Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ANGUS COUNCIL REPORT ON OBJECTIONS TO THE FINALISED ANGUS LOCAL PLAN REVIEW VOLUME 3 Reporters: Richard E Bowden BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI Richard G Dent BA(Hons) DipTP FRTPI Dates of inquiry: 23 January – 25 April 2006 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review VOLUME 3 CONTENTS Introduction page Part 4, Town and Village Directory - villages and other settlements Arbirlot: Settlement Boundary 1 Auchmithie: AM1, Housing - Kirkbank 9 Auchterhouse: Omission 10 Baldovan, Pitempton and Balmuir: Omission 15 Balgray, Tealing: Omission 21 Balkeerie and Eassie: Development Boundary 25 Balkeerie and Eassie: Boundary - Eassie Hall 30 Berryhill, by Fowlis: Omission 31 Birkhill/Muirhead and land north of Liff Hospital: Omission 38 Bridgefoot: Omission 43 Bridgend of Lintrathen: Development Boundary 49 Burnside of Duntrune: Omission - Ballumbie House 59 Colliston Village 63 Craigton of Monikie: Omission 65 Eassie Muir: Development Boundary – Omission 67 Edzell: Omission - East Mains Farm 70 Edzell: Omission – Former Mart 77 Emmock: Omission 81 Finavon: Omission 86 Friockheim: Allocation Fk2, East of Kinnell Gardens & 89 Omission of land at South Gardyne Street Grahamstown, Arbirlot by Arbroath: Omission 113 Inveraldie and Tealing – Omission 115 Inveraldie and Tealing: Omissions – Tealing House & Walled Garden 120 Kellas: Omission 125 Kirkbuddo: Omission of a settlement boundary 129 Kirkton of Auchterhouse: Omission 132 Kirkton of Menmuir: Settlement Boundary 136 Kirkton of Monikie: Omission 139 Letham: L2 – Housing, Jubilee Park 143 Letham: L3 – Housing, East Hemming Street 147 Letham Grange Development Strategy 148 Liff: Omission of land at Woodside Road 155 Logie, by Montrose: Development boundary 160 Lundie: Development boundary 163 Memus: Settlement boundary 165 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Monikie: Omission 167 Muirdrum: Omission 171 Newbigging by Carnoustie: Omission 175 Newbigging by Tealing: Omission 186 Newbigging by Tealing: Omission - land at Leyshade Farm 190 Newbigging by Tealing: Omission - land at Newbigging Farm 195 Newtyle: Omission 200 North Craigo: Settlement boundary 204 North Dronley: Omission 207 Padanaram: Settlement boundary 210 Panmure Estate: Omission 212 Piperdam: Paragraph 4 and Pd1 - Residential Development 216 South Kingennie: Omission of land at Broomfield Nurseries 220 South Kingennie: Omission – single plot 224 South Kingennie: Omission - land to the west 226 Strathmartine Hospital: St1, Opportunity Site Strathmartine Hospital Estate 230 Wellbank: Omissions – South, North and South-East 238 Westhall Terrace: Omission 248 Westmuir: Settlement boundary 252 Woodville: Wv1 - Development Approach 254 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review INTRODUCTION This report considers all objections lodged, and not subsequently unconditionally withdrawn, against the terms of the finalised Angus Local Plan Review including the first, second and third rounds of pre-inquiry changes. The report is set out in 3 volumes: • General and policy objections (Parts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) and appendices; • The larger settlements – Arbroath, Brechin, Carnoustie and Barry, Forfar, Kirriemuir, Monifieth and Montrose; • The remaining settlements in the Town and Village Directory along with all other settlements. The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes (Scotland) Regulations 2004 implement European Union Council Directive 2001/42/EC (the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Under these Regulations, all new and replacement structure and local plans - and those started on or before 21 July 2004 but not adopted or submitted to the legislative procedure for adoption before 22 July 2006 - must be subject to SEA. Scottish Ministers, however, may direct that a particular plan or programme is exempt, if they decide that such an assessment is not feasible. Initially it was anticipated that the Angus Local Plan Review would be capable of adoption prior to 22 July 2006. Accordingly, a strategic environmental assessment would not be required under the terms of the Directive. More recently it was recognised that adoption by 22 July 2006 had become unlikely and a written request for exemption was submitted to the Scottish Ministers on 16 February 2006. The Scottish Ministers granted the exemption, as requested, on 28 March 2006. The inquiry took place between 23 January and 25 April 2006 in various locations in Angus. Where requested, the proceedings were conducted as a formal public local inquiry but, for the most part, the objections were discussed at informal hearings. The Reporters sat separately other than for the hearing of objections against Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply and Policy SC6, Affordable Housing. In considering objections, account has been taken of the evidence presented at the inquiry, written material, supporting documents and site inspections. When requested, the Reporters visited objection sites on an accompanied basis. Evidence submitted following the close of the inquiry was taken into account only if it was received before the particular matter to which it related had not been dealt with by the appropriate Reporter. Any late documents have simply been passed to the council to be considered as thought fit. Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Recommendations are made in respect of all objections heard at the inquiry and those where objectors elected to rest on written submissions. Objections deemed by the council as invalid (or not in conflict with the terms of the plan) have not been considered and are not the subject of recommendations. Overall, it is believed that the recommendations would lead to the local plan conforming to the provisions of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. Richard E Bowden Richard Dent Reporter Reporter Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Arbirlot: Settlement Boundary Objector Reference James Fairweather 825/1/1 Mr & Mrs G J Willey 832/1/1 Evelyn T Graham 898/1/1 Mr & Mrs D W Docherty 901/1/1 & 902/1/1 Matthew Pease 911/1/1 Supporters P & J Van Wees 153/1/1 Dr Graeme Sutherland 817/1/1 Justin & Angela Austin 818/1/1 Procedure Reporter Formal inquiry (Mr & Mrs Willey and Richard Dent Mr Fairweather), informal hearing (Evelyn Graham) and written submissions _______________________________________________________________________ Background 3.1 Arbirlot is a small village set on generally level ground in the steep sided valley of the Elliot Water. The valley is known as a “den”. It is included in the town and village directory with a settlement map depicting the boundary but no village statement. 3.2 The boundary follows the Elliot Water to the west, relates closely to property boundaries to the south-east, and, to the north and north-east, includes an open area which rises up sharply from the general level of the village to higher land beyond. This area contains one house, Treetops. Much of the village, other than the open land to the north and north-east is a designated conservation area which also extends over a large, sloping, generally wooded area to the west and south and across agricultural land to the south-east. 3.3 Policy S1, Development Boundaries, provides guidance in respect of proposed development within boundaries, proposed development in the countryside and development contiguous with a development boundary. Basis of the objections 3.4 Evelyn T Graham objects to the extension of the village boundary to create a plot in the open area to the north and north-east and believes that the priority should be improvement rather then enlargement. 1 Finalised Angus Local Plan Review 3.5 The plot is large and, hence, any subsequent house on the site would itself be too large. It would exacerbate longstanding drainage and flooding problems, impact adversely on the conservation area and listed buildings, particularly, in this latter respect, in terms of the likelihood of inappropriate detailed design. The houses in the village are generally of similar appearance and a new house of contrasting design would set a bad precedent. In any event, there is a derelict site in the village at Walkerbank. That would be suitable for renovation which, in turn, would remove an eyesore. 3.6 Mr & Mrs Docherty also contend that an additional house would change the appearance and close-knit character of Arbirlot, there being no need to extend the boundary when other sites are available within the village. 3.7 James Fairweather is concerned about the lack of notification but, nevertheless, does not consider there is any need for additional development, particularly in view of the potential at Walkerbank and other possible gap site opportunities. Although it has been indicated that only one house is proposed, the objection site is capable of accommodating four or five houses. 3.8 Development of the site would require significant earthmoving and retaining walls which would have a detrimental impact on the character and landscape setting of the village. Access would be a problem and there are concerns about drainage and flooding. No public benefit would be derived from the proposed extension. 3.9 Mr and Mrs Willey have undertaken much restoration work on the 1850s former manse, Denside House, a C(s) listed building. Development within the proposed extended boundary, because of the steep slope of the land, would severely affect the setting of the house and the garden would be overlooked. The proposal has come forward in response to a representation but without the required assessment. On