Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Plan

Strategic Options Meeting Meeting Note

03 July 2007, 7.00pm , Carriages Hotel

1. Introduction 1.1 A meeting was held on 3rd July 2007 to discuss and record opinions on the different strategies that could be followed in the next structure plan – the strategic options. Issues regarding the scale, timing and location of future development were raised and discussed. 2. The Audience 2.1 The following interests were represented at the meeting. A full list of attendees and invitees are provided in appendix 1.

• Sylvan Stuart Ltd • Wantonwells Farm • residents • Helenvale • Disabled Access • Old age provisions • Pitcaple residents • Insch Residents • Community council • (Community Council and Business) • Insch Community Council • West Community Council • Oyne Community Council

3. The Content 3.1 Mr Piers Blaxter, Team Leader of the Structure Plans Team for Council, introduced himself and his colleague Craig Michie. He welcomed the audience and noted that the meeting was to be run as a workshop, with a focus on capturing the views of attendees on issues on scale, phasing and locations for future development in the next structure plan.

Background information on the preparation of the structure plan 3.2 Mr Blaxter provided some background information relevant to the process of producing the next structure plan for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. He noted that the new Planning etc. () Act, 2006 required structure plans to be replaced with a new style of plan – known as a strategic development plan – but that the regulations necessary for producing such a plan had not yet been enacted. He stated that the next structure plan for the region was thus being created in order to satisfy the current regulations (for producing structure plans) as well as the likely future regulations for producing strategic development plans. 3.3 Mr Blaxter stated that future strategic development plans will be shorter than current structure plans and will focus on the strategy for future development, rather than on providing detailed policies for development management. Given this, Mr Blaxter advised that the next structure plan would have to be much shorter than the current plan and without much of the detailed policy content. He noted that such policies would be left to local development plans – the new version of local plans, also introduced by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act, 2006. 3.4 Mr Blaxter noted that a series of consultations with communities and stakeholders had been carried out over the past few months on the strategic options in an attempt to ensure that there is early engagement on the new structure plan. 3.5 He stated that the views captured on all of the subjects discussed today and at other meetings (i.e. the strategy and the issues of scale and timing of development) would be part of the material presented to elected members, to help them decide on a preferred option for the strategy of the draft plan. It was noted that a technical assessment of the various strategic options is being undertaken separately and that this would provide the other information members would consider. This technical assessment would focus on what could be done over the time period covered by the next plan (i.e. over the next 25 years). 3.6 In response to a query regarding the absence of public consultation on the technical assessment, Mr Blaxter explained that only strategic issues regarding the deliverability of the options would be considered in the assessment, and that infrastructure and service providers were the most appropriate people to consult with on this matter. 3.7 Attendees were then reminded of the documents that had so far been published, in aid of producing the next structure plan (these are available from the website: www.acssp.net). Mr Blaxter then provided some information on the timetable for the production of the plan, taken from one of these documents – the Development Plan Scheme. Mr Blaxter explained that a written public consultation had been carried out on the issues report and that a full public consultation will be carried out once the draft plan has been prepared. 3.8 Particular attention was then drawn to the draft vision that had been included in the Issues Report. Mr Blaxter noted that the main elements of this vision provide the basis for evaluating the Strategic Options in one of the later exercises that the attendees were to take part in. Mr Blaxter briefly analysed the draft vision for the plan, drawing out themes within it, before introducing the exercises. He identified that the issue of environmental sustainability and quality of life both feature strongly, and that the section on economic development had been subject to criticism as many respondents were of the view that it concentrated too heavily on renewable energy. Mr Blaxter then drew attention to the issues surrounding the critical mass of development required to sustain services and contribute towards infrastructure. He explained that major infrastructure improvements cannot be delivered to a settlement unless there is the required critical mass of development to fund it. 3.10 A discussion followed on the requirement to reduce our carbon footprint. It was claimed that an increase in development throughout the region would inevitably increase carbon emissions. Mr Blaxter maintained that if design standards are increased for all new development then carbon emissions could potentially be reduced. The scale of future development 3.11 The issue of the scale of future development was then introduced and a discussion on the “working hypotheses” proposed by the planning team ensued. Three “working hypotheses” were suggested: • the idea that the next structure plan should only seek to accommodate 75% of development within the strategy, with the rest accommodated as local need in a local development plan; • the idea that two thirds of development should be suggested for one “theme” of an Option (the “most” component) and one third in another (the “significant” component); • and the idea that there are three possible options for growth: slow growth, continuity or high growth.

3.12 It was highlighted that it is not reasonable for people to make a choice on the scale of development for the region over the next 25 years. Mr Blaxter advised that the plan will be reviewed every 5 years, to ensure that there is a degree of flexibility if circumstances affecting scale, locations for development and timing of future development in the region change.

3.13 It was argued that a high growth scenario would inevitably have an adverse impact on peoples quality of life in the region. It was also argued that there is little need to encourage growth in the region if the oil industry is likely to decline and growth could consequently lead to high unemployment.

3.14 Mr Blaxter advised that a high growth scenario could provide more opportunities for the economy to grow and diversify. He also maintained that workers in the oil industry had highly transferable skills to service other industries.

3.15 There was a consensus amongst some attendees that a medium to high growth scenario should be adopted if it ensures that house prices become more affordable, provide more opportunities for future generations and improves the infrastructure in the region.

3.16 It was argued that residents in settlements such as Oyne do not wish to see more growth. Mr Blaxter recommended that if there is no growth in small settlements then there will be a decline in services and young people wishing to stay within the community would have little opportunity to buy a house.

3.17 There was a preference highlighted by an individual for 80% of development to occur in Aberdeen City to improve the facilities, services and infrastructure dramatically.

Group exercises 3.18 The group exercises were introduced and attendees were reminded that the 8 basic strategies had been created after using the national planning framework and regional transport strategy as a criteria to filter down the strategies. The exercises sought to gauge the groups opinions on both their preferred and least preferred options. 3.19 Results from the exercises may be found at appendix 2. Timing of future development

3.20 After the group exercise, a brief discussion was held on the timing (or phasing) of development to be promoted by the plan. Mr Blaxter explained that the issue of phasing was being considered simply – in terms of whether the plan should be front-loaded (with land being released at the start of the 25 year plan period), back-loaded (with land released at the end of the plan period), or whether development should occur at a sustained rate. 3.20 A scale of between 1-101 was introduced to gauge opinion on when land should be released for development. • It was argued that if a scale of 3 is used as timing for future development, then development may occur on land where farmers could have potentially grown crops. In response, it was claimed that 10% of all farmers’ land already remains as set-aside and that the scale of growth proposed would not impact on the level of production of crops.

1 1 indicates a desire for the plan to undertake extreme front loading and release a large proportion of land for development at the beginning of the plan period while 10 indicates a desire for the plan to release a large proportion of land at the end of the plan period. • It was recommended that development should be front-loaded to reduce the price of housing and then back-load development once this problem has been addressed. A discussion then followed on design following a question on how the councils’ intended to improve the design of future developments. Mr Blaxter advised that a long term vision will allow for the provision of masterplans which will contain design codes for development . Next Steps 3.21 Mr Blaxter concluded the meeting by providing an overview of the work being carried out by the Structure Plan Team. He explained that an evaluation of the issues report had been carried out and reminded attendees that the evidence obtained from the consultations and technical evaluation will inform the decision to be made by Aberdeen City and Shire Structure Planning Committee in September 2007 on the spatial strategy, which will form the basis for the draft structure plan.

3.22 Mr Blaxter thanked attendees for their contribution and reminded them that full public consultations on the draft plan will begin at the start of next year.

Appendix 1

Full list of attendees The planning team in attendance during the meeting were as follows: Piers Blaxter, Team Leader (Structure Plans Team), Aberdeenshire Council Craig Michie, Policy Planner (Structure Plans Team), Aberdeenshire Council

The following individuals also attended the meeting: Bryan Stuart Sylvan Stuart Ltd Rosie Fettes Wantonwells Farm Tricia West Oyne resident David Dix Insch resident Marian Dix Insch resident Barbara Patterson Disabled Access Ian Patterson Old age provisions Peter ??? ??? Michael Savage Oyne resident Bob Smith Pitcaple resident Jane Smith Pitcaple resident James Tidey Insch resident Bob Lyons Oyne resident Dick Winchester Community council Marry Murray Insch resident Alan ??? ??? Heather Mitchell Insch Resident Evelyn Brown Insch Resident Wilma McIntosh Old Rayne (Community Council and Business) Hamish McIntosh Old Rayne (Community Council and Business) Isable Singer Insch Community Council Alison Grant Councillor West Garioch

Appendix 2 Results from the exercises Over the following pages, information is provided on the responses set down by groups of attendees, when undertaking the exercise to evaluate their preferred Option. In addition, information on the group exercise which involved distributing development by placing tokens within the pattern indicated by their preferred strategic option is provided.

The Options referred to in the following tables are as follows: Option 1: Most of the development in Aberdeen City, significant development in Edge of City Settlements. Option 2: Most of the development in Aberdeen City, significant development in the existing transport corridor. Option 3: Most of the development in Aberdeen City, significant development in a new transport corridor. Option 4: Most of the development in Aberdeen City, significant development in growth poles across Aberdeenshire. Option 5: Most of the growth in Aberdeen City and significant growth in new settlements. Option 6: Most of the development in the existing transport corridor, significant development in Aberdeen City. Option 7: Most of the development in the existing transport corridor, significant development in growth poles across Aberdeenshire. Option 8: Most of the development in the existing transport corridor, significant development in a new transport corridor.

A table to show the good points recorded in the evaluation of preferred Strategic Options Option Good Points of the Option Chosen as It reduces resource It would be good for It would be good for It would be fair It would increase Other remarks Preferred use and impacts on environmental quality the economy because… choice and Strategic climate through… because… because… quality of life Option because… Option 1 No comments No comments recorded No comments No comments No comments No comments recorded recorded recorded recorded recorded Option 2 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Option 3 A dual carriageway Spreading out industry It takes advantage Of decline in There is a choice Access to north-east of Aberdeen. fishing industry of coastal town coast good for tourism. Improved transport Improved transport link and inland town. Will focus on link with rail link with rail link between It will develop So far the investment being made between Dyce and Dyce and Fraserburgh. leisure in the area. further area has Of employment in Aberdeen to make it Fraserburgh. seen no opportunities. become a bigger city. significant development. The cross-rail from , Aberdeen, and Stonehaven should be linked at Dyce. Option 4 Less cars to Using existing transport More local It shares Of more choices Keen to see Aberdeen. and road links and employment resources with of where people development in brownfill sites all of can live. Fraserburgh and Aberdeenshire Peterhead. Make them and distributes appealing large any increase in towns/small cities for oil travel. companies to relocate to. Expand ports- encourage European countries to use ports. Not keen to see development in Ellon and area- cannot support it. Keen to see more job opportunities created in Inverurie area as an alternative to Aberdeen. Reduce the limitations of housing in countryside policy. More rented accommodation- stop the cycle of debt. Option 5 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Option 6 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Option 7 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Option 8 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated A table to show the bad points recorded in the evaluation of preferred Strategic Options

Option Bad Points of the Option Chosen as It does not reduces It would have It would not be It would not be fair It would not Other remarks Preferred resource use and impacts on good for the because… increase choice Strategic impacts on climate environmental economy and quality of Option because… quality because… because… life… Option 1 No comments No comments No comments No comments No comments No comments recorded recorded recorded recorded recorded recorded Option 2 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated

Option 3 No comments No comments No comments No comments No comments No comments Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Option 4 No comments No comments No comments No comments No comments No comments Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Recorded Option 5 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated

Option 6 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated

Option 7 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated

Option 8 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated A table to show the good points recorded in the evaluation of the least preferred Strategic Options Option Good Points of the Option Chosen as It reduces resource It would be good for It would be good for It would be fair It would increase Other remarks Least use and impacts on environmental quality the economy because… choice and Preferred climate through… because… because… quality of life Strategic because… Option Option 1 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 2 No comments No comments recorded No comments No comments No comments No comments recorded recorded recorded recorded recorded Option 3 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Option 4 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 5 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 6 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 7 No comments No comments recorded No comments Spreads the No comments It may provide some recorded recorded impact recorded local affordable housing. It would require insignificant road upgrades. Option 8 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated A table to show the bad points recorded in the evaluation of the least preferred Strategic Options Option Bad Points of the Option Chosen as It does not reduce It would not be good for It would not be It would not be It would not Other remarks Least resource use and environmental quality good for the fair because… increase choice Preferred impacts on climate because… economy and quality of life Strategic through… because… because… Option Option 1 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 2 No comments No comments recorded No comments In ??? ??? for No comments No comments recorded recorded communities recorded recorded Option 3 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Option 4 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 5 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 6 Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Option 7 Too spread out- More travel, transport of No critical mass, Too much Resentment at No comments lack of critical mass goods. Inadequate reduced development of the amount of recorded roads competitiveness of smaller development in spread out settlements most of this industries already settlement already Option 8 Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated Not evaluated