to Laurencekirk, as it is the main service centre, the main public transport hub and has the largest population base for the workforce (see issue 48). Laurencekirk better meets the Structure Plan objectives on sustainable mixed communities, which encourages mixed use developments (paragraph 4.3), and on accessibility which requires major employment developments to show that they are easy to access by walking, cycling or using public transport (page 23).

It is not desirable to allocate employment land remote from services, public transport and a population base. The Development in the Countryside policy is supportive of economic development proposals in the rural housing market area, and development can come forward on an organic basis through the relevant policies. If the site meets a particular need in terms of open storage, this can be considered on a case by case basis.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in the strategic growth area are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy. Development in this location can be dealt with under the general policies of the plan, if they meet the relevant criteria.

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Page 14

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 15