ABERDEENSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINALISED RESPONSE TO PROPOSED PLAN CONSULTATION HUNTLY TO PITCAPLE STRATEGIC GROWTH AREA Issue 30 Spatial Strategy – Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area Section 4, The spatial strategy (p6 & 7) Reporter: Development plan Section 6, The proposals maps (p22 & 24) reference: Schedules 1,2,3 and 4 Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 268 Norman P. Lawie Limited on behalf of Ian Stuart, Murrial Farm, Insch 396 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of L & W Properties 408 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of Thomas A Baird 1417, 1421, 1451 Bancon Developments 1689 Mr Ian Downie 1711, 1786, 1798 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Scotia Homes Ltd 1746, 1748, 1752 Mr Bruce Smith on behalf of Scotia Development Company 1853 Ryden LLP on behalf of Drumrossie Land Development Company Ltd 1908 Ryden LLP on behalf of Ian Duncan Developments Ltd Provision of the development plan to Distribution of development between which the issue relates: settlements in the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): 1417, 1421, 1451: Supports Huntly as the main focus for major development in this strategic growth area. Additional investment will enable it to become more sustainable, and growth will help to deliver infrastructure, in accordance with the aims of the Structure Plan. 1689, 1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1786, 1798, 1853: Respondents object to the proposed spatial strategy on the basis that the scale of allocations proposed for Huntly is undeliverable and will therefore not meet the Structure Plan requirements. The spatial strategy should re-direct this development to Insch as the main focus for development, where there is evidence of greater demand and build rates. Respondent 1689 specifically refers to the historical nature of constrained sites in this settlement and suggests that these constraints are insurmountable. Respondent 1908 objects to the proposed spatial strategy on the basis of education, suggesting that the allocations will overburden The Gordon Schools. Development at Old Rayne would be within the catchment for Meldrum Academy, where there is capacity. 268: Allocations made to Huntly should be reallocated to the Insch or Inverurie / Kintore areas. 396: There should be a re-allocation of housing numbers from within the strategic growth area to Old Rayne. 408: There should be a re-allocation within the strategic growth area to direct some development to Oyne, which will help to sustain existing community facilities and services. Modifications sought by those submitting representations: 1689: Sites H1, EH1 and EH2 in Huntly should be deleted and re-allocated to Insch North (G145) and Muiryheadless, Insch (G159). 1853: Site H1 in Huntly should be deleted and 630 houses re-allocated to Insch North (G145). 396: Numbers should be re-allocated from within the Strategic Growth Area to Old Rayne to include allocation of 30 to 35 houses. 1908: Housing numbers should be reduced in Huntly and re-allocated to Old Rayne. Page 1 408: Re-allocation of numbers from within the Strategic Growth Area to Oyne to include the allocation of 10 houses in the 2007-2016 first plan period. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview The spatialstrategy capitalises on Huntly’s role as a major service centre for the area and the need to overcome infrastructure constraints to allow the town to grow. The town can accommodate the significant growth required without impacting on its character. Options for where this development can be located in Huntly are limited and the site H1 in the plan has significant challenges associated with its development. These include: the provision of additional waste water treatment; sewers to serve the whole area west of the River Bogie; improvements to access onto the old A96; and, in the longer term, railway and river crossings to link the development into the rest of the town. The costs associated with these elements justify a large allocation to give the developer significant confidence that investments in these elements will be returned. On this basis deliverability has been confirmed by the prospective developer of the site (see “Deliverability statement Huntly H1”): the constraints are not insurmountable. The spatial strategy for the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth area therefore presents an appropriate and sufficient response to the structure plan strategy, and to the housing and business land locations identified in that plan (Para 3.9 p10, Figure 3 p14, Schedule 1 p27). Schools The Gordon Schools have a projected spare capacity of 82 pupils by 2016. This compares favourably with a projection of 126 pupils likely to be generated over the lifespan of the development. Otherwise, the trend shows a declining roll for the Gordon Schools. It seems unlikely that all the development will be built in the period to 2023 (as noted at paragraph 4.17 of the structure plan, we cannot expect all the new homes to be built within the relevant plan period), and some of this development will be completed in the period 2023-2028. In addition the Gordon Schools shares part of its catchment with Inverurie Academy, providing some flexibility in the school allocations policy. The Gordon Schools could be extended to accommodate the need for additional capacity; as recently as 2008 it was able to accommodate 10% over capacity. Any substantial development in the strategic growth area will result in similar issues arising. Insch Development in Insch is limited to that which can be accommodated by the existing primary school, on the basis that the scale of development required to justify a second primary school would have an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the village. Identifying Insch as the recipient for the growth currently planned for the H1 site in Huntly would result in the village increasing from 639 households (2001 census) to 1269 households. Doubling of the size of the settlement in 10 years does not reflect the levels of services to be found in the town. No reallocation from Huntly to Insch should be undertaken as the allocations are appropriate and sufficient. Old Rayne and Oyne Development in minor settlements is likewise limited by issues of impact on education facilities and village character. Many of these villages, and particularly Old Rayne, have seen substantial growth in recent years and it is not appropriate to make strategic allocations in these locations. Oyne is not directly linked to either the trunk road or railway networks and is therefore not in the Strategic Growth Area. Neither Oyne nor Old Rayne should receive allocations at the expense of allocations in Huntly. Reallocation to other Growth areas Reallocation from the Huntly–Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area to the Inverurie to Blackburn Strategic Growth Area or to settlements in the Local Needs and Diversification Area (such as Oyne which is neither on the railway nor the trunk road network) is not possible as this would render the local development plan inconsistent with the structure plan. Conclusion Page 2 The spatial strategy for the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth, promoting the bulk of growth in Huntly is a sufficient and appropriate response to the structure plan strategyand local issues in the area. Any further plan changes commended by the Planning Authority: No changes are commended. Reporter’s conclusions: <INSERT TEXT> Reporter’s recommendations: <INSERT TEXT> Page 3 Issue 31 Settlement - Huntly Section 6 Proposals Maps Marr (p24) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 7 (p29) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 7 (p33) reference: Schedule 3 Table 2 (p37) Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Marr 2010 (p36) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number): 43 Mr John Rhind 268 Norman P. Lawie Limited on behalf of Ian Stuart, Murrial Farm, Insch 707, 708 Colin Thompson Chartered Architect on behalf of Alistair Campbell, Bruntstane, Huntly 1689 Mr Ian Downie 1711, 1798 Paull & Williamsons LLP on behalf of Scotia Homes Ltd 1746, 1748, 1752 Mr Bruce Smith on behalf of Scotia Development Company 1853 Ryden LLP on behalf of Drumrossie Land Development Company Ltd 1908, 1911 Ryden LLP on behalf of Ian Duncan Developments Ltd 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2220 Mr William Dean 2739 Annie Kenyon Architects on behalf of Mr J Innes Provision of the development plan to Housing and Employment Land allocations in which the issue relates: and around Huntly. Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s): Site H1 Huntly 268, 1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1798, 1853, 1908, 1911: The strategy to allocate a large amount of housing in Huntly is flawed as the allocations are undeliverable and the sites are constrained by demand, marketability and land ownership, and are ineffective. It represents an unprecedented rate of development for the town. Allocations are sought elsewhere to accommodate the Structure Plan requirements and resolve the serious shortage of effective housing land in the Rural Housing Market Area. Huntly is now built out to the extremities of its physical constraints. 268, 43, 1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1798, 1853: Access to the site cannot be delivered. Development should be required to provide for mitigations required for the upgrading of the road system due to increased traffic congestion on the A96 (268). 1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1798, 1853: There are issues with waste water drainage and water supply. 1908, 1911: There are issues with school capacity. 43, 1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1798, 1853: A number of issues make this an undesirable site for development including its subdivision by the railway, its orientation and aspect and the distance to the town centre, supermarket and other facilities. 43: The number of units on H1 should be reduced and redistributed to deliverable sites within Huntly.