VOLUME 2 : TOWNS
VOLUME 2 - CONTENTS
page Part 4, Town Directory – the larger settlements Arbroath Arbroath: Development Strategy 1 Arbroath: Development Boundary 3 Arbroath: A1 Housing - Montrose Road and Omission: Crudie Farms 4 Arbroath: Policy A6 - Regenerate! North Arbroath 7 Arbroath: Policy A9 - Opportunity Site, Ernest Street/ Palmer Street 8 Arbroath: Policies A10 - Cairnie Street / Stobcross and A16 - Westway 11 Dundee Road; Retail Arbroath Arbroath: A11 - Opportunity site, Wardmill /Dens Road 28 Arbroath: Policy A12 - Working, West of Elliot Industrial Estate 31 Arbroath: Policy A19 - Hospitalfield House 32 Arbroath: Omission - Land at Elliot 33 Arbroath: Omission - Land north of Warddykes, 35
Brechin Brechin: Key Issues and Development Strategy & Town Centre and Retailing 37 Brechin: B1 - Housing, Dubton Farm and Omission Crookston East/ 39 Unthank Farm Brechin: B9 - Community Woodland, Cookston 42
Carnoustie Carnoustie and Barry: Key Issues – caravans and camping 43 Carnoustie and Barry: Development Strategy – Carnoustie seafront 44 Carnoustie and Barry: C6, Working – Clayholes, Carnoustie 45 (proposed amendment) and Omission - Panbride North/Carlogie Road, Carnoustie Carnoustie and Barry: C8 - Primary School Site, Thomas Street 53 Carnoustie and Barry: C9 - Primary School Site, Queen Street 54 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Carlogie 56 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land north of Newton Road playing fields, 58 west of Carlogie Road Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land at Clayholes (Newton Farm) 59 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Panbride/Westhaven 60 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – site for “superloo” 62 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - proposals map – road closures 63 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, south 64 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, north 66 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Greenlaw 68 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry Road west 70 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Waterybutts 72 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - Land north of Barry 74 Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - Land at Victoria Link, A92 76
Forfar Forfar: Residential Development - General background 81 Forfar: Site F4 - Wester Restenneth 84 Forfar: Site F5, Whitehills Nursery 87 Forfar: Site F7, New Neighbourhood, Westfield 88 Forfar: Omission – Land at Gowanbank 98
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Omission – Land at Suttieside 102 Forfar: Omission – Land at Slatefield 104 Forfar: Omission - Land at Turfbeg 108 Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area 112 Forfar: F12 – Working, Orchardbank 115 Forfar: F14 : Primary School, Whitehills Nursery 117 Paragraph 15, Primary Schools Forfar: F17 - Forfar Loch 119 Forfar: Omission – Land at North Mains 121 Forfar: Land at Orchardbank – conflict of land use 123
Kirriemuir Kirriemuir: Paragraph 3 – Key Issues & Development Strategy 125 Kirriemuir: Residential Development - General background 128 Kirriemuir: K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, 134 Kirriemuir: Site K1, Shielhill Road, 136 Kirriemuir: Site K2, Hillhead 137 Kirriemuir: Land to the south of Beechwood Place 147 Kirriemuir: Omission - Land at Sunnyside 153 Kirriemuir: Omission - Land at Herdhill/Martin Park 159 Kirriemuir: Omission - Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road 161 Kirriemuir: Omission - Land at Newton Park 163 Kirriemuir: Omission - Land north of Cortachy Road (two sites) 165 Kirriemuir: Site K4, Working, East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road 167
Monifieth Monifieth: Site Mf4 - Buddon Drive Cemetery Site 169 Monifieth: Omission – Land at Ashludie Farm, Mains of Ardestie and 174 Ardownie Farm
Montrose Montrose: Settlement Statement – Paragraphs 1-5 177 Montrose: Site M1 – Brechin Road & Omission - Marykirk Rd Hillside 178 Montrose: M4 Opportunity Site – Sunnyside Hospital 180 Montrose: M9, Railway Sidings - Montrose Station 182 Montrose: Omission - Glaxo site 183
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Development Strategy
Objector Reference
Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC 913/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Written Submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
Page 103 of the finalised local plan review at paragraph 7 provides an 8 bullet point development strategy for Arbroath. This makes reference to promoting regeneration, development opportunities and investment within the town, to strengthen the role of Arbroath as a retail and service centre and to develop its visitor potential based on its heritage features. Of particular concern to this objection, the fifth bullet point reads: “Encourage new development and investment where this will strengthen the role of the town as a retail and service centre.”
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no dispute that the local plan on adoption must conform to the approved structure plan. It is evident that there is also no disagreement that there is no intention of the FALPR being other than in general accordance with national planning policies and associated guidance including NPPG8 - including with reference to the need to enhance the vitality and viability of town centres as the most appropriate location for retail development. I note that on page 37 of the FALPR there is a section devoted to Town Centres and Retailing. This sets out a policy basis for the local plan in this regard and makes specific reference to the aims of the structure plan and the relevant terms of NPPG8. Over five paragraphs under that heading, page 37 sets out details of the local plan policy approach to town centres and retailing and describes how this is in accordance with the policy objectives of the approved structure plan and NPPG8. Furthermore under the retail heading of that same section of the local plan review Policy SC23 states that town centres are the preferred location for major retail developments in Angus.
In the above context I am satisfied that the finalised local plan review has satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised by the objector in this case, including elsewhere in the FALPR under the heading of ‘Town centres and retailing’. I am concerned that the proposed amendment to the development strategy for Arbroath on page 103 put forward by the objector would be inappropriate as, by focusing wholly on the town centre, it would exclude encouragement of new development and investment outwith the town centre. Such an approach is not what the approved structure plan or NPPG8 advocate. Whilst the approved structure plan and NPPG8 state a clear presumption in favour of central locations as a first choice and most appropriate location for new retail developments, they do not seek to exclude the possibility of consideration of other locations, on the basis of the sequential approach. I am satisfied, therefore, that when read alongside the other relevant sections of the finalised local plan (including page 37 under the heading of ‘Town centres and retailing’), the wording of the development strategy for Arbroath as set out on page 103, in dealing with the town as a whole is more appropriate than the proposed amendment put forward by the objector. I conclude that there is no justification to amend the local plan in the manner suggested by the objector.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 1 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should not be modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 2 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Development Boundary
Objector Reference
Mr Andrew Hurst 826/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objection concerns the delineation of the Development Boundary around Arbroath shown in the finalised local plan review, in particular the boundary around St Vigeans which excludes part of the garden ground of the objector’s residential property known as the School House.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I find that the objector has not sought to justify his proposal to adjust the Development Boundary at St Vigeans, beyond stating that this would enclose the garden ground he purchased from the council. In my view this in itself is not sufficient to merit a change in the Development Boundary, particularly in the context of the local topography and the council’s desire to safeguard the setting of the conservation area which I would support. I endorse the concerns outlined by the council in respect of any new house on the garden ground concerned. Based on these considerations, I concur with the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that the Development Boundary in the vicinity of the former School House at St Vigeans should not be amended.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should be not be modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 3 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: A1 Housing - Montrose Road and Omission: Crudie Farms
Objector Reference
A1 Housing- Montrose Road Arbroath
Crudie Farms 20/1/1 E & A Spence (support) 894/1/1 A & L King (support) 912/1/1
Omission Arbroath – Crudie Farms
Crudie Farms 20/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Formal Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The adopted Angus Local Plan allocates land at Montrose Road for housing in the period to 2006, and identifies the adjoining land parcel to the north for longer term housing development. The allocated site was granted outline planning permission at the Development Control Committee of 21 October 2004. In accordance with the adopted Angus Local Plan and the conditions attached to the outline planning consent, the developers are preparing a site brief for the whole area identified as site A1 at Montrose Road in the finalised local plan review.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no disagreement that the Crudie Farm site, like the Montrose Rd site, was one of the 11 potential development sites assessed in detail by the council at the consultative draft stage of the local plan review preparation. I also note that the appraisal of these site options included detail consideration of a wide range of planning criteria relating to site selection, including: landscape and visual quality; accessibility; proximity to facilities; drainage, water and availability of services; archaeological interests; and other policy matters. Whilst I note that these investigations raised no overriding constraints or other insurmountable problems concerning the Crudie Farm site, I also note that the council concluded that the preferred areas for housing development, emerging from the overall assessments, should be the Montrose Rd site together with a small site at Clffburn, and so these were included in the FALPR in February 2005. It was noted in the assessment of the Montrose Rd site that it would represent an extension to the site allocated in the adopted local plan of 2000, and hence continue the direction of growth established for the period 2001-2006. Furthermore, that assessment concluded that the Montrose Rd site ‘provides an attractive location, good access and the potential to create an excellent residential amenity. It will reinforce the first Angus Local Plan allocation, improve the entrance to the town and like various pockets of development, thus enhancing the urban edge’.
No evidence presented has led me to conclude that the above assessments were not carried out properly or that their findings were unsound. I have paid close attention to the detailed evidence presented on behalf of the objectors to the Montrose Rd site who are seeking to have that site ‘de-allocated’ in favour of the Crudie Farm site. I have also taken account of the evidence presented by the council and by the developers of the Montrose Rd site, in support of retention of the Montrose Rd allocation. These
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 4 Angus Council Statement of Response
competing cases have explored a wide number of issues, many of which relate to topics dealt with in the assessments undertaken earlier, at the consultative draft plan stage, as outlined above. My key findings are summarised below:
Landscape
Whilst the Montrose Rd site has a varied topography and the Crudie Farm site is relatively flat and open, there is little substantive difference between the sites in landscape terms and in principle both sites would be suitable for residential development. Nevertheless, on balance, I consider that the Montrose Rd site is to be preferred in landscape terms as it has a higher capacity to absorb development in the landscape; it provides an opportunity to enhance the urban edge by linking various pockets of development and reinforcing existing tree belts with new landscape planting; and providing a better gateway to Arbroath from the north. I am not persuaded by the arguments presented by the objectors that the views from the A92 road would be detrimental to any significant extent.
Education
I note that whilst the Crudie Farm site is adjacent to a primary school, the Montrose Rd site is some 350m further from its nearest primary school and the route involves crossing the A92 road - which I consider is a disadvantage of that site. I also note, however, that the extra 5 minutes walk involved is within acceptable norms for primary school catchments and that the route complies with the “Safe Routes to Schools” initiative. There is no dispute that there is adequate capacity at local primary and secondary schools to serve either of these two sites. I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the Montrose Rd site would have the advantage of being close to Arbroath Academy and so children from houses on that site would provide a much needed boost to its roll at a time when there are capital funding initiatives underway as part of various efforts designed to improve this school and to reduce the imbalances between it and the High School. The Crudie Farm proposal would be closer to the High School which has a fuller school roll and is already very popular, attracting pupils from across Arbroath.
Transport and Accessibility
In my view the two sites have differing attractions and drawbacks in transport and accessibility terms. The Crudie Farms site is clearly closer to the newly dualled section of the A92 leading to Dundee and is also closer to Elliot Industrial Estate and Kingsway retail park. From the Montrose Rd site access to these would require passing through the town centre, but this is not a major obstacle in my experience, even at peak times. Conversely, the Montrose Rd site directly linked to the A92 and is significantly closer to the town centre and local shops than the Crudie Farm site. It is also better served by public transport and has access to the national cycle network nearby. I note that both sites are broadly equidistant from the Kirkton Industrial estate. Drainage and Service Infrastructure
No evidence has been drawn to my attention to suggest that there are any service constraints affecting either of these sites. Accordingly, I am unaware of any overriding service infrastructure problems or associated costs affecting one site that would indirectly favour the other in terms of suitability for major housing development.
Other local and strategic planning considerations
There has been considerable debate as to whether or not the Montrose Rd site was allocated in full or part in the adopted local plan of 2000. In this regard I am satisfied by the council’s statement that the only local plan ‘allocation’ made at that time was Proposal A/H4 for ‘an initial phase of approximately 80 dwellings’. I also note that the Inset Map in that adopted local plan describes the larger site, now the subject of the objection by Crudie Farms, as being ‘longer term housing’ and this is also within the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 5 Angus Council Statement of Response
development boundary of Arbroath defined on the Inset Map. Furthermore, the supporting text refers to the allocated site being part of a much larger area bounded by Montrose Rd and Seaton Rd sufficient to meet future needs in the period post 2006, and referring to the need to ensure that the Phase 1 housing is integrated into the remainder of the site. In this context it is evident that the council’s intentions for this whole site have been made clear for a number of years. I accept the council’s interpretation that the finalised local plan review, addressing housing land requirements for the period 2006- 2011, seeks to extend the original allocation of the adopted local plan to include the entire Montrose Rd site, and that this approach would be consistent with paragraph 64 of SPP3 and paragraph 5 of PAN49. There is no evidence to suggest that the whole Montrose Rd site is not effective in terms of the criteria set out in SPP3 and PAN38. Similarly, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I am persuaded that sufficient housing land has been allocated through the finalised local plan review to meet the requirements of the approved structure plan for the period 2011 with regard to Arbroath and so there would be no justification for allocating additional housing land in Arbroath at this time.
In this context, for the reasons stated by the council I reject the objectors’ contention that there is nothing to prevent the council from ‘over-allocating’ housing land. Accordingly, the case for the Crudie Farm site would have to be justified as a replacement for the Montrose Rd site allocation not in addition to it. For the reasons outlined above, the case made by the objectors for de-allocating the Montrose Rd site is not persuasive in my view and I endorse the arguments put forward by the council that to do so would be contrary to national planning policy and guidance. Furthermore, in my view it would be damaging by undermining confidence in the local plan process, not only for the public but also for those investors who have proceeded to prepare a transport assessment and a development framework for the whole Montrose Rd site, based on their understanding of the council’s plans and aspirations for the site.
Finally, I note the contention by the objectors that the Montrose Rd site would bring no community benefits whilst the Crudie Farms proposal offers the opportunity to transfer land to the council adjacent to the railway station and to support financial support for a new play park and a new Urban Village Hall in the Cliffburn/Hayshead area. I endorse the council’s view that, whilst such initiatives may be welcomed and are worthwhile in their own right, they are not in geographical proximity - and in all other ways totally unrelated - to the proposals at the Crudie Farm site. Accordingly, I conclude that they cannot be regarded as legitimate or acceptable forms of planning gain and so must be discounted as potential advantages of the Crudie Farms proposals over the Montrose Rd allocation.
I have taken into consideration all of the other matters raised by the objectors, both in criticising the Montrose Rd site and in support of the Crudie Farms site. I conclude, however, that individually and cumulatively the objections do not outweigh the arguments presented in support of the housing allocation at Montrose Rd put forward by the council in the FALPR. Accordingly, I conclude that there is no justification for modifying the finalised local plan review in the manner suggested by the objectors.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set out in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review should not be modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 6 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Policy A6 - Regenerate! North Arbroath
Objector Reference
Linlathen Developments Ltd (per Donald Coutts) 918/2/3
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The Cliffburn, Strathairlie and Demondale areas of Arbroath are the subject of a major economic and social regeneration initiative entitled “Regenerate! North Arbroath,” which includes some housing renewal, new housing and a range of community and environmental projects. This is a partnership scheme involving Angus Council together with the local community, Communities Scotland, Angus Housing Association, Scottish Enterprise Scotland, Angus College, Tayside Police and Angus Healthcare with financial support from the European Regional Development Fund.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
It may well be beneficial to support new opportunities for the provision of local services to support the communities of the Cliffburn, Strathairlie and Demondale areas of Arbroath. Nevertheless, the terms of Policy A6: Regenerate! North Arbroath clearly relate to the partnership initiative of the same name which is described in the paragraphs of the finalised local plan review which precede the policy concerned. Based on these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that the terms of Policy A6 should not be amended to include reference to opportunities beyond those agreed by the agencies involved in the partnership concerned.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 7 Angus Council Statement of Response
A9: Opportunity Site – Ernest Street/ Palmer Street, Arbroath
Objector Reference
Transco (per Hargest & Wallace) (a) 820/1/1 (b) 820/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objections concern the former gasworks site at Ponderlaw St (Ernest St/ Palmer St) Arbroath. This is a 1.5ha site of disused land and buildings which the finalised plan identifies in Policy A9 as an opportunity site “for redevelopment to provide around 50 houses and flats”. The policy specifies that 20% of the capacity of the site is to be used for the provision of LCHO affordable housing. It also states that, in advance of redevelopment of the site, ground contamination issues and any necessary remediation would need to be investigated.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that Objection (a) has been conditionally withdrawn on the basis of the proposed modification by the council to incorporate the whole of the site owned by Transco at this location within the terms of Policy A9. Based on these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case and conclude that the site boundary of Policy A9 should be amended as proposed.
In respect of Objection (b), I note that the council has set out the background and basis for its stipulation of a 20% affordable housing provision which is standard for new housing sites in the Arbroath Housing Market Area. I also note, however, that the council recognises that national planning guidance provides for a reduction in the requirement for affordable housing where it can be demonstrated that sites have exceptional costs because of the need to address contamination or poor ground conditions.
Whilst no details have been submitted to define the nature or extent of exceptional costs likely to be associated with redevelopment of this particular site, there is no dispute that it is former gasworks site. Accordingly, whilst I am not persuaded by the objector’s argument that the reference to a 20% affordable housing component should be deleted from the policy, I conclude that the policy should be amended to better reflect the history of the site and the basis for agreeing a possible reduction in the 20% figure, in line with the guidance of PAN74 (para 46).
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case, as follows:
Firstly, the boundary of the site relating to Policy A9 should be adjusted to reflect the ownership of Transco at this location, as set out in the proposed First Round Modification put forward by the council.
Secondly, the following words (or something broadly equivalent) should be added before the semi-colon at the end of the first bullet point of Policy A9: “unless a
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 8 Angus Council Statement of Response
reduction in this requirement for affordable housing can be agreed in writing with the planning authority, based on the nature and extent of exceptional development costs resulting from site contamination problems or poor ground conditions.”
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter supports the boundary modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 and agreed by Transco’ and suggests a further amendment as set out above. This amendment is accepted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review as follows:-
A9 : Opportunity Site - Ernest Street/Palmer Street
1.5 ha of disused land and buildings provides an opportunity for redevelopment for around 50 houses and flats. Proposals should include the following:
• 20% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing unless a reduction in this requirement for affordable housing can be agreed in writing with the planning authority, based on the nature and extent of exceptional development costs resulting from site contamination problems or poor ground conditions; and • investigation of ground contamination issues and any necessary remediation which would be required to take place in advance of development. . Indicate the site on the Arbroath Proposals Map.(as shown on the attached plan)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 9 Angus Council Statement of Response URITHH URISHH URIRHH URIQHH URIPHH URIIHH URIHHH
QTSHHH QTSHHH QTRWHH QTRWHH
erroth2@snset2wp2IA eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS QTRVHH QTRVHH QTRUHH QTRUHH
QTRTHH QTRTHH
eW
PV
QP QR
HIV I QH PIH IP P IR P IT V P
R H urgery T Q
P
r S i
9 i
U
Q i e
f
W I
v Q
P e
f yp i
V Q i x R e
g IT v
I
T h 2
Q S x w
U I i y
Q Q I eh P R I I
S I eg
R QTRSHH Q QTRSHH
e
Q Q II
m s IH I I
V S u
V R egistry2yffie
F P
o
i T
S
IP P
I P i r
W 2
2
P
W r
S ITFUm w P P P i
U H
P A f
f P
i S
R 2o
2 I w
ur se P
R
U e
T P virry
I Q @o P
i PS
h P
U
I
e w I
l
S l v V
d i
I
R e 2
P y V Q i
e I
I
P
V V
I
P e I
T U S
P i
x H
i 2
I qovt Q
I
e
i
I i V yffies
r S I I V I
R P
Q IW U V
g 2
i W I P H P
R Q i 2 H I
V
e x x
h P I
P s T
Q I
I I
Q P
R w ttue
2R W T i
i
T Q I U R P
W i I IR
i
H S I h R I T i
V I I I
e Q W
I W H I i
I
I g
P
P P S
R Q e
U i S
xv P P
I S
U e Q
2
R W IQ I
U Q Q
R U P R y
S P H
V I TR s
R R t
f
Q
R R s S
R f
I U
I o
H e
I R
P
S W
Q W
SPS IQ P
Q R
S
T S Q
R S S
R
S R vf W
T
I
Q R
V I R
S S S P P R Q
I W
S I P
2
t
o y
S
R U U 2
I g P d
T
f
Q T I
2 Q i P U W
I
i d
r s
r I S p
2 U r p H Q
U o h T g i I e U
y shx Q gi t2g I i U g
U W e e Q I v e
d 2 U IPFTm v
i Q g U
Q u 2 Q 2 x S v i v
i e i R v
yh W e rs
P U S Q
v S
v P I Q V
W 2 I
g Q
P Q S
I W i
W f S m
V T W f PI I TF
I I 2e W
ly2er e T
I
Q relth2gentre
S l I A V
I I e l
m f R i
R
IQI FI o
IW U 2
P Q
I P 2 e
w
2 f s II
I U r
g P y R u
H
T e
PS PQ o U
W @
PU Q V or P I e S
P R
I
I
QI PW P V
t
Q
o I R P
Q W T
Q P P eey2qreen S
uevn2uirky rd Q Q
I I P H
I QU QS
I
R
I W
R S R Q S P P QW R P I S Q I
RW fo wl ing 2qr een
W T he2yld S Q U of2erroth
T I
I I
S fw II FW Hm
h rish2ghurh P
QW2 QU TS W H W
gr2 rk I Q
x
I R Q T
T p PI
se
Q S ii u 2 o
TU 2 r 9 I n R
ri r U e i
Q h w u
Q S S H
S UQ e e Q U T
x f H U H
QTRRHH y Q QTRRHH
UU vi I
I SQ S W gf V Q Q
S r V i PU i
vilion T
i I P T
r 2
P i
f u
f e
2e
I s
R i R u
fo wl ing 2qr een Q
S T
U I I osts T T P SI rll I ITI I TW rll I W
Q UI P Q I rsqr2
W RS IU
WFVm
i US
i I
I Q
I T
R
W I P
U U H
I
2 IU
R
I
x P
t IQV
I 2
U o I
V 2 I e S
u Q I H P
Q v IV v
e e
I
2 S VS
he2eey
I I
W S
V R
i rish2ghurh I VU
I f I I
I f Q I
I I
U H P e W
W R I I
2 W
I 2 I I
I gr2 rk T P I Q H T I W
WU I
s I 9
S I
h T s
P
U S
U r W
W I P
u m W
I o
h
h
g Q I
S
T
2
t
x I i V
g HQ H P I V
i I R
2 H
t I
i W o V
I 2 T
g S V
I
IT P
V 2
g T
P
e U W V
H
I
P P V I I I
i
W
R r
W
gr2 rk
s furil2qround I H
P IHFSm x
p I S P
U i
R P 2 ell A
h Q f
S I 2o I P e
y s t P r e
v o u e
r I
v @ t
W T eey g U IH PI I h P g V P IW ll ri P 2
y il
S PQ e I P
V P
@ironensinEfounded2IIUVA H
U P R e 2 u2t
T PP
2 I P P
PW Q P P
T H P I
R egi
QTRQHH v QTRQHH
P
I
I
V I qs x2
T
P iv
x I i T
i RQ i r
P P
q I e P R
x P P I e
P
e q V
2
f i x
P i
v
@wuseumA P
i H
i P U
f P
Q V
2 U
q R
i f
o P e
x i t eot9s2rouse e
2
t
o
H e 2 P
f i
f P P Q
ef R
P
P
I Q
P RW T v P
v
s Q V Q
r S Q
P P
P I
R
V
S P
S I
I P
P
i IT 2 I VFHm R
t
s V H o
2 S I T
IT 2P r H PH 2to U
PS
m
P
W
q R
R
I e U F
h T
s P V I e
u 2
y I
P o w
e
I W f
r T P
2 P r R
V t
H e T t S
U n
I P I
U e I
IUFPm R
P I I
T q
PR
US g
ex V Q 2 P P
PU
P I e
q I t
Q
U U U
y
P
2 i
y r g
i
P
y I S x y
V R
P 2 Q
r e
o
sq t
r
I P
Q
eey S H
W vodge
P
e
U P
P
S T
I S
g P
P
t S o V
Q
P P
H I
gr2rk m
T IH P
T IRFUm P
vf T
VW il x t
i
i
il2u2t x
P 2
IPF q u2t
T S
V 2
rll I
u
x
f w
y
2
S l
v s f W h
i
w
P r
e
U
R r U
y
II FRm v
P
S
T
P I
P U
P P
V
I
H
I I
I
P
V R
Q
I
P
Q I Q I
2 P t
o P SFIm
V
P T 2
I
I IQFHm P
V
T PV
V
R Q P
T
Q i I Q
U
V I
i
Q
gh urh
S
P 2 Q T
i
V r
i u
QTRPHH t2endrew9s I QTRPHH g
p S I Q
S H
y e
U h
T
P x
W i
r
I R
g U W i
P g
P
I e
R I R I P T q
rotel
r W IH
U
s I IT Q
I V 2
w o
I t V
P 2
I Q V S Q
U H Q
I Q 2
i t W
r
o S 2 T
2 I I to
P R IH FPm x 2 I
gr2rk Q I
R H
i
IU IT
W
Q
e W
P
W
W H
I U
I I
P S
R V I
R
P U
i S
o2V S
t S i 2
I PQ P
P I
H
P t S IR
U s
y S I I
T
PS
i R Q y 2 R
s PR 2 n
d
R QP w 9 s
v si Q k
i T i
PU
s W r
r I
W w P f T SFUm
P e
e Q
W
S r t
2
q T
IU
QR
e QI W
e
S
IT I
S
U
I
QS I Q
U Q S
2 P
Q o
2 t
V Q I
T
S W Q
S Q
W t
r I
2
I l V
gr2rk o
Q P
I ii
P i e 2
2f vi rll 9 S
yffies
xi P e
e U i w qovernment S f vy 2g I
si I
W P
h i S T
s w
e ev y
2 f xshi2hsi
x
e
P q
R IH IXQSHH
W S
Q U
V 2
o f w2W FUWm
Q t 2
I
T
P P 2
I o 2 t o t 2 P S T 2 osts
Q I
t o 2
P 2
I
t 2 U
I 2 o
P U
U
URITHH URISHH URIRHH URIQHH URIPHH URIIHH TRIHH URIHHH Q QTRIHH
Arbroath: Policies A10 - Cairnie Street / Stobcross and A16 - Westway – Dundee Road; Retail Arbroath
Objectors Reference
Policy A10 Opportunity Site Cairnie St/Stobcross and Policy A16 Westway - Dundee Road, Arbroath
Policy A10 Opportunity Site Cairnie St/Stobcross
William Morrison Supermarkets Plc 913/2/1 Macdonald Estates / ASDA Stores Ltd 694/1/2 & 694/2/1 Bett Properties / Tesco Stores Ltd 949/1/1 & 949/2/2
Arbroath Area Partnership (Written Submission) 819/1/1
Policy A16 Westway – Dundee Rd
William Morrison Supermarkets Plc 913/2/2 & 913/1/3 Bett Properties / Tesco Stores Ltd 949/2/1 & 949/1/2 Macdonald Estates / ASDA Stores Ltd 694/1/1 & 694/2/2
Linlathen Developments Ltd (Written Submission) 918/2/1 & 918/6/1
Procedure Reporter
Formal Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
In January 2003 The Director of Planning of Angus Council presented a report to the council concerning three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath: at Westburn Foundry, Stobcross; Dens Road/Wardmill Rd; and at Westway Retail Park. The Director of Planning recommended refusal of all three applications (as did the retail consultants appointed by the council) on the grounds that there was insufficient retail capacity. Notwithstanding this advice, the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant permission for the application for a superstore at Westway. This was notified to Scottish Ministers as marking a significant departure from the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. That led to the Westway application being ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered, together with appeals for the two further sites, at a public inquiry held by Ms J McNair in September/October 2003.
Her report (The‘McNair Report’), setting out the findings and recommendations of that Inquiry, was issued in early 2004. The Scottish Ministers accepted its findings and recommendations and decided to refuse planning permission for all three major foodstore proposals in May 2004. Despite recommending refusal of each of the applications under consideration, the McNair Report stated that all parties agreed that there was a deficiency in convenience retail provision in Arbroath and that this should be met by a superstore, as defined by NPPG8. In June 2004 a full planning application was submitted by Macdonald Estates for a foodstore and 3 non-food retail units at Westway Retail Park – that application remains undetermined. In July 2004 two outline planning applications were submitted by Bett properties for supermarket proposals at Westburn, Stobcross. One proposal covered the site of the former Westburn Foundry (the ‘small site’) and the other (the ‘larger site’) covered this together with adjacent property occupied by Angus Council, principally the offices known as Bruce House. In September
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 11 Angus Council Statement of Response
2004 appeals against non-determination were submitted by Bett Properties in respect of both of those applications at Westburn.
In December 2004 The Director of Planning and Transport reported to Angus Council regarding his officers’ views on retail policy for the finalised Angus Local Plan Review and recommended that an additional ‘superstore’ of around 5,000sqm should be included in that plan, and that 3 sites (at Dens Rd/Wardmill Rd; Westburn Foundry (larger site); and Westway) should be identified on the proposals map as ‘potential sites’ for the superstore proposed – with site selection to be addressed at the local plan inquiry (with any approval of a proposal in advance of this being regarded as premature). The council agreed that an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm should be provided for in the finalised plan but decided that the site at Westway/Dundee Road should be identified on the proposals map of the Finalised Local Plan Review as the potential site for the new superstore – and this was published accordingly (as paragraph 25 and Policy A16) in FALPR in February 2005.
In May/June 2005 a public inquiry was held (by Ms K Heywood) to determine the Bett Properties/Tesco Stores Ltd (Bett/Tesco) planning appeals relating to the small and larger site proposals at Westburn. In July 2005 the appeal decisions were issued by Ms Heywood which granted 2 outline planning permissions: one relating to a supermarket of up to 3,500sqm GFA for the small site and one for a store of up to 5,000sqm GFA for the larger site, and both were subject to conditions. In order for Bett/Tesco to implement their larger permission at Westburn the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants/developers. Whilst the council has taken a formal decision that Bruce House is not for sale it is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report. On 8 September 2005, in response to the Westburn appeal decisions, the Director of Planning and Transport presented a report to the Infrastructure Services Committee of Angus Council setting out officers’ recommendations for Proposed Second Round Modifications to the FALPR. That report put forward a new local plan policy stating that provision be made in Arbroath for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm GFA and to allocate the smaller site at Westburn for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm GFA, subject to meeting access and service requirements. It also recommended that the reference to a food retail store at Westway, in the February 2005 draft finalised plan, should be deleted.
On 18 October 2005 the council resolved to include the following proposed Second Round Modifications, which were published in November 2005:
• Delete Policy A10 : Opportunity Site – Cairnie Street/Stobcross (and replace this with a new Policy A16 as set out below). • Delete existing paragraphs 22 and 23 and replace with new text (as below). • Insert new Policy A15 : Provision for Foodstore Development (as below). • Insert new paragraphs 24 and 25 (as below). • Renumber existing Policy A16 : Westway – Dundee Road as Policy A17. • Renumber text and policies and amend Proposals Map, as appropriate.
These proposed modifications would result in the Town Centres and Retailing Section (P108) of the finalised local plan review (FALPR) reading as follows:
“22. Although vacancy rates are relatively low, there has been relatively little investment in new retailing within the town centre in recent years and a large non-food retail unit has closed. More positively, the redevelopment of the vacant retail property at Gravesend to provide a Lidl discount store and two non-food units has been approved and will provide opportunities to strengthen the town centre. 23. In relation to out of centre retailing, the Morrison store is close to the town centre. It is the Council’s policy that an additional foodstore of around 5000 square metres should be provided to increase choice and reduce expenditure leakage from the catchment.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 12 Angus Council Statement of Response
A15: Provision for Foodstore Development
An additional superstore of around 5,000 square metres gross floorspace should be provided in Arbroath, to be located at Westway/Dundee Road.
24. Following planning appeals planning permissions have been granted for further food retail development at the former Westburn Foundry site. Implementation of these consents will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. As the developer does not have control over the whole of the sites which have planning permission, there is some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the retail store which will be developed. It is considered appropriate to allocate the site of the former Westburn Foundry for the development of a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres gross floorspace, in accordance with the planning permission for the site. There may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000 square metres gross, if land ownerships can be consolidated. However, such consolidation is far from certain and will be subject to the outcome of a feasibility study into the possible relocation of the Council offices currently located on part of the site. It is intended to monitor this position and to consider proposals for other sites outwith the town centre against policy SC23 and other relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance. A16: Cairnie Street/Stobcross
The site of the former Westburn Foundry is allocated for a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres subject to meeting access and servicing requirements.
25. Evidence and findings from a recent Public Local Inquiry in connection with major retail development proposals has confirmed that there is expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. Angus Council has agreed that a further additional superstore of around 5,000 square metres (gross) would be appropriate. Following further consideration of the locational options, the Council has identified the Westway Retail Park as the preferred location having regard to various issues including accessibility and distribution, retail functions, development constraints, and land use and regeneration opportunities.
A17: Westway – Dundee Road
Land at Westway/Dundee Road is reserved for retail use, leisure use and ancillary development including the provision of a food retail store (around 5,000 sq m gross) and non food retail warehouses for sale of durable goods (limited to bulky and electrical goods.)”
In December 2005 Tesco Stores Ltd submitted an application for reserved matters in relation to its outline planning permission at the Westburn Foundry (for the small site) and it has also lodged an associated application for Roads Construction Consent (RCC) – both of which were being considered by the council but had yet to be determined when the local plan inquiry was completed or when this report section was written.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Before considering the detailed merits of the cases put forward in respect of the objections to the finalised local plan review concerning major foodstore development
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 13 Angus Council Statement of Response
policy and allocations in Arbroath, I summarise below some of the key facts that have shaped the planning history and context in which these objections have been lodged:
• The Westway site was granted planning permission for a bulky goods retail warehouse park in 1998 and included in the adopted Angus Local Plan of 2000, in response to a perceived deficiency in bulky goods retailing within Arbroath • At that time the landowners concerned sought to have the Westway site also allocated for convenience retailing – but the council at that stage did not support the Westway location for that purpose, nor the need for additional convenience provision • In January 2003 The Director of Planning of Angus Council presented a report to the council concerning three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath: at Westburn Foundry, Stobcross; Dens Road/Wardmill Rd; and at Westway Retail Park. The Director of Planning (and the independent retail specialist consultants appointed by the council) recommended refusal of all three applications on the grounds that there was insufficient retail capacity • Notwithstanding this advice the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant permission for the application for a superstore at Westway - the council was advised that this matter would need to be notified to Scottish Ministers as marking a significant departure from the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (DASP) • That application was ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered, together with appeals for the two further sites, at a public inquiry in September/October 2003, chaired by Ms J McNair • The findings and recommendations of that Inquiry are contained in the McNair Report issued in early 2004 which was endorsed by the Scottish Ministers who accepted its recommendations and decided to refuse planning permission for all three major foodstore proposals in May 2004 • Despite recommending refusal of each of the 3 applications under consideration, the McNair Report stated that all parties agreed that there was a deficiency in convenience retail provision in Arbroath and that this should be met by a superstore, as defined by NPPG8 • In June 2004 a full planning application was submitted by Macdonald Estates for a foodstore of 5,111sqm gross floor area (GFA) and 3 non-food retail units together with a re-modelled car park to provide 600 spaces at Westway Retail Park – that application remains undetermined • In July 2004 outline planning applications were submitted by Bett Properties for supermarket proposals at Westburn, Stobcross. One proposal covered the site of the former Westburn Foundry (the ‘small site’) and the other covered this together with adjacent property occupied by the council, principally the offices known as Bruce House (the ‘larger site’) • In September 2004 appeals against non-determination were submitted by Bett Properties in respect of their applications at Westburn • In December 2004 The Director of Planning and Transport recommended that an additional ‘superstore’ of around 5,000sqm for Arbroath should be included in the finalised local plan review, and that 3 sites (at Dens Rd/Wardmill Rd; Westburn Foundry (larger site); and Westway) should be identified on the Proposals Map as ‘potential sites’ for the superstore proposed – with site selection to be addressed at the local plan inquiry (and arguing that approval of a proposal in advance of this would be premature) • The council agreed that an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm should be provided for Arbroath but decided that the site at Westway/Dundee Road should be identified on the Proposals Map of the Finalised Local Plan Review as the potential site for this new superstore – and this was published accordingly (as paragraph 25 and Policy A16) in FALPR in February 2005 • In May/June 2005 a public inquiry was held (by Ms K Heywood) to determine the Bett Properties/ Tesco Stores (Bett/Tesco) planning appeals relating to Westburn.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 14 Angus Council Statement of Response
• In July 2005 those appeal decisions were issued, granting 2 outline planning permissions: one relating to a store of up to 3,500sqm GFA for the small site and one up to 5,000sqm GFA for the larger site, and both subject to conditions • In order for Bett/Tesco to implement their larger permission at Westburn the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants. Whilst the council has indicated that Bruce House is not for sale it is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report • On 8 September 2005 the Director of Planning and Transport presented a report to the Infrastructure Services Committee setting out officers’ recommendations for Second Round Modifications to the finalised local plan review, in response to the Westburn appeal decisions. This report put forward a new policy that provision be made in Arbroath for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm GFA and to allocate the site at Westburn for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm GFA subject to meeting access and service requirements. It also recommended that the reference in the February 2005 draft finalised plan for a food retail store at Westway should be deleted • On 18 October 2005 the council resolved to include in the Proposed Second Round Modifications a new policy (A15) under the heading ‘Provision of Foodstore Development’ making provision for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm in Arbroath and stating that this is to be located at Westway, justified on the basis of increasing choice and reducing expenditure leakage from the catchment. It also resolved to include another new policy (A16) allocating the Westburn Foundry site (small site only – excluding Bruce House) for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm subject to meeting access and servicing arrangements, justified on the basis of the outline planning permissions granted following planning appeals. Finally the council introduced a new Policy A17 reserving land at Westway/Dundee Road for a variety of uses including the provision of a food retail store of around 5,000sqm gross • In December 2005 Tesco Stores Ltd submitted an application for reserved matters in relation to the outline planning permission for the Westburn Foundry site (the small site) and also lodged an application for Roads Construction Consent (RCC) - both of which were being considered by the council at the time of the local plan inquiry [and which had still not been determined by the time this particular section of the Report was drafted].
The above bullet points summarise the recent history of the major developments and decisions concerning food retail planning in Arbroath leading up to the finalised local plan review and the Proposed Second Round Modifications. Against this background, it is useful to summarise the local plan objections and other representations made concerning Westway and Westburn, before dealing with the merits of those objections in each case.
Consideration of the objections related to the allocation concerning the Westway site (Proposed Second Round Modifications Policy A15 and PolicyA17)
In summary, Morrison argues that the council’s proposed allocation of land at Westway/Dundee Road for an out-of-centre superstore, has been put forward without satisfactory evidence to support the decision and that allocation is in itself contrary to both the approved structure plan and NPPG8. It is also argued that the allocation of a superstore at Westway, together with a supermarket on the Stobcross site would not satisfy relevant considerations set out in the approved structure plan and NPPG8. In these circumstances it is argued that policies A15 and A17 should be deleted.
Bett/Tesco have also lodged detailed objections to the policies (A15 and A17) which support an allocation for a food superstore at a location at Westway. It is pointed out that Westway has already been the subject of consideration at three local inquiries and rejected, principally on the basis of its peripheral location making it contrary to both the structure plan and national retail planning policies in NPPG8.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 15 Angus Council Statement of Response
Linlathen Developments Ltd argue that the proposal for Westway (originally A16 in the February 2005 FALPR) is contrary to the approved structure plan and national policy and should be amended to exclude a food retail superstore and be confined to non-food bulky goods retailing.
I accept the general contention put forward on behalf of the council that the suitability or otherwise of the Westway site for a major food superstore should be assessed in its own right, not on a comparative basis with the Westburn site or other locations. Nevertherless, the existence of large foodstores already operating, as well as sites with planning permission, in and around Arbroath town centre cannot be ignored – particularly when assessing the spending capacity of the catchment area and likely impacts arising from new development proposals. Accordingly, in examining certain location criteria set out in the structure plan and in the national planning guidelines, in particular NPPG8, there is a legitimate need to look at particular aspects in comparative terms, for example with regard to accessibility to the town centre and the resident population of the catchment area.
Public Opinion:
I note that one of the key considerations for the council members supporting the allocation of the Westway site for major food retailing is that, in their view, it is strongly backed by local public opinion. I also note, however, that the evidence for this is largely anecdotal, being based on conversations held by local councillors with local people, enhanced by expressions of support from the local community council and the Arbroath Traders Association. The only survey findings drawn to my attention (conducted on behalf of the objectors) appear to suggest that support for Westway is less than overwhelming, but those survey results are neither comprehensive in their scope nor conclusive in their findings, in my opinion.
In any event, I am persuaded by the arguments put forward on behalf of Bett/Tesco that the council is not entitled to allocate a site for development in the local plan review simply because some of the councillors believe that there is public support for that site. I note that SPP1 (para 37) states that “local plan policies must conform to the structure plan and be fully justified, demonstrating what is and what is not acceptable in land use planning terms”. I will come back to the structure plan in due course.
Expenditure Capacity:
Paragraph 24 of the Proposed Second Round Modifications refers to the outline planning permissions recently granted on appeal for the Westburn Foundry site. Whilst expressing “some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the store which will be developed,” which is dependent on land ownership issues being resolved, it states that these consents, for a foodstore of up to around 5,000sqm, “will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. In this context, I agree with Morrison that the statement then made by the council in paragraph 25 of the Second Round Modifications to the effect that the evidence and findings of a recent public inquiry, presumably the one concerning the Westburn appeals, “has confirmed that there is expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area” is unsubstantiated by the available evidence. Firstly there appears to be no mention in the decision letter on the Westburn appeals, issued by Ms Heywood in July 2005 to confirm scope for two superstores – one at Westburn and one elsewhere in Arbroath. Indeed Ms Heywood in her decision letter concurs with the views expressed in the McNair Report published in 2004 and endorsed by Scottish Ministers that there is scope for one new superstore at Arbroath.
I note the evidence lodged in the local plan inquiry, not by the council but on behalf of ASDA, that seeks to show that there would be sufficient expenditure in the catchment area to support a superstore at Westway in tandem with a foodstore on the Westburn
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 16 Angus Council Statement of Response
site. I also note that the Roderick McLean Associates (RMA) report, commissioned on behalf of the council in December 2005, raises concerns about the assumptions in the calculations on which that analysis is based. In particular, it questions turnover and expenditure rates which suggest a more optimistic outcome – for example in terms of likely retail impact and claw-back of leakage - for the promoters of the Westway site than might reasonably be the case. Specifically, the ASDA assumptions, if shown to be optimistic, would result in a correspondingly lower retail impact associated with the Westway proposal, which may not be the case in reality. The differences in the results deriving from alternative base figures, horizon dates and key assumptions is illustrated by the assessments undertaken on behalf of Morrison and Bett/Tesco, compared with those put forward by ASDA. Given the variance in these key parameters it is difficult for me make a definitive comparative assessment between them but it is clear that the ASDA assumptions are the most optimistic and their robustness is questioned by an independent specialist (in the RMA report) commissioned on behalf of the council.
One key point of disagreement between the retail planning specialists representing the different objectors concerns whether or not the whole of Carnoustie should be included in the catchment area of Arbroath. One of the factors cited on behalf of ASDA in support of including all of the Carnoustie wards in its catchment population spending calculations for Arbroath is the newly dualled A92 road - making it easier for those living in all parts of Carnoustie to reach Arbroath, and in less time than it would take them to get to Dundee. In my view the benefits of the new dual carriageway link between Dundee and Arbroath work both ways, making it also easier and faster than before, for Carnoustie residents to access Dundee stores. In this context, for many people in the area surrounding Arbroath - in particular those living in the parts of Carnoustie furthest from Arbroath and hence nearer to Dundee - the greater range of shopping opportunities available in that regional centre may well outweigh a marginally shorter travel journey time to the Westway site, even if there was a large new foodstore offered there.
Clearly if not all of the wards of Carnoustie are included in the Arbroath catchment this would reduce the population and associated expenditure available locally for stores in Arbroath and make it much more difficult, and perhaps impossible, in catchment expenditure terms to justify promoting a food superstore on the Westway site in addition to a large foodstore at Westburn. Based on all of these uncertainties and the disagreements between experts regarding the likely retail impact associated with the proposed Westway superstore, I am not persuaded that there is robust evidence to confirm the council’s statement, in paragraph 24 of the Second Round Modifications, that there is sufficient expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore of around 5,000sqm at Arbroath (in addition to a foodstore at Westburn, even of only 3,500sqm gross floor area), irrespective of whether it was located at Westway or elsewhere in Arbroath.
The structure plan and National Planning Policy Guidelines NPPG8 and NPPG17:
In line with paragraph 37 of SPP1, referred to above, section 17(3) of the 1997 Act states that a planning authority shall not adopt any plan which does not conform to the relevant structure plan – in this case the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan approved in 2002. I note that there is no dispute that when Angus Council resolved to approve a planning application in 2003 for a major foodstore development at Westway, it accepted its Director of Planning and Transport’s advice that to do so would be would mark a significant departure from the approved structure plan and on this basis notified the Scottish Ministers of its intention. The findings and recommendations of the ensuing public inquiry are contained in the McNair Report of 2004, which were endorsed by the Scottish Ministers. The McNair Report sets out in paragraphs 9.193 to 9.196 the basis on which the provisions of the structure plan were not adequately met by the Westway site, in particular with regards to access, due in large part to its location. Whilst ASDA has now provided a timetable for the new bus service proposed to link the site with the town centre and other parts of Arbroath, I note that the concept of a dedicated bus service was put forward at the 2003 public inquiry and so was known when the reporter
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 17 Angus Council Statement of Response
found, in relation to Town Centres and Retailing Policy 4 of the approved structure plan, that Westway was not easily accessible by modes of transport other than the car. The same reporter also found that the Westway proposal did not conform to Transport Policy 4 as “the proposal does not demonstrate that it would provide the convenient and attractive facilities for pedestrian and public transport access that this policy requires as a minimum, in addition to facilities for cycling.”
I note that local bus services serving the Westway area have improved in the interim period and I acknowledge that its relative remoteness from housing areas is off-set to a degree by it being situated close to major centres of employment in the town and to residential caravan sites which are of a significant scale. Nevertheless, in my view the locational disadvantages of the Westway site itself remain essentially unchanged from the time of the previous public inquiries of 2003 and 2005, as it is situated close to the periphery of the town and remote from all the main housing areas of Arbroath. In this context, and for the reasons outlined below in respect of NPPG8, I am not persuaded that the details provided of a proposed dedicated new bus service link to the Westway site change the position significantly or sufficiently to alter the conclusions drawn in the McNair Report on its accessibility with regard to the structure plan policy requirements detailed above.
One of the aims of the structure plan is the promotion of retail development in town centres where possible and through the adoption of the sequential approach for retail proposals to protect the vitality and viability of town centres, in line with the criteria of NPPG8. The fact that there are no town centre sites offering scope for major retail development in Arbroath is not in dispute. I note that the McNair Report also found that the Westway site would not accord with paragraphs 7 and 19 of NPPG8, and in particular that it did not meet criterion (e) of paragraph 45 of the NPPG8 as “ it would not be easily accessible by walking or cycle routes that would link with the forecast population.” Whilst ASDA has provided detailed evidence to seek to demonstrate that the Westway site can offer good pedestrian and cycle access and linkages, I am not persuaded that these design details can satisfactorily offset its inherent problem of peripherality and remoteness from the town centre and from housing areas of Arbroath. In summary, in my view the situation has not changed significantly and the current proposal by the council to allocate the Westway site for a food superstore would still not be in conformity with the above policies of the approved structure plan or with NPPG8. In this regard I am in general agreement with the arguments put forward on behalf of Bett/Tesco, Morrison and Linlathen Developments I note that the council has not sought to address the fact that, for similar reasons, the McNair Report found that the Westway proposals would not accord with NPPG17: Transport and Planning.
I note the arguments put forward on behalf of the council and ASDA concerning the strategic vision and aims of the structure plan with regard to employment. I also appreciate the structural problems which have adversely affected the economy of Arbroath in recent years. This has encouraged the council to seek ways to boost local employment prospects, including through new retail and tourism developments alongside other business expansion and environmental initiatives. Whilst these are all relevant they do not outweigh or justify setting aside the other structure plan aims, including those discussed above, as well as the aims of identifying retail development in response to deficiencies in provision and for retail development outwith town centres to be accessible by a choice of means of transport and reduce the need for travel.
Whilst the new upgraded A92 link between Dundee and Arbroath terminates close to the Westway site - which enhances accessibility to the Westway site for those in Carnoustie and from some other parts of the rural hinterland - this does not address the problem of Westway’s peripheral location within the town itself. I am similarly not persuaded that the stated objective of reducing leakage and improving choice for consumers would necessarily be achieved in the manner suggested by ASDA and the council - particularly when the assumptions on which ASDA’s retail spending and likely impact calculations were based are open to question, for the reasons given earlier. I do not place any
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 18 Angus Council Statement of Response
significant weight on the fact that Arbroath has a deficiency of retail floorspace when compared with Forfar as these towns have unique locational characteristics and different catchment and spending profiles. Accordingly, I reject outright the suggestion that on the crude basis of retail floorspace differences between Arbroath and Forfar a store at Westway might be justifiable, when no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the catchment and spending profiles of the two towns have been assessed in any detail to enable any robust comparisons or conclusions to be drawn in this regard.
The objections related to the A16 allocation concerning the Westburn/ Stobcross site
It is evident that the planning appeals lodged by Tesco Stores plc in respect of Westburn/Stobcross resulted in two outline planning permissions being granted in July 2005:
• one for a foodstore not exceeding 3,500sqm GFA on the smaller site, essentially the Westburn Foundry site within the control of the appellants; and • one for a foodstore not exceeding 5,000sqm GFA on the larger site, encompassing the foundry site together with the Bruce House premises currently owned by the council.
I note that each of these permissions is subject to a series of planning conditions, including conditions related to access and servicing. I also note that there are objections concerning the fact that the council has allocated the Westburn Foundry site in Policy A16 and supporting text of paragraph 24 in the following terms:
“24. Following planning appeals planning permissions have been granted for further food retail development at the former Westburn Foundry site. Implementation of these consents will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. As the developer does not have control over the whole of the sites which have planning permission, there is some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the retail store which will be developed. It is considered appropriate to allocate the site of the former Westburn Foundry for the development of a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres gross floorspace, in accordance with the planning permission for the site. There may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000 square metres gross, if land ownerships can be consolidated. However, such consolidation is far from certain and will be subject to the outcome of a feasibility study into the possible relocation of the Council offices currently located on part of the site. It is intended to monitor this position and to consider proposals for other sites outwith the town centre against policy SC23 and other relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance.
A16: Cairnie Street/Stobcross
The site of the former Westburn Foundry is allocated for a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres subject to meeting access and servicing requirements.”
Whilst ASDA seeks the deletion of the whole of paragraph 24 and Policy A16 from the local plan review (and its replacement by an allocation of the Westburn A16 site for Class 4 business, call centre or residential uses), the other objectors Morrison, Bett/Tesco and the Arbroath Area Partnership are only seeking particular amendments to the wording of Policy A16.
ASDA’s objection to A16:
I note that ASDA considers that deletion of any mention of retail use for the Westburn Foundry site in the local plan is justified, based on its contentions that:
• the site concerned is not capable of safe access/egress for retail development
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 19 Angus Council Statement of Response
• the site is not capable of accommodating a development of the size envisaged in the proposed modification • it would not address the quantitative or qualitative deficiency of Arbroath and the surrounding area
I will deal with each of these points in turn. Firstly, I note that access is one of the items covered by the planning conditions attached to the outline planning permissions at Westburn granted on appeal in July 2005. There is a Reserved Matters application lodged with the council by Tesco Stores Ltd in respect of the smaller site permission, relating to a store of 3,500sqm on the foundry site. There is also a Roads Construction Consent (RCC) application lodged with the council for the same development. At the local plan inquiry the council’s representative indicated that whilst it has been in discussion with the applicants about possible amendments to the detailed drawings lodged in respect of these applications no decision had been taken in respect of these applications and there was no Report to Committee available from its Director of Planning and Transport making an assessment of the applications and recommendations to the council on that basis.
In this context, I note that ASDA has chosen to commission its own design and transport specialists to undertake detailed analysis of the Tesco applications concerning Reserved Matters and RCC for the Westburn Foundry site. In respect of the drawings lodged by the applicants to the council, ASDA’s transport consultant concluded that the foundry site cannot be safely or adequately accessed for a foodstore of 3,500sqm GFA, taking account of the road and junction geometry and the physical constraints of the immediate surrounding area, taking into account national standards. This conclusion was reached even after considering the possible scope for relaxation of those standards on an exceptional basis. Bett/Tesco point out that the same access and design criticisms against the Westburn proposals were put forward on behalf of ASDA, by the same witnesses, at the 2005 Inquiry concerning the Westburn Foundry site but this did not prevent the outline planning permissions being granted, subject to conditions regarding access and other matters. Furthermore, the council’s legal representative has confirmed at the local plan review inquiry that he was not aware of council officers who are assessing these applications saying that the present application for approval of reserved matters by Tesco was completely unacceptable, nor was he aware of any insurmountable obstacles to the application lodged for RCC being approved.
There is no dispute that there are difficulties in providing satisfactory access and egress for a retail store on the Westburn site, for the reasons highlighted by ASDA and discussed at previous inquiries. I am not in a position, however, to assess the acceptability or otherwise of the detailed proposals put forward by Tesco or to provide recommendations in this regard as this is not within my remit. Most importantly, this is a matter for Angus Council not me to decide in due course, as the council is the competent authority to grant the necessary permissions relating to Reserved Matters and a RCC. Meanwhile, I am persuaded by the argument put forward on behalf of Bett/Tesco that even if the present Reserved Matters and RCC applications were ultimately refused by the council - whether on the grounds put forward by ASDA or for whatever reason - this would not prevent a second or subsequent applications being lodged which might be acceptable, within the time limits of the outline planning permission. Based on these considerations – together with the fact that there are outline planning permissions granted in 2005 establishing the principle of retail development at Westburn - I conclude that the first reason cited on behalf of ASDA, relating to safe access to the Westburn site, is not a reasonable or valid basis upon which to recommend deletion of both the allocation of A16 for a foodstore and the supporting text of paragraph 24. I note the detailed concerns expressed by ASDA’s design consultant regarding the limitations of the foundry site to accommodate a food store of 3,500sqm together with the necessary car parking, fire escape, service areas and landscaping as well as other associated support infrastructure - all in accordance with the planning conditions attached to the outline planning permission granted for that scale of store on the site concerned. Once more I would point out that these site specific design details within a
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 20 Angus Council Statement of Response
Reserved Matters application are not matters before me but for the council to determine. I also refer again to the comments made on behalf of the council’s representative, that at the time of the local plan inquiry into this matter he was unaware of any insurmountable obstacles to the granting of the Reserved Matters permission. Accordingly, I reject the contention by ASDA that on the basis of the layout drawings and design details of the Tesco proposal and site constraints at the Foundry site, the A16 allocation of the Westburn foundry site for a foodstore should be deleted. In my view the wording of Policy A16 and the accompanying text make adequate reference to the terms of the allocation being made in respect of the foundry site.
The third reason why ASDA argues that a retail foodstore should be excluded from the uses to be accepted on the A16 site is that the proposal by Bett/Tesco for Westburn would not address the quantitative or qualitative deficiency in major convenience food retailing of Arbroath and the surrounding area (for a superstore presumably). I am fully aware of the debate and detailed disagreements aired at the previous Inquiries concerning whether or not the scale of the foodstore proposals at the Westburn foundry met the criteria to be termed a superstore - or were at least not significantly smaller than a superstore in trading floorspace terms, as discussed in Ms Heywood’s appeal decision. Setting these discussions to one side, I consider that the proposition by ASDA that the Westburn site should not be used for retail purposes if it is demonstrated that it cannot deliver a particular scale or type of store to meet specific quantitative or qualitative deficiencies, as perceived by ASDA, is not justified and wholly unreasonable. The outline planning permissions granted in July 2005 for a store of up to 3,500sqm GFA on the Westburn Foundry site - and for a larger store of up to 5,000sqm GFA on the larger site, including Bruce House if this becomes available - should have ended the debate as to the principle of a retail foodstore being acceptable at this location. Accordingly, I find no satisfactory basis for the proposition put forward on behalf of ASDA to justify deletion of paragraph 24 and re-drafting of Policy A16 to remove reference to a retail foodstore and its replacement by business, residential or other non-retail uses.
Morrison’s Objection to A16: Cairnie Street/ Stobcross:
Morrison notes that Policy A16 is justified by the council with reference to the recent outline planning permissions granted on appeal, subject to conditions. Morrison argues that the wording of Policy A16 should state that the floor area of 3,500 sq m is gross floor area, as set out in paragraph 24, and should make the allocation conditional on meeting all requirements of reserved matters and not just access and servicing. In addition it is suggested that the term “foodstore” should be replaced by “supermarket.”
In the absence of any arguments to the contrary, I am persuaded by the case put forward by Morrison with regard to the phrasing of Policy A16. Accordingly, I consider that for clarity the wording of Policy A16 should make reference to the allocation in the same terms as the outline permission granted for the Westburn Foundry site which is for a supermarket, rather than a foodstore, and that the words ‘gross floor area’ should follow the phrase “…up to 3,500 square metres”. In addition I recommend that the phrase “subject to meeting access and servicing requirements” in Policy A16 should be replaced by “subject to meeting all requirements of reserved matters attached to the outline planning permission granted for this site in July 2005” or words to that effect.
Bett/Tesco’s Objection to the wording of Policy A16:
Whilst welcoming the introduction of Policy A16 in the Proposed Second Round Modifications as a positive allocation of Westburn by the council, Bett/Tesco remains concerned that the wording of Policy A16 only partially supports the location of a food superstore at the former Westburn Foundry. It observes that the council has termed this policy with regard to the smaller permission, for up to 3,500sqm GFA, granted on the foundry site on the basis that it ‘can be developed’. It also notes the council is carrying out a land audit with a view to ascertaining whether the office building at Bruce House could be relocated and the site sold, which would release that site to enable the larger
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 21 Angus Council Statement of Response
planning permission, for a store of up to 5,000sqm GFA to be developed instead. It points out that Paragraph 24 confirms that the only reason why the larger store permission has not been included in Policy A16 allocation is because the consolidation of land ownerships ‘is far from certain’. In this context Bett/Tesco argue that the larger store has planning permission and there is no evidence that it can be ruled out, so in its view the distinction sought to be drawn by the council is illogical and unjustified. Accordingly, it is argued that the wording of Policy A16 should be amended to refer to a store development up to 5,000sqm rather than 3,500sqm.
The council, in response to this particular objection, contends that the Bett/Tesco’s proposed amendment to Policy A16 is fundamentally flawed as there is no evidence to demonstrate that the A16 site, (shown as A10 on the Proposals Map of FALPR published in February 2005) could accommodate a store of up to 5,000sqm, noting that Bett/Tesco has not objected to the Proposals Map which excludes the Bruce House site from the area coloured A10. Furthermore the council considers that the proposed modification suggested by Bett/Tesco is inappropriate because there remains considerable uncertainty about the proposals to build a 5,000sqm store on an enlarged site incorporating the council offices land. It points out that committed development is a defined term in respect of PAN49 and before being incorporated within the local plan the planning authority must be confident that proposals can be implemented within about 5 years of the adoption of the plan. PAN49 in paragraph 55 identifies the tests for proposals and these include an intention to develop within 5 years of plan adoption and paragraph 29 of PAN38 provides a list of criteria associated with ‘effectiveness’ and ownership is one of them. In particular if land is in the ownership of a local authority or other public body it should only be included where it is part of a programme of land sales. On this basis, with the sale or release of Bruce House being far from certain, the council argues that the area of ground covered by Bruce House cannot be said to be effective at this stage. As outline planning permission exists for a store up to 3,500sqm on the site A16 shown on the Proposals Map, which largely in the control of Bett/Tesco, the council argues that the wording of Policy A16 is entirely appropriate and should not be changed as suggested by Bett/Tesco.
I note that the area shown on the Proposal Map relating to Policy A16 of the Second Round Modifications (shown as A10: Opportunity Site - Cairnie St/Stobcross on the published finalised plan review of February 2005), which has not been questioned or challenged by Bett/Tesco, shows the Westburn Foundry site and is essentially land within the ownership or control of Bett/Tesco. Most importantly, that site on the Proposals Map excludes the council offices known as Bruce House. I am persuaded by the argument put forward on behalf of the council that there is no evidence to suggest that the foundry site, for which there is an outline planning for a supermarket of up to 3,500sqm gross floor area, could be developed to accommodate a store of up to 5,000sqm without extending onto the land occupied by Bruce House which adjoins it. For the reasons stated by the council, as summarised above, I consider that the enlarged site required for a larger store development of up to 5,000sqm GFA, as provided for in the other outline planning permission, is dependent on the council releasing Bruce House and so cannot be regarded as effective at this stage.
As there remains uncertainty about whether it would become available and hence effective within the period of the local plan period, I consider that the wording of paragraph 24 remains valid as does Policy A16 in referring to a development of up to 3,500sqm on the foundry site shown on the Proposals Map, subject to the modifications in detailed wording recommended in response to the objection lodged on behalf of Morrison. If, in the period leading up to adoption of the local plan, the council decides to release Bruce House to enable the larger store permission at Stobcross to be implemented, then I would recommend that the Proposals Map should be amended to incorporate it into the A16 site allocation and then there would be justification for amending Policy A16 to provide for a supermarket of up to 5,000sqm GFA to be allocated on the enlarged site in that eventuality.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 22 Angus Council Statement of Response
Finally, on the basis of outline planning permission having been granted for a supermarket development on the Westburn site, I reject the objection lodged by Arbroath Area Partnership that use of the foundry site should be restricted to exclude uses that would generate significant additional traffic on Cairnie St and Lochlands St. As stated earlier, the principle of allowing a supermarket on this site has already been established by outline permissions already having been granted and this cannot be ignored or removed by a local plan allocation setting restrictions to prevent such a use.
REPORTER’S SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
I have taken account of all of the other detailed arguments put forward on behalf of the various objectors and the council in support of their respective cases, but find none individually or in combination that would outweigh the reasoning set out above leading to my conclusions reached in respect of each of the local plan objections lodged In summary, based on the considerations set out above and for the reasons given, I conclude that:
• the evidence and findings from the two previous public inquiries on retailing in Arbroath (the most recent of which led in 2005 to outline planning permissions being granted for differing scales of supermarket development at the Westburn foundry site and for the larger site there, incorporating the adjoining council- owned land) do not confirm that there is also expenditure capacity to support an additional new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the Arbroath catchment area; • overall the evidence presented at the local plan inquiry and in submissions has persuaded me, firstly, that the findings of the two previous public inquiries on retailing in Arbroath (held in 2003 and 2005) remain valid and relevant and, secondly, that the local (or wider) circumstances have not changed sufficiently in the intervening period to make their conclusions no longer valid; • on this basis there is no justification for: o Policy A15 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to support an additional foodstore of around 5,000sqm to be provided in Arbroath at Westway/Dundee Road; or for o Paragraph 25 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications • based on the same considerations, and in particular with reference to the need for the local plan, once adopted, to accord with the provisions of the approved structure plan and take account of national planning policy, there is no justification for Policy A17 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to include the provision of a food retail store of around 5,000sqm gross within the land allocated for a retail park at Westway - Dundee Rd. In my view any retail use on this site should be restricted to non-food retail warehouses for sale of durable goods – as restricted by the existing designation of that site; • the terms of Paragraph 24 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications are well stated and should be endorsed • the (Proposed 2nd Round Modification) Policy A16: Cairnie Street / Stobcross is also justified in its existing form, subject to the following modifications to its wording to comply with the terms of the planning permission granted for the site concerned: o substitute the word ‘supermarket’ for foodstore; o add ‘gross floor area’ after 3,500 square metres o replace “subject to meeting access and servicing requirements with the phrase “subject to meeting all requirements of reserved matters attached to the outline planning permission granted for this site in July 2005” or words to that effect, to be consistent with the terms of the outline planning permission • there is not sufficient justification for amending the allocation of Policy A16 from 3,500sqm to 5,000sqm. I reach this conclusion based on the uncertainty of the availability of the council owned land required, within the timeframe of the local
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 23 Angus Council Statement of Response
plan review, and because the possibility of development of that larger scale - in line with the larger outline planning permission - is already provided for in the wording of Paragraph 24 preceding the policy – as set out in the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications put forward by the council.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the finalised local plan review is modified in the terms set out above in my conclusions.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter has summarised the planning history relevant to the objections to the Finalised Local Plan Review concerning major foodstore development policy and allocations in Arbroath. Since the PLI finished three further matters should be noted:- • An application for Roads Construction Consent by Bett Properties PLC in respect of new roads associated with a retail development at the former Westburn Foundry site at Arbroath was refused by the Infrastructure Services Committee on 8 June 2006 (report No 722/06 refers). Bett Properties PLC have lodged an appeal against the Council’s decision, and this is now being dealt with through the Inquiry process; • Application No 05/01857/REM by Bett Properties Ltd/Tesco Stores Ltd for the erection of a food retail outlet (3500sqm gross), associated car parking, servicing and improved access at the former Westburn Foundry, Stobcross, Cairnie Street, Arbroath was conditionally approved by the Development Control Committee on 15 June 2006; and • Publication of SPP8 Town Centres and Retailing which updates national panning Policy, whilst retaining the emphasis on the primacy of town centres. Impact on vitality and viability of existing centres, a sequential approach and accessibility remain key issues. SPP8 will be a material consideration when assessing planning applications.
The Reporter does not accept that it has been demonstrated that there is sufficient expenditure capacity to support a further new superstore of around 5000sqm in Arbroath in addition to the outline permissions granted for supermarket development at the Westburn Foundry site.
The evidence presented at the local plan inquiry has persuaded the Reporter that the findings of the previous inquiries in 2003 and 2005 remain valid and relevant, and that circumstances have not changed sufficiently in the intervening period to make their conclusions no longer valid.
The Reporter states that in his view the proposal to allocate the Westway site for a foodstore is not in conformity with the Dundee & Angus Structure Plan Town Centres and Retailing Policy 4: Out of Centre Retailing; Transport Policy 4: Development Location; NPPG8 Town Centres and Retailing; and NPPG17 Transport and Planning and that the other arguments put forward at the PLI do not outweigh these points. He also states that ‘with reference to the need for the local plan, once adopted, to accord with the provision of the approved structure plan and take account of national planning policy, there is no justification for Policy A17 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to include the provision of a food retail store.
The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (section 17(3)) requires the Local Plan Review to conform to the approved Structure Plan. This is also reinforced in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 1: The Planning System (paragraph 37). The continued inclusion of the Westway site for food retailing raises significant issues of conformity with both the Dundee & Angus Structure Plan and national planning policy (as highlighted by the Reporter), and I therefore recommend that reference to a foodstore at Westway should be deleted. Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 24 Angus Council Statement of Response
The Reporter has supported the Council’s position with regard to the site at the former Westburn foundry. He accepts it is correctly represented in the Finalised Angus Local Plan text and proposals map for Arbroath, in that the site for the smaller supermarket is capable of development within five years, but uncertainty around site availability means the larger site cannot be said to be effective at this stage. The Reporter’s position is accepted, and the proposed modifications will clarify Policy A16 : Cairnie Street/ Stobcross
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review text and policies as follows:-
Para/Policy Type Modification Policy A15 of the Reporter Delete:- Proposed 2nd Recommendation A15 : Provision for Foodstore Development Round An additional superstore of around 5000 square Modifications metres gross floorspace should be provided in Arbroath, to be located at Westway/Dundee Road.
Paragraph 25 of Reporter Delete:- the Proposed 2nd Recommendation 25. Evidence and findings from a recent Public Round Local Inquiry in connection with major retail Modifications development proposals has confirmed that there is expenditure capacity to support a second new superstore that would improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. Angus Council has agreed that a further additional superstore of around 5000square metres (gross) would be appropriate. Following further consideration of locational options, the Council has identified the Westway Retail Park as the preferred location having regard to various issues including accessibility and distribution, retail functions, development constraints, and land use regeneration opportunities.
Policy A17 of the Reporter Policy A17 -any retail use on this site should be Proposed 2nd Recommendation restricted to non-food retail warehouses for sale of Round durable goods – as restricted by the existing Modifications designation of that site, as follows:-
A16 : Westway - Dundee Road
Land at Westway/Dundee Road is reserved for retail use, leisure use and ancillary development including the provision of a food retail store (around 5000sqm gross) and non food retail warehouses for sale of durable goods (limited to bulky and electrical goods).
Policy A16 of Reporter substitute the word ‘supermarket’ for ‘foodstore’ Proposed 2nd Recommendation Round Modification Reporter add ‘gross floor area’ after 3,500 square metres Recommendation
Reporter Updated - to recognise that since the PLI concluded Recommendation Angus Council has approved a Reserved matters Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 25 Angus Council Statement of Response
planning application for this site and consequently the Reporters original recommendation requires to be updated and amended to reflect this new position.
Angus Council “subject to meeting the requirements of the Recommendation reserved matters planning application granted for this site in June 2006”
Amend paragraph and Policy numbers accordingly.
Taking the above into account the amended Local Plan text will read as follows:-
22. Although vacancy rates are relatively low, there has been relatively little investment in new retailing within the town centre in recent years and a large non- food retail unit has closed. More positively, the redevelopment of the vacant retail property at Gravesend to provide a Lidl discount store and two non-food units has been approved and will provide opportunities to strengthen the town centre.
23. In relation to out of centre retailing, the Morrison store is close to the town centre. It is the Council’s policy that an additional foodstore of around 5000 square metres should be provided to increase choice and reduce expenditure leakage from the catchment.
A15 : Provision for Foodstore Development An Additional superstore of around 5000 square metres gross floorspace should be provided in Arbroath, to be located at Westway/Dundee Road.
24. Following planning appeals planning permissions have been granted for further food retail development at the former Westburn Foundry site. Implementation of these consents will improve the range and choice of retailing and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. As the developer does not have control over the whole of the sites which have planning permission, there is some uncertainty as to the timing and size of the retail store which will be developed. It is considered appropriate to allocate the site of the former Westburn Foundry for the development of a foodstore of up to 3,500 square metres gross floorspace, in accordance with the planning permission for the site. There may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000 square metres gross, if land ownerships can be consolidated. However, such consolidation is far from certain and will be subject to the outcome of a feasibility study into the possible relocation of the Council offices currently located on part of the site. It is intended to monitor this position and to consider proposals for other sites outwith the town centre against policy SC23 and other relevant development plan policies and national planning guidance.
A15 : Cairnie Street/ Stobcross
The site of the former Westburn Foundry is allocated for a foodstore supermarket of up to 3,500 square metres gross floor area, subject to meeting access and servicing the requirements of the reserved matters planning application granted for this site in June 2006.
25. Evidence and findings from a recent Public Local Inquiry in connection with major retail development proposals has confirmed that there is expenditure capacity to suppoty a second new superstore that wound improve the range and choice of convenience retailing for consumers and reduce the leakage of expenditure from the catchment area. Angus Council has agreed that a further additional superstore of around 5000 squre metres (gross) would be appropriate. Following further consideration of the locational options, the Council has identified the Westway Retail Park as the preferred location having Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 26 Angus Council Statement of Response
regard to various issues including accessibility and distribution, retail functions, development constraints, and land use and regeneration opportunities.
A16 : Westway - Dundee Road
Land at Westway/Dundee Road is reserved for retail use, leisure use and ancillary development including the provision of a food retail store (around 5000sqm gross) and non food retail warehouses for sale of durable goods (limited to bulky and electrical goods).
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 27 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: A11 - Opportunity site, Wardmill /Dens Road
Objector Reference
Linlathen Developments 918/2/2
Procedure Reporter
Written Submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
In January 2003 The Director of Planning of Angus Council presented a report to the council concerning three planning applications for "superstores" within Arbroath: at Westburn Foundry, Stobcross; Dens Road/Wardmill Rd; and at Westway Retail Park. The Director of Planning (and the retail consultants appointed by the council) recommended refusal of all three applications on the grounds that there was insufficient retail capacity. Notwithstanding this advice, the Development Control Committee of Angus Council decided that they were minded to grant permission for the application for a superstore at Westway. This was notified to Scottish Ministers as marking a significant departure from the approved Dundee and Angus Structure Plan and that application was ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers and considered, together with appeals for the two further sites, at a public inquiry held by Ms J McNair in September/October 2003.
Her report (The ‘McNair Report’), setting out the findings and recommendations of that Inquiry, was issued in early 2004. The Scottish Ministers accepted its findings and recommendations and decided to refuse planning permission for all three major foodstore proposals in May 2004. Despite recommending refusal of each of the applications under consideration, the McNair Report stated that all parties agreed that there was a deficiency in convenience retail provision in Arbroath and that this should be met by a superstore, as defined by NPPG8. In June 2004 a full planning application was submitted by Macdonald Estates for a foodstore and 3 non-food retail units at Westway Retail Park – that application remains undetermined In July 2004 outline planning applications were submitted by Bett properties for supermarket proposals at Westburn, Stobcross. One proposal covered the site of the former Westburn Foundry (the ‘small site’) and the other (the ‘larger site’) covered this together with adjacent property occupied by Angus Council, principally the offices known as Bruce House. In September 2004 appeals against non-determination were submitted by Bett Properties in respect of those applications at Westburn.
In December 2004 The Director of Planning and Transport reported to the council regarding his officers’ views on retail policy for the finalised Angus Local Plan Review and recommended that an additional ‘superstore’ of around 5,000sqm should be included in that plan, and that 3 sites (at Dens Rd/Wardmill Rd; Westburn Foundry (larger site); and Westway) should be identified on the proposals map as ‘potential sites’ for the superstore proposed – with site selection to be addressed at the local plan inquiry (with any approval of a proposal in advance of this being regarded as premature). The council agreed that an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm should be provided for in the finalised plan but decided that the site at Westway/Dundee Road should be identified on the proposals map of the Finalised Local Plan Review as the potential site for the new superstore – and this was published accordingly (as paragraph 25 and Policy A16) in FALPR in February 2005.
In May/June 2005 a public inquiry was held (by Ms K Heywood) to determine the Bett Properties/Tesco Stores (Bett/Tesco) planning appeals relating to the small and larger site proposals Westburn. In July 2005 the appeal decisions were issued by Ms Heywood which granted 2 outline planning permissions: one relating to a supermarket of up to
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 28 Angus Council Statement of Response
3,500sqm GFA for the small site and one for a store of up to 5,000sqm GFA for the larger site, and both were subject to conditions. In order for Bett/Tesco to implement their larger permission at Westburn the council would have to sell Bruce House to the applicants/developers. Whilst the council has taken a formal decision that Bruce House is not for sale it is undertaking a feasibility study on this matter which has yet to report. On 8 September 2005, in response to the Westburn appeal decisions, the Director of Planning and Transport presented a report to the Infrastructure Services Committee of Angus Council setting out officers’ recommendations for Proposed Second Round Modifications to the FALPR. This report put forward a new local plan policy stating that provision be made in Arbroath for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm GFA and to allocate the smaller site at Westburn for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm GFA, subject to meeting access and service requirements. It also recommended that the reference to a food retail store at Westway, in the February 2005 draft finalised plan, should be deleted.
On 18 October 2005 the council resolved to include in the Proposed Second Round Modifications a new policy (A15) that provision be made for an additional superstore of around 5,000sqm in Arbroath and that this should be provided at Westway, stating that the justification for this was to increase choice and reduce expenditure leakage from the catchment. It also resolved, on the basis of the planning permissions granted following planning appeals, to include another new policy (A16) allocating the Westburn Foundry site (small site only – excluding Bruce House) for a foodstore of up to 3,500sqm, subject to meeting access and servicing arrangements, and stated that there may be scope to increase the scale of the foodstore up to around 5,000sqm if land ownerships can be consolidated, but pointed out that such consolidation is far from certain. Finally, the council proposed to also include within the Second Round Modifications a new Policy A17 reserving land at Westway/Dundee Road for a variety of uses include the provision of a food retail store of around 5,000sqm gross. In December 2005 Tesco Stores Ltd submitted an application for reserved matters in relation to its outline planning permission at the Westburn Foundry (the small site) and also lodged an application for Roads Construction Consent (RCC) – both of which were being considered by the council but had yet to be determined when the local plan inquiry was completed or when this report section was written..
Since the appeal decisions by Scottish Ministers in 2004, there have been no further planning applications lodged in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site, Arbroath.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The contention that the Westway site should be deleted as a site allocated for major food retailing in the local plan is dealt with separately in this report alongside the consideration of other objections related to that topic under the section headed A10: Cairnie St and A16: Westway Retail, Arbroath.
It is evident that there has been a lot of development pressure in recent years for additional major foodstore development in Arbroath, including at the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site. The background section details the main sequence of events in the last five years and highlights key decisions during that period affecting food retail planning in Arbroath. As far as I am aware the last formal proposal for foodstore retailing on the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd was made in the form of an outline planning application lodged in 2002. This led ultimately to refusal on appeal by the Scottish Ministers in May 2004, along with refusal decisions made by them at the same time in respect of foodstore proposals at Stobcross/Westburn and at Westway. In all three cases these refusals endorsed the findings and recommendations of the inquiry reporter appointed to hear those appeals.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 29 Angus Council Statement of Response
Whilst the promoters of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site have chosen not to lodge a further planning application in the period since May 2004, I note that there have been subsequent major foodstore applications lodged in respect of the Stobcross/Westburn site and at Westway. Furthermore, two outline planning permissions were then granted on appeal in respect of the Stobcross/Westburn site, one of which involves the adjoining Bruce House site owned by the council, all as detailed above. The smaller of those permissions is the subject of a reserved matters application and an application for roads construction consent. The outline planning permissions already granted in respect of that site are reflected in the allocation made under Policy A16 and associated text of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications to the FALPR. No decision has been taken by the council in respect of the Westway foodstore planning application lodged in June 2004. Nevertheless, contrary to the advice of its Director of Planning, the council proposes allocation of the Westway site for major food retailing in the FALPR. Policies A15 and A17 of the Proposed 2nd Round Modifications relate to that site. These Proposed 2nd Round Modifications have led to detailed local plan objections heard at a formal inquiry – and considered in detail elsewhere in this Report under the heading A10 /A16 Arbroath Retail.
In this context of changed local circumstances, which have evolved in the last 2 years and affect overall retail planning in Arbroath, I note that the objector in support of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site does not make any reference whatsoever to the outline planning permissions granted (at nearby Stobcross/Westburn) or comment on their significance. Indeed the only update provided by the objector in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site is to state that a deal has been struck with the Arbroath Town Mission. It is suggested that this will see them moving to a nearby purpose built new building, which would allow the development of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site to have even closer physical links to the town centre. I am not persuaded that this statement in isolation - or in combination with the bald assertion that development of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site would be a catalyst to re-generate the North Arbroath area – provides sufficient justification to allocate the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site for food retailing use in the finalised local plan review, either in preference to Westway (as being suggested) or as an additional allocation, particularly given the existing outline planning permissions for a large supermarket on the nearby Westburn/Stobcross site.
I am persuaded instead by the council’s arguments in response to the objection and conclude that the objections lodged in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site are not substantiated sufficiently to merit the changes to the finalised local plan review proposed, particularly in the context of the outline planning permissions granted in 2005 for a supermarket development on the nearby Stobcross site. Furthermore, I note that detailed proposals have been lodged by the applicants, Tesco seeking to gain approval of reserved matters with a view to proceeding towards implementation of a supermarket on that site. For all of these reasons I conclude that the objections lodged in support of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site being allocated for retail use should be rejected.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case in respect of the Wardmill Rd/Dens Rd site (A11) or in respect of Policy A6: Regenerate! North Arbroath.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 30 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Policy A12 – Working, West of Elliot Industrial Estate
Objector Reference
Crudie Farms 626/1/1 (per Charlton Smith Partnership)
Procedure Reporter
Written submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
Policy A12 allocates 21ha of land to the west of the existing Elliot Industrial Estate for Class 4, Class 5 and Class 6 uses, stating that development proposals which would prejudice expansion of development land to the west of the existing Elliot Industrial Estate would not accord with the local plan.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no dispute that the site concerned, which is a former sewage treatment works, has been earmarked for some time for expansion of the Elliot Industrial Estate westwards, to provide further employment land for Class 4, Class 5 and Cass 6 uses. No compelling case has been made as to why some or all of this allocated land should be made available for housing. I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the land concerned is required for industrial and related business expansion purposes and that its development in part for housing would prejudice the proposals for the remainder of that site.
No evidence has been presented to challenge the council’s argument that the land is required for industrial and related employment uses and a case has not been satisfactorily made to justify some of this land being reallocated for housing development. Indeed I consider that this former sewage works site, adjoining a large, existing industrial estate, would be best used for employment uses as proposed in Policy A12 of the finalised local plan review. Based on all of these considerations I do not consider that there are strategic or local reasons to justify re-allocation of the site concerned for housing, in whole or part.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 31 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Policy A19 - Hospitalfield House
Objector Reference
The Patrick Allan-Fraser of Hospitalfield Trust 100/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written Submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objections concern the Hospitalfield House and grounds in Arbroath, in particular Policy A19 of the finalised local plan review which seeks to safeguard it from development that would be detrimental to the historic character and landscape setting of the property.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that the objection has been conditionally withdrawn on the basis that the proposed modification by the council would provide a more appropriate introduction to Policy A19. Based on these considerations, I understand the basis of the objection and endorse the council’s assessment in this particular case. Accordingly, I conclude that the text of the finalised local plan review immediately preceding Policy A19 should be amended, by the addition of new text, as proposed by the council and agreed by the Hospitalfield Trust.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case, by incorporation of the following additional wording at the end of para 26 on Page 109 of the finalised draft local plan review: “This policy is not intended to prevent all development, but to ensure any future development proposals are in keeping with this historic property and its landscape setting”.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005, and agreed by the The Patrick Allan-Fraser of Hospitalfield Trust, as follows:
Add sentence to the end of para 26, page 109 as follows:
‘This policy is not intended to prevent all development, but to ensure any future development proposals are in keeping with this historic property and its landscape setting.’
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 32 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Omission - Land at Elliot
Objector Reference
James Keillor Estates Ltd 553/1/1 (per D G Coutts Associates)
Procedure Reporter
Written submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site is within the Arbroath Housing Market Area (HMA). The objector seeks allocation of the site at Elliot House, Arbroath, adjacent to the recently dualled A92 road, for new housing that has not been included in the finalised local plan review.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the approved structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the Arbroath HMA area. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those specified for Arbroath HMA, should be reflected in the local plan review.
No evidence has been presented to challenge the council’s argument that, in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to Arbroath HMA exceeds the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011. Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in Arbroath in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38. I do not consider that the creation of a site to the west of Arbroath to counterbalance existing housing land allocations to the east of the town is not a sufficient strategic reason to allocate the site concerned.
In this context I now turn to consider whether a new housing land allocation at Elliot House, as proposed by the objector, should be accepted on an exceptional basis for local reasons. I note that the flood risk issues highlighted by the council have not been addressed or challenged by the objector. Whilst there is no dispute that the site alongside Elliot House would create a desirable residential environment, this is not sufficient justification for promoting a new greenfield housing site there. Furthermore, in my view such an allocation would set a dangerous precedent for other similar sites to be promoted on an ad hoc basis. Based on all of these considerations, I conclude that there is insufficient justification to warrant allocation of the land at Elliot House, Arbroath for housing development within the local plan review.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 33 Angus Council Statement of Response
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 34 Angus Council Statement of Response
Arbroath: Omission - land north of Warddykes,
Objector Reference
C Hay 926/1/2 (per D G Coutts Associates)
Procedure Reporter
Written submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The adopted Angus Local Plan allocates land at Montrose Road for housing in the period to 2006, and identifies the adjoining land parcel for longer term housing development. The allocated site was granted outline planning permission in 2004. In accordance with the adopted Angus Local Plan and the conditions attached to the outline planning consent, the developers are preparing a site brief for the whole 15ha area at Montrose Road, which is identified as allocated site A1 in the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review. According to the site developers, this phased development is expected to provide around 400 new houses in total. The objection now under consideration relates to the ‘Warddykes Road’ site on the opposite side of the A92 road, directly to the west of site A1.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the approved structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the Housing Market Areas (HMAs), including for the Arbroath HMA. I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the approved structure plan, including those specified for Arbroath HMA, should be reflected in the local plan review.
I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the requirements for the Arbroath HMA specified in the approved structure plan for the next five years have been fully met by the allocations made in the finalised local plan review, including the allocation at Montrose Road referred to above. Accordingly, I conclude that there is no need to modify the local plan review to provide additional housing land allocations in Arbroath HMA in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38. On this basis I consider that there is no strategic need or justification for the Warddykes site to be considered for allocation in addition to the Montrose Road site already allocated as site A1 in the FALPR. There has been no attempt made by the objector to challenge the strategic arguments put forward by the council regarding housing land allocations in the HMA which, as discussed above, indicate that there is no justification to allocate another housing site in Arbroath. Whilst noting the argument put forward on behalf of the objector that there will be additional housing demand in the Arbroath area as a result of completion of the dualling of the A92 road, I am not persuaded that this is sufficient reason to allocate the Warddykes site as an additional housing land allocation site on an exceptional basis.
In this context, I now turn to consider whether there is justification to incorporate the objection site as a replacement for the A1 allocation, given that there is no proven strategic housing need for an additional housing land allocation to serve Arbroath. Whilst the objector has put forward the Warddykes site for my consideration in principle,
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 35 Angus Council Statement of Response
no attempt has been made to provide any arguments to demonstrate why it would be a better allocation than the allocated A1 site on the opposite side of Montrose Road. Indeed there is not even a reference to its scale and characteristics or its likely capacity. The only statement made in support of the case to have it considered as a housing site is that it is surplus to agricultural requirements and is available. I note that there has been a well documented and publicised housing site search and selection process by the council over a period of years, as part of the local plan review process. This included a number of short-listed site options in and around Arbroath, including the Warddykes site, each being considered in some detail against a list of criteria, enabling comparative assessments to be made. This process led to the council concluding on its proposed Arbroath housing land allocations for the FALPR, which included confirmation of site A1 at Montrose Road. In this context, I consider that there is no justification to abandon this in favour of the Warddykes Road site at this late stage when no evidence has been offered on behalf of the objector to merit such a reallocation. Furthermore, I note that the site A1 is proceeding towards a phased development with a development brief currently at an advanced stage of preparation. [Another objection to the A1 allocation seeking an alternative allocation at Crudie Farms has been assessed on its own merits and in comparison with the A1 site allocation separately in this report].
In this context, I conclude that are no strategic reasons or exceptional circumstances to warrant allocation of the Warddykes site either in addition to or as a replacement for the A1 housing allocation site on the north side of Arbroath.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated in my conclusions, I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 36 Angus Council Statement of Response
Brechin: Key Issues and Development Strategy & Town Centre and Retailing
Objector Reference
Pritchett Planning Consultancy 928/1/1 & 1/2
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The settlement statement identifies three key issues, one of which is how to encourage and improve the vitality and viability of the town centre. The development strategy indicates support for measures to regenerate the town centre.
Paragraph 9, Town Centres and Retailing, refers to the establishment of a Township Heritage Strategy in the historic centre of Brechin. Policy B8, Town Centre Improvements, supports this initiative for the improvement and/or redevelopment of buildings and sites in the town centre which would support and enhance the retail and service function.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note the Angus Retail Study 2002 concluded that support for a new supermarket at Brechin could not be supported because of the small catchment area and local convenience expenditure capacity. Similarly, other than as a replacement for some existing provision, the capacity to support new discount stores is doubtful. Small-scale retail warehousing provision may be promoted but scope could be limited by new opportunities in nearby Montrose.
The structure plan refers to Brechin as one of the smaller towns in Angus which offers more locally orientated shopping facilities. In general, the Angus towns are said to provide a range of shopping opportunities geared mainly to the needs of the towns themselves and the rural hinterland. In some instances, the historic core inhibits the scope for physical expansion and renewal. Town Centres and Retailing Policy 1, Town Centres, seeks to promote the Angus towns and their centres as key locations for new retail developments and for complementary uses.
As pointed out by the council, there has been no justification or quantification of particular need and, in view of the terms of the structure plan and the analysis of the retail study, I conclude that there is no significant demand for additional retail development in Brechin. In turn, I conclude that it is appropriate for the Key Issues to refer to the encouragement and improvement of the vitality and viability of the town centre and for the Development Strategy to support regeneration measures in the town centre. Similarly, I consider the terms of paragraph 9 and Policy B8, Town Centre Improvements, to be appropriate. Although the town centre is tightly defined and much is designated as a conservation area, I believe that the area identified is reasonable, particularly in view of the lack of demand for additional retail development.
In the event that a significant retail proposal did come forward in Brechin, I accept the council’s argument that Policy SC23, Large Scale Retail Development Proposals (as modified), would provide adequate guidance. Other related policies may also be applied as appropriate.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 37 Angus Council Statement of Response
Overall, I conclude that the local plan review deals with retailing in Brechin and the town centre in a satisfactory manner without the need for modification.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 38 Angus Council Statement of Response
Brechin: B1, Housing, Dubton Farm and Omission: Crookston East/Unthank Farm
Objector Reference
Kirkwood Homes Ltd 857/1/1 & 857/1/2
Supporter – B1- Housing, Dubton Farm, Brechin
Dalhousie Estates 807/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
B1, Housing – Dubton Farm, allocates approximately 29 hectares of greenfield land in the west of Brechin for residential development together with significant areas of landscaping and public open spaces. An initial phase of 100 units will be released in the plan period and the scale of further land release beyond 2011 will be determined by a future local plan. Various requirements are identified in respect of such matters as structural landscaping, access, transport links, drainage and affordable housing.
The site lies to the north of the A935, which forms the settlement boundary at this location, leading away from the town centre to a junction with the A90. The allocated land is undulating farmland, with a degree of enclosure by mature trees, and bounds an existing housing land allocation to the east (site B(b)). To the west the land becomes more open and level. This land is allocated for business land supply and is partly developed in this respect. Beyond the business land is a site allocated for a hotel or travel lodge and, finally, adjacent to the junction with the trunk road is a nursery and the Brechin Castle Centre (Pictavia).
The land known as Crookston East/Unthank Farm is located to the north of Brechin immediately beyond the settlement boundary between Crookston Road to the west and the B966, Trinity Road, to the east. The A90 forms the boundary to the north-west. The land is in agricultural use and rises gently away from the edge of the built-up area towards the A90.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The objector believes the local plan review provides an opportunity to re-assess the strategic situation and consider alternatives. Indeed, the council has confirmed that the situation was reviewed but there was no reason to alter the strategic growth direction to the west of the town.
In my opinion, the direction of strategic growth determined through the adopted Angus Local Plan set the long term pattern for the development of Brechin. Several important elements of that strategic growth have already taken place including, in particular, the establishment and partial development of the business park. The Brechin Castle Centre and the adjacent nursery are other significant elements. Despite the doubts of the objector, the evidence of the council and Dalhousie Estates leads me to believe that development at site B(b), Bearhill/Rosehill, is moving towards implementation. I consider it is not unreasonable to regard the site as effective and to assume that the houses will be constructed as forecast in the housing land audit.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 39 Angus Council Statement of Response
Whilst I accept that a local plan review does offer an opportunity to consider options, the implementation of the growth strategy agreed through the adopted local plan has reached a position that any change must be overwhelmingly justified. I conclude that such justification does not exist and therefore the strategy should be maintained. Even if progress had been severely limited thereby offering a more practical opportunity to alter direction, I consider that the direction of growth to the west was the correct option. I believe that, when developed in total, the A935 will continue to be an attractive entrance to Brechin with the density of development and urbanisation steadily intensifying from the junction with the A90. The rural nature of the land to the south of the road will be retained and add to the character of the approach to the town. This I believe to be more important than concern about any perceived imbalance in the urban form and character of the town.
Notwithstanding the lack of any structural planting in the meantime I believe that, in physical terms, the residential development of site B1 as a whole is capable of integration within the landscape setting of Brechin without detriment to the character of the town. I am therefore not persuaded that a smaller site of 3 hectares should be considered as an alternative. The site has been shown to be effective and a master plan has been prepared. I therefore see no reason to doubt that a contribution of 100 houses could be made in the period to 2011.
Although it is clear that house completions in Brechin have been very limited in recent years, I believe that, taking into account my conclusions in respect of sites B(b) and B1, the level of development envisaged in the local plan review will be achieved. In a wider context, I also accept the council’s evidence that the structure plan allowance for the Brechin/Montrose housing market area will be fulfilled without the need for further housing land allocations.
I have noted the objector’s claim that the development of site B1 will generate traffic to the extent that congestion will occur at the junction with the A90 and in the town centre. This claim has not been substantiated and I give it little weight. Similarly, although it is suggested that few residents would work in the neighbouring business park, no statistical evidence has been provided in this respect. Even though it may be that few local people were to be employed in the business park, the opportunity for working close to home would exist and, indeed, increase as the business park is further developed. Despite the concern of the objector, the council has explained that, on the basis of past years, there is land available to meet demand for 10 years. In any event, Policy SC13 makes provision for the review and, if necessary, the securing of additional employment land. I therefore do not consider that the allocation of site B1 as a reserve site for employment land is a suggestion that has merit.
Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of the direction of strategic growth, I agree with the previous Reporter’s opinion and believe that development in the vicinity of East Crookston/Unthank Farm would not fit easily into the landscape setting of the town. Notwithstanding the proposed community woodland and the existing shelter belt, the generally higher elevation of the land would emphasise the unnatural urban impact. I conclude the land is not suitable for residential development and housing should not be encouraged.
I have noted the comparative assessments of this land with site B1, and even taking into account the location of the main supermarket in the town, I find that, in total, these considerations do not over-ride my foregoing conclusions that site B1 is suitable for residential development or that the land at East Crookston/Unthank Farm is inappropriate for housing.
Taking all these matters into account, I endorse the terms of the local plan review in respect of B1, Housing – Dubton Farm, and, in turn, I am unable to support the objection seeking an alternative housing land allocation at East Crookston/Unthank Farm.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 40 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 41 Angus Council Statement of Response
Brechin: B9 – Community Woodland, Cookston
Objector Reference
J Mather 610/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Proposal B9, Community Woodland, Cookston, allocates approximately 7.3 hectares of land adjacent to the A90 for community woodland and recreational open space.
The A90 dual carriageway adjoins the northern boundary on an embankment.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I have noted the terms of the report of the previous local plan inquiry and concur with the conclusion that practicable and visually acceptable measures to mitigate the impact of the A90 would not be possible. I have considered particularly whether a limited housing development could be achieved in conjunction with community planting but I have concluded that even this would be undesirable in view of the proximity and disposition of the dual carriageway. In any event, the lack of capacity in the sewer is a further significant constraint.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 42 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Key Issues – caravans and camping
Objector Reference
Carnoustie Business Association 509/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______BACKGROUND
Policies SC17, Tourism Development, and SC18, Caravan Sites and Holiday Chalets, and associated text are contained in the tourism section of Part 2 of the local plan review. The Key Issues in the Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement refer to the promotion of Carnoustie as a holiday location with an international golfing reputation.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The Key Issues facing Carnoustie and Barry include “How to develop opportunities that sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location, including its international golfing reputation…” Although there is no specific reference to caravans or camping the list of key issues is necessarily relatively generalised. I believe it is reasonable to regard the promotion of Carnoustie as a holiday location, with emphasis on the importance of golf, as encompassing all related matters including caravans and camping. Equally, the development strategy supports the development of golfing facilities which, in my opinion, provides implicit support for related caravan and camping provision.
I understand that the new primary school site at Queen Street utilised part of the adjacent caravan site (see objection C9 below). However, it is clear that thought was given to the level of supply and it was considered by the council that, for the most part, adequate provision would remain.
The British Open is an exceptional event and, at best, Carnoustie will be the venue on relatively infrequent occasions as the championship is played on various courses throughout the country. The council has said that provision was made for temporary sites at the time the Open was last played at Carnoustie and that this remains an option for 2007. I believe this is a pragmatic and suitable approach.
The council has also drawn attention to Policies SC17 and SC18. The associated text recognises that caravan and camping sites form an important part of the local tourist industry, particularly along the coast and in some parts of Strathmore. I consider that these policies and the text provide a balanced basis on which to assess tourism development and, in particular, caravan sites and holiday chalets. I do not consider it necessary for specific reference to be made to Carnoustie.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 43 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Development Strategy – Carnoustie seafront
Objector Reference
E J Oswald 172/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement identifies the development of opportunities to sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location as a key issue.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The proposed modification is appropriate and meets the terms of the objection. I see no reason to dissent.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby the settlement statement, Key Issues and Development Strategy are amended as indicated above.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Amend first sentence of paragraph 5 to read ‘The beach, seafront and golf links…’
Add bullet points as follows:-
KEY ISSUES • the development of Carnoustie seafront as a tourism and recreation asset;
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY • continued enhancement of the seafront area including foot and cycle paths;’
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 44 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: C6, Working – Clayholes, Carnoustie (proposed amendment) and Omission - Panbride North/Carlogie Road, Carnoustie
Objector Reference
D J Laing Contracts Ltd 934/1/1 (per Montgomery Forgan Associates & Voight Partnership) Mr Henderson (owner of Pitskelly Farm) Supporter (per Ian Kelly)
Procedure Reporter
Informal hearing Richard Bowden
Written Submissions Lodged on: Policy C6; Panbride North; or related topics:
(a) Carnoustie Community Council 163/1/2 (b) Residents Group Carnoustie 915/1/4 & 915/1/5 (c) Mr Joseph Carr 693/1/1 (d) Charlton Smith Partnership 844/1/1 (e) Dr Peter Shaw 234/1/1 (f) Mrs AS & Mrs M Franklin 190/1/1 (g) Susan McMahon 164/2/1 & 164/1/5 (h) Mr & Mrs Galloway 144/1/1 (i) J Ryan & A M Ryan 146/1/1 & 599/1/1 (j) Mr I Foggie (Supporter of C6) 950/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The allocation of employment land to serve the needs of Carnoustie and Monifieth has been the subject of on-going assessment and review by the council, which led to the allocation of land at Clayholes for industrial, business and related employment uses in Policy C6 of the FALPR published in February 2006. The allocation of that site has been the subject of some objections, mostly relating to access and proximity to residential properties. A number of alternative sites have been explored to provide employment land, although in general options to the west of Carnoustie are more difficult/costly to implement because of drainage constraints. Since FALPR was published the closure of the former Maltings on Victoria St has prompted interest in possible wider renewal for non-business uses of the Panmure industrial area between the railway, Kinloch St, Brown St and the new housing at Taymouth Terrace. This would require suitable land and premises elsewhere in or around Carnoustie for existing businesses wishing to relocate from that area.
On this basis, approximately 12ha of employment land, which is larger than originally thought, would be required to meet both the relocation needs of existing businesses on the Panmure Industrial Estate and the approved structure plan requirements for 5 years supply of marketable employment land. The council acknowledges that this is significantly more than the originally allocated site at Clayholes could satisfactorily accommodate (5ha). Accordingly, it considers that the development boundary for Carnoustie should revert to its previous position. Following the completion of the A92 upgrading and improvements to associated roads, a reassessment of possible sites in and around Carnoustie for employment uses has taken place (based on visibility, potential for landscaping, accessibility, relationship with Carnoustie and Monifieth and
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 45 Angus Council Statement of Response
future development pressure). This has led to the proposal in the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications for a 12ha site north of Pitskelly Farm to be proposed as the new industrial development land allocation for Carnoustie, which would replace the C6 site at Clayholes.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be no disagreement that the site originally allocated at Clayholes, which I note already has some adjoining employment uses, is now not considered appropriate and is no longer the council’s preferred location for industrial expansion. This follows the objections lodged, primarily regarding its access difficulties and its proximity to existing residential properties and takes into account the limited scale of the land available at Clayholes. There seems to be widespread acknowledgement, including from the council, that there would be benefits for Carnoustie as a whole if the land allocated in the local plan review for employment uses was large enough to accommodate existing businesses which could be relocated from the Panmure Industrial Area near the town centre, as well as catering for new industrial and business uses - in line with the requirements of the approved structure plan regarding maintaining a 5 year supply of marketable land for these purposes. I note that the Clayholes site would be too small and could not be expanded to provide the 12ha of land now required to meet these anticipated needs, including relocation requirements of existing businesses. I also note from my site inspection that the Clayholes site is highly visible from the A92 road. In particular, the sheds of the existing industrial premises at Clayholes are prominent in the landscape when viewed from that newly dualled road, even with the bunding that has been introduced to provide some screening.
In this context, a number of possible alternative sites around Carnoustie have been explored by the council to provide employment land to meet existing and future requirements. I note that most of these sites have now been ruled out, generally because they are either too small and/or they have flooding or drainage constraints that would be costly to overcome, particularly in the case of sites to the west of Carnoustie. Accordingly, based on the evidence presented, as summarised above and reported elsewhere in respect of Batties Den, it appears that there remain only two site options to consider as ‘contenders’ to provide the necessary employment land at this time – the Pitskelly site put forward by the council in its 3rd Round Modifications (and now supported by the landowner) or the Panbride/Carlogie (the ‘Panbride’) site. In support of the Panbride site, a local plan objector (in co-operation with the owner of that land) has put forward detailed arguments together with a Masterplan layout and associated documentation to illustrate why that site should be preferred to the Pitskelly one for inclusion as the allocated site to replace C6 Clayholes in the local plan review. Based on the available evidence as well as accompanied and unaccompanied site inspections from different viewpoints, I have the following observations on the comparative merits of the two sites, Pitskelly and Panbride, as put forward by the council and the objector supporting that alternative site, respectively.
Size:
In my view, both of the sites would be able to provide the necessary 12ha meet future needs, including satisfying the requirements of the approved structure plan for a 5 year supply of marketable employment land. In my view, however, the Panbride site has a more clearly defined opportunity for future enlargement beyond that (up to 24ha in total), with land (immediately to the east of the proposed 12ha site) already earmarked by the objector to meet that longer term need, if required.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 46 Angus Council Statement of Response
Site Configuration:
Whilst the Pitskelly Farm site is a simple, flat rectangular field layout, the illustrative proposals for Panbride show how the landform, existing mature trees and the proposed realignment of the link road from the A92, through a new cutting, would be used in combination to provide a division between the proposed business park at Carlogie (to the west of the new link road) and the proposed industrial park to be established in a woodland setting to the east of that new road link.
Strategic location:
Both of the proposals would be on routes linking junctions of the A92 with Carnoustie – via the Upper Victoria Link in the case of Pitskelly and via the Carlogie junction in the case of Panbride. I note that the latter is regarded by the council as the primary approach route for golfers and other visitors arriving into Carnoustie. There is no dispute that the Pitskelly site is situated more distant from the town of Carnoustie than the Panbride site.
Road access:
Both of the sites are conveniently situated for road access via new grade-separated junctions on the A92, as detailed above. The Panbride site offers an added advantage of enabling one of the main road links from Carnoustie to the A92 to be realigned, and funding for this as part of a development package. This link is one that the council has identified as a project but has no funds to implement itself in the near future, apparently.
Access to public transport, footways and cycle routes:
There is no disagreement that whilst the Pitskelly site is close to footways and cycle routes it is relatively remote from existing bus services – the nearest being 800m and 1,000m from the site. The Panbride site has equally good footway and cycle access but has the added advantages of being situated on an existing bus service route and being closer to the town centre of Carnoustie.
Visibility in the landscape (from the A92 and other vantage points):
The Pitskelly site is described by the council as “taking advantage of the landscape setting which contains the site and opportunities to reduce the wider environmental impact of development on an important entrance to Carnoustie.” I do not regard the landscape setting as containing this particular site - which in my view sits in open landscape with no definition beyond its field boundaries which are insubstantial. Furthermore it appears as an island within agricultural fields and is openly visible from sections of the A92 road. Its open aspect when viewed from the A92 and when approaching from the north, on the link road from the A92 Upper Victoria, would make it highly difficult to screen effectively. Accordingly, I am concerned that standard industrial or business units on the Pitskelly site would be highly visible and would detract markedly from the attractive rural setting in which it is situated. I accept, however, that the Pitskelly site is not visible from the town of Carnoustie, because it is situated north of the ridge line which runs from east to west, broadly parallel with the coastline. Nevertheless I agree with the objectors who are concerned that development of this open field to provide an industrial estate would spoil an area of rural beauty - and unnecessarily in my view, for the reasons given below.
The Panbride site, whilst north of the same ridge line has the benefit of a belt of existing mature trees, many of which could be retained and supplemented to provide effective screening when viewed from the south and from the north. The existing views of the site from the A92 are already very limited and fleeting - due to the intervening undulating landforms, cutting of the main road and existing trees. I note that the promoters of the Panbride site propose to use the existing landform together with levelling/sculpting and
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 47 Angus Council Statement of Response
bunding of the site and further landscaping in order to ensure that standard height industrial units would not be prominent, even when viewed from below the ridge line immediately to the south. From the illustrated layouts and my site inspections I was able to confirm that there would not be any significant views of the Panbride site from the Panbride village conservation area, as suggested by the council. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the proposed new alignment and cutting of the link road from the A92 to Carnoustie, whilst welcome in itself, would also provide a useful opportunity to act as a divide between the proposed new business park alongside the Carlogie House Hotel to the west of that realigned road and the proposed industrial park to the east of it, with proposals for further screen planting and berms to the north and south of the site to supplement existing trees and the natural landform which contain the site. The illustrative proposals also offer the prospect of a providing new gateway to the town at the proposed entrance roundabout to the development. Such potential benefits are not apparent in the Pitskelly site location.
Landscape features and scope for mitigation/screening:
For the reasons outlined above, linked to the open aspect of the Pitskelly site, I am concerned that there would be insufficient opportunities for mitigation to offset the open aspect of the Pitskelly Farm site through mounding or screen planting. Given the long time required to provide an appropriate height of trees through new planting, I consider that adequate screening of that site would entail excessive bunding, which would not be in keeping with the surrounding rural landscape in my view. I am satisfied, however, that the illustrative drawings produced to support the Panbride proposals demonstrate how the existing landforms and mature trees there already can be utilised and supplemented by other measures - including site levelling, berms and further planting and the new link road, as outlined above – to provide satisfactory screening for a business park and an industrial park which does not detract from its gateway location at the entrance to Carnoustie.
Servicing:
There is no disagreement that in common with most sites to the west and north-west of Carnoustie there are servicing difficulties associated with the Pitskelly site, in particular with respect to foul and surface water drainage. I note that the council and the landowner of Pitskelly Farm recognise these difficulties but remain confident that they can be technically addressed - at a cost estimated at £750,000 by the council. I also note that this assessment is disputed by the objector who thinks the costs would be substantially higher, if they could be satisfactorily addressed at all within acceptable costs and time limits. There is no dispute that the Panbride site does not present any servicing constraints and could be developed without any abnormal servicing costs, with easy connections to the trunk sewer and other service providers.
Local Objections
I am persuaded by the arguments put forward by objectors and accepted by the council that:
• there is now a requirement for approximately 12ha of employment land to meet relocation needs of existing businesses on the Panmure Industrial Estate as well as meeting the structure plan requirements for a 5 year supply of marketable employment land • the Clayholes site is too small and cannot be expanded to provide 12ha of employment land and is in any event situated unacceptably close to existing residential development to be acceptable for large-scale industrial development.
As the Clayholes site is too small to provide sufficient employment land and the council is already proposing to replace that site by another allocation elsewhere in the finalised plan review, through the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications, the objections to the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 48 Angus Council Statement of Response
allocation of the site at Clayholes do not require further consideration. I note that there are objections (146/1/1 and 599/1/1) which are conditionally withdrawn if the Panbride site is not allocated, as well as one other objection lodged which also seeks to resist development north of Panbride Road, based on the fact that this is prime agricultural land. I also note, however, that there are no potential sites of a suitable scale within the built-up area of Carnoustie available for industrial or business park development and many sites investigated in the surrounding area have severe drainage constraints and are therefore not viable options. In this context the remaining short-listed sites for consideration, in particular those at Pitskelly Farm and at Carlogie/Panbride Road, are generally on prime agricultural land beyond the main built up area of Carnoustie. Given these particular local circumstances, in my view the fact that it is prime agricultural land is not a valid reason for excluding land at Pitskelly Farm or at North of Panbride Road from any shortlist of possible sites to provide the required employment land to serve the needs of Carnoustie. All of the other matters of concern raised by objectors have been taken into consideration in my overall assessment above and dealt with under other topic headings, as appropriate.
Based on all of the above considerations, whilst I endorse the abandonment of the C6 Clayholes site allocation, I do not support the council’s proposed replacement of that by an allocation of 12ha of employment land at Pitskelly Farm, for the reasons outlined above. In summary, I consider that the council’s proposed allocation of the 12ha site north of Pitskelly Farm would set an unfortunate precedent encouraging further development in open countryside which is not justified, particularly when there is an alternative option at Carlogie/ Panbride Road. In any event, unlike the Panbride site, in my view the Pitskelly site could not be adequately screened, given its open countryside setting. I have come to this conclusion taking account of the various documents submitted and my site inspections. Based on the available evidence, and for the reasons stated above, I am persuaded that, on balance, the Panbride site offers a better option for development of employment uses than the Pitkselly site proposed by the council in the Proposed 3rd Round Modifications. I have considered the arguments put forward against the Panbride proposals, including those put forward by local residents concerned about the views of that site – but, for the reasons outlined above, I find that their concerns, whilst understandable, do not outweigh the various benefits of development of that site in the manner proposed.
Accordingly, I conclude that the council should amend the local plan allocation for employment land for Carnoustie, in particular to replace the C6 text and associated wording set out in those modifications with a new policy and associated supporting text to promote in its place the site at Carlogie/Panbride Rd - along the lines set out in the drawings, illustrative Masterplan and other supporting documentation put forward on behalf of D J Laing Contracts Ltd (Objection 934/1/1).
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION:
For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the local plan review should be amended. In particular, as set out in my conclusions, the modified policy C6 and associated paragraphs in the 3rd Round Modifications should be deleted and replaced by an equivalent policy, supplemented by associated background and supporting text, to promote the 12ha Carlogie/Panbride site for employment use, in particular to provide a business park and industrial park as well as an improved link road and a gateway entrance feature to the town, with land to the east of that being earmarked for potential future expansion if required.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The investigation and identification of an effective site for employment land to meet the needs of new, expanding and relocating businesses for Carnoustie has involved a number of sites in and around Carnoustie being assessed by the Council through successive local plans. This has included consideration of issues relating to servicing,
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 49 Angus Council Statement of Response
access and environmental impact. There are no sites within the existing built up area capable of meeting the requirements for a business park and therefore sites outwith the boundary were considered, concluding with the Councils current proposal for land at Pitskelly Farm.
The Reporter has recognised the changing circumstances in the Carnoustie area and endorsed the Council’s view that it was correct to look for a major new site capable of meeting both the Structure Plan requirements and also the needs of existing and new business. The Reporter has also agreed that the Council was correct to abandon the previous Clayholes allocation (C6) as being too small to provide sufficient employment land for those purposes and he therefore supports the third round pre-inquiry modification to delete this earlier proposal.
The Reporter has considered in some depth the comparative benefits of the Councils proposal for Pitskelly Farm and the objector’s alternative proposal at Carlogie/Panbride Road.
In coming to the recommendation in favour of the Carlogie/Panbride Road site the Reporter concludes that although in the open countryside, in his opinion it is less prominent within the wider landscape than the site at Pitskelly and that ground levelling, sculpting and bunding together with further landscaping would provide an effective screen when viewed from the north and south of the site. He also notes that the potential servicing costs for the site at Pitskelly are much higher than those at Carlogie and therefore the development may take longer to come forward. Carlogie is therefore considered to be more effective and development would also result in the completion of the Carlogie Road link between the town and the A92 road. The Reporter is also concerned that development at Pitskelly will create pressure for further development at that location.
The Reporter therefore recommends that approximately 15 ha of land at Carlogie be promoted for employment, with approximately 9 ha east of Westhaven Road earmarked for future expansion if required. The Council accepts the Reporter’s view that land at Carlogie should be allocated to meet current relocation and structure plan requirement for employment land, but not the area identified for future expansion.
The gross area identified on the submission by D J Laing Contracts Ltd totals approximately 15 ha, to replace existing development (extending to approximately 8ha on three separate sites in the town) and to meet structure plan requirements of up to 5ha. The existing industrial areas in the town are not intensively used and include areas of vacant land/premises and underused areas. A purpose built business park and Industrial Estate will accommodate existing uses more efficiently and use less land. The proposed allocation will meet in full both local need and structure plan requirements, and it is considered that at this stage there is no pressing need to identify a future extension area east of Westhaven Road. Take up of land and premises on the proposed new site will be monitored through the annual review of employment land. Any future requirement for additional employment land will be assessed through either a full review or stand alone alteration to the Local Plan. This accords with the position of the Reporter at Forfar where he concluded there was no pressing need to identify an extension to the Orchardbank Industrial Estate, as the structure plan requirement is ‘comfortably exceeded’.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT in part the Reporter’s Recommendation and agree to modify the Angus Local Plan Review to delete the employment land allocation at Pitskelly Farm and include the site at Carlogie as proposed by D J Laing Contracts Ltd.
Modify para 19 to replace reference ‘Upper Victoria Link at Pitskelly Farm’ with ‘Carlogie’ to read as follows :-
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 50 Angus Council Statement of Response
19. A site at Upper Victoria Link at Pitskelly Farm Carlogie provides an opportunity to address issues of accessibility within Carnoustie, the impact of some business activities on surrounding amenity and to provide a modern facility for the long term business needs of Carnoustie and Monifieth with good access to the A92. It also takes advantage of the landscape setting which contains this site, and opportunities tom reduce the wider environmental impact of development on an important entrance to Carnoustie.
Delete existing Policy C6 : Working – Pitskelly Farm, Upper Victoria and replace with:-
C6 : Working - Land at Carlogie
Approximately 15 ha of land at Carlogie is allocated for Class 4* (business), Class 5* (general industry), and Class 6* (storage and distribution) uses.
Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site and will include details of the following requirements:- • road access and construction of a realigned Carlogie Road to the standards set by the Director of Infrastructure Services; • provision of access by pedestrian, cycle and public transport • foul and surface water drainage; • site layout and design to accommodate a range of business uses; • investigate the need for archaeological evaluation and undertake/ implement as necessary; and • structure planting and landscaping within and around the site. This should take place at an early stage and will require to be to a high standard, particularly given the gateway location of this site.
*As defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997.
Indicate the site on the Carnoustie and Barry Inset Proposals Map.(as shown on the attached plan)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 51 Angus Council Statement of Response QSQRHH QSQTHH QSQVHH QSRHHH QSRPHH QSRRHH QSRTHH QSRVHH QSSHHH QSSPHH QSSRHH QSSTHH QSSVHH
T HHH UQTPHH RRFRm HV WH
r k flhousie g2 k
r r
k k
QQFIm y ftt iesden d p
f g 2 fridge d r grnoustie282frry
fw2SHFITm ftt ies2hen ump
w ond onikie2furn HH VQ S UQTPHH
s s s u flhousie e s VS UW prm2gottges @snset2wp2QA y ftt ies2hen
vyE
I Q g his2roposls2wp2should2e HH UT
r k SRFRm red2in2onjuntion2with2the pinlised2ritten2ttement UQTHHH
e2WP g UT TQ fw SPFSQm
UQTHHH rd2fdy sssue QU TH
QWFTm
n l t h y m i ll 2f u rn th 2 @u m A
wonikie22f urn UQSVHH
H HRV g
UQSVHH ST RQ
TU QU
QTQH UQSTHH
q HH PW
RHFVm
pf
HW PR
QQPQ QTFPm UQSTHH
HW IW
wonikie rd2fdy Q 2furn g P
PI IR
r k
grlogie2prm2gottges
vow er 2flm hie UQSRHH
I t h 2 @u m A
QWFVm gr gT igmil l fur n
WR HH g e
UQSRHH v yq si 2p y e eh w H
Q
g r lo g i e W grlogie 2 e QI HH grlogie2prm rotel ro te l SW HH
H VS HH WR HH Q W 2 QH HH SVHH
grlogie gr log ie e rotel rotel g rlo gie prm viff go tt g e HHHI RHFQm g e v y q si 2p e w2 y grlogie2gottge eh WI WQ HH WP IRFSm
HH WP th 2 @u m UQSPHH A
hen2gottge R he2goh2rouse
g evy qsi2p ew2 yeh
he2fensil IS VU P n2wel ito TVVT
IQ VP QHFPm SW VS rowdenhugh wnse2gottge IIFTm nride IPFTm rish vo gh ur h TIUW hty2furn
UQSPHH nride2qlee g
rd2fd y QRFHm w2 QSFSUm f
nr ide QRFPm rimry2hool
h e2 yl d 2w no r PI UV
hool2rouse
grigmeron nride UQSHHH
h i te 2 g ottg e h rr o h
HH TV widdleton2of2nride
fw2PUFWRm QS TU
PUFHm IW I
TW TQ e r x f k hs
elexndr i P 2 gottge s i es ton PTFRm UQSHHH I I T
I rouse W R t n e f i e l
d 2 U g o t
t
Q
g I
e widdleton I
I gottge S R SWTW
nride2p rm r PSFIm gottge k
R PSU I V I P U
fw2PTFTUm qehix W
I y P
I U ex S U w H
I
P eh Q hi2y
fs
ex H glyholes2prm I
IR W
gottges R H Q I I
I H
I
Q I S WW
S I P
TP
I g I P r I glyholes e UQRVHH pir k I S WQ IQ U r w
e x
gottge trthlene PSFSm ST h Q s i
Q
r tr thonon U H
SH RU I PSFWm P P
Q k T W PW
U U
T U ei l s P
R
I gottge P U i l
I 2 fi rnm V u PR pr ingnk 2
t S RT eretion2qround S II
RI
sdle
PS RR U I H I UQRVHH
f remr
t g
h RU r I e Q U
WT Q V g T
w r
P e T e T Q x w h2 e
g V h x I s
R
e
V i
s
il 2 u2t SQ
q RS I W
w TH
s
v
v PH
2
q RQ
e vf V
S
h
i
x
PV
P R
U I U
HH QT I
U
Q P VT
IUH
Q S T
W h RI e
y
I
H 2 R yx gr log ie il 2u2t i
x SI T Q
t I
2 rimry
h R PRFRm u I
T R Q
H 2 I QU T
I P P
I S h U VV hool I iv
l ps
R UQRTHH i PQFTm I vsx i V
RI
I IIR S g e T
v I
P y I
W I R q S v P PRFVm s i xs
2 i g U UV p y S s i e v h h I I 2 H
IPR y ISS e
P P h
I I
R H
HH PT R H
I m
FST TV I HT QS P
2P
ISI fw T R
PQ SV U Q
Q Q I V P I PUFRm U
W V V P R
H
P R
I I
U R W R
H QI
RW
rk IIR
UQRTHH
R
PHFUm R H x HW IS U i RW
g QV
S eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 S IRS R V i
UR
g
x y
PUFSm PHFTm the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF i S V T
P
vohty2f urn IQQ P
T x V
Q
V P
Q H y R d Q 2 f d i Q V r x
TH g xewton2prm W i nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright TP
rd f QH 2 d QU
y th 2 U 2@ g R u TI RP m i TH A VQ g
i
I S
I W x
W W
g Q sssues QT IR IS re xivv2yeh xe wto n g UW R
R nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF V
prm I V S
V Q
U TP
I S t S 2 W
W u
i S
S 2
U l P
P P R i V
I nk PRFSm I
x S I i H
V I S
V U
hnwell P k V P H e
engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS gottges P
S SU
r i g x IXIHHHH yx 2 y fw eh rd S H 2f e R P nk PTFUm dy PT
PUFSQm i e
I RP g S
U T I R g
Q W I T
r P RU I y v U U R SI I T 2t IP y o SQ 2 y S I h2 Q PU W
W H
S IIS I R
eyling2gentr e i P I T i grnoustie2righ2hool g U
Q IQ i t f s 2 VFVm e gondor f v u u w I h w
2 l2
R 2e e Q
gou rt i R h
R PP x g
e SH i S
I T Q i W Q e r r r i QSQRHH QSQTHH QSQVHH QSRHHH QSRPHH QSRRHH QSRTHH QSRVHH QSSHHH QSSPHH QSSRHH QSSTHH QSSVHH
Carnoustie and Barry: C8 - Primary School Site, Thomas Street
Objector Reference
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) 227/1/9
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement indicates under C8 that 2.4 hectares at Thomas Street is allocated for a new two stream primary school.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
To a large extent, events have overtaken the plan-making process. I recognise the concern of SEPA in respect of flooding but the situation has been considered by the Scottish Ministers and outline planning permission has been issued. I am satisfied that the conditions applied to the outline planning permission ensure that adequate flood prevention and emergency response measures can be secured. In any event, SEPA requires to be consulted and I note that it is a condition of outline planning permission that any agreed measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the school and shall be maintained thereafter.
All-in-all, I conclude that the basis for a satisfactory development has been achieved.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 53 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: C9 - Primary School Site, Queen Street
Objector Reference
Carnoustie Community Council 163/1/4 Susan McMahaon 164/1/6 James Cook 177/1/1 George F Rohan 755/1/1 & 1/2 Mrs S M Barnett and Mr K M Barnett 821/1/1 & 1/2 and 822/1/1 & 1/2 Daniel Hood 824/1/1 Alistair W M Paul 893/1/1 Alan Kattenhorn 895/1/1 & 2 Mr & Mrs Alexander Hyslop 907/1/1 & 1/2 George O’Donnell and Ethel O’Donnell 908/1/1 & 909/1/1 Residents Group, Carnoustie 915/1/1, 1/2, 1/3 & 1/7
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Proposal C9 allocates 1.2 hectares at Queen Street for a new single stream primary school as part of the programme for upgrading school facilities in Carnoustie. The site was formerly part of a caravan park and is adjacent to a public park.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
It is sometimes the case that an ongoing project will run parallel to the local plan preparation process. Indeed, as in this instance, the project has outpaced the local plan review. I believe it is necessary to take a pragmatic view of the situation and recognise the inevitability of the construction of the new primary school. Despite the concerns expressed by the objectors, particularly the community council, I have no reason to doubt that the various statutory procedures were undertaken and, in this respect, the council has stated that the consultative measures taken exceeded the basic requirement.
Although the community council suggests that there was a lack of opportunity to object to the proposal through the local plan preparation process, this was not the case as the site is shown in the finalised local plan review. Objections to that document were invited and are considered in this report.
Concern has been expressed about the proximity of residential development but I consider that it is entirely appropriate to locate primary schools close to housing. Despite misgivings in terms of environmental impact, I believe that the site has the capacity to accommodate a well-designed single steam primary school. Indeed, in recognition of the sensitive nature of the site, the council has prepared a development brief and undertook a transport assessment as part of the outline planning application. Notwithstanding suggestions for an alternative location, I conclude that the site at Queen Street is a suitable primary school site location.
I understand that the council has more recently approved the application for reserved matters. Although the issue of detailed planning permission does not guarantee implementation, I believe it is not unreasonable to anticipate that the project will proceed. I do not dispute that some of the alternative uses suggested for the site would be worthwhile in themselves. Similarly the alternatives suggested may not in themselves be
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 54 Angus Council Statement of Response
inappropriate although the merits of the various options have not been argued in detail. Under the circumstances, however, and taking a pragmatic approach, I conclude that C9, Primary School Site, Queen Street, Carnoustie, should be retained in the local plan review and the current situation should be indicated.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby C9, Primary School Site, Queen Street, Carnoustie, as amended as follows:
1.2 ha of land at Queen Street, Carnoustie is reserved for a new single stream primary school. (Planning permission for the development was granted on 17 May 2005)
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
C9 : Primary School Site, Queen Street
1.2 ha of land at Queen Street, Carnoustie is reserved for a new single stream primary school. (Planning permission for the development was granted on 17 May 2005)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 55 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Carlogie
Objector Reference
Hermiston Securities 724/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site is an extensive area of countryside surrounding Carlogie Farm to the north of Carnoustie, generally between Carlogie Road to the east and Balmachie Road to the west.
The Carnoustie and Barry settlement statement indicates that the beach, sea front and golf links provide an excellent base for the holiday and tourism market and the championship golf course enjoys an international reputation with the return of the British Open in 2007. Key Issues include developing opportunities to sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location, including its international golfing reputation. The Development Strategy includes supporting the development of golfing facilities, where appropriate, to further strengthen this internationally recognised asset.
The text explains that the consultative draft local plan review suggested investigating the feasibility of establishing a new 18 hole golf course with ancillary facilities. This resulted in significant interest including some preparatory studies. Such a major development requires clear evidence that it will fully meet the qualitative demands which underpin the international golf tourism market. There remain some significant uncertainties as to how and whether a course of the exceptional quality sought can be provided at the optimum location.
In these circumstances, it is suggested that further work and consultation is required before arriving at an informed view. In the event that proposals are subsequently advanced which meet the high expectations and requirements for a new golf course, these would most appropriately be considered and progressed as part of a future alteration or review of the local plan. Account would be taken of the scale and type of housing and other development which may be required to financially support the development of the new golf course.
C12, Golf Course Development, confirms that the scope and opportunities for creating a new high quality golf course with ancillary facilities on a suitable site on the periphery of Carnoustie will be kept under review for potential further consideration in a future review or alteration of the local plan.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The text of the local plan review recognises the possibility of providing a further golf course at Carnoustie but, equally, sets out the need for clear evidence that all qualitative demands will be fully met.
This requirement is echoed by the council in response to the objection with a confirmation that neither a detailed development proposal nor sufficient supporting information has been provided to make a full assessment.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 56 Angus Council Statement of Response
In support of the objector’s case it is simply stated that there is evidence to support a golf course of international quality in terms of the proposal brought forward at the time of the consultative draft local plan. A combination of golfing and housing was proposed but no details have been made available to this inquiry.
I share the opinion of the council that a precautionary approach is the most appropriate. The qualified support for a new golf course offered by the local plan review strikes a reasonable balance along with the recognition of the likelihood of accompanying housing, the scale, location and type of which would be a matter for consideration. In particular, Policy C12 indicates the matter will be kept under review for future consideration in a future alteration or review. The reference to promoting an alteration, especially, is an indication of the importance the council places on the prospect of a new golf course of suitable quality in an appropriate location.
Although I note the consultative draft of the local plan review identified the objection site under designation C2, Golf Course Feasibility Study, the limited contents of the objection do not persuade me that this or a similar allocation should be reinstated.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 57 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land north of Newton Road playing fields, west of Carlogie Road
Objector Reference
Angus Estates Limited 570/2/1
Procedure Reporter Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site lies to the north of Carnoustie adjacent to housing sites C(c) and C1, where development is well-advanced.
The land lies outwith the Carnoustie settlement boundary which is immediately to the south.
Carnoustie is within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that the consultative draft local plan review allocated land to the north of sites C(c) and C1, including the objection site, “for 150 houses up to 2011 plus longer term housing.”
Objections to the strategic land supply were considered under Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, and, in particular, it was concluded, in terms of the structure plan target for the South Angus housing market area, that the finalised local plan review provides for a surplus of 132 houses in the period to 2011. As explained by the council, the 2005 housing land audit has demonstrated an increased supply and that, as a consequence, a significant indicative contribution can already be made to the structure plan period beyond 2011. Additionally, the council points out that planning permission has been granted for substantial brownfield development on two sites in Carnoustie. In these circumstances, and taking into account the conclusions in respect of the consideration of objections to Policy SC1, I conclude that there is no strategic justification for the release of the objection site for residential development.
It is clear from the terms of the consultative draft local plan review that the council considered the land is suitable for residential development and this has not been disputed in the response to the objection. I can accept that in terms of location the objection site has merit for residential development. However, whether or not the land will ever again be brought forward for housing purposes will depend on future reviews of the local plan and the housing land requirements at the time.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 58 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – land at Clayholes (Newton Farm)
Objector Reference
Heather Pre-Packs Limited 548/1/1
Procedure Reporter Written submissions Richard Dent ______BACKGROUND
The objection site lies to the north of Carnoustie between Carlogie Road to the east and Balmachie Road to the west adjacent to housing sites C(c) and C1, where development is well-advanced, and a recreation ground.
The land lies outwith the Carnoustie settlement boundary which is immediately to the south.
Carnoustie is within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that the consultative draft local plan review allocated land to the north of sites C(c) and C1, including the objection site, “for 150 houses up to 2011 plus longer term housing.” In the belief that the merits of the objection site for housing have been established, the objector’s case is limited to strategic considerations related to the housing land provisions of the structure plan, especially in terms of the South Angus housing market area.
Objections to the strategic land supply were considered under Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, and, in particular, it was concluded, in terms of the structure plan target for the South Angus housing market area, that there is a surplus of 132 houses in the period to 2011. As explained by the council, the 2005 housing land audit has demonstrated an increased supply and, as a consequence, a significant contribution can already be made to the structure plan period beyond 2011. Additionally, the council points out that planning permission has been granted for significant brownfield development on two sites in Carnoustie. In these circumstances, and taking into account the conclusions in respect of the consideration of objections to Policy SC1, I conclude that there is no strategic justification for the release of the objection site for residential development.
It is clear from the terms of the consultative draft local plan review that the council considered the land is suitable for residential development and this has not been disputed in the response to the objection. I can accept that in terms of location the objection site has merit for residential development. However, whether or not the land will ever again be brought forward for housing purposes will depend on future reviews of the local plan and the housing land requirements at the time.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION No change. Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 59 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Panbride/Westhaven
Objector Reference
Angus Estates Limited 570/1/2 & 936/1/1
Procedure Reporter Written submissions Richard Dent ______BACKGROUND
The settlement boundary to the east of the Carnoustie and Barry inset map is formed by a minor road that adjoins a residential area to the west. To the east the land is in agricultural use, sloping gently towards the sea. A road runs from the south-east extremity of the built-up area parallel to the coast with an intervening open area through which the railway runs. A minor road also runs eastwards from the north-east edge of the built-up area towards and beyond the hamlet of Panbride. Land to the north of this road and the built-up area is in agricultural use and with a very gentle upward slope.
The local plan review settlement statement indicates that the beach, sea front and golf links provide Carnoustie and Barry with an excellent base for the holiday and tourism market and the championship golf course enjoys an international reputation with the return of the British Open in 2007. Key Issues include developing opportunities to sustain and promote Carnoustie as a holiday location, including its international golfing reputation. The Development Strategy includes support for the development of golfing facilities, where appropriate, to further strengthen this internationally recognised asset.
The text explains that the consultative draft local plan review suggested investigating the feasibility of establishing a new 18 hole golf course with ancillary facilities. This resulted in significant interest being expressed including some preparatory studies. Such a major development requires clear evidence that it will fully meet the qualitative demands which underpin the international golf tourism market. There remain some significant uncertainties as to how and whether a course of the exceptional quality sought can be provided at the optimum location.
In these circumstances, it is proposed that further work and consultation is required before arriving at an informed view. In the event that proposals are subsequently advanced which meet the high expectations and requirements for a new golf course, these would most appropriately be considered and progressed as part of a future alteration or review of the local plan. This would also have regard to the scale and type of housing and other development which may be required to financially support the development of the new golf course.
Policy C12, Golf Course Development, confirms that the scope and opportunities for creating a new high quality golf course with ancillary facilities on a suitable site on the periphery of Carnoustie will be kept under review for potential further consideration in a future review or alteration of this local plan.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The objector states a clear requirement for residential development to provide financial support for the golf course project. Whilst this is not an uncommon feature and the construction of houses may be regarded as an appropriate and necessary adjunct to the provision of a new golf course, the scale of the housing proposed in this instance has strategic significance. In this respect, in considering objections to the overall level of housing land supply (Policy SC1) it was concluded that the local plan review does not require additional allocations to meet the terms of the structure plan. I therefore conclude Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 60 Angus Council Statement of Response
that there is no strategic justification for an additional housing land allocation at Carnoustie and Barry and that the potential scale of the housing land release envisaged in the objection would be contrary to structure plan allowances.
Potential problems in respect of the strategic housing land situation have been acknowledged by the objector who, in the event of no further allocations being required, has amended the objection to identify Westhaven in the supporting text and Policy C12 as the preferred location for a new golf course and ancillary facilities. The council has given no indication that this approach would be acceptable and has maintained the precautionary stance included in the local plan review whereby no specified location is identified or preferred.
In my opinion, the modification required by the objector would not only indicate a preference for the Westhaven location in terms of the development of a new golf course and ancillary facilities, it would also implicitly suggest that residential development must be anticipated. In terms of the level of such development referred to by the objector, it is inevitable that there is potential for a significant impact to result. Although reference has been made to the local landform reducing the impact on longer views to the town and the intended provision of tree planting, I believe the level of detail provided is not such as to convincingly demonstrate that the landscape setting of Carnoustie would be protected. Similarly, although there is reference to links to services and facilities and the provision of schooling and drainage, these matters are not analysed in any depth. Again it is my opinion that the extent of the information provided is insufficient to justify the significant scale of housing that would be envisaged should the golf course proceed.
Much research has been undertaken in terms of the golf course itself and the objector explains that the new facility would provide a links course with sea views. I have little doubt that a golf course of high quality could be constructed on the site at Westhaven. However, I consider that certain aspects of the proposal require further clarification. Although close to the sea, there is a significant intervening area to the south through which pass the coast road and railway line. No part of the course would therefore be immediately adjacent to the sea. In this respect, I do not believe that it has been shown conclusively that the golf course turf would be of true links quality. Although the objector states that the view of the road and the railway could be obscured by earthmoving and landscaping, it seems likely that, in so doing, the view of the sea would be similarly obscured therefore eroding the fundamental attraction of the new golf course. The traffic generated by the development and the scope for additional use of the rail halt have not been quantified. I consider that these are matters requiring further investigation.
In view of the foregoing, I share the opinion of the council that a precautionary approach is the most appropriate. The local plan review offers qualified support for a new golf course and recognises the likelihood of accompanying housing, the scale, location and type of which would be a matter for consideration. In particular, Policy C12 indicates the matter will be kept under review for consideration in a future alteration or review. The reference to promoting an alteration, especially, is an indication of the importance the council places on the prospect of a new golf course of suitable quality in an appropriate location.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 61 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – site for “superloo”
Objector Reference
Mr E Oswald 172/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The local plan review does not make any reference to particular facilities to be provided in or adjacent to Carnoustie Station.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
An increase in modern facilities, including “superloos” is generally to be welcomed. It is clear that the council is supportive of this proposal and has been actively involved in negotiations with Network Rail. However, I agree with the council that the scale of a public toilet is not such as to warrant inclusion in the local plan review. Equally, of course, the omission of the required reference would not preclude the provision of a superloo should the negotiations have a successful outcome, particularly as it appears that finance is available.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 62 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - proposals map – road closures
Objector Reference
Residents Group, Carnoustie 915/1/6
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The Carnoustie and Barry inset map shows three improved links between the town and the upgraded A92/A930. These are simply shown as bold red lines without detail. The map is relatively small scale although it is possible to discern streets and buildings in the town. There is no further detailed map for the town centre. The line of the upgraded road and the three Carnoustie links are also shown on the main proposals map which is at a scale of 1:100,000.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
A balance must be struck on the level of detail shown in the proposals map. The scale must be such that the maps are manageable and yet remain legible. The level of detail shown must retain a reasonable degree of clarity. I believe that the emphasis in a local plan should be on identifying land uses and, in particular, areas where land use change is anticipated. In this respect, it is my opinion that the balance achieved by the council is appropriate in both the settlement inset maps and the main proposals map. I do not consider a more detailed town centre map for Carnoustie is required.
Whilst it would be of interest to show road closures on the proposals map, I do not believe this to be an essential requirement in terms of the land use issues associated with the local plan review. The links to the upgraded A92 are clearly shown and the council has undertaken to amend the maps as they are updated. It is possible for the updating process to take place without any formal procedures in respect of modifications or alterations to the local plan.
I therefore conclude that it is not necessary for the proposals maps to indicate road closures.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 63 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, south
Objector Reference
John Gray 896/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The roughly triangular site extends to some 4.6 hectares to the immediate south of the eastern end of the Barry by-pass. The south-western boundary is adjacent to the Barry Burn whilst the eastern boundary is formed by a road beyond which is residential development. The site is set down below the level of the adjacent by-pass and the vegetation has marshy characteristics.
The site is outwith the development boundary which is marked by the eastern boundary of the objection site.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The council has proposed a modification to the local plan review whereby an additional 12 hectares of land was proposed for employment purposes as site C6, Working – Pitskelly Farm, Upper Victoria. There were objections to this site and an alternative was proposed at Clayholes. It has been recommended that the alternative site should be included in the local plan review in place of Site C6. Both sites (Site C6 and Clayholes) are capable of ensuring the structure plan target for an effective 5 year supply of employment land can be maintained. On this basis, whichever site is allocated C6, the objection site is not required to make good any strategic shortfall.
The council has explained that the objection site lies within the flood plain of the Barry Burn. Development at this location would represent a medium to high risk with the flooding probability being greater than 0.5% (1:200).
SPP7, Planning and Flooding, sets out the risk framework and identifies medium to high risk areas as those with an annual probability of watercourse, tidal or coastal flooding greater than 0.5% (1:200). This guidance is reflected in the local plan review where Policy ER27, Flood Risk Assessment, indicates that undeveloped or sparsely developed areas in the 1:200 category are generally not suitable for additional development.
I have noted that the possibility of raising the level of the ground has been suggested and that the site is now believed to be viable. SPP7 explains that land raising which permanently elevates a site above a functional flood plain may have a role but there are implications in terms of the provision and maintenance of compensatory flood water storage, and the impact on other areas. Details in these respects have not been provided. Similarly, I have no evidence to indicate that a flood risk assessment has been undertaken or that any threat could be mitigated in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances it is necessary to take a precautionary approach and withhold any support for the development of the site.
Overall, I conclude that in view of the availability of alternative employment land and the potential flood risk implications, the land should not be allocated for employment purposes.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 64 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 65 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry by-pass, north
Objector Reference
John Gray 896/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site extends to about 3.3 hectares north of the eastern end of the Barry by- pass between buildings on the southern and western side of the road passing through the village and Station Road to the west. The Barry Burn flows along the objection site side of Station Road. The southern and western parts of the site are in agricultural use.
The local plan review places the site outwith the settlement, the boundary of which is adjacent to the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.
The site lies within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
My conclusions in respect of the land to the south of the by-pass (see objection 896/1/1) led to the recommendation that the land should not be allocated for development. In turn, the argument that the land to the north represents an infill opportunity does not remain valid.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the council has drawn attention to the wider context for assessing the need for additional housing land allocations. In terms of objections to Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, it was concluded that there is no requirement for further housing land release in order to meet the structure plan targets. This applies to the South Angus housing market area where allocated housing land will provide a surplus in the period to 2011. The council has explained that the 2005 housing land audit has shown an increased supply. Additionally, planning permission has been granted for the residential development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie. The objector has stated that the site is more appropriate for housing than land which has been allocated for residential purposes. This claim has not been substantiated other than to highlight proximity to the primary school, and, all-in-all, I conclude that there is no strategic requirement for the allocation of the objection site for residential development.
The council has also indicated that the site lies within the flood plain of the Barry Burn.
SPP7, Planning and Flooding, sets out the risk framework and identifies medium to high risk areas as those with an annual probability of watercourse, tidal or coastal flooding greater than 0.5% (1:200). This guidance is reflected in the local plan review: Policy ER27, Flood Risk Assessment, indicates that undeveloped or sparsely developed areas in the 1:200 category are generally not suitable for additional development.
I have no evidence to indicate that a flood risk assessment has been undertaken or that any threat could be mitigated in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances it is necessary to take a precautionary approach and withhold any support for the development of the site.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 66 Angus Council Statement of Response
Although the objector has referred to the containment of the site by existing roads, the council has drawn attention to the extension of development to the by-pass and the impact on the entrance to Carnoustie. In my opinion, the by-pass enhances the character of Barry and the land between the village and the road, which is largely undeveloped, plays an integral part in retaining local character. I therefore agree with the council that the release of the objection site would have an adverse impact on the character of Barry. I also accept that the roundabout at the eastern end of the by-pass provides a suitable entrance to Carnoustie.
Overall, I conclude that in terms of both strategic and local considerations, the objection site should not be allocated for residential development.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 67 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Greenlaw
Objector Reference
John Gray 896/1/3
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The site of about 1.4 hectares lies to the north-east of Barry and comprises agricultural land adjacent to the recently constructed link road between Carnoustie and the A92. The land lies outwith the settlement envelope
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Although the objector has not argued strategic need for the allocation of additional housing land, the council has rehearsed the case for no further releases in the South Angus housing market area. As concluded in the consideration of objections to Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, there is surplus potential in the housing market area, and the council has stated that the 2005 housing land audit has shown the supply to have increased. Furthermore, planning permission has been granted for the residential development of two brownfield sites in Carnoustie.
The council argues that the site is outwith the settlement boundary and development would therefore be contrary to Policy S1, Development Boundaries. The local plan review is an opportunity to assess land use allocations and therefore, should it be considered that the objection site is appropriate for residential development, the settlement boundary should be adjusted accordingly. Clearly, this would overcome any policy conflict between land use allocations and the position of the boundary.
The objector believes the infill of the site would be appropriate and that the road itself would provide a suitable edge to the settlement. It is suggested that development would be in accordance with the provisions of SPP15. On the other hand, the council asserts that the land maintains the rural setting of Barry and that development would also have a significant impact on the approach to Carnoustie along the new link road.
The allocation of the land for housing and the consequent movement of the boundary would bring the land within the settlement and therefore, in my opinion, the terms of SPP15 would not be applicable. Development would generally be supported under the terms of Policy SC1(a).
Although Barry and Carnoustie are linked in the local plan review through inclusion on a single inset map, I am of the opinion that Barry retains a distinctive character as a separate village set in a rural context. Access to the village from the north-east via the minor road leading from the new link road maintains this rural context, at least to some extent. I therefore agree with the council that the release of the objection site for development would have an adverse impact on the setting of Barry.
The link road provides an important approach to Carnoustie which has open land to each side until within a short distance of the town. I believe this provides a pleasing impression which, to some extent would be lost should development take place on the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 68 Angus Council Statement of Response
objection site. Again I agree with the council that the impact of new houses would not be acceptable.
I have noted the claim that drainage constraints have been overcome but, overall, I conclude that there is no strategic basis for allocating the site for housing and that, in local terms, there is merit in maintaining the open nature of the site to protect the setting of Barry and the approach to Carnoustie.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 69 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Barry Road west
Objector Reference
Mr A Clark and Mrs Yule 635/1/6
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site comprises about 0.7 hectares of agricultural land to the south of the main street in Barry, a village that has recently been by-passed. The village is generally linear with most development to the north of the main street (formerly the A930) and much of the land to the south, between Barry and the by-pass, remaining undeveloped and open. There is limited development to the south of the road both east and west of the objection site. To the west, development comprises two recent small residential culs- de-sac to the south of which, standing in treed grounds, is the former manse, a large property that appears to have suffered serious fire damage.
The land lies outwith the settlement envelope which, at this point, follows the village main street to the immediate north of the objection site.
Barry lies within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The objector states that the construction has caused much disruption due to severance. However, the impact of this disruption and, in particular, its relevance to the land use issues related to the objection has not been elaborated.
The council believes development of the site would be contrary to Policy ENV4 in the adopted local plan (to be replaced by Policy S1 in the local plan review) as the land is outwith the settlement boundary. However, the local plan review provides the opportunity to assess land use and, in turn, to adjust settlement boundaries as appropriate. Accordingly, in itself, the position of the settlement boundary in either the adopted local plan or in the finalised local plan review is not, at this stage, an impediment to the allocation of the land for development.
The objector and the council disagree on whether the proposal would constitute ribbon development. Four new houses are proposed and, although no layout has been provided, it is not unreasonable to assume that the development envisaged would reflect that to the west with two houses to the front and two to the rear served by a cul-de-sac. To some extent this approach would overcome the concern about ribbon development (which involves a single strip of development along a road frontage). More importantly, the site is located within the central part of the village with existing development to each side. Again I believe this offsets the fear of ribbon development as the proposal would not extend the limits of the village in an unacceptable manner.
Notwithstanding, my opinion in respect of ribbon development, I consider that the proposal should be assessed in the context of the structure of Barry. The village is essentially linear with the majority of development on the north side of the road and a significant amount of open, agricultural land adjoining the south side of the former A930. This generally open outlook to the south provides the essential character of the village.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 70 Angus Council Statement of Response
There is a limited degree of development to the south of the road to the west but this is beyond the boundary of the village itself. The development immediately to the west of the objection site lies between the road and the treed site of the former manse, thereby not significantly interfering with the open aspect to the south. The development south of the road to the east is at the central part of the village where there is a crossroads and the linear concept gives way to a group of buildings including the church.
I share the view of the council that additional development along the south side of the road through the village, even if limited to either end of the objection site, would adversely alter the character of Barry through the reduction of the open outlook that currently exists.
In terms of employment land, the council has proposed a modification to the local plan review whereby an additional 12 hectares of land is proposed for employment purposes as site C6, Working – Pitskelly Farm, Upper Victoria. There were objections to this site with alternative land proposed at Clayholes. It has been recommended that the alternative site should be included in the local plan review in place of Site C6. Both sites (Site C6 and Clayholes) are capable of ensuring the structure plan target for an effective 5 year supply of employment land can be maintained. On this basis, whichever employment site is chosen, the objection site is not required to make good any shortfall. I note the prospect of providing a local employment opportunity but this potential benefit does not outweigh my conclusion in respect of the adequacy of the employment land supply.
The council has not responded to the suggestion that an area of amenity open space could be made available but this possibility does not lead me to set aside my conclusion in respect of further development residential and commercial to the south of the road.
The objector has stated that private drainage would be provided and the council has responded to the effect that a non-mains solution would not be acceptable in an area where there is a drainage constraint. Guidance on drainage is contained in the local plan review under Policies ER21, Public Drainage Systems, and Policy ER22, Private Drainage Systems, and I do not consider this to be an issue that should influence the underlying land use considerations.
Similarly, although the council has expressed concern about continued access to the adjacent field, I believe this is a matter which should not be incapable of resolution in the event of development proceeding.
Overall, I conclude that the impact of residential and employment uses on the objection site would not be acceptable in terms of the character of Barry.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 71 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission – Waterybutts
Objector Reference
Dr Finlay G McLaren 403/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site is a level, rectangular area to the immediate south-west of Carnoustie. The eastern boundary and part of the northern boundary are adjacent to existing housing. The southern boundary is adjacent to the railway line whilst the remainder of the site abounds open land. The site lies within the Dundee and South Angus housing market area and is not contained within the defined Carnoustie and Barry settlement boundary.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Objections to the strategic land supply were considered under Policy SC1, Housing Land Supply, and, in particular, it was concluded, in terms of the structure plan target for the South Angus housing market area, that there is a surplus of 132 houses in the period to 2011. As explained by the council, the 2005 housing land audit has demonstrated an increased supply and that, as a consequence, a significant contribution can already be made to the structure plan period beyond 2011. Additionally, the council points out that planning permission has been granted for significant brownfield development on two sites in Carnoustie. In these circumstances, and taking account of the conclusions in respect of objections to Policy SC1, I conclude that there is no strategic justification for the release of the objection site for residential development.
The council has stated that the site lies within the undeveloped flood plain of the Barry Burn and has been identified by SEPA as a 1:100 year flooding potential. SPP7, Planning and Flooding, sets out the risk framework and identifies medium to high risk areas as those with an annual probability of watercourse, tidal or coastal flooding greater than 0.5% (1:200). This guidance is reflected in the local plan review: Policy ER27, Flood Risk Assessment, indicates that undeveloped or sparsely developed areas in the 1:200 category are generally not suitable for additional development. Notwithstanding the construction of 81 houses in the vicinity, I have no evidence to suggest that a detailed flood risk assessment has been undertaken or that any threat could be mitigated in a satisfactory manner. In these circumstances it is necessary to take a precautionary approach and withhold any support for the development of the site.
Overall, I conclude that in view of the available housing land supply in the housing market area and the potential flood risk implications, the land should not be allocated for residential development. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the attributes of the site referred to by the objector but, irrespective of any individual merit, my concerns over strategy and flooding remain as the determining issues.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 72 Angus Council Statement of Response
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 73 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - land north of Barry
Objector Reference
G & R Galloway (per McCrae & McCrae) 920/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Informal hearing Richard Bowden
Written Submission on the same topic but for land immediately to the west of the above objection site:
Linlathen Developments Ltd 918/3/1 ______
BACKGROUND
There is widespread development pressure for housing sites in the South Angus part of the Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area (HMA) – as defined in the approved structure plan. A key consideration is whether there is a shortfall in the effective housing land supply in the South Angus part of this HMA, sufficient to warrant the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing development to meet the full structure plan requirement for the plan period. The objection sites are opposite one another, on either side of the same minor road to the north of Barry.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no dispute that the local plan, on adoption, must conform to the provisions of the structure plan. In particular, the adopted local plan must make appropriate housing land allocations for the period up to 2011 as set out in structure plan Schedule 1 requirements for each of the HMAs, including for the South Angus (Monifieth, Sidlaw and Carnoustie) area which has a specified requirement within the wider Dundee and South Angus HMA. For the reasons given earlier in this report (in the conclusions section relating to Policy SC1: Housing Land Supply) I conclude that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan, including those specified for South Angus, should be reflected in the local plan review.
Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it forms part of the wider Dundee and South Angus Housing Market Area which also contains parts of Fife and Perth and Kinross. Despite pressures for the release of additional housing land here, South Angus should not be regarded as an automatic choice to make up any perceived shortfall within the wider HMA. This would be contrary to the structure plan strategy, having regard to the regeneration of Dundee, and would not be in accord with the guidance set out in PAN 38 regarding housing land allocations. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the potential for providing more affordable housing, including retirement housing, should additional land be released. As stated earlier in this report “whilst to some extent seductive in view of the large unidentified need for affordable housing in South Angus, we share the council’s opinion that the provision of affordable housing is a subservient requirement to the broader structure plan strategy.”
I conclude that in terms of structure plan Housing Policy 1, the allocation of land made in FALPR Table 2.1 relating to South Angus exceed the allowances for that area set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan for the period up to 2011, and provides scope for development well beyond 2011. This takes in to account the results of the annual housing land audits for 2004 and 2005 (provisional findings). Accordingly, I conclude
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 74 Angus Council Statement of Response
that there is no need to modify the local plan to provide additional housing land allocations in South Angus in order to maintain a continuing minimum 5 year housing land supply in the HMA, in accordance with the requirements of both SPP3 and PAN38.
In this context I now turn to consider whether either or both of the housing allocations at Barry North proposed by the objectors should be accepted on an exceptional basis.
920/1/1
No evidence has been presented on behalf of this objector to substantiate the assertion that the proposed development on this particular site would provide a unique opportunity to satisfy a perceived market need for additional retirement housing provision and associated holiday/visitor accommodation. Whilst the objection site is relatively flat and has a degree of containment afforded by the Den to the east and by a few houses and a road to the north, south and west, respectively, I consider that it is isolated from the settlement of Barry. In addition, a hill climb would make the intervening journey particularly difficult for retired people seeking to access shops, bus networks and other local services. Furthermore, there are acknowledged constraints on the local sewerage network and waste treatment capacity which would result in a private treatment system being required to serve the site, which is not the preferred solution for new developments of this type and scale. Based on all of these considerations, I endorse the council’s assessment and conclude that there are no local circumstances to warrant an exceptional allocation of this site for housing development or holiday/visitor accommodation.
918/3/1
Whilst no evidence has been presented by the council specifically related to this objection site, I consider that the same concerns it expressed about the objection site on the opposite side of the same minor road would apply equally to this site, in terms of its:
• Use of open farmland. Indeed its elevation and undulations and very limited containment by natural or other features combine to make this site even more prominent in the landscape in my view • Isolated location and remoteness from Barry which is accessed via a steep hill • Lack of local services and facilities for residents if housing was developed here.
It is also likely that drainage constraints affecting the first site would also apply to this site, although this issue has not been highlighted and so I have not relied on this in reaching my conclusions. Nevertheless, based on the information available and my site inspection, I conclude that are no local circumstances to warrant an exceptional allocation of this particular site within the local plan review.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is not modified in these cases.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 75 Angus Council Statement of Response
Carnoustie and Barry: Omission - land at Victoria Link, A92
Objector Reference
G & R Galloway (per McCrae & McCrae) 920/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objection relates to land at one of the junctions along the recently dualled section of the A92 road and seeks a site to be allocated here for the provision of a new petrol service station and associated traveller facilities. The finalised local plan review in Policy SC43 Roadside Facilities on the A92, provides policy guidance on the location of new roadside facilities along the A92 corridor and is intended to deal with developments including planning applications of this nature.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is no dispute that the concept of a farm shop of limited scale at the site in question would accord with national, regional and local planning policies and guidance concerning rural diversification. I conclude that in principle this would be an appropriate land use at this location, subject to the proposed scale and form of development being sensitive to its countryside setting and suitably screened and landscaped in order to minimise the visual impact on the surrounding area. On that basis I note that a farm shop at this location would accord with Policy SC17 of the FALPR which encourages tourism developments where they meet specified criteria.
I now turn to consider whether or not the other proposals - for a petrol filling station and for a motel style of traveller accommodation - would meet the same policy requirements, at least in principle. There has been no evidence presented to suggest that the proposals would not be in accordance with national policy guidance and structure plan principles of rural diversification, subject to environmental issues being addressed satisfactorily. In respect of Policy SC17 of the finalised local plan, I am persuaded that the provision of a petrol filling station and a motel would improve the range and quality of visitor attractions and tourist facilities, which is the first requirement of that policy. The second requirement is that proposals should have no unacceptable detrimental effect on the local landscape or rural environment. I note that the main concern raised by the council in this regard is that the site concerned is in open countryside. I consider that the fact that it now adjoins the new dual carriageway A92 road has materially changed the context of this location. In particular the land concerned abuts a newly constructed grade-separated junction as well as being in close proximity to an existing residential dwelling. In this context, whilst recognising the concerns about visual impact in the landscape, I am persuaded that some limited, small-scale development components at this location if well designed, suitably screened and sensitively landscaped to ensure that potentially negative impacts would be avoided.
On the same basis, whilst noting that the current proposal is at a conceptual stage only, I am satisfied that in principle a scheme for some strictly limited development of the site could be drawn up which meets the second requirement of Policy SC17 by being in keeping with the scale and character of the adjacent buildings and the surrounding countryside. In my view this would require the built development to be of very limited scale, carefully designed and supplemented by suitable screen planting and other hard and soft landscaping. The next criterion requires compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The fact that the site utilises agricultural land that adjoins a grade separated junction on the newly dualled A92 road makes the proposals for a farm shop together
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 76 Angus Council Statement of Response
with a petrol filling station highly compatible with the surrounding land uses in my view. I do not consider that there is any justification, however, for the motel component of the proposals, for a number of reasons. Firstly this particular section of the A92 corridor is already well served by existing travel lodge style hotel facilities close by, which are situated on the either side of the dual carriageway. Secondly, I consider that such a hotel development on an elevated site at Victoria Link would be too large, obtrusive and therefore out of keeping with the surrounding scale of developments in this rural area. On this basis I conclude that the motel or hotel component should be rejected in principle at this location.
The final requirement of the policy is to accord with other relevant policies of the local plan. The only concerns of the council in this regard appear to relate to a wish to support local towns in the area and to avoid setting a precedent by allowing a development that is not within existing development boundaries, which is a stated requirement of Policy SC43 of the finalised local plan concerning roadside facilities on the A92. I note that this particular policy goes on to state that no development will be permitted in areas of open countryside. Having already covered the particular issue of open countryside above, I now consider whether it is reasonable to prohibit development of any roadside facilities outwith existing development boundaries. I note that there have been closures of petrol filling stations in Carnoustie and a lack of market demand to take up planning permissions granted for others in the area, although some new interest is now being expressed. In this context I am not persuaded that it would be reasonable to completely reject the site in question in the hope that this would protect existing businesses and encourage take-up of petrol filling station permissions that have been remained unimplemented, for almost 10 years in one case. The fact that the objectors have not demonstrated a commitment from a petrol filling station operator for the site in question is not sufficient to reject the principle of locating such a facility at this strategic location, particularly given the volumes of local and visitor traffic passing the site.
I note that the site at Victoria Link is strategically positioned approximately half way between Arbroath and Dundee and is situated at one of the few grade-separated junctions along the new dual carriageway, where it can provide safe and easy access for through-traffic and local customers. I conclude that Policy SC43, whilst well intentioned, sets an unreasonable requirement by prohibiting all developments outwith development boundaries. I reach this view partly on the basis that the corridor of the A92 road now passes through no development boundaries between Monifieth and Arbroath, which is the majority of its length. Furthermore, the council through the local plan review has not identified any particular sites along the corridor of the A92 to provide new roadside facilities - apart from having expressed a positive attitude to any revival of the unimplemented petrol filling station element of a lapsed permission adjoining the Dobbies Loan development by Monifieth. Accordingly, I conclude that the objectors’ proposals for a farm shop and petrol filling station could, in principle, satisfy Policy SC17, being situated at a grade separated junction which represents, more or less, the mid- point along the dualled section of the road. As such it is therefore strategically well located to serve those motorists passing along that road, as well as others in the surrounding rural area which is not currently well served with such facilities.
Based on all of these considerations, I endorse in part the objection lodged in this particular case and conclude that, in principle, there are exceptional circumstances to warrant an allocation of the site at Victoria Link for a farm shop and petrol filling station within the local plan review and a modification of paragraph 2.109 and Policy SC43, to enable this to be consistent with local plan policy within the adopted plan. I also conclude, however, that given the changes of level of the site and reasonable concerns about safeguarding the countryside setting, any development there would need to be carefully designed; be of limited scale and bulk; and demonstrate satisfactory screening and associated landscape treatment, in order to minimise its visual impact. This would also involve careful design of the lighting used on the site, in my view. Finally, I conclude that a hotel or motel accommodation on the site would not be appropriate, for the reasons outlined earlier.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 77 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case, in particular Paragraph 2.109 and Policy SC43, to enable a farm shop and a petrol filling station to be promoted on the site concerned, subject to a suitable scheme being put forward which meets detailed design and landscaping criteria, along the lines outlined above in my conclusions. The wording of Policy SC43 could be adjusted marginally to insert the phrase “Unless there are exceptional local circumstances … ” at the beginning of the policy wording (or by the use of other amendments to the wording to achieve the purpose stated above).
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
I consider that there is insufficient justification for the allocation of a farm shop and petrol filling station at Upper Victoria; that provision for a petrol filling station at this location would not be in accordance with national policy guidance and Structure Plan policies; and that the Reporters recommendation that Policy SC43 and paragraph 2.109 of the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review be modified should therefore not be accepted in this instance.
Policy SC43: Roadside Facilities on the A92 takes account of and is in line with national policy guidance on roadside facilities and other relevant development plan policies. The Reporters recommendation that Policy SC43 be modified to enable the development of a farm shop and petrol filling station at Upper Victoria would result in the policy being inconsistent with national policy and relevant development plan policies as set out below:-
• SPP17 Planning for Transport (paragraph 75) indicates amongst other things that road users should have opportunities at least every 50km to stop for rest and obtain essential services.
• SPP17 (paragraph 76) indicates that planning authorities should have regard to the level and quality of services in wayside and bypassed communities and to landscape and design quality issues.
• SPP17 (paragraph 78) indicates that on other trunk and strategic roads travellers will have greater opportunities to stop on route or make a short diversion to find fuel, refreshment and rest. There is therefore less justification for dedicated service provision next to the road. The provision of services in wayside or bypassed communities and by existing and proposed rest or picnic areas on the trunk road are also material considerations.
The distance between Dundee and Arbroath along the A92 is approximately 28km. Dundee has a wide range of facilities including several 24 hour petrol filling stations. Arbroath has a range of facilities including petrol filling stations, in particular on the A92 at Burnside Drive which has no restrictions upon its opening hours. In addition there are several settlements located within the A92 corridor between Dundee and Arbroath, including Broughty Ferry, Monifieth and Carnoustie providing a range of services suitable for road users including a petrol station at Broughty Ferry.
Accordingly, existing provision meets the minimum requirements of SPP17 and is considered sufficient to meet demand particularly in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
• SPP17 (paragraph 80) indicates amongst other things that consideration should be given to minimising light pollution.
The Upper Victoria site is elevated and has no existing landscape features that would aid the integration of a petrol filling station development into the landscape or mitigate the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 78 Angus Council Statement of Response
effects of the same. A 24 hour petrol filling station would, by its very nature require lights not only on the building itself to attract customers but also in any forecourt area for reasons of safety and convenience. It would also be likely to require a substantial, high level canopy in order to allow HGV access. It is considered that the basic form of the development and its lighting requirements would be such that these could not be readily mitigated to minimise the overall visual impact of the development and to integrate it into the landscape in an acceptable manner.
• SPP17 (paragraph 81) indicates amongst other things that on trunk roads fuel facilities should, where feasible be combined with other services to travellers, and not be stand-alone. Elsewhere enhancement of existing facilities rather than proliferation will fulfil sustainability criteria provided other policy requirements of the SPP can be achieved.
• The Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (Employment Policy 7) indicates that proposals for economic or employment related development in the rural areas will be supported where they do not adversely affect local environmental quality. In determining proposals account should be taken of matters including integration with the existing pattern of development; availability of local workforce to minimise travel to work journeys; and environmental policies of the plan.
• The Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (Town Centres and Retailing Policy 5) indicates that a sequential approach will be applied in relation to site selection for leisure and commercial uses capable of contributing to the vitality and viability of town centres. New free standing out of centre proposals will only be acceptable where it can be established that no suitable site is available in the first instance, within and thereafter on the edge of town centres and where the proposal is consistent with other structure plan policies.
• The Dundee and Angus Structure Plan (Environmental Resources Policy 7) indicates that development that would result in the permanent loss of prime agricultural land will not normally be permitted except where such land is identified as essential for implementation of the Structure Plan strategy.
• The Finalised Angus Local Plan Review (Policy ER5) indicates that amongst other things, sites should be capable of absorbing the proposed development to ensure that it fits into the landscape and that priority should be given to locating new development in towns, villages or building groups in preference to isolated development.
• SPP 15 (paragraph 34) indicates that policies in development plans should be evidence based.
National planning guidance supports the development of petrol filling stations within wayside and bypassed communities whilst development plan policy requires a sequential approach to the location of commercial development, which would include petrol filling stations. There are various sites for petrol filling station development within existing settlement boundaries at Arbroath, Carnoustie and Monifieth which are considered to offer potential for locating a petrol filling station at locations and in a manner that would be more readily compatible with development plan policy and more readily environmentally acceptable than a site at Upper Victoria.
No substantive evidence of need or operator demand for additional roadside service provision on the A92 was presented to the Inquiry, and given the considerations identified above there is considered to be no evidence to justify modification of Policy SC43 to allow the development of a petrol filling station in this area of open countryside.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 79 Angus Council Statement of Response
Notwithstanding, if it was considered that additional petrol filling station provision was required on the A92, or if it was demonstrated that there was no available site within a settlement boundary, national planning guidance and development plan policy would thereafter support the provision of a petrol filling station in association with existing roadside facilities where there is good accessibility. In this respect there are existing tourism and roadside facilities at Ethiebeaton, Monifieth where there is also an existing roundabout. There are considered to be parcels of land in the vicinity of Ethiebeaton that could offer potential for the location of a petrol filling station at a location and in a manner that would be more readily compatible with development plan policy and more readily environmentally acceptable than a site at Upper Victoria.
A petrol filling station at Upper Victoria would not comply with development plan or national planning policy as it would be: -
• located in the open countryside and require the development of prime quality agricultural land for a purpose which is not essential to meet the Structure Plan strategy. • unrelated to any existing development; • unrelated to any existing facilities; • in an unduly prominent location which would introduce light pollution.
It is also relevant to note that a farm shop is not a roadside facility therefore it would not be appropriate to amend Policy SC43 to enable such a development as highlighted by the Reporter in his conclusions and ultimate recommendation. Any proposal for a farm shop could properly and adequately be dealt with under the generally supportive terms of Local Plan Policies SC 16: Rural Employment as modified by the published third round modifications and SC24: Local Shops.
Accordingly, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to vary Policy SC43 to allow for the provision of a farm shop and petrol filling station at Upper Victoria.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
DO NOT ACCEPT the Reporter’s recommendation that the Local Plan be modified and maintain Angus Council’s position in respect of paragraph 2.109 and Policy SC43 as set out in the Finalised Angus Local Plan.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 80 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Residential Development - General background
Land allocated in the finalised local plan review which is the subject of objections
Site F4 - Wester Restenneth Site F5 - Whitehills Nursery Site F7- Westfield
Omissions
Land at Gowanbank Land at Suttieside Land at Turfbeg Land at Slatefield
Other related objections
Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area F14 – Primary School, Whitehills Nursery Paragraph 15, Primary Schools, Forfar Omission – Land at North Mains
Forfar lies within the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area for which the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan requires land for 1,610 houses for the period 2001-2016. The effective supply in 2001 was 585 and additional allowances of 500 and 525 houses are required for the periods 2001-2011 and 2011-2016 respectively, the latter figure being subject to review.
Structure plan Housing Policy 4 states that local plans should allocate land to meet the additional allowances, the majority in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area being directed to Forfar. The finalised local plan review allocates land with a capacity of 530 houses to Forfar in the period to 2011.
Key issues in Forfar identified in the local plan review include:
• the need to identify appropriate sites to accommodate new housing development, in support of the structure plan strategy; whilst safeguarding the form and setting of the town; • the promotion of brownfield redevelopment sites for housing where appropriate; • the protection of the landscape quality and recreational resources of open spaces and associated path network around the town including Balmashanner and Forfar Loch Country Park.
The aims of the development strategy include:
• identifying a range of effective housing land allocations, including a long term development strategy for development in the west of the town;
• safeguarding important landscape from inappropriate development, including Balmashanner and Forfar Loch Country Park.
The text states that the local plan allocates a range of sites for housing development including the establishment of a new neighbourhood in the west of the town within which a range of developments can be accommodated in the period to 2011 and beyond.
The finalised local plan review identifies the following housing sites in Forfar:
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 81 Angus Council Statement of Response
Sites with planning permission at June 2004
F(a), Montrose Road 25 units F(b), Slatefield Farm 12 units F(c), Dundee Road 6 units F(d), Turfbeg Farm 21 units F(e), Victoria Street 6 units F(f), Roberts Street/Prior Road 25 units F(g), Service Road 2 units F(h), Prior Road 1 5 units F(i), Prior Road 2 3 units F(j), North Street 6 units F(k), Manor Rise 7 units
Total 118 units
Sites previously identified in the first Angus Local Plan
F2, Beechill Nursery 5 units F3, Green Street 10 units
Total 15 units
Allocated sites (up to 2011)
F4, Wester Restenneth 70 units (70 beyond 2011) F5, Whitehills Nursery 15 units* F6, Dundee Road 100 units F7, Westfield 300 units**
Total 485 units
* A further 6 hectares may have potential for housing, subject to satisfactory access arrangements, and will require to be confirmed by a future local plan. **Additional land is safeguarded at Westfield, which is described as a new neighbourhood, for further development, including housing, a primary school and land for business employment development.
Modifications to the finalised local plan review have been proposed by the council as follows:
Site F4, Wester Restenneth
20 hectares of land at Wester Restenneth, between Montrose Road and Brechin Road, is allocated for around 250 dwellings. A first phase of around 100 dwellings will be permitted in the period to 2011.
A comprehensive development scheme will be required for the whole site which should address the following:
• A full remediation statement will be required for the site. • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing.
Foul drainage arrangements for this site should not cause the drainage situation in other parts of the town to get worse.
The inset map has also been proposed for modification whereby areas shown as open space within the overall F4 allocation have been deleted and the entire site has been designated for residential development. Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 82 Angus Council Statement of Response
Site F5, Whitehills Nursery
6.5 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery is allocated for around 100 dwellings with a requirement for 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing. Vehicular access for a limited number of houses will be permitted from Fyfe Street, and the remainder of the site will be accessed from a new junction on to Prior Road. No through route for vehicles will be permitted between Fyfe Street and Prior Road, although emergency access should be provided.
In terms of the modifications the allocated sites for the period to 2011 are as follows:
F4, Wester Restenneth 100 units F5, Whitehills Nursery 100 units F6, Dundee Road 100 units F7, Westfield 300 units
Total 600 units
The safeguarded land at Westfield (Site F7) and 150 units at Wester Restenneth will contribute to housing in the period 2011-2016.
Site F7 has not been the subject of modification and is as follows:
Site F7, New Neighbourhood – Westfield
Approximately 107 ha of land on the western edge of Forfar between the Glamis Road and the Dundee Road is identified for the development of a new neighbourhood, including major areas of open space. Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site which will include details for the following phases of development.
Land is allocated for an initial phase of development in the period to 2011 comprising:-
(a) approximately 28 ha of land for up to 300 dwellings, with 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing; a new distributor road linking Dundee Road/Westfield Loan and the Glamis Road; open space/park facilities; and an area of land for possible community facilities; (b) the provision of approximately 37 ha of land for open space/recreational use which is required to ensure the long term maintenance of a green buffer between development and the A90(T). Within this area only built development that is ancillary to the use of the land for open space/recreational purposes will be acceptable.
An area of land is safeguarded for further development in the period beyond 2011. Development proposals will require to be confirmed by a future local plan and may comprise:
(c) land for residential development, including affordable housing; (d) a site for a new primary school; (e) an area on the south side of the Glamis Road for business/employment development.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 83 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Site F4 – Wester Restenneth
Objector Reference
Wester Restenneth Company Limited 835/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Site F4, Wester Restenneth, was proposed for modification as set out in the general background.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The proposed modification is acceptable to the objector other than in respect of the required remediation report and drainage.
I accept that the increased capacity better reflects the size of the site. I consider below the level of allocation in the housing market area under objection 953/1/1 and conclude that the local plan review does not conflict with the structure plan. I therefore accept that the level of around 250 houses at site F4 can be accommodated in strategic terms. The revised level of release prior to 2011 is reasonable and has not been questioned by the objector.
The comprehensive development scheme required will provide the opportunity to consider the disposition of open space within the site. The scheme will be prepared in the context of the revised capacity of the site and I therefore conclude that it is appropriate for the entire site to be designated for housing and shown as such on the inset map.
Insofar as the need for a remedial report is concerned I note that there is an element of made-up land within the site. There is no dispute that a report is required and, indeed, the objector points out that a remedial statement has previously been prepared and submitted to the council. The council argues that the situation is likely to have changed since then. To some extent this is immaterial as a full and relevant report will be required in due course, be it the statement previously prepared, perhaps in an amended form, or an entirely new document.
The objector suggests that all housing sites identified in the local plan review should require a full remediation report. The council says that this site requires a report because of the made-up nature of the ground and that this is in accordance with standard procedures. Other sites are not known to have similar characteristics. I share the view of the council in this respect and believe it is proper to draw attention to the need for the comprehensive development scheme to address the requirement for a full remediation statement because of the known circumstances at the site.
Where there are no known conditions involving potential remediation measures, there is no point in the local plan review requiring a report. In any event, the council is in a position to require such information as is considered necessary to determine any particular planning application and this might include a remediation report. I therefore conclude that the proposed modification should not be altered in respect of the requirement for a full remediation statement. Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 84 Angus Council Statement of Response
There appears to be little between the parties in respect of the provision of foul drainage. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the wish of the council to draw attention to this matter in the absence of a formal statement from Scottish Water. I believe that, in effect, the stipulation that the drainage situation in other parts of Forfar should not worsen, represents a requirement to obtain a confirmation from Scottish Water that the drainage arrangements for Wester Restenneth are satisfactory. In this respect I prefer the objector’s suggestion that the drainage arrangements should be agreed in writing by Scottish Water. This is a more straightforward approach related specifically to the suitability of the drainage arrangements for the development site itself.
I therefore conclude that the modification should be further modified to include the objector’s suggested wording in respect of foul drainage.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the finalised local plan review is modified as proposed by the council in respect of Site F4, Housing, Wester Restenneth, other than for a further modification whereby the proposed reference to foul drainage is deleted and replaced as follows:
Foul drainage arrangements for the site should be agreed in writing with Scottish Water.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The principle of housing development on this site is not disputed, and the proposed pre- inquiry modification increasing the level of housing development is supported by the objector and endorsed by the Reporter. The remaining issues related to the wording of the proposal in relation to the need for a remediation report and arrangements for foul drainage.
The Reporter supports the Council’s opinion that it is proper to draw attention to the need for a remediation report in the proposal due to the known presence of made ground, and endorses the proposed pre-inquiry modification which addresses this.
The Reporter has suggested a minor modification to the wording of Policy F4 in respect of foul drainage arrangements, and this is accepted. However, I remain concerned about the potential impact of drainage solutions for sites in the constrained area of Forfar on available drainage in other parts of the town. This matter will be kept under review and will be taken into account in dealing with specific planning applications for development of allocated sites.
In relation to the housing land supply in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens, the Reporter’s conclusions in respect of objections related to housing land in Forfar, Kirriemuir and modifications proposed by the Council do not fully meet the Structure Plan allowances 2001 – 2011. The Head of Planning and Transport’s comment in relation to this matter is set out in response to the Reporter’s Recommendations in relation to consideration of an objection by The Muir Group and Webster Contracts under “Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area” in Volume 2, page 112 of this Schedule.
In order to ensure the availability of housing land to meet the Structure Plan allowance for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Glens Housing Market Area for the period to 2011, it is proposed to increase the phasing of this allocation from 100 to 150 units in the period to 2011, with the remaining 100 units to come forward in the period beyond 2011.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 85 Angus Council Statement of Response
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 together with the further amendment as follows:
“F4 : Housing - Wester Restenneth
20 hectares of land at Wester Restenneth, between Montrose Road and Brechin Road, is allocated for around 250 dwellings. A first phase of around 150 dwellings will be permitted in the period to 2011.
A comprehensive development scheme will be required for the whole site which should address the following:
• A full remediation statement will be required for the site. • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing.
Foul drainage arrangements for the site should be agreed in writing with Scottish Water.”
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 86 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Site F5, Whitehills Nursery
Objector Reference
Mr & Mrs T Meldrum 630/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Site F5, Whitehills Nursery, was proposed for modification as set out in the general background.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that the council has taken account of housing land allocations throughout the housing market area. In this respect, I consider below the objection to the level of allocation in the housing market area under objection 953/1/1 and conclude that the local plan review does not conflict with the structure plan. I accept that the contribution of around 100 houses at Site F5 can be accommodated in strategic terms. The location of the site within the urban framework is, in any event, a persuasive consideration.
In view of the acceptance by the council that access to the site is possible from Fyfe Street and Prior Road, and noting the conditional withdrawal of the objection, I believe that the proposed modification is worthy of support.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby Site F5, Housing, Whitehills Nursery, is allocated for development in its entirety as set out in the general background to the Forfar housing land objections.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
“F5 : Housing - Whitehills Nursery
6.5 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery is allocated for around 100 dwellings with a requirement for 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing. Vehicular access for a limited number of houses will be permitted from Fyfe Street, and the remainder of the site will be accessed from a new junction on to Prior Road. No through route for vehicles will be permitted between Fyfe Street and Prior Road, although emergency access should be provided.”
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 87 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Site F7, New Neighbourhood, Westfield
Objector Reference
Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited 69/1/2 The Forfar Truss Company Limited 204/1/1 Brogan Fuels 252/1/1 LSR Engineering 275/1/1 Simon Urquhart Limited 289/1/1 Macarron Electroplaters Limited 307/1/1 Wester Restenneth Company Limited 835/1/2
Supporters
The Muir Group 76/1/1 Webster Contracts Limited 202/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Formal (Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited & Richard Dent The Muir Group/Webster Contracts Limited) and written submissions ______
BACKGROUND
The site is to the south-west of Forfar, bounded to the north by the A929, to the east by Westfield Loan and to the south by the A932, Dundee Road. Details of the content of the local plan review are set out in the general background to objections to housing land allocations in Forfar.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Structure plan
Elite Homes and the Wester Restenneth Company question the need for the Westfield allocation in terms of strategic targets. The structure plan requires provision for 500 additional houses in the period to 2011 in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area with a further 525 houses in the following 5 years to 2016. The total for the later period will be subject to review. Forfar is regarded as the focus for future growth and local plans should direct the majority of housing land allowances to the town.
The modified local plan review allocates sites in the first period as follows:
Forfar 600 Kirriemuir 120 Landward 72
Total 792
As indicated in PAN38, a margin of flexibility should be built into development plan housing allocations but I believe that the excess of almost 300 houses in the housing market area in the period to 2011 cannot be regarded as marginal. The council has indicated that additional allocations were made at Forfar as sites in Kirriemuir were not considered to be effective because of the drainage uncertainties. However, as explained
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 88 Angus Council Statement of Response
in the Kirriemuir section of this report, Scottish Water has indicated that, notwithstanding the possibility that recent environmental works may lead to extra capacity, there is the possibility of further increasing the capacity of the waste water treatment plant to accommodate a further 270 house equivalent. I have concluded that drainage is no longer a constraining factor in housing land allocations in Kirriemuir and believe that sites in the town are capable of becoming effective during the local plan period. Accordingly, I conclude the level of provision required in the housing market area can be set to more closely accord with the structure plan target.
The removal of the Westfield allocation of up to 300 dwellings would reduce the total in the period to 492 which is close to the structure plan target. In considering objections to sites that have been omitted in Forfar, I have concluded that land at Gowanbank, which is within the settlement boundary, should be allocated for around 60 houses and that land at Slatefield should be brought within the boundary to allow around 5 houses. Taking into account my recommendations in respect of Kirriemuir, this would bring the total up to 517 providing a small flexibility allowance which I consider to be adequate. The proposed boundary modification at Padanaram also provides the prospect of additional housing which increases the degree of flexibility. In turn, I conclude that the allocation at Westfield is not necessary to secure the structure plan housing land target for the housing market area in the period 2001-2011.
Should the Westfield allocation be deleted from the local plan review, contributions to the total of 525 houses that is required for the second period would be limited to 150 at Wester Restenneth and, in terms of my recommendations at Kirriemuir, 40 at Site K2, Hillhead, leaving a shortfall of 335. Elite Homes argues that the allocation of land for housing in this period should await the outcome of the structure plan review. However, this suggestion is made on the basis of the level of release in the housing market area during the first period. In view of my belief that there should be a reduced total for the first period, I consider that, in order to conform to the structure plan, additional land should be identified in the local plan review to make provision for the target for 2011- 2016. I shall address this requirement in the context of my assessment of the objection sites.
The concept of a new neighbourhood at Westfield
Elite Homes has expressed concern that the raison d’être for the creation of a new neighbourhood has never been explained by the council. The Wester Restenneth Company similarly points out that the decision to expand to the west of Forfar has not been justified. I note that the Assessment of Possible Development Areas, a background paper prepared by the council in 2003, explains that the scale of the area provides an opportunity for a planned neighbourhood extension enabling the co-ordinated provision of housing, employment land, community facilities and open space. At that time it was considered that a golf course and related facilities could assist in retaining a significant area of open land.
In itself, the concept of integrated land uses represents a commendable aspiration but I am not convinced that the required degree of co-ordination has taken place. The golf course had a central role and although alternative recreational uses have been proposed, little detail has been provided. Some thought has been given to financing future maintenance, but again nothing has been finalised. Indeed, the Muir Group/Webster Contracts have indicated that the full provision of infrastructure and community facilities would depend on the level of housing undertaken. I can understand that a commercial approach must be adopted but I believe the evidence raises serious doubts about the prospect of achieving the comprehensive neighbourhood development required.
In terms of the second phase of housing, Elite Homes express the opinion that the neighbourhood concept renders the required structure plan review virtually meaningless. I share this view insofar as it seems inconceivable that, once underway, a co-ordinated
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 89 Angus Council Statement of Response
neighbourhood development would be brought to a stop. It is therefore logical to believe that, should Site F7 commence as envisaged in the local plan review, the safeguarded land would come forward in the period beyond 2011. With a potential capacity of up to 400 houses, this site, along with 150 at Wester Restenneth, would provide the entire structure plan target of 525 for 2011-2016.
The primary school site is shown in a central location and yet the need for a new school has not been established. The council has explained its thinking in this respect but, should the school not be required in due course, a significant reappraisal of land use would be necessary.
Although it was stated that the employment land at Site F12 is proving attractive, there was no evidence to indicate that those areas under negotiation or discussion in October 2005 have subsequently been committed to development. Accordingly some 16 hectares appear to remain available. Site F13 provides a further 4 hectares of employment land. On this basis, the structure plan requirement of at least 10 hectares is comfortably exceeded and I conclude that there is no pressing need for the allocation of Site F7e.
All-in-all, I conclude generally that the benefits of a neighbourhood approach over Site F7 have not been substantiated and that, in particular, allocations F7b, major open area, F7d, possible school site, and F7e, possible business use after 2011, have not been justified.
Landscape and visual impact
The Landscape Capacity Study undertaken by the council places Site F7 within three areas: area H relates to the northern and eastern parts of the site, area I covers the southern and western parts and area J which lies in the angle between the A90 and A929. In view of my conclusion in respect of Site F7e, area I is not relevant in landscape capacity terms.
In area H, in terms of landscape setting, development is judged to have a neutral impact and to have the ability to create a more organic and consolidated urban pattern. There would be a neutral visual impact and development would provide the opportunity to strengthen the edge of the town. In area I, development would create an unbalanced settlement pattern and allow extensive views from the A932. Much of the area would be highly visible from the A90 and the north-west.
Elite Homes believes that the level of work undertaken to assess the landscape impact of the proposed Westfield development is inadequate. The site is visible from the A932 especially, the A929, and also the A90. Views to the north and south are open and panoramic. As the proposed development boundary does not relate to any exiting discernable boundary there is doubt about the capacity of the site to create a robust settlement edge.
The Muir Group and Webster Contracts consider the overall significance of the landscape impact of the proposed development to be low and that a number of benefits would result, including a large increase in woodland cover.
In my opinion, in view of the scale of the proposed development, it is inevitable that there would be a significant landscape impact. Despite the existing trees on the site, the proposed additional planting and the amount of open space, the construction of at least 600 houses over Sites F7a and F7c would extend the urban area from Westfield Loan along both the A929 and the A932. The current boundary has been described as stark but, whilst I would agree that there is an abrupt edge to the town at this location, I believe Westfield Loan provides a clear and appropriate distinction between urban uses to the east and non-urban land to the west. To some extent the boundary is softened by the curves in Westfield Loan and the stone dykes and trees. Accordingly, I conclude that the construction of new houses is not required to improve the Westfield Loan boundary.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 90 Angus Council Statement of Response
Development extends along the north side of the A929 to the A90, Forfar by-pass, and it has been suggested that the development at Westfield would consolidate the urban form and provide Forfar with a more balanced structure. Whilst there is single sided development along the A929 on the approach to Westfield Loan, the council has indicated that this is not visually overbearing and, indeed, the new business area has a 30 metre planted buffer area. Trees line much of the southern frontage but there are also attractive longer distance glimpses towards the higher ground to the south and south- east. Although it has been indicated that this is not the most attractive entrance to the town, I believe the overall ambience of this part of Glamis Road is of a reasonable level and will be increased with the completion of the business centre. In turn, I see no reason to provide a more balanced or consolidated urban form and conclude that the Westfield development is not justified on this basis.
Opinions vary on the degree of visibility from the A90 although it is generally accepted that views from main roads have a low, transient impact value. It is my impression that local topography including the passage of the trunk road, in part, through a cutting, screens the A90 from any overwhelming impact. In any event, although Forfar was once effectively unrelated to the by-pass in visual terms, the development of the new business park has effectively brought the edge of the town to the A90. Any additional impact of the Westfield development would therefore simply increase the existing degree of visibility from the trunk road.
The Muir Group and Webster Contracts state that the tree screen along the A929 would be augmented but whilst this could be relatively effective, I nevertheless consider that development would provide the south side of Glamis Road with an inevitable urban character particularly when viewed from the junction with the new distributor road.
Elite Homes points out that the whole site is particularly visible from the A932 although the Muir Group and Webster Contracts believe that the impact reduces as the road falls towards Westfield Loan. The landscape capacity study shows that most of Site F7c lies within area I and that extensive views are possible across this area. However, the council also considers the south side of Dundee Road to provide a weak edge to the town and that the Westfield development would strengthen the urban boundary at this point.
When approaching Forfar along Dundee Road, the bend to the west of the houses on the south side of the road is a crucial point. It is from here that views of the town are first seen in the wider context of the countryside and hills to the north. This is possible because of the topography of the Westfield site and the clear urban boundary formed by Westfield Loan. There are houses on the south side of the road but, in terms of visual impact, I believe these to be subservient to the panoramic vista to the north. In my opinion, notwithstanding the fall of the land to the north and the existing trees, development of Westfield, particularly Site F7c, would have a significantly adverse visual impact and would seriously disturb the landscape setting of Forfar. I do not believe that any benefit gained from any strengthening of the edge of the town at this point, as required by the council, outweighs the landscape setting considerations.
Site F7a lies within area H of the landscape capacity study and I accept that houses here would have less impact than the development of Site F7c. The least impact would be achieved in the angle of the junction between Glamis Road and Westfield Loan but the statutory protection afforded to the scheduled ancient monuments, no matter how restricted the additional cordon sanitaire might be, would effectively rule out any meaningful development at this location. I have previously concluded that the consolidation of the urban pattern and the need to strengthen the edge of the town along Westfield Loan do not justify the proposed development. I further conclude that, although the landscape impact resulting from building over Site F7a would be relatively less than the impact of development on Site F7c, in landscape terms the settlement boundary should not be extended beyond Westfield Loan.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 91 Angus Council Statement of Response
In reaching these conclusions I have also noted the impact on views from Balmashanner Hill. I believe the development would be visible and would extend the prospect of the urban area. However, in contrast with the view from Dundee Road where the development would be in the foreground, the impact from Balmashanner Hill would be much reduced by the distance from the site. Important, distant views of Strathmore and the mountains would remain unimpaired.
Accessibility
Westfield is in a peripheral location and certain facilities are not within the recommended maximum walking distance of 1,600 metres. Nevertheless, there are local shops and a post office relatively close to the site. Bus services are conveniently located and would be capable of passing through the site. Although Orchardbank does not provide the largest concentration of employment opportunities in Forfar, the proximity of industrial and business premises to the site and the potential provided by the new business park, in my opinion, is a clear advantage for the site.
I have noted the concerns expressed in respect of the alleged incompatibility of existing industrial uses and the proposed new neighbourhood. However, I share the view of the council that the disposition of the existing buildings, the layout of the new business park and the careful design of any new housing could reduce any potential impact to an acceptable level. The council emphasises that this matter would require to be considered through the development brief.
Note: this matter is considered in more detail below. The relevance of Policy ER11, Noise Pollution is emphasised in the conclusions.
In overall accessibility terms I conclude that Westfield is not ideally situated but nevertheless, should not be ruled out in respect of sustainability.
Traffic
Elite Homes is particularly concerned about the traffic impact at Westport which is generally accepted as being an important junction where lack of capacity would disrupt flows. There are some difficulties in providing a clear cut solution although I believe that limited improvements and amended phasing of the traffic lights would assist.
I accept the desirability of prohibiting right turns by traffic using the at-grade junction between the A90 and the A932 and consider it is not unreasonable to anticipate this possibility. No mention was made of providing a new grade-separated junction and therefore additional traffic would be likely to approach Forfar via the A929, in turn placing more pressure on the Westport junction. It may be that the new distributor road through the proposed Westfield development would allow some relief at Westport. However, lacking a detailed assessment, I am unable to conclude that the distributor road would assist. The principal function of the road appears to be that of a local distributor but, in any event, some doubt has been cast on the timescale for completion.
All-in-all, I have reservations about the traffic impact of the development but do not consider it possible to reach a firm conclusion in this respect due to limited information.
Objections lodged in respect of threats to road safety and pedestrians have not been substantiated but the council points out that the area does not have a poor accident record. In any event, a transport assessment would be required. I accept that there is no apparent reason why road safety and the particular safety of pedestrians should be unduly compromised.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 92 Angus Council Statement of Response
Archaeology
There is general agreement that the two SAMs would constrain development although the Muir Group and Webster Contracts have proposed a landscaping zone that would extend at least 30 metres beyond the scheduled areas. It is believed that density or site boundaries could be adjusted, if necessary, to achieve the housing targets. Elite Homes is concerned about the impact of the SAMs on the overall layout. I consider that the overall scale of the proposed Westfield neighbourhood is such that any flexibility required in terms of the SAMs could be accommodated without detriment to the wider concept. The master plan prepared on behalf of the Muir Group and Webster Contract shows a comprehensive area of open space which incorporates both SAMs and I think that this is a reasonable approach and would allow the undeveloped area to be integrated within the wider urban framework.
Elite Homes maintains that an area significantly greater that the scheduled extent of the SAMs and the cordon sanitaire requires protection as a cultural landscape. This “archaeological exclusion zone” would effectively preclude development over Sites F7a and F7c.
No evidence has been provided to refute the concept of a cultural landscape but, nevertheless, it is necessary to examine the credibility of the requirement. In this respect, I can accept that sites should not necessarily be considered individually and that a wider assessment may well be required to obtain a greater understanding of archaeological remains. Equally, I can accept that there could well be other archaeological remains in the vicinity. NPPG5 emphasises that the total extent of archaeological remains is unknown. Indeed, NPPG5 recognises that archaeological remains can, in some cases, form broader archaeological landscapes.
The definition of a cultural landscape requires selection on the basis of representation in a clearly defined geographical region. In this case it has been suggested that the development area is a central part of the cultural landscape from which Forfar has grown. Even if the town is accepted as being a clearly defined geographical region, I do not believe that the claim in respect of a cultural landscape has been clearly demonstrated. Similarly, the landscape must illustrate the essential and distinct cultural elements of the region. I do not consider that this requirement has been met.
It is unfortunate that the views of Historic Scotland have not been provided although I note that the agency was consulted and have made no comments in respect of a cultural landscape or any need to preserve the wider context of the SAMs. I conclude that the case for regarding the wider area as a cultural landscape has not been satisfactorily substantiated and, in turn, I further conclude that any development area should not be constrained beyond the extent of the SAMs and any related protection zones as determined by Historic Scotland. I believe it is reasonable, in terms of the master plan to allow for a 30 metre zone.
Summary of conclusions
• In terms of the creation of a new neighbourhood, I conclude the need has not been justified. • Insofar as road safety and particularly the well being of pedestrians is concerned, I conclude there is no reason why the new development should not proceed. • Archaeological constraints are limited to the SAMs and any protected area specified by Historic Scotland which could be accommodated within the overall layout. • Accessibility, whilst not ideal, should not rule out development. • Wider traffic implications could be important, especially if right turns are prohibited at the A90/A932 junction and a detailed assessment would be required.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 93 Angus Council Statement of Response
• Visual impact would be significantly adverse and the landscape setting of Forfar would be reduced to an unacceptable extent. • The deletion of Site F7a, when considered along with my other housing land recommendations would allow for 517 houses in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area compared with a structure plan requirement of 500 for the period 2001-2011. • The deletion of Site F7c for up to 300 houses would leave a significant shortfall in the indicative allowance for the period 2011-2016. This matter is addressed in my consideration of subsequent objections to housing land in Forfar.
Overall, I conclude that the allocation of Site 7 should not be maintained in the local plan review.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified by deleting Site F7: New Neighbourhood – Westfield.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter’s consideration of the evidence in relation to objections to F7 : New Neighbourhood – Westfield has resulted in his recommendation that the proposal be deleted from the Local Plan. In relation to several of the issues raised, such as road safety, archaeology, accessibility, and traffic implications the Reporter’s findings were either positive or acknowledged that some matters were capable of being addressed further, and were not considered to raise significant concerns which would prejudice the development.
Notwithstanding this, the Reporter has recommended that the proposal be deleted from the Local Plan and in reaching this conclusion significant weight has been placed on the following matters – conformity with the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan, the justification for the development, and landscape and visual effects.
Housing Land Supply and Conformity with the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan.
Relying heavily on information provided by Scottish Water in relation to the Kirriemuir drainage constraint (during the Kirriemuir part of the Inquiry) the Reporter concludes that there is drainage capacity in Kirriemuir which will enable housing to be developed there in the Plan period. Sites identified in Kirriemuir are therefore considered to be effective and there is therefore no need for the degree of flexibility in housing numbers for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Glens Housing Market Area proposed in the FALPR. This, along with his recommendations for the allocation of two further sites within the existing built-up area of the town in addition to his endorsement of the Council’s proposed pre- inquiry modifications to increase the level of housing development on sites at Wester Restenneth and Whitehills Nursery, would result in what the Reporter considers to be an unacceptable oversupply of housing land in the Housing Market Area. This could raise issues of conformity with the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. It is the Reporter’s view that the housing land supply should more closely reflect the Structure Plan housing land requirement, and that as a greenfield site on the edge of Forfar, Westfield should be deleted from the Plan.
Since the receipt of the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Scottish Water announced, on the 27 September 2006, the interim removal of the drainage constraint affecting the Kirriemuir Waste Water Treatment Works through agreement with SEPA. This will accommodate the level of development now proposed in Kirriemuir to 2011 in the FALPR as proposed to be modified by the Reporter removing outstanding issues about the effectiveness of sites in Kirriemuir.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 94 Angus Council Statement of Response
Justification for a New Neighbourhood.
In relation to the need for a new neighbourhood form of development the Reporter remarked that it was “...a commendable aspiration... “ to promote a development of integrated land uses. In the Council’s view there is support for this approach in SPP3 Planning for Housing, paragraph 28 states “Planning authorities should draw up long- term sustainable settlement strategies to provide certainty and variety for housing providers and local communities.” However, the Reporter appears to have been unconvinced that the required degree of coordination of the development, particularly the major area of open space, possible primary school site and future business land, had taken place or was possible. The Council considers that an appropriate level of assessment of the feasibility of these elements of the development had been undertaken and that the detail of the major area of open space would have been concluded through the preparation of a Masterplan and planning application. The fine detail of elements such as a maintenance regime and other matters is not considered to have been necessary to support the allocation at this stage. The Local Plan wording stipulated that a future local plan would have been required to confirm the future phases of the development.
Landscape and Visual Effects.
The Reporter’s consideration of the landscape and visual impacts of development at Westfield and his conclusions represent a significant divergence from the landscape and visual impact evidence presented by the Council and supporters of the development of Westfield. This is disappointing particularly as the same Reporter has supported the Council’s landscape evidence put forward during other sessions of the Inquiry – for example in relation to Kirriemuir. The Reporter’s conclusions appear to be primarily based on the perceived impact of development at Westfield on the landscape setting of the town when viewed from the Dundee Road approaching Forfar from the Lochlands junction on the A90(T). In the Council’s opinion, as presented to the Inquiry, the view from this location focuses on the distant views to the Angus Hills and the site appears well integrated in the foreground.
Conclusion
The recent confirmation that drainage will be available in the Plan period in Kirriemuir, together with the Reporter’s confirmation of proposed pre-inquiry modifications in relation to F4 : Housing - Wester Restenneth and F5 : Housing – Whitehills Nursery, need to be considered alongside his recommendations to allocate additional sites in Forfar. In these circumstances the Reporter’s recommendation to remove the proposal for a new neighbourhood at Westfield is accepted meantime in order to ensure conformity with the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan guidance on the scale of housing land provision up to 2011.
Unfortunately the Reporter’s various recommendations in relation to housing land supply in the Forfar/Kirriemuir Housing Market Area mean there is little flexibility in terms of the available housing land supply as the sites now put forward do not have capacity for development beyond the medium term. A future Local Plan review will require to reassess possible development areas in order to establish where housing land release will take place in the longer term post 2011. Angus Council had sought to achieve this through the identification of a significant area of land at Westfield in the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, which was also capable of accommodating longer term growth, but that will need to be reconsidered in a subsequent review of the relative merits of alternative sites.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
In the light of confirmation of removal of the drainage constraint in Kirriemuir and the Reporter’s recommendations to include other sites for housing in Forfar up to 2011, the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 95 Angus Council Statement of Response
Reporter’s Recommendation to remove proposal F7 : New Neighbourhood – Westfield is ACCEPTED meantime.
This change results in the following amendments to other parts of the Plan.
• Remove the site from the Forfar Inset Proposals Map and redraw the development boundary as shown on the attached plan. • Amend the second sentence of paragraph 1.22 of the FALPR as follows, “...and other uses the Local Plan allocates a range of sites within the town for residential development.” Delete the following two sentences. • Delete paragraph 3 in the Forfar Settlement Statement, renumber subsequent paragraphs. • Change bullet 2 of paragraph 5 ‘Development Strategy’ in the Forfar Settlement Statement – to remove “...including a long-term strategy for development in the west of the town.” • Remove the site from Table 1 in the Forfar Settlement Statement, and Appendix 2 : Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area. • Delete paragraph 15 in the Forfar Settlement Statement (this is referred to in another representation but is related specifically to the proposed development at Westfield). Renumber subsequent paragraphs.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 96 Angus Council Statement of Response QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
porfr2@snset2wp2RA
eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright
nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF USITHH engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS USITHH
USIRHH USIRHH USIPHH USIPHH
pV USIHHH
USIHHH USHVHH USHVHH
IXIHHHH
QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
Forfar: Omission – Land at Gowanbank
Objector Reference
Wester Restenneth Company Limited 835/1/3
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The site lies within the settlement boundary of Forfar and is allocated under Policy S1 in terms of development in existing built-up area. The land is a vacant open area with some sharp, localised changes in level. The rear of existing residential property forms the northern, western and southern boundaries. The embankment of a disused railway line provides the eastern boundary beyond which is a large landfill site. Access can be taken from the north-east corner of the site to Montrose Road between residential property to the west and the structure of a former railway bridge to the east. In the south-west corner of the site there is a link between houses on the boundary to Arbroath Road.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
In terms of the wider housing strategy, my conclusion that land at Westfield should not be released for housing ensures there is no structure plan impediment to the allocation of the land at Gowanbank for around 60 houses. Equally, insofar as the local plan review is concerned, development will be generally supported in terms of Policy S1(a), Development Boundaries. Proposals must accord with relevant policies of the local plan although the text sounds the warning in paragraph 1.28 that all areas of ground within a settlement boundary do not have development potential.
In opposing the allocation of the site for housing the council has drawn attention to sites at Wester Restenneth and Whitehills Nursery which are in the same part of the town and where modifications have increased the capacity in the period to 2011. However, I do not consider, in local plan policy terms, that the proximity of two other sites with a pre-2011 capacity of 200 houses points against the allocation of the land at Gowanbank. To the contrary, I believe that an additional site in the vicinity would add to the range of choice of locations for house purchasers.
The council has also expressed concern about the enclosed nature of the site which is regarded as backland in character. The objector disagrees believing that it is possible to provide a layout which would create a small-scale neighbourhood in its own right. In my experience, backland development is more usually of a smaller scale and involves development on a site without a road frontage. I recognise that the land at Gowanbank does not itself have a meaningful road frontage but any disadvantage this might imply is offset by the scale of development that would be possible. In this respect I agree with the objector that an appropriate layout could provide a good residential environment. Certainly, each individual house within the site would be capable of its own road frontage. I am also of the opinion that the site provides the scope to devise a layout that would respect the amenity of existing houses adjacent to the boundary.
Reference has been made to the 250 metre cordon around the Wester Restenneth landfill site. Visually, the site itself is effectively screened from the site by the former railway embankment but the cordon extends to the west of the embankment some 50 metres into the site (as scaled). I note from the illustrative layout provided by the objector
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 98 Angus Council Statement of Response
that a development of 60 houses could be achieved without encroaching into the 250 metre cordon. I also note that the cordon extends northwards across Montrose Road and into housing Site F4, Wester Restenneth. Although the cordon would restrict the extent of built development over the Gowanbank site (as it would, at least marginally, at Wester Restenneth), I am satisfied that the balance of the site could accommodate 60 houses and agree with the objector that this is a matter to be considered in the context of a detailed proposal.
The objector states that the site is effective in terms of PAN38. One of the criteria in this respect is the need for the site to be either free of infrastructure constraints, or that any required infrastructure can realistically be provided. The council agrees that the site could be drained and believes that access may be achieved although sight lines would extend beyond the site boundary. The objector points out that the Roads Department has accepted the technical standards could be achieved and so access should not be regarded as a constraint to the allocation of the land for housing.
I note that the minute of the meeting with the Roads Department that took place on 7 October 2007 indicates that the council requested efforts be made to alter the Arbroath Road access to improve visibility but was happy with the Montrose Road access. This has not been confirmed as an accurate record but has not been disputed by the council. The access to Arbroath Road is narrow and angled and, in my opinion could impact on the amenity of the immediately adjacent residential properties. However, notwithstanding the remaining structure of the railway bridge, the Montrose Road access is said to have the required visibility. On this basis I am prepared to accept that access arrangements should not preclude the allocation of the site for housing and that the land can be regarded as effective.
Although the land is peripheral, it lies within the settlement boundary. The council has not suggested that the site would be unsuitable in terms of accessibility or that development is otherwise precluded under the qualifications contained in paragraph 1.28. Overall, I conclude that Gowanbank should be allocated for housing in the period to 2011.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is modified to include the land at Gowanbank as a designated site for housing with a capacity of around 60 units in the period to 2011. Associated text should be inserted as considered appropriate by the council and the housing land allocations modified accordingly.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter has concluded that although a backland location, this site is within the development boundary for Forfar and would add to the range of locational choice for house purchasers.
There is a footpath which runs through the site which is likely to be a public right of way and forms part of the way marked Forfar Path Network. Any development proposals will require to incorporate a path of an appropriate character into the overall design of the site layout. It is important that the path connects into the network at the existing locations.
The site lies within part of Forfar which remains affected by a drainage constraint although it is acknowledged the site is capable of being drained. However, I remain concerned about the potential impact of drainage solutions for sites in the constrained area of Forfar on available drainage in other parts of the town. This matter will be kept under review and will be taken into account in dealing with specific planning applications for development of allocated sites.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 99 Angus Council Statement of Response
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review and include a new proposal as follows:
“F7 : Housing - Gowanbank
6 hectares of land at Gowanbank is allocated for residential development of around 60 units.
An appropriate vehicular access will require to be provided from Arbroath Road, or from both Montrose Road and Arbroath Road. No through route for vehicles will be permitted between Montrose Road and Arbroath Road, although emergency access should be provided.
The public footpath which crosses the site from north east to south west and connects into the Forfar Path Network at those points will require to be taken into account and incorporated into the layout of the site.
Development will require to take account of the amenity of existing properties around the perimeter of the site and respect the cordon sanitaire associated with the operational landfill site to the east.
Foul drainage arrangements for the site should be agreed in writing with Scottish Water.”
This change results in the following amendments to other parts of the Plan.
• Renumber subsequent proposals. • Add the allocation to Table 3 in the Forfar Settlement Statement, and Appendix 2 : Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area. • Indicate the site on the Forfar Inset Proposals Map.(as shown on the attached plan)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 100 Angus Council Statement of Response QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
v y rehouse hepot UUFRm
iewnk
A
k
URFWm r he2funglow
@
u v r e k
9 i fw2UTFWWm e i feulh porfr2@snset2wp2RA I H ludge2feds
qreen2qtes
I I
i owlln
I i eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2
P UTFIm 2 i i y qlengordon the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF UPFVm i 2r r x e x
i p@RA v I i r nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright f
USITHH P nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF wossmoye ghrmill h i s m engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS n t l e d 2 i lw wirglo y
USITHH osenk gottge
URFQm
UHFQm it wosside2gottge @disusedA
hepot
g it @disusedA A um vohhed2nd282qrvel2it 2@ th UQFWm
r k
f
f r r f o i e h e u w d r r n 2 h I o m g e n d w n y u s o o o g n i w t d r i o i t e q w e n t r y e 2 g s r o e w i x e s d y e i w s e u e n w r r n y e n k s f t k i t e o f l 2g d T r r e USIRHH d e ln d l o g u n u p i e g fw n UQFTm d PRVFTUm y r R q k P o w r n 2WIIQ v o f in otts u qownnk 2g s VTHQ 2WIIQ g g nk f r o wn e qo nk h g yl ellotment2qrdens m o um 2yeh tt HVHH USIRHH i SIHH UUHH wyxy UIFPm fw2UHFSPm HHHT IWHH f2WIIQ SIHH TSHH IWHH he f2WIIQ fuon2ist VSHH unoll vhnrix A ment2qrdens m u 2@ g th p hrin hrin qownnk UHFSm t2tohns p@A velnd qr nton wngster g gottge illen fnk vittlefield vohhed2nd282qrvel2it eh i2y y
UI
W T U I USIPHH
UW
QQ QS q RQ y
gp ex R g S 2 pU r s
qq vohhed2nd282qrvel2it S T RS
S wgg g T vvygr2h si
S
r ll RS P
V S V Q
SU qr nton SH USIPHH r k QI x SW igi TI
u2g
x Q e R vsvf
S SU R
wnse Q R
q R R P
T P
R gr y
P P e x PQ
2 k
ter
P R V U s I q r U
Q q T
R P SI
RT QPVH V
RV P PI TT lyground PS
i
R TV
P s
IS
h IU
2
r
g RQ
y
v WH I v I
WP
g
IH WU g
UU w PV WS
S U
PR
I QU P
eh I
2y W u I Q I x W fe VHFUm gp h r PP u hu m m n o P P e
il2u2t P n
R U d I d i IV o n vsing prwy PR e s VIFTm V I S g e I P I V w I H P IR PS P hlziel
I t USIHHH W h o o
PQ 2 d virig V 2 f
IW H2to
vilynk P I S P n vyndle k I worlyn ix I R g T
gi IT
T Q yvv Q
UTFPm gunning2rill I
Q I I
H 2 t
Q
I o I 2
H Q
R
V R H 2vi USTW q9
W ex
Q S
QQ y P i x k h R sv Q o v USIHHH U
s ossir
P
V edult2rining2gentre P
fw
H
e TQFVm Q wyrnk fy T er2 VQFSQm yeh he o
ll I
Q
P T I oodle R S
S I
q P glu2rouse y
V
P
P I
I H e S Q
S w x
g I P pour2inds
g
I
Q R
P
IR v Q sqq v USFPm
y I
Q g P
I r S I R 2 I Q h S
I Q s
i I T
W T Q R I
IR I
I
P P
P
Q I Q I g P
t QW t i Q IH l e h I S R H 2 v R I i V T TVFIm s Q e S W I U R m U Q V I e n
T I V 2WQP PH IP Q e IW T 2WQP n
IP U U R t
I Q
I l
V e
I
T d I
W
I T
I 2
R P I
I
I P PP i P lw Q USHVHH s P R y i P S RR VRFRm g P
r P T W
I s P
H i U R
W V P V ve gi
R V
R W
P
V SH
I
V SI
VH VR
Q S
V P
S V S Q USHVHH
S T S V
U V
V T
R
U
S i V U x R xi r 2h s i
h
T t I
T T T
Q
t T o TT P
S
U
T
V S UQ
P T
R I
U
W T
R V
to
T R
I
Q VUFUm
U
P W
P
I
S
IXSHHH P W
R P
t o
W
I R
T HPQW u QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
Forfar: Omission – Land at Suttieside
Objector Reference
Mr G K Robertson 66/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The site at Suttieside is a large area adjacent to the north-east settlement boundary of Forfar. Much of the land is agricultural and generally open although the southern part of the site is crossed by two former railway lines. Housing encloses the western part of the site. Suttieside Road is a narrow country road to the north side of which is agricultural land.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note the council’s landscape capacity study indicates that development of the objection site would extend development over the edge of the bowl in which Forfar lies. The edge in this location is delineated by the line of the former railway and the breach would have a negative impact. The study believes that development would also have a negative impact in creating a strong urban character to this approach to Forfar which is currently stated to provide a strong village environment.
I share the opinion of the council that Suttieside Road quickly becomes rural in character and that the disused railway line provides a clear settlement boundary to the south. Insofar as I have concluded that there is no requirement to release greenfield land beyond the settlement boundary of Forfar in the period to 2011 and that in the period between 2011-2016 other land should be considered for release, I conclude that there is no strategic reason to allocate the land at Suttieside Road for housing purposes. Notwithstanding this conclusion, I support the objection to the extent that I agree land at Westfield should likewise not be released for development.
In addition to the foregoing conclusion, I am also concerned about road access to the land at Suttieside. The objector believes he is in a position to undertake any required road improvements as he owns the open land to the north of Suttieside Road. This may be so but there is existing development on both sides of the road close to the junction with Carseview Road and it is not clear to me how any improvements required at this point could be implemented. Reference is also made to “the proposed peripheral road” but I have no details of this proposal. The local plan review makes no mention of such a road and I conclude that there is not a realistic prospect of access to the site being provided in this manner.
Overall, no detailed arguments have been provided by the objector to support the allocation of the site. Assessments in terms of landscape and visual impact and accessibility have not been provided. In this latter respect it has simply been stated that the site is close to a primary school, employment land and “all local services”. In terms of transport, it has been suggested that a site more remote from the by-pass might lead to the purchase of houses by residents with more commitment to Forfar and local services. I can accept the generality of the claim that commuters may well prefer houses close to the by-pass but I have no definitive evidence to indicate that houses at Suttieside would
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 102 Angus Council Statement of Response
be of more local benefit. I am therefore unable to conclude from this level of detail that the land would be suited to residential development.
In reaching this conclusion I have also taken account of the suggestion that the western part of the site could form a first phase of development. Although this part of the site lies close to the existing edge of the built-up area, it does not relate well to the settlement, particularly in respect of the local road network. I have no details of the potential first phase and therefore conclude similarly that the land should not be partially allocated for residential development.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 103 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Omission – Land at Slatefield
Objector Reference
Select Homes (Tayside) Limited 871/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Formal inquiry Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Slatefield is an area of some 2.28 hectares adjacent to but outwith the Forfar settlement boundary to the south of the town. Housing forms the northern, western and southern boundaries with agricultural land to the east. The land rises steadily from west to east across the site and beyond. The land is agricultural although there are spoil mounds associated with residential development in the northern part of the site.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I have noted the reasons for granting planning permission for development to the north and south of the objection site and can appreciate that the houses now being completed offered purchasers an alternative that would not be available on brownfield sites within the settlement boundary. The sites allocated in the local plan review, which include significant greenfield release, will undoubtedly allow the provision of houses offering a widened range of choice. However, I share the objector’s opinion that the Slatefield site would further extend that choice in a small but significant manner. To this extent I conclude that the development of the site for high quality houses would accord with the terms of SPP3.
Whatever the reasons for granting planning permission, there is no doubt that the end result has led to the objection site becoming the subject of development pressure. Development bounds three sides of the site which, in my opinion, is therefore not truly infill in character. However, the south-easterly thrust of the recent development to both the north and south does bring about a significant sense of enclosure and points towards a justifiable rounding-off the settlement boundary. Development within settlement boundary is generally supported by Policy S1 although the text of the local plan review makes it clear that all land within the boundary do not have development potential. The adjustment to the settlement boundary at Slatefield is required by the objector along with an allocation of the land for residential development. Clearly, in this respect, the council and the objector hold opposing views on the visual impact of such development, particularly in terms of the setting of Balmashanner Hill.
Balmashanner Hill is an important feature, the open character and landscape value of which is protected by Policy F16 (as modified). The extent of the protection is shown on the Forfar Inset map but this does not include the objection site. Indeed, the southern boundary of the protected area is beyond a disused quarry to the north of the Slatefield development. It is therefore clear that the objection site is not within the heart of the area that the council considers worthy of protection or even immediately adjacent to that area.
In considering the planning application for the development to the south of the objection site, I note account was taken of the offer to enter into a section 75 agreement to ensure no further development on land (including the objection site) between the application site and Balmashanner Hill. The Director of Planning and Transport believed that the development would not affect the setting of the hill and would not have an impact on
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 104 Angus Council Statement of Response
views from the hill. Although, there is agreement that the terms of the section 75 agreement should not fetter the discretion of the council in land use matters arising from the review of the local plan, I consider that it is necessary to assess, in land use terms, the likely impact on the landscape character of the area that would result from the development of the objection site. Although the objector is of the opinion that the site has little value in terms of landscape character, the council argues that cumulative impact would be unacceptable.
Balmashanner Hill overlooks Forfar from the south-east. The footpath westwards from the war memorial falls gradually and the aspect of the slope to the urban area below, turns from the north to the west. Nevertheless, the significant wooded areas and the topography obscure views of the objection site and I conclude that, even following development, the site would not be visible.
I agree with the objector that views towards the site are generally limited to west/south- west and west/north-west. In terms of views to the war memorial at the summit of the hill, this is most clearly and directly seen from the west/south-west. However, I accept that there are few receptors in that direction. I also believe that the visual impact of houses on the site, even structures of a size comparable to those nearby, would be very limited and would be framed by the existing housing. The grain of the landscape has a distinct horizontal emphasis and would not be altered by the development of the objection site.
Moving towards to the west and west/north-west, Balmashanner Hill progressively assumes a less dominant role in views of the objection site. Indeed, for the most part, the backdrop to the site is no longer within the designated protected area. It was suggested that the site rises to up to 140 m AOD, but I agree with the objector that, importantly, this equates with the level of the built development to the south. Although buildings, particularly roofs, would be visible, I believe that the impact would limited, especially if the number of houses were to be at the lower end of the range of 5-10 suggested by the objector. Accordingly, in this view, the development would be acceptable in the context of both the protected area of Balmashanner Hill and also the more localised landscape setting in which the site is located. In this latter respect I share the view of the objector that the upper slopes assume greater importance in terms of landscape character.
Overall, I conclude that it would be appropriate to allocate the objection site for residential development and adjust the settlement boundary accordingly. The site should be listed in Table 3. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the strategic requirements of the structure plan, but believe that, in the context of the total allocation for Forfar and my conclusions in respect of other housing land allocations, the potential scale of development at Slatefield would not be of consequence. Nevertheless, the houses should be included in the allowance for the period to 2011.
I note that the site extends to approximately 2.28 hectares. However, an indicative layout has not been provided and, a range of 5-10 having been suggested, I unable to confidently conclude the appropriate capacity for the site. In view claim that the site is required to provide high quality houses on a site unique in Forfar, I believe that the total should be at the lower end of the suggested range. Clearly, the local plan review should emphasise the requirement for a high quality development.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified by means of an alteration of the Forfar settlement boundary to include the objection site at Slatefield. The settlement statement should include a new “F” site designated as Slatefield and specify a “high quality development of around 5 houses.” Table 3 should be adjusted accordingly.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 105 Angus Council Statement of Response
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter considers that the development of the objection site at Slatefield is not infill but that recent development points towards the site being a justifiable rounding off of the settlement boundary. In landscape terms he concludes that the visual impact of houses on the site would be very limited when viewed from outwith the site and that the horizontal grain of the landscape in this location would not be altered by the development. He notes that the site is not within the Balmashanner Hill protection policy and development would be at the same level on the hillside as existing adjacent development.
Whilst accepting the principle of development on this site, the Reporter has recommended that house numbers be limited to five and that the Local Plan review should emphasise the requirement for a high quality development.
The restriction of the development of this site at Slatefield to five houses would reflect the type of development which has already taken place in the surrounding area and the Council’s Roads Service has confirmed that the road providing access to the site can accommodate this level of development.
The Section 75 Agreement which covers this land may require to be varied in advance of development and this will be considered on request from the landowner in conjunction with a suitable development proposal being brought forward.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review and amend the Development Boundary for Forfar to include the objection site at Slatefield, and to allocate the site for housing as follows:
“F8 : Housing – Slatefield
Approximately 2ha of land at Slatefield is allocated for a high quality residential development of a maximum of 5 houses.”
This change results in the following amendments to other parts of the Plan.
• Renumber subsequent proposals. • Add the allocation to Table 3 in the Forfar Settlement Statement, and Appendix 2 : Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area. • Indicate the site on the Forfar Inset Proposals Map.(as shown on the attached plan)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 106 Angus Council Statement of Response QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
porfr2@snset2wp2RA
eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright
nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF USITHH engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS USITHH
USIRHH USIRHH USIPHH USIPHH
pV USIHHH
USIHHH USHVHH USHVHH
IXIHHHH
QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
Forfar: Omission - Land at Turfbeg
Objector Reference
Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited 69/1/4
Procedure Reporter
Formal Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The site extends over 17.6 hectares of agricultural land on the north-west edge of Forfar. There is new housing to the south of the site, Forfar Academy to the east and the A926, Kirriemuir Road, to the north.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Although the objector describes the land at Turfbeg as semi-rural in appearance I cannot agree that this is the case. The land is adjacent to the settlement boundary to the east and the south but it is in agricultural use and, in my opinion, is clearly rural in character. Approaching Forfar from the west, I believe the impression of entry to the town is gained to the immediate east of the objection site with Forfar Academy to the south and industrial buildings to the north of the road. The lack of any significant landscape feature on the land accentuates the views of the four storey academy building and the new houses to the south. These views will soften over time as trees on the western boundary of the school site mature and landscaping to the north of the new houses is provided as a condition of planning permission. The council accepts that the new housing is unsympathetic to the landform but believes that the landscaping may partially mitigate the impact.
Although the landscape capacity study emphasises the shallow bowl in which Forfar is set and states that the development of the site would extend the area over higher ground, I share the objector’s opinion that the rim of the bowl has been effectively breached in the Turfbeg vicinity. Similarly, I agree that the feature is more pronounced in the Westfield vicinity and the impact at that location would be significantly greater to the extent that, as I have previously concluded, development would be unacceptable. Although the council believes development would extend over higher ground, I again agree with the objector that development beyond the low ridge marking the edge of the bowl would be on a relatively level plateau.
In respect of views of the settlement, the capacity study is concerned about the creation of a strong urban character on the approach to the town. Although I believe the site is currently rural in character, the release of any site on the edge of a town will extend the urban area and change the character. NPPG3 recognises that such release may be required, subject to careful planning. Account should be taken of the appearance from outside the town. At Turfbeg, despite the potential softening of the edges to the east and south, I consider that in landscape impact and visual terms, the development of the objection site would relate to the existing settlement boundary in an acceptable manner. In turn, I accept that the extension of the urban area westwards along the A926 would have little wider impact in landscape setting and visual terms. In particular, there would be no impact on Forfar Loch and impact on views from Balmashanner Hill would be insignificant.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 108 Angus Council Statement of Response
I therefore conclude that the objection site is acceptable for a residential land allocation insofar as landscape setting and visual impact is concerned.
The site offers a good link to the A90 and although bus services are not as comprehensive as those at Westfield, there is the possibility of designing a layout which would accommodate public transport. It has also been indicated that the site could be linked to Taylor Street and Forfar Academy. I accept that this may reduce school-related traffic at the junction with Brechin Road but would be concerned that additional vehicles would be drawn through any residential development that took place at Turfbeg to the detriment of amenity. The need for careful design in this respect has been recognised by the objector. The council has expressed concern in respect of local roads but has not provided details to lead me to conclude that traffic considerations should preclude development of the site.
In terms of walking distances, Turfbeg is at the upper limit for many local attractions although proximity to the academy and leisure centre is beneficial. The ability of pedestrians to access Taylor Street would be a further advantage. I believe that the release of any greenfield land on the edge of Forfar would inevitably lead to more onerous walking distances and, in turn, sites would become less sustainable. However, notwithstanding the lack of a range of local shopping facilities, I conclude that development at Turfbeg should not be ruled out insofar as pedestrian access is concerned.
I have noted the offer of part of the site for community facilities and that land to the south-west would be retained as amenity open space to protect the setting of the loch. The amenity open space would not be integral to the development and therefore details and management arrangements could be determined, as required, in due course. In any event, the council has stated that the current agricultural use of the land is not inappropriate. The reference to community facilities is somewhat vague and the council has indicated that provision has been made for new primary school education.
Overall, I conclude that the local plan review should be modified to reserve the land at Turfbeg as possible longer term housing. The required houses for the period to 2011 can be provided on other sites and so the text should indicate that the land is safeguarded for development in the period beyond 2011. Development proposals will require to be confirmed by a future local plan. In terms of the structure plan targets, the local plan review should indicate a residential allocation of around 300 houses. I am satisfied that the site is adequate to accommodate a development of this scale and that, should a community need be identified in the meantime, this could also be included in a future local plan review for incorporation into the site.
In reaching this conclusion, I have noted the objector’s suggestion that further development could extend westwards to the small knoll. I do not endorse this opinion: my conclusion in respect of possible future housing is limited to the objection site itself which could be sympathetically incorporated into the urban framework. I do not agree that development of the site in the period beyond 2011 should imply that further westward development would take place thereafter.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified whereby 17.6 hectares of land at Turfbeg is identified as being safeguarded for around 300 houses in the period beyond 2011. The text should further indicate that the development proposals are subject to review and will require to be confirmed by a future local plan.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Although the land north of Turfbeg is greenfield land on the edge of Forfar, the Reporter is of the opinion that in this instance development of the objection site would be
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 109 Angus Council Statement of Response
acceptable in landscape and visual terms, even although this will extend the urban area and change the character of this location from rural to urban. In his consideration of the inquiry evidence, the Reporter considers that the rim of the shallow bowl within which Forfar sits has already been breached by development permitted outwith the boundary at Turfbeg Farm.
It is important to note that the Reporter has not recommended allocating the site for housing development in the period of this Local Plan to 2011. At paragraph 2.879 of the Report on Objections to the FALPR he states the Plan should be modified “...to reserve the land at Turfbeg as possible longer term housing” for development in the period beyond 2011”. The Reporters Recommendation uses different words stating the plan should be modified whereby “...land at Turfbeg is identified as being safeguarded for around 300 houses in the period beyond 2011”. He recommends the inclusion of text wording to indicate that “development proposals are subject to review and will require to be confirmed by a future local plan.”
In considering the most appropriate way to take forward the Reporter’s recommendations it is clearly not his intention to include the land within the development boundary for Forfar at this stage as it is not formally allocated, nor is it required to meet Structure Plan housing land requirements in the period to 2011, and requires to be confirmed by a future local plan. In these circumstances, I recommend the site be shown on the Forfar Inset Map lying outwith the development boundary in order to provide a safeguard from development proposals in the short term which might prejudice the future use of the land.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to include a new proposal as follows:
“F9 : Safeguarded Site – North of Turfbeg
17.6 ha of land north of Turfbeg is safeguarded for possible development of around 300 houses and related community facilities in the period beyond 2011. The possible future allocation of the site will require to be confirmed by a future local plan. No development will be permitted in the period to 2011.”
This change results in the following amendments to other parts of the Plan.
• Indicate the site on the Forfar Inset Proposals Map.(as shown on the attached plan)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 110 Angus Council Statement of Response QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
porfr2@snset2wp2RA
h ism n eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 tle d2 i lw the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF y nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright
nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF USITHH engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS
UHFHm USITHH
rk
gp
g gp
nd hepot d2fdy r hepot
y qrge ilw ntled2 hism fw2TWFRTm QITW USIRHH nks g osts
UPFQm e2WPT e2WPT UHFRm UHFHm
TTFPm TWFTm
gp USIRHH
pW USIPHH
p USIPHH porfr2edemy
IP
PR egi rexsgu2i r
k
I Q
ond P
U
PP QP
ii fw2UTFPIm evy2
USFPm URFIm
PI IU
USIHHH PW I
R
I QV x Q
h
q P 2 U
h
e
i
r
u
x f P
I e e
f
x fnkhed2will u r
SH i Q W
Q I p e p h i 2
Etewsi I
USIHHH ii yx y Q I 2 y
ev e
h
S R TR S
i V
I i
URFTm
PT IV I Q I PR SWPU
UQFVm P S U
f il S U
n
S S k I 2i fnkhed yfiyx h u2t
e
p R rouse I d
f
2 i urfeg IP
q i
s R
2 h IQ e
nks I
s
S2to2V
i V PQ P
i I
2eix 2u2t
iq l I pf i I
RSPQ PR
I I
I
Q P I W
R P
P S P fw2TUFHHm
R I I
I II
Q R i P II vf 2hs P fiq T p IT Q USHVHH P p@dA PI IV
V pfi Q V RR 2iegi q SWFIm fexurieh 2 IP U y
P eh P V
p f V
TIIS
i P q p T
2 f QH PH
i hepot
s T
q P
P QPQR USHVHH I 2 i g
i
g p i T
QI W f P x Q k i vygrshi2yeh STFVm U r q RH 2 RP R v Q e FHIm SSFVm
g w2SV
QH i f
P I S
I
P I
P vilion I Q PR 2v H
pfiq P
Q
P R
I I
eh IR y IH
u2 R
ex I IP rf P 2yeh g T IR r y I yg v r2v xy IT
IV T
g
I e W s q
2 y quthrie2rk
9 IH v y
g @pootll2qroundA I r
I T I 2 IXSHHH y T
e H P P eretion2qround h eh y i r2 x vyg i r2 2e y r P x
e P q I gr ii sx QRTHHH QRTPHH QRTRHH QRTTHH QRTVHH QRUHHH QRUPHH QRURHH QRUTHH
Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area
Objector Reference
Webster Contracts Ltd/Muir Group 953/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The proposed modifications to the local plan review increases the capacity of Sites F4, Wester Restenneth and F5, Whitehills Nursery.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Insofar as the drainage situation in Kirriemuir has been explained by Scottish Water, it is possible to more closely relate the housing land allocations in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area to the structure plan requirements. The structure plan requires an additional allowance of 500 houses in the period 2001-2011 and 525 in the period 2011-2016 (subject to review). My conclusions in respect of objections related to land in Forfar and Kirriemuir and modifications proposed by the council lead to the following allocations:
2001-2011
F4, Wester Restenneth 100 F5, Whitehills Nursery 100 F6, Dundee Road 100 Gowanbank 60 Slatefield 5
Forfar 365 365
K2, Hillhead 40 Sunnyside 40
Kirriemuir 80 80
Landward (3 sites) 72 72
Total (structure plan target: 500) 517
2011-2016
F4, Wester Restenneth around 150 Turfbeg around 300 K2, Hillhead around 80
Total (structure plan target: 525) around 530 (subject to review)
As previously indicated, I believe the allocation of 517 houses in the period to 2011 provides a small but reasonable flexibility allowance.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 112 Angus Council Statement of Response
The figures beyond 2011 are indicative and subject to review. The identified allocation of “around 530” is marginally over the structure plan allowance which I regard as reasonable, particularly as each of the sites allows for a degree of flexibility in the final agreed capacity, should the need for development be confirmed on review.
On the foregoing basis, none of the options suggested by the objector is necessary or appropriate.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection although various recommendations are made in consideration of other objections which concern housing land allocations within the housing market area.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter’s recommendation to make no change in respect of this objection is supported.
In relation to the housing land supply in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens, the Reporter’s conclusions in respect of objections related to housing land in Forfar, Kirriemuir and modifications proposed by the Council do not fully meet the Structure Plan allowances 2001 – 2011. The Reporter has identified enough land to meet the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan additional allowance 2001-2011 of 500 units detailed in Schedule 1 of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. The total Structure Plan housing land allowance between 2001 – 2011 is made up of the effective supply at 2001 of 585 units plus the additional allowance of 500 units giving a total of 1085 units.
Column a of Table 2.1 of the FALPR identifies the housing land allowance 2001-2011 from the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan as 1085 units and shows that at 2004 (the base date of the FALPR) the effective supply was 436, made up of completions (223) and existing sites (213) shown in columns b and c. Leaving a remaining requirement of 649 units to be met through new allocations, not the figure of 500 used by the Reporter. The 2004 effective supply is lower than that identified at the 2001 – the base date of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan. The underperformance of the effective supply identified at 2001 and the resulting scale of development which has taken place has influenced the level of the effective supply at 2004.
Taking account of these circumstances, Table 1 sets out the current position also described below, the letters in brackets in the following paragraphs refer to the rows of the table.
At the base date of the FALPR in 2004, the elements contributing to (A) the DASP allowance of 1085 between 2001- 2011 were as follows :- (B) completions over the three years between 2001 and 2004 (223), (C) sites with existing planning permission (213), (D) extracting these two figures from 1085 leaves 649 units still to be identified through allocations in the FALPR. This is made up of (E) sites previously allocated in the first Angus Local Plan and reallocated in the FALPR (47) and (F) a remaining requirement of 602 units to be met through new allocations.
The allocations (2001-2011) confirmed by the Reporter as set out in paragraph 2.894 of the Report of Objections to the FALPR total 517 units (G). This represents a shortfall of 85 units (H) to meet the remaining requirement of 602 units in order to fully meet the DASP allowance 2001 – 2011 of 1085.
In keeping with the principles established by the Reporter’s recommendations which support the allocation of sites within the existing built-up area of the towns, the identified shortfall and provision of a small margin of flexibility can be addressed on allocated sites at Hillhead in Kirriemuir and Wester Restenneth at Forfar which are confirmed by the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 113 Angus Council Statement of Response
Reporter where development is phased beyond 2011. I therefore recommend that the phasing of these existing housing allocations be adjusted to meet the full Structure Plan housing land allowance as follows:
• K2 : Housing - Hillhead, Kirriemuir – adjust phasing to allow development of 80 houses in the period to 2011, with a further 40 units to come forward in the period beyond 2011. • F4 : Housing - Wester Restenneth, Forfar – increase phased allocation from 100 to 150 units in the period to 2011, with a further 100 units to come forward in the period beyond 2011.
These additional numbers result in a total housing land supply for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Glens Housing Market area (2001-2011) of 1090 houses (J) providing a margin of +5 units (K) which is considered reasonable.
My Recommendation to Council in relation to each of these sites addresses this matter.
Table 1 : Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Glens Housing Market Area – Housing Land Supply 2001-2011
FKG Forfar Kirriemuir Landward HMA A DASP Allowance 2001-2011 1085 B Minus completions -223 144 46 33 C Minus existing sites at June 2004 -213 118 47 48 D Remaining requirement to be identified in 649 FALPR (A-(B+C)) E Sites previously identified in the first Angus -47 25 10 12 Local Plan and brought forward F Requirement for new allocations in FALPR (D-E) =602 G Reporters recommendations -517 365 80 72 H Shortfall (F-G) =85
I Proposed additional housing figures from +90 50 40 committed allocations J TOTAL SUPPLY (B+C+E+G+I) =1090 702 223 165 K Oversupply (I-A) +5
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
In relation to the housing land allocation - F4: Housing – Wester Restenneth in Forfar, Angus Council agreed to increase the phased allocation from 100 to 150 units in the period to 2011, with a further 100 units to come forward in the period beyond 2011. For further information see the Statement of Response document volume 2 page 84.
With regard to K2: Housing - Hillhead, Kirriemuir, Angus Council accepted the Reporters recommendation on this matter. The Council did not accept the recommendation from the Head of Planning & Transport to adjust the phasing of K2 Hillhead to allow development of 80 houses in the period to 2011, with a further 40 units to come forward in the period beyond 2011. For further information see the Statement of Response document, volume 2 page 137 and also page 147.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 114 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Site F12 – Working, Orchardbank
Objector Reference
Charlton Smith Partnership 844/1/3
Procedure Reporter
Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The issue of concern is the potential for noise problems arising from the proximity of a designated housing area of Forfar to a site which is allocated for general industrial use in the finalised local plan review. In response to a group of objections from this same objector seeking the inclusion of appropriate noise pollution policies, Angus Council published a First Round Pre-Inquiry Modification, in September 2005, to include a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution [which was considered in more detail in Volume 1 of this report in the context of other objections relating to noise issues].
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I am persuaded by the case made put forward by the objector that the published version of the FALPR did not give adequate consideration to the proximity of proposed new housing allocations (F7) at Westfield, Forfar to the newly designated business and industrial area (F12) located on the opposite (north) side of the old A929 Glamis Road, immediately to the west of the existing Orchardbank Industrial Area. I note that F12 also fronts onto to the Forfar By-Pass to the west and the Forfar Loch Country Park, immediately to the north. I am concerned that the uses on F12 should be compatible, specifically in terms of noise generation, both with any housing areas allocated immediately to the south and to the existing country park which it abuts.
In this context I am reassured that the development brief prepared and approved by the council in 2002 relating to F12 makes specific reference to the need for sensitive consideration of developments at this location, taking into account the local context, particularly on prime frontages. I note that it suggests that mounding, reinforced by planting may be appropriate to minimise visual intrusion and assist in noise attenuation, particularly along the northern and western boundaries. Nevertheless, I note that this does not include the southern frontages facing towards the proposed housing land allocation areas (F7a,b,c,e). I also note, however, that the council’s proposed modification to the finalised local plan review (published in September 2005) does set out a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associated margin text referring to PAN 56: Planning and Noise (1999). I am satisfied that the incorporation of this proposed modification would address the issues raised by the objector concerning Orchardbank satisfactorily. Accordingly, I conclude that this proposed modification should be incorporated in the adopted plan, as now proposed by the council.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case to include the proposed new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associate margin text, all as set out on P29 of the council’s Proposed Modifications, published in September 2005.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 115 Angus Council Statement of Response
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Add new policy and supporting text after Policy ER10 : Light Pollution, page 64 to read:
"Noise Pollution 3.20 Noise can have a significant impact on our health, quality of life and the general quality of the environment. The planning system has an important role in preventing and limiting noise pollution and the noise implications of development can be a material consideration in determining applications for planning permission adjacent to existing noise sensitive development or where new noise sensitive development is proposed.
Policy ER11 : Noise Pollution Development which adversely affects health, the natural or built environment or general amenity as a result of an unacceptable increase in noise levels will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need which cannot be accommodated elsewhere. Proposals for development generating unacceptable noise levels will not generally be permitted adjacent to existing or proposed noise sensitive land uses. Proposals for new noise-sensitive development which would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise from an existing noise source or from a proposed use will not be permitted."
Add new margin text opposite Policy ER11 to read: "Planning Advice Note 56 - Planning and Noise (1999) Noise sensitive land uses should be generally regarded as including housing, hospitals, educational establishments, offices and some livestock farms."
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 116 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Site F14: Primary School, Whitehills Nursery Paragraph 15, Primary Schools
Objector Reference
Elite Homes (Tayside) Limited 69/1/3 & 69/2/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The finalised local plan review included the following proposal in the Forfar settlement statement:
F14: Primary School – Whitehills Nursery
2 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery, Fyfe Street is allocated for the development of a primary school.
The council subsequently proposed a modification as follows
2 hectares of land at Whitehills Nursery, Fyfe Street is reserved for the development of a primary school. (Outline planning permission granted 13 May 2005)
Paragraph 15 states:
… a site for a new primary school is reserved within Policy F7, New Neighbourhood – Westfield, to meet future educational needs arising from that development.
The council subsequently proposed a modification as follows:
Replace “a site” with “land” and replace “to meet future” with “to meet potential future”.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Insofar as the new school at Whitehill Nursery is concerned I note the progress that has been made and accept that this project is likely to progress to completion.
My recommendation in respect of the proposed new neighbourhood at Westfield involves the deletion of site F7d, the possible site for a primary school, as part of the recommended deletion of the wider land use allocations at this location. My recommendation in respect of land at Turfbeg reserves an area for possible future housing development and I have indicated that the site could include a community facility, such as a primary school, should a need be identified. This could be expressed in a future local plan review. I therefore conclude that the proposed recommendations in respect of housing land allocations in Forfar do not prejudice, nor are prejudiced by, the potential distribution of educational facilities within the town.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 117 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection although the modifications proposed by the council in respect of F4, Primary School, Whitehills Nursery, should proceed. Paragraph 15 falls as a consequence of my recommendation to delete site F7, New Neighbourhood, Westfield.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter supports the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 and suggests an additional modification as set out above.This modification is accepted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
(1) Paragraph 13 : change second bullet point to read “upgrading and extension of Kirkriggs which will continue as a two stream primary school, and” (2) Paragraph 14 : change as follows “...Chapelpark, which are both listed buildings,...” (3) Paragraph 15 : minor adjustments to the text as follows “...project, land for a new...” and “...to meet potential future...” (4) Amend the wording of F14 : Primary School, Whitehills Nursery to read as follows: "2 ha of land at Whitehills Nursery, Fyfe Street is reserved for the development of a primary school. (Outline planning permission granted 13 May 2005.)”
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to delete paragraph 15 of the Local Plan Review.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 118 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: F17 - Forfar Loch
Objector Reference
Charlton Smith Partnership 844/1/4
Procedure Reporter
Informal hearing Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The issue of concern is the noise implications arising from the proximity of Forfar Loch Country Park (Policy F17) to a site which is allocated for general industrial and business use (F12) in the finalised local plan review. In response to a group of objections from this same objector seeking the inclusion of appropriate noise pollution policies, Angus Council published a First Round Pre-Inquiry Modification, in September 2005, to include a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution [which was considered in more detail in Volume 1 of this report in the context of other objections relating to noise issues].
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the objector that the published version of the FALPR in February 2005 did not give adequate consideration to the proximity of proposed new industrial and business park uses on F12 to the adjoining Forfar Loch Country Park, to which Policy F17 applies. I am concerned that the uses on F12 should be compatible, specifically in terms of noise generation, with the existing country park which it abuts.
In this context I am reassured that the development brief prepared and approved by the council in 2002 relating to F12 makes specific reference to the need for sensitive consideration of developments at this location, taking into account the local context, particularly on prime frontages. I note that this indicates that mounding, reinforced by planting, may be appropriate to minimise visual intrusion and assist in noise attenuation, particularly along the northern and western boundaries. Furthermore I am persuaded that the proposed amendment to Policy F17, put forward by the council, will reflect the importance of protecting the local recreational value of the Country Park. Based on the same considerations I also endorse the proposed (equivalent) amendment to Policy F16 as outlined above, for the same reasons. I also note that the council’s proposed modification to the finalised local plan review (published in September 2005) sets out a new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associated margin text referring to PAN 56: Planning and Noise (1999) which I welcome and endorse. I am satisfied that the incorporation of these various proposed modifications and amendments would satisfactorily address the issues raised by the objector concerning Forfar Loch Country Park. Accordingly, I conclude that these proposed modifications and amendments put forward by the council should all be incorporated in the adopted local plan review.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified in this case to include the proposed new Policy ER11: Noise Pollution and associate margin text, all as set out on P29 of the council’s Proposed Modifications published in September 2005, together with the proposed amendments to F16 and Policy F17, as detailed above.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 119 Angus Council Statement of Response
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modifications put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Amend F17 : Forfar Loch Country Park to read as follows "... adversely affect the landscape, nature conservation or recreational value...". Similarly amend F16 : Balmashanner to read as follows "...open character, landscape and recreational value...".
Add new policy and supporting text after Policy ER10 : Light Pollution, page 64 to read: "Noise Pollution 3.20 Noise can have a significant impact on our health, quality of life and the general quality of the environment. The planning system has an important role in preventing and limiting noise pollution and the noise implications of development can be a material consideration in determining applications for planning permission adjacent to existing noise sensitive development or where new noise sensitive development is proposed.
Policy ER11 : Noise Pollution Development which adversely affects health, the natural or built environment or general amenity as a result of an unacceptable increase in noise levels will not be permitted unless there is an overriding need which cannot be accommodated elsewhere. Proposals for development generating unacceptable noise levels will not generally be permitted adjacent to existing or proposed noise sensitive land uses. Proposals for new noise-sensitive development which would be subject to unacceptable levels of noise from an existing noise source or from a proposed use will not be permitted."
Add new margin text opposite Policy ER11 to read: "Planning Advice Note 56 - Planning and Noise (1999) Noise sensitive land uses should be generally regarded as including housing, hospitals, educational establishments, offices and some livestock farms."
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 120 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Omission – Land at North Mains
Objector Reference
Albamuir Limited 261/3/2
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Proposal F13 allocates 4 hectares at Carseview Road principally for general industrial development (Class 5). There may also be some scope for limited Class 4 development in the western part of the site. Access will be from Carseview Road and a landscaped buffer will be required along the northern and western boundaries.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The council points out that there is no requirement for additional greenfield release of housing land in Forfar. The local plan review, as modified, allocates land with a capacity of 600 units for the period to 2011 compared with the structure plan requirement of 500 units. Indeed, the objector recognises that there could be a conflict in this respect but believes that the benefits of the proposed development overcome any strategic difficulty. I have recommended modifications that provide the potential for 517 houses in the period to 2011 and 530 houses in the following 5 years. Accordingly, there is no requirement for any additional housing land allocations.
One claimed benefit is the provision of social or affordable housing. However, Table 2.3 identifies an affordable housing requirement of 83 in the housing market area with a potential from allocated sites of 106 units in the period to 2011. Accordingly, a shortage of affordable housing is not anticipated.
I can accept that the recreational facilities could be a significant benefit and the council agrees that there may be a case for setting aside the sequential approach in favour of a location close to the football ground. However, these facilities have not been proposed in isolation but are part of the wider development package. Indeed, it would be necessary for the council to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the swimming pool. The council has given no indication that the pool would be adopted and therefore I am led to conclude that the provision of this particular element of the proposal remains in doubt. In turn, any potential benefit is jeopardised.
The local plan review allocates employment land at Site F12, Orchardbank and, as an alternative, 4 hectares at Site F13 adjacent to the objection site. These provide the strategic requirement set out in the structure plan. Although the proposed additional business/industrial land would have the benefit of offering employment opportunities, the case for a further employment land allocation has not been substantiated.
On the basis of the foregoing, I do not believe that the claimed benefits of the required mixed-use allocation justify additional houses proposed as part of the overall development.
The council has also expressed concern about the landscape impact of the proposal and I agree that the development would extend into an exposed area where the visual impact would be significant. This would have an adverse impact on the landscape setting of the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 121 Angus Council Statement of Response
town. All-in-all, I conclude that the mixed use land allocation at North Mains should not be supported.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 122 Angus Council Statement of Response
Forfar: Land at Orchardbank – conflict of land use
Objector Reference
Alastair S M Allan 906/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Orchardbank Industrial Estate is a large area of established industrial and commercial uses to the north of the A929, Glamis Road, on the approach to Forfar from the west. Site F12 allocates the remaining land between Orchardbank and the A90 for employment land. This area is currently being developed. A small group of residential properties are located on the Glamis Road frontage at the south-west of the existing Orchardbank Industrial Estate. They fall within the employment land supply designation in the Forfar inset map.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note the concerns expressed by the objector in respect of the alleged shortcomings of the council in terms of his objection to the finalised local plan review and to events over the years related to the residential property adjacent to the Orchardbank Industrial Estate. However, I accept the council’s contention that these are not matters for the local plan inquiry which must be limited to the consideration of objections insofar as they relate to land use matters arising from the contents of the document. As explained by the council, there are other avenues for pursuing such concerns.
Although the council has indicated that the industrial allocation at Orchardbank, which extends over the property that is central to the objection, originated in 1962 and has subsequently been extended, the current local plan review offers the opportunity to assess the situation. Despite the lack of any objections in the past, land use allocations should be considered in the context of current circumstances and, if appropriate and justified, changes should be made.
However, land use allocations are not at the heart of this objection which is essentially directed towards the claimed incompatibility of two long established land uses – residential and industrial. The objector maintains that the residential environment is neither safe nor healthy posing a threat to the wellbeing of the residents. On the other hand the council maintains that planning and other regulatory controls provide the required protection. I recognise that the close proximity of houses and industry can limit residential amenity but, as I have been provided with no specific details of the objector’s concerns, I am unable to conclude that the level of amenity has fallen below acceptable levels. I must also take at face value, the council’s argument that the appropriate authorities are in a position to take such enforcement action as might be required should the circumstances dictate.
Although the objector regards the inclusion of Policy S4, Environmental Protection, as an admission by the council that there was a policy deficiency, I believe that the local plan consultation and publicity exercise offers the opportunity to refine and improve the document. I consider the inclusion of Policy S4 and the associated text as an example of
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 123 Angus Council Statement of Response
how this process has operated to the general benefit of the content of the plan. I therefore do not accept the opinion of the objector.
In land use terms, I have given thought to recommending that the houses should be removed from the current employment land designation and allocated for residential purposes. However, this would be likely to protect the residential use and not assist the objector in his endeavour to secure the acquisition of the property. In this regard, the council has provided no indication that the local authority is likely to promote acquisition through compulsory purchase proceedings or otherwise. I therefore believe that the wider industrial allocation should continue to incorporate the small area of residential land use that is the subject of the objection. I recognise that this will do nothing to allay the concerns of the objector but, in this respect, I must again draw attention to the council’s comments in respect of regulatory control and enforcement. There is no evidence to suggest that the property might be required for an employment related use and I am conscious of the constraints imposed by the listed status of Orchardbank House. Nevertheless, I believe that continued industrial allocation is the most appropriate local plan designation for the objection site.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 124 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Paragraph 3 – Key Issues & Development Strategy
Objector Reference
Kirriemuir Community Council 695/1/2 & 1/3 Webster’s High School Board 700/1/1 & 1/2 Kirriemuir Health Centre 758/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The Kirriemuir settlement statement identifies a number of key issues and sets out the basic development strategy.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Car parking facilities
The investigation into the potential of the former yard for vehicle parking is a positive response to the objection. The site is currently shown under “development in existing built-up areas” designation and the council does not propose to identify this matter as a key issue. However, it would be appropriate to draw attention to the potential for land use change and possible allocation of the land for a car, coach and lorry park along with an appropriate reference in the text under “Community Facilities and Services”. I am aware that this land has also been suggested as a possible site for a new health centre.
School provision
On the basis of the roll information provided by the council (including attendance at Webster’s High School by pupils from beyond the designated area) and taking into account the phased development of any new housing, I conclude that there is no requirement for the local plan review to make special provision for additional educational provision.
Health centre provision
The further proposed modification in respect of a replacement health centre is appropriate and, insofar as site K2, Hillhead, is no longer specified, a more reasonable degree of flexibility is provided.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Car parking facilities
I recommend that the local plan review is modified, to reflect the council’s position, whereby the former depot is identified on the Kirriemuir Inset Map as a possible car, coach and lorry park. There should be a similar entry in the Kirriemuir settlement statement.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 125 Angus Council Statement of Response
School provision
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.
Health centre provision
I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, whereby the Kirriemuir settlement statement is amended to include the following additional bullet points as set out above.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Car Parking Facilities
The Reporter’s recommendation has assumed commitment from Angus Council to developing the site at Slade Road as a parking facility. However, the evidence presented to the Inquiry by the Council referred to a decision by Infrastructure Services Committee in November 2005 agreeing to the Director of Roads investigating proposals for the formation of a new car/lorry/coach park. Those investigations are not yet complete and I consider it is premature to allocate the land at Slade Road for this specific purpose until Angus Council have made a final determination on this matter. Retaining the land as shown on the Kirriemuir Inset Map covered by the “Development in existing built-up areas” tone, will not preclude the site being developed for parking facilities, subject to planning permission, if Angus Council decide that is the way forward.
Note: Angus Council at their meeting of 16 November 2006 did not accept the above recommendation, but agreed that the Reporter’s recommendation should be accepted.
School Provision
Support for the Council’s position is noted. Since the receipt of the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, the Director of Education reported to Committee in September 2006 regarding School Capacities and Intake Limits at Webster’s High School in Kirriemuir.(Report No. 1113/06 refers).
For information, the Director of Education has confirmed that no problems are envisaged in meeting requirements for places at Webster’s High School arising from the scale of new housing for Kirriemuir in the Local Plan Review up to 2011 (approximately 140 houses). While the intake limit from August 2007 will be 140 per annum, the number of pupils attending Webster’s is projected to decrease over the period and accordingly there will be no difficulty in the school accommodating any additional places required due to housing development. The 140 new houses proposed for development over the next five years is considered likely to generate approximately 20 secondary age pupils which, spread over a number of year groups over that time, will have limited impact.
Health Centre Provision Support for the Council’s position is noted. For information – NHS Tayside applied for planning permission in March 2006 to extend the existing Kirriemuir Health Centre at Tannage Brae to provide an additional five consulting rooms. Planning permission for this development was granted on 16 June 2006. (application ref. 06/00372/FUL)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 126 Angus Council Statement of Response
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
Car Parking Facilities
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review to annotate the former depot at Slade Road on the Kirriemuir Inset Map as a possible car, coach and lorry park.
School Provision
No change.
Health Centre Provision
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in February 2006 as follows:
Key Issue
“ The need to identify a suitable site for a replacement health centre.”, and
Development Strategy
“Support the development of a replacement health centre.”
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 127 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Residential Development - General background
The general background relates to the following sites:
Land allocated in the finalised local plan review
Site K(b) - Lindsay Street/Westfield Site K1 - Shielhill Road Site K2 - Hillhead Site K3 - Land at Beechwood Place
Omissions
Land at Sunnyside Land at Herdhill/Martin Park Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road Land at Newton Park Land at north of Cortachy Road (two sites)
Kirriemuir lies within the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area for which the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan requires land for 1,610 houses for the period 2001-2016. The effective supply in 2001 was 585 and additional allowances of 500 and 525 houses are required for the periods 2001-2011 and 2011-2016 respectively, the latter figure being subject to review.
Structure plan Housing Policy 4 states that local plans should allocate land to meet the additional allowances, the majority in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area being directed to Forfar. The finalised local plan review allocates land with a capacity of 530 houses to Forfar in the period to 2011. Kirriemuir is said by the structure plan to have experienced significant house building in the past which has contributed to pressure on infrastructure and other services. Programmed resolution of these issues will provide scope for additional building in the town in the future.
The finalised local plan review indicates that the 2001 population of Kirriemuir was 5,963, an increase of 9.07% since 1991. The review also refers to the significant house building in the past and explains that since 1999 further development has been restricted due to issues with the waste water treatment plant. (WWTP).
Key issues in Kirriemuir include:
• the need to resolve problems at the WWTP; • the need to identify sites within and well-related to the town to accommodate an appropriate level of new housing development.
The aims of the development strategy include:
• identifying appropriate land to continue to accommodate a range of housing developments to meet local needs; • giving priority to the redevelopment of brownfield sites within the built-up area where possible.
In respect of the drainage constraint, the local plan review expects improvement works to be completed by January 2006 although available drainage for new development will only be confirmed following a review of the operation of the drainage system on completion of the improvement project. The drainage situation will be kept under close observation and the council will continue to press Scottish Water to make the necessary investment to allow Kirriemuir to accommodate new development.
The finalised local plan review identified the following housing sites in Kirriemuir for the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 128 Angus Council Statement of Response
period to 2011:
Sites with planning permission at June 2004
K(a), Glengate 8 units K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street 39 units
Sites previously identified in the first Angus Local Plan
K1, Shielhill Road 10 units
Allocated sites
K2, Hillhead 60 units K3, Beechwood Place 50 units
The Kirriemuir Proposals Map shows the draft alignment of a distributor road passing through site K3. Site K(b) is wrongly identified as site K(c) and a recently completed development is shown as site K(b).
Site K4, Working – East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road, is shown lying adjacent to the eastern boundary of site K3.
Modifications to the local plan review were proposed by the council as follows:
Site K1, Shielhill Road
A note was added as follows:
(Planning permission granted for 14 affordable housing units on 18 August 2005).
Site K2, Hillhead
The site was extended to include adjacent land and industrial buildings to the north of the existing allocation with the following description:
12.4 hectares between Kinnordy Road, Cortachy Road and Shielhall Road is allocated for around 120 dwellings as a first phase in the period to 2011. A further area of land is reserved as a potential second phase of development which may be permitted once existing businesses within the north-western part of the site are relocated.
Proposals should be in accordance with the development brief which will be prepared for this site which will include details of the following requirements:
• Vehicular access from Kinnordy Road and Cortachy Road as appropriate. Access from Shielhill Road may be permitted if the existing drop-off/pick- up area to serve Northmuir Primary School can be satisfactorily relocated. • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing. • Potential for a replacement health centre to be located within the site will require to be investigated.
(The finalised local plan review did not permit access from Shielhill Road and included a requirement for a minimum of 2 hectares of public open space.)
Site K3, Beechwood Place
This site was deleted along with the distributor road.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 129 Angus Council Statement of Response
Site K4. Working – East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road
Re-designated K3 with an amended description to take account of the deletion of the Beechwood Place site.
In terms of drainage, Scottish Water has explained that the original capacity of the WWTP was a population equivalent of 6,500. A constraint on development arose some years ago from the lack of capacity and the need to maintain the quality of the receiving watercourse. Scottish Water has no funds to increase capacity and the recent environmental improvements - due for completion in February 2006 – were undertaken to comply with the pollution control requirements of SEPA. When complete, the operation of the works will be monitored for three months to determine whether any additional capacity has been created. It is not possible to forecast whether such capacity will be created. However, should some “headroom” be identified, consent to connect would be granted following technical approval of any proposal that has been granted planning permission. This would be on a first come, first served basis. In respect of the Lindsay Street/ Westfield site, there could be no guarantee that drainage will be made available but Scottish Water will endeavour to make appropriate provision. At present, there is no specific allocation of finance for additional work at Kirriemuir WWTP.
J & J Learmonth and Guild Homes approached Scottish Water seeking drainage connections and funded a study to examine the prospect of providing additional capacity to connect 100 houses each. The study has subsequently shown that additional capacity could be provided to allow connections for up to 270 (equivalent) new houses. In the face of a threat of a legal challenge by Select Homes, Scottish Water advised the developers that it was not possible to enter into the proposed contribution agreements. A legal action was subsequently raised and Learmonth and Guild Homes expressed an unwillingness to fund additional capacity without this being earmarked for their own developments.
The scale of impact of developments varies and therefore an impact assessment is an essential requirement in the connection process no matter the location of the proposed development. Distance from the WWTP is not a critical factor as the impact of a development both upstream and downstream requires to be assessed. It is immaterial whether sites are grouped together or dispersed as, in all cases, a pragmatic view is taken of the need to make provision. Scottish Water is not involved in guiding development to specific locations and has no objection to the level of housing proposed in the local plan review. New demand will be informed by the terms of the local plan review and sites which have been granted planning permission. Where possible, provision must also be made for windfall sites.
Although there have been problems in respect of the Den sewer, these have been remedied. However, this does not remove the need for a drainage impact assessment to be undertaken for any new development.
REPORTER’S GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
In relation to land allocated in the finalised local plan review
Site K2 – Hillhead Site K3 – Land at Beechwood Place, and
Omissions
Land at Sunnyside Land at Herdhill/Martin Park Land at Pathhead, Forfar Road Land at Newton Park Land at north of Cortachy Road (two sites)
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 130 Angus Council Statement of Response
Structure plan considerations
The council responded to the structure plan in allocating the majority of housing land in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area in Forfar. In the period to 2011, additional allocations for 500 houses are required of which the majority of housing land is to be allocated in Forfar. The finalised local plan review allocated sites for 485 houses in Forfar with land for around 110 houses allocated at two sites in Kirriemuir. Proposed modifications led to a single site being allocated in Kirriemuir with 120 houses in the period to 2011.
The structure plan recognises the high rate of house building in Kirriemuir that has taken place in the past and the resulting pressure on infrastructure and other services. Nevertheless, programmed resolution of the issues will provide scope for additional building. The local plan review also acknowledges the infrastructure situation to the extent that the Key Issues include the need to resolve the problems at the WWTP. Text provides more detailed information on anticipated progress and reflects the council’s resolve to secure improved drainage capacity which, in turn, would allow further development.
All 120 houses are allocated at the modified site K2 “as a first phase in the period to 2011.” In turn, it is stated that “a further area of land is reserved as a potential second phase of development which may be permitted once existing businesses within the north western part of the site are relocated.” On the basis that the first phase of 120 houses is anticipated in the period to 2011, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that the potential second phase would take place after 2011. In terms of the structure plan, development in the period 2011-2016 is open to review.
There are no specific objections to the scale of the local plan review housing land allocation for the town although Select Homes has drawn attention to the total allocation for the housing market area which is somewhat above the structure plan allowance. In this respect, the council has explained that the over-supply of houses across the housing market area was proposed as all sites in Kirriemuir were regarded as potentially ineffective because of the drainage situation. I have dealt with the matter of supply in the wider housing market area in my consideration of objections to housing land in Forfar and a specific objection to allocations in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area. In order to more closely conform to the structure plan target, I conclude that it is appropriate for the Kirriemuir development strategy to allocate land for 80 houses in the period to 2011.
National planning policy requires local authorities, developers and other housing providers to consider the need to provide a choice of house types. The structure plan gives priority to the development of appropriate brownfield sites but recognises that there may be need for some greenfield release to provide a range of housebuilding opportunities. It is important that the amount and distribution of housing land within each housing market area provides sufficient flexibility and allows a range and choice of sites in terms of tenure, house type, house size and location.
Select Homes has expressed concern about the allocation of a single housing site in Kirriemuir believing this to be contrary to national and strategic guidance. Similarly, Mr Bruce has pointed out that spreading development sites throughout the town would add to choice. The council argues that the structure plan requirement for a range of choice is met by the allocation of sites throughout the housing market area.
The reasons for selecting a single site will be examined in detail in respect of my consideration of the objections to Site K2, Hillhead. However, in strategic terms, I agree that it is preferable to provide a wide a range of choice as possible. Although the council has argued that the required range of choice is provide throughout the housing market area as a whole, Kirriemuir is the second largest town in the area. In my opinion, taking
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 131 Angus Council Statement of Response
into account local planning considerations, it would be appropriate, if possible, to allocate more than a single site for housing development.
Scottish Water
It is clear that the capacity of the waste water treatment plant has constrained development in recent years. The recent work at the WWTP has been of an environmental nature and, in itself, was not intended to increase the capacity of the plant. However, a monitoring process will be undertaken to determine, in fact, whether or not the work has resulted in increased capacity.
There has also been a more localised problem in the Den sewer although it is the understanding of Scottish Water that this has now been remedied. I have regarded this as the best evidence available.
Discussions took place between Scottish Water and two potential developers with a view to increasing the capacity of the WWTP and it was agreed that work could be undertaken to allow connections for up to 270 (equivalent) new houses. A legal action was initiated by a further developer and no work has taken place to create additional capacity. Irrespective of any increased capacity that might be identified as a result of monitoring, I believe it is not unreasonable to assume that, in technical terms, waste water treatment capacity could be provided for housing land allocations up to 270 units. In turn, I conclude that the proposed total of around 80 houses in Kirriemuir in the period to 2011 can reasonably be included in the local plan review.
Quite properly, I believe, Scottish Water has no preference in terms of the location of housing land allocations. This is a matter for the planning authority, the local plan review being the appropriate method of determining precise location of housing land. Thereafter, Scottish Water is prepared to discuss drainage connections with those wishing to develop allocated sites as well as any site that has planning permission such as the Lindsay Street/Westfield site (site K(b)).
Equally, Scottish Water is not in a position to indicate that one site is preferred to another in terms of providing a connection to the WWTP, particularly in respect of distance from the treatment plant. Consideration must be given to possible impact upstream as well as downstream. This seems eminently sensible and justifies the requirement for all sites to be subject to a drainage impact assessment to determine the basis for a connection to the public system.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Structure Plan Considerations
In relation to the housing land supply in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens, the Reporter’s conclusions in respect of objections related to housing land in Forfar, Kirriemuir and modifications proposed by the Council do not fully meet the Structure Plan allowances 2001 – 2011. The Head of Planning and Transport’s comment in relation to this matter is set out in response to the Reporter’s Recommendations in relation to consideration of an objection by The Muir Group and Webster Contracts under “Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area” at page 112 in Volume 2 of this Schedule.
Scottish Water
Since the receipt of the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Scottish Water announced, on the 27 September 2006, the interim removal of the drainage constraint affecting the Kirriemuir Waste Water Treatment Works through agreement with SEPA. This will accommodate the level of development now proposed in Kirriemuir to 2011 in the FALPR as proposed to be modified by the Reporter removing
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 132 Angus Council Statement of Response
outstanding issues about the effectiveness of sites in Kirriemuir. It is noted that, in line with information given by Scottish Water during the Inquiry session, the Reporter states that there would be a ...”requirement for all sites to be subject to a drainage impact assessment to determine the basis for a connection to the public system.” Policy S6 and Schedule 1 of the FALPR provides the policy basis for this requirement, as drainage impact assessment is one of the possible areas of additional information that may be requested in the consideration of a planning application.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
Note the above and the implications in relation to housing land allocations in Kirriemuir.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 133 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Site K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street,
Objector Reference
Richard Lawson 68/1/4 Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 872/1/4
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
Land at Westfield/Lindsay Street is shown as site K(c) on the Kirriemuir Inset Map. Table 1, Existing Sites, and Appendix 5 identify site (b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, as a site contained in the Housing Land Audit, June 2004, under the category of having planning permission or being under construction.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I am aware from evidence given in respect of other housing sites in Kirriemuir that site K(b) (shown as K(c)) was granted outline planning permission in March 2003. That outline permission included a suspensive condition in respect of providing a connection to the public sewer. I am further aware that an application for the approval of reserved matters was lodged in December 2005. I understand the detailed application has not yet been determined.
No evidence has been provided to indicate that agreement has been reached with Scottish Water to make a connection to the public sewer. The information provided by Scottish Water suggests that there is no prospect of an agreement prior to the appraisal of the performance of the WWTP following the recent environmental works. It also appears that the question of access has not been resolved as both access options involve land not in control of the applicant. To this extent, the site could be regarded as constrained in terms of PAN38, Housing Land. Nevertheless, the application for approval of reserved matters has been made within the 3 year period specified in the outline planning permission and therefore the permission remains extant. I have no reason to believe that the permission will lapse and therefore, in terms of the text of the local plan review, the land remains as a site with planning permission under the 2004 Housing Land Audit. I believe there is a reasonable expectation that the constraints will be removed within the plan period. In turn, I conclude that the site is properly contained in the local plan review and should be shown on the Kirriemuir Inset Map under site K(b).
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections although, in the interests of accuracy, the Inset Map site allocation reference for the Westfield/Lindsay Street site should be amended to K(b) and completed site K(b) should be deleted.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted. The technical amendment suggested by the Reporter is accepted.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 134 Angus Council Statement of Response
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review as follows:-
Remove the site at Court Hillock from the Kirriemuir Inset Map and renumber Westfield/Lindsay Street on the Kirriemuir Inset Map as K(b) as per Table 1 in the Kirriemuir Settlement Statement.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 135 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Site K1, Shielhill Road,
Objector Reference
Kirriemuir Community Council 695/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
As indicated in the general background, the local plan review allocates 0.5 hectares of land at Shielhill Road for about 10 dwellings. Northmuir Primary School is sited on the same side of the road to the south. There is an existing drop-off/pick-up point for pupils on the opposite side of the road to the school.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The local plan review preparation process has been overtaken by events insofar as planning permission has been granted for affordable housing. Notwithstanding the objection to housing on the site and the alternative land use suggested by the community council, the future of the land has moved significantly towards development. The practicality of reversing this process is such that I conclude there is little prospect of utilising the site for a pick-up/drop-off area. In pragmatic terms, any change to the housing allocation is therefore not justified and the council is correct in adding a note to indicate that planning permission has been issued. In reaching this conclusion, I have noted that the situation in respect of the pick-up/drop-off area will be re-assessed as part of the development proposals for the land at site K2, Hillhead. (Objections to site K2 itself are considered below).
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of this objection. However, I endorse the modification proposed by the council in respect of referring to the granting of planning permission for the development of site K1.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Add the following to the end of K1 : Housing – Shielhill Road: (Planning permission granted for 14 affordable housing units on 18 August 2005).
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 136 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Site K2, Hillhead
Objector Reference (Finalised local plan review and/or first round modification)
J & J Learmonth 71/1/2 & 2/1 William Hartley 673/1/1 Mrs J Yates 674/1/1 & 2/1 Mr M Smith 676/1/1 Mr R E Clarke 677/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs L J Clarke 678/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs Ishbel M L Lindsay 679/1/1 Mr & Mrs D Lindsay 680/1/1 Mrs Lindsay 681/1/1 Mrs J L Ross 682/1/1 & 2/1 Mr Ernest Powrie 710/1/1 & 2/1 Ms Brenda Powrie 713/1/1 & 2/1, 2/2 Mr C F Wilson 717/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs E B Wilson 718/1/1 & 2/1 A A Barclay 720/1/1 Jill A Anderson 721/1/1 Mrs Ena Craik 723/1/1 Alexander B Barrie 728/1/1 Mr D McLellan 730/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs K McLellan 732/1/1 & 2/1 Mr & Mrs A Young 735/1/1 & 2/1 Mr Callum B Melville 737/1/1 Mrs M Johnston 738/1/1 Mr B Greig 739/1/1 & 2/1 Mrs S J Greig 740/1/1 & 2/1 Catherine S Hunter 744/1/1 Colin W G Willet 745/1/1 Iain Sime 749/1/1 Eric H Witton 801/1/1 Mrs M Waddell 802/1/1 & 2/1 K Simpson 803/1/1 Mrs I Hannan 804/1/1 & 2/1 William Driscoll 805/1/1 & 2/1 Darren Davies 816/1/1 Eric Y Hill 843/1/1 & 2/1 Maureen P Mansley 859/1/1 & 2/1 Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd 871/2/3 & 4/2 Mr & Mrs D McSheffrey 880/1/1 & 1/2 M Ferguson 948/1/1
Supporter
Richard Lawson 68/1/2 Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 872/1/2 Lawson/Guild, joint reference 954/1/1 Kilmartin Ventures Ltd 852/1/1
Procedure Reporter Inquiry (Select Homes, J & J Learmonth, Richard Dent Richard Lawson, Guild Homes); hearing (Kilmartine Ventures) and written submissions ______
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 137 Angus Council Statement of Response
BACKGROUND
Site K2, as modified, lies in the northern part of Kirriemuir and comprises three distinct areas. The south-east section is a generally west-facing sloping field in agricultural use. To the east, there is a short frontage to Shielhill Road, opposite Northmuir Primary School and adjacent to a drop-off and pick-up lay-by for pupils. This is the highest part of the site and affords long distance views westwards to low hills. The field slopes downwards from Shielhill Road and bounds residential property, including Hillhead Terrace and a small play area, to the south. There is modern housing to the north-east in the Northmuir district of Kirriemuir.
The north-west part of the site, extending from the field to Cortachy Road is employment land and is actively occupied by automotive businesses. The northern section of this area has a number of substantial buildings and the southern section is open and used for vehicle storage. This part of the site takes access from Cortachy Road with a tall hedge along the remaining part of the western boundary. It is this part of site K2 that was added as a modification to the local plan review.
The smallest part of the site is to the west with an open area adjacent to the field providing a link to Kinnordy Road, at the lowest point of site K2, and a further area of garden ground extending to Cortachy Road to the south of the vehicle storage area.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Wider community benefits
The council believes that there are several wider community benefits to be derived from allocating the all housing land in Kirriemuir to the single site at Hillhead under designation K2.
Firstly, it is clear that the concern about drainage is no longer a relevant consideration. In terms of the WWTP, no particular site has an advantage over others. Although Hillhead is the furthest from the WWTP, this should not be considered a disadvantage. It has been suggested that there could be a local problem in connecting the Hillhead site to the WWTP but this claim has not been substantiated and I have accepted that any problem with the Den sewer has been resolved. As with any other site, a drainage impact assessment would identify whether or not any further local problems require to be overcome. I therefore conclude that drainage is not a determining consideration in respect of allocating Hillhead or, for that matter, any other site in Kirriemuir.
The council had believed that the Hillhead site provided potential for a health centre and the development brief was to require this possibility to be investigated. However, it has been accepted that the location of a new health centre should be the subject of wider consideration and this is reflected in a further proposed modification to the Key Issues and Development Strategy for Kirriemuir. Accordingly, whilst the provision of a new health centre at Hillhead remains a possibility, the prospect of a wider search reduces the emphasis on the need for Site K2 to provide for this facility.
Affordable housing provision was a further reason given for the Hillhead allocation. However, Policy SC6 requires all sites in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens housing market area with a capacity of 10 or more units to contribute 15% of the total in low cost affordable housing. On this basis, residential development at Hillhead has no potential, proportionately, to provide more affordable housing than any other site.
The provision of an improved drop-off and pick-up facility for Northmuir Primary School was considered by the council to be a further community benefit which could result from
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 138 Angus Council Statement of Response
the development of the Hillhead site. Whilst this aspiration could be achieved, I do not believe that an improved facility would be inevitable as I do not consider that the development of the site and the drop-off and pick-up point are inextricably linked. It may be that access to Site K2 would not be taken from Shielhill Road and therefore the improvements required could not be demanded to allow the housing development to take place. In any event, any required improvements to the drop-off and pick-up point could be pursued irrespective of the development of Site K2.
Accessible open space, although required in the finalised local plan review was not referred to in the modification and the council has agreed that any housing development should provide open space in accordance with the recognised standard.
Finally, the council saw the extended area of Site K2 as an opportunity to develop brownfield land. However, it is recognised that the industrial premises are still in use and therefore, by definition, should not be regarded as “brownfield”. I agree with this assessment and, insofar as the council is seeking a phased development with this part of the site probably not being used for housing before 2011, it appears that there is no great commitment to seek the early relocation of the existing businesses.
Evidence on the future of the industrial premises varied. Kilmartine Ventures agrees that the site continues to offer employment opportunities and that any redevelopment should be a second phase within the wider Site K2 to allow for the possibility of relocation. However, some doubt was thrown on the future, continued occupation of the premises by the current lessees and reference was made to the difficulty of obtaining new tenants. In any event, it was suggested, much of the property is of poor quality.
In contrast, Richard Lawson and Guild Homes believe that the two businesses on the site are operating successfully, employing about 80 people with the prospect of expansion. Stability is required to fulfil the growth potential.
In my opinion, the level of employment already provided on the site and the potential for growth is an important and significant consideration. I do not believe that the contents of the local plan review should put these jobs in jeopardy. Although the possibility of relocation has been suggested, no practical possibilities have been brought forward in this respect. It has been indicated that the buildings are in poor condition. Whilst this might be so, external inspection does not reveal particular problems and much of the property appears to be sound and fit for purpose. Accordingly, I do not consider this to be an overriding concern.
There is a general acceptance that, at least, the development of this part of Site K2 should be a later phase in the overall development with some parties, including the council, believing that post-2011 development would be appropriate. The modified local plan review description of the redevelopment of this part of the site is somewhat qualified saying the land is reserved as a “potential” second phase which “may” be permitted “once existing businesses within the north-western part of the site are relocated”. In my opinion this approach gives little certainty to either prospective house builders or the existing businesses. In any event, despite the doubts of Kilmartin Ventures, it may be that “existing businesses” are subsequently replaced by other business concerns. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to exclude the industrial land from Site K2 thereby providing the stability that the current businesses require. Should it be that, at some point in the future, the premises do become unoccupied and fall within the brownfield category, there are mechanisms, including a subsequent local plan review, which could lead to an appropriate change of use, should this be required.
In reaching this conclusion, I have considered whether the continuing industrial land use is acceptable in terms of location. In this respect, I do not consider the property to have a significantly detrimental visual impact. Nothing has been brought to my attention to suggest that the residential amenity in the general area would be adversely affected by
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 139 Angus Council Statement of Response
the continued activity on the site. In any event, the council does not envisage the short term cessation of the current use of the site.
All-in-all, in terms of wider community benefits, I conclude that the matters advanced by the council, individually or as a whole, do not constitute an overriding reason for designating Hillhead as the sole housing land allocation in Kirriemuir. The employment land should be deleted from the K2 designation and the balance of the site should be assessed on merit along with the other sites brought forward by objectors.
Landscape and visual impact
Although it has been claimed that there are clear longer views of the Hillhead site, even when the trees are in leaf, I do not believe the land is especially prominent from beyond the boundaries of Kirriemuir. I accept that there are some views of the site - mainly glimpses - but I generally share the opinion of the council that it is relatively difficult to see Site K2 and that the land does not represent a dominant feature. I therefore conclude that the development of the land at Hillhead would not significantly impact on the landscape setting of the town.
Much has been made of the local significance of the land at Hillhead within the urban framework. Select Homes considers the town to have three distinct components: Northmuir, Kirriemuir and Southmuir. Green swathes separate the three areas and this fundamental character should be protected. In terms of Hillhead, the land is part of an important green wedge that extends from the Hill of Kirriemuir to the east. J & J Learmonth and various other objectors also emphasise the importance of retaining the open area between Kirriemuir and Northmuir, which is regarded as a separate community. The council does not believe that Northmuir can still be considered to be separate and does not accept that a significant green wedge exists. Northmuir Primary School effectively prevents a visual link between areas of open space on either side of Shielhill Road.
I can accept that, historically, there were three distinct communities and that these perhaps functioned separately in some respects. However, notwithstanding, the open land that remains, I believe these individual communities are now largely subsumed within the town of Kirriemuir itself. Although the small valley or “den” of the Gairie Burn is a distinctive feature, I do not consider it leads to any significant distinction between the parts of the town to the north and south of the burn. Similarly, I perceive little individual character in Northmuir. I acknowledge that road signs direct motorists to “Northmuir” but there are few, if any, indications of self-identity. Indeed, substantial areas of modern housing, including that to the immediate north of Site K2, give the impression of a typical suburb and, on this basis, I conclude that the open land at Hillhead does not require to remain undeveloped in order to maintain the community identity of Northmuir.
Turning to the importance of the Hillhead site in terms of townscape, there is a further divergence of opinion. Select Homes sees the land as part of an important green wedge extending from Hill of Kirriemuir in the east to Cortachy Road in the west. Although the primary school impinges on this land it does not close off the landscape corridor. Views to the hills from the open section of Shielhill Road across Site K2 are particularly important. Similarly, J & J Learmonth points out that Hillhead is the last area of undeveloped land providing a concept of space and sense of place. On the other hand, whilst recognising that Hillhead is an attractive open area, the council does not think that the land, which is an agricultural anomaly, serves any wider purpose. Kirriemuir Den and Kirriemuir Hill are the two important landforms in the town. Development at Hillhead would consolidate the urban pattern as an infill development. Although certain objectors believe the site is too large to be regarded as infill the council nevertheless maintains that development at Hillhead would be preferable to expanding the town. Richard Lawson and Guild Homes confirm that the agricultural part of the site is not a viable unit.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 140 Angus Council Statement of Response
I accept that the Hillhead site is, in itself, a pleasant open area. However, I agree with the council that its importance in the overall structure of the town does not compare with that of Kirriemuir Den and, especially, Kirriemuir Hill. I do not consider that there are strong links between the site and the land to the east of Shielhill Road. Notwithstanding the adjacent playing fields, the school buildings bring about a significant degree of separation.
The land has very little visual impact locally, being totally screened from Cortachy Road and flanked by the rear of houses to the south other than for the small play area at Hillhead Terrace and the narrow link to Kinnordy Road. The northern boundary is also screened by the industrial buildings to the north-west and houses to the north-east with fencing and high hedges.
The only significant views to the site are obtained from the short frontage to Shielhill Road. The fall of the land, boundary trees and the pick-up and drop-off facility all reduce the impact of the site along this frontage. I agree that drivers should be required to concentrate on road conditions, especially at times when pupils are arriving at or leaving school. The long distance views over the site to the hills are pleasant, but not dramatic or unique in Kirriemuir.
Whether or not development at Hillhead could be considered infill in nature is a moot point. I believe it is more important to consider possible development in terms of appropriate land use. Should residential land use be acceptable, I believe, in general terms, that the council is correct in stating that development within the framework of the town is preferable to an expansion of the boundary.
I have noted the conclusions of Reporters following earlier inquiries but, on the basis of my analysis of the evidence, I conclude that the open part of the Hillhead site is not an integral part of a wider landscape corridor and does not have an overwhelmingly important role as a green wedge.
Land use
The enlarged site comprises three land uses: industrial, agricultural and garden areas.
I have previously concluded that the industrial land to the north-west should be retained and not included in the residential allocation even as a later phase of development.
The agricultural land has been described as an anomaly and I believe this is a reasonable assessment. I do not believe that this use should be an impediment to the development of the land for a suitable alternative purpose.
It has not been suggested that the loss of part of the large garden areas in the western part of the site would have a significant impact on current level of residential amenity and I see no reason why these areas should not be incorporated into Site K2.
Accessibility
It is generally agreed that Hillhead is within the maximum distance of 1600 metres as advised in PAN75 in terms of accessibility to local facilities by walking and cycling. There is also reasonable access to bus routes. I accept that certain facilities are at the upper end of the acceptable range for walking and also that the walk from the town centre via Roods is uphill and, in part, lacks good quality pavements. In any event, although marginally longer, I believe that the route to the town centre via Kinnordy Road and Glengate would be at least equally attractive and would involve a lesser gradient and better pavements.
Although it has been claimed that other sites compare favourably, I conclude that in terms of accessibility, the Hillhead site should not be discounted for residential use.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 141 Angus Council Statement of Response
Traffic
I accept that the destination or origin of the majority of trips would be to or from destinations to the south of the site although Richard Lawson and Guild Homes dispute the figure of 90-95% suggested by Select Homes. Concern has been expressed about the impact on the town centre by vehicles travelling to either the A926 or A928, the use of nearby residential areas, additional congestion at Northmuir Primary School and the poor quality of the rural road network.
It has been estimated that there would be a total two-way flow of about 91 vehicles. In the event of there being an access to any development from Kinnordy Drive, Richard Lawson and Guild Homes believe that drivers would have the choice of a variety of routes and that would reduce the level of traffic using the town centre.
I note that road capacity has not been regarded as a problem and there was evidence in respect of the Sunnyside site that traffic flows in the town are modest. In general terms therefore I believe that the traffic generated by a development of 120 houses at Hillhead is unlikely to cause any significant problems. Clearly, the town centre road system is far from ideal but I accept that there would be a choice of routes from an access to Kinnordy Road, including the use of Slade Road on the western edge of the town. Insofar as most traffic would be to and from the south it could not be anticipated that there would be significant additional use of Woodend Drive to the north of the site. Concern has been expressed about additional traffic in the proximity of the primary school and I accept this is a valid consideration. However, access arrangements have not been finalised and, in the event of development of the site coming forward, I believe the council would require to be entirely satisfied over the safety of any proposed access to Shielhill Road. Insofar as the rural road network is concerned I share the view of Richard Lawson and Guild Homes that the routes are not of as low a standard as suggested by other objectors and that they could reasonably cope with a degree of additional traffic.
I therefore conclude that traffic generation resulting from a residential development of 120 houses at Hillhead would not place an intolerable burden on the local or wider road network.
Other matters
I have taken account of the variety of other matters raised by objectors but, having noted the council’s responses, there is nothing that persuades me that the site should not be allocated for residential development.
Summary of Conclusion
I conclude that the local plan review as modified should be further modified as follows:
the extent of the site should be limited to that contained in the finalised local plan review, that is, the employment land to the north-west should be allocated “development in existing built-up areas”;
In view of my conclusions in respect of providing a range of choice, the allocation for Site K2 should remain at around 120 with a first phase of 40 houses up to 2011. A development brief should be required. Although Policy SC6 requires all sites of a certain size or capacity to contribute an element affordable housing, the local plan review should make it clear that low cost home ownership housing is to be provided at Hillhead. There is no requirement to refer to a replacement health centre as this matter is dealt through a further proposed modification. Reference should be made to access from Shielhill Road to provide potential flexibility. In order to protect visual amenity, there should be a requirement to agree on an appropriate use of the land not required for phase 1. The further modified text should therefore be as follows:
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 142 Angus Council Statement of Response
K2: Housing – Hillhead
7.6 hectares of land between Kinnordy Road and Shielhill Road is allocated for around 120 dwellings. A first phase of 40 will be permitted for development in the period to 2011.
Proposals should all be in accordance with a development brief which will be prepared for this site and which will include details of the following requirements:
• vehicular access from Kinnordy Road. Access from Shielhill Road may be permitted if suitable arrangements can be agreed to relocate or redesign the drop-off/pick-up point for pupils of Northmuir Primary School; • 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing;
proposals for suitable use and maintenance of the land not required for phase 1.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is further modified in respect of site K2, Hillhead, as set out above.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Since the receipt of the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Scottish Water announced, on the 27 September 2006, the interim removal of the drainage constraint affecting the Kirriemuir Waste Water Treatment Works through agreement with SEPA. This will accommodate the level of development now proposed in Kirriemuir to 2011 in the FALPR as proposed to be modified by the Reporter removing outstanding issues about the effectiveness of sites in Kirriemuir. It is noted that, in line with information given by Scottish Water during the Inquiry session, the Reporter states that there would be a ...”requirement for all sites to be subject to a drainage impact assessment to determine the basis for a connection to the public system.” Policy S6 and Schedule 1 of the FALPR provides the policy basis for this requirement, as drainage impact assessment is one of the possible areas of additional information that may be requested in the consideration of a planning application.
The Reporter’s recommendations in relation to the Hillhead site are accepted subject to some qualification. The key issues raised by the Reporter’s recommendations relate to the deletion of the employment land from the housing allocation, the phasing of the housing allocation, the possible health centre site, and these are considered further below.
Deletion of employment area
Given that the business area at Cortachy Road remains in use by ongoing businesses it is accepted that the site (or any part if it) should not be specifically included in an allocation for an alternative use. The Council’s intention is to secure potential for a properly planned approach to the development of this and the adjacent area of land identified for housing (Hillhead) rather than to rely on an ad hoc approach to future development. This approach is not intended to be seen as encouraging the removal of business uses. The removal of this area from the allocation of housing land at Hillhead does not preclude consideration of this area for residential use where specific development proposals for the site are in line with Local Plan policy.
Phasing of the allocation
Whilst retaining the allocation of the Hillhead site for housing use, the Reporter has differed from the approach proposed by the Council to concentrate the housing land allocation for Kirriemuir on one site in order to maximise the potential wider community benefits from the development. At paragraph 2.1158 of the Reporter’s findings, he
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 143 Angus Council Statement of Response
considers that although the Council had argued that the range of choice of housing sites should be considered on a housing market area basis, the fact that Kirriemuir is the second largest town in the area and taking account of local planning considerations it would be appropriate to allocate more than a single site for housing development in Kirriemuir. However, in addition to recommending the allocation of another site in Kirriemuir which contributes to the choice available, the Reporter has reduced the initial phase of development from the Hillhead site to only 40 units in the period to 2011.
In relation to the housing land supply in the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens, the Reporter’s conclusions in respect of objections related to housing land in Forfar, Kirriemuir and modifications proposed by the Council do not fully meet the Structure Plan allowances 2001 – 2011. The Head of Planning and Transport’s comment in relation to this matter is set out in response to the Reporter’s Recommendations in relation to consideration of an objection by The Muir Group and Webster Contracts under “Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Angus Glens Housing Market Area” in Volume 2 of this Schedule at page 112. In order to ensure the availability of housing land to meet the Structure Plan allowance for the Forfar, Kirriemuir and the Glens Housing Market Area for the period to 2011, it is proposed to adjust the phasing of this allocation to allow 80 houses to come forward in the period to 2011, with a further 40 units to be permitted in the period beyond 2011.
Health Centre
Objections had been received to the proposed first round modification to the Hillhead allocation in relation to the introduction of a specific requirement for a site for a new health centre to be investigated within the Hillhead site. It was accepted that the issue should be open to wider consideration, and to this end a further modification was proposed in the Council’s Inquiry Statement of Evidence to include a new bullet point in the key issues and development strategy sections of the Kirriemuir Settlement Statement. The Reporter has accepted this proposed modification, but has also removed the specific reference to this matter from the wording of the proposal. It is important to recognise that this would not preclude the consideration of part of the Hillhead site as a possible location for a new health centre.
Note: Angus Council at their meetings of 16 November, 14 December 2006 and 25 January 2007 did not accept the recommendation by the Head of Planning & Transport to adjust the phasing of release of housing numbers at Hillhead. The Council agreed that the Reporters recommendation be accepted. (Report nos 1342/06, 1481/06 and 78/07 refer).
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review as follows:
“K2 : Housing – Hillhead
7.6 hectares of land between Kinnordy Road and Shielhill Road is allocated for around 120 dwellings. A first phase of 40 units will be permitted for development in the period to 2011.
Proposals should all be in accordance with a development brief which will be prepared for this site and which will include details of the following requirements:
• vehicular access from Kinnordy Road. Access from Shielhill Road may be permitted if suitable arrangements can be agreed to relocate or redesign the drop-off/pick-up point for pupils of Northmuir Primary School;
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 144 Angus Council Statement of Response
• 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing; • proposals for suitable use and maintenance of the land not required for phase 1.
These changes result in the following amendments to other parts of the Plan.
• Amend the allocation in Table 3 in the Kirriemuir Settlement Statement, and in Appendix 2 : Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area.
• Amend the area of the allocation to remove the land to the north west and show it as “Development within built-up areas” on the Kirriemuir Inset Proposals Map, as shown on the attached plan.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 145 Angus Council Statement of Response QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH w i s e2g f nd ot tg V l e R w h e
e x I
hepot S 2 2 w
y e o
SQ t 2 s h
h 2 I
RR 2
H I ITVFPm S r y
g USQRHH W e Q e h
vf V
2 i
o
t w 2 d U i
y in lu
g rn Q
ne
T pmon uirriemuir2@snset2wp2SA PU
V I Q T
his2proposls2mp2should2e2red2in o r pl W r2 USQRHH H go ttg P SV e onjuntion2with2the RT W P rillrest gf
pinlised2ritten2ttement TQ IP TV
Q i
I T s frusil Q U 2h xh hi yy
R
Q S
PR U
TI
U U
Q I ITVFVm g il2u2t
I P uI USQQHH
S S
2W Q
S h f P e y
S 2 Q
U v QQ v s S r S v 2W s f i USQQHH r i g e v
2 i y fw2ISRFSVm w e
hsi g IR
h R
x W i
U h Q ISSFQm y y
PS PR USQPHH
hepot hepot T
ISVFVm Q xorthmuir2rimry2hool USQPHH
r
d
2
f
d g
rillhed y rillhed2vodge
fw2ITWFPVm USQIHH
W Q
ITWFHm win
P vodge IQ R IV USQIHH uP IH
T II qreen2fres
IRUFVm V IP
I I s i v2 rsv
PW
T I
I I VW
I I I P
QH
y VR
y U
h V WS h e y 2 VI USQHHH
TQ
r v PH
g e VP S
e g T I
P i
Q R y Q UR VQ QU g S
PH FUm QI TS TS TR I UQ QQ
USQHHH
Q V I
qlenhill P SS egi i S h2i s U vrie v2
rsv sv
ST r
R
P I V P
I
I TT I H
P R
P P
P
H T
I
P
I il2u2t
I Q T Q u P I
s
Q x R
x R
V R
y U
R T
l
h
V R qlenwood Q SP PP I SS y
I f 2 2 e
w y qlenwood r e
P IQ 2 I e I
S S RW
S h T
W SH H
SQ
2 V h I
e I F h H f y e USPWHH y H 2 svv2 I h xr P IRPFRm U uy y us m
sxx u P
I W h ye
2
I H h R I
I xy I sx P u Q IR ITQFIm
USPWHH W U u I t2wry9s2ghurh V s r x ill IH n fw2IRPFSSm x k2 er W y re i g V fw2ITIFUSm h ve W 2 II 2e h IH IHR IRIFVm xy W i sx V IHT x U u T pirlie2rouse
P
W i
2 ISRFHm
e
I
P
xu U Q e
q rsvvf V
2 T Q i R R P
P I v S Q y f g w
r 2 S I w IQ l S
s i V IRWFVm R v y v F U
2t V H U I Q g P u I
W m r S
e I T ISIFWm V
s USPVHH h i T
P x PH P y I f IRQFTm y U I 2 Q I U W Q V
eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 gigix P h S S H S I f grwford
ei ISHFRm the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF W pold wqregor9s rouse P I f Q h xu nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright 2W vnd vvfe s T V
S y e2r S R
IHQ uirkton vf i P
USPVHH q
T
U I gourt nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF I I IXQSHH v sssues e
H I
I IH henhed U I 2 engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS
i fw2IRUFPQm
IS i m w 2WPT I U
f 2IRHFHSm e e2WPT WU IRUF R QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH
Kirriemuir: Land to the south of Beechwood Place
Objector Reference (Finalised local plan review and/or first round modification)
J & J Learmonth 71/1/3 W D & I F Cameron 683 & 684/1/1 Mr Charles & Mrs Ada Robertson 685 & 686/1/1 Mrs A Crabb 687/1/1 Mrs J Rae 688/1/1 Mrs Muriel Alexander 689/1/1 Mr J & Mrs G Moore 690/1/1 & 691/1/1 Eric W Ramsay 692/1/1 S W & F M Clark 703/1/1 & 703/1/2 Lesley & Scott Buchan 706/1/1 & 707/1/1 Miss Celia S Topping 708/1/1 David D Grimmond 709/1/1 Mr & Mrs WG Kirkman 711/1/1 & 712/1/1 Grace C Johnston 751/1/1 William Johnston 752/1/1 Mr H G McCrum 753/1/1 Mr Neil Ferguson 760/1/1 Miss D A Brogan 784/1/1 Neil Cameron 798/1/1 Douglas W Mearns 800/1/1 June A Hill 842/1/1 Mr Graham Thomas 846/1/1 Miss Mary Gourlay 847/1/1 Gwen Ritchie 853/1/1 A S Murray 861/1/1 Mrs Morag Garrow 868/1/1 & 1/2 Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd (first round modification) 871/2/1 Wilma Falconer 878/1/1 Harry & Maureen Mowbray 904/1/1 Alistair G McCallum 939/1/1 Mr & Mrs J F Linton 941/1/1 & 942/1/1
Supporter (first round modification)
Richard Lawson 68/1/3 Guild Homes (Tayside) Ltd 872/1/3 J & J Learmonth 71/2/2
Procedure Reporter
Inquiry (Select Homes, J & J Learmonth, Richard Dent Richard Lawson, Guild Homes); And written submissions ______
BACKGROUND
The land south of Beechwood Place lies at the southern extremity of Kirriemuir which, at this point is formed by Beechwood Place itself, a street with a single frontage of residential property looking across the land which was designated site K3 in the finalised local plan review. The town slopes generally downhill to Beechwood Place beyond which the ground is level. The site itself is agricultural, said to be in a set-aside condition, with
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 147 Angus Council Statement of Response
some farm buildings in the south-western part of the land. Beechwood Place forms the northern boundary and the A928, Glamis Road provides the western boundary, beyond which is a small area of employment land, the Muirhead Industrial Estate. A track between fields provides the eastern boundary and there are trees along the southern boundary. A small residential property to the north-east of the site was excluded from the K3 designation. The site itself extends a little way beyond this residential property to provide a short frontage with the A926, Forfar Road, at a point opposite Newton Cottage where the main road turns uphill into the town.
The waste water treatment plant lies a short distance to the south of the site.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Landscape and visual impact
Select Homes accepts that the land has a generally open character but is contained by roads to the east and west, and a shelter belt to the south reducing long distance views of the site. The stark southern edge of the town and the approach from Glamis Road especially could be improved by development. J & J Learmonth believes that the landscape and visual impacts would be more negative than suggested by Select Homes. It is difficult to accept that such a highly visible development is necessary to bring about the claimed improvements. Other objectors are concerned about encroachment into the countryside beyond what is currently a well-defined boundary. The council considers that any residential development would not represent urban sprawl as it would be brought forward as a planned extension to the town.
Despite the opinion of Select Homes, I believe that the two roads and the shelter belt, which is beyond the southern boundary of the site would, as stated by J & J Learmonth, provide little containment and the site would have a high level of local visual impact. I note that Select Homes regards the southern edge of the town at this point as being stark but, nevertheless it is a clearly defined and unmistakable boundary. Topographically, Beechwood Place is also significant insofar at it follows the foot of the slope on which the development of this part of the town has taken place. Extension to the south would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the landscape setting of Kirriemuir, even if undertaken as part of a comprehensive masterplan.
The council allocated the land for residential development in the finalised local plan review and has indicated that the land may well be reconsidered for this purpose in the future. It may be that future circumstances point to a need for additional housing land allocations, but, in the meantime, in landscape and visual impact terms, I conclude that the land south of Beechwood Place should not be allocated for development.
Land use
Select Homes points out that the site is agricultural but is “set aside” and not part of a working farm. I am not in a position to comment on the agricultural viability of the land but, in my opinion, agriculture is a reasonable land use for the land and relates well to the clear urban edge formed by Beechwood Place.
Accessibility
I note that the site is within 1,600 metres of all attractions and within 800 metres of most including the secondary school and sports centre. There is access to public transport. Walking to the town centre would involve a steady climb up Forfar Road or Glamis Road with steeper gradients in Bellies Brae but, overall, I accept that the site is accessible in terms of walking, cycling and public transport.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 148 Angus Council Statement of Response
Traffic
The site is clearly well placed to ensure that traffic impact on the local road network is minimised. I accept that, for the most part, traffic would not pass through the town centre but would travel to or from the south along the A926 or A928. Traffic generated by the site is therefore not a significant issue.
Wider community benefits
Select Homes considers that the development and the related construction of a distributor road giving access to the site and linking the A926 and the A928 would improve the southern entrances to the town and improve road safety, particularly in respect of reducing traffic in Morrison Street. Additionally, benefit would derive from the juxtaposition of the residential site and the employment land to the east. There would be a significant advantage in terms of drainage infrastructure. The council agrees the distributor road would be of general benefit but points out that there have been improvements in the Glamis Road approach to the town since the publication of PAN52. The proximity of housing to employment land could make the best use of infrastructure. J & J Learmonth believes it unnecessary to undertake a development of the scale proposed to improve the entrances to the town and is not convinced about the claimed benefits of the distributor road.
I share the view of J & J Learmonth insofar as it is not essential to undertake a large development to solve the image problems of the entrances to the town. In any event, as the council has stated, improvements have already taken place at Glamis Road.
I can accept that the construction of the distributor road, as agreed by the council, would bring about general benefits, perhaps improving safety at the bend on Forfar Road at the poor quality junction with Beechwood Place. However, the traffic flows shown in Appendix D of the Transport Assessment undertaken on behalf of Select Homes, support the opinion of J & J Learmonth that the traffic flow along Morrison Street between the radial routes, Glamis Road and Forfar Road, are limited. Comparatively few vehicles turn right from Glamis Road to Morrison Street or left from Morrison Street into Glamis Road. In any event, the overall level of traffic has been described as modest. I therefore do not consider the prospect of the distributor road to be such that need for its construction weighs in favour of the residential use of the land to the south of Beechwood Place.
Similarly, I can accept that there are benefits in providing residential land next to employment land. Although it might be argued that few residents would live and work in such close proximity, the provision of employment opportunities close to housing provides the potential for jobs close to home and, in turn, supports the sustainable principle of reducing the need to travel. I also agree that benefit could derive from the joint provision of infrastructure although Scottish Water has made it clear that proximity to the WWTP should not necessarily be regarded as a benefit and that a drainage impact assessment would be required for all sites.
Overall, whilst acknowledging that certain community benefits would result from the allocation of residential land next to the employment land, I am not persuaded overall that these benefits should be given greater weight than the concerns I have expressed in terms of landscape and visual impact.
Other matters
I have taken account of the variety of other matters raised although, of course, the requirement of the objectors is for the deletion of the housing land allocation proposed in the finalised local plan review. Certain matters relate to issues already considered and the criticism of procedure has been adequately answered by the council. Concerns about the prospect of localised flooding have not been substantiated although the development
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 149 Angus Council Statement of Response
guidelines in the local plan review offer advice in this respect. In terms of the impact on school rolls and medical facilities the council has provided evidence to show that all three schools have spare capacity and have agreed to include a reference in the local plan review to a search for a new health centre site. In terms of the countryside walk, the council has indicated that, in the event that development took place, footpath links would be preserved. Having noted the council’s responses, to the matters raised, there is nothing that persuades me that the site should be allocated for residential development.
Summary of Conclusion
I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, Site K3, Land at Beechwood Place, should not be allocated for housing as indicated in the finalised local plan review and the distributor road should be deleted. The land should not be contained within the settlement boundary.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of land at Beechwood Place.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
In proposing the modification to delete the allocation of land south of Beechwood Place, the Council considered that “...development south of Beechwood Place could form a future development area for Kirriemuir...”. It is therefore useful to note that in the Reporter’s consideration of the objection to K4 : Working – East Muirhead of Logie at paragraph 2.1262 he makes reference to his recommendation to delete the allocation of housing land south of Beechwood Place and acknowledges that “ ...at some time in the future, the development of the land is likely to be reassessed.” In addition, paragraph 2.1264 states “Should the development of the employment land proceed irrespective of the lack of an adjacent housing land allocation, it may be that the location and design of the access could, in any event, allow the possibility of development to the west at some time in the future.”
Note: Angus Council at their meetings of 16 November and 14 December 2006 did not accept the above position. (Report 1342/06 and 1481/06 refer). The Council agreed in principle that land south of Beechwood Place should be allocated for 40 houses. The detailed wording of the proposal was agreed by Infrastructure Services Committee at their meeting of 25 January 2007 (Report no 78/07 refers).
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
DO NOT ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation.
The Council however agreed to Modify the Local Plan Review as follows:
K4: Housing – South of Beechwood Place 2.5ha of land south of Beechwood Place is allocated for 40 dwellings and should take into account the following requirements:
• 15% of the capacity of the site to provide LCHO affordable housing; • vehicular access to be taken from the new Forfar Road junction, formed to serve the business park; • no frontage access from Beechwood Place;
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 150 Angus Council Statement of Response
• landscaping and other boundary treatments will be required to provide an appropriate high quality visual entrance to the town. Particular attention should be given to: o a suitable landscape buffer along the boundary with the employment land allocated under K5 : Working - East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road; o the proximity of existing housing at Beechwood Place; and o the location of this site on the edge of the town.
In addition the release of housing land will be phased and linked to the establishment of the employment land (K5) through the use of a legal agreement.
This change also results in the following additional changes.
• Indicate the site on the Kirriemuir Inset Proposals Map, as shown on the attached plan.
• Amend Table 3: New Allocations, in the Kirriemuir Settlement Statement as follows:
Table 3 : New Allocations K2 Hillhead 40 K3 Sunnyside 40 K4 Beechwood Place 40 Total 120
• Amend Appendix 2 : Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area to reflect the Kirriemuir changes above.
• Renumber K4: Working – East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road as K5, reflecting the renumbering of the housing land allocations.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 151 Angus Council Statement of Response QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH e
Q
R 2
Q
R Q H y
U
P W e
R Q i P h q
USQRHH
W R Q
R
P R
S R
Q S
P Q
S R
m I
S uirriemuir2@snset2wp2SA
FR T
R Q V
P
U
I R T R
QQ IPHFSm
Q SV USQRHH his2proposls2mp2should2e2red2in R i
I i Q W
2 R
S
S I T
R e Q H R f
ry onjuntion2with2the R
H RP U TP
Q
W Q pinlised2ritten2ttement
TR
R IP
Q R
h V I S R S IIWFQm e f2W
y P
T Q
V 2 Q
V
s V
I I
UH w S
e i
v x 2ve q i PH
y
R P Q IH fw USQQHH vf V IV I i U IPIFSWm i
U R 2 Q x W y II IP s U IS T wy I W
Q R
W PP T Q Q
USQQHH IP
P
R HF il2u2t Tm q W
QI
P
T S
P P
P
I
P
IIVFQm I W
I I
r U
ote I
l I
S W
I
m U P I S S VF I II
gf
I
Q P
USQPHH I
I T
IIIFSm I I Q
Q Q S
U f
W i I l I i i
m g RP t F r IV u2
USQPHH 2I I w H f lyground y
I y i Q Q IT h
i S
S
2 P
g IP
W
i IHWFWm
I R
R IITFHm e w R g u i Q ir x h e
d S 2
W xewtown2gottge
R I l P d lying2pield W Re e
R
W I T R P S
y rw s IHTFPm USQIHH I
H e2W
yeh PT e
I W W 2
2 H PT
T ws he2gottge W
qve P
W T R
USQIHH errnre
I H P
I P qrge gi R ve tore yh2 y R igr
IIPFSm fi
I
P R
I R
H
P T
T R S
S I
qrge
I imployment2vnd
I P rousing2vnd USQHHH R g
USQHHH IPIS r uS h k ye h 2 sx r 2we r uR i n USPWHH wuirhed sndustril2istte USPWHH
rk IHTFWm
rk ist2wuirhed USPVHH eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 HHHT the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF HHHT V P W nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright2 ey2rouse e USPVHH nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF IXPSHH engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS SUHH HHHT QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH
Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Sunnyside
Objector Reference
J & J Learmonth 71/1/1 Eric Y Hill 843/1/1 & 843/2/1 James Hill 855/1/1
Supporter
Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd 871/4/1
Procedure Reporter
Inquiry (J & J Learmonth, Select Homes) Richard Dent and written submissions ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site is located to the immediate west of the town, adjacent to the rear gardens of houses on the west side of Sunnyside itself. The land slopes gently downwards to the south and is vacant, not having recently been in agricultural use. The northern boundary is formed by a track beyond which is land designated site K(b) in the local plan review. That site has outline planning permission for a residential development of 39 houses. The western boundary is marked by a scrubby hedge and some small trees. A line of young trees has recently been planted along the southern boundary.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Landscape and visual impact
J & J Learmonth argues that the development of the land would effectively extend the adjacent site where permission outline planning has been granted for 39 houses. Landscape and visual impact would be relatively less than on other sites and the opportunity could be taken to improve the edge of the town. The council accepts that the urban boundary could indeed be improved. Despite the loss of some conifers, new trees have been planted along the southern boundary and, in general terms, the site is not especially visible. Select Homes believes a visible and abrupt edge would result from development and the horizontal extent of the settlement would be extended. There would be a significant impact on properties in Sunnyside.
The land at Sunnyside is clearly visible only when approaching Kirriemuir on the Glamis Road. Even then the site would be viewed in the middle distance against a backdrop of gently rising land and existing or future (site K(b)) development. In my opinion the council is correct in believing that the site is not especially visible. Although Select Homes fears that an abrupt boundary would be created, this need not be so as a layout could be designed which would provide an acceptable edge to the development to both the south and west. Indeed, the newly planted trees would be a first step in softening the southern boundary Development might marginally add to the horizontal aspect of the built form of Kirriemuir as viewed from a short section of the A928 but I do not consider this would be other than a marginal visual impact and would have little or no significance on the wider landscape setting of the town. Similarly, I consider that impact on the amenity of houses in Sunnyside could be reduced to an acceptable level through careful design. In any event, there is no inherent reason why new houses should not be built to the rear of existing development.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 153 Angus Council Statement of Response
All-in-all, I believe that landscape and visual impact do not preclude the development of the site at Sunnyside for residential purposes.
Land use
The site has not been used agriculturally for some time and J & J Learmonth points out that future agricultural use is unlikely in terms of finance and access problems once development on land to the north has taken place. I believe that the agricultural use of the land is not inappropriate but recognise the practical difficulty of gaining access in the longer term. In view of my assessment of the limited impact of the site visually and in respect of landscape setting, I believe that residential use of the site would not be an unreasonable alternative.
Accessibility
J & J Learmonth claims that the site has a significant advantage in terms of walking or cycling to various attractions. The council does not consider this to be a particular advantage compared with various other sites and Select Homes equally does not believe Sunnyside has a significant advantage.
In my opinion, Sunnyside is well placed for a number of key facilities including schools, sports centre and recreation at Martin Park. The town centre is most directly reached via Tannage Brae although this involves a short but steep hill. The health centre is also currently located in Tannage Brae although this facility may well move at some time in the future.
Overall, I conclude that accessibility of the Sunnyside site is not a negative consideration in terms of suitability for residential development.
Traffic
It is suggested by J & J Learmonth that any traffic impact in Morrison Street could be mitigated by relatively simple traffic management measures. I accept that, in the context of relatively modest traffic flows, the generation of additional traffic from a site of 2 hectares would not cause any significant problems.
Wider community benefits
The claim that development would be sustainable in terms of making best use of the infrastructure required for the development to the north has not been contested. I also note that there would be the potential to gain access to the countryside without the need to use a vehicle. I accept these are both positive considerations should the land be used for housing.
Other matters
Site K(b) to the north of the Sunnyside site has been granted outline planning permission for housing and it is proposed to take access to the objection site via that development. J & J Learmonth argues that although the council has recently stated that access to site across council-owned land is no longer possible, this indication should be regarded with some caution. In any event, the principle of providing an alternative access through land to the north has been agreed. The council believes that there is doubt over the ability to provide an access and therefore the effectiveness of the land must be questioned.
I accept that there is some doubt over the access arrangements for Site K(b) and, in turn, this places an element of uncertainty over the residential potential of the objection site. Nevertheless, as access via council-owned land is now apparently denied, there is an agreement in principle to construct an alternative access to Site K(b). Clearly this alternative will rely on successful financial negotiations and, as in the case of all “ransom
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 154 Angus Council Statement of Response
strips”, a successful outcome cannot be guaranteed. Equally, lack of drainage is currently a constraint and therefore neither Site K(b) nor the objection site to the south can be regarded as immediately effective in terms of PAN38.
In my consideration of objections to Site K(b) I expressed the opinion that there is a reasonable expectation that the constraints will be removed within the plan period. The development of Site K(b) is therefore to be anticipated. The ability to implement the extant outline planning permission for Site K(2) would, in turn, provide the opportunity to secure an access to the objection site. Agreement with Scottish Water in respect of drainage would give the land “effective” status. Site K(b) and, if allocated, the objection site would be the subject of monitoring through the annual housing land audit and, should it be that development does not proceed, appropriate action could be initiated depending on the housing land requirements at the time.
I therefore conclude that current lack of effectiveness is not a matter that should preclude the allocation of the objection site of 2 hectares at Sunnyside for residential use it being reasonable to expect that the site will become effective within the period of the local plan review. I have also noted the suggestion that, if necessary, an additional 2 hectares to the south could be allocated but do not consider that this is a fundamental part of the objection and therefore reach no conclusion and make no recommendations on this matter. Equally, the suggestion that an extended area linking into North Mains Road could be allocated in the longer term was not pursued in any detail. I am not in a position to assess this larger area in terms of visual and landscape impact or in respect of the implications of the link North Mains Road and I have therefore not taken this matter any further.
I have noted the written submissions in support of the allocation of the site for housing land and that attention is drawn to the long-term zoning of the land in previous development plans. The council has provided details of the development plan status but I accept that a local plan review provides the opportunity to consider matters afresh in the context of current circumstances including the strategic guidance in the structure plan and national planning policy.
Summary of Conclusion
In view of my conclusions in respect a range of sites and the land at Sunnyside, I conclude that the local plan review as modified should be further modified as follows:
insert an additional site:
K3: Housing - Sunnyside
2 hectares of land south of site K(b), Westfield/Lindsay Street, is allocated for around 40 dwellings.
Access will be taken from site K(b). Development will require to have regard to the edge of town location with appropriate landscaping, particularly planting along the western and southern boundaries. The benefits of the southerly aspect of the site should be reflected in an energy efficient layout and design
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is modified by the inclusion of site K3, Sunnyside, as set out above.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Since the receipt of the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review Scottish Water announced, on the 27 September 2006, the interim removal of the
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 155 Angus Council Statement of Response
drainage constraint affecting the Kirriemuir Waste Water Treatment Works through agreement with SEPA. This will accommodate the level of development now proposed in Kirriemuir to 2011 in the FALPR as proposed to be modified by the Reporter removing outstanding issues about the effectiveness of sites in Kirriemuir. It is noted that, in line with information given by Scottish Water during the Inquiry session, the Reporter states that there would be a “...requirement for all sites to be subject to a drainage impact assessment to determine the basis for a connection to the public system.” Policy S6 and Schedule 1 of the FALPR provides the policy basis for this requirement, as drainage impact assessment is one of the possible areas of additional information that may be requested by the Council in support of a planning application.
At paragraph 2.1158 of the Report of the Public Local Inquiry, the Reporter considers that, although the Council had argued that the range of choice of housing sites should be considered on a housing market area basis, the fact that Kirriemuir is the second largest town in the area and taking account of local planning considerations it would be appropriate to allocate more than a single site for housing development in Kirriemuir. In considering all of the possible sites the Reporter concludes that an additional allocation south of the existing site at Westfield/Sunnyside is the most appropriate. This site was included in the Consultative Draft version of the Angus Local Plan Review in March 2003 but was not proposed in the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review. The Reporter’s consideration of the other sites are set out in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, Volume 2, pages 284 – 304.
Development of the site at Sunnyside relies on access from the existing site to the north identified as site K(b) : Westfield/Lindsay Street in the FALPR. A reserved matters planning application for the land at Westfield/Lindsay Street is currently being considered by the Planning and Transport Service. At the time of the Inquiry the Reporter considered there was some doubt over the access arrangements for site K(b) and in turn uncertainty over the residential potential of the objection site, but that there was a reasonable expectation that this constraint would be removed. A report in relation to the potential for access to these housing sites to be achieved through the Council owned Mortarholes Garage site off Lindsay Street will be considered by Housing Committee (Report No 1352/06, 16 November 2006).
The Reporter considers that the development of the land at Sunnyside would have little or no impact on the landscape setting of the town and in terms of the potential effect on the amenity of existing properties at Sunnyside he considers that “...the impact on the amenity of houses in Sunnyside could be reduced to an acceptable level through careful design. In any event, there is no inherent reason why new houses should not be built to the rear of existing development”. The Report states that development at Sunnyside would make best use of infrastructure required for site K(b) : Westfield/Lindsay Street to the north which is a positive consideration in favour of the site, as is the ability to access the countryside without the need to use a vehicle.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate a new proposal as follows:
“K3 : Housing - Sunnyside
2 hectares of land south of site K(b) : Westfield/Lindsay Street, is allocated for around 40 dwellings.
Access will be taken from site K(b). Development will require to have regard to the edge of town location with appropriate landscaping, particularly planting along the western and southern boundaries. The benefits of the southerly aspect of the site should be reflected in an energy efficient layout and design.”
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 156 Angus Council Statement of Response
This change results in the following additional changes:
• Renumber subsequent proposals. • Add the allocation to Table 3 in the Kirriemuir Settlement Statement, and Appendix 2: Housing Land Supply in each Housing Market Area. • Indicate the site on the Kirriemuir Inset Proposals Map, as shown on the attached plan.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 157 Angus Council Statement of Response
QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH
V
P
V s
Q v IQ
e R
S
2 2
o t
2
Q
pootll2qround P y I Q R R e I Q R
h S V
USQRHH S Q IT
tnd
T
S
h S
froomfield e S
I V uirriemuir2@snset2wp2SA S I y g U
I 2 r V SU
e
i R
g Q y
m
r v T
T
Q
his2proposls2mp2should2e2red2ini g Q
t l T 2
h l R USQRHH
e o
t
v IQHFTm 2
r W ie S
w t P onjuntion2with2the he2funglow 2 u l2 i RI pinlised2ritten2ttement IW Q P PH SR
PR
P
P I Q
I R U
H USQQHH P
Q P S
P W
H
Q R PU
I IPWFRm gf USQQHH
Q r I I
V
u@A P w I
9 H Q U v 2q
sx PV e Q S e l h h d e i Q n x I y Q v 2
Q H
Q ii QI qrge I f T unnyview w 2I PU FI Qm R
I USQPHH
P QW
P I uillermont
Q R S
P QU QI I i Q I i Q USQPHH I Q s2 SQ W w S U S
I IPRFTm
R
V
R
P T
P S
P
I
S T
H H
P
H
II P P
r
V I r d k 2f d I y IW g2 ii USQIHH
IPPFQm P k W 2
P svv
w Q R
I
P
I
I Q R
P
I HHQS V
HHQS S USQIHH P
H P uQ R i i h r 2 x in x x i
r
I R s
h PI
i I P
I R
I USQHHH T
I
IW V
P T
PI ii 2 si USQHHH r
h T
Q IQ
P T IQd m PQ IS FQ PU IU
U IW I PT I
I PI
I
U P
FW V
m Q H
P
QQ H
P R
P V USPWHH
RI
Q H
ell Q R
USPWHH H
S
y Q P
U I Q T
SP PI
R R
R R
V
S USPVHH P hr eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF in
nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright h
r
USPVHH
T
nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF in IXPSHH T
S
R
T R
S engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS g V
h
T P QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH
Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Herdhill/Martin Park
Objector Reference
J & J Learmonth 71/1/4
Procedure Reporter
Inquiry Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection site is on the north side of the A926 as the road leads westwards from Kirriemuir towards Blairgowrie comprising agricultural land between Martin Park to the east and an area to the west containing a substantial joinery concern and several houses, some of which are currently under construction. There is agricultural land to the north of the site and a row of residential property on the opposite side of the A926.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
J & J Learmonth believes the site offers an urban infill opportunity within convenient walking and cycling distance of all principal attractions. A low density housing development is envisaged and the use of part of the site for employment use would add to sustainability.
The council argues that the area is semi-rural in character and that development would be linear. Housing would be out-of-character. Any proposed expansion of the adjacent business could be considered through a planning application.
In my opinion the site has sufficient depth to accommodate housing and business use that would not represent linear development such as is found on the south side of the road. Nevertheless, I share the council’s view that the land has a semi-rural character being visually linked with the agricultural land to the north. The cluster of development to the west, including the new houses and the straggle of houses to the south side of the road does not detract from the character of the site to the extent that it should be considered in an urban context. Martin Park, although an urban-related use, contributes to the open nature of the vicinity and I do not believe that a true urban character is apparent until the cross roads at Lindsay Street and Slade Road is reached.
Notwithstanding the claim that the site is convenient in terms of walking and cycling, I conclude that the land should not be incorporated within the settlement boundary and allocated for residential, albeit low density, and employment uses. I believe that the development envisaged would detract particularly from the established character of the vicinity and have an adverse impact on the general setting of Kirriemuir. I note the council’s suggestion that any proposal for the extension of the adjacent business could be considered through a planning application. No doubt any such application would be assessed against the relevant local plan policies.
Summary of Conclusion
I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at Herdhill/Martin Park should not be allocated for housing and employment uses. The land should not be contained within the settlement boundary
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 159 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of land at Herdhill/Martin Park
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 160 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Pathhead, Forfar Road
Objector Reference
A Bruce 651/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Hearing Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The land at Pathhead lies to the immediate south-east of Kirriemuir bounded to the west and south by the A926, Forfar Road. There is residential property beyond the A926 on the western boundary but, on the opposite side of the road to the south the land is open although it is allocated for employment land as site K3 (previously K4). The eastern boundary adjoins agricultural land whilst part of the northern boundary lies adjacent to Strathview Road, a short residential cul-de-sac leading from Forfar Road. A substantial veterinary centre which takes access from Forfar Road intrudes into the north-western part of the site. The site itself is under pasture and slopes steadily from north to south.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
It has been argued that the development of the site would represent organic growth and strengthen the edge of this part of Kirriemuir. In my opinion, the edge of the town is clearly defined on the western side of Forfar Road opposite the objection site. The boundary does not require to be strengthened and I do not consider that the extension of the town across this clear physical feature could be properly described as organic.
I acknowledge that the veterinary centre is located to the east of the road but I regard this as being a specialised land use justifying a semi-isolated location. Indeed, the existing Section 75 agreement is intended to ensure that the immediately surrounding land remains free from development because of the potential impact of activity at the centre. Although it is important to review land use as part of the local plan preparation process free from the fetters of any Section 75 agreements, such agreements should not be set aside lightly. I believe that the case for revocation to make way for development has not been substantiated in this instance.
The retention of the agreement would limit development to the southern part of the site and I agree with the council that this could be regarded as piecemeal and somewhat incongruous. I also accept the council’s contention that development on this sloping site would be relatively prominent and I am not persuaded that residential development to the north of the road would form a gateway to the town. The development of the lower part of the site would lead to encroachment on Maryton, and reduce the value of the buffer zone to the south of the road which is intended to maintain the separation between the employment land at East Mains of Logie and the village to the east.
I also note the council’s concern about the standard of the junction between Strathview Road and Forfar Road although, should any development be limited to the southern part of the site, the use of the cul-de-sac for access purposes may not be appropriate in any event. In these circumstances, although reference has been made to an alternative access, it has not been demonstrated that it would be possible to take an access from Forfar Road.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 161 Angus Council Statement of Response
All-in-all, I conclude that the allocation of the objection site for residential use should not be supported.
Summary of Conclusion
I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at Pathhead, Forfar Road should not be allocated for housing. The land should not be contained within the settlement boundary
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of land at Pathhead, Forfar Road.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 162 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Omission - land at Newton Park
Objector Reference
A Bruce 651/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Hearing Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The site lies within the settlement boundary to the north-east of the town centre being part of the generally sloping open area that extends around much of the Hill of Kirriemuir. Established residential areas flank the west, south and south-east of the objection site with Kirriemuir Cemetery to the north-east. The land to the north is open, sloping further upwards towards the camera obscura on the west slope of the Hill of Kirriemuir. The land is in agricultural use. Direct access is taken from Strathmore Avenue through a network of relatively narrow roads. There is also an access from the south via a narrow track.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Mr Bruce maintains that the land is isolated and no longer suitable for agricultural use. Essentially the land is a gap in the urban framework and would be ideal for a range of housing, particularly in view of the good access to the town centre. There would be little impact on long distance views and, in any event, the northern part of the site would remain as public open space.
The council believes the site is an important part of the open land surrounding the Hill of Kirriemuir. Development would be out of context with the established character of the neighbourhood. In any event, the local road network is sub-standard and could support a maximum of 50 houses.
I can appreciate the difficulty of farming the land in terms of both access and security. I also accept that the site commends itself as being within the urban fabric and relatively close to the town centre. Whilst I appreciate the character of the surroundings, the vicinity has no specific heritage designation and, in particular, is not a conservation area. I therefore accept that a well-designed residential development could be accommodated on the site without untoward adverse impact on the surrounding residential area.
Access is a problem and, in practical terms, would require to be taken from Strathmore Avenue. The council has drawn attention to sub-standard junctions and states that, in technical terms, a maximum of 50 houses could be accepted. Clearly the objection site of some 4.2 hectares could adequately accommodate a development of 50 houses.
In my opinion, the potential of the site for housing depends on its value as an open area in the wider land use structure of the town. The council believes this to be an over-riding consideration whereas Mr Bruce argues that the land does not play a significant role in this respect.
I note that the Kirriemuir section of the Landscape Capacity Study undertaken by the council identifies the Hill of Kirriemuir and Kirriemuir Den as the two “important land forms” in the town. Insofar as Kirriemuir Hill is concerned, the boundary of this important land form extends over approximately two thirds of the objection site, excluding the southern third of the site. In terms of landscape character and settlement form and
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 163 Angus Council Statement of Response
pattern, the study concludes that development of this area would have a negative impact. Insofar as views out of or across the settlement are concerned it is stated that development of the north of the site would interrupt views from Kirriemuir Hill and views of the settlement from the south-west would be adversely affected.
I agree that the Hill of Kirriemuir is an important land form and an integral component in the structure of Kirriemuir. The open areas surrounding the hill are also important in protecting the setting of the higher ground. Development of the entire objection site would, in my opinion, bring about the negative impacts set out in the Landscape Capacity Study. The upper part of the site is particularly important in views from the southern approaches to the town. However, I note particularly that the boundary of the “important land form” excludes the southern section of the objection site. I therefore consider that there may be some scope for limited residential development at this part of the site. However, subject to other sites in Kirriemuir being able to make provision for the required allocation of housing land, I conclude that a precautionary approach should be applied to the land at Newton Park and no allocation should be made over any part of the objection site at this time. It may be that future residential development could be considered subject to a detailed assessment of the precise area over which houses could be constructed without detrimental impact on the Hill of Kirriemuir.
Summary of Conclusion
I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at Newton Park should not be allocated for housing.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of land at Crawford Park.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter’s recommendations in relation to Kirriemuir at paragraph 2.1252 in Volume 2 of the Report of Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review do not include specific reference to Newton Park, but appear to erroneously refer to Crawford Park instead which is one of the sites considered under “land north of Cortachy Road (two sites)”. Given the Reporter’s conclusions and Summary of Conclusion in relation to Newton Park set out above, it is assumed that his recommendation should read “ I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of land at Newton Park.”.
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 164 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Omission - land north of Cortachy Road (two sites)
Objector Reference
Mrs Kathleen J Smith 314/1/1 Mr A Melville 643/1/1
Procedure Reporter Hearings Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
The objection sites lie close to one another just beyond the north-western extremity of Kirriemuir.
Mrs Smith’s site lies in the angle of Cortachy Road and Mid Road and comprises an extensive area of disused sheds within a level area of generally open land. There are several cottages to the immediate north. The built-up area of the Northmuir district of Kirriemuir lies on the opposite side of Cortachy Road.
Mr Melville’s land lies a short distance to the north along Mid Road and is part of a small complex of industrial buildings flanked to the south-west and north-east by a row of about a dozen houses. Mr Melville’s land is used as a yard for heavy goods vehicles and there is an adjacent joinery business. It appears that Mrs Smith also owns a small part of this land. There is a substantial wooded area beyond the objection site and the houses.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
Although the council states that both objections should be considered in the context of housing strategy I believe that the sale of development proposed is not of strategic consequence and require to be assessed on their individual merits.
In terms of Mrs Smith’s proposal, the derelict hen houses can properly be regarded as brownfield in character. However, although SPP3 does give priority to development on brownfield land, this does not offer carte blanche as the guidance indicates that the planning system should guide development to the right places. In this respect, the council believes that Cortachy Road provides a clear edge to Kirriemuir beyond which development should not encroach. Development would spoil the rural character.
Mrs Smith draws attention to SPP15 which advances policy in respect of small scale rural housing developments including clusters and groups in close proximity to settlements and, inter alia, holiday homes. There is considerable scope for allowing more housing developments of this nature.
I accept that the removal of the derelict hen houses would improve visual amenity at the location but subsequent development should not be considered to be justified by the removal of the structures or as being an inevitable consequence. Indeed, planning authorities are in a position to initiate action requiring steps to be taken to abate any adverse effect on amenity caused by the condition of any land. Notwithstanding the condition and appearance of the hen houses, I accept that the provision of holiday homes is a legitimate aspiration in terms of SPP15. I also agree that the type of development proposed could represent a worthwhile tourist facility and benefit the local economy. However, I do not believe that SPP15 envisages that individual locations would be identified in local plans for the entire range of rural housing. Indeed, SPP15 indicates that the scope for such housing should be expressed in development plans, either as part of a general settlement policy or as a separate sub-set Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 165 Angus Council Statement of Response
on rural housing policy. On this basis I conclude that it would not be appropriate to make a specific land use allocation for the objection site.
The foregoing conclusion does not preclude the possibility of submitting a planning application seeking permission for a group of holiday homes on the objection site. On receipt of any such application the council would no doubt wish to assess the proposal in the light of the guidance of SPP15 and the relevant policies of the local plan review including policies in respect of development boundaries and tourism development. These policies and the guidance would allow the council to judge any proposed development taking into account the proximity to the Kirriemuir settlement boundary, any impact on the environment and the economic and visual implications.
Mr Melville’s objection approaches the prospect of future development in the vicinity from a different point of view by seeking a settlement envelope around both objection sites (Mrs Smith’s site and Mr Melville’s site) and the existing houses in the vicinity. Woodside is claimed to be a separate settlement with a sense of place and identity: a defined boundary would allow suitable development and prevent further spread.
The council does not believe Woodside is a true settlement, a view endorsed by a local resident. It may be that the development envisaged would be best promoted through the submission of a planning application.
Should a settlement boundary be drawn around Woodside as required, Policy S1(a), Development Boundaries confirms that new development within the boundary on sites not specifically allocated will generally be supported where they are in accordance with relevant local plan review policies. It would be on this basis that any submission seeking the development required by Mr Melville would be assessed.
I note that the Town and Village Directory contains boundary maps for settlements with a wide range of sizes. Some are very small and contain a limited number of houses. Nevertheless, I have assessed Woodside on its own merits. I accept that the buildings are separate from the town and that, as the council states, Cortachy Road provides a distinct edge to Kirriemuir. However, I am unable to discern a sense of place. Similarly, there is nothing to indicate that the houses function as a community. I therefore agree with the council and conclude that a settlement boundary is not justified.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, I have noted the council’s indication once more that development would be best promoted through a planning application. On this basis, the local plan review may provide a policy basis for appropriate development.
Summary of Conclusion
I conclude there should be no change to the local plan review as modified, that is, the land at the former hen houses (Mrs Smith’s objection) should not be allocated for housing and there should be no settlement boundary at Woodside (Mr Melville’s objection).
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review as modified in respect of land north of Cortachy Road (two sites).
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 166 Angus Council Statement of Response
Kirriemuir: Site K4 – Working, East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road,
Objector Reference
Select Homes (Tayside) Ltd 871/2/2
Procedure Reporter
Hearing Richard Dent ______
BACKGROUND
In the finalised local plan review site K4, Working, is shown to the south of Forfar Road to the immediate south-east of Kirriemuir. It lies adjacent to land allocated for residential development, site K3, land south of Beechwood Place. The draft alignment of a distributor road is shown passing across the residential land and meeting Forfar Road at the north-western extremity of site K4.
It is proposed to modify the local plan by deleting the residential site on the land south of Beechwood Place and re-designating the site K3, Working. The distributor road is also deleted as part of the proposed modification.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend the local plan review is modified, as proposed by the council, in respect of the employment land at East Muirhead of Logie. The site was designated K4 in the finalised document but re-designated K3 as a result of the proposed modifications. In view of my recommendation in respect of housing land at Sunnyside, the K4 designation should be re-applied.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted. The Reporter considers that the adjusted boundary of the employment land allocation at East Muirhead of Logie provides flexibility not only to achieve a suitable access to the allocated employment site but also allow a potential access to land to the west (south of Beechwood Place) were it to be reconsidered for housing in the future.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows. Also implement a technical modification and renumber the proposal as K5, to reflect the decision of the Council to include a site at Beechwood Place, Kirriemuir for housing – referenced as K4: See Statement of Response, volume 2, page 147 for further information on the Council’s decision.
“K5 : Working – East Muirhead of Logie, Forfar Road
4 ha of land west of Maryton and south of Forfar Road is allocated for Class 4* (business), Class 5* (general industry), and Class 6* (storage and distribution) uses. Vehicular access should be from Forfar Road. Landscaping and other boundary treatments will be required to take account of the location of this site on the edge of the town and provide an appropriate high quality visual entrance to the town in keeping with the character of Kirriemuir.
*As defined in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997”
In addition, as a result of this change, also amend the Kirriemuir Inset Proposals Map to show the revised development boundary around this site.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 167 Angus Council Statement of Response QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH e
Q
R 2
Q
R Q H y
U
P W e
R Q i P h q
USQRHH
W R Q
R
P R
S R
Q S
P Q
S R
m I
S uirriemuir2@snset2wp2SA
FR T
R Q V
P
U
I R T R
QQ IPHFSm
Q SV USQRHH his2proposls2mp2should2e2red2in R i
I i Q W
2 R
S
S I T
R e Q H R f
ry onjuntion2with2the R
H RP U TP
Q
W Q pinlised2ritten2ttement
TR
R IP
Q R
h V I S R S IIWFQm e f2W
y P
T Q
V 2 Q
V
s V
I I
UH w S
e i
v x 2ve q i PH
y
R P Q IH fw USQQHH vf V IV I i U IPIFSWm i
U R 2 Q x W y II IP s U IS T wy I W
Q R
W PP T Q Q
USQQHH IP
P
R HF il2u2t Tm q W
QI
P
T S
P P
P
I
P
IIVFQm I W
I I
r U
ote I
l I
S W
I
m U P I S S VF I II
gf
I
Q P
USQPHH I
I T
IIIFSm I I Q
Q Q S
U f
W i I l I i i
m g RP t F r IV u2
USQPHH 2I I w H f lyground y
I y i Q Q IT h
i S
S
2 P
g IP
W
i IHWFWm
I R
R IITFHm e w R g u i Q ir x h e
d S 2
W xewtown2gottge
R I l P d lying2pield W Re e
R
W I T R P S
y rw s IHTFPm USQIHH I
H e2W
yeh PT e
I W W 2
2 H PT
T ws he2gottge W
qve P
W T R
USQIHH errnre
I H P
I P qrge gi R ve tore yh2 y R igr
IIPFSm fi
I
P R
I R
H
P T
T R S
S I
qrge
I imployment2vnd
I P rousing2vnd USQHHH R g
USQHHH IPIS r uS h k ye h 2 sx r 2we r uR i n USPWHH wuirhed sndustril2istte USPWHH
rk IHTFWm
rk ist2wuirhed USPVHH eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 HHHT the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF HHHT V P W nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright2 ey2rouse e USPVHH nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF IXPSHH engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS SUHH HHHT QQVSHH QQVTHH QQVUHH QQVVHH QQVWHH QQWHHH QQWIHH QQWPHH QQWQHH QQWRHH
Monifieth: Site Mf 4 - Buddon Drive Cemetery Site
Objector Reference
William Shearer 247/1/1 Amelia A Shearer 587/1/1 Mr S Hewitt 786/1/1 Mrs Frances E Kerr 833/1/1 Mr & Mrs R Cairns 946/1/1
Procedure Reporter
Informal hearing (W Shearer & A A Shearer) Richard Dent and written submissions ______
BACKGROUND
The Community Facilities and Services section of the Monifieth settlement statement contains Policy Mf 4, Buddon Drive Cemetery Site, as follows:
2.8 ha of land to the east of residential properties on Buddon Drive is reserved for use as a cemetery. Details of access arrangements, parking, landscaping and boundary treatment will be dealt with as part of any future planning application.
The Monifieth inset map identifies the site within the settlement boundary to the north- east of the town adjoining the rear of properties in Buddon Drive.
The site is under pasture and forms part of a wider area of countryside extending northwards and eastwards away from the rear of the houses in Buddon Drive. Buddon Drive itself lies on the periphery of an established residential area which takes access from the A930, Panmure Street, and B962 to the south. The road hierarchy is not well defined although there is a bus route through the area. There is a small car park on Buddon Drive close to the north-west corner of the Mf 4 allocation. A short cul-de-sac leads from Buddon Drive to the south-west corner of the Mf 4 site.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
In terms of concern about the lack of notification, I have no reason to believe that the council did not undertake an adequate level of publicity or provide the appropriate opportunity to lodge objections against the terms of the finalised local plan review. Section 12(5) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, and Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans)(Scotland) Regulations 1983, set out the procedural requirements in respect of publicity. In this respect I note that the council has prepared a formal Statement of Publicity and Consultation which will form part of the local plan review submission to the Scottish Ministers.
The need for individual neighbour notification is not specified and I can accept that a requirement to undertake publicity at such a level would be onerous and impractical. I do not believe that, in terms of procedure, a cemetery proposal varies materially from any other land use allocation, be it, for example, residential, commercial, or any form of “bad neighbour” development. The terms of SPP15 referred to by Mr and Mrs Shearer do not appear relevant in this respect and do not persuade me that a cemetery proposal has any particular or individual cause for special consideration.
I agree with the council that the local plan preparation process and the need to obtain planning permission are separate procedures. However, the local plan is a land use Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 169 Angus Council Statement of Response
document that guides the location of development during the course of the plan period. Section 25 of the 1997 Act states that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is therefore clear that a land use allocation in an adopted local plan carries significant statutory weight and establishes the principle of development. When a planning application is submitted in accordance with the provisions of a local plan, there is undoubtedly a presumption in favour of granting permission subject to taking account of any material considerations.
The council has referred to Notice of Intention to Develop provisions which require a planning authority to refer to Scottish Ministers any proposal where there are objections to its advertised proposals. This allows the Scottish Ministers the opportunity to consider whether they wish to call for a formal application from the authority. Each case is considered individually although there is a presumption against calling for a formal application where the proposal accords with the adopted local plan or has not attracted a significant body of objections.
On the basis of the foregoing, I conclude that the objections to the proposed cemetery at Buddon Drive should be considered on the basis of land use and whether or not the allocation is justified and suitable in this respect.
Turning first to the question of need I note the objectors’ contention that Angus is well- served in terms of burial and cremation facilities. Even taking into account the ability of residents from other areas to utilise these facilities (which I note is possible at additional cost), there does appear to be significant capacity in the wider area. However, I believe that it is for the council to determine whether or not local facilities should be provided. In this case there is a perceived local requirement and I accept that the council is justified in responding positively in seeking to allocate land for a cemetery.
Although the cemetery allocation at Buddon Drive is long-standing, being contained in the extant Angus Local Plan, I do not believe, in itself, that this justifies the inclusion of a similar proposal in the local plan review. Self-evidently, the review offers the opportunity to re-assess land use allocations. The site was originally intended for a school and, on the basis that this is no longer required, I can accept that council ownership is a seductive factor in proposing the land for an alternative community use. Certainly, in terms of acquisition costs, it is not unreasonable to assume there would be a significant advantage in using the land. However, whilst the council has described such an approach as pragmatic, I am of the opinion that a careful assessment of land use and planning matters is required.
In terms of the site characteristics, objectors have expressed concern about the lack of any study of the site and have drawn attention to the possibility of contamination of a nearby watercourse, archaeological remains and unsuitable sub-soil conditions. The council does not believe that that site would give rise to any such technical problems. Whilst potential development problems might appear either unlikely or capable of resolution, I am of the opinion that lack of any basic site assessment – a desk study was suggested by objectors as a minimum requirement - weakens the credibility of the proposed allocation.
Insofar as location is concerned, I accept the council’s contention that a cemetery should not be in remote location. As it is intended that the facility should serve Monifieth and the surrounding communities it is logical that it should be close to Monifieth as the main centre of population. In practical terms, a location on or close to the edge of the town is to be anticipated. To this extent, the proposed allocation commends itself.
I consider a basic requirement for a new cemetery is ease of access. In this respect I am not persuaded that the proposed site is capable of being provided with a suitable vehicular access. To approach the site from either the north-west or south-west would entail passing through a residential area. I share the objectors’ opinion that the standard Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 170 Angus Council Statement of Response
of the roads is not high and conclude that they would be inappropriate for funeral corteges. I can also appreciate that the use of roads of limited standard within an area of residential character could have an adverse impact on established amenity. Although there is a bus route through the residential area, this is said to be infrequent and unable to use Buddon Drive. Lack of a convenient bus service would be a serious disadvantage and contrary to the promotion of sustainable development.
The council has also referred to the possibility of taking a direct access from the B962. There is no indication that the council has control over the land required to construct such an access and I share the objectors’ opinion that the length of this approach and the local topography would significantly add to cost. I therefore conclude that the council has not demonstrated that adequate access can be taken to site Mf 4. Although the policy suggests that access arrangements could be determined at the time of a detailed planning application, I believe that this is a fundamental requirement and that any problems must be shown to be capable of resolution if the land use allocation is to remain meaningful.
The council has indicated that the Mf 4 allocation is a protective measure. Although the cemetery has been identified as a project, it is not included in the council’s programme of work. Indeed, there is no suggestion that the cemetery would come forward during the period of the current local plan review. Further, the council recognises that there will be an opportunity to investigate potential alternative sites. Objectors have also emphasised the need to consider alternative locations and a range of possibilities has been suggested to the immediate north of Monifieth. I do not consider it appropriate to analyse these alternatives in any detail as insufficient information has been provided to make a credible assessment. Nevertheless, I accept that, at least, the prospect of an alternative cemetery site does exist.
All-in-all, although the council hopes to provide a local cemetery for Monifieth, I have gained the impression that there is not total commitment to site Mf 4 which appears to have been allocated as a matter of expediency and on a provisional basis. Indeed, the council’s reference to the investigation of potential alternative sites strengthens my opinion in this respect. Taking into account my conclusions in terms of the technical characteristics of the site and, particularly, my misgivings over the access constraints, I further conclude that the cemetery allocation Mf 4 cannot be justified. In turn I conclude that the site should be deleted and the settlement boundary redrawn to the rear of the residential property in Buddon Avenue.
In order not to frustrate the council’s desire to provide a local cemetery for Monifieth and surrounding communities, it would be appropriate to include this objective as a key issue in the Monifieth settlement statement with an indication in the development strategy that a search will be made with a view to bringing forward an appropriate site.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review is modified as follows in respect of the Monifieth settlement statement and Inset Map 6:
add a further bullet to paragraph 4, Key Issues, as follows:
• The need to identify a site for a cemetery
add a further bullet point to paragraph 5, Development Strategy, as follows:
• Undertake a search for a new cemetery for inclusion in a future local plan review or earlier if required
delete allocation Mf4 from the inset map and key and realign the settlement boundary to the immediate rear of residential properties in Buddon Avenue.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 171 Angus Council Statement of Response
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter has considered a number of matters, including technical issues associated with the accessibility of the Buddon Drive site and concluded that an allocation for this use is not justified. In recommending that the existing allocated site should be deleted the Reporter has indicated that a full assessment of potential sites should be undertaken before identifying a new cemetery site to serve Monifieth.
I accept the Reporters comments on this matter, particularly the need for a future site option appraisal to establish a suitable location for a cemetery site to serve the community.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan as follows:-
• Delete allocation Mf4 from the Monifieth Inset Proposals Map and key and realign the settlement boundary to the immediate rear of residential properties in Buddon Drive, as shown on the attached plan.
• add a bullet point to paragraph 4, Key Issues, as follows:
o The need to identify a site for a cemetery
• add a bullet point to paragraph 5, Development Strategy, as follows:
o Undertake a search for a new cemetery for inclusion in a future local plan review or earlier if required
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 172 Angus Council Statement of Response
IXSHHH m UFW wonifieth
os ts
n
r u
@snset2wp2TA
f
2
h
t
e
i
f
i
n
o w WFUm fw2IRFPSm k r os ts eshlu die 2te din gs m ens
UFV
R W
W S lomn2 d ellotment2qr
T Q S pf V d red2in2onjuntion2with2the pinlised2ritten2ttement
lygroun P
V
R I
n n r i
his2proposl2s2mp2should2e u r
f helter 2 h h t eprodued2from2the2yrdnne2urvey2mpping2with2the2permission2of2 the2ontroller2of2rwy2@A2grown2gopyrightF nuthorised2reprodution2infringes2grown2opyright nd2my2led2to2proseution2or2ivil2proeedingsF engus2gounil2IHHHPQRHRD2PHHS ie if y
n d
o f 2
w d r
g
eshludie2prmhouse I
P
W
I U
WV I r n
u
f
2
h
t
W i e
f
V i
i n o g w WR e i 2 i s Q I S h m I
UFV
v
V h
R r t
m
WH I e
VFP W
I
I i
w
2
I
S
i
s
h
he2prm2gottge
i
i
r k v V
r T
2
i
e
w x
e
U
T S R
Q
VR
W wf@A I R
RU U
I W U
P
I Q
g VP
VH
U R
S R q r g e Q I I
P
I
Q i n R r
h
Q
V i g I
v e
2
u
x s
v P
g S
U T
U
V P
R PP
Q
R
I P U R U P U I
U H
W
Q
u
H I
e
2 W
T R T i
T s
V
T y
P r T v
R e
h
s
k
n
i
T T S H V iv u2t k PH t2wry9s2r ome r ST
R
T
e
s t2wry9s2r ome S S
e R P
p exi
2
v U
i Q
r x2 m S H VFT ii
q I Q
RV A
I
m gp u
@
R 2
H h
t
I R
i
I
i Q
R V
gf
PT I
2 P i
m
w
VFV x y e
d f 2 R d r
S
U I IP P rll vf
PR
I I
IU
V
P P W V P R P
i
s i
V i
i
2h i
x T
d 2
n y P e
P
h 2
u P
S h g w
s e P h
f IH 2 II PI r
y S
I x r P g
IP Q
R P T
IR IV P P
g I R P H m
P VFW
U
A
I
m
u
@ P
2 H h T
t
I
P
I I
P
R m
I I
Q Q
F
U gp QW V W
2
I x
i w g f i R 2g u h T il 2u2t g r Q e u h y 2g f e T ur P nm
I S
Q
P W
P P
P
Q
S
II I I
U Q rll d n
QP
Q l
R U I
g I
vyx QQ
i i W
gi S
x P Q
e
i
s i
P
e I IS
2p H
P 2
i h
r s ve p
T g
V I U R P
Q
PS R P
QW QI W
P U PT R
SI
I I W
P
U
Q
PR P A
P PP
U m
u
@
2
h
t
S P Q i
P S i P P II 2
S i h
s ivs e s
r i s e p e h v PU 2 lie
x
o
P R
y ttion i H
h g
h S e Q R v I
S
f 2 I
P
I W
I
si V
Q
e I
H f Q
I Q
i P
I Q x I
S i 2e i x
p il2u2t
m
g y
v x WFV
i i
g g
e
v i
T g
i V I
y i x
s x
P P
v y U i
v U II QT gou rt froomhill
TQ
x
IQ i
V
Q P g
m
i
S T U
IQFI g
2
i I T T x
A g
P
m y
u v
Q
h2@ I
I t I
V
PT V IQ
i i
I I S S 2 UT fw2IUFSSm i x
PR vy
I R P H R
P IH
I
I
lyground P
i ivwqy I
sssues
IWFQm T
T
I
Q i IU
V e
f
i x W
s II
I R
e
s
W
x W
I
y
h R
2 p I
v
v
s P
r w
y IU
y
I
R
f x
i
g
i
Q g
I
U PW
i
iv x
y
v I P
T
I p W g Q R P VI
A IS IV II
um V h2@ I
t IH
I
P
y I
d
I
f 2 PRFHm
d
r
IV
U W I P il2 u2t W V
i
y PI
i q i
P
g
I r e
IT R
y g
U P i
P RR i
q i
i 2
f
P r i
r
e
I e g S 2
I i S i I x y v I
PQ g QS RU
TI RS TQ I V
T i QV I
2h s U fyywrsvv
P
IS P II IT d
QU
Q i IH g H e
lygroun
i
V 2
i
i
T y i
Q
s
x
i x
i
h h
2 e 2 t
e
x 2
y si y e d
f r
h 2
y g
d
r s
y
q
2
W
i
h
x
I
e
S
i
v
I
e U P
h V t
I
R IP gp
k r
PT I
eshludie2rk S QS
PW QP i nk s IT
QR V PV PWFWm
I V
wfI
i
g
I
I e
IW
i
2
PH I i
P
v
i
S
h I
PR h
S P
e
h t
PU
R I gourt ennis
I
T U
v P
i
Q I
I
eshludie2rk R
IR
x
i
g
i
h
t
g
2
RHFQm
i
v
i
h
h
e PH
th
y
d
f
2
gp d
r
I
onds R
eshludie2rospitl
H
I
S I
Monifieth: Omission – Land at Ashludie Farm, Mains of Ardestie and Ardownie Farm
Objector Reference
Mr & Mrs G Mackie 607/1/1 Mr S Booth 921/1/1 & 921/1/2
Procedure Reporter
Hearing Richard Dent
Note: Three individual objections were submitted originally relating to separate parcels of land. With the agreement of the council, these objections were subsequently combined within a single, larger area of land.
BACKGROUND
The settlement boundary to the north and east of Monifieth follows the clearly defined edge of the town other than for allocation Mf4, Buddon Drive Cemetery Site, which reserves land for a cemetery beyond the north-eastern part of the built-up area. (see previous objection).
The undulating countryside of the objection site is in agricultural use, extending from the edge of the built-up area to the A92 to the north, Victoria Street to the west, and the B962 to the east. A group of houses on higher ground at Ashludie Steadings, adjacent to the B962, is excluded from the objection site. Mains of Ardestie farmhouse and associated buildings are immediately beyond the north-eastern extremity of the site. Ashludie Farm lies in the south-east section. A partially culverted watercourse flows south-eastwards across the site.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The objectors’ argument turns in the first instance to the strategic context established by the structure plan. The document is criticised as being out-of-date, the housing requirements being derived from 1998 projections. In effect, it is suggested that the guidance contained in SPP1 and SPP3 in respect of providing housing land for the longer term should be preferred. Difficulties in delivering the Dundee Western Gateway are emphasised but, more generally, the objectors do not believe that housing development in South Angus should be limited to protect Dundee. The restrictions imposed by the structure plan have a detrimental impact on Monifieth where, despite the popularity of the town as a place to live, new development will be precluded for several years to come. On this basis, the objection site should be allocated for phased development over a 10-15 period.
The council relies on the terms of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan contending that the document has been approved relatively recently and pointing out that, on adoption, the local plan review is required to conform to the structure plan. Attention is drawn to the terms of Housing Policy 2 with an emphasis on brownfield sites, a focus on the Dundee Western Gateway, and opposition to the release of greenfield sites elsewhere in the housing market area that would seriously prejudice the Western Gateway. The annual housing audits for 2004 and 2005 have revealed an increasing supply of housing land in the housing market area. The most recent analysis suggests that there are adequate allocations for not only the local plan period to 2011 but for a further 4 years into the period to 2016 for which the structure plan requires indicative allocations.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 174 Angus Council Statement of Response
Objections to the strategic housing land supply have been dealt with under Policy SC1. It was concluded that the inquiry into objections to the Angus Local Plan Review does not provide an opportunity to consider alleged shortcomings of the Dundee and Angus Structure Plan, which was approved relatively recently, or to suggest changes to the strategic context provided by the document. This strategy anticipates a relatively modest scale of development. Similarly, it would not be proper for the inquiry to consider the perceived problems of the Dundee Western Gateway. Accordingly, it was concluded that the allowances set out in Schedule 1 of the structure plan are those that should be reflected in the local plan review.
It was further concluded, insofar as South Angus is concerned, that the objectors’ requirement for the release of more housing land beyond the city boundary is very clearly at odds with the strategy that runs through the structure plan. Whilst South Angus is a popular area for housing, it is part of the larger Greater Dundee Housing Market Area which contains not only Dundee city but also parts of Fife and Perth and Kinross. As stated in PAN38, housing market areas provide an established basis for calculating the housing land requirement. South Angus should therefore not be regarded as an automatic choice to make good any perceived shortfall within the housing market area. It was also concluded that there is merit in the council’s argument that it is necessary to have regard to the continuing regeneration of Dundee. Again, this in accordance with the structure plan strategy.
I have no reason to revisit the earlier conclusions in respect of housing land supply in the light of the arguments put forward in support of these objections. On this basis I conclude that the local plan review is required to conform to the extant structure plan, the terms of which have statutory approval, and which cannot be the subject of review as part of this inquiry. The council has demonstrated that the housing land supply in the South Angus housing market area is sufficient to extend well beyond the 2011 horizon of the local plan review. I also believe this meets the terms of the guidance in SPP1 and SPP3 to provide a long term vision.
Notwithstanding the requirement of Housing Policy 2 to focus additions to the effective housing land supply on Monifieth and Carnoustie, there is no specific requirement to allocate land in either or both settlements. To re-iterate, PAN38 indicates that housing market areas provide an established basis for calculating the housing land requirement. In view of the very rapid growth of Monifieth in recent years, I do not believe it is critical that continued expansion is either necessary or desirable. Consolidation of the community would be beneficial and provide the opportunity to align facilities and services with the current size of the town. In this respect I have noted that the council is mounting an initiative intended to improve the town centre.
Although the objectors are concerned about the prospect of restricting development in South Angus in order not to prejudice development in Dundee, I agree with the council that this is a fundamental strategic requirement. Nevertheless, in terms of Housing Policy 2, proposals for major development on greenfield sites will not be permitted where this would seriously prejudice implementation of the Dundee Western Gateway development. Accordingly, setting aside other considerations, greenfield release for major development could be permitted where it could be shown that the Western Gateway development would not be seriously prejudiced. Although it has been claimed by the objectors that the proposed development at Monifieth would not threaten the Western Gateway project, no evidence has been provided to convince me that this would be the case. Accordingly, if for no other reason, I consider it appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach and conclude that Housing Policy 2 points against the proposed expansion area.
The objectors assert that the objection site represents the only realistic option for the expansion of Monifieth but I do not believe that this should be the determining factor in allocating the land as required. Other than the strategic arguments for not releasing greenfield land at this location, it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the site itself. In my opinion, there is little doubt that the size of the development over a site of 90
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 175 Angus Council Statement of Response
hectares, even phased over 10-15 years, has the potential to inflict a significant impact in several respects. As the council has pointed out, the scale of the development could increase the population of the town by some 50%. The implications of such an increase require very careful assessment.
Although the objectors have stated that major planting and landscaping is intended, it is inevitable that a degree of visual impact would occur. In this respect, I believe that the current views of Monifieth across the open land from the A92 are pleasing and place the town in an attractive landscape setting. The proposed development would inevitably disturb this situation. In my opinion, this would lead to an unacceptable adverse impact.
The objectors claim that drainage and water could be provided although the council has expressed some concern. Scottish Water has confirmed capacity at present but this cannot be guaranteed and a development impact assessment would be necessary. I therefore conclude that it cannot be assumed at this time that a development of the size proposed could be supported by the existing network infrastructure. Although it appears school places would be available, or could be provided through developer contributions, there is no conclusive evidence to this effect. As the council has pointed out, a transport assessment has not been undertaken and so the sustainable nature of the site cannot be proved conclusively.
I believe that the release of land the size of the objection site should not be contemplated without detailed analysis including assessments of landscape impact, transport and infrastructure. In this respect I share the concern of the council about the generalised nature of the objectors’ arguments.
Notwithstanding the potential for providing a range of choice of housing, including affordable housing and a retirement village, I conclude that strategic considerations point against the allocation of the land as required by the objectors. Even if there was a case for setting aside the provisions of the structure plan, I conclude that, in land use terms, the release of the land has not been justified. In reaching this conclusion I have also noted the proposed sites for the cemetery and the waste recycling facility, neither of which causes me to set aside my conclusions in respect of the allocation of the land.
All-in-all, I conclude that the local plan review should not be modified in respect of these objections.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend no change to the local plan review in respect of these objections.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 176 Angus Council Statement of Response
Montrose: Settlement Statement – Paragraphs 1-5
Objector Reference
Scottish Natural Heritage 45/1/14
Procedure Reporter
Written Submission Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objection concerns the introduction to the finalised local plan review section dealing specifically with Montrose.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that there is agreement that Montrose Basin is important in terms of the landscape setting of Montrose, as well as for wildlife conservation and its ecological interest. I am satisfied that the council has sought to safeguard the important features of the Basin though relevant policies set out in Part 3 (the Environment and Resources section) of the FALPR. I conclude that the Proposed Modifications to the text set out above for insertion in the Montrose section of the plan document will serve to highlight the importance of Montrose Basin and draw attention to these policies to safeguard its inherent features.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case by the inclusion of the two text insertions set out above, which formed part of the Proposed First Round Modifications put forward by the council.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Insert an additional paragraph within the introductory text to read as follows:-
Environmental features including the Basin, mid and east links, seafront and historic town centre are important to the character and identity of the town and will continue to be protected from inappropriate development. Montrose Basin is a unique landscape feature and the wildlife and ecological importance of the area is recognised by its designation as a RAMSAR site, Special Protection Area, SSSI and Local Nature Reserve. Development proposals affecting such important environmental features will be assessed against relevant policies set out within the Environment and Resources section of the Plan (Part 3). Amend bullet point 4 of paragraph 5 as follows:-
• the continued protection of the towns important environmental assets including the Basin, Mid Links, South Links, seafront and historic townscape.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 177 Angus Council Statement of Response
Montrose: Site M1 - Brechin Road & Omission - Marykirk Rd Hillside
Objector Reference
Robert Fleming & Co. 72/1/2 72/1/3
Procedure Reporter
Written Submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objections concern, firstly, the M1 allocation of 30ha of land at Brechin Road, Montrose for residential development and associated landscaping and community facilities. The policy proposes an initial phase of 200 dwellings to be released within the plan period to 2011, allowing for possible further land releases beyond that as the site has a potential capacity for 400 units. The policy specifies that 25 % of the capacity of the site should provide LCHO affordable housing. Secondly, the objector seeks a new housing land allocation at Marykirk Road, Hillside.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that the objector has not sought to challenge the net requirement for 320 units to be allocated in the finalised local plan for Brechin/Montrose Housing Market Area in the period to 2011. This is based on the structure plan allowance and takes account of completions together with sites under construction or with planning permission. I am not persuaded by the objector’s argument that there is likely to be a shortfall in completions on the Brechin Road site, based on predicted completion rates. Instead I consider that the council has set out a robust case defending its position that the Brechin Road site is expected to meet the 200 units allocated to it in Policy M1 for the period to 2011, based on completion rates set out in the latest housing land audit (draft 2005). I conclude that there is no justification, therefore, for the allocation at Brechin Road to be limited to 170 rather than 200 units during the plan period to 2011.
I am persuaded by the council’s argument that the greenfield and brownfield sites allocated in the finalised local plan review, which are within existing Development Boundaries, will provide satisfactorily for Montrose and for the wider HMA in quantitative and qualitative terms and meet the structure plan requirements. In particular I am satisfied that these allocations - together with opportunity sites, such as Sunnyside hospital, and windfall sites - will combine to produce a range of house types and sizes, including affordable housing on larger sites, as required by the local plan and structure plan policies. I note that this would also be in line with national planning policy and guidance. I also note that the site put forward by the objector at Marykirk Road, Hillside is outwith the existing Development Boundary of Hillside. Notwithstanding the accessibility of that site, I find that no compelling case has been made either for this site to be incorporated within the Development Boundary or for the land concerned to be allocated for 30 housing units within the finalised local plan review. In summary, I conclude that there is no justification for modifying the finalised local plan in the manner suggested by the objector.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 178 Angus Council Statement of Response
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the local plan review should not be modified in this case.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
No change.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 179 Angus Council Statement of Response
Montrose : M4 Opportunity Site – Sunnyside Hospital
Objector Reference
Sportscotland 56/1/1
Robert Fleming & Co. (Supporter) 72/1/1 (per The Charlton Smith Partnership)
Procedure Reporter
Written Submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objections concern the M4 Opportunity site - Sunnyside Hospital Estate in Hillside, Montrose where the land and buildings are identified as an opportunity for regeneration and redevelopment for a range of uses, as identified in an approved development brief. M4 states that development proposals for the re-use of the hospital buildings and associated parcels of greenfield areas (for housing or any other uses) will only be considered in the context of an approved Master Plan and will be assessed against the strategy and relevant policies of the local plan. It also states that development on greenfield areas will only be permitted where it is necessary to facilitate the re-use of the listed buildings here.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
I note that there is no disagreement that there should be a presumption against the loss of the playing field at the hospital site and that if the land concerned was required for redevelopment the pitch would need to be relocated within the hospital estate. The only exception to this approach would be if it was demonstrated that there was an excess of pitch provision in the area generally. I conclude that there is justification for modifying the finalised local plan in the manner suggested by the council and agreed by the objector, in order to clarify this position.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case to incorporate the two insertions of new text, as put forward by the council in the First Round Modifications and detailed above.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Insert a new paragraph before Policy M4 to read as follows:-
The development brief also allows for the development of associated greenfield parcels of land including a playing field to facilitate the reuse of the listed buildings. In line with
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 180 Angus Council Statement of Response
Policy SC29 : Open Space Protection, the playing field will require to be relocated within the site unless it is demonstrated that there is an excess of pitch provision in the area.
Insert an additional sentence at the end of Policy M4 to read as follows:-
In accordance with Policy SC29 : Open Space Provision, the existing playing field will require to be relocated within the site unless it is demonstrated that there is a clear excess of pitch provision in the area.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 181 Angus Council Statement of Response
Montrose: M9, Railway Sidings - Montrose Station
Objector Reference
Network Rail (Infrastructure) Ltd 239/1/1 & 239/2/1
Procedure Reporter
Written submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The objections concern the Policy M9: Railway Sidings – Montrose Station which states that the railway siding and goods yard at Montrose Station are reserved for rail related uses.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
The case put forward by the objector for the majority of the site concerned to be released for other commercial uses, such as retailing, has not been substantiated. Furthermore, based on the available evidence it appears that retail use would be contrary to national planning policy set out in NPPG 8 and the development plan, for the reasons given by the council. I am persuaded instead by the council’s argument, supported by the findings of a recent economic study of the town that, at least for the local plan period, the site concerned should be reserved for rail-related uses, as specified in Policy M9. I agree with the council, however, that that this should be supplemented by new margin text to provide clarity of the types of use envisaged. I conclude therefore that there is justification for modifying the finalised local plan, by means of new margin text in the manner put forward by the council in its Proposed Modification.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case to incorporate the insertion of new margin text as put forward by the council in the First Round Modifications and detailed above.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
Support for the Council’s position is noted.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation and modify the Local Plan Review to incorporate the first round pre-inquiry modification put forward by the Council in September 2005 as follows:
Insert additional margin text as follows:-
Rail Related Use: freight generating uses such as storage and distribution where freight by rail can be used as an alternative to road for all or part of a journey; or development generating a large number of workforce and visitor trips with potential to use rail travel as an alternative to the private car.
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 182 Angus Council Statement of Response
Montrose: Omission - Glaxo site
Objector Reference
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Ltd 823/1/1 (per Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners)
Procedure Reporter Written submissions Richard Bowden ______
BACKGROUND
The GSK site, which extends to approximately 19ha, commenced operations in the 1950’s and expanded to become an important manufacturing centre (of ingredients for pharmaceutical products) in Montrose. The company announced that it would be closing its operations in Montrose in late 2006 or 2007. The objection concerns the fact that whilst various policies of the finalised local plan review provide scope for flexibility regarding its future use, there is no explicit policy relating to the GSK site.
Following a comprehensive review of operations across its manufacturing network, in April 2006 GSK announced a reversal of its earlier decision concerning the future of its Montrose site. The announcement confirmed that the Montrose site will no longer be closed, but instead will remain operational. Its continuing role in manufacturing (existing and new ranges of pharmaceutical compounds) will involve a £25million investment in the Montrose site and retain a workforce of around 250 people on the site, which formerly had 750 permanent employees.
The Basis of the Objection and the Council’s Response is set out in Volume 2 in the Report on Objections to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review, August 2006.
REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS
There is complete agreement that closure in whole or part of the 19ha GSK operations in Montrose would result in redundant land and buildings offering a major brownfield opportunity for re-use and regeneration. Its proximity to the coast, the town centre and the harbour provides potential for a number of land uses although various issues, including contamination and wider health and safety concerns, will need to be investigated prior to any redevelopment. I agreee with the council that the site’s close proximity to the harbour may offer potential for a joint approach geared to economic regeneration of this southern part of the town. I conclude that the council’s proposed First Round Modifications to add introductory text and a new Policy M5 in the Montrose section of the finalised local plan associated will highlight the scope for new initiatives on this important site.
Notwithstanding the recent announcement made by GSK that much of their site will remain in operational use with new investment planned here, I endorse the comments made on behalf of the objector to justify retention of the Proposed Modifications put forward by the council, including the inclusion of a new Policy M5 within the FALPR. The only qualification is that I would agree with the objector that the opening sentence (referring to closure of the plant) and the reference made, towards the end of the proposed modification are now no longer applicable and so should be deleted.
REPORTER’S RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the local plan review should be modified in this case to incorporate the insertion of new text and a new Policy M5, all as put forward by the council and as detailed in the Proposed Modifications, but excluding both:
• the first sentence (referring to the anticipated closure); and Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 183 Angus Council Statement of Response
• the proposed changes to the text put forward at the end (starting from “As a consequence of the …”), for the same reason that they are no longer applicable.
Accordingly, the existing Policy M5 and subsequent text and policies of the finalised local plan review document would be retained but moved forward (and renumbered where appropriate) when the proposed new insertions outlined above have been incorporated.
HEAD OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMENT
The Reporter has generally endorsed the Councils pre-inquiry modification subject to a minor modification to reflect that GSK site will remain in operational use.
The first round pre-inquiry modification was promoted in response to the public announcement that the GSK site was to close in 2006 and the objection to the Finalised Angus Local Plan Review submitted on behalf of GSK regarding the omission of the site as an opportunity site.(Objection Ref 823/1/1). The modification included the insertion of new policy wording M5: Opportunity Site - GSK Site highlighting the Glaxo site as an opportunity site together with additional associated text. GSK subsequently indicated the conditional withdrawal of their objection based on the published pre-inquiry modification. There was therefore an agreed position between GSK and Angus Council on this matter. There were no third party objections to the proposed modification.
Shortly after the Public Local Inquiry had formally closed, GSK announced in April 2006 that the site in Montrose was no longer closing and that the majority of the site would remain in operational use. In view of this change in circumstances it is clear that the site is not available for redevelopment and can no longer go forward as an opportunity site in the Local Plan and that the first round pre inquiry modification should not be implemented. It should be noted that there is agreement between Angus Council and GSK on this position.
For these reasons it would not be appropriate to modify the Local Plan as recommended by the Reporter.
However given the importance of the GSK site and the Harbour to the future economy of Montrose and the various land use issues and constraints affecting the southern part of Montrose it is considered that the Local Plan could usefully highlight the and the need to investigate measures to facilitate the regeneration of this wider area.
For the reasons set out above it is considered that an alternative modification is made to the Local Plan to insert new text relating to the regeneration of south Montrose.
ANGUS COUNCIL DECISION
DO NOT ACCEPT the Reporter’s Recommendation to modify the Local Plan as set out in his recommendation above.
Agree that the Local Plan Review be modified as set out below:-
Insert new text within Montrose Section to read:
“South Montrose Regeneration
The southern part of Montrose comprises a mix of land uses in different ownerships including the GSK pharmaceutical facility, the harbour as well as residential, industrial, warehousing and commercial properties. The area between GSK and the north quay of the harbour is of poor environmental quality and contains a number of older buildings some of which are vacant or in poor condition and several of which are of historic interest. While there may be scope
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 184 Angus Council Statement of Response
for regeneration, the current road layout and configuration of buildings restricts accessibility within the area and to the harbour in particular and the Health and Safety Consultation Zones affects development potential within this part of town.
The Montrose Economic Study (January 2006) examined the potential of this area and its relationship to the town and recommended the need for a coordinated approach to deal with the various issues in this part of Montrose. Angus Council together with other relevant parties will investigate measures to facilitate the regeneration and environmental improvement of south Montrose including opportunities arising at GSK and the Harbour.”
Report of Public Local Inquiry Volume 2 185 Angus Council Statement of Response