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, 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 would be within the catchment for Meldrum Academy, where there is capacity.

268: Allocations made to Huntly should be reallocated to the Insch or / 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 , 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:

Reporter’s recommendations:

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.

1979: The Scottish Environmental Protection Agency notes that part of the site is at medium to high risk from flooding and objects to the site unless additional text is added to the Plan or Supplementary Guidance highlighting the flood risk.

Site E1 Huntly

Page 4 2220: The existing small residential area of Linnorie will suffer from noise disturbance from commercial activity. Provision should be made to allow people to access the area by foot or bicycle across the A96.

Site EH1 Huntly

43: Site EH1 is constrained by access and is undeliverable during the life of the Local Development Plan.

1689: EH1 is insurmountably constrained and cannot contribute to meeting strategic housing land requirements. EH1 is constrained by access and infrastructure. Site EH1 should be deleted from the plan.

1853: Site is constrained due to infrastructure and marketability issues and there is little logic to increasing capacity of the site.

Site EH2 Huntly

43: Site EH2 is constrained by access difficulties into site H1.

1689: EH2 is insurmountably constrained and cannot contribute to meeting strategic housing land requirements. EH2 is constrained by access. Site EH2 should be deleted from the plan.

Alternative Sites Huntly

Site to east of EH3 707, 708: An area of land to the east and adjacent to EH3 should be allocated for housing to help reduce the density of development on site EH3.

Bleachfields 2739: Bleachfields Mill should be included as a potential for housing development, as it is no longer protected from development, the majority of the site is above the flood risk area and it benefits from being close to the town centre, railway station and bus stops. The Mill is also of historic importance to Huntly and should not be lost.

Site adjacent to BUS4 2739: The area of land shown as a caravan park adjacent to BUS4 should be used for an expansion of Huntly’s business unit space, as it benefits from being adjacent to the A96 and railway.

Site at Gibson Bridge 43: A site at Gibson Bridge should be allocated, as it falls within the natural boundaries of the town. The site is not subject to flooding and drainage and road access can be provided. It is immediately deliverable.

Site between Battlehill Croft and Thorneybrae 43: A site should be allocated between Battlehill Croft and Thorneybrae for 200 houses to help justify the cost of building a new main sewer. A new sewer would unlock sites EH3 and EH4 and may benefit site EH1.

Site at BUS1 43: The remaining land on this site in the north-west corner of BUS1 should be allocated for a fast food outlet and destination shopping or factory outlet. Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

43: Reduce number of houses allocated to site H1and redistribute to other deliverable sites, including a site adjacent to Gibson Bridge. Allocate site between Battlehill Croft and Thorneybrae. North west corner of BUS1 should be identified for retail/fast food use.

1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1798, 1853: Delete site H1 and make additional allocations at Insch.

Page 5 1908, 1911: Reduce the number of units allocated to site H1 and allocate these in Old Rayne.

1979: Delete site H1 unless the following wording is included in the supplementary guidance text for Huntly “Part of this site lies within SEPA’s indicative 1 in 200 year flood risk area. A detailed flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and an appropriate buffer strip will be required adjacent to the existing watercourse.”

1689: Delete sites EH1 and EH2 from the plan.

707, 708: Allocate land adjacent to EH3 for housing.

2739: Allocate land at Bleachfield Mills for housing. Extend BUS4 to include adjacent caravan park. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview The Structure Plan shows Huntly as within the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area. Huntly has been identified as a focus for growth due to its scale, servicing, and opportunities for economic development. To focus development at Insch would ignore Huntly’s key role as a sub-regional service centre. The Spatial Strategy for Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area is discussed in Issue 30. Issues relating to the general sufficiency and maintenance of housing land supply are dealt with in Issue 12 Housing land supply. Issues relating to the specific allocation of sites and their effect on the housing land allocations are dealt with in Issue 25 New housing land allocations.

The allocations made in Huntly are appropriate and sufficient for the purposes of delivering the strategy and aims of the Structure Plan. Many of the issues raised in relation to this settlement/policy were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in the ‘Issues and Actions Paper’ for Huntly (May 2010).

Site H1 Deliverability of site H1 has been confirmed by the proposer of the site: the constraints are not insurmountable. The concerns in relation to infrastructure costs and accessibility are well stated. However, the size of development when combined with sites EH1 and EH2 will allow for economies of scale. The level of housing proposed allows for meaningful infrastructure improvements to be delivered. No objection has been received from Scottish Water and they have advised that a waste water growth project is to be implemented between 2010 -2015. The site is close to the railway station promoting sustainable transport use and is no further from the town centre than other sites promoted in Huntly. The options for growth of Huntly are limited and alternatives of the scale required to accommodate up to 600 houses were not proposed. Alternative sites were also distant from the town centre and railway station, and some sites are separated from the existing settlement by the A96. Whilst site H1 is subdivided by the railway, development would require to provide both railway and river crossings to link development to the rest of the town.

Whilst it is accepted the school rolls do not indicate a requirement for a new school at present, the levels of development proposed within the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area would result in the need to expand education provision. The majority of schools within the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area feed into the Gordon Schools, and therefore to meet the Structure Plan allocation expansion of the school is required wherever allocations are made.

While part of the site is at risk from flooding, the size of the site would allow this area to form part of the open space requirements within the masterplan. However, appropriate text has been added to the supplementary guidance in respect of a flood risk assessment for the site.

Site E1 Site E1 is well linked to existing commercial activity and utilises an existing access onto the A96. Proposals will require to be considered against all other relevant policies, including Policy 8 Layout, siting and design of new development, which requires assessment of accessibility and safety. Issues in respect of noise and access will be considered at the

Page 6 planning application stage. Potential noise disturbance is an insufficient reason to reconsider the allocation.

Sites EH1 and EH2 Whilst sites EH1 and EH2 are identified as “constrained” within the Housing Land Audit, these sites are contiguous with site H1. Their allocation is continued, and increased, to assist in overcoming constraints on a collective basis.

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

Site to east of EH3 The site to the east and adjacent to EH3 was not proposed at any previous stage of plan preparation and there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. Development of the site would have a visual impact on the approach to Huntly and the site is distant from the town centre with few opportunities to improve pedestrian links.

Bleachfields Bleachfields was not proposed at any previous stage of the plan preparation and so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. A large part of the site falls within the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s 1 in 200 year flood risk area.

Site adjacent to BUS4 The land adjacent to BUS4 was not proposed at any previous stage of plan preparation and so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. The proposal would be inconsistent with SG bus 4: Tourist Facilities and Accommodation which presumes against the conversion of existing tourist accommodation to other uses.

Site at Gibson Bridge The site at Gibson Bridge, site M19 in the Main Issues Report, was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as it was remote from the settlement and would require new access onto the A96.

Site between Battlehill Croft and Thorneybrae Part of the site between Battlehill Croft and Thorneybrae was shown as site M15 in the Main Issues Report. Site M15 was fully considered following consultation on the Main Issues Report, but following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, due to the potential visual impact on the approach to Hunty. The bid to the Main Issues Report was proposed for a retail outlet and not residential use.

Site at BUS1 A site for a fast food outlet, destination shopping or factory outlet within site BUS1 was not proposed at any previous stage of plan preparation and so there has been no site assessment or public debate on the site. This site is retained for employment uses to ensure an effective employment land supply is maintained. A proposal for a fast food restaurant on this site is a matter for development management.

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

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

The supplementary guidance has been amended to show the requirement for a flood risk assessment for site H1.

Page 7 Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 8 Issue 32 Insch Section 6 Proposals maps (p20) Reporter: Schedule 1 Table 5 (p27) Development plan Schedule 2 Table 5 (p32) reference: Volume 3I Supplementary Guidance, Settlement Statements Garioch 2010 (p13) Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

8 Mr & Mrs I Gravill 56 Mrs Eileen Law 74 Mr & Mrs Des and Hilary Murphy 159 Mr Peter Nowell 267 Norman P. Lawie Limited on behalf of Ian Stuart, Murrial Farm, Insch 1111 Catriona Forsyth 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 1979 Scottish Environment Protection Agency 2135 Janet Hoper 2357, 2420 Mr Jeffrey Garnett

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in and around Insch which the issue relates: Planning Authority’s summary of the representation(s):

Site H1 Insch 8: Objection to H1: the development of H1 will increase run off water when there is heavy rain from the river burn which is between the respondent’s house and site H1. This has made the land susceptible to flooding sometimes and with the increased water run-off this will get worse. This will affect all houses on Mill Road and also the lower lying Drumdarroch Nursing Home. The increased risk for potential flooding will subsequently de-value their property and increase insurance premiums. In addition to this, building many houses in a relatively small area will spoil the current outlook, privacy and countryside feel of this location that they currently enjoy.

1979: Low lying areas of the site flood due to pluvial sources, which may be difficult to overcome, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency objects to the site unless additional text is added to the Plan or Supplementary Guidance highlighting the flood risk.

Site H3 Insch 159: Site H3 should be removed from the plan.

1111: Reduce the allocation of H3. This is so only one access road will be required. Otherwise there will be safety risks, due to the main road being busy and the site being located on a nasty bend in the road.

2357, 2420: There is little overall value to Insch of building up to 10 new houses sandwiched between the railway line and a busy road (where speeding is a problem). The site would be better served as an open amenity area due to its size. The derelict council yard should be developed instead of building into the countryside.

Site R1 Insch 56: R1 (Reserved) should be changed to P1 (Protected) because the low-lying land is inappropriate for any development.

Sites R5 Insch 2135: R5 is insufficiently defined on the plan. Development has already reduced the character

Page 9 of this walk to another urban footpath.

Site R7 Insch 74: The town centre improvements should include installation of traffic lights at the village crossroads, improvements to drains (to avoid flooding again) and the filling in of potholes and relaying of roads in the village in general. It is hoped these plans will also address the impact of increased traffic, especially due to vehicles speeding into the village. Some way should be found to somehow slow down traffic on all of the approach roads in to Insch.

Site E1 Insch 2135: Is unable to see any sign of site E1 on the plan and settlement statement.

Site EH2 Insch 74, Object to site EH2. This is due to it being carried forward from the existing Aberdeenshire Local Plan for 25 houses when there is a current planning application under consideration on this site for 34 houses, which has been strongly opposed since the beginning.

2135: Object to site EH2 as it will damage the ambience of the village centre, it will harm endangered species of wildlife and will erode the countryside walk around Insch by increasing the housing around it, and interrupting the spectacular views from the higher level. Site EH2 forms an integral part of the landscape surrounding Drumrossie House which the local people want to preserve as open space and an amenity area. The encroachment of housing in this area will be like a cancer spoiling the best parts of the village and destroying this unique countryside walk which is one of the reasons people want to live in Insch. It must be ensured this piece of natural heritage is retained for future generations.

Alternative Sites Insch Site to the south of R1 / Disused Yard 74: The derelict site immediately south of R1 should be allocated for housing. This unsightly and dangerous disused garage has sat empty for a long time and is an eyesore when entering the village. This site should be used instead of building into the countryside, it would improve the look of the village and it is ideal for people due to its close proximity to the railway station.

2357, 2420: The derelict Council yard in the village should be allocated for housing instead of H3, as it is an eyesore and H3 would be better served as an open amenity area.

Land to the south of Insch - Site G27 267: The site to the south west of Insch Railway (G27 in the Main Issues Report) should be allocated for housing either as an alternative to EH1 and EH2, or as part of an enlarged allocation which provides housing and commercial retail uses with access to the Aberdeen arrival side of the railway station. It is argued that the Council agrees that the site is free from constraints, and that the proposals would improve the town for the good of the existing residents.

Land to the north of Insch - Sites G145 and G159 1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1786, 1798: Substantial additional land should be allocated in Insch at sites G145 and G159 from the Main Issues Report. These allocations should be made in place of H1 at nearby Huntly to accommodate the housing land allocations for the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area. Insch is a much more marketable location than Huntly, with house building completions per year recently being higher in Insch. There are no constraints to these sites for development and areas of this land are in the control of a developer who is co-operating with other landowners to ensure delivery of the master plan. These sites can also provide further employment land, which would significantly enhance existing facilities and employment opportunities at Insch. Where appropriate, affordable housing will also be provided through housing associations and similar bodies in accordance with Local Plan policies. Scotia has carried out extensive public consultation on the proposals and in response will provide 18 acres of open space out of a total of 30 acres.

1853: Site H1 Huntly should be removed and replaced with site G145 Insch to accommodate 630 units. Insch is a more sustainable location, being closer to Aberdeen whether utilising

Page 10 road or rail links. There is also proven demand in Insch with significant development having taken place in recent years, and with completions in Huntly falling well short of Insch. Site G145 at Insch scores better than site H1 Huntly in the Goal Achievement Matrix produced by Aberdeenshire Council. Consequently there is little justification allocating H1 Huntly rather than G145 Insch. This site can accommodate the required level of housing as well as make provision for a new primary school, community facilities and services, and the land could come forward in early course. The impact of this development would be minimal to the landscape and setting of Insch due to the topography and landscape features in the area. The site falls within the walking and cycling threshold specified by Planning Advice Note 75 for all of the services and facilities lying within Insch. Development of this site would also link the town to the existing business park. These businesses are generally in use class 4, meaning there would be no impediment to residential development nearby. Further development in Insch will not only sustain existing services, but also encourage the delivery of additional services for the benefit of the existing and expanded community. Localised road improvements will be required due to the scale of development proposed, but these are not seen as an impediment to development and are capable of being addressed.

1689: Sites G145 and G159 should be allocated for development as they are well located in relation to the existing town centre and existing pattern of development. They will assist in meeting the growth corridor requirements which cannot be met in Huntly (see Schedule 4 Pitcaple to Huntly Strategic Growth Corridor).

2135: Council housing targets can easily be achieved by development of land to the north of Insch which the local people have identified as their preferred area for future housing.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

56: R1 to be reallocated P1.

74: Allocate the site immediately south of R1 for housing.

159: Remove H3 from the plan.

267: Allocate site G27 for housing situated to the south-west of Insch railway station.

1111: Reduce the allocation of H3.

1711, 1746, 1748, 1752, 1786, 1798: Delete site H1 Huntly and replace with additional allocations at Insch, on sites G145 and G159 situated to the north of the village.

1853: Delete site H1 Huntly and replace with an additional allocation at Insch, site G145 situated to the north of the village.

1689: Sites G145 and G159 should be allocated for development.

1979: Delete site H1 unless the following wording is included in the supplementary guidance text for Insch “Low lying areas of this site are subject to pluvial flooding. A detailed drainage assessment and strategy will be required to accompany any future development proposals for this site and a suitable buffer strip will be required adjacent to the existing watercourse.”

2135: The proposed sites to the north of Insch should be allocated to help meet council housing targets.

2357, 2420: Remove H3 for 10 houses and replace with the derelict Council yard site in Insch. Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority:

Page 11

Overview Development proposed for Insch is at a scale appropriate for a town of this size. It makes best use of existing infrastructure in the town without exceeding the threshold that might require the provision of a second primary school. The allocation is consistent with the settlement strategy discussed within Issue 30 Spatial strategy Pitcaple to Huntly strategic growth area. The allocations made are sufficient in the context of that strategy and meet the allocations required by Schedule 1 of the Structure Plan (p27) and are appropriate development sites.

For further information on the allocations strategy in this settlement, please read ‘Issues and Actions Volume 5’ (page 34) which was informed by the Main Issues Report consultation and was produced to inform allocations in the Proposed Plan.

It should be noted that the allocations strategy for Insch at the time of the Main Issues Report supported an allocation of housing to the north of the town centre at G145 (see Main Issues Report p G6). It also recognised that there was a strong case for development to the south of Insch. Land to the south of Insch was allocated due to the perceived public benefits.

Site H1 There is a flood risk on the site and this has been accounted for. The developable area of the site provides a generous allowance for the 48 unit allocation, so there is scope for additional space for further Sustainable Urban Drainage System works and other mitigation measures if they are required. This could include open space on the section which may flood. The requirement for a flood risk assessment is accepted and will be addressed through the supplementary guidance and at the planning application stage.

Site H3 The Council’s Roads Authority has not identified any issue with the scale of the allocation and its access. It is recognised that the allocation of 10 units would take place on a relatively small site; this is a gateway site to Insch and could be developed at this density with design and open space considerations to suit the site location. Development of the Council yard would not be a deliverable alternative to site H3.

Site R1 The site is allocated as reserved for access and environmental improvements as identified in the current local plan. This would be low impact development which would not allow land raising, buildings, or impermeable structures on the flood risk area. Protection of the site is not appropriate as the improvements may constitute development and a change from the current use.

Site R5 Site is reserved for the enhancement of walkways but it would not be appropriate or possible at this stage to allocate the exact area for this purpose. A more defined area at this stage may restrict opportunities to enhance the walkway.

Site R7 Comments on what the town centre improvements should contain are noted, but it would not be appropriate for the Plan or its Supplementary Guidance to go into the amount of detail suggested on what these should consist of.

Site E1 Site E1 is located to the north of Insch adjacent the current BUS allocation.

Site EH2 The land is already allocated for housing through the existing plan and has delegated approval for 34 houses (APP/2009/2309). Given the status of the site, the Local Development Plan cannot de-allocate the site.

Page 12 Alternative Sites Insch As the allocations discussed above are appropriate and sufficient there is no requirement to consider alternative sites. Many of the issues raised in relation to this settlement were raised in response to the consultation on the Main Issues Report, and were considered in ‘Issues and Actions Volume 5 May 2010’ (page 34).

Site to the south of R1 / Disused Yard The derelict site adjacent to R1 was not subject to a developer bid. The Property Service of Aberdeenshire council are not seeking to dispose of the Council yard so it was not considered instead of site H3. The vast majority of sites in the Plan were the subject of developer bids, and Insch was highly subscribed in terms of developer bids. Allocating new sites which have not been subject to developer bids when other good options exist in the settlement is not recommended. As the plan focuses strongly on deliverability, it would be inappropriate for the plan to allocate a new site for which there is no information on its availability for development. There are positive policies on infill development within the plan which would allow for development on the site to be considered over the lifetime of the plan without a specific allocation.

Land to the south of Insch - Site G27 Site G27 was fully debated at the Main Issues Report stage and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it. Site G27 was not allocated as the site is not ideal as a location for housing, being separated from the settlement by the railway line.

Land to the north of Insch - Sites G145 and G159 For information on why Insch has not been allocated for major expansion, see Issue 30 Spatial Strategy Pitcaple to Huntly SGA. In terms of the sites themselves, it is accepted that there are many merits of sites G145 and G159. Site G145 was the site originally recommended by officers as being best suited for an allocation of Insch’s allocation of around 60 units. However, it has always been stated that allocations to the south were a strong alternative and, following consultation on the Main Issues Report, the weight of public opinion was for development to the south. In terms of the level of public support for development to the north, the level of consultation carried out by the developer and the potential solutions reached are perfectly reasonable. However, it would be incorrect to consider that the Insch public identified development to the north as their preferred area for housing, as opinion on this site has been divided over the course of consultation on the Plan.

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

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 13

Page 14 Issue 33 Other sites Huntly Strategic Growth Area 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 Body or person(s) submitting a representation raising the issue (including reference number):

391, 396 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of L & W Properties 431, 434, 2875 William Lippe Architects Ltd on behalf of Hamish McIntosh 1853 Ryden LLP on behalf of Drumrossie Land Development 1908, 1911 Ryden LLP on behalf of Ian Duncan Developments Ltd 2391 Old Rayne Community Association 2276 Mr Derek Dawson

Provision of the development plan to Land allocations in other settlements within which the issue relates: the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Corridor.

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

Old Rayne 2391: Seeks confirmation that as highlighted in the response to the 2009 Main Issues Report, the Council considers that there are fundamental infrastructure limitations in Old Rayne which rule out new allocations in Old Rayne.

2276: Agrees with the settlement strategy for Old Rayne.

Site G71 391, 396: Object to the failure to allocate land at Main Issues Report site G71 for 31 houses in 2 phases. The site adjoins an existing site and can easily be integrated with it. Being within the strategic growth corridor Old Rayne should be allocated housing to support local needs. Unallocated units within the Rural Housing Market Area should be allocated to settlements and rural service centres and Old Rayne should be given an allocation of 30 to 35 houses. The allocation could otherwise be removed from other sites within the strategic growth corridor. There is capacity at school for an additional 34 households.

Site G72 431, 434, 2875: Main Issues Report site G72 is a natural extension to existing housing and the settlement. Being within the strategic growth corridor Old Rayne should be allocated housing to support local shops, community facilities, sports and the primary school. Unallocated units within the Rural Housing Market Area should be allocated to settlements and rural service centres and Old Rayne should be given an allocation of 30 to 35 houses. The allocation could otherwise be removed from other sites within the strategic growth corridor. There is capacity at school for an additional 34 households.

Site G80/G86 1908, 1911: Unallocated units within the Rural Housing Market Area should be allocated to settlements and rural service centres and to Old Rayne. There is capacity at the school for an additional 34 households. Site G80 was removed by the Garioch Area Committee following a misunderstanding about its capacity. Site G86 could be released for development once site G80 has been developed and provided necessary servicing.

Whiteford 1853: The existing sites in Whiteford have not come forward due to infrastructure constraints. The client has recently acquired the sites and is intending on resolving these and submitting a planning application for the development of the sites in 2010. It is now in the control of a

Page 15 capable housebuilder and should be carried forward.

Modifications sought by those submitting representations:

Old Rayne 391, 396: 30 to 35 houses should be allocated in Old Rayne. Site G71 should be allocated for approximately 31 houses.

431, 434: 30 to 35 houses should be allocated in Old Rayne. Site G72 should be allocated for approximately 15 houses.

1908, 1911: Site G80 should be identified for 5 units. Site G86 should be identified for up to 65 units and business units and a village shop, after the development of G80.

2391: Plan should confirm that there are fundamental infrastructure limitations in Old Rayne which rule out new allocations in Old Rayne.

2875: 30 to 35 houses should be allocated in Old Rayne. Site G72 should be allocated for approximately 15 houses.

Whiteford 1853: The Plan should be modified to include Whiteford and specifically the fh1 site carried forward from the existing local plan.

Summary of responses (including reasons) by Planning Authority: Overview This response is in respect of sites in the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area. The strategy within this area is for proposals to concentrate development on certain locations on a scale that will allow major improvements to roads, schools, water, sewers and other infrastructure. Huntly has been identified as a focus for growth within this strategic growth corridor due to its scale, servicing, and opportunities for economic development. The allocations made within the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area are an appropriate response to the structure plan spatial strategy (see Issue 30). No additional allocation is required to meet Structure Plan requirements.

Old Rayne Due to the relatively limited school capacity, the level of existing allocations yet to be built out and the weight of public opinion, no new allocations are proposed for Old Rayne. Old Rayne is forecast to be operating at 85% capacity in 2016, which is only seven pupils below capacity. Further information on the sites is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010 Volume 5 page 98 Old Rayne), which was prepared following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Allocating units from the Rural Housing Market Area would not be consistent with the Structure Plan, as Old Rayne is adjacent to the trunk road and located within a Strategic Growth Area. On the other hand, redistributing some of the allocations required for the growth corridor in a piecemeal fashion elsewhere would run the risk of making other strategic allocations in Huntly unviable. Issues relating to the general sufficiency and maintenance of housing land supply are dealt with in Issue 12 Housing land supply. Issues relating to the specific allocation of sites and their effect on the housing land allocations are dealt with in Issue 25 New housing land allocations.

Site G71 The site was fully debated following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site. There would be some visual and landscape impact, especially if the site was developed in isolation from the existing effective site.

Site G72

Page 16 The site was fully debated following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as it was detached from the village, would impact on the landscape and setting of the village and had little opportunities for safer routes to school.

Site G80 The site was fully debated following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site. Whilst the site was capable of being developed and could be combined with the adjacent existing site, due to the limited capacity at the school, the existing sites yet to be built out and the strategy to focus development in Huntly, an allocation was not required.

Site G86 The site was fully debated following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude it, as it would have significant impacts on the character of the village as well as raising concerns in respect of landscape impacts and flood risk.

Whiteford The site at Whitefod was fully debated following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and following widespread community engagement the Council’s conclusion was to exclude the site. The technical constraints, in particular potential impacts on the A96 junction, mean that development at Whiteford can only be delivered through significant growth, in excess of that currently proposed in the Aberdeenshire Local Plan on site fh1. The levels of growth required to overcome the constraints would be out of proportion to the size of the village and have significant impacts on character. Further information on the site is contained in the Issues and Actions paper (May 2010 Volume 5 page 126 Whiteford), which are prepared following consultation on the Main Issues Report, and was produced to inform the allocations in the Proposed Plan.

Conclusion None of the modifications sought are supported. The development strategy and land allocations in the Huntly to Pitcaple Strategic Growth Area are appropriate and sufficient to meet the needs of the settlement strategy.

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

Reporter’s conclusions:

Reporter’s recommendations:

Page 17